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.
Thread beginning with comment 504385
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Bad result for Apple
by Lorin on Sun 29th Jan 2012 07:21 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Bad result for Apple
by brichpmr on Sun 29th Jan 2012 13:26 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 Parent Score: 1