The German court in Duesseldorf has just ruled that the injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will remain in effect, hereby contradicting the Dutch courts which threw out all of Apple’s claims. This limited injunction only covers Germany, and is based on a Community Design; the rest of Europe is not affected.Update IV: We finally have some more information from the courts, as well as a short response from Samsung. Big small reveal? The judge didn’t handle the iPad at all – he only handled the community design. Read on for more. Also, older updates are in the ‘read more’ as well.
So, Bloomberg has some quotes form the judge itself and from Samsung, and it’s all incredibly peculiar. While the judge in the Dutch court case – which covers the exact same community designs – ruled that not only did Samsung not infringe on Apple’s community designs, the community designs were most likely invalid due to being common sense (i.e., it’s virtually impossible to make a tablet in a different way) and because of loads of prior art. The Dutch judge ruled the community design probably wouldn’t survive a full court case.
The German judge’s ruling, however, is the exact opposite, stating that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 bears a “clear impression of similarity” with the iPad 2. “The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible,” the court states. The court further clarified to Bloomberg that they didn’t handle actual real iPads – only the 2004 community design which the Dutch judge threw out. Unbelievable. Expect this important detail to be ignored by most other news outlets and blogs.
It is important to note that this injunction and ruling have nothing to do with patents or trademarks – it’s all about the community design. The Dutch court case was much broader, and did include patents. Patents which, I might add, were thrown out by the Dutch court, while also ruling Samsung didn’t infringe (except for one which had no consequences).
Samsung, for its part, obviously isn’t happy. The company told Bloomberg that this “severely limits consumer choice in Germany” and that it “restricts design innovation and progress in the industry”. Samsung still has the opportunity to appeal, and the case in D~A 1/4 sseldorf will go ahead whether Samsung does so or not.
So, there you have it. The exact same community design, and two rulings that are each other’s polar opposites in every possible way. I love Germany to death (seriously, great country and great people, esp. in the former DDR), but this is a definite head-scratcher. In the comments, I mused about the influence of the German automotive industry on the receptiveness of the German courts in cases like this, but of course there’s no way to prove any of that. Still, it wouldn’t surprise me.
The Netherlands, on the other hand, doesn’t really have such a massive industry of its own, and we rely much more (close to solely) on free trade and product throughput into the rest of Europe – for us Dutch, it wouldn’t make sense to ban products, since it would harm the main pillar of our economy. It wouldn’t surprise me if this difference between Germany and The Netherlands explains why the rulings turned out so differently.
Old updates
Update: It just hit me that in appeals in Germany, Samsung can use the Dutch ruling, and Apple the German ruling. In appeals in The Netherlands, Apple can use the German ruling, and Samsung the Dutch ruling. Just goes to show: software patents and Community Designs are willy-nilly, and therefore, should not have a legal basis.
Update II: Galaxy Tab 7.7 is also included in the injunction. Bwuh?
Update III: Boo! Full ruling will become available a week from today. That press release says nothing about the 7.7, though. Odd.
They’ve moved on to Japan too:
Apple taps Japan court to ban sales of Samsung phones
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-apple-samsung-idUSTRE7…
but it only becomes Messier.
I notice that the judge has a nice shiny new Rolex watch. Of course I’m not suggesting that he is corrupt.
I don’t think he is. I think it’s just that Germany is more receptive to these kinds of issues due to the massive amounts of influence wielded by the German automotive industry.
I have lots of friends in Germany, and one of them once told me a story about how Volkswagen pressured the German government into changing the laws and regulations surrounding indicator lights. German law stated that the indicator lights on the front must be located on the *outer* sides of the headlamps, for better visibility.
Then Volkswagen introduced its new Golf (this was probably 6-7 years ago or something) with the front indicator lights located on the *inner* sides of the front headlamps, making them less visible. Volkswagen then simply pressured the German government into changing the law to allow this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the German courts are receptive to cases around patents and Community Designs simply because of the sheer size and importance of the German automotive industry to the German economy.
I can’t see how that relates to a Korean or American computer company.
It is also hard to imagine any other practical form factor for a tablet other than that used by the Galaxy or iPad.
It is meant to illustrate the power of the German automotive industry. What this means is that it is VERY likely that German competition and IP laws are attuned towards protecting the interests of German car makers, and hence, courts are more receptive to granting injunctions. Powerful and large industries influence and shape competition and IP laws, and this of course benefits *other* industries as well.
Mental.
It could still easily be overturned by higher court which is outside of this “German Texas”. IMHO, Apple failed to do what they wanted because this blocks only Samsung Germany from selling, so effectively this is only in Germany. Media-Markt and others can still sell the device, but not Samsung itself.
Do you have a source for this? Not saying it isn’t true – I just need a source
.
afaik stores are allowed to sell their stock, but they can not order additional devices from samsung
So Apple are proved to have falsified evidence and the judge doesn’t even want to view the original devices to form a truly accurate and impartial opinion?
What’s really pissed be off the most though is that instead of Apple being held accountable, they’re rewarded for what would be classed as criminal activities had it been any ‘normal’ individual.
“The court is of the opinion that Apple^aEURTMs minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer”
update: still cannot find words to explain how wrong all this is. cannot formulate reply
I suppose toggle switches, a monochrome CRT and a light pen could be used instead,
The judge is obviously a fricken’ idjut.
they have good products and they have brought about innovative ways of computing etc etc to the masses. I like their industrial design. Defintiely hate Mac OS X cause I am so used to the Start button on windows and in Gnome 3 using the windows key to launch whatever apps I want…but there is a reason why I have never ever paid for an Apple product and this explains just why.
On the other hand I am kind of glad that this has happened because that will force Samsung to really push the boundaries and think outside of the box and make some things more different than Apple looking hardware. Samsung is a big company they will move on past this and they will bring out bigger and better products. For starters why don’t they make a 12 inch tablet and also get rid of that darn thick bezel they have around the LCD? That should do the trick.
That’s where you hold it firmly with your thumb; tablets are too big to be “clenched” inside of a palm like smartphones.
Form-follows-function.
Why compete when you can litigate
I am a well-rounded individual here (Germanophile Apple product user with a South Korean wife); in a sense, these tensionally different ‘allegiances’ create paradoxically a neutral space from within which I can comment objectively.
My conclusion: APPLE DESERVES TO REAP WHAT IT SOWS, FFS.
Edit: typo
Edited 2011-09-09 19:41 UTC
Level of actually present objectivity is not a function of how much we are convinced into having it (it is, in fact, one of more typical cognitive biases), how many arguments which have only loose cause & effect chain we can see.
Unless: I take it that you think somebody who loves the Netherlands, uses Samsung & Android, and has a US spouse …would be in fact objective in assessing Apple behaviour as, say, corporate trolling?
Edited 2011-09-17 00:07 UTC
Apple sounds like a sick company now. Worse than MS of the 90-ies.
I doubt the German ruling will stick, for long, if taken to a higher court. I’m not in the EU, so I don’t know this, but are there higher EU wide courts? Are their decisions binding at the lower national level? After hearing about the Dutch case being all but thrown out of court, I was confidant the Australian one would go similarly, but now I don’t know what to think. Do you have any news on the Australian one?
Yes Samsung can still appeal in Germany and if they’d lose that as well the last step is to the EU Supreme court.
At least, that’s how it is in the Netherlands so my guess is it’s the same in Germany.
I don’t understand this. What other designs? Round tablets? Triangular tablets? Hexagonal? Square 4:3? There is no other designs! A flat rectangular shaped object is the only design. The only thing Samsung can do is put a few extra buttons (which I think is an excellent idea) to make it more accessible. This is ridiculous! Apple cannot hold a patent of something that’s square and flat. It is way too broad, logical and it’s common sense. I don’t understand how Apple manages to win these!
Edited 2011-09-10 08:55 UTC
The judge didn’t say all flat rectangular shaped tablets other than the iPad are illegal, the judge said other [Android] tablets currently on the market show that other designs are possible.
And that’s true. I would never confuse the Acer Iconia with an iPad.
http://www.acer.de/ac/de/DE/content/series/iconia-tab-a
It’s not round, it’s not triangular, it’s not hexagonal, it’s not square, but still, even on first sight, you can tell it’s definitely not an iPad, not even a hypothetical next generation widescreen iPad.
The Samsung tablet looks very much like an iPad, at least the front side.
Of course there are differences, too, e.g. the Galaxy is wider than the (current) iPad. But that’s not enough, at least not for the judge.
Imagine some Chinese car maker would clone the front side of the BMW i8. They would make it a bit wider and you could easily differentiate the cars by looking at the back side. Experts who regularly read car magazines or websites (just like we read computer magazines or websites) could also differentiate the front sides with ease.
Would that be ok? Would you really argue that BMW should shut up because you cannot make a car without four wheels and a windshield?
Maybe Apple would like to have a patent (or community design) for all rectangular tablets. Then they’re just as crazy as BMW would be if they wanted a patent covering all cars with four wheels, and you can (and should) criticise them.
But it’s not fair to use the same arguments against a judge who didn’t argue that all rectangular tablets are illegal, but only this particular tablet by Samsung is illegal, because it looks almost exactly like an iPad, where so many other designs (e.g. HTC Flyer, Acer Iconia) are also possible.