Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jan 2012 19:09 UTC
Legal Summer last year, the Dutch courts ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe on Apple's community designs, and as such, would not be banned from The Netherlands. This was a "quick case", and as such, Apple had the right to appeal and turn this into a "full case". Apple did, but I now think they really wish they hadn't - the Court of Appeal in The Hague has pretty much ripped Apple a new one [Dutch], and upheld the District Court's ruling.
Order by: Score:
Good News!
by Pro-Competition on Tue 24th Jan 2012 19:31 UTC
Pro-Competition
Member since:
2007-08-20

At least there is common sense somewhere in the world...

Reply Score: 10

v Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by krreagan on Tue 24th Jan 2012 19:44 UTC
RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 24th Jan 2012 19:47 UTC in reply to "Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Australia for a few weeks, and in Germany for a few weeks.

Major win for Apple, totally worth all the bad publicity.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by umccullough on Tue 24th Jan 2012 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Australia for a few weeks, and in Germany for a few weeks.

Major win for Apple, totally worth all the bad publicity.


Not to mention, the reversal of these decisions sets stronger precedent for the future, and has added some transparency to Apple's competitive practices - so Apple has burned a few cards to play with next time.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by jared_wilkes on Wed 25th Jan 2012 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

"...totally worth all the bad publicity."

Can you point to any actual impact on Apple?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by krreagan on Wed 25th Jan 2012 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

Incredibly bad publicity! They can't pay people to take their iPads... Oh wait... Never mind.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by JAlexoid on Tue 24th Jan 2012 20:31 UTC in reply to "Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It has quite literally nothing to do with how superior or inferior GTab 10 is. This is a good outcome for everyone, in some sense even for Apple. Because it shows that simplicity can hardly be argued to be as originality.

There is always EU Court of Justice, that oversees these matters. But EU Court of Justice is a much harder institution to crack...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 24th Jan 2012 21:18 UTC in reply to "Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

By now the Galaxy Tab is probably obsolete anyway when considering that the iPad 3 is almost out.

So Apple's strategy has worked. It has kept the GT out of many markets for a long time... And in doing so, sent a message to other tab makers that they should make sure their designs are not too close to Apples.

So in the long run, Apple wins anyways.


So I guess Apple's apologists have dropped the "Apple isn't anti-competitive" claim & have switched to bragging about the effectiveness of Apple's anti-competitive tactics (also known as a "Pyrrhic victory").

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by WorknMan on Tue 24th Jan 2012 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So I guess Apple's apologists have dropped the "Apple isn't anti-competitive" claim & have switched to bragging about the effectiveness of Apple's anti-competitive tactics (also known as a "Pyrrhic victory").


I don't think that was the intent of his post. The point is that with quad core Android tablets like the Asus Transformer Prime either on shelves now or coming out soon, there really isn't a reason to consider a Tab 10.1 anymore, unless you're a fan of the Touchwiz bloatware. I think even Samsung has a successor to that product coming out in the near future.

The only advantage that the Tab had over other Android tablets was its thinness, but that is an advantage it no longer has. So while the Tab no longer being banned might be a moral victory in the 'patents are broken' crusade, it has very little relevance anymore in the tablet landscape, unless you can find one on clearance. Even still, I'd recommend going with the original Asus Transformer. It might be heavier, but it runs smoother and is much faster with updates. Plus, it has that keyboard attachment ;)

Edited 2012-01-24 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Galaxy Tab is obsolete
by krreagan on Wed 25th Jan 2012 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Galaxy Tab is obsolete"
Knight Ridder
by fran on Tue 24th Jan 2012 20:43 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Just Wiki'd Knight Ridder.
Wonder what this media company could have achieved if the internet was ready for it in 1994. The company itself was very innovative.

"It was the first newspaper publisher to experiment with videotex when it launched its Viewtron system in 1982"

And that tablet.

Reply Score: 6

germany
by smashIt on Tue 24th Jan 2012 22:11 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

In other words, Samsung was better prepared for the Dutch case than they were for the German case last year (which makes sense, obviously).


i'd bett on protection for the judge who made the fucked up first ruling against samsung

they will never admit an error...

Reply Score: 2

Bad result for Apple
by mbit on Tue 24th Jan 2012 22:42 UTC
mbit
Member since:
2009-07-29

It seems to me the only thing Apple achieved with all of this was to have it legally proven that none of their claimed innovations are theirs. That's a big blow to a company who has built their brand around being innovative.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Bad result for Apple
by Hollinch on Wed 25th Jan 2012 08:58 UTC in reply to "Bad result for Apple"
Hollinch Member since:
2009-08-05

It is correct that you use the word 'innovative'. According to the definition, innovation is about bringing better or more effective products, services, technologies, etc. This in contrast to invention, which is about the development of novel products.

So, in a sense, this is exactly what the expected outcome should've been. Apple (and many others including Samsung) released _innovative_ products built on inventions (and innovations) of others, which means there will always be predecessors with a high degree of similarity to the released products, and thus a high likelihood of prior art. The uniqueness of the original invention defeats or at least severely downplays the uniqueness of those innovations.

Cheers, Jaap

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bad result for Apple
by Lorin on Sun 29th Jan 2012 07:21 UTC in reply to "Bad result for Apple"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

You are absolutely right, there is a mountain of prior art out there, but of course he who can pay the most lawyers too often has the last word. Nice to see a judge actually do his or her homework.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bad result for Apple
by brichpmr on Sun 29th Jan 2012 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad result for Apple"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

You are absolutely right, there is a mountain of prior art out there, but of course he who can pay the most lawyers too often has the last word. Nice to see a judge actually do his or her homework.


He probably did his homework on an iPad.

Reply Score: 1

Canadian industrial design 89,155
by p-dubs on Wed 25th Jan 2012 22:33 UTC
p-dubs
Member since:
2012-01-25

Looks like a data display for a highway truck scale. Apparently "design patents" in the States are called "industrial designs" in Canada.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/id/mngMg.do?fllAppNm=89155&lang=e...

Enjoy.

Reply Score: 2

p-dubs Member since:
2012-01-25

March 31, 2000... definitely prior art. The shape and bezel look very much like the I-Pad.

Reply Score: 1