Okay, I didn’t see this one coming. German press agency dpa is reporting that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction barring Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 from being distributed in the entire European Union except for The Netherlands, over a design patent. Competition at its finest, people, and this is clearly in the interest of consumers. I’m ashamed to be European. Updates in the article now. This iterative update process isn’t really working when you’ve got a gazillion of them.
Instant update: Two ‘short hearings’ will take place this week in The Hague, in which Apple demands an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Wednesday) and the Galaxy S smartphones (Thursday). I will try to report on the outcomes of these two cases as quickly as possible. I’m hoping my legal system isn’t as idiotic as that of Duesseldorf. At the same time, Samsung has filed for a ‘bottom procedure’ in The Netherlands against Apple, which is a lengthy court case where all details will be taken into account (as opposed to a short hearing which is just to get a quick, temporary ruling).
Update II: As Mueller points out in an updated version of his post, this isn’t about patents. This injunction is based on a Community Design, which is a sort of EU-wide trademark. The Community Design is literally just that – a few drawings of a generic device. These drawings (Community Design 000181607-0001) could fit basically anything to my untrained eye, but alas.
Update III: From the Community Design directive: “A Community design shall not subsist in features of appearance of a product which are solely dictated by its technical function.” Really now.
Update IV: I’m browsing though Apple’s Community Designs (enter ‘Apple’ at owner), and they have at least a thousand of them – the search results are limited to 1000. This is absolutely idiotic – while some of them are clearly Apple products, most of them are just generic designs, and in fact, Apple seems to iterate their Community Designs – starting with basic shapes, moving all the way up to photos of actual devices, with each iteration being a separate, enforceable filing! Many are truly and utterly generic – take a look at this one, or this, or this (a stretched black rectangle ffs!), or this (a folder icon!). Apple can sue pretty much ANY product maker with this. This is like a slumbering and unknown version of the USPTO!
Update V: It gets worse. Fill in any company’s name. Hilarity will ensue.
Update VI: Samsung has responded. It’s crazy. Samsung was not notified about any of this, and consequently, did not even have the opportunity to defend itself. The judge just granted this injuction when Apple asked for it – no questions asked. What the heck is going on here?!
Original article:
The preliminary injunction was granted by the district court of Düsseldorf in Germany, which, according to Florian Mueller, is the German equivalent of the East District Court in Texas. Due to the workings of European law, this injunction applies to the entire EU – except for The Netherlands, which has a different set of competition laws than Germany. However, Apple filed a similar suit in The Netherlands.
This is clearly the biggest win for Apple so far. It is also a great loss for consumers in Europe, since choice on the market place has just been reduced considerably. I guess this is the future Apple wants – instead of competing through the market place, Cupertino is placing its bets on the courts, because it knows that – just like with phones – it won’t be able to keep up with the Android world in tablets.
It’s also interesting to learn that a ruling on competition law by a local judge in Germany automatically applies to the rest of the EU as well. This is certainly news to me. We have European courts, but this is a local German court forcing its way upon the rest of the EU. Kind of funny how such business-friendly concepts automatically apply EU-wide, but more important matters like gay marriage and sane drug laws never apply EU-wide. I guess there’s no company lobbying going on for those things.
Does this mean EU citizens now get to vote in the German elections as well?
In any case, Samsung can appeal this decision, but it will be heard by the same judge, and in about four weeks at the soonest. The injunction will stand in the mean time. As you can imagine, this is a pretty big hit against Samsung. I wonder what’s going to happen with any possible pre-orders – the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is supposed to become available mid-August.
Apple has already made a response, and it’s the usual hypocritical nonsense about copying and stealing – which, as we all know, Apple never does. “It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple spokesperson told The Telegraph, “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”
My blood is boiling over this, I can assure you. I believe in a competitive market where companies win customers over by making good products, not by going through the court system. The kind of hypocrisy displayed by Apple is very infuriating to anyone with any historical sense, but alas, in today’s technology world, history is no longer important.
Outlawed products are often made even more popular by their illegal status (think prohibition). Consumers love this sort of thing. Apple may be thinking that banning Android tablets will force consumers to buy iPads but that flies in the face of humanity’s naturally defiant spirit. Expect to see gray market imports flooding Europe soon.
Contrary to popular opinion liquor was not more popular during prohibition.
was it less or equally popular during prohibition?
(I’m sure it was significantly more profitable.
)
Please back up your statement wjtb facts please.It would interesting to see how liquor popularity was measured, and how this would be possible to measure, during the prohibition.
While your criticism is all well and good, you’re directing it at the wrong person: it’s not Kristoph’s responsibility to prove that alcohol wasn’t more popular during prohibition but howitser’s responsibility to prove that it was. Howitzer is the person making a positive claim which has not been established.
Nope. Howitzer didn’t talk specifically about alcohol. He said in general, that outlawed or prohibited products are often made even more popular, bla bla. “Often” being a key word.
I can tell you about movies and books, for example, that have become very popular after some “authority” (church, government) tried to forbid them. The most recent one in my country was a few months ago with a movie that talked about the flawed legal system. Even though the movie was largely advertised, and was having a modest sucess, it was only after the goverment tried to ban it, that its popularity (and ticket sales) rised to the sky, according to movie theaters’ spokespeople. And as I said, there are many more cases like that. So, even if one brought up one or two examples where Howitzer’s claim didn’t apply, it still wouldn’t invalidate it.
Anyway, Kristoph did talk specifically about alcohol, so he should provide the evidence to back up his claim. Also, usually the burden of evidence lies on the person going against the status quo (“contrary to popular belief”).
He used prohibition as a specific example to illustrate his point. To quote:
That’s not ambiguous, he wasn’t being vague; he clearly insinuated that alcohol was more popular during prohibition.
And even if he hadn’t made that claim, it would still have no impact upon Kristoph’s responsibility. Now don’t be a douchebag and stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
But it was way more cool, daddy-o!
I don’t think people will bother, unfortunately, because they’re not awareof what’s going on.
Anyway…Any proud Apple user in the room?
Wanna spend your hard-earned dollars to support Apple’s clever law dept?
Kinda like when Intel lawyers went after the NEC V20/V30 which were clones of 286/386. Intel put its foot down and killed with a court order banning Japanese clones. Had they not, there would be a Intel today. A hard lesson when the Japanese flooded the US markets with DRAM chips below market and killed off all the US makers.
Pretty piss-poor comparison.
All the ranting & raving about how evil Apple is and how sweet, picked-on, and innocent poor little Samsung is, and not a word about what Apple’s lawsuit and allegations are against Samsung, and whether or not they might actually be valid. This is what the courts are there to decide, so lets not play judge & jury before the ACTUAL judge and jury or whatever has had their say. I still go by the old adage of innocent until proven guilty, but evidently that does not apply in any of these cases.
Edited 2011-08-09 17:51 UTC
Spot on.
Lots of righteous indignation based on zero facts – one can only assume the righteous indignation comes pre-packaged and pre-prepared and is not related to any actual facts. As far as I know the details of this the case are still confidential and thus nobody knows on what basis Apple complained or on what basis this complain was upheld.
(emphasis added)
Wow, you were seriously able to type that with a straight face? As shameless hypocrisy goes, that’s up there with Jeffrey Dahmer complaining about people with eating disorders.
Oh yes, because if there’s one thing Apple apologists are known for, it’s their steadfast commitment to intellectual rigor…*
…well, except when it comes to Google, then all of a sudden it’s perfectly acceptable to spew unproven allegations of “copying” and “stealing”.
*That was sarcasm, in case the lack of “LOL” at the end was too subtle.
In terms of tech news you see Europe will often make rules that favor European based companies over American… However when they are not European they will then tend to favor the American Company.
Even though in today world money is spread everywhere these prejudices still happen.
This is all very much different from how the US market operates where US courts will often make rules that favor US based companies over European… (and so on.. and so forth..)
Sadly, they are all playing the same game.
Three weeks ago:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?481144
Today:
Three weeks ago:
The mind boggles. Now please proceed with the regularly scheduled down voting and goal post moving (my guess is it’ll hinge on the technicality that I didn’t originally mention the, also selling like ass, Galaxy Tab but who knows!).
It actually hinges on that, yes. The reports were that the first Galaxy Tab was actually pretty successful, so yes, had you mentioned that, I would’ve corrected you. The reports have always been clear about the Xoom and Playbook: they sell like ass.
On top of that, Apple is suing Samsung over Android, and the tablets are just a part of that.
Edited 2011-08-09 18:08 UTC
Too bad you said “android tablets” in your original article. But I’m sure you actually meant “android tablets that don’t sell like ass” (which are in the same aisle in Best Buy as unicorns that crap gold, btw).
As has been pointed out to you, more than once, Apple is suing Samsung over several things. Android, however, is not one of them. There are three broad categories Samsung is being sued over:
1. Additional features added to Android (bounce back when scrolling is the big one I can think of)
2. Hardware design patents
3. Trademarked packaging
But, you know, who cares about the actual details of the lawsuits when we can demagogue.
Edited 2011-08-09 18:21 UTC
No.
you asked me what would happen if Apple sued over tablets like the Xoom and the Playbook, which, in the light of the discussion (Apple is litigating instead of competing), I took as referring to tablets that sell like ass.
I’m going to break this down so maybe you can understand.
1. All Android tablets, today, sell like ass.
2. Even if you want to hypothetically argue that the Galaxy Tab won’t sell like ass, you, in this very article (http://www.osnews.com/story/25048/Apple_Blocks_Sales_of_Samsung_Gal…) said “Cupertino is placing its bets on the courts, because it knows that – just like with phones – it won’t be able to keep up with the Android world in tablets”.
So in this very article you are including the Xoom (it is, after all, an Android tablet) and there is not a single statistic that shows that any Android tablet sells well (hell, Samsung won’t even say how many tablets they sell). Your comments are either really wishful thinking, serious delusion, or simple goal post moving so you don’t have to admit you were wrong.
Given that you also insist on repeating the incorrect assertion that Apple is suing over Android, I’m going to go with the last option.
Now, here’s a shovel, go ahead and keep digging.
Looks like they sell better than you might want folks to think.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110808PD215.html
Additionally Apple cannot meet global demand for these products. So those who want them should just wait? Or start a bidding war on E-Bay and other auction sites?
That’s fair, right?
“expected” based on yet to be released chips.
http://www.newsbackbone.com/uncategorized/android-vs-ipad-the-table…
(Caution: Gruber Alert!!)
“Android tablets reportedly accounted for 30.1 percent of last quarter’s global tablet shipments , indicating that Google is finding fast success against Apple’s iPad. The key word, however, is “shipments,†which isn’t a measurement of sales. That means the 4.6 million figure, reported by research firm Strategy Analytics, includes every Android tablet in a warehouse, in transit from the manufacturer to retail outlets or sitting on store shelves waiting to be sold. On the other hand, Apple’s 9.3 million figure (61.3 percent of tablets) represents actual sales. What’s the real deal here when it comes to tablet sales by platform?”
Sorry, is this better? 4.6 million Android tablets have been shipped (not sold) compared to 9.3 million iPads, which can’t be manufactured fast enough to meet demand.
I was actually looking for an article I saw recently that said that Android sales have gone from less than 5% of the market to over 19% in the recent quarter, but haven’t been able to find it. This article and the one I linked to above were the [pitiful] results of my current [pitiful] level of google-fu.
If you can find the article I am looking for please post it here. If not, or if you choose not to, then see if you can assess how the demand for Android tablets by _retailers_ rising from a small amount to nearly 50% of Apple’s sales volume means that nobody wants them.
GLWT
{(oB[>*
Let’s quote the title of that article: “Non-Apple tablet PC shipments expected to grow 134% on year in 2012”
My comment that you are responding to said:
“1. All Android tablets, today, sell like ass. ”
What does an article about expected 2012 shipment growth have to do with today?
Second, what does an article that has to do with expected shipments have to do with how well Android tablets sell?
Projections of [future] sales are derived from current sales, recent sales history and other information such as return rates, churn and demand based on orders from retailers and news about devices under development soon to be released. Not that hard to figure out now, is it? Does that clear up how this relates to your statement? Do you want it to?
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31747_7-20081366-243/ipad-share-of-tab…
iPad share of tablet shipments fell in second quarter, says report
Apple’s iPad is still the top tablet in terms of shipments, but its share has dropped lately against a crowd of competing devices, according to a report out today from Strategy Analytics.
(Credit: Apple)
For the second quarter of the year, Apple grabbed 61 percent of the global tablet business, shipping a record 9.3 million iOS-based tablets. Though still a healthy chunk, that number was down from the 94 percent share the company scooped up a year ago.
Those results aren’t exactly surprising, however, given that the market has been flooded lately with rival devices from the likes of Samsung, Motorola, Acer, Research In Motion, HP, and a slew of other vendors.
Apple itself reported yesterday that it shipped 9.25 million iPads during its fiscal third quarter, which ended June 25.
Android-based tablets soaked up 30 percent of all global shipments in the second quarter, according to Strategy Analytics. However, no one single Android tablet has yet come close to matching the appeal of the iPad, and demand for many of these tablets is still “patchy,” the report noted.
[Ignore this part if it makes you uncomfortable. It’s more of that scary prognostication.]
One device that could potentially upset the apple cart would be an Amazon tablet.
“If Amazon decides to enter the Android tablet category later this year, that will bring fresh excitement and buzz to the Android community, but Amazon will need to deliver a truly standout offering if it really wants to make headway against the popular iPad,” Neil Mawston, director at Strategy Analytics, said in a statement.
[OK, now you can look again.]
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/07/21/strategy-analytics-tabl…
is a chart that shows Q2’10 and Q2’11 Global Shipments and Market Share. You may want to avoid that as well. It doesn’t show what you want to believe.
On the other hand this is an opportunity for personal growth.
No it doesn’t clear anything up. Shipments are not sales. You haven’t linked to anything that talks about Android sales, you talked about how many have been shipped into channel.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31747_7-20081366-243/ipad-share-of-tab…
Snipping your copy/paste of an entire article …
You linked to an article by an analyst who is talking about how many tablets all the Android vendors combined might ship to channel next year versus how many tablets Apple is actually selling. And this, somehow, refutes the fact that, today, Android tablets don’t sell.
No, not quite. That was a different link in a different reply. The link I provided was about Q2’10 and Q2’11 shipments. Nothing at all to do with next year or even projections about the current quarter. It’s no wonder you are so worked up over this. You can’t accurately track what is right in front of you. That must be very frustrating. Please calm down and pay attention to what is actually being presented, not your wishes and dreams, OK?
I also noted that it compares Android units shipped to Apple units sold. Is it more meaningful or more relevant when you say it back to me? If so how?
These are still the relevant market share figures and I am not disputing that iPads are more popular nor that they sell better. However you may choose to be upset if you like. As a matter of fact it works out to my advantage if you are because it makes you easier to refute when you make silly mistakes because you are upset. It would work out better for you not to give me this unfair advantage, but I will not attempt to restrain you from it.
Say that to Asus whose supply lines can’t follow the Eee Pad Transformer demand.
Wait. It’s not an (Android) tablette but, with its dock, a *netbook*, and Apple don’t have any netbook because… iPhone can do the same, better (even multitasking and copy and paste, now, see?).
Plus, sure, Apple is not afraid at all of android tablettes, and the best proof is that they do absolutly nothing about it. They’re perfectly confident android tablettes won’t sale.
It’s written on the wall.
I can buy one with next day delivery from Amazon right now (I just checked). Clearly they can keep up with demand. How about a link to the sales numbers?
You lucky.
I can’t: out of stock.
I guess that’s what they called “America First”, right.
For sales numbers, be my guess to spent time googling it.
AFAIK, with limited components supply, they sold between 300000 and 700000 per month.
Which make it the #1 android tablet already, after 3 months.
But whatever, what’s sure is there is a market for a tablet not running iOS. Apple don’t want that to happens and goes way deeper than anyone would think to deny this possibility to happend.
But it will, anyway. Because, simply, people wants tablet mobility *and* software openess *and* platform diversity. And that something Apple don’t offer. Refuse to offer. Never did. Their thing is ultra integrated and closed platform since day one. Nice.
But not all people agree that what’s best for them.
Demand being there, Apple can disagree as much as it wants, wont make a difference.
Yea, you’re going to have to provide some actual evidence since those numbers are literally impossible. According to Google, in June they were activating 500,000 total Android devices per day (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-google-android-idUSTRE…). Also according to Google, 1.2% of Android devices have a tablet sized screen (http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/screens.html, xlarge in the graph is devices with a 7″ or larger screen). 1.2% of 500,000 activations is 6000 tablet activations a day or approximately 540,000 in an entire quarter. Apple reported that they sold 9.25 million iPads last quarter, for comparison.
http://goodereader.com/blog/tablet-slates/asus-makes-it-big-in-the-…
Or
http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2011/08/04/record-asus-eee-pad-transfo…
Maybe the Eee Pad having no 3G connectivity, there is no actual Android *activation* to track them.
Edited 2011-08-10 18:42 UTC
NO. Most of these articles, such as for the Asus, are actually talking about units SHIPPED to vendors. Android-based tablet manufacturers have been stuffing the channel early this year but few are selling well. Probably less than 2M total at this point.
Indeed, that’s shipment numbers, not sales.
But show me a company that ship increasing units per month since now four consecutive months (and suffer stock shortage in Europe, lucky me) but can’t sold them. Seriously, Asus is certainly not manufacturing 400000 of EeePad each month if it’s only to stock them in stores worldwide (except Europe, lucky me).
Plus supply shortage may not be noticed where you live, but it is in Europe (lucky… okay, I stop now).
Anyway, if you find the *sales* numbers of Eee Pad Transformer, please share.
Edited 2011-08-10 19:55 UTC
Actually, you might be surprised how much stock often gets sold to vendors early in a product’s life and then sits unsold. ASUS doesn’t care about end user sales, only how many the stores are willing to take and losts of sellers are pinning hopes on there being a growing market for tablets. Don’t be surprised to see huge sales on these units during and after the holidays. There’s just an iPad market and then “non-Apple everything else”.
However, you’ll note that virtually all the other tablet manufacturers than Apple only talk about shipped units, never actual sales, and many – such as Samsung and Acer for example – are now talking about lowering forecasts for the year.
How’s that when the iPad sold, to end users, nearly 10M in a single quarter and nearly 30M overall? They sell every single one they make. You’re not even talking 2M to actual customers with the ASUS.
I haven’t seen anything reliable yet. I’m guessing unless they are something to boast about, we won’t readily see them.
If you read the article, thats phone activations per day. Many Android tablets do not have a cell phone in them. The Asus does not. So those figures mean nothing.
If you read the article, thats phone activations per day. Many Android tablets do not have a cell phone in them. The Asus does not. So those figures mean nothing. [/q]
From the article:
“Consumers are activating more than half a million Android devices every day”
“Google had said May 10 that 400,000 Android devices were being activated daily at that point.”
Hmm, doesn’t seem like they are talking about phones.
Or, for newer information: http://androidandme.com/2011/07/news/google-q2-earnings-call-555000…
“Since we’re talking about Android, the platform is now adding 550,000 users every day.”
So they’re up to 6600 tablets a day or 594,000 per quarter.
Edited 2011-08-11 04:28 UTC
So in this very article you are including the Xoom (it is, after all, an Android tablet) and there is not a single statistic that shows that any Android tablet sells well (hell, Samsung won’t even say how many tablets they sell). Your comments are either really wishful thinking, serious delusion, or simple goal post moving so you don’t have to admit you were wrong.
Given that you also insist on repeating the incorrect assertion that Apple is suing over Android, I’m going to go with the last option.
Ahem. From the man in charge of Android at Google (http://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/85660213478309888):
@Arubin Andy Rubin
There are now over 500,000 Android devices activated every day, and it’s growing at 4.4% w/w
That post is from late June. That’s activations, not sales to the channel. Now, how is the press seeing this?
From CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20074956-17/google-500000-android…):
Android device activations are skyrocketing.
Google Android chief Andy Rubin tweeted today that “over 500,000 Android devices” are now activated each day around the world. Moreover, he said that activations are growing at a rate of 4.4 percent week-over-week.
That figure becomes more significant when one considers that just last month at Google’s I/O Conference, the company announced that 400,000 Android devices were being activated each day, up from 300,000 daily activations in December and 100,000 activations per day a year ago.
From the International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/170788/20110628/android-blooms-in-a…)
Android is blooming in Apple’s productless summer. Various studies point to the inevitable prospect of Google Android OS-based marching ahead of Apple’s iPhone and iPad.
Still believe that Android is not selling to end users? Still believe that Apple isn’t doing everything in their power to delay Android through the courts because they’re clearly not winning in the marketplace?
And how many of those are tablets, which is what we’re talking about here?
For all the people responding to me about how well Android tablets are selling you’d think at least one of them would point to something, somewhere, that talks about how many are being sold. But, alas, no one does. Let’s see what Google says …
According to Google, Android devices with tablet sized screens make up 1.2% of all devices out there (http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/screens.html). 1.2% of 500,000 is 6000 a day or about 540,000 a quarter. Apple sold 9.25 million iPads last quarter.
So yes, clearly Android is winning the tablet market, how could I have been so stupid.
Ah, pickled red herring, the favored delicacy of Apple apologists. Interesting tactic, though: drone on endlessly, repeating the same point ad nauseum in the hopes that people won’t realize how thoroughly irrelevant it is.
A few years ago, you and other iFanboys were spewing the exact same talking-points about how much better the iPhone was selling than Android phones… and making the same idiotic assumptions that the situation would never change. Need me to refresh your memory on how that one turned out?
Even then, at least you had some excuse. After all, most current iFanboys probably weren’t even alive (let alone old enough to use a computer) during Apple’s first “failure cycle” back in the 80s. But after Android thoroughly making iOS its bitch in the smarthphone market, does anyone (other than fanboys) honestly believe that the same thing won’t happen with tablets over the next year or two?
This is Apple, after all: a company that has squandered head-starts so often that they’ve practically elevated it to an art form.
I’m not sure how pointing out the current sales of Android tablets is irrelevant in a thread that is all about the current sales of Android tablets. You did actually read the thread, right?
I’m not talking about the future, I’m talking about the present, specifically Thom’s repeated asinine assertion that Apple is failing to compete. I asked him, if Apple starts going after tablets like the Xoom and Playbook would that be indicative of Apple’s inability to compete. He said no, because those tablets “sell like ass.” I pointed out in this thread that Apple is now going after Android tablets. He claimed the Galaxy Tab doesn’t sells well. I’m pointing out that no Android tablet sells well. Though, really, this whole thread is unnecessary since it’s come out that Apple is also suing over the Xoom so that can be used as direct evidence against Thom instead of indirect sales evidence of all Android tablets.
Either way, notice, none of that has anything to do with future predictions and your comment is more or less completely off topic.
But thanks for butting into the conversation.
You’re right. I mean look at them. Over 100% revenue growth year over year. Over 100% profit growth year over year. Over $70 billion dollars in cash. The only computer manufacturer seeing significant growth. The dominant manufacturer of PMPs. The biggest cell phone manufacturer by revenue and profits. The biggest smartphone manufacturer by units shipped and units sold. The biggest tablet manufacturer (by an order of magnitude). The biggest mobile platform by market share (yes, iOS is still bigger than Android though that may change soon). The biggest technology company by revenue and profit. And, at least for today, the biggest company in the world by market cap. Imagine what they’d do if they just didn’t keep squandering everything away …
I already gave him a link to market share figures showing 4.5 million Android tablets shipped last quarter and his response was that it was a market projection for the future. None so blind, eh?
I also noted in my post that it was based on devices shipped and that Apple said/claimed that all of their 9.25 million devices had been sold (and maybe they have been, they do have a supply-side issue). When Apple sells them to a vendor are they sold? Or just shipped? Who has the final say on the status of these tiny boxen?
Somehow when he said it back to me, that the Androids were shipped and the iPads were sold, it was supposed to be more or differently meaningful. Perhaps he would like to think that the devices Apple shipped to Fry’s, Amazon, etc. aren’t just items shipped and sitting on a shelf somewhere, or still on a truck, in transit to Elk Grove Village, Illinois, or some other location, but that they are being fondled by drooling fanbois at this very moment. And maybe they are …
You gave two links, one which talked about estimated units shipped last quarter and one that talked about estimated units that will be shipped in 2012, did you not?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/19Apple-Reports-Third-Quart…
“Apple sold 9.25 million iPads during the quarter, a 183 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.”
Shipped is a measure of units going into retail channels, sold is a measure of units sold to consumers. This is standard language used in earnings reports, its’ not something people are making up to trick you.
It is different and meaningful. There is no estimate anywhere that shows more than about 2 million Android tablets sold so far total. Not per quarter, total. They can ship 100,000,000 units into sales channels, it’s meaningless unless someone actually purchases them. Perhaps you should google “channel stuffing” and read up a little then get back to us.
Or perhaps I know how to read a quarterly report.
I did, but not in the post that you replied to. I gave this link:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/19Apple-Reports-Third-Quart…
Which is about market share for Q2’10 and Q2’11. It is not about projections of any sort. You may want to actually look at it if there is any doubt in your mind.
It is not an earnings report. You are only tricking yourself by going afield with a discussion about earnings reports when no earnings report was mentioned. Units shipped is the standard language of market share. It is not public relations-speak nor is it investor-relations-speak. It is an industry-wide categorization.
Nor did I say there was. You may burn that straw man all day and I won’t even get excited while I watch it flare up, smoke and disappear. I may even offer you a match to help you light the next one. (o;)
You mean the difference between selling into the channel and sell-through to consumers? I was there before you mentioned it. When Apple sells a device to a third party is it sold-through or sold into the channel? Because if the third party (Best Buy, Amazon, Fry’s, etc.) is the consumer then Apple is not stuffing the channel, right? Does the quarterly report guarantee that? Do you want to get back to me on that? Or should I offer you that match now? Because the “Apple can’t be accused of stuffing the channel straw man” is ready to be disposed of whenever you have time to do it.
What does “sell like ass” mean please?
I struggle to follow the discussion because I don’t understand if it means selling a lot or selling poorly.
I tried to decrypt that but it depends on whose ass you are talking about. I guess Clara Morgan’s ass would sell a lot but mine would sell poorly. Google didn’t help with this expression.
Simply put; not good.
eg. “that looks like ass, let me see if I can fix it”
(Where “ass” is the unapealing interpretation not the “nice booty” type.)
Though asses cannot carry as much and are slower they are still popular in poorer area’s as an alternative to horses.
It must mean that it is selling awesomely, since selling like ass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution) it is the oldest profession around.
A friend of mine works as a corrections officer, and he was telling me of some of the ‘ass’ that gets thrown in there for being sold.
All I was thinking is “Normally I think prostitution should be legal, but when they look like that obviouisly the john must be doing some serious mind altering drugs to even pay a penny for that. YIKES!
Either way, even gnarly old geezers can sell their ass to doped up crack heads. Kind of like Apple selling iPad to their reality distorted iFiends.
Well, isn’t it sufficient then that they are pursuing the same injunction against Motorola’s Xoom?
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apple-is-also-suing-motorol…
Or are you going to wiggle out of that one by saying that Apple is countersuing Motorola, which is defensive and an approved strategy of Google?
Demagogue?? We have to read post after post in here every day by Apple fanatics who feel the need to spread their religion wherever they go. You already know Thom’s thoughts on the matter, but you still insist on arguing every time, and the rest of us have to experience more of your proselytism with each new post. When are you Apple fanatics going to take a hint already?
any opinion is valid to its utterer.
… as others have here, that Apple is already selling all the units that they can get from their suppliers. The net result of the legal measures they are pursuing is to limit the market volume to just their products. This limits the availability of these products to what Apple is able, or potentially willing, to offer to the public.
If the courts are willing to prevent consumers from buying these devices until Apple can make one available to them, then so be it. But is this a just outcome?
Don’t know who is wrong and right here, but I find it extremely alarming and downright absurd if in fact a *local* German court can create EU-wide policy.
Since we have a common market, it is kind of logical that justice decision related to trade and IP are taken only once, instead of every EU countries. Otherwise, where is the limit ? With such a reasoning, why would a court order from Düsseldorf applies to Berlin ?
What is alarming though is that Samsung discovered the news after the decision was taken, and got no chance to plead their case. I can hardly call that “justice”.
Because it’s not justice.
It’s a legal trick, whose purpose is to delay a concurrent product until an actual legal decision is taken.
I won’t be surprised if this injonction shall be found later invalid for procedure violation (no both sides notice?! Hello!?!), but that not the objective.
The objective is winning time, hopefully enough to block an iPad 2 concurrent from as much larger as possible market access until the iPad 3 is announced and shipped.
Guess when is the next Apple product launch window?
No. They can’t. They are enforcing the EU-wide policy that is already in place.
Judge’s decisions can be appealed to OHIM (oami.europa.eu) or EU Court of Justice. OHIM will take less time, but CoJ will have a properly reviewed decision.
“This injunction is based on a Community Design, which is a sort of EU-wide trademark. The Community Design is literally just that – a few drawings of a generic device.” so this means that a manufacturer of wheels can ban in Europe the selling of other brands of wheels? tablets look like a tablet, a mobile phone looks like a mobile phone, a watch looks like a watch, etc. So in order to sell wheels you have to invent a wheel that doesn’t look like a wheel but it must work as a wheel.Community Design or patented ideas, same crap
Apple products are beautiful. Elegant and brilliantly built. I’d want one in a heartbeat. But that was then. With Apple’s litigious contentions nowadays I am just sick of it. Samsung Galaxy SII – check. Blackberry Playbook – check (Not really buying into Android on tablets yet). A DIY Windows 7 desktop – check. Big “X” for Apple, no thank you.
See, now THIS is when you should be reporting on patents. You know, like when a patent dispute has a DIRECT and TANGIBLE impact on consumers. (In this case, anybody in the EU who was waiting on a Galaxy Tab.)
Contrast this with feeling like you have to report on every silly f**king finger gesture patent lawsuit that comes down the pike, and the associated rant that always comes along with it (which we’ve all heard a thousand times already).
F**! everything about this.
A tablet mostly has one standard shape. Square.
Can you imagine if this case stands? All non-Apple tablets prohibited or in threat of being prohibited from Europe for Apple’s 20 years patent period.
I just cant envision an expensive “marque” brand like this cornering a whole market.
I see this affecting poor Europeans the most. Not everyone can afford ipads.
Also badly affecting developers and choice in general.
Wow, again, how can you patent a square electronic device that looks so generic!
The South Asian economic Union should return the favour and ban the ipad there.
Yeah I’m trying to wrap my brain around the purpose of a design trademark like this. It shows nothing but a square with rounded corners, two ports, and a description: “portable computer”. And this is grounds to cause irreparable damage to a company?
http://myfacewhen.com/332/
First, this should’ve never been granted. Makes me believe this entire idiotic Community Design-thing was a big business-backed idea.
Second, the judge should’ve thrown this Community Design down the drain right away for being far too generic. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Community Design European Commission directive is formulated in such a way that local judges can’t throw out silly Community Designs – that only higher-up, European courts can.
Absolute insanity.
Edited 2011-08-09 19:43 UTC
Like I wrote further down, this is a temporary decision. The court never looked at the merits of the trademark, they just checked if Apple’s situation could be aggravated by not stopping the sale of the Galaxy Tab RIGHT NOW. And obviously they couldn’t rule this out, so they issued the injunction. A preliminary injunction only serves to protect a legal interest against aggravation UNTIL the principal decision is due.
I know (that’s what preliminary means and I can actually speak, write, and read German
), but even as a *preliminary* injunction it’s idiotic.
Unfortunatly the German courts are prone to issueing frivolous and downright stupid injunctions. I feel the prevailing sentiment is to let the proper court sort it out.
It’s not insanity.
It’s lobby and corruption.
But these days, it’s called “business as usual”, because the legal system has been instrumented into a market control tool.
Money can buy anything.
Even the brain of a judge to make it think that in Intellectual Property the later reality matters more than the former.
After Apple moves, I’m for renaming Intellectual Property to Think Property.
Now that more profitable than the fake-geeky Think Different…
Although there is no proper South Asian economic union as such, maybe the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) can qualify in the meanwhile.
We do not have to ban the sale of Apple iPad 2 here in South Asia. They do not sell anymore than 2000 pieces a month in a country of 1.2 billion people. Whereas the old Samsung Galaxy Tab sold ten times that number last year. And Samsung is releasing the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in India on the 10th of August.
And on the 9th , a telecom operator Reliance http://www.rcom.co.in released a 7″ tablet (made by ZTE) running Android 2.3 for 13000 INR (approximately 290 USD). It is expected to sell like hot cakes in the coming days. So no love for Apple here.
Steve Jobs: Hey Adolf, wanna make a million?
Judge Adolf: Injunction Granted Sir.
😉
Like in Battlestar Galactica.
Apple has also trademarked the profile, so they are not allowed to be flat either. Both the rectangular and the soft cornered rectangular profile is trademarked by Apple.
Please note btw. Trademarks do not expire.. not in 20 years not in a 100.
Unfortunately it really is very similar to those sketches. They should just add a bit sharper angles and it will differ. But there are dozen’s of such tablets, how convenient that they saved it for their most dangerous enemy – Samsung (maybe in the wake of another iPad update).
I hope there will be some kind of a public backlash due to this. It is obvious that this design is something trivial, and there is probably prior art.
Basically this is the old iPad sketch, but if that one is not on the market anymore, the trademark protection shouldn’t be valid. Also we can hope that judges will recognize that the main difference in this kind of devices is software, not the form factor.
The sketches don’t look like an iPad. This whole situation is an utter farce.
A preliminary injunction is nothing but a temporary decision about an issue regarding a non-monetary claim. Preliminary injunctions are issued in short and quick summary proceedings to avoid the aggravation of a disputed claim and come cheaply. It is not unusual that the target of the injunction is not even heard in the summary proceeding.
Preliminary injunctions are issued for ticky-tacky shit all the time in German law practice, e.g. the newest spiel is that employers try to erode workers’ rights by issueing injunctions against strikes.
So, you get the idea. This is not final by any imagination and not about a title yet. The principal proceeding has to be held shortly (well, German courts and shortly is another matter) but then both sides must be heard.
BTW, I didn’t know that a German injunction would hold in the rest of the EU either. It would be interesting to know if injunctions from other member states would hold in Germany. Somehow I guess they would.
What I’m interested in is this.
According to Mueller, the Community Design is also in dispute in the Dutch case, to be held tomorrow and Thursday. According to Mueller, Apple can elect to have the Community Design case in The Netherlands ONLY cover NL, while apparently selecting the more willing court in Germany to rule for Europe in its entirety.
Now, what happens if the Dutch courts make the sane decision, i.e., the Community Design is idiotic, and throw it out? Why is a German judge more powerful than a Dutch judge, – only because a company decides so? How utterly fcuking idiotic is that?
I have no clue about Dutch laws and I’m not a lawyer at all. Maybe it hinges on the existence of a mechanism comparable to a preliminary injunction in Dutch law?
<cynicism>Germany contributes about 21% to the EU budget, the Netherlands about 5%? </cynicism>
Seriously, I’ve no clue if the preliminary injunction and the future Dutch ruling are on the same level of law. Like I wrote, preliminary injunctions are a quick and cheap method to protect your assets against aggravation UNTIL a proper court can make a ruling. From the procedure you describe, I would guess that the Dutch court is already a proper court and thus, maybe, differently bounded? I also guess that a final German ruling would also be confined to Germany and all further-reaching rulings must be made in a EU court.
It’s really all guesswork.
You’re misunderstanding me.
This is based on the Community Design directive, which is an EU-wide law. This law includes the enactment of several Community Design Courts in each member state. Each of these courts’ ruling apply EU-wide, and THIS is the reason why the German ruling applies EU-wide – INCLUDING The Netherlands.
Now, what baffles me is that a company can apparently decide “the outcome of this [German] court case handling a Community Design shall apply EU-wide” AND “the outcome of this [Dutch] court case handling a Community Design shall not apply EU-wide”. That is just fcuked up.
Oh, I see. Maybe it would be helpful to find out, why there is a separate case in the Netherlands in the first place? I have no answer for you here, sorry.
All I can find for now are hints of differences of competition law, which would suggest that the Netherlands had some kind of design pattern law in place before the EU came up with something.
Maybe tomorrow we will know more.
They can’t. They still has to have the ruling applied to each EU country individually. It should be a trivial matter though if the law is a common EU-law and the ruling seems acceptable and fair.
I hope countries without German style convict-first/judge-later injunctions, will hesitate with this ruling.
Sorry to disappoint you. I read the entire law. It applies EU-wide automatically. It’s right in there.
OHIM will have to give the final word on the EU wide policy. But if the CD is deemed invalid in a elected CD court of any country, it is deemed invalid unless a successful appeal has been made. 6/2002/EC section 5
So if the case in NL is heard in a CD court, then it’s validity decision will apply to the German court. The German court’s decisions are based in German law and apply to Germany only, in that case.(I got help from a lawyer on that! Yay!)
The CD courts in NL are:
(1) Arrondissementsrechtbank te ‘s – Gravenhage
(2) Gerechtshof te ‘s – Gravenhage
Very cool. Thank you!
I quote myself.
I find the kind of coverage of this issue is getting annoying. Thom, your update VI is in blatant neglect of what you know.
You claimed earlier that you can read German and that you know what a preliminary injunction in German law is and does, I even tried to explain it for the English speaking readers of this blog. Yet in your coverage you willfully ignore how preliminary injunctions in German law work. Instead you blow it up as if the issuance of an injunction without hearing the injunction’s target is especially vile. It is not, it is quite common.
A preliminary injunction could not do what it is supposed to do if the target of the injunction must be heard before issuance. Of course it can be considered proper behaviour to inform the target that you are going to obtain an injunction and that Apple hasn’t done so is miserable even for Apple, but it wouldn’t have changed anything anyway!
A preliminary injunction cannot and must not anticipate the decision of the principal proceeding, thus if an injunction will hold is decided in the principal proceeding, and only there, and there all parties will have their say. It’s really not that hard to understand.
That is nonsense. Of course, you can’t hear the full case, but there should be AT LEAST an opportunity for the defendant to plead his case of why a preliminary injunction is not allowed. You have to realise that a preliminary injunction is a PUNISHMENT, and in any non-banana republic, there is this pesky concept of due process.
This act by the German courts does NOT respect due process. Samsung should have been notified, and a hearing should have been held. I’m the last person to use the US legal system as a shining example of how things should be done, but in this case, US law does it right, German law does not.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preliminary+Injunctio…
The explanation in your link would be totally making a point if we were talking about US law. Alas, we are not.
This
http://www.rechtslexikon-online.de/Einstweilige_Verfuegung.html
probably is more authorative on what a preliminary injunction does in German law.
But if you feel you must walk this way, go ahead. I won’t stop you.
Out.
Kind of funny how such business-friendly concepts automatically apply EU-wide, but more important matters like gay marriage and sane drug laws never apply EU-wide
You really hit the nail here. Like it +1000
Google was talking about making a phone which looked almost exactly like a Windows phone pre-iPhone.
The iPhone is announced and suddenly Google turns on a dime and copies for the most part the that the iPhone looks and works.
Later on, Samsung does its best at taking everything it has learned from Apple with look and feel to make a tablet like the iPad.
How about this for an idea. Have Google and Samsung make something where they aren’t copying another company. Make a phone if you want but make it so it doesn’t look like you are copying someone else.
Apple got bit due to Windows and not making sure that the patents and licensing agreements were spelled out well enough to keep Microsoft from creating Windows.
Apple is just trying to make sure the great copy machines (Google and Samsung) can’t create a clone of the iPhone and iPad and not pay for the privilege.
I hope some day that you have the opportunity to put your heart and soul and all your net worth. I hope that it is a tremendous product that should make you wealthy beyond your dreams. THEN another person or company comes along, copies it and takes all your profits away, or tries to. Is that fair? If yes, I think you are nuts.
you do know about the prada and the crunchpad, do you?
I’ll give you that. But neither were in production when Apple came out with the iPhone.
So if anything, Apple copied what appears to have been a not very popular device (popular as far as the populous in general) and created a very popular device. Something was obviously lacking in the original.
The Prada was released nearly six months before the iPhone.
I think the grandparent’s point was not that Apple copied the Prada, but that the design itself wasn’t so very innovative to begin with if other companies developed it simultaneously and independently.
Yes, the Apple logo. Regardless of what was “lacking”, according to the Apple fans, whoever does anything first should have a complete monopoly on that idea/design. By that logic, the iPhone is a KIRF – a successful copycat, but a copycat none the less. Personally, I don’t see anything innovative about a touchscreen surrounded by a black bezel.
Let me make sure I have this right:
It is OK to copy something that didn’t sell well, but it’s not OK to copy something that does sell well?
Seriously?!
P.S. And it’s OK to register a Community Design that copies a pre-existing product?
Talking about blatant abuse Apple’s CD for incase’s Convertible Magazine Jacket for iPad
http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/001266241-0001
Based on your logic, Google did the same thing to iPhone. They took a moderately popular mobile OS and created a wildly popular mobile OS (Popularity != margins and profits. Popularity = numbers).
I brand you as the Apple apologist!
lol, so apple can claim anything not popular?
in all your fanboyism i wonder if you fart apple shaped logo smoke;)
Sorry, Chuckles, but that reasoning also applies to all of the accusations that iFanboys have directed at Microsoft over the years. Clearly something was lacking in MacOS (and Apple computers in general), given that they’re an abject failure in the market compared to Windows-based PCs.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No, that’s fairly idiotic logic. Apple is one of the top selling PC brands in the market. In fact, they seem to OWN the $1000+ segment. That would hardly make them a failure. Try again.
No. Your arguement would only make sense if Apple didn’t have the monopoly over Mac OS X, and there were dozens of brands offering (legal) Mac OS X compatible computers. The Windows-based PC market is very segregated because people can choose. So it is your logic the one that is idiotic.
Anyway, by Sabon’s logic, it’s pretty obvious that there must have been something lacking on Mac OS-based computers since they were nowhere nearly as successful as Windows (the “Mac OS rip-off” Apple Fanboys have been complaining about for ages) based ones.
Oh, and if you like so much to filter data to suit your beliefs, how about this: Apple also OWNS the named-after-a-fruit PC segment.
This is illogical yet again. The iPhone is the #1 selling smartphone. Should it be discounted because Apple has a “monopoly” over iOS? Yes, the iPhone is SUCH a failure. lol
Since you talk of people that “filter data to suit” you certainly display a run-away knack for it. There is nothing wrong with comparing hardware brand against hardware brand.
…and yet Apple is just as successful as other hardware makers.
The fact that I mentioned Apple owning the high-end PC market is not selective filtering, it’s merely pointing to the fact of how successful they have been and with a healthy markup to boot.
Edited 2011-08-11 02:03 UTC
Which was exactly my point, bravo on completely missing it.
The only way to not see Apple’s computing products as a failure is to use dishonest comparisons that are rigged to make Apple look better, like comparing an entire platform (Macs + OS X) to a single vendor like Dell or Acer.
The reality is that Macs, as a platform, don’t compete against individual PC OEMs, Apple’s desktop computing platform “competes” (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) with Microsoft’s desktop computing platform… and by every objective measure out there is, Apple’s platform is a laughable failure compared to Microsoft’s. Sorry, you don’t get to gloss over that minor detail, just because Apple’s platform is at disadvantage due to its single-vendor limitations (especially since that disadvantage is solely due to deliberate decisions on Apple’s part).
Apple’s profits even before the whole iphone/ipad thing begs to differ. I don’t know about you but if I’m making money hand over fist with less effort and less product than my competitor who has to basically go broke to earn the same amount as me, I think that’s a win for me.
The only way you can look at Apple as failure is if you ignore how much money they make on their product selling less on their part. So yeah, Apple sells much less that Acer, HP, and Dell, yet they are the biggest tech company in the world at this moment, that with only barely 10% market penetration. Who’s the real winner?
ever heard of siemens, toshiba or panasonic?
there are a lot of tech-companys that can beat the living crap out of apple
and when it comes to employees i’d guess that foxconn is #1 (~1 mio employees)
and they are just a subsidiary of another company…
——–edit———
just took a look at samsungs numbers, now thats crazy stuff O_O
Edited 2011-08-11 01:03 UTC
Maybe not in terms of revenue but failure in terms of user base…
Maybe not in terms of revenue but failure in terms of user base… [/q]
Considering it is a self-imposed limit, it’s kind of disingenuous to call it a “failure”. It’s been extremely successful for them as a company. They’re worth more than Exxon.
that doesn’t matter
apple claims that these designs are their invention, which they are obviously not
but now they are sueing every competitor based on that lie
Many years ago it was founded by the courts, looks and feel are not copyrightable. Lotus, Apple, Borland lawsuits settled all this.
This is just typical example of a fanboyism. Fact like Google suddenly changed design of the planned phone. You forgot to mention, that Google’s person was on Apple’s board, and that Google has stollen it most probably all, right? 🙂
Some Apple fanatics (not necessarily you, as you seem to use your arguments in a civilized way) behave like Apple would be inventor of the sliced bread. Let’s take e.g. touch. I have worked with touch systems since 2002 (kiosk systems). Products like capacitative, projected capacitative, IR, wires, surface wave, from companies like 3M, Elo. There should be really someone searching for prior act, not allowing some powefull companies to CLEARLY missuse their power (I am not necessarily talking just Apple here).
But anyway – what you write is kind of funny. Car is a car – it usually has 4 wheels, doors, engine, etc. So is the soccer ball – the same shape. Few principles different here or there. But still – cell phone is a cell phone, and tablet is a tablet. I would clearly dismiss all that cases, as a total nonsense. The word copy, stands just for that – COPY. So either is Galaxy Tab a COPY of an iPAD, or it is not. And as it is not, all other voices should shut up!
Pity that back in Amiga days, we did not patent “User interface, which is not made traditionally by menu, toolbars, scrollers, but uses variable sized UI components and pointers”. Now all phone makers would be paying for patenting such a nonsense.
And please – keep all that patents, ACTA, and other crap, in US. I am really disappointed EU is playing such stupid games too, and even worse, that German ruling can apply EU-wide?
There, fixed that for you. You’re really make this too easy, you know.
Oh, and here’s some food for thought: if Xerox and people like Douglas Engelbart had been the sort of greedy, overly-litigious dicks that Apple have shown themselves to be, then Apple wouldn’t have survived he first half of the 1980s. Imagine if Englebart had pulled an Apple and refused to license his patent for the mouse!
Considering how generic those sketches are one might feel compelled to ask who’s really the one copying the competition. In fact, some look curiously like classic Nokia designs…
Could that be why I couldn’t get a Galaxy S2 in any Vodafone store in Berlin yesterday?
Microsoft has some funny ones…
What is this…a disposable toilet?
http://oami.europa.eu/bulletin/rcd/2011/2011_031/001248926_0013/ima…
Edited 2011-08-09 23:04 UTC
Apple has better lawyers then Samsung?
Samsung’s lawyers are not as good as Apple’s, but dressed exactly the same.
Does anyone in Buenos Aires want to buy my Macbook Pro 13″ (mid-2010)?
Actually, if you really want to damage Apple, you’d just give it away (having a very small impact on the resale value of their products as a result).
Email me for the address where to send it
Actually, giving it away would create a new member of the Apple Army. If he really wanted to damage Apple, he’d burn it so that no one else could use it.
@nbensa,
No, install Linux on it and ship it to me, or ship it and I will be the one to wipe out OSx on it and install Linux. Unfortunately, I am not in Buenos Aires.
Edited 2011-08-10 07:53 UTC
so a second hand macbook isn’t worth more than $0 ?
Samsung should countersue. They can argue that many Apple designs are blatant copies of 1960s Braun electrical appliances.
http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-…
Dieter Rams definitely is an exhibit for the prior art of most of Apple’s CDs
For everyone whingeing about how unfair Apple is behaving in the market, stop salivating at and buying their products. Surely, that will hurt them, no matter what they do to their competitors.
Time and again, I see articles from this very site about virtues and features of Apple products. This is double-standard. Either support them or don’t.
There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that Apple is capable of making great products and simultaneously acting like complete assholes in the market. Just because they make desirable products doesn’t mean that they’re free of criticism when they attempt to squash competition through government intervention over frivolous claims.
except, OP probably wanted to tell people should decide on whether they will
– buy and support both (great products AND being arseholes)
– boycott apple and show them that great product does not indemnify you from being arsehole (p.s. as far as “apple” and “great” goes in same sentence i’ll probably have nightmares on writing this)
An EU wide injunction is pretty harsh, that too without giving Samsung the opportunity to defend itself. Its amazingly ridiculous that a local German court’s judge can have such overwhelming powers that can affect entire Europe. Its anti-competitive; its monopolistic & (against consumers’ interest); it now becomes an antitrust case (because such an injunction blocks competition).
When I saw this :
http://oami.europa.eu/bulletin/rcd/2006/2006_030/000465109_0006/ima…
My first reaction was “Woot ! Apple can so totally sue the french suburb trains for the shape of their door handle !”
http://www.metro-pole.net/actu/IMG/jpg/2006-04-06_1981_BrySM_MI2N_q…
Edited 2011-08-10 06:24 UTC
At least, next time french suburb trains wont run, we could blame Apple instead of the usual strike 😉
Well, even though strikes are annoying, I think they remain relatively infrequent as compared to…
-Infrastructure not working as expected or simply brutally dying (“signalisation incidents”, broken overhead lines in winter, malfunctioning train doors and engines)
-People throwing themselves on the track (aka “traveler incident”, or “serious traveler incident” if really dirty), using the alarm signal, getting badly sick, and other customer-related complications.
At least that’s my experience on the A line, which is one the oldest and most crowded lines and also happens to be the one I live close to.
They plan to do something about the “crowded” problem, the age of the trains, and people playing with the alarm signal ( http://www.ratp.fr/fr/ratp/r_40803/le-mi09-entame-sa-campagne-d-ess… ). But I guess that apart from trains, overall infrastructure quality will only go decreasing as it keeps crumbling to dust, until they decide to close part of the line for a year in order to do some major work on it, creating one of the biggest public transportation outage seen to date
Edited 2011-08-10 11:02 UTC
you know what sucks, you design a great product i.e., ipod, iphone and then some shitty copy comes about via google and samsung and you can’t do anything about it. they steal eveything you made and you’re supposed to be ok in letting them take it.
Im sure the Xerox PARC engineers said the same when Apple copied the ideas for their MacOS.
Apple actually paid to see their “ideas”, they didn’t go through the back door as is commonly believed…
Didn’t they even employ a number of Xerox people?
No they didnt employ any Xerox people. That would be breaking Xerox employment contract, non-compete agreements.
” Jobs hires 15 Xerox employees to work on the Lisa Project.”
source: http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/history.html
I’m sure Dieter Rams feels the same towards Apple….
I’m no lawyer but I know that Dutch law is far more adapted to a trading environment (and trading tricks) than German law. The Netherlands has a long history with trade (and founded the first multinational) and that reflects in the Dutch law. Here, it is very hard to stop another company from doing trade, even temporary.
I followed a law course on financial reporting here in Holland, and there were some significant differences between Dutch law and German (or other European) laws for financial reporting. Basically, it’s more flexible here, although the system is better able to handle dirty tricks.
I’m currently following the Dutch court case – for Dutch folk, you can follow it on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/andreasudo
Thanks, that is really interresting.
I really admire Apple’s products, but this is crazy.
In no way I am giving money to Apple to help it further with this craziness.
oh, looking at the comunity design i get the feeling we will see a bright future with solely apple allowed to sell tablet computers all over europe…
die apple die!!!!
Yet he buys Apple products in which he helps funding Apple’s law suites.
OH yes, I’m a hypocrite, I certainly know that. Because I’m not just an editor at OSNews – I’m also a clueless consumer with limited funds. So when I decided to buy a tablet, I chose the best tablet on the market at that point – the iPad 2. There was no discussion about that.
At least I’m honest about my hypocrisy – unlike some other writers on the web
.
You’re not a hypocrit Thom, you’re just not an ideologist enough.
What you are though is a guy who uses these gadgets for … what you do. I don’t, I don’t need them, but to say anything about gadgets in technology industry you need to buy and know them.
And that’s still ok. That’s actually a better thing. It’s like saying: look I have an iPad, it’s cool but the the company’s vile, limiting, locking-in approach is something I detest. Don’t buy it! It has cool apps though…
And that’s why the story will not end very soon 🙂
I was just breaking your balls Thom, don’t worry I understand you’re buying the best thing on the market but I’m curious though, would you still buy one now, after this or get a Galaxy tab 10.1 through grey import instead?
I mean I never did and still don’t see any value in owning a tablet but I would almost buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1 right now just because they are forbidden. It’s like having a taste of the forbidden fruits and maybe more people think of that right now.
On the other hand, I can imagine the gross of the regular consumers that buy Apple products are not even aware of this already historic battle of the tablets.
I even talked to some iPad / iPhone owners at work and when I asked for their opinion they all said: ‘Well, it does look a lot like an iPad don’t you think?’
Edited 2011-08-10 22:26 UTC
it is very simple, DO NOT BUY Apple products.
I do not like the way apple handles customers and have never ever bought anything from apple.
The “designs” are mostly very much lookalikes from former designers, the technical novelties nowadays lookalikes from open source projects or from small compagnies that are no threat to apple. Mac OSX is heavily based on BSD.
The only thing apple is good at, is marketing and stifling innovation.
yes, this is great…
– let’s have again Microsoft and third rated product for next 20 years!
In the past “products fought battles” by trying to be better than the competition.
Now, lawyers fight battles by removing competition.
FUN has been completely eradicated from technology industry 🙁
Instead of just not buying apple I do more I tell folks not to buy apple. I feel there’s more impact in honestly speaking about their evil ways than in just lil’ ol’ me not buying a stupid gadget – which I would not waste my money anyway.
Edited 2011-08-10 11:20 UTC
Note how this is a drawing of Galaxy Tab, and not an iPad, because it doesn’t have a power button.
“Update VI: Samsung has responded. It’s crazy. Samsung was not notified about any of this, and consequently, did not even have the opportunity to defend itself. The judge just granted this injuction when Apple asked for it – no questions asked. What the heck is going on here?!”
And you are taking it on face value that they are telling the truth?
I’m not.
What would they have gained by ignoring the injunction request? They would have had a lot to lose by only letting Apples lawyers request an injection without challenge
And yet, your post contains a notable lack of any evidence (or even a reference to evidence) that Samsung is lying. I wonder what the reason for that could be…
Then again, Apple apologists and wild, unfounded allegations do go hand-in-hand, so it’s not like anyone should be surprised.
You seem pretty happy about taking Apple at whatever they say though.
According to this report
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20090552-17/apple-sues-motorola-o…
Apple also sued Motorola in EU over the same issue.
Thanks Thom, for another crazy headline with 1, 2, 3, 4… countless updates. Was that a monologue or a journalist headline, eh? You need to improve this approach. Because serisouly, the first time my eyes was set on that huge text, I thought OSNews was going to shutdown or something…
Edited 2011-08-10 15:10 UTC
I suggest putting all updates a the end of the article’s body, and copying the latest update in the header. If people see “Update 5”, they are grown up enough to find out that there are 4 others waiting somewhere, and what would be a better place than the article body ?
right in center !!! :
“Perhaps if you’d stop copying these others you could actually make better products. And perhaps a return to focus will stop you from being such pussies.”
http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies
I am the happy owner of a MacBook Pro 17″ 2011, but I didn’t pay 2500 Euro for it, I managed to get it for just over 1600 Euro. Similarly I managed to buy an AppleCare 140 Euro cheaper than its original price.
Excessive pricing and the kind of things I read in this article make my relation with Apple a love-hatred one.
I love Macs, but I am not your typical Apple fan who accepts everything without a word of criticism.
Don’t you think that most people would consider 1600 Euro’s way to too much to pay for a laptop anyway?
No, because compared to my horrible, plasticky HP DV7 (1300 Euro last year) it is *a lot* better.
For 1600 euro, you can buy 2 good laptops or 3 reasonable if you shop around a bit.
Unless you really like OSX or are into video editing, there is no real need to spend so much?
It depends what matters most to you: quality or price. If you don’t mind crap (as I said, I have also a 1300 Euro HP DV7 which is total crap), you can buy a laptop for 800 or 1000 Euro.
But it won’t be anywhere near a MacBook Pro: quality, specs, everything.
I do love OS X, but I’d rather run Windows on a Mac. Or any other OS, for that matter.
MacBooks are constantly on top of best laptops rankings.
And they keep their value in time. From a 1050 Euro Samsung laptop I bought 3 years ago, I could have got 200 Euro. I donated it, instead.
Replying to myself
I forgot love for details. On my MacBook Pro it is simply astonishing.
Think you’re asking the wrong guy. You were talking about most people, but you found the one who can clearly afford to drop 3 grand on a couple of laptops.
Exactly so we have people giving this amount of money for OS X, while so many people around the world cannot even afford a 500€ laptop.
This is one of the reasons I don’t buy Apple. Luckly I have a life status that allows me to buys them cash up front, but then I think if Mac OS X is really worth the price and end up buying a PC with dual boot.
As for HP laptops they are usually crap anyway.
Please note that this is a general remark, nothing personal against ‘Anonymous Penguin’.
“All your rectangle-shaped devices are belong to us”.
Very geeky, Apple, very.
Thom, perhaps another update for you. I just noticed something interested about the cited community design, 000181607-0001 – I don’t think it’s even related to the iPad or iPad 2, which would explain why it doesn’t look like them. Check the filing date in RCD-ONLINE: 24/05/2004. That has to be long before Apple was thinking about iPads; the iPhone didn’t get released till 2007, and the iPad is pretty obviously an expansion of the iPhone. This must relate to some earlier Apple tablet prototype. I haven’t fast-forwarded to 2010 and seen if they actually have an RCD for the iPad / iPad 2 themselves yet…but even if they do, why would they cite a much older one in this case? it’s bizarre.
Steve said the iPad idea came before the iPhone.
the idea, sure. But we’re talking about _physical design_, here. The 2004 RCD does not look like an iPad. Just look at it, then compare it to the 2010 RCDs.
So, I found the community designs for the original iPad, and there’s a ton of them. All the 001222905-xxxx and 001227003-xxxx community designs seem to be iPad-related – 001222905 seem to be for the design per se, 001227003 for the UI design. 001222905-0002 , rather interestingly, is marked as “Invalidity procedure pending”. The designer is listed as Jody Akana, a different person from the 2004 RCD cited in the Samsung case.
My Protected Community Designs:
!@#$%^&*()_+1234567890-=qwertyuiop[]\{}|asdfghjkl;’:”zxcvbnm,./ <>?
Please refrain from using them, or I may have to take action.
Community designs are supposed to be allowed only for _novel_ designs: something no-one came up with before. However, the Wikipedia entry says that there’s no novelty test at the point of application, so the process would seem to have the same problem as the U.S. patent process: it’s easy to have an RCD granted for a non-novel design, but probably more time-consuming and expensive to have it invalidated on the grounds of non-validity.
Sorry it’s in French.
A shoe designer called Louboutin in the United States wanted to protect the red sole of its shoes against Saint Laurent copying. This has been judged in court and he lost.
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/louboutin-d%C3%A9bout%C3%A…
If you can do it for the shoes, you can do it for the shape of the box…
Edited 2011-08-10 19:39 UTC
Primarily for the OS, not much else, and as a toy for tinkering. Well, Apple, you keep reaffirming my newer stance that I will *never* buy not only a Mac, but *any* Apple hardware. It’s hilarious the blatant hypocrisy that was pointed out in the article through the embedded video. Downright fucking hilarious.
I’m proud to be Apple-free, never bought anything by Apple in my life, and the company further increases the desire to *stay* Apple-free.
over generic designs, has anyone noticed the new Facebook chat sidebar scrolling feature released today? Almost a pixel for pixel ripoff of Lion.
Can’t wait for FB to get involved in the patent/trademark/IP/rectangle wars, as well.
I come from a family of millwrights – specifically in the field of rope manufacturing. (yes, we know how to make our own rope…). My grandfather helped found one of the largest rope makers in the world based out of New England — now you’re probably thinking “what’s this got to do with computers and the EU”
Many of that companies clients were in southwestern Europe — France, Spain and Portugal topping the list. I can still remember every rope manufacturer in Europe using and abusing the courts to try and keep American rope makers out — and more specifically massive fines from the court over the most nonsensical things (like a 10 year old French company claiming to own the rights to a eight strand braiding style in use since the whaling days…). I can still remember one of the higher ups at the company calling it “The french import tax”
Literally it does often seem that the courts of European countries — ESPECIALLY those with a “civil law” tradition, use their courts as a way to levy taxes on companies when they can’t pass a higher tax otherwise. It’s where the phrase “If you can’t innovate, litigate” came from…
The EU courts seem to have adopted the worst of the Civil Law practices, and companies are very quickly learning that if you can get them into court, the courts will do anything they can and pull the most absurd stunts JUST to levy those fines — doubling the damage a normal lawsuit would do. Even better, if you can drag them into court for “monopolistic practices”, you basically get the government to foot the bill.
Though I find it funny that when it’s Samsung, the courts are being “absurd” — but when it’s Microsoft “the great satan had it coming”. Now, the bit where MS didn’t reveal code they were supposed to — that’s fine… I can understand that — but bundling products for free that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE INDUSTRY ALSO BUNDLES was just absurd; and the fines and costs in manufacturing changes caused by that lawsuit should have been enough for them to basically say “Ok, **** Europe”.
One of the base concepts of “common law” is that for a law to be fair, it must apply equally. This “excuse” that “Monopolies have to play by different rules” is such a joke — if it’s wrong for one company to do something, why is it ok for everyone else? That’s 100% bull. If it’s wrong for one, it should be wrong for everyone!
“community design” is another of these uselessly vague and easy to abuse bits — and much like those old court cases I remember involving rope, you’d expect “prior art” to basically shoot it down — but from what I remember about Civil law, “Prior Art? What’s that?!?” No wonder you still here the limeys wanting out of the EU — the home of Common law dragged kicking and screaming into a Civil law union… the phrase “better off out” comes to mind.
In any case, I’m wondering what Apple’s fine is going to be for falsifying evidence, and what Samsung’s fine is going to be to continue doing business in Europe.
Got to artificially prop up that Euro somehow. Certainly aren’t doing it with manufacturing…
Edited 2011-08-11 03:14 UTC
Oh, side note — I do think a lot of this comes down to Common law vs. Civil law… Those of us from English speaking countries — where Common law is the norm, really cannot fathom how systems like Civil law; where civil order comes before the rights of the individual is even sustainable.
But then, given it’s one goose-step away from socialism and served as the basis for SharÄ«’ah…
But what do I know — the ancestors of 99% of the people within 100 miles of where I live gave other countries the finger and moved here to get away from that ****.
Edited 2011-08-11 03:24 UTC
>> But then, given it’s one goose-step away from socialism and served as the basis for SharÄ«’ah…
Wow… Just wow…
Could I advise you to travel a bit, learn about other cultures and get informed a bit before you make such stupid comments (And not only the one I quoted)???
Yeah. That made me blink for a while. This guy is a complete nutcase (unless of course I’m misreading any sarcasm).
Whatever other points (good or not) made go right out of the window when nonsense like this gets spouted.
if apple owns rectangles, does nokia own cell phones? did nokia do this in the 90s to other companies that made phones with screens?
Is the news just too disturbing to OSNews editors (or Apple haters) here : http://pulse.me/s/17qqS
Motorola just said they intend to use IP to defend against other Android devices manufacturers.
Next i guess : Samsung blocks HTC & Motorola Android devices..
Where did they say so?
Don’t believe everything on the net. As far as I can tell from the quoted examples, Motorola said no such thing – it’s all sensationalist conjecture.
Think for yourself, grasshopper.
Says Sanjay Jha (http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-openly-a…):
“I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties.”
Seems like a pretty straightforward statement to me.
Edited 2011-08-11 22:40 UTC
Sanjay Jha has the tendency to stick his foot in his mouth, but, IP in terms of hardware isn’t always bad. If it is software patents then they are just as scummy as the rest.
I don’t think that Motorola had a large software patent portfolio, but I could be wrong.
samsung can present many tablet who existed before ipad
apple have not invented the form factor
check this one: HP Compq TC1000 (2003)
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/hp-compaq-tc1000-tablet/1707-3121_7…
It did, in fact, attempt to block the injunction in a legal pleading a week before the injunction was granted …
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-pleaded-unsuccessfu…
A tech company lying for PR purposes?!? The devil you say!
Read more carefully. Samsung didn’t lie.
Ok, yes, ‘technically’ they didn’t lie, they were just not ‘forthright’ so they could stoke the rage of gullible bloggers who would rage against the stupidity of THE MAN and the unfairness of it all.
Yes, because Apple NEVER does that. Oh wait.
Compared to this little omission, Apple is a serial killer.
The only thing Samsung has going for it in this case is that you aren’t one of their lawyers.
But they hide the truth that enough to spin the facts. That’s also a lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero