12 ms·
The really weird thing is that "infringing product", in the judges order, is basically equal to "product that only sells because it is ripping off the other's p
by jhdevos 14y ago
The really weird thing is that "infringing product", in the judges order, is basically equal to "product that only sells because it is ripping off the other's patent". Even though that single aspect of the product (being a rectangle with rounded corners) is obviously only a vanishingly small part of the value of the product.
I simply cannot grasp why this seemed like a good tradeoff to the judge.
- ghshephard 14y ago"Even though that single aspect of the product " - not to defend the more blatant patent abuses, but during the trial, the Samsung attorney, Kathleen Sullivan was unable to identify which was the iPad and which was the Galaxy Tab. I don't know if an injunction should have been granted, but it would be nice if Samsung could design their product so I could distinguish it from an iPad at a glance. To be fair - I'm happy to rip on Apple when they clone the industrial design of other companies products as well - I just don't have any examples that come to mind immediately.
- mikeash 14y agoThere has to be more to that inability to identify the products. Surely the Tab would be the one that says "Samsung" on the front, and the iPad would be the one with the big Apple logo on the back.
- cube13 14y agoEndgadget's preview from last year(http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-and-new-galaxy-tab-10-1-thinner-than-the/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/22/samsung-galaxy-tab-8-9-an... ) doesn't have Samsung branding on the front. It's on the back. It does appear that the current models have the Samsung branding on the front, presumably because their legal department slapped their designers after the suit started. Honestly, at ~10 to 15 feet, I'm not sure if I could tell the difference between the Tab and the iPad if the screens are off.
- mikeash 14y agoIf the screens are off and you're only allowed to see the front, I presume. Which seems kind of artificial.
- cube13 14y agoIf I recall correctly, that's what the judge did. He held up both devices, one in each hand, and asked the defense's council to identify which one was which. They could not. Ovbiously, this wasn't the only reason for the ruling, but it definitely hurt Samsung's case.
- mikeash 14y agoWhich seems awfully contrived. In reality, the screen is often on, and you can often see the back.