Apple changed shape of Galaxy Tab in court filing Apple's court submission, which led to an EU ban on Samsung's sale of its rival Galaxy Tab device, contains one comparison which seems to warp reality to make its point. Apple claimed in a German court, which it also claimed in its submission to the Dutch court, that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a straight rip-off of …
I can't see why, except to be b*****rds, they think that rounded corners should be protected. Are they implying that Samsung should have to go with square corners, HTC use barbed wire on the corners and Motorolla put pins in the corners?
And as for "a flat surface centred within, and surrounded by, a metallic frame", well how many combinations can there be? When someone designs a plastic frame the others will be forced to go with wood, paper etc. And because Sony has already done a curved surface the options are pretty limited there too: ridged, anyone?
My laptop has rounded corners. It's an HP.
Joke alert, because Apple are a joke. They're trying to patent product classes. As I said once before, imagine if only the company which first put stereo speakers into a TV (and maybe called it an sTV) was ever allowed to put stereo speakers into a TV, on the grounds that any other product was an sTV rip-off.
Before Apple made the iPad, "tablet computing" meant a laptop with a swiveling touchscreen, or, if you want to go back further, devices like the Go PenPoint which was plastic, had square edges, stylus input, and IIRC no grid of icons to run "apps."
So if you mean "how many combinations can there be if you want your product to look and work like an iPad," then I suppose you're right, the answer is one.
It is a testament to Apple that they were able to completely revolutionize tablet computing so thoroughly that even technical people take the iPad design for granted. And this all happened in less than 2 years.
Before apple made the iPad Windows tablets were... Lets see now... From the view they have used in their pictures...
4:3 ratio rectangles with rounded corners and (as Windows has done since Windows 95) displayed a grid of icons on the desktop (or as Apple like to call it the home screen).
Yup - revolutionary!
I'll give you the glossy screen that reflects all the light sources! I didn't see those on the earlier tablets.
But remember, when the iPad came out, most people (including those in the media) had no idea what to make of it and were convinced it would be a failure--no keyboard, just a big cell phone, can't fit in a pocket, doesn't run Excel, etc. The best they could do was compare it to the Newton from 1991 which was a different form factor, was operated with a stylus, and had completely different software metaphors. (And failed.)
If it wasn't revolutionary, then there wouldn't have been any confusion or controversy.
Also, if you want to make a case that Windows tablets were/are basically the same as iPads, then you might as well argue that all electronic devices are the same since they all contain circuitry.
There was a ruggedized windows tablet (pad) in my office in 2005/6, which had rounded corners (though not as rounded as on the Galaxy Tab) and did not use a stylus. Icons were arranged in a grid on the desktop.
It is a testament to Apple's marketing team that people think these things did not exist before 2009. I also give them credit for making people think that they created a whole new product category instead of applying new technologies (eg. multitouch and accelerometer) to a product class for which no other manufacturer thought there was any market (an achievement which is not generally known because Apple's preferred myth prevails).
By "how many combinations" I mean how many if you want your device to look different to an iPad whilst still remaining functional. round corners, a flat screen and a grid of icons has been the obvious choice for a long time, although Android actually does things differently (unless you fall for Apple's "evidence"). If Apple had done something which had not been done before - if they had gone for pins in the corners and a ridged screen - and others had done the same, then they and you would have a point. Incidentally, the tablet (pad) in my office back then had ridged edges.
I'm always amazed that Apple can't do anything wrong for El Reg 'journalists'
Any other company offering falsified evidence to a court would be hammered on big time, but clearly Apple didn't mean it and it was all a big mistake and....
Look and Feel is EXACTLY why they took them to court, changing the pic to make it look even more like an ipad will have made the case for Apple even stronger.
/me now waits to be thumbed down by all the aliases of the El Reg people
No. Per the Reg article: "The stretched image could be justified by the need to emphasis the similarities by removing the disparities, though a footnote to that effect should surely have been included." As an attorney of more years than I care to mention, and with significantly more (American) courtroom trial experience than I care to recall, I believe not. I confess ignorance as to the point with other legal systems, but in an American court presenting false evidence, even to the possibly insignificant degree represented here, is a serious issue. Not noticing or misunderstanding what was done is not an excuse. If the evidence does not reflect what you want, then perhaps you should reconsider your arguments or position, not "adjust" the evidence. This kind of conduct undermines credibility in your position as a whole. Badly done, Apple. Badly done.
Using the logic of changing the dimensions the monitor sitting on my desk which no-one would ever think has copied an iPAD by looking at it would actually fit Apples claims of copying almost perfectly.
It has rounded corners, a flat square inner with a bezel of about the right size. My default desktop is covered with icons and has a hidden taskbar.
The only thing different is the proportions, and Apple know how to fix that! Viola my monitor is a rip-off of an iPAD!
"I'm always amazed that Apple can't do anything wrong for El Reg 'journalists'
Any other company offering falsified evidence to a court would be hammered on big time, but clearly Apple didn't mean it and it was all a big mistake and...."
I'm always amazed when people can't tell when facts are being presented in a way which avoids exposure to a libel claim. El Reg using 'We're not saying' here is much the same as if you say to your girlfriend 'I'm not saying you're fat, but I'm surprised at your choice of dress'. Try it, and see if she slaps you; after you find out you'll understand what's going on.
"So is it a language problem, cultural difference or developmental deficit that makes you think that this article is giving Apple an easy ride?"
No, it's this statement.
"The stretched image could be justified by the need to emphasis the similarities by removing the disparities"
Though I wouldn't go as far as saying the article as a whole was easy on Apple.
There is absolutely no excuse for doctoring evidence provided to a court and anyone who pretends otherwise is fooling themselves, which would be fine if they didn't put it in writing and attempt to fool us also.
There was a long period of time when Apple wouldn't talk to El Reg. They were not on good terms at all. The Register pissed off Apple so badly they wouldn't invite them to press conferences or reply to their messages. They really can't be accused of kissing anyone's ass. They even hit on their advertisers (sometimes). They're pretty fair in Biting the hand that feeds IT...
Apple made the iPad what it is by it's advertising. PERIOD. And quite frankly it's a pretty amazing gadget. But being that Apple made the iPad what it is by telling the public what it is, it stands to reason that a judge will listen to Apple because Apple is the creator of the iPad, and the judge doesn't know anything about any other iPads before hand because they do not know how to advertise to the public, so in the end Apple owns it, and majority of the world sees it that way, and it's going to take one hell of a lawyer to change the perception of millions of people. Right or wrong this is all credited to Apple's marketing.
Yes these were out in some for or fashion before, but not many knew about them, or cared. Apple made them what they are. Whether anyone likes it or not. They will reap the rewards for it, and will stop the sale of the Galaxy or any other device being sold if they can according to the laws of the country they are in.
Maybe in the U.S. to portray those two pics side by side is wrong, but perhaps not in certain parts of Europe.
wrt "When switched on, the text continues, both devices present an array of icons as shown in the image"
When I switch on my honeycomb devices I arrive at the home screen which is not in any way like the iPad app icon grid array. The photo show the App drawer of honeycomb, not the home screen. The picture and supporting text is very misleading in this regard. Were Samsung asleep at the back of the court?
"Were Samsung asleep at the back of the court?"
They were not present.. this was an ambush.
Tellingly, as well as putting the Galaxy into it's application menu, they have changed the orientation; the default for Honeycomb tablets is landscape mode. A clear difference to the default portrait mode of the iPad.
As others have noticed elsewhere they fescked with the colours too; they have darkened the surround so as to make the Samsung logo near invisible.
Elsewhere in the submission they present pictures of the back of the devices to show similarity.. however they forget to clearly emphasise that the iPad has a metal back, GalaxyII is plastic. And everywhere else in the document they use oblique angled photos of the devices in their comparisons, with the iPad angled more to make it's aspect ratio difference less obvious.
But it's all perfectly understandable; probably a typo. nothing to worry about huh?
"they filed an opposition the week before the ruling"
A single letter; and that's all they had time to prepare; I suspect they thought this was just another joke sabre rattling lawsuit from the past masters of 'how dare you copy this idea! we copied it first!'
On the other hand; this is just broke Europe; it's not like the ban is in force for the Asia; the US or anywhere that really matters as a market. Maybe they cannot be bothered and are happy to let Apple waste resources here.
Did anyone claim it is? I think in the context, it was being used for emphasis.
Being smug and prudish in public isn't clever either. As noted elsewhere, those who eschew swearing are usually those with the most limited vocabularies, possibly because they can't fit any more into their tiny little minds.
Sherlock icon, because look! The alt-text has a rudey word in it!
When will all the makers of those photo-frame displays, which surely predate the ipad, be suing apple for look and feel? Oh, and the TV makers, I'm sure they're, um, a display with a surround, in a generally rectangular shape? How about books and magazines? Generally rectangular...?
You get the picture. How many ways are there to present a touch-screen display?
1) rectangular
2) see (1)
3) er, that's it.
If they let Apple get away with this, then the floodgates are open. Say goodbye to standardisation; every phone will have to be a different shape; the steering wheel on new cars might have to move to the back seat, the keys on my keyboard will have to move.
Idiots.
Here's an easy question: does the device that Apple are worried about have 'Made by Apple' on the box? If it doesn't, it's not an Apple. Case closed.
There is just no way for this to hold up in court with all the prior art. I had Windows tablets almost 20 years ago that would fit the description given by Apple quite well. Sure they were thicker but their basic form is still quite similar. I doubt even Apple would be dumb enough to try to patent thinness.
Go back to the original description as to why they are suing.
Look at the first Galaxy S phone, it looks like a 3GS, the shape, the silver piping around the casing.
See picture:
http://news.idealo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/iphone-3gs-vs-samsung-galaxy-s.jpg
There are also similarities in the GUI that simply can't be explained by coincidence. HTC and Motorola's phones don't look like that.
This isn't about a tablets looking similar, the tablet is only featured to show similarities in the UI.
...that the RCD they have cited in all their complaints does not depict a UI of any kind. (It also, as I never tire of repeating, does not depict an iPad: it was filed in 2004 and is entirely different from the iPad RCDs, which were filed in 2010). Don't listen to Apple's PR spin; the actual design they are suing over has nothing to do with the iPad or iOS. It's a small set of line drawings of a generic tablet device. You can look it up at http://oami.europa.eu/RCDOnline/RequestManager if you like.
They are both shown at the same height, but not the same proportions. The Tab is clearly narrower than the iPad, as one would expect with the silly 16:9 (or is it 16:10 -- whatever) aspect ration of the Tab.
Have a look at the rest of the photos in the submission, and I don't think you can argue that Apple's lawyers are purposefully misrepresenting the Tab's shape and size.
Ah, well, I'll file this under 'more Apple click-bait'. I guess it worked...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
