Apple Granted Injunction to pull Samsung 10.1 Tablets from EU Shelves

[Red]

Patents do not stop innovation. They encourage it.

Samsung has not innovated anything here. They took google's OS and put it on a hardware device styled to look like an ipad. Where is the innovation?

I think that this ban is good for customers as it will force Samsung (and soon others) to think out of the box and actually create something unique instead of copying the last big hit.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

What do you guys want it to look like? Round? Triangle? Neon green bezel? Most of the hardware design is just obvious. Screens are rectangular, black is the obvious choice for a bezel, etc. Apple is trying to compete through lawsuits instead of innovation. Apple fans believe they're still leading in the latter category, but if they are, why sue the runners up?

Yes, I have to agree that if there is any company of the last decade that hasn't been innovative at all, it's apple.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Red

Patents do not stop innovation. They encourage it.

Samsung has not innovated anything here. They took google's OS and put it on a hardware device styled to look like an ipad. Where is the innovation?

I think that this ban is good for customers as it will force Samsung (and soon others) to think out of the box and actually create something unique instead of copying the last big hit.

I don't agree completely. With copying, there is the possibility you can get incremental innovation. Copying something means someone has already done the leg work and then you have time to improve it - even though legally you aren't in the clear. Some of the best Android roms and kernels originally come out of China where they have copied a stock rom (like from Samsung) and completely reverse engineered it and added 10 times the features and integration with other software and resources. Then even after that, people in the west get ahold of the roms (again copying them) and retooled them and adding even more to them.

That's how open source software works as well and it's incredibly innovative. Someone does the leg work and it's distributed. Anyone can get it and have a copy of the original program/SDK, etc. and add onto it.

Inspiration can also be much more powerful than innovation. If you are inspired by something someone else made and copy it because you see a way to make it better (that the original company wouldn't do), the consumer wins again.

Admittedly, it often results in inferior products and bad counterfeits or legally home built clones (Chinese Bombardier trains that crash horrifically) but the possibility of innovation exists and what's more, the consumer has more choice and options available to him. Innovation is important, but after that, a critical mass of copies and users can make revolutionary improvements that the original company would never have made.

[FlameOn]

What gets me is how an injunction can be filed for industrial design related problems and nothing to do with the software/hardware patents itself. It looks too similar, it has icons, it's in the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners. These are just too fundamental to OS and computer design and not innovative enough to be able to grant a patent for IMHO.

All of these ideas and things Apple is claiming were fundamental to OS design and tablets that existed before Apple created the iPad. Unfortunately they were the first to file and now they are just trying to stamp out the competition. This type of system is bad for consumers all around, drives up the price of all products and stifles innovation.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Red

Patents do not stop innovation. They encourage it.

Samsung has not innovated anything here. They took google's OS and put it on a hardware device styled to look like an ipad. Where is the innovation?

I think that this ban is good for customers as it will force Samsung (and soon others) to think out of the box and actually create something unique instead of copying the last big hit.

Apple copies others in the same field too. Example Android has widgets and scrollable notification bar since before 2.0 (over 2 years ago). Apple has copied both of those items and will be implementing them in the upcoming iOS5. Where is the innovation?

So by that logic all car manufacturers should have been sued by Ford and injunctions should have been granted so other manufacturers would come up with something other than a four wheeled vehicle? (This is fair to say because Icons are very fundamental to OS design and existed in Xerox OSes pre-Apple) I really don't think its good for consumers at all as it does stifle long term competition. No competition almost always leads to stagnation and price gauging.

While I've used Apple products in the past, I've become extremely put off by the malicious litigation that's driving up prices for all the products. As I posted in another thread, IP costs for smartphones have gone up from 5% to 30% of the total cost of the phone over the last 10 years. Who do you think those costs will be passed on to?? It'll only go up further at the rate Apple is going. Before Apple, there were a huge number of cross-licensing agreements and joint ventures to co-develop technology. Now, it's Apple suing basically everyone and driving up costs. No one benefits from this except the lawyers.

Also I hate to break it to you Red, Apple copied the tablet PC from other companies as well. All tablet PCs even the ones pre-Apple are basically just the same thing. When you think about it, what can you really change in the design? It's a rectangle or a square (depending on the aspect ratio), it needs to have a border to hold all the parts in, you can make different coloured borders, make the surface mat or glossy.

[Red]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Apple copies others in the same field too. Example Android has widgets and scrollable notification bar since before 2.0 (over 2 years ago). Apple has copied both of those items and will be implementing them in the upcoming iOS5. Where is the innovation?

So by that logic all car manufacturers should have been sued by Ford and injunctions should have been granted so other manufacturers would come up with something other than a four wheeled vehicle? (This is fair to say because Icons are very fundamental to OS design and existed in Xerox OSes pre-Apple) I really don't think its good for consumers at all as it does stifle long term competition. No competition almost always leads to stagnation and price gauging.

While I've used Apple products in the past, I've become extremely put off by the malicious litigation that's driving up prices for all the products. As I posted in another thread, IP costs for smartphones have gone up from 5% to 30% of the total cost of the phone over the last 10 years. Who do you think those costs will be passed on to?? It'll only go up further at the rate Apple is going. Before Apple, there were a huge number of cross-licensing agreements and joint ventures to co-develop technology. Now, it's Apple suing basically everyone and driving up costs. No one benefits from this except the lawyers.

Also I hate to break it to you Red, Apple copied the tablet PC from other companies as well. All tablet PCs even the ones pre-Apple are basically just the same thing. When you think about it, what can you really change in the design? It's a rectangle or a square (depending on the aspect ratio), it needs to have a border to hold all the parts in, you can make different coloured borders, make the surface mat or glossy.

Apple didnt copy these items, they took that idea and developed their own version of it.
There was a tablet before the ipad? - One without a stylus and buttons etc? They were the first to do it and be successfull with it. No one can dispute that.

Samsung makes their buttons etc look as close as possible to what they look on an Ipad. They do that with the pads and phones.
They make the hardware look the same.

It's not about what it does, but what it looks like. Notifications? That's like crying about a photo app or a web browser on a device. Who cares? As long as it is not the same skin as the competition.

That's the big difference.

No one would complain if Samsung built their own tablet and used their own graphics design, hardware design etc. Apple is not complaining that the tab is the same shape, they complain that it has the same button layout, colors....all the things that could be different. Samsung went out of their way to customize android to make it look like iOS. The dock, icons, colors....almost like a custom iOS skin.

Look at these buttons on their phones.
http://www.businessinsider.com/check...e-icons-2011-4


Look at this.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/accessories/...ater-50004469/

We call this innovation?

They even copy the packaging design.

But again, how many different ways can a phone be boxed. Or a button be colored and shaped...

[Titan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Because they're a corporation, not a charity. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp.

I think the actual business school term is "bayonetting the survivors"

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Notice how I was talking about the entire IP system and why it is flawed? And how "companies" was pluralized? It is flawed for everyone. I also admitted I would do the same when in charge of any company, otherwise I wouldn't be operating in my shareholder's best interests (and my wallet). The talk of Apple is only there because that is the topic of this thread. Back in the day, I was frustrated with the various patent sitters that held decade old patents on broad engineering concepts (without proof of concept or product in the marketplace) who were suing RIM continuously.

But I think the reason Apple is the topic of this thread is because of the Apple Haters taking the company to task for something just about everyone in the industry does.

The OP hasn't responded to my suggestion that I can take all his electronics that are made by companies that have sued another company patent infringement. When he agrees to those terms, I'll know he is a virtuous man of his word taking a stance rather than someone unreasonable with a chip on his shoulder.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I don't agree completely. With copying, there is the possibility you can get incremental innovation. Copying something means someone has already done the leg work and then you have time to improve it - even though legally you aren't in the clear. Some of the best Android roms and kernels originally come out of China where they have copied a stock rom (like from Samsung) and completely reverse engineered it and added 10 times the features and integration with other software and resources. Then even after that, people in the west get ahold of the roms (again copying them) and retooled them and adding even more to them.

That's how open source software works as well and it's incredibly innovative. Someone does the leg work and it's distributed. Anyone can get it and have a copy of the original program/SDK, etc. and add onto it.

Inspiration can also be much more powerful than innovation. If you are inspired by something someone else made and copy it because you see a way to make it better (that the original company wouldn't do), the consumer wins again.

Admittedly, it often results in inferior products and bad counterfeits or legally home built clones (Chinese Bombardier trains that crash horrifically) but the possibility of innovation exists and what's more, the consumer has more choice and options available to him. Innovation is important, but after that, a critical mass of copies and users can make revolutionary improvements that the original company would never have made.

The bolded portion is the key term. At a certain point people stop doing the leg work when that work returns gains for the rest of the amrket at the expense of their own bottom line. Why put in the effort to bang out the fundamental concepts when the profit will be shared amongst a large group of people/companies who simply add a tweak to the finished product? The leg work needs to be rewarded, not regarded as a donation in the name of innovation.

[Barnes]

One important thing to remember is if you have IP protected by copyright or patents, you are obligated to protect them through litigation or else you stand a very good chance of losing them.

The system is the real problem here. There should be no reason a company that does not make, build or sell anything yet holds a few patents should be able to sue a company for actually making, build and selling something.

As far as the big boys go, they all do it and as long as they have the same or more licensing money coming in than they do going out, whatever.

Google should be doing more to protect its partners and OEMs 'cause everyone's bending them over but Google's too busy #$&%ing their pants over the Oracle lawsuit especially since those new emails surfaced.

[simmer2]

I completely agree that the overall patent system is fundamentally flawed. What I do have issues with however is when a company, like Apple, is visibly trying to hoard control of the entire industry of communication and information flow via royalties, etc. This is why they distribute solely in the States through AT&T, one of the oldest government regulated monopolies in the US.

There are some posters who are correct in saying that it's a problem with the industry...it's largely not just Apple suing these companies. But this is the first time I have ever heard of a product getting removed from the shelf. I don't care if behind the scenes companies sue back and forth, but one company should not be able to block another company's product from reaching the consumer.

I could give a crap about buttons, circles, icons, etc. Apple was smart enough to file for patents, but they also house a massive legal team whose directive is to patent everything under the sun. Ultimately I want access to the Google Android system and could give a crap about the hardware look of the iPad...it's ridiculous that the look stopped these from being sold.

So while I do concede Apple is not the only one suing, as far as I know this is the first case where they've managed to force a product to be removed from a shelf. And to me that's the complete opposite of capitalism and free market. We make the decision which product succeeds and which one fails, not the corporations.

[Red]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I completely agree that the overall patent system is fundamentally flawed. What I do have issues with however is when a company, like Apple, is visibly trying to hoard control of the entire industry of communication and information flow via royalties, etc. This is why they distribute solely in the States through AT&T, one of the oldest government regulated monopolies in the US.

There are some posters who are correct in saying that it's a problem with the industry...it's largely not just Apple suing these companies. But this is the first time I have ever heard of a product getting removed from the shelf. I don't care if behind the scenes companies sue back and forth, but one company should not be able to block another company's product from reaching the consumer.

I could give a crap about buttons, circles, icons, etc. Apple was smart enough to file for patents, but they also house a massive legal team whose directive is to patent everything under the sun. Ultimately I want access to the Google Android system and could give a crap about the hardware look of the iPad...it's ridiculous that the look stopped these from being sold.

So while I do concede Apple is not the only one suing, as far as I know this is the first case where they've managed to force a product to be removed from a shelf. And to me that's the complete opposite of capitalism and free market. We make the decision which product succeeds and which one fails, not the corporations.

That's not true. AT&T is not the only one.

You may not care about what the device looks like, but someone who spent tons of $$$ for R&D does care that their rival saves that cash buy copying them. You'd be singing a different tune if it were you who came up with something and I was copying it. My profit at your expense.

[mykalberta]

While I hate Appl, I am with them on this as we wouldnt have touchscreen mobile devices without Appl.

And Samsung has fairly blatently copied Appl's hardware design and while yes it might not be great to be able to patent it, Samsung could easily change its design, it doesnt because it likely thinks that the person in Best Buy sees both and one is cheaper then why not get that one.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I completely agree that the overall patent system is fundamentally flawed. What I do have issues with however is when a company, like Apple, is visibly trying to hoard control of the entire industry of communication and information flow via royalties, etc. This is why they distribute solely in the States through AT&T, one of the oldest government regulated monopolies in the US.

There are some posters who are correct in saying that it's a problem with the industry...it's largely not just Apple suing these companies. But this is the first time I have ever heard of a product getting removed from the shelf. I don't care if behind the scenes companies sue back and forth, but one company should not be able to block another company's product from reaching the consumer.

I could give a crap about buttons, circles, icons, etc. Apple was smart enough to file for patents, but they also house a massive legal team whose directive is to patent everything under the sun. Ultimately I want access to the Google Android system and could give a crap about the hardware look of the iPad...it's ridiculous that the look stopped these from being sold.

So while I do concede Apple is not the only one suing, as far as I know this is the first case where they've managed to force a product to be removed from a shelf. And to me that's the complete opposite of capitalism and free market. We make the decision which product succeeds and which one fails, not the corporations.

Verizon has carried the Iphone for nearly a year.

As to the rest of it, now it's Apple's fault because the court deemed that removal of the product was appropriate under the circumstances? You think Apple was the first one to ask for that result? Courts don't take injunctions lightly, they are not easy to get, the fact that this result was handed down should tell you something about the strength of the case and the potential impact of not imposing an injunction.

But no, it's Apple being jerks

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

While I hate Appl, I am with them on this as we wouldnt have touchscreen mobile devices without Appl.

Palm had touchscreen long before the iPhone was in existence.

[Red]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Palm had touchscreen long before the iPhone was in existence.

More like a poke screen. Needed a stylus.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Palm had touchscreen long before the iPhone was in existence.

I think he probably meant capacitive multi-touch screens.

[oilyfan]

This is ridiculous.

So Apple, close to bankruptcy not too long ago, bets the farm on a new innovative capacitive touchscreen device that no one had brought to market before, and succeeds. And it succeeds not because they marketed it really well, but because people liked it, normal everyday people liked it. The tech geeks were up in arms right from the start about how the iPhone was an inferior device because it had restricted functions. But in the end people liked it, that's why they bought it!

Samsung could have continued to work on their innovative pipeline of products, without "borrowing" ideas from Apple, but they knew what is selling and its not their tired designs.

After all this Apple is supposed to roll over and let someone walk in and take their intellectual property?

[NuclearPizzaMan]

I can't wait until the US Patent system becomes a "first to file" race. Never again will large corporations have to worry about the small fries and their ridiculous ideas.


When does a "rectangular touchscreen device" become protected ip? The apple iPad is just another in a long line of devices. Less clunky, superior touch capability, less input/output functions.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Red

More like a poke screen. Needed a stylus.

I had a Treo 650 and regularly used it without the stylus with no issues...