Samsung Galaxy Tab not cool enough to infringe on iPad, according to U.K. judge
U.K. Colin Birss ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe of Apple's iPad design because -- Samsung's Galaxy Tab isn't cool enough to be confused with the iPad. Bloomberg has the quote:
The Galaxy tablets “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” Birss said. “They are not as cool.”
Apple has called Samsung a copyist, alleging their manufacturing partner simply apes everything Apple does in an attempt to grow market share by being the most Apple-like of the non-Apple alternatives. Attempts between Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Choi Gee-Sung to negotiate a settlement have failed. Apple has since won some temporarily injunctions in the U.S. over patents.
Although Samsung has been going in different directions recently, it's undeniable they've copied Apple designs to a ludicrous extent in the past, though it's far from certain doing so was illegal, let alone the primary reason for their success.
The late Steve Jobs famously called Android in general "grand theft" and vowed to go "thermonuclear" on them in court. Tim Cook has been cooler but no less serious, saying Apple can't be "developer to the world" and that competitors need to invent their own stuff.
Samsung is a giant company that makes everything from tablets to phones to refrigerators. Refrigerators tend to look remarkably alike. I wonder if anyone at Samsung even though twice about their smartphones or tablets looking like Apple's? Or if they thought making them look alike was actually a feature -- a benefit to users? Did they even think Apple would sue over trade dress?
How many refrigerator companies sue each other over design?
Source: Bloomberg
There are 7 comments. Add yours.
The Tab 10.1 [original] looks closer to an iPad [is thinner though] but after their redesign in the original injunction case it has definitely become less cool [looking].
Kinda interesting how you left out a key component of the ruling that states in no uncertain terms that Apple's design is more or less in a family of similar designs dating as far back as the early nineties. Basically that states that Apple "copied" prior art. Most likely the reason the prior design holders didn't sue is due to the fact a tablet can really only take one from factor, patenting a rectangular shaped with rounded corners and a glass display is just a little asinine but then to sue over it is borderline ridiculous.
Hahahahaha!!!! Samsung wins the law suit and still gets bitch slapped with a cut down by the judge! I love it!
This was quoted by Samsung.
"However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004.
"Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'
I have lots of questions. Doesn't the UK need to define into law how 'cool' is defined as before they can have a judge rule on what is 'cool' and what isn't? If so, how does the UK define 'cool'? 'Cool' will change over time so legislatively something could be 'uncool' by the time it is acknowledged as 'cool' by law. Or, does the UK simply allow the Monarch to judge 'cool' for the government? If it's the latter, than is letting a seasoned citizen judge 'cool' the right thing for the country? Anyone from the UK that can help? Thanks!
I am very glad to see this ruling. Judge Kohs in the US needs to be similarly educated regarding Prior Art. "The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004."
Here they are: http://gdeluxe.com/tablets-before-ipad-part-ii/
"Apple can't be 'developer to the world'"
I found that statement amusing, especially with how much iOS has been copying from other OSes in recent years.