Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:07 UTC
Legal The hearing regarding the preliminary injunction in the German Apple v. Samsung case is currently under way. Biggest revelation so far? Samsung is accusing Apple of 27 (!) cases of altering pictures, all done to make Samsung's products appear more similar to Apple's than they really are. Like last time, Andreas Udo de Haes, editor at WebWereld.nl, present in the court room, is covering this. Update: It's on. Update II: Apple claims official picture of Galaxy Tab is rigged. Update III: Lolwut Apple? Update IV: Neelie Kroes is on the edge of her seat. Update V: The judge has upheld the German preliminary injunction. Final ruling on September 9.
Order by: Score:
Justice
by Laurence on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:19 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I really hope Apple is held accountable for this and not just given a slap on the wrist.

Regardless of what you think of their products or the whole innovation/evolution debate, tampering with evidence is a serious offense. Furthermore, using such false documents to force a ban on competitors is so far outside of what I'd personally class as fair competition that a monetary penalty doesn't even begin to equate to the audacity demonstrated.

Edited 2011-08-25 12:21 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Justice
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:26 UTC in reply to "Justice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well it is just an accusation at this point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Justice
by Laurence on Thu 25th Aug 2011 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Justice"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Samsung have proven the original claim of evidence tampering, so (rightly or wrongly) I'm already inclined to believe that there's some truth in these latest allegations.

I guess only time will tell...

Reply Score: 2

Great news!
by satan666 on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:19 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

I hope Apple products get banned in Europe as a punishment for Apple's attempt to ban Samsung products using bogus evidence. There should be no Apple products during the holiday shopping season.

Edited 2011-08-25 12:20 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Great news!
by Laurence on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:22 UTC in reply to "Great news!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I hope Apple products get banned in Europe as a punishment for Apple's attempt to ban Samsung products using bogus evidence. There should be no Apple products during the holiday shopping season.


It would never happen, however something like that would send a clear message that this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Great news!
by No it isnt on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:38 UTC in reply to "Great news!"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

I for one hope that it's not, since that would be really silly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Great news!
by satan666 on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news!"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

I for one hope that it's not, since that would be really silly.

How is this silly and the current ban on Samsung products not silly?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Great news!
by No it isnt on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great news!"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

I didn't say that. The Samsung ban is silly, but I don't see how a disingenuous lawsuit should lead to a ban on sales for the other company. A hefty fine + damages for lost sales, yes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great news!
by satan666 on Thu 25th Aug 2011 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news!"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

I didn't say that. The Samsung ban is silly, but I don't see how a disingenuous lawsuit should lead to a ban on sales for the other company. A hefty fine + damages for lost sales, yes.

If the ban on Samsung is silly but is implemented already, then silly is possible in Europe. I only want that the same thing is applied to Apple. Or are you saying that there should be double standards?
A hefty fine will not hurt Apple in any way. IIRC they have 75 billion in cash. The court needs to punish Apple in a way that will make Apple think twice before pulling frivolous lawsuits on competitors.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Great news!
by JAlexoid on Thu 25th Aug 2011 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

According to most jurisdictions intentionally misleading a judge is a serious offense. Germany probably has some very strict rules there...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Great news!
by kristoph on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great news!"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple noted the size difference in the original filing and the judge also actually held both devices last time around.

I predict that the judge will totally ignore Samsung's somewhat desperate maneuver.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Great news!
by Laurence on Thu 25th Aug 2011 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great news!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I predict that the judge will totally ignore Samsung's somewhat desperate maneuver.

Samsung have good reason to be "desperate", Apple are twisting the law to prevent natural competition.

Your tone there almost sounds sympathetic for Apple but I really do think Samsung are the victims here.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Great news!
by kristoph on Thu 25th Aug 2011 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Great news!"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

How is anyone twisting the law?

Apple brought their iThing to the judge, Samsung brought their sThing to the judge, Apple said 'their sThing looks like our iThing and we there is this here law that says their not allowed to do that', judge said 'I agree.'

No one is twisting any laws here.

]{

PS. I love it how you say that a massive APAC company that generates huge profits by paying substandard wages (by western standards) is 'the victim'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great news!
by Beta on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great news!"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say that. The Samsung ban is silly, but I don't see how a disingenuous lawsuit should lead to a ban on sales for the other company. A hefty fine + damages for lost sales, yes.

Samsung does not want damages for lost sales, they want to sell their phones. There’s much more from a phone sale than just money ‐ it’s all about the ecosystem nowadays.

Being limited (by having a product banned) by the court for a frivolous lawsuit will cost them customers.
It’s only right that Apple incurs the same cost if found to be abusing the courts.

Reply Score: 4

v copycats
by supergear on Thu 25th Aug 2011 12:51 UTC
RE: copycats
by JAlexoid on Thu 25th Aug 2011 13:48 UTC in reply to "copycats"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple: Copycats! Copycats! Copycats! ... Oh look! Jailbreakers have some new ideas we can "integrate". Ooooo.... Shiny notifications.... /s

Reply Score: 9

RE: copycats
by umccullough on Thu 25th Aug 2011 16:43 UTC in reply to "copycats"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The Galaxy S phones look too much like the iPhone that people get confused so they should be banned worldwide.


I know right?!

Same problem with tires - every time i see those round black things on a wheel, I immediately assume they're Firestone tires, and then I get up close and they're Michelin! DAMNIT! They should outlaw anyone else from making black circular rubber tires... even though they have the name brand printed right on them, it's sooo confusing!

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: copycats
by kristoph on Thu 25th Aug 2011 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: copycats"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Actually, funny you should say that, because tires were patented, tubeless tires were patented, tires with added stuff to make them stronger were patented and so on.

The only reason why those round black things are used by everyone these days is that the patents have long expired. If you made one just like it (even if it was made of different stuff) while the patent was still in force you would face litigations.

That's sort of the way patents and copyrights work (not saying it's right but if you have an issue it's the laws you should be looking to change).


]{

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: copycats
by umccullough on Thu 25th Aug 2011 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: copycats"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Actually, funny you should say that, because tires were patented, tubeless tires were patented, tires with added stuff to make them stronger were patented and so on.


Funny you should say that, because patents aren't the reason for this injunction. It's a "community design" case where Apple claims that Samsung's devices *look* too much like their generic drawings and utterly simplistic design.

Troll harder.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: copycats
by kristoph on Thu 25th Aug 2011 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: copycats"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Actually, a 'community design' is essentially the equivalent of a 'design patent'.

(You know it's really lame to call someone a troll because they challenge your factual interpretation of an event. If you have facts to back up your position why not simply state that, why start crying 'troll'.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: copycats
by umccullough on Thu 25th Aug 2011 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: copycats"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

(You know it's really lame to call someone a troll because they challenge your factual interpretation of an event. If you have facts to back up your position why not simply state that, why start crying 'troll'.)


Heh, I've been called troll for far less - somehow it didn't bother me enough to make a point of whining about it.

Edit: Oh, and I came with my facts - Community Designs are not patents or copyright.

Edited 2011-08-25 17:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: copycats
by kristoph on Thu 25th Aug 2011 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: copycats"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Ok, well, let's call a truce on the trolling and let me beat you up on your interpretation of the facts ....

from Wikipedia:

Design patents are a type of industrial design right.


... and ...

A Community design is a unitary industrial design right that covers the European Community.


Convinced?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: copycats
by daedalus on Fri 26th Aug 2011 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: copycats"
daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

I just wish I'd registered a community design on a PC tower case. A large cuboid with a power button on the front and slots for a couple of optical drives. Surely nobody could've come up with that idea independently?

Yes, the S2 looks like the iPhone, but even when the iPhone originally came out there had been PDAs and other devices which were mostly screen and a button or two on one end. There are only so many combinations to that form that can be made before they all start looking like each other. Not from copying another design, but because they're all so bloody close.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: copycats
by ddc_ on Sun 28th Aug 2011 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: copycats"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

If You carried on with this investigation, You would find out, that the word "patent" in "disgn patent" is derived from the latin word "patens" (certificate), while the term patent (without "design") is derived from the word "patere" (to lay open). This happened because "patent" and "design patent" denote *unrelated* exclusive rights.

Reply Score: 1

RE: copycats
by vitae on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:52 UTC in reply to "copycats"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Just wanted to congratulate you on making it all the way down to -9 (as of this posting). Don't think I've ever seen that before.

Reply Score: 2

Judge is a moron
by satan666 on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:05 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

That judge is obviously a moron. WTF?
I look at my computer screen and it is a rectangle with rounded corners and the screen is on the front side. I look at other brands of computer screens and they are the almost the same. You can only tell the brand by checking the logo. What is Samsung supposed to do to make their tablets different? Make oval tablets? Put the screen on the edge of the tablet?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Judge is a moron
by JAlexoid on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:29 UTC in reply to "Judge is a moron"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No (s)he is not an idiot. Upholding a preliminary injunction has least consequences, compared to allowing and the banning.

But lo and behold, since EU has the rule of free movement of goods Galaxy Tab will be sold there or any German can get one fro any other EU country...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Judge is a moron
by Laurence on Thu 25th Aug 2011 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Judge is a moron"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

No (s)he is not an idiot. Upholding a preliminary injunction has least consequences, compared to allowing and the banning.

So (s)he is a coward then and takes the easy option out rather than risk making a landmark decision.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Judge is a moron
by satan666 on Thu 25th Aug 2011 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Judge is a moron"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

So (s)he is a coward then and takes the easy option out rather than risk making a landmark decision.

The landmark decision has already been made in Netherlands. All she had to do was acknowledge the fact that she was stupid when she decided to ban Samsung, apologize for her utter stupidity and lift the ban.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Judge is a moron
by Shkaba on Thu 25th Aug 2011 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Judge is a moron"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

She would, but she is an iJudge and cannot go against the will of Jobs allmighty

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Judge is a moron
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 25th Aug 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Judge is a moron"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It would be an admittance of failure regarding the first injunction if she backed off now. In the final ruling she can dismiss the injunction more easily, by claiming she has now studied all the evidence.

Simple, really. People are very easy to understand. I can guarantee you she'll lift the injunction come September 9. 100%.

Edited 2011-08-25 15:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Judge is a moron
by kristoph on Thu 25th Aug 2011 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Judge is a moron"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Are you going to eat the paper your comment is printed on if she doesn't?

;-)

]{

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Judge is a moron
by Neolander on Thu 25th Aug 2011 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Judge is a moron"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Eating a computer screen ? Eeeewwww !

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Judge is a moron
by JAlexoid on Thu 25th Aug 2011 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Judge is a moron"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There was no final decision in NL. And CD is still not invalidated.
Let's stick to the facts.

Reply Score: 2

vexatious litigants
by unclefester on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:12 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

In Australia an individual or corporation can be declared a vexatious litigant for repeatedly using the legal system solely to harrass or subdue an adversary. They are then (permanently) banned from pursuing any further civil court actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

Reply Score: 3

RE: vexatious litigants
by SaschaW on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:54 UTC in reply to "vexatious litigants "
SaschaW Member since:
2007-07-19

We should have that everywhere.

Reply Score: 2

Germany or EU wide
by maethorechannen on Thu 25th Aug 2011 14:36 UTC
maethorechannen
Member since:
2009-09-03

Have they decided on whether or not the ban applies to all of the EU or only to Germany? I'm not sure German courts ruling on what can and cannot be imported into the UK would go down well here.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by fran
by fran on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:12 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Update IV's link does not work.

Reply Score: 2