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.
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
Well it is just an accusation at this point.
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…
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
It would never happen, however something like that would send a clear message that this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable.
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?
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.
According to most jurisdictions intentionally misleading a judge is a serious offense. Germany probably has some very strict rules there…
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.
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.
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’.
You are refering to Apple here, right? After all, didn’t Apple hire a concentration camp in China … few suicides …
If your talking about Foxconn their the largest for hire manufacturer on the planet and their used by essentially everyone.
That said I would never suggest Apple or any other multinational corporation is a ‘victim’.
The use of laws (defined by democratically elected officials) to advance your business is, IMO, perfectly legitimate. Now I don’t personally agrees with these laws but that does not invalidate them.
What, a victim makes, best not decided by you, then. According to your logic, the nature of recipient of unfair treatment is the determining factor in choosing to brand someone a “victim”. I profoundly resent that point of view. Irrespective of the nature (or type) of recipient, unfair treatment is unfair! That is also one of the fundamental principals of any democratic society (equal rights)
The problem is, what is “fair” ?
Apple will say, it’s asking that Samsung spend as much time on design as they did.
Samsung will say, it’s about having the right to launch a tablet/smartphone that’s equal to Apple’s one.
Socrates will say, it’s about following the law and being equals.
The only thing that can be concluded from these is that Socrates is a jerk
Edited 2011-08-25 22:04 UTC
I don’t think you’ve interpreted my logic correctly (though I am not sure since I don’t quite understand your position).
My position is that, in democratic society, the application of a law created by democratically elected officials, in a manner in which it was intended, cannot implicitly make you a ‘victim’ because such laws apply fairly and equally to everyone.
In fact, when one has been wronged under the law, it is typically the wronged party that is considered the ‘victim’ (which in this case would be Apple) though as I have stated in the previous posts I don’t view corporations as people and so I don’t think it could be said that the corporation as a whole can be victimized.
So… Do Apple store employees get better salaries than anyone else? Really don’t think so…
Actually, according to glassdoor.com, they make about 20% more then their counterparts who work for other electronics retailers 🙂
Oh great, a fanboy.
/part can’t be bothered with brainwashed iZombies
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.
Samsung is just copying everything Apple does. The Galaxy S phones look too much like the iPhone that people get confused so they should be banned worldwide. The Galaxy Tab looks so much like the iPad Samsung should be ordered to pay Apple all of the profit they have earned since its first release.
Apple: Copycats! Copycats! Copycats! … Oh look! Jailbreakers have some new ideas we can “integrate”. Ooooo…. Shiny notifications…. /s
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!
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).
]{
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.
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’.)
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
Ok, well, let’s call a truce on the trolling and let me beat you up on your interpretation of the facts ….
from Wikipedia:
… and …
Convinced?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
She would, but she is an iJudge and cannot go against the will of Jobs allmighty
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
Are you going to eat the paper your comment is printed on if she doesn’t?
😉
]{
Eating a computer screen ? Eeeewwww !
There was no final decision in NL. And CD is still not invalidated.
Let’s stick to the facts.
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
We should have that everywhere.
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.
Update IV’s link does not work.