And yet another ruling. In April this year, Apple sued Samsung over several design patents and a single software patent regarding various Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Late last night, US District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung. The actual ruling, though, is a mixed bag – Samsung is found infringing (but it’s a “close question”) on Apple’s design and software patents (no real patents in play here, folks), but Apple has failed completely in providing any form of proof that Samsung is causing irreparable harm to Apple.
The ruling is quite detailed with its 65 pages, but it’s not overly complicated or filled with legalise. In fact, it was surprisingly easy to read, and the judge has argued her case well. While the scale tipped in Samsung’s favour overall, many oppositions from the Korean company were brushed aside, and there’s absolutely no certainty that the full court case will have a similarly favourable outcome for Samsung.
Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G
In fact, the judge concludes that the Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G infringe upon Apple’s design patents – but that it is a “close question”. However, in order to receive a preliminary injunction in the US, Apple must also successfully argue that it will suffer irreparable harm from Samsung’s products – and this is where Apple failed. Badly.
First, Apple has put forth that Samsung’s products will erode Apple’s design distinctiveness, which will damage Apple’s goodwill. The judge, however, notes that Apple doesn’t actually provide any proof for this claim. “Without any concrete evidence to support its argument, Apple has not yet established that this harm to its reputation for innovation is likely to occur,” the judge writes.
Second, Apple argues that because its brand is indistinct from its product design, Samsung’s infringing products will diminish the value of Apple’s brand. The judge pretty much declares this argument bonkers, because Apple is apparently trying to apply the concept of brand dilution (from trademark law) to patent law. “Apple has offered no argument that trademark doctrines are applicable to design patent infringement cases,” the judge notes.
The judge further adds that even if design patent infringement could lead to brand dilution, Apple has not given any evidence that such dilution actually takes place. “The declarations Apple offers echo its general argument that Apple’s advertisements associate product design with the Apple brand. While such ads might show that design is important to Apple’s marketing efforts, they have no bearing on the impact of Samsung’s products on Apple as a brand,” the judge notes, “Without more evidence – for example, evidence of consumer confusion, or consumer surveys showing blurring of the Samsung and Apple brands – Apple has not demonstrated that brand dilution is likely to occur.”
I think this is going to be a very tough thing for Apple to prove in the way the judge wants them to. I have never heard of any case where people are mixing up iPhones with Samsung’s phones – I mean, the presence of the logos is pretty distinctive, and, of course, people are far more attuned to distinguishing brands than many think. The judge even notes that the relatively high prices of smartphones forces people to pay more attention to details during the purchasing process.
Thirdly, Apple argues that Samsung’s infringing products cause Apple to lose market share – permanently – which may offer ground for irreparable harm. Sadly, this section is filled with censored pieces of text, making it a bit harder to fully grasp the parties’ and the judge’s reasoning. Lots of survey results and sales data seems to be blacked out. The general conclusion is clear, though: Apple has not provided sufficient evidence to suggest that Samsung’s allegedly infringing products will cause irreparable harm.
Then there’s the issue of how hard an injunction would hit the party receiving it. The judge concludes that because the issue of infringement is a “close question”, granting a preliminary injunction could very well be incredibly unfair to Samsung because the full court case might determine Samsung not to be infringing. As far as the public interest goes, the balance doesn’t tip in either party’s favour; the public has an interest in the protection of patent rights, but this is counterbalanced by Samsung’s right to compete.
Galaxy Tab
As far Samsung’s tablets go, the picture is entirely different. Here, the judge believes Samsung will most likely succeed in invalidating Apple’s design patent. Just to refresh your memory – this design patent, D’889, is exactly the same as the Community Design (#003781832) Apple is peddling here in Europe, with the difference being that the Community Design was filed in May, 2004, while the design patent is from 2005.
Samsung presented both the Knight Ridder and the Compaq TC 1000 as cases of prior art, and the judge accepted them. The judge did state that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is likely to infringe Apple’s design patent, but that the cases of prior art will invalidate the patent anyway – as such, Apple has failed to convince the court that it would be successful in a full trial.
Unlike the case with the smartphones, Apple has, however, convinced the judge that the absence of a preliminary injunction would cause irreparable harm to Apple, because the tablet market is smaller and contains fewer relevant players. However, due to Samsung’s strong showing with prior art invalidating the design patent in question, the preliminary injunction is still denied.
The scrolling-bouncing-whatever software patent
Apple also sued over a software patent – the same one the company entered in the Dutch courts. Like I explained in that case, this patent “covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe (or whatever – I have a life, I’m not reading the entire damn thing)”. The Dutch courts found Samsung’s photo gallery application (so not Android itself) to be infringing this software patent. Samsung then circumvented this patent via a software update even before the Dutch injunction came into effect, rendering this victory useless for Apple.
Like the Dutch courts, the American judge also believes Samsung will be found to infringe upon this patent in a full court case. This covers the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Inguse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Droid Charge. However, there’s some legal nitpicking going on here regarding the prior art that will most likely infuriate the software developers among us.
Samsung provided several cases of prior art (LaunchTile and its email application, and something called Lira Reference). Both of these employ the same method of bounce-back and snapping as Apple’s patent describes, but they still cannot be regarded as prior art because these cases do not employ these methods exclusively; they also employ other methods.
I’m sure this is legally sound with regards to the law, but anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see how idiotic this is. So, you found prior art which uses the patented method, but just because the prior art also uses another method sometimes, it’s no longer prior art. I wish I could use an expletive, because that’s the only way to describe this idiotic technicality.
Still, the judge will not grant the preliminary injunction because, again, Apple has failed to provide any evidence that the infringement of the ‘381 patent will cause irreparable harm. And, as we’ve seen in The Netherlands, Samsung already has a software update ready to address this issue – the specific US patent might differ from the specific European patent, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to take it into account. If all else fails, Samsung could simply remove the gallery altogether.
Conclusion
So, this ruling is a bit of a mixed bag for both companies. Samsung is found infringing in many cases, but Apple has completely failed – and with completely failed I really mean completely and utterly failed – to prove that Samsung is causing Apple harm.
So, for now this is is a victory for Samsung, but the full court case may eventually tip the balance to Cupertino if Apple manages to come up with substantial proof that Samsung is causing it irreparable harm – not an easy task. Similarly, Samsung may still be able to better argue that it is either not infringing, or that Apple’s design and software patents are invalid.
Also, I’m glad I’m not a lawyer.
The patents in question essentially covers a screen with a bezel. I’d claim prior art for every LCD screen in existence.
Also laptops.
Also the BeIA WebPad.
The list goes on.
By the time this legal debacle is over, you may be a layer yet! Keep up the excellent summaries for the sake of all our brains.
Apple Instructs Samsung On The Finer Points Of Tablet And Smartphone Design from: http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/12/03/apple-instructs-samsung-on-…
The Verge has provided a cogent summary of some alternative design options described by Apple:
Front surface that isn’t black.
Overall shape that isn’t rectangular, or doesn’t have rounded corners.
Display screens that aren’t centered on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
Non-horizontal speaker slots.
Front surfaces with substantial adornment.
No front bezel at all.
As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung:
Overall shape that isn’t rectangular, or doesn’t have rounded corners.
Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
Front surface that isn’t entirely flat.
Profiles that aren’t thin.
Cluttered appearance.
This is so sad and pathetic. Has anyone shown LG’s Prada to the judges?
There is also: “Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned in Australia again” – http://www.neowin.net/news/galaxy-tab-101-banned-in-australia-again Earlier this week, Samsung got the three judge panel of the Federal Court of Australia to unanimously overturn a previous court ruling that banned the sale of tablet back in August. The original ban was set up because Apple claimed that the “look and feel” of the touch pad for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet was infringing on Apple’s patents.
Today the High Court decided to extend the ban once again so that it can have time to hear Apple’s appeal of the case. A hearing which will determine whether or not the High Court will actually take the case will be held on December 9.
Edited 2011-12-04 07:07 UTC
Apple licensed the iOS scrolling patent to Nokia and IBM, and offered a license to Samsung. Samsung turned it down.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/3/2608407/apple-license-ios-scrolli…
Someone needs to fight this extortion racket. The net effect is absolutely anti small business.
The only problem with Niley’s story is that he shows no evidence of Apple offering it to Samsung. I’ve actually read the document… And there’s nothing in it. Nothing about IBM or Nokia, either. All it says is that Apple licensed the patent before, and it seems logical to assume that would cover Nokia/Microsoft (we know about those deals), but IBM? No mention. Offering it to Samsung? No mention.
I’m emailing Niley tonight, since he knows his shit so I’m sure I’m missing something – but the ruling as it is does not mention *anything*.
An acorn is not an oak tree and an idea is not not a product. Is picking up an acorn the same as stealing a whole oak tree? If you take an acorn and then grow an oak tree with it who does the oak tree belong to? Copying an idea (‘let’s make a computer that doesn’t use a mouse or keyboard but which is controlled by using the touch of your fingers’) is different to copying a product (‘hey this iPad thing is selling like hotcakes, let’s make something that looks exactly like it right down to the packaging and sell it’). One is, I think, acceptable and one is not. One is good for the development of technology products and one is not.
Ideas, particularly original ones, are useful but millions of people have good ideas every day and they lead to nothing, to nowhere. To make a great and innovative product you need to take some great ideas, maybe ideas that have been floating around for a while such as using your fingers on a touch screen to do stuff, and then polish those ideas through a tremendously focussed design process to get an actual product, a great product.
Or one can just wait for someone else to do all the hard work, of assembling the good, and sometimes great, ideas, the designing of the product, the intense polishing of that design, and then just copy it. That’s certainly a viable business model and one that many companies in the tech arena pursue. Watch what is a success and slavishly, but often poorly, copy it.
Which is better morally – I think the former but it depends on how you look at things. Which is better for innovation and the development of technology products? I would say very clearly the former. In fact I wish more companies did what Apple did, assemble original designs, polished and perfect them, try to be innovative and bold in their designs. If more companies did that that instead of the crass copying then we would have lot more better products and fewer crappy ones.
The polishing of good ideas into great designs is very important and it’s one that many companies skimp on so many products are less than polished when they are released. Apple tend to be very innovative with the way they take ideas and polish them into products and very thorough with their polishing. It’s what Apple is famous for. No wonder they get pissed off when people copy them, no wonder they sue them. Who wouldn’t in their position?
Even Apple themselves, with the initial release of Mac OS X.
Except it has already been demonstrated countless times that the “looks” of the Ipad and Iphones were already inherent in products by other companies and in publicly released mock-ups, years before the first Iphone/Ipad appeared.
Even Samsung had a digital picture frame prior to the Iphone which the Ipad (and other tablets) resembles almost exactly.
The thing of it is, this “look” is actually quite obvious and straightforward. It’s not as if Knight-Ridder or Stanley Kubrick/Arthur C. Clarke put a lot of effort and time into the look of their tablets, nor did they need much inspiration. There was no “growing acorns into oak trees” nor anything overblown like that. It is a very simple, banal design (as are the designs of most Apple products).
Folks who consider Apple’s designs to be earth-shatteringly great are usually utter newbies to the world of product/industrial design, and such folks are usually blind to the truly inspired designs of Apple’s competitors. And there IS a huge world of innovative product design happening out there, quite independently of Apple. This rich, inventive design realm has been churning out truly unique and inspired items long before Apple existed and it will still be doing the same long after Apple is gone. For the most part, Apple’s designs are basic retro, inspired primarily by Braun products of the 1960s. By the way, Braun also had a lot of great, unique ID in the 1970s and 1980s.
There is a long list of electronics and computer companies other than Braun that have had truly interesting designs, but one needn’t go any further than Sony. Sony has four design centers across the globe, and they have produced some very unique and inventive products. They were winning design awards long before Apple existed, and many of their products were later picked-up by Apple. Sony’s vast product line eclipses Apple’s miniscule, limited selection. Sony’s ID accomplishments can be explored here: http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/ Keep in mind that this is just one company of zillions.
Just because many many good ideas don’t get produced that doesn’t make it right for Apple to claim someone else’s idea as its own.
No. Not really. There are countless examples of individuals who had product ideas and produced them roughly (with no notion of “design”) and had great, successful products.
However, Apple’s products really aren’t innovative — the most that the company does is combine the ideas of others, and market the hell out of them. It also doesn’t hurt to have a legion of clueless followers. Apple just hasn’t invented much nor come up with much that is truly inspired.
There are many examples of companies that have released a product prior to Apple that includes the same combination of ideas, yet the companies can’t compete with Apple’s marketing/legions.
“Intense polishing of the design?” The designs of the Iphone and Ipad were almost entirely inherent in products from other companies, research groups and filmmakers long before Apple claimed them as their own.
Sorry, but I don’t cotton to Apple taking the ideas of others and claiming them as its own.
No. Apple stifles innovation in many ways, and not rewarding nor crediting those who actually came up with an idea is just one of the ways.
Having a legion of followers who actually believe that such a practice is okay and that their corporation can do no wrong additionally leads to a technological mono-culture, which further stifles innovation.
Don’t get me started on Apple’s underhanded litigiousness and on its app store developer incidents.
A lot of companies (and independent designers) do more with ID than what Apple does. Unlike Apple, these companies actually create inspired, original designs. One merely needs to review the entrants of a few design competitions to realize the vast design world that is out there, of which Apple is only a tiny part.
Also, just to qualify, many of the best product designs are not winning awards. Usually, the best designs just serve their function well — they are not necessarily pretty or “polished.”
Well, I don’t agree on the “polishing.”
In addition, by producing products similar to those that came before Apple, I don’t see how a company could be copying Apple.
It’s not point that that there has existed in human culture at various points objects and graphic images that resemble, often very closely, the iPad.
That isn’t the point because Samsung didn’t copy those things.
The point is Samsung copied the iPad.
Without the iPad there would be no Samsung tablet and it certainly wouldn’t look like it does. Samsung deliberately decided to try to make something that looked as closely as possible just like an iPad. The reason they did that is simple, the iPad was a sensationally successful product as soon as it launched and Samsung wanted some of that action.
Copying successful products is a common strategy, but it doesn’t make it always legal, and it doesn’t make is ethically good and it doesn’t really help innovation and tech development.
In regard to the scrolly thingie:
Read Thom’s other thread:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25373/EU_Copyright_Doesn_t_Cover_Functi… ).
As long as Samsung coded this scrolly thingie from scratch using their own source code the patent is practically worthless. This needs to stop.
Edited 2011-12-04 15:35 UTC
That will depend on what the courts decide.
Nevertheless, Apple did not invent the scrolling “bounce-back” effect. That feature was being used in products by at least two other companies, prior to Apple.
Apple should not have received a patent for bounce-back scrolling, as they were not the inventors of the feature.
I agree. It also imitates real-world physics.
Watch the “Wheel Of Fortune” game show (in the US), and you have exactly the same concept. Any wheel that provides springy resistance between steps will act the same way.
These patents are ridiculous.
I am not sure I even buy the whole copying argument. If I take a fake rolex and a real rolex, I can tell that the fake is a copy. It tries to look as close as possible to the original as it can. When I see a Samsung pad and an iPad, I don’t see the same level of similarity. Its like rolex being pissed at Timex because the watches are functionally the same. But no one is going to say Timex copied Rolex.
I tend to think of the game industry. Imagine if the game industry used patents for things like game mechanics and set pieces… The entire game industry would come to a grinding halt.
The game industry is a perfect example of people copying and stealing from each other left and right, and everyone seems to be perfectly okay with it – it brings the industry forward, both big name and indie. Imagine if id got a patent on the first person shooter… Or BioWare took up a patent on the a “party-based RPG on a digital device” or what the fcuk… *shivers*
Yet, Apple fanatics are perfectly okay with this if it’s about the technology industry. Fucking idiotic. The level of effort involved in creating a video game is at least on par with that of writing software, and I’d say it requires far more effort. So, by logical extension, people who support software and design patents (almost exclusively Apple fanatics these days) also support patents in the video game industry.
There were tablet computers before the iPad. If you compare how non-Apple tablets looked before and after the iPad you will notice a significant design shift. From the outer casing, to the look ‘n’ feel of the operating system. If you look at Samsung even the box it comes in.
Some call it progress when companies copy stuff. Tablets have been around for a while. Apple put in the effort and came up with something different, it sold them all, it kickstarted an entire sector. Other companies saw there was money to be made there, but most just copied the iPad and putting inferior efforts in the hands of customers. At least ASUS did something different with their Transformer.
Just do an image search for “ipad prior art” and you will see that many virtually identical designs date back to the 1960s.
Were those touch screen tablet computers and did those influence current tablet design?
The Star Trek (1980s) PADD was a touch screen tablet. So was the Knight-Ridder concept (1987). Both have virtually identical form factors to the iPad.
The fanbois just can’t accept that Apple are copiers not innovators.
So what kind of software was available for the PADD?
I guess no software, as it lacked about everything that makes a computer a computer. It couldn’t even tell you the time.
So I could build a Starship that does warp 9 and you’d say it has been done before, in the 60’s even.
No one before Apple made an actually working tablet that looked and functioned like the iPad. After the iPad tablets suddenly started looking like the iPad, including the look ‘n’ feel of the interface, right down to the packaging.
I’d like to see a demo of PADD and in what box it came.
Don’t be such a fucking idiot. No one is going to try and build a Warp 9 spaceship.
Many technologies have been inspired by fiction eg mobile phones, wristwatch TVs, Bluetooth earpieces.
Children have been learning to write on slates that look identical to the iPad for well over 100 years. The idea was totally obvious. It simply needed the technology to develop so the devices could be sold at a realistic price.
Apple has even tried to sue Samsung based on a mere sketch of a tablet. The PADD had a interactive GUI.
The reason that tablet design changed radically around 2007 is because suitable capacitative touchscreens became available.
And Apple was just the first to dive on to this technology, that also caused tablets and packaging to appear in a certain form? Do you really believe Samsung didn’t model it’s products to Apple’s? That they took a Star Trek prop as inspiration? Why didn’t they do this before the iPad?
You may call me an idiot, but I wonder what people would call you if you showed up with a PADD and explained that it was the first tablet computer.
If you tried to sell it as a tablet computer you’d get arrested for scamming.
An iPad style device would have turned up within a another year or two without Apple. It was simply a matter of suitable components being available at the right price.
In the 1930s Germany and Britain independently developed virtually identical jet engines. Yet neither side was even aware of the others work. This occurred because both sides eventually reached the same solution to the same problems (maximum power outputs from piston engines).
The iPad form factor is basically the only practical design for a tablet. That is why all manufacturers now build tablets that look and operate the same way.
Well, it may or may not, fact is it hasn’t until Steve showed us the iPad and only then did the competition start building tablets that looked like the iPad.
Before the iPad tablets looked and worked very different. It’s easy to see where they got their inspiration from.
I personally don’t mind Samsung & co creating a rectangle, in black with rounded corners. But Samsung went much further with their tablets and phones: icons, the package, the naming (stick an S behind each product upgrade) and advertisement.
Creating a tablet isn’t easy, Apple managed to pull it off. This is in no comparison with children slates or scifi series props.
Perhaps other companies would have done it too if Apple hadn’t done it, but tablets changed significantly after the iPad was introduced. I think this has more to do with the success of the iPad than a matter of technology evolving to a certain level.
How many times do I have to explain it?
In physical engineering there is usually only one optimal solution to any problem. That is why large luxury cars are very similar and why modern passenger airliners all look the same.
In the case of tablets the only logical engineering solution is a touchscreen and a GUI. This fact is so bleedingly obvious that it has ben a mainstay of sci fi for decades.
When affordable components were available to build touchscreen tablets they happened.
If you really think that Acer, LG, Dell, Samsung etc all decided to eliminate R&D to just copy Apple you have been smoking crack. Every major hardware manufacturer has been working for years trying to develop tablets. The fact that the technology has converged is to be expected. This is because once suitable hardware became available the tablet plans could be implemented.
The only reason that Apple was first to market is because their customers are willing to buy expensive novel hardware.
The reason Apple is suing everybody is because Steve Jobs was an immature and irrational sociopath who left Apple with a culture of constant litigation.
How does this explain cheaper tablets being crap and more expensive tablets not being as good as the iPad?
I’m not an idiot and I don’t smoke. Apple created something, other companies responded by slapping Android on some hardware specs, calling it an iPad killer.
Whatever theory you have about hardware solutions, this doesn’t explain the packaging, icons and advertisement. Like I said before it’s not this or that, it’s everything.
Apple has a patent on minimalist packaging now? I guess all those other gazillion brands that use minimalist packaging are fcuked.
There are only so many ways you can design a phone or SMS icon. Apple didn’t invent any of those.
What Apple ads?
You’re thinking in or or or or or. That’s not the problem, it’s and and and and and.
Someone else can wear the same shoes as you, or the same jacket, perhaps even both, but if it’s the same shoes, trousers, jacket, underpants and posts on newos.com (exploring the past and future of computers) under the name of Tom Howard it’s hard to deny this Tom didn’t take some cues from you. Well some… all in fact.
Now Samsung is being defended by claims that the cast of Star Trek already had a tablet computer in the 60s, despite it not actually being a computer but a simple prop and that the only way to make a tablet is by making it look like an iPad even though tablets have been made before the iPad for years. It’s not very convincing.
Exactly right. So when somebody invents a transporter and/or a machine that can replicate physical objects, they should get absolutely none of the credit, since, hey… we saw it in Star Trek first, and they would just be copiers, and not innovators. In fact, anything ever seen in a movie or TV show should be considered prior art.
For those that say that the iPhone/iPad wasn’t anything new, I want to know how many multi-touch based phones/tablets were on the market before Apple released theirs, and why many of the phones/tablets released since then seem to look a hell of a lot like iPhones/iPads and less like Blackberries.
Apple is trying to sue anyone who manufactures a device that has a rectangular screen and rounded corners. This identical form factor has been used in children’s slates for over 100 years.
It is perfectly legal to closely imitate designs but not trademarks. The first 1991 Lexus LS400 was a blatant copy of the Mercedes S Class. Many companies make also almost exact replicas of the Rolex Submariner without being sued.
Apple knows they have no hope of winning these lawsuits. It is merely a desperate attempt to stall competition.
Apple are attempting to sue samsung based on the physical appearance of the device, the physical appearance is most definitely based on science fiction devices.
The appearance of anything seen in a movie *is* prior art because the appearance has already been invented by the creators of that movie.
The functionality as well has been imagined by the creators of the movie, although the technology to make it (or make it at an affordable price) may not have existed at the time the movie was created.
The only innovative thing therefore, is the actual implementation of the functionality.
ahem… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg
The photo in the link above shows the JooJoo tablet which was released March 25, 2010. The first Ipad was released later, on April 3, 2010.
So, a touchscreen tablet with with the design elements that fanboys seem to think are special and innovative (rounded corners and a flush, black bezel) had been sold prior to the release of the Ipad.
However, it doesn’t really matter that the JooJoo was first tablet to market with those design elements, because the look is so utterly obvious and, also, there had been prior art to the JooJoo and Ipad for years.
By the way, there was even a mockup of the JooJoo design shown long before it was released (in June, 2009, when it was called the Crunchpad): http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/
Not only does the article quite clearly show a tablet with the simple look that most subsequent tablets will adopt, but notice the second sentence in the second paragraph of the article in which it is stated that the bezel is flush.
So, over seven months before the Ipad was even introduced, someone expressed publicly — in writing — the concept of a flush bezel.
Are we going to endlessly add conditions to our arguments in an attempt to make the derived/banal design of the Ipad seem unique and important?
The simple design adopted for the Ipad was shown four decades ago in a major film, and it was clearly shown in a mock-up by Knight-Ridder 16 years prior to the Ipad’s release.
If Apple influenced other manufacturers, it wasn’t with an original design.
Furthermore, should we really consider influence to be an admirable accomplishment?
I never did, why do you bring it up?
The Joojoo will go down as one if the biggest POS products and it looks like an iPod touch/iPhone. But that’s just the outside, the Joojoo people didn’t mimic anything else from Apple (certainly not sales figures) as Samsung did. They didn’t get sued, nor did a number of companies that make tablets, phones and media players.
Hell, even that tablet prop from Star Trek is probably more worth than a JooJoo, despite the Joojoo being more rare.
Hmmm… I wonder who posted this line?:
“Were those touch screen tablet computers and did those influence current tablet design?”
Really? So, it will be included with such design/engineering marvels as:
the eminently ergonomic Apple round mouse;
the fabulously flaming Apple magsafe connector;
the Apple Mighty Mouse with the incredible clogging/freezing ball;
the amazing cracking Apple glass laptop touchpad;
the unbelievable shattering Apple Iphone 4 backside;
the “super hot” Apple G5 tower;
the mysterious “mooing” Apple Macbook fan;
the fabulous cracking Apple iPhone 3G/3GS enclosure;
the spectacular bending Apple Macbook air enclosure;
the dazzling yellow Apple 27″ Imac screen;
and lastly (but not least) the fantastic Apple Iphone 4 “you’re holding it wrong” antenna short-circuiting.
Is that the group of fantastic products in which the JooJoo belongs? I’m not sure if it makes it into that category, because the JooJoo actually functioned properly — it was merely underpowered and under marketed.
Oh. Like this Iphone?: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol…
Oops! Wait… that’s not an Ipone — its the Prada, which was winning design awards long before the Ipone and Ipod Touch were even introduced.
That’s right! Samsung copied Apple with the bounce-back scrolling and the colored icon array. Those features were unheard of prior to the Ipad/Iphone.
What really upsets me is that Samsung had the nerve to package their products in a white box — only Apple should be allowed to do that!
/sarcasm
Edited 2011-12-05 23:00 UTC
Hmmm… I wonder who posted this line?:
“Were those touch screen tablet computers and did those influence current tablet design?”
I’m missing the “admirable accomplishment” bit.
I’m skipping the rest of your childish “arguments” as you’re moving away from the topic with light speed and I don’t want to be along for that ride.
Your question implies that the Ipad influenced other tablets and that there is something special about such influence.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t expect more from someone who essentially has no valid point.
I’m not implying, I’m stating a fact that there is a difference in design and function between pre-iPad tablets and post-iPad tablets.
It wasn’t the Joojoo and its 90 pre-orders that convinced companies to start producing their own tablets. It’s the iPad and Apple kickstarted a dormant market forcing others to play catchup.
Samsung put in the most effort to mimic the iPad, from external design, to icons, operating system, advertising and even packaging. It’s not one factor, it’s all of them that caused Apple to take aim at them.
This has nothing to do with prior art, the Joojoo, Star Trek or Prada phones. There are a lot of products, past and present, that look like Apple stuff and those companies didn’t get sued.
Looks like they took a big bite they can’t swallow, they had best just drop the case before those patents are invalidated.
It’s very very hard to prove ‘irreparable harm’ in the US. You basically have to show that the amount of money you have to lose will exceed the amount of money the other party has.
I still think this whole thing is a waste of money and human resources.
Edited 2011-12-05 06:38 UTC
To anyone born before 1960 (eg Steve Jobs) the iPad is a blatantly obvious design. It looks identical to the slate they learned to write on.
Slate circa 1880:
10″ “screen”
stylus input (chalk)
0.5″ thickness
narrow frame with rounded edges
You can buy one of these amazing low tech tablets for $6 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Slate-Chalk-Board-Double-Natural/dp/B00456GFW…
Android started with Android, Inc. in 2003 or earlier