Galaxy Tab Blocked In EU

  • Posted: 09 August 2011 02:16 PM

    This is good news for Apple:

    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/preliminary-injunction-granted-by.html

    Preliminary injunction granted by German court: Apple blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the entire European Union except for the Netherland

    The leading German news agency, dpa, just reported that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Android-based Galaxy Tab 10.1, barring with immediate effect all distribution of the product in the entire European Union except for the Netherlands on the grounds of an alleged infringement of Apple’s iPad-related [European] Community design no. 000181607-0001.

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 05:59 PM #1

    I split this post from the intraday topic. It’s interesting to watch the associated issues develop and the global expanse of the disagreements.

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 07:12 PM #2

    libranca - 09 August 2011 05:16 PM

    This is good news for Apple:

    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/preliminary-injunction-granted-by.html

    Preliminary injunction granted by German court: Apple blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the entire European Union except for the Netherland

    The leading German news agency, dpa, just reported that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Android-based Galaxy Tab 10.1, barring with immediate effect all distribution of the product in the entire European Union except for the Netherlands on the grounds of an alleged infringement of Apple’s iPad-related [European] Community design no. 000181607-0001.


    Couple this decision with Australia’s refusal to let Tabs in, the US ITC preliminary decision, and you have a growing body of legal opinions going against Samsung.

    That, in itself, should cause great consternation among the Android community. I give Androids’ life expectancy the time it will take for the Thundering Herd to switch to Windows Mobile (2 years?).

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 07:49 PM #3

    The thing about this ruling, is that has nothing really to do with Android.  It is related to Samsung copying the physical and industrial design.  If they were using Microsoft software,  the result would be the same from what I can tell.

    I agree though with the general theme.  This patent mess is going to drive Android manufacturers over to Windows.  And Nokia has a clean slate with no Android share to defend.  Makes me wonder if that stock could make sense as a contrarian play.

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 08:08 PM #4

    Lstream - 09 August 2011 10:49 PM

    The thing about this ruling, is that has nothing really to do with Android.  It is related to Samsung copying the physical and industrial design.  If they were using Microsoft software,  the result would be the same from what I can tell.

    Agreed. This is a Trade Dress issue, not a patent issue.

    In intellectual property law, a Cause of Action for trade dress infringement may arise when the trade dress of two businesses is sufficiently similar to cause confusion among consumers.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trade+Dress

    Apple is contending that Samsung is confusing consumers by making their tablets so similar to an iPad that consumers can’t readily tell the difference.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 August 2011 08:41 PM #5

    Brian White at Ticonderoga weighs in with his take on the implications, which aren’t negligible…

    http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/08/09/apples-injunction-could-cripple-samsung-says-ticonderoga/

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 09:05 PM #6

    adamthompson3232 - 09 August 2011 11:37 PM

    Like in that Samsung iPhone ad you saw?:)

    Exactly. I actually thought the same thing at the time, but since it was my error, I didn’t want to try to let myself off the hook by blaming Samsung.

    Yes, that’s exactly what Apple is saying. I saw the Samsung phone and I was sure that it was an iPhone. Only later did I realize my mistake. Apple is claiming that when Samsung makes its tablet case look nearly identical to that of the iPad and, for example, uses a flower icon to represent its pictures App - a flower icon that is nearly identical to the flower icon that Apple uses to identify its pictures app - that Samsung is confusing customers. And guess what. I think the court’s agree.

    Here is an article from ThisIsMyNext showing the two phones side by side and showing some of the icons side by side. Now remember, the injunctions we’re talking about are regarding the Samsung Tablet, not the phone. But I think that these pictures give a pretty good feel for the type of confusion that Apple claims Samsung is creating.

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 09:17 PM #7

    Falkirk - thanks for the trade dress definition.  If the hurdle to pass is not confusing customers, then that should be pretty easy to fix I would think.  Enclosure housing materials and or colors could be changed so that there is no mistaking the iPad for the Galaxy.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 August 2011 09:22 PM #8

    FalKirk - 10 August 2011 12:05 AM
    adamthompson3232 - 09 August 2011 11:37 PM

    Like in that Samsung iPhone ad you saw?:)

    Exactly. I actually thought the same thing at the time, but since it was my error, I didn’t want to try to let myself off the hook by blaming Samsung.

    Yes, that’s exactly what Apple is saying. I saw the Samsung phone and I was sure that it was an iPhone. Only later did I realize my mistake. Apple is claiming that when Samsung makes its tablet case look nearly identical to that of the iPad and, for example, uses a flower icon to represent its pictures App - a flower icon that is nearly identical to the flower icon that Apple uses to identify its pictures app - that Samsung is confusing customers. And guess what. I think the court’s agree.

    Here is an article from ThisIsMyNext showing the two phones side by side and showing some of the icons side by side. Now remember, the injunctions we’re talking about are regarding the Samsung Tablet, not the phone. But I think that these pictures give a pretty good feel for the type of confusion that Apple claims Samsung is creating.

    In marketing we are taught that if we have as good or better product from our competitor, we make special effort to differentiate our product, especially in what are called ‘idents’, or identification indices. Things like logos, colors, matrices and design, if practical.

    But if our product is inferior or can’t be differentiated from the competitor, we mimic as much as possible to benefit from the positive aura of the other product. But, and this is important, we do not intentionally create confusion.  What Samsung has done with the icons and app placement is far beyond any reasonable design mimicry.

    Signature

    AAPL: to boldly go where no stock has gone before

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 09:33 PM #9

    Lstream - 10 August 2011 12:17 AM

    Falkirk - thanks for the trade dress definition.  If the hurdle to pass is not confusing customers, then that should be pretty easy to fix I would think.  Enclosure housing materials and or colors could be changed so that there is no mistaking the iPad for the Galaxy.

    On the one hand, I think it would be very easy to fix since it’s all cosmetic and doesn’t require any software or critical hardware changes.

    On the other hand, it might cause Samsung to have to recall all their existing tablets or at least retool their line to create a brand new tablet.

    And I guess on the other, other hand (yes, I now have three hands), it would serve Apple’s ultimate purpose of removing a valuable marketing tool from Samsung’s quiver.

    And on the fourth hand, (just to even things out) there might be some seriously nasty damages to pay.

         
  • Posted: 09 August 2011 09:35 PM #10

    Red shirted ensign - 10 August 2011 12:22 AM

    In marketing we are taught that if we have as good or better product from our competitor, we make special effort to differentiate our product, especially in what are called ‘idents’, or identification indices. Things like logos, colors, matrices and design, if practical.

    But if our product is inferior or can’t be differentiated from the competitor, we mimic as much as possible to benefit from the positive aura of the other product. But, and this is important, we do not intentionally create confusion.  What Samsung has done with the icons and app placement is far beyond any reasonable design mimicry.

    Great stuff.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 August 2011 02:04 AM #11

    caruso2323 - 10 August 2011 02:10 AM
    FalKirk - 10 August 2011 12:35 AM
    Red shirted ensign - 10 August 2011 12:22 AM

    In marketing we are taught that if we have as good or better product from our competitor, we make special effort to differentiate our product, especially in what are called ‘idents’, or identification indices. Things like logos, colors, matrices and design, if practical.

    But if our product is inferior or can’t be differentiated from the competitor, we mimic as much as possible to benefit from the positive aura of the other product. But, and this is important, we do not intentionally create confusion.  What Samsung has done with the icons and app placement is far beyond any reasonable design mimicry.

    Great stuff.

    +1 Yes ... I could not have said it better !

    Thanks.  I basically paraphrased an answer to a question posed in a marketing theory seminar I attended a while back. The prof was outstanding. I still remember his key rules for marketing success:  “Innovate. If you can’t innovate, differentiate. It you can’t differentiate, replicate. If you can’t replicate, go back to the first step…...”

    Signature

    AAPL: to boldly go where no stock has gone before

         
  • Posted: 10 August 2011 02:32 AM #12

    There is an awful lot of emotionally charged debate regarding this subject going on in the blogasphere tonight. Much of it is fueled by prejudice. A lot of it is based on ignorance. There’s some pure FUD out there and there are some reasonable and intriguing arguments too.

    Ultimately, I don’t think public opinion comes into this one bit. There’s a hint that there may be some backlash against Apple, but I strongly suspect that the people who are swearing that they will never again buy anything from Apple are either fooling themselves or they haven’t been buying Apple products anyway.

    The courts will decide this issue and it looks like they may decide it quickly. One advantage to having an injunction is that it is going to make Samsung want to rush to get this matter resolved. Whether for good or ill, they want a final judgment because every day they wait is a day they can’t sell their products. Apple too is anxious to move these matters forward. It has been suggested that Apple will have to pay damages to Samsung if the preliminary injunction is overturned. So be it. This simply motivates all the parties to act quickly to have an evidentiary hearing and get this matter quickly resolved.

    If Apple loses, so what? They may take a slight PR hit, but they are in no worse shape than they are today. If Samsung loses, so what? They have to redesign their product and their icons and perhaps their packaging and advertising. It will cost them money and precious time, but it won’t be fatal.

    So why bother? Because Apple wants to set a precedent. Make your own stuff and don’t try to pretend that it’s ours. If Apple can win this suit, then it’s unlikely that anyone will want to even come close to making their products look anything like Apple’s for a long time to come.

         
  • Posted: 10 August 2011 02:46 AM #13

    FalKirk - 10 August 2011 12:33 AM
    Lstream - 10 August 2011 12:17 AM

    Falkirk - thanks for the trade dress definition.  If the hurdle to pass is not confusing customers, then that should be pretty easy to fix I would think.  Enclosure housing materials and or colors could be changed so that there is no mistaking the iPad for the Galaxy.

    On the one hand, I think it would be very easy to fix since it’s all cosmetic and doesn’t require any software or critical hardware changes.

    On the other hand, it might cause Samsung to have to recall all their existing tablets or at least retool their line to create a brand new tablet.

    And I guess on the other, other hand (yes, I now have three hands), it would serve Apple’s ultimate purpose of removing a valuable marketing tool from Samsung’s quiver.

    And on the fourth hand, (just to even things out) there might be some seriously nasty damages to pay.

    Samsung is an important vendor for Apple.  Not saying this is the case, but what if Apple and Samsung settled this dispute months ago.  What if this legal conflict has been orchestrated by Samsung and Apple (in concert) to give Samsung time to retool.  Apple benefits from the battle (if Samsung can’t prevail who would want to go up against Apple?), and a ton of free media coverage/repetition of the brand iPad.  Samsung gets important time to retool and retains a valuable customer.

    [ Edited: 10 August 2011 02:50 AM by Gregg Thurman ]

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 10 August 2011 03:07 AM #14

    Gregg Thurman - 10 August 2011 05:46 AM
    FalKirk - 10 August 2011 12:33 AM
    Lstream - 10 August 2011 12:17 AM

    Falkirk - thanks for the trade dress definition.  If the hurdle to pass is not confusing customers, then that should be pretty easy to fix I would think.  Enclosure housing materials and or colors could be changed so that there is no mistaking the iPad for the Galaxy.

    On the one hand, I think it would be very easy to fix since it’s all cosmetic and doesn’t require any software or critical hardware changes.

    On the other hand, it might cause Samsung to have to recall all their existing tablets or at least retool their line to create a brand new tablet.

    And I guess on the other, other hand (yes, I now have three hands), it would serve Apple’s ultimate purpose of removing a valuable marketing tool from Samsung’s quiver.

    And on the fourth hand, (just to even things out) there might be some seriously nasty damages to pay.

    Samsung is an important vendor for Apple.  Not saying this is the case, but what if Apple and Samsung settled this dispute months ago.  What if this legal conflict has been orchestrated by Samsung and Apple (in concert) to give Samsung time to retool.  Apple benefits from the battle (if Samsung can’t prevail who would want to go up against Apple?), and a ton of free media coverage/repetition of the brand iPad.  Samsung gets important time to retool and retains a valuable customer.

    I can’t see a company as proud as Samsung taking a public pasting like this as part of some secret back room deal.

    What if the judge had gone the other way? Then Apple risked a lot for no real reason.

    No, this is what it appears to be. There has been an infidelity in the Apple/Samsung marriage but for the sake of the kids they will put it back together, but it wont be quite the same again. :wink:

    Signature

    AAPL: to boldly go where no stock has gone before

         
  • Posted: 10 August 2011 01:03 PM #15

    adamthompson3232 - 10 August 2011 06:21 AM
    Gregg Thurman - 10 August 2011 05:46 AM

    Samsung is an important vendor for Apple.  Not saying this is the case, but what if Apple and Samsung settled this dispute months ago.  What if this legal conflict has been orchestrated by Samsung and Apple (in concert) to give Samsung time to retool.  Apple benefits from the battle (if Samsung can’t prevail who would want to go up against Apple?), and a ton of free media coverage/repetition of the brand iPad.  Samsung gets important time to retool and retains a valuable customer.

    Gregg,

    I almost agree a little bit with some of your conspiracy theories but this one takes the cake and I don’t think there’s any truth to it. This is a very high stakes game of poker and since Apple made the first move it is extremely likely that Apple has the upper hand and has planned for every conceivable scenario. I suspect Samsung is in a very difficult position due to the pressure Apple is applying. They won’t roll over easily but the latest decisions coming out of Australia and Germany are cranking up the heat even more. Samsung won’t simply give up its mobile business because Apple wants them to but they are being forced in that direction nonetheless. This is very interesting, very good for Apple so far, and very bad for Samsung so far.

     

    Adam, I agree with you (and others that responded).  It was a thought (peyote induced) that I threw out there for comment. “Not saying this is the case” :  )

    Signature

    You can’t do more, make more, be more, than the next guy, if you think like the next guy. Think different.