UK Courts Decide Samsung’s Design is Different from Apple’s

Lately, we’ve been hearing a lot of good news from the courts of United Kingdom. Today, the high court ruled in favor of Samsung in the case vs. Apple about the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. In fact, the judge even said there are noticeable differences between the two devices. The Judge stated that Samsung’s designs “not as cool” as the iPad and wouldn’t have any problems getting confused with Apple’s.  He also said the Galaxy Tabs ”do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.”  The court went on to use prior concept art dating back to before 2004 which used the same design as the iPad, therefore leaving Apple’s design appearing to be more copied than Samsung’s from the start. Samsung released a statement to British Tech Site, Pocket-Lint about their triumph over Apple:

“Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011, in order to oppose Apple’s ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments. Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple’s design right, such as ‘slightly rounded corners,’ ‘a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,’ and ‘a thin profile.’

“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.”

This comes as a huge relief to Android fans around the world. For once, the courts have been tipped in our favor. Perhaps a certain judge in the states should look into the rulings made the UK.

Phandroid via Engadget

Tags: , , , , , ,

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
nbdynprtcular 6 pts

@Bird, apparently you are the 3rd grader, or else why did they change the headline? lol

I think the point of the headline is the ancient Chinese art of misdirection. If I am reading this correctly, the court said they were the same or very similar but that the Apple designs were not original. If not original, then the fact they the products are the same or similar is not an actionable claim by Apple. In other words, Apple cannot prevent the products on patent claims unless it has an original idea.   

Spoken Word 33 pts

@Bird yeah....no! the headline is just plain crappy proofreading. there's no interpretation to be done with what the judge said. he was very clear in pointing out that Apple sells to the cool kids and there's no one in their right minds that would be confused and buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab when what they're looking for is an iPad.

 Spoken Word  Bird You are missing the point. The headline, while confusing, is explained by ruling that these designs are not original. And I am not sayin I would have used that headline, but the BIGGER point to be taken from the article is that this Judge has basically told Apple that it needs to get over "identical" design claims because these designs have been around for a long time. 

 

Part of the iPad's "cool" factor is that it is apple and the OS. The point is that the design features that apple has patented are not original.

 

 

Obviously Apple believes they can be confused....right? If not, then why so much litigation. 

Spoken Word 33 pts

@Bird obviously you're missing the point. the headline is wrong and it isn't a play on meaning. and i seriously doubt anyone at apple really believes that people would confuse the galaxy tab with an ipad. what we have is apple trying to keep other products off the market by keeping them tied up in litigation. they are suing everyone and their mother for anything even when it's something that the end user has no idea of.

 Spoken Word  Bird Are you in third grade or what? It is a play on meaning, period. hence the last sentence about Android fans to find relief. Otherwise, how could this ruling directly affect other products claimed to be "identical".....because the claims are based on patents that must be original...try to catch up...

Exactly what nbdynprtcular said....Your headline is quite misleading and makes the entire article confusing.

nbdynprtcular 6 pts

Ok I am confused, did they decide it was identical or did they decide it  was different.  Your headline and story say two different things.

Spoken Word 33 pts

@nbdynprtcular piss poor reporting; so anxious to be 1st that they don't proofread.