News - Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from Europe

[Saracen]

..... Which is exactly what some dingbat in the EU has granted rights to Apple for!

.... 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 .....

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...

A technical point for you. In the UK, design rights aren't granted, they're automatic and inherent in any qualifying product. It's rather like copyright - it's inherent in the creation of an "artistic"work. If I right a book or take a photo or compose some music, I don't have to do zip for it top be protected by copyright. The same applies to design rights - if a product meets the criteria, it's protected. Period.

But design rights and "Registered Design" are different. The latter you have to apply for, and pay for.

Similar distinctions apply EWU-wide to "Registered" and unregistered Community Designs. The former you apply for (but not pay for, as it's free), and the latter you get automatically. The difference, as with the UK, is in the level and especially duration of protection. The explicitly registered designs last for longer than the free ones (a LOT longer, in the case of EU Community Designs), and the protections are stronger.


Which Apple are relying on here I've no idea. But if it's an unregistered design, nobody in the EU granted it.


It's also worth pointing out that these rights don't just apply to anything anyone designs,. The need to have an element of originality of character, and just about all exclude "features dictated by technical function."

[cameronlite]

On a seperate note, I can confirm Apple sueing Motorola.

They're sueing Moto, but it's actually Atmel (who make their screen logic) that have breached a patent (Apple think). Atmel are putting up a pretty good, logical fight, so I can see Apple losing it.

Assuming that Apple are only sueing over one patent, which is unlikely.

[Saracen]

....

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.

That's not what they're fighting over, though. It's the design, not the functionality. At least, as I understand it, it is.

[Unique]

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".

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.

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...

well we don't know much about the precise details of this case, but i do know a bit more about levi's in particular actually so we could use that as an example and comparison

levi's don't own a trademark as you say, thus other people can make jeans that look pretty generic and similar to the same jeans levi makes. what we take from that is that the ruling here isn't that someone can't make a rectangular or square touch screen tablet that you can hold in your hand

levi's own a number of patents such as having the "red tab" on the back of the jeans. levi's patent is for a tab on a particular pocket on the jean, and in any colour. thus why levis have silver tab, orange tab etc, that's specifically so no-one else can use a tab with say "pepe" so from a slight distance it looks like someone is wearing levis. they also have the pocket stitching designs and a bunch of other things. what we can take from that, is it's the placement of certain aspects that apple have the rights too, thus by moving those items elsewhere, such as from the side to the top or the back, you could create a tablet without infringing

if you look at it from an outsider, as a judge should do, apple have spent a lot of money developing a product for others to copy, without spending that money on development, yet eating into apples sales. is that really fair?

of course it's great for the consumer if we can have cheaper options, but so far we don't. we have alternative products around the same price that aren't really any better, such as the galaxy tab, or we have cheap crap that few people want. it's not like the galaxy tab is half the price of the ipad and still does all the same basic functions. samsung haven't really created something for the people to get onto the tablet market with. the overwhelming majority of people who want a tablet who have that level of funds to spare have choose the ipad. of those who haven't bought an ipad, i'd say the overwhelming majority just want something cheaper that works well and wouldn't mind if it wasn't apple branded if they saved money. but samsung haven't provided that. and android is hardly to ios what windows is to osx. whilst many people say they like android, i'd say ios was better, whilst i'm very much a windows man over osx. stick windows on a reasonably priced tablet that works well, and you got me. as much as i like ios on my iphone, i'd rather have windows thankyouverymuch on a tablet over anything else. osx might be nice on a tablet too, but they haven't yet agreed that we can sell our kidneys in the uk so that's a no go for me

[Saracen]

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.

....

I take your point, but that's a different issue, isn't it? Cars are similar, as I understand it, because they come from the same design process, that being wind-tunnel testing and it's simply the case that basic shapes are determined by factors like aerodynamic efficiency, not least because it impacts on fuel efficiency.

And, as I said a post or two back, design rights and registered designs exclude "features dictated by technical function."

If, for instance, Samsung could convincingly argue that button have to be that shape, that size and in that location, because that's where fingers will reach to, then they could argue that it's dictated by technical function, and Apple's case would, expensively, fail. But that's a big if.

So the issue, as I see it, is just how close to Apple's designs did Samsung get, and why? Hologram is dead right, it's a function of balance.

[Unique]

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...



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.

as myself and others have mentioned, it's not the basic shape that's appears to be the problem, but more in the detail

of course you can put volume buttons and on and off buttons in the base that are recessed. how often do you need to use those buttons? i don't have an ipad but as far as i understand it's just a big iphone with the same buttons. so on the side you have on/off, volume and mute, and on the front the home button or whatever it's called. you typically turn these devices on or off rarely as they go into sleep mode, so you don't need the on/off switch to be instantly accessible all the time. same with the mute button, and same with the volume button. i rarely use those buttons at all on my iphone. the home button is the important one to get out out of apps

it's the same thing with laptops, it's not the basic idea of a portable computer with screen and keyboard that folds, it's more in the detail of look

[Saracen]

well we don't know much about the precise details of this case, but i do know a bit more about levi's in particular actually so we could use that as an example and comparison

levi's don't own a trademark as you say, thus other people can make jeans that look pretty generic and similar to the same jeans levi makes. what we take from that is that the ruling here isn't that someone can't make a rectangular or square touch screen tablet that you can hold in your hand

levi's own a number of patents such as having the "red tab" on the back of the jeans. levi's patent is for a tab on a particular pocket on the jean, and in any colour. thus why levis have silver tab, orange tab etc, that's specifically so no-one else can use a tab with say "pepe" so from a slight distance it looks like someone is wearing levis. they also have the pocket stitching designs and a bunch of other things. what we can take from that, is it's the placement of certain aspects that apple have the rights too, thus by moving those items elsewhere, such as from the side to the top or the back, you could create a tablet without infringing....

Levi's have patents, but I'll bet that that tab is not one of them. It might be a Trademark, but not a patent. Patent's are about inventions, processes etc, that involve inventive elements and are about how things work, what they're made of, and so forth. They're not about design fripperies or branding.

To be fair, this is a very common misconception, about the exact differences between copyright, patents, Trademarks and "design rights". It's also about "passing off". If you have a red tab in the same place that said "Lives", or "Loves", it might be regards as passing off. I seem to remember a shop getting a legal clobbering, some years ago, for Harrods, for using the name "Horrods", but not just that (which would have been fair enough) but using the famous gold lettering on a dark green bag, and using the same typeface. It was close to inconceivable that it was coincidence, and was deemed (quite rightly, in my view) to be cynical exploitation of someone else's branding.

[Unique]

Levi's have patents, but I'll bet that that tab is not one of them. It might be a Trademark, but not a patent. Patent's are about inventions, processes etc, that involve inventive elements and are about how things work, what they're made of, and so forth. They're not about design fripperies or branding.

To be fair, this is a very common misconception, about the exact differences between copyright, patents, Trademarks and "design rights". It's also about "passing off". If you have a red tab in the same place that said "Lives", or "Loves", it might be regards as passing off. I seem to remember a shop getting a legal clobbering, some years ago, for Harrods, for using the name "Horrods", but not just that (which would have been fair enough) but using the famous gold lettering on a dark green bag, and using the same typeface. It was close to inconceivable that it was coincidence, and was deemed (quite rightly, in my view) to be cynical exploitation of someone else's branding.

whatever it was, they had many specific rights so people couldn't make cheap jeans that could fool people from a distance into looking like levis, with the red tab being the most obvious mark of those jeans to let people know you were wearing levis. it was a good few years ago when a levis rep explained all of this. it didn't really stop all the dodgy factories making fakes, but having seen a number of them you could tell easily as the quality was crap by comparison. if you weren't familiar with the products you wouldn't have something to measure the difference, but if you worked with the products it was easy to tell

a number of companies reguarly take action against people copying styles, mcdonalds in particular will sue anyone they can for having a company called MCsomething

[Saracen]

whatever it was, they had many specific rights so people couldn't make cheap jeans that could fool people from a distance into looking like levis, with the red tab being the most obvious mark of those jeans to let people know you were wearing levis. it was a good few years ago when a levis rep explained all of this. it didn't really stop all the dodgy factories making fakes, but having seen a number of them you could tell easily as the quality was crap by comparison. if you weren't familiar with the products you wouldn't have something to measure the difference, but if you worked with the products it was easy to tell

a number of companies reguarly take action against people copying styles, mcdonalds in particular will sue anyone they can for having a company called MCsomething

Oh sure, but is it not legitimate to protect your investment, whether you're Levi's, Harrods, Rolex, McD's ..... or Apple.

There's a range of events, though. On the one hand, there's sheer piracy, making cheap crap (like cigarettes, perfume, fake CD/DVDs etc) and pretending they're the legit product. On the other end, there's legit companies with legit products coming, allegedly, just a bit too close to someone else's design rights.

But .... there's a market for cheap, crappy Rolexes. Some people think it looks good, and either can't afford or won't pay for the real thing. Then there's fakes that are anything but cheap, but are such good replicas they're hard, or next to impossible, to tell from the real thing. But they're ALL exploiting Riolex's brand, because people are brand/fashion conscious, and may corporations exploit that hugely.

I don't blamer Levi's for taking action against cheap replicas, whenever they can. One reason will be that if people buy cheap fakes not realising they're fakes, the poor quality could damage Levi's brand, and image. Personally, I regard Levi pricing as outrageous, and I will not pay what they expect for a pair of jeans. I don;t care about "fashion", and I don't care what other people think about what I'm wearing ... which, right now, is a £3 pair of ASDA "George" jeans. I'm sure the fashion police regard that as a cardinal sin and a sign of a lack of taste and style, but that's fine, because I regard the fashion conscious that will pay Levi prices for a pair of jeans as pretentious idiots with far more money than sense. Each to his own.

But Levi's can only charge what they charge because of fashion, and branding, IMHO. So naturally, they want to protect the namer, brand and fashion image.

As do Apple.

Part of the culture of Apple is users being seen as (or think they're seen as, depending on your perspective) as "cool", or whatever the current in-vogue expression is, because they've got an Apple, being it iPhone, iPod, or iWhatever. That's partly about logos, hence the distinctive Apple logo on, most products, but it's also about recognisability at a glance, and that is about shape, appearance, design. Hence (IMHO) this case.

I don't think it's about Apple wanting to monopolise the market. They know, for an absolute certainty, they aren't going to do that. It is about getting as large a slice of the premium end of the market as they can, and part of that is about a distinctive "at-a-glance" design that confers that supposedly iconic status to their products. In other words, they want premium products at a premium price, and they don't want that iconic cachet undercut by products from others that are hard to tell apart from their "iconic" products.

[dangel]

I don't think it's about Apple wanting to monopolise the market. They know, for an absolute certainty, they aren't going to do that.

Whilst that's true, if you had the opportunity to keep a market for yourself you'd do it - even if it wasn't long term.

I like the jeans analogy - although nobody seems to have suggested putting the buttons on the rear..

[cameronlite]

I like the jeans analogy - although nobody seems to have suggested putting the buttons on the rear..

Apple don't make jeans, but if they did, they'd just work - unlike our current jeans of course.

It's also because nobody is stupid enough to sacrifice being able to put on your jeans without requiring a carer because somebody else came up with a capable idea first.

[crossy]

I don't think it's about Apple wanting to monopolise the market. They know, for an absolute certainty, they aren't going to do that. It is about getting as large a slice of the premium end of the market as they can, and part of that is about a distinctive "at-a-glance" design that confers that supposedly iconic status to their products. In other words, they want premium products at a premium price, and they don't want that iconic cachet undercut by products from others that are hard to tell apart from their "iconic" products.

I don't have a problem with Apple trying to protect "their look" - e.g. if Samsung made a phone that was a visual clone of iPhone4 then fine, I'd be quite content if Apple wanted to sue the pants off them. Similarly with the tablet - if we're talking about the tablet form factor device with the chrome/black surround, thin, single large button on the front and a smooth, curved mono-colour back - then that screams "iPad" to me. So if you've got Samsung, Motorola etc doing the same then fine fire away - sue the blighters! What I do have a problem with is with Apple trying to grab the entire "modern" tablet form factor - i.e. any thin, portable, rectangular, keyboard-less , battery-powered, network-capable, computing device - as their exclusive purview - yes, they did popularize the device family, but that's no justification for the legal strong-arming against all others that they seem to be aiming at.

If, for instance, Samsung could convincingly argue that button have to be that shape, that size and in that location, because that's where fingers will reach to, then they could argue that it's dictated by technical function, and Apple's case would, expensively, fail. But that's a big if.

I'd like to see Apple fail on this "technical function" caveat - but like you I think it unlikely. That said - although my knowledge in this area is microscopic, didn't there used to be (in UK at least) some benchmark where it was whether the man-in-the-street could distinguish? If a "commoner" could distinguish the two products, then the defence wins, otherwise the offending product is regarded as a "clone". And yes, I fully realise that this is the EU, so lord-only knows what yardstick is being applied.

Apple don't make jeans, but if they did, they'd just work - unlike our current jeans of course. It's also because nobody is stupid enough to sacrifice being able to put on your jeans without requiring a carer because somebody else came up with a capable idea first.

Hmm, my jeans work fine. Based on my experience with Apple's testicle, sorry "technical", support so far if they made jeans I think a kilt would start to appeal...
... although if the current spell o' weather continues then I think an investment in a websuit would be more appropriate.

[Scott B]

That's not what they're fighting over, though. It's the design, not the functionality. At least, as I understand it, it is.

Indeed, I'm just saying that if Apple is accusing Samsung of damaging its sales and/or brand by copying, the entirety of the offending product should be considered.

[cameronlite]

if we're talking about the tablet form factor device with the chrome/black surround, thin, single large button on the front and a smooth, curved mono-colour back - then that screams "iPad" to me. So if you've got Samsung, Motorola etc doing the same then fine fire away - sue the blighters!

I seem to be missing something massive here.

Single large front button:
- logical, appeals to both left and right handed people
- smooth, curved, mono-colour back, instead of a rainbow coloured back? Mono makes sense really! I must admit, i do prefer the back of my tablets to be hard and jagged. Certainly not smooth and curved, heavens no.
- chrome edging, alright, you can have that one....
- thin! thin! How can thin scream iPad to you?

The only thing you have is the chrome surround - everything else if just plain logical.

[Saracen]

Whilst that's true, if you had the opportunity to keep a market for yourself you'd do it - even if it wasn't long term.

....

That depends how you define "market".

There's often more than one market for a product type. For instance, a Cross fountain pen and a BIC. Or a cheap Casio from a market and a Patek Philippe. One product strategy is pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap. You don't make much profit per unit, but you sell a LOT of units. Another strategy is to be up-market, premium, exclusive. There's a reason why BMW produce M-series in limited numbers. I bought an M3 as one of the last available in a production run. No more were made for many months. If, for instance, Rolex were go go after cornering the market, they might produce a lot of watches in the short term, but they'd destroy the image of Rolex as an aspirational product permanently.

Apple are after that somewhat premium sector, which while still shifting in serious volume, is NOT aimed at the stack 'em high in a corner of ASDA philosophy. They're after the iconic fashion status of a "must have" device, the tech version of Rolex marketing. They don't (IMHO) want to devalue that iconic status for short-term gain, when they know that played right, it's a status that will last for years and years, perhaps permanently. They want the brand recognition of a Rolls Royce or Rolex, and that not only means not flooding the market themselves, but preventing anyone else from flooding the market with look-alikes.

And sure, they'll sell as many as they can make and shift .... on their terms. Those terms include premium pricing, because it ensures margins are very healthy.

So yes, they want the market to themselves, but their market is the premium end of tablets, smartphones, etc, not shifting boxes in bulk but cutting prices and hence margins to the bone. It's about maximising profit, long-term, not about short-term success at the expense of long-term potential for milking us over and over again for the latest must-have gadget.

And millions of us fall for it, as evidenced by the number of people that upgrade a perfectly function device for the latest model because it's the latest model. I remember looking at a year-old Ferrari, with under 1500 miles on the clock. The owner had replaced it because the reg plate had last year's letter on it, so he ordered a new one (every year) for August 1st delivery. That's an extreme example, but it's Apple philosophy .... high margins, iconic status fashion technology.

[Saracen]

Indeed, I'm just saying that if Apple is accusing Samsung of damaging its sales and/or brand by copying, the entirety of the offending product should be considered.

I'd say it's more like Rolex trying to take replicas off the market, but not trying to prevent Patek Philippe from marketing world-class watches (and, as far as I'm concerned, better quality ones than Rolex).

And, after all, the functionality of any watch (*) is pretty similar. It tells the time. And the design criteria are limited, too .... dial, hands, a knob or two too wind and/or adjust time, and a strap with some sort of catch.

But within those criteria, there's a vast array of designs.

Sure, you can buy a relatively cheap analog watch with a cheap movement, or you can buy that Patek Philippe with a world class movement. It's like the Apple/Android argument - what's going on inside isn't the issue, it's the appearance, the external design that's in dispute. Rolex and Patek Philippe (and many others) manage to make devices as simple, in terms of functionality, as a watch, with huge variation in design and appearance, without tripping over each other's design rights. Why can't Samsung (according to Apple).

Personally, I have no opinion on whether Samsung have infringed design rights. I haven't studied either produce closely enough, and certainly haven't compared. But I can see Apple's point IF the Samsung product is really that close.

Nor am I exactly an Apple fan. For instance, I bought a Creative Labs Zen not an iPod for two reasons - musical quality, and that it wasn't Apple. For the same reason, I doubt I'd ever buy a Rolex.

Nonetheless, I can see Apple's reasoning and why they;d take action to protect their design right, and if the Samsung really is that close, I kinda blame Samsung for cutting it too close.

I still hope, though, as I said earlier, that Apple fail.

(*) I'm talking conventional, analog, not digital.