UK court sides with Samsung, says its tablets don't really look like iPads and won't be banned from sale
However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004.
Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'
Samsung welcomes today’s ruling by the High Court, which affirms Samsung’s commitment to protect its own intellectual property rights while respecting those of other companies. Samsung believes Apple’s excessive legal claims based on such a generic design right can harm not only the industry’s innovation as a whole, but also unduly limit consumer choice.
1. surethom posted on 09 Jul 2012, 07:13 32 0
Once again the UK courts show the world what common sense is.
4. tedkord posted on 09 Jul 2012, 07:32 29 0
British judges are making US judges look like retards.
25. Jeradiah3 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 11:01 8 0
Apple must have paid her to rule in their favor
6. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 09 Jul 2012, 07:42 21 0
"The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004."
19. Commentator posted on 09 Jul 2012, 10:16 2 1
That's in Samsung's own words, which are obviously going to be biased. (i)Engadget is reporting that the judge thought the Samsung Galaxy Tab is "not as cool" as the iPad, and therefore unlikely to be confused with it. That sounds more like an insult to Samsung than anything.
23. Aeires (unregistered) posted on 09 Jul 2012, 10:39 4 0
I don't think Samsung really cares if a judge thinks their products aren't as cool, only if they are allowed to sell them or not.
29. willard12 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 12:40 1 0
And you're calling Endgadget unbiased? They wrote a paragraph article and didn't show the entire quote.
31. Commentator posted on 09 Jul 2012, 12:55 1 0
Um, no, I'm not calling Engadget unbiased, that's why I placed the "(i)" before "Engadget," in much the same way that people call PhoneArena "iPhoneArena."
Why would you think I was calling Engadget unbiased? Just because Samsung says one thing and Engadget says another doesn't mean one of them is lying. They both are emphasizing a different part of the story.
38. thinking posted on 10 Jul 2012, 00:02 0 0
coolness has nothing to do with patents. Next what, an apple patent for being "cool"?
20. pegasso posted on 09 Jul 2012, 10:28 0 0
21. pegasso posted on 09 Jul 2012, 10:28 0 0
7. khmer posted on 09 Jul 2012, 07:52 6 0
UK Courts made Judge Koh blinded couldn't tell the different between Samsung Galaxy Tab and iPad; Samsung Galaxy S phone and iPhone.
8. matrix_neo posted on 09 Jul 2012, 07:57 9 1
Good for samsung. Ifans what can you say? The truth shall prevail.
10. MISTER_H (banned) posted on 09 Jul 2012, 08:22 6 1
Take that crapapple. Don't even bother next time.
11. Bluesky02 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 08:29 3 0
Glad this work out, I'm looking forward for some great Samsung Windows (Phone) 8 Tab/Phone
39. thinking posted on 10 Jul 2012, 00:05 1 0
Point. Yes, those patents should have been invalidated, too.
13. remixfa posted on 09 Jul 2012, 08:48 6 1
finally. my god. a judge that reiterated what most feel is common sense. That gives me hope for judicial systems... outside of the US. Can we vote this guy to teach Lucy how to be a tech judge. Apple uses pretty much the same arguments in every court case.
14. Fuego84 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 08:58 7 0
I'm tired of hearing about this last Gen, company which is always behind in technology, software, and innovation already. I mean come on Apple how long did you think your plan of selling the same OG iPhone again and again and again was going to last. And now that iPhones aren't selling as fast as before you go on and try to ban competition instead of stepping up your supposed superior product. I guess that means you want to keep selling the same outdated, low end iPhone a while longer. I'm proud that I've never bought an Apple product and I'm so sure I never will because I like the better products.
15. bayusuputra posted on 09 Jul 2012, 08:59 4 1
Knight Rider FTW!!!
slavishly copy design my a$$!
Prior art, apple.. Prior art.. the world didn't started in 2007..
16. Tmachaveli posted on 09 Jul 2012, 09:04 7 0
That's what you get apple...why is the u.s. courts so dam dumb?
18. darkkjedii posted on 09 Jul 2012, 09:56 5 2
I'm an apple guy, but congrats Samsung. Apple needs to get off their a$$e$ and innovate more. Sammy makes kick a$$ products.
22. shuaibhere posted on 09 Jul 2012, 10:28 2 0
atlast the truth has revealed....... atleast after this lucy koh should get some sense... i think US suppports apple cuz its US company.... if apple loses share then US economy rate will go down...i think dis is the main reason behind the US's stupididty........
40. thinking posted on 10 Jul 2012, 00:08 0 0
I would disagree with that. I'm sure the sales result in taxes. The stores employ americans. And when the koreans and taiwanese fly down for business discussions, there is additional business from hotels and restaurants and flights and others (not to mention shopping). And every time a better product is made, it gives ideas to US companies like apple to steal.
44. jmoita2 posted on 10 Jul 2012, 09:47 1 0
We all know what's up with this Lucy Koh. I bet you anything a surprise inspection of her house would turn up dozens of Apple products as well as tons of Apple related memorabilia. Hence her incomprehensible decisions.
24. MARKSPEAR77 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 10:42 1 0
Lucy Koh needs to wear eye glasses of the highest level of lens to see the differencies of the two, lol.....RIP LUCY KOH, and take that icoppin.....
26. SlimSoulja86 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 11:36 5 0
lol, frm an iPhone user, she needs them Google Glasses,
33. Tmachaveli posted on 09 Jul 2012, 13:29 2 0
Lol thats the beat statement I heard in a while
27. gallitoking posted on 09 Jul 2012, 11:56 1 5
dont Blame judge Lucy al this began when a Samsung Lawyer could not distuinguish them at a fair distance.... yes people already forgat about that.
30. willard12 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 12:47 6 1
That's how I buy my tablets, at a far distance. It would be just too hard for me to get up close to the tablet, try it out, read the letters S A M S U N G at the top, and see that it is 10.1 inches vs. 9.7. She could have put a Samsung dryer next to a Kenmore dryer and I bet neither you or judge Lucy could tell the difference from distance either.
37. dvancleave posted on 09 Jul 2012, 20:07 6 0
Not to bash or beat up on anyone.... But I would have trouble distinguishing the brand of some big screen TV's from a distance. The majority are all rectangular flat-screens with shrinking, black bezels. I say get over the petty stuff. None of these trivial and frivolous lawsuits existed back in the day of flip phones or "brick" phones.
42. thinking posted on 10 Jul 2012, 00:14 1 1
no, it began when apple asked the samsung lawyer to distinguish it from a distance (because they know their days are limited once the real up-close comparison starts). From a distance, a famous actor or footballer may look like another. i guess we should enforce some bans there, too.
45. InspectorGadget80 posted on 11 Jul 2012, 22:42 0 0
so u want me TO PUT IPAD/galaxy TAB CLOSE TO YOU'RE eyes so YOU can SEE the difference between them or are you completely a blind idiot?
28. 1eye4u posted on 09 Jul 2012, 12:33 4 0
If Apple and not Benz that rolled out the first automobile, there would be no other manufacturer out there that can build a white car with 4 wheels and a steering wheel without getting sued by Apple.
32. quryous (banned) posted on 09 Jul 2012, 13:22 1 0
I remember all the "Cool" chicks from back in High School, now on their 2nd, 3rd, even 4th marriage. The other, "merely" Nice girls, on the other hand, don't seem to have had NEARLY so many basic flaws.
36. taz89 posted on 09 Jul 2012, 17:13 1 0
again UK judge shows common knowledge that the USA seems to be lacking... lol the USA suppose to be land of the free
43. thinking posted on 10 Jul 2012, 00:15 2 0
perhaps, is it - where companies like apple are free to copy AND PATENT what was there all the time.