News - Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from Europe

[cameronlite]

the current crop are pretty much copying the ipads style. problem is, it would take a lot of thought to make another tablet that didn't look so much like it. but apple obviously spent a lot of thought on that specific design, so i'm sure with more thought someone could find a new design that's a bit different. slide out keyboard maybe, though probably very hard, but then you get slide out keyboards on some smart phones. touch screen on the back, buttons on the back or the front, i don't know, but it's not completely impossible

I think you'll find that you wouldn't just have to put a lot of thought into it, you'd most likely have to invent a worse device - now why would you do that?

[dangel]

holy multi quote. you know how hard it is to read them, or how horrible?

Not very - you really found that hard to follow? First time i've seen someone moan about it here anyway.

the tab with the keyboard thing that turns into a netbook is one of the non clone tablets. it's perhaps the best ipad alternative, as regards to looks/specs/etc, although i've never played with one in the flesh, the idea is great

Odd thing is, I though they ALL looked similar @ lunch today. In fact, it did surprise me that the transformer in particular didn't look a World away from the GT (sans keyboard obviously). The point is here that a tablet will naturally be an incredibly generic looking thing - it's very hard to differentiate them (after all it's a portable touchscreen and not a lot else). You can only really differentiate in software, ports or addons (all of which vary from device to device) - which you touched on when talking about the car analogy (which is flawed I agree) where the scope is much wider.

But what's really perplexing here is that Apples *own* submitted design is far more generic than their own iPad 1/2 - and deliberately so (this is what you pay the men in suits to do to broaden your claim as far as possible - I've seen it done on my own patents) which is what has people going "wtf" and so forth when trying to work out what exactly makes sense about granting such a thing in the first place.

[Unique]

I think you'll find that you wouldn't just have to put a lot of thought into it, you'd most likely have to invent a worse device - now why would you do that?

i think that's a narrow minded point of view

look at previous tablets before the ipad. the ipad looks nothing like them

imagine what a tablet would look like in 5 or 10 years. do you think it would look like the ipad?

do you think it would be a worse device?


with some real thought and investment people can come up with different and better ideas. it's been happening through history. so has copying ideas

take a week and think of a different design for a tablet to the ipad. i bet you can. especially if you think of original tablets that were basically laptops with a screen that turned round and laid on top of the keyboard. think of how you could make the ipad better. i've already mentioned a way as an example, a slide out keyboard. i'll give you another idea, a laser keyboard. remember the keyboards that shone a laser on the desk and you typed in the spaces?

if apple's patent meant that no-one could have that type of design at all, do you reall think it would stop people from making tablets? or do you think they would try and make a better and different tablet?

[Unique]

Not very - you really found that hard to follow? First time i've seen someone moan about it here anyway.



Odd thing is, I though they ALL looked similar @ lunch today. In fact, it did surprise me that the transformer in particular didn't look a World away from the GT (sans keyboard obviously). The point is here that a tablet will naturally be an incredibly generic looking thing - it's very hard to differentiate them (after all it's a portable touchscreen and not a lot else). You can only really differentiate in software, ports or addons (all of which vary from device to device) - which you touched on when talking about the car analogy (which is flawed I agree) where the scope is much wider.

But what's really perplexing here is that Apples *own* submitted design is far more generic than their own iPad 1/2 - and deliberately so (this is what you pay the men in suits to do to broaden your claim as far as possible - I've seen it done on my own patents) which is what has people going "wtf" and so forth when trying to work out what exactly makes sense about granting such a thing in the first place.

so your lunchtime trip has basically shown that everyone is copying apples design, and apple has been lucky? or spent a lot of time and money on research and design? to come up with a design that's an instant classic. and that's what others are copying

just look at previous tablets. laptops with reversed screens, or devices with tray like handles on the side, functional to a point, but bulky and not particularly asthetically pleasing. apple came up with the look that every wants or wants to copy

my point is that as there were different designs of tablets in the past, there will be different designs of tablets in the future. i'm not a designer so i don't know what they would be. perhaps a slide out keyboard, or the laser keyboard. maybe something like the court stenographs where you hold in both hands and press buttons on the back to type. but apple created the multitouch screen on the tablet, not stylus required, no keyboard required, plus the good looks. they got the style right and the functionality right. they really got onto a winner, and that winner is hard to beat, but not unbeatable. maybe something like kinnect that will use gestures, maybe something like the wii that uses more movements. as you can see, each time we come to a point where we think we can't get much further, someone comes along with a new idea. then someone will copy it if it's good!

take pc's, you could say they all look the same, but really, whislt they are all typically boxy things, the internals and externals are different, plus there's probably a ton of patents and copyrights paid for in each model

of course for other tablet makers to make something truly original would take a lot more effort and time to create. i presume apple planned the ipad long before it was announced, but competitors could only start around that time, so apple had the jump on them. but then the competitors took the ideas and copied them to catch up to now. but is that really fair? we all love nice cheap stuff, but think about the millions apple invested to create the ipad, before the manufacturing costs, and think about how much the other companies saved by not requiring the same element of research. plus when you consider that no-one wanted or needed a tablet before the ipad, apple basically created the market that others are trying to take a bite off

and these are all huge multinational companies, so saying apple is a big bully to the likes of samsung or motorola is ridiculous. samsung are so big they make parts for apple. apple don't actually make anything! they just design and market and outsource manufacturing

it does beg the question as to how apple pulled this off. how come no-one else did? just over 10 years ago apple were nearly down the pan. the idea of the ipod saved them. no other big manufacturer managed to take the idea and make it big like they did. same with smartphones. they were all very much for the yuppie businessman until apple persuaded everyone they can't possible spend more than 30 seconds away from facebook and twitter. how come nokia or motorola or sony couldn't do that? then the ipad, i dunno, asus, microsoft, sony, what happened? how did the company with the tiny share in the computer market take the entire market for a third new, but not really entirely new product

and what next? what tech product is currently languishing? what is the next thing someone could relaunch as a big thing? using marketing to persuade people they really want it, whether they need it or not? are apple going to get that market too?

the problem is there are too few real innovators these days, or at least people who can take a good idea, make it better and make it work

maybe it will take a new company, or a newish one like google. maybe the 80s and 90s tech companies will slowly go the way of other companies from the 50s and 60s that didn't move with the times

what's the next big thing? wireless. that's wire free. get rid of the wires in your house that connect your hifi and tv. get rid of the power sockets and plugs. can't be done? are you sure? what about the inducting charging devices or the electric car charges that don't even touch? wireless speakers

i think the next thing in a few years will be something that few will think off now. 20 years ago who thought you would be listening to music from computer based devices like ipods and not cds? 15 years ago who thought we could access the internet on mobile phones or download movies and music from the internet

flying cars may have been the dream a few decades ago but what's the new realistic dream? tomorrows possibility?

[cameronlite]

i think that's a narrow minded point of view

While it would be a narrow minded view in other aspects of technology i don't think it applies here.

That design is generic - it is a screen with buttons on the side and a port at the base. Innovation is great but at the end of the day the tablet form factor is a screen size of about 10" which front and back cameras with buttons that are on the side because there's a screen on the front!

Please, please tell me how you could make a tablet that doesn't follow that design. You can't, because the definition of a tablet itself can't be protected.

It would be like Samsung sueing Sony because their laptops have a 15.6" screen on hinges with a keyboard and ports on the side. If I'm wrong, please identify the differences between this tablet dispute and my invented laptop dispute...

imagine what a tablet would look like in 5 or 10 years. do you think it would look like the ipad?

Technically... if it's going to be classed as a tablet, it has to have a screen on the front with buttons on the side and a port for charging (unless wireless power is effective by then!) Otherwise it isn't a tablet...

[HolograM]

We need a balance here, between protecting your investmemt on one hand, and trying to corner a market by litigation on the other hand. I think Apple have gone too far, and I rather hope this case fails badly.

[semo]

but the car analogy, cars have all sorts of shapes and sizes, and as i mentioned before, we've had tablets long before the ipad, but none that looked like the ipad.

A few years ago I read about a study that showed how similar modern cars look. They took off the badges and all other recognisable trademark features such as the grilles. They found that most subjects couldn't id the car brands. 4 wheels, 4 doors, engine at the front, etc...

The GT is a different size compared to the ipad. If Samsung chopped off the corners so that their tablet looks more like an octagon, Apple will probably still protest. Not because someone might confuse the brands but because consumers will exercise their right to choose, and decide not to buy a fruit.

I'm not defending Samsung (in fact I hate them for helping Apple achieve such domination) but I would hate for them to loose this battle out of principle.

[dangel]

the problem is there are too few real innovators these days, or at least people who can take a good idea, make it better and make it work

Oddly enough there's a lot of commonality in what I actually said and how you interpreted it but you're still wide of the mark for most of that post aside from the above. Ask yourself why innovation is being stifled - think carefully - in this specific case. I've no hate for Apple but things do not look right to me from what information i've seen so far - and I'd say that if the roles were reversed..

HolograM's call for balance is exactly right.

[crossy]

Odd thing is, I though they ALL looked similar @ lunch today. In fact, it did surprise me that the transformer in particular didn't look a World away from the GT (sans keyboard obviously). The point is here that a tablet will naturally be an incredibly generic looking thing - it's very hard to differentiate them (after all it's a portable touchscreen and not a lot else). You can only really differentiate in software, ports or addons (all of which vary from device to device) - which you touched on when talking about the car analogy (which is flawed I agree) where the scope is much wider.

Hmm, I'm going to disagree to an extent - the Iconia does look different from the front to the iPads, similarly there's no way you could mistake one of the Archos tablets for an iPad either. I'll vehemently disagree that the Transformer looks like the Galaxy Tab - desktop etc are obviously identical, but from any other view than face-on the difference is clear. Interesting that the design filing being referred to doesn't actually carry the single button that I'd understood was Apple's "trademark".

so your lunchtime trip has basically shown that everyone is copying apples design, and apple has been lucky? or spent a lot of time and money on research and design? to come up with a design that's an instant classic. and that's what others are copying
[rest of post reluctantly snipped]

No, no, no, no! The point that I (and others) are trying to make is that today's tablet consists of a screen, battery, "guts" and case. And while I totally agree with your assertions that we need to see more innovation, the fact remains that you need a (relatively!) cheap, portable, lightweight device that you can (easily?) operate standing up. Hence you end up with something akin to a writing pad with the screen at the front and a minimal bezel to keep bulk and weight down. Which is exactly what some dingbat in the EU has granted rights to Apple for! Yes, I'd like to see gesture, keyboards etc - but they'd compromise one or more of the cheap/portable/light/one-handed-operation requirements. IMHO, the current granted design right is as dumb as if Levi's got a similar design right for trousers (stitched fabric to wrap around pelvis and legs with storage pockets and a method of fastening the waistband).

Note that after consideration my argument is really with the halfwit in the EU who granted this. I would have zero problem with Apple having filed a right that - for example - specified the normal tablet format and included their trademark (?) single button. That said, I'm somewhat annoyed at Apple that they sought to merely go after #2 in the sales list, rather than all major "infringers" - e.g. HP, Asus, Acer, Blackberry, Motorola, etc. I'm annoyed, but I understand the commercial reasons.

Excellent post of yours by the way - very thoughtful.

We need a balance here, between protecting your investmemt on one hand, and trying to corner a market by litigation on the other hand. I think Apple have gone too far, and I rather hope this case fails badly.

As I said above, this DR should never have been granted - since (based on my minimal understanding of the issues) if Apple decide to fully enforce it then they're going to end up with a monopoly on tablet sales in the EU - which I would politely suggest that even the most pro-Appleista would agree is bad news for consumers. So, like you, I hope Apple lose this case and the whole market can move on...

[dangel]

Hmm, I'm going to disagree to an extent - the Iconia does look different from the front to the iPads, similarly there's no way you could mistake one of the Archos tablets for an iPad either. I'll vehemently disagree that the Transformer looks like the Galaxy Tab - desktop etc are obviously identical, but from any other view than face-on the difference is clear. Interesting that the design filing being referred to doesn't actually carry the single button that I'd understood was Apple's "trademark".

The comparison I was making was in the context of the design filing to some extent but.. TBH I really was surprised how similar the GT and the Transformer look IRL - yes I was mainly looking head on but the size and general shape was much of a muchness to me. I'd expected the Transformer to be 'chunky' for some reason by comparison to the GT - and I was all set to go with the GT until seeing them for myself. Now i'm er.. undecided
Anyway, all as a potential punter and all from my POV and IMHO.

[Scott B]

I agree with the general thrust of this thread - that a tablet is by definition a rectangular touch-screen powered by some components and buttons - and thus should not be the intellectual property of any one party.

But the other thing that seems to be overlooked is that most of the value of a tablet comes from the platform, which is the main reason Apple continues to dominate. I think Samsung and co should be able to argue that simply by using a different platform they have made a completely different product.

[Moby-Dick]

looks like Apple are after the Xoom too.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/0...ola-Xoom-In-EU

[Unique]

While it would be a narrow minded view in other aspects of technology i don't think it applies here.

That design is generic - it is a screen with buttons on the side and a port at the base. Innovation is great but at the end of the day the tablet form factor is a screen size of about 10" which front and back cameras with buttons that are on the side because there's a screen on the front!

Please, please tell me how you could make a tablet that doesn't follow that design. You can't, because the definition of a tablet itself can't be protected.

It would be like Samsung sueing Sony because their laptops have a 15.6" screen on hinges with a keyboard and ports on the side. If I'm wrong, please identify the differences between this tablet dispute and my invented laptop dispute...



Technically... if it's going to be classed as a tablet, it has to have a screen on the front with buttons on the side and a port for charging (unless wireless power is effective by then!) Otherwise it isn't a tablet...

why do you have to have the buttons on the side? why can't you have them on the front or the back?

there is already a button on the front of the ipad. so why can't somone else put more buttons on the front if that's the problem. how many buttons do you really need on a tablet? on and off and maybe one more. you could put recessed buttons or switches in the bottom, so they are only pressed when you want to. it's not entirely necessary to have them on the side

i don't think the issue is with the cables either, but induction charging is possible, although i would imagine if someone was going to do it first on a table it would be a fruity named company

with laptops or desktops there is a lot more to the design. if you look at a load of laptops in a computer shop from different manufacturers they will all look different, but the tablets do bear a striking resemblance to the ipad, which is very different to the stylings of any previous tablets. so it's perfectly possible to create tablets that don't look like the ipad. you just need to be more open minded about the approach. to use an over used term, think outside the box

[Unique]

I agree with the general thrust of this thread - that a tablet is by definition a rectangular touch-screen powered by some components and buttons - and thus should not be the intellectual property of any one party.

But the other thing that seems to be overlooked is that most of the value of a tablet comes from the platform, which is the main reason Apple continues to dominate. I think Samsung and co should be able to argue that simply by using a different platform they have made a completely different product.

i agree that apples iphone and ipad are nicer due to the OS, but i think apple would also argue that others have copied iOS too. look at the samsung iphone. how much closer to looking like an iphone could they get? they just need to stick a pear on the back with a bite taken out

[Unique]

A few years ago I read about a study that showed how similar modern cars look. They took off the badges and all other recognisable trademark features such as the grilles. They found that most subjects couldn't id the car brands. 4 wheels, 4 doors, engine at the front, etc...

The GT is a different size compared to the ipad. If Samsung chopped off the corners so that their tablet looks more like an octagon, Apple will probably still protest. Not because someone might confuse the brands but because consumers will exercise their right to choose, and decide not to buy a fruit.

I'm not defending Samsung (in fact I hate them for helping Apple achieve such domination) but I would hate for them to loose this battle out of principle.

i'm not into cars, but you have a number of different basic shapes of cars, like mini, hatchback, estate, sports car etc. and you have different stylings on each. i have to say that there are a lot of medium size cars that all look pretty similar, but if you did line them up you would be able to tell differences such as the grill etc. whether you can tell the brand is another thing altogether. i'm not sure that's the issue with apple rather than them creating the perfect "generic" design and other companies instead of trying to create something different are just copying it instead

i suppose you could make the pad a slightly different shape even with the screen the same size. create vastly exagerated more rounded corners. but would that make it any better? probably not. so what would make a better design that was different? i don't know or i'd be a designer. but that's up to the manufacturers to figure out. how to create something of their own

[cameronlite]

i agree that apples iphone and ipad are nicer due to the OS, but i think apple would also argue that others have copied iOS too. look at the samsung iphone. how much closer to looking like an iphone could they get? they just need to stick a pear on the back with a bite taken out

I'm not going to argue with you there! They are almost clones, visibly - but this isn't what they are using in their legal battle...

why do you have to have the buttons on the side? why can't you have them on the front or the back?

there is already a button on the front of the ipad. so why can't somone else put more buttons on the front if that's the problem. how many buttons do you really need on a tablet? on and off and maybe one more. you could put recessed buttons or switches in the bottom, so they are only pressed when you want to. it's not entirely necessary to have them on the side

with laptops or desktops there is a lot more to the design. if you look at a load of laptops in a computer shop from different manufacturers they will all look different, but the tablets do bear a striking resemblance to the ipad, which is very different to the stylings of any previous tablets. so it's perfectly possible to create tablets that don't look like the ipad. you just need to be more open minded about the approach. to use an over used term, think outside the box

The fact is that you wouldn't put volume buttons that you use now and again on the front, and you certainly wouldn't put them on the back incase the table is on a surface. As for recessed buttons, i think that's too subtle a change to really distinguish between tablets and Apples design permit (or whatever it it )

Again, you wouldn't put buttons on the base, because if you're holding the tablet, your hands aren't usually on the base!

Regarding your laptop comment, draw a picture of a laptop shell and then tell me it doesn't represent almost every laptop. My point is: Apples tablet design that they are using in court is pretty much the definition of a sodding tablet, the same would be true if you drew a laptop shell.