backtop


Print 187 comment(s) - last by nocturne_81.. on Sep 29 at 6:28 AM


  (Source: LucasFilm, Ltd.)

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 (left) and the iPad 2 (right) aren't the same shape and the iPad 2 has an extra button. But a German court has rule Samsung's device is guilty of infringement, granting Apple exclusive rights to make modern tablets.  (Source: PDF Devices)
Apple is only company that can make minimalist rectangular tablet designs in Germany

A trade court in Dusseldorf, Germany has found Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (SEO 005930) guilty of violating Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) patented design, which is featured in the iPad.

I. Only Apple Can Make "Minimalist" Tablets

Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann remarked upon delivering the verdict, "The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible. For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks."

Apple filed a patent on the design of the iPad with European Union intellectual property agency in Alicante, Spain.

At first glance you'll notice significant differences between the iPad 2 and Galaxy Tab 10.1, Samsung's primary competitive product.  The two devices are different aspect ratios (e.g. their rectangular faces are different) and the Samsung device has no physical face buttons (Apple has a single "Home" button).

But the German court's ruling appears to state that Apple owns sole rights to "minimalist" tablet designs.  According to Apple's patent [Scribd], a "minimalist" design is any thin rectangular tablet, with few buttons on its face.

Ultimately, this ruling seems to indicate that Apple has sole rights to make ~10-inch tablets in Germany.  While a competitor in theory could make a rival design, it would have to:

a) Have an abundance of physical buttons on the face

b) Be substantially thicker or heavier than the iPad

c) Not be a rectangle (e.g. a circular tablet)

Of course options 'a' and 'b', would seem undesirable to most customers as customers desire thin, lightweight devices which they interact with primarily through the touchscreen, not clunky physical buttons.  And option 'c' would likely be unfeasible with current screen designs.

Apple has already secured a second preliminary injunction banning sales of the Galaxy Tab 7.7 in Germany.  A preliminary injunction requires significant proof that the claims of infringement are winnable.  Thus it seems likely that the German court will also ban the Tab 10.1's diminutive brethren.  Such a ruling would extend the above principles to all sizes of tablets.

II. Apple Granted Effective Monopoly in Europe's Third Largest Market

The German court made it abundantly clear that the ruling was based solely on the design.  States Brueckner-Hofmann, "The crucial issue was whether the Galaxy tablet looked like the drawings registered as a design right. Also, our case had nothing to do with trademarks or patents for technology."

The Germany case was marked by controversy in which it was revealed that Apple altered the images of its competitor's design in the case filing, via a software tool like Photoshop, making them look more iPad-like.  The judge in the case, however, claimed to the BBC that the actual devices were viewed in making the decision and that the altered images had no impact on the case.

Samsung is seeking an expedited appeal in Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court).  Typically such appeals take anywhere from 2 to 6 months.  In the meantime it cannot sell its 10-inch tablet in Germany.

The ruling is a drastic departure from the recent Netherlands ruling, in which a Dutch judge threw out Apple's claims that Samsung infringed on the patent, stating that those claims were categorically false.  Sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 were briefly suspended for a minor infringement found in the scrolling mechanism of Android's Gallery app.  However, they are expected to resume shortly.

Germans can of course drive to the Netherlands and buy Galaxy Tab 10.1s, but that requires a bit of a road trip.  The German tablet market is estimated by Strategy Analytics analyst Neil Mawston to generate 2.4 million tablet sales in 2011.  That makes it Europe's third largest tablet market behind the U.K. and France.  
 

Apple is currently hoping to defeat its Android rivals with lawsuits in the U.S., Australia, Japan, and South Korea [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].  Android is currently outselling Apple in smartphone sales 5-to-2, and is inching towards Apple in tablet sales.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By CrazyBernie on 9/9/2011 8:48:24 AM , Rating: 5
I need to get a patent for that minimalistic peice of rubber that goes around the rim of a vehicle.




RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JackBurton on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 9:02:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Seems simple right? I wonder why no one brought their minimalistic rectangular tablet designs to market before Apple did. Funny how when Apple brought their tablets to market and completely blew sales prediction out of the water, all the other designs that followed looked similar to the iPad. Hmmmm weird. I mean the concept was so simple, anyone could have come up with it. I wonder why they (Apple iPad clones) took so long to bring it to market. Oh yeah, because Apple didn't design their template yet.

You mean when Apple was able to build their minimalist device because technology finally caught up to science fiction.

Really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist -- before ca. 2010 or so there were no large-scale mass producers of large multi-touch displays.

There's not much "design" to it. The iPad is pretty much a multi-touch screen. The ruling essentially bans rival multitouch screen tablets... after all if you have multitouch, what's the point of adorning it with lots of buttons?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By kleinma on 9/9/2011 9:58:23 AM , Rating: 3
That and how different can you make a tablet when it comes to size and shape? There are only so many ways to draw a rectangle...

Apple is scared as hell of competition, they are not good at dealing with it, and they don't move as fast as their rivals. So this is their only option, to attempt to slow down competition. I hope all you apple lovers enjoy your 1 product world, with 0 choice but what apple says you want and need. Bet you can't wait to line up and shell out your cash for each iteration apple comes out with each year with 1 or 2 new features.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By stimudent on 9/9/2011 10:04:40 AM , Rating: 5
I would like to like Apple products, but the company's Big Brother tendencies bother me.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By vol7ron on 9/12/2011 7:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad I live in the U.S.A.

A piece of paper can be designed in other, less minimalist ways than a rectangle, but I don't see any patent on that. I would think that minimal would be the standard and that patents would only apply to something added in particular, something additional to the base device. Patenting the lack of a feature is something new.

I see this being overturned if Germany has some sort of appellate court.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 10:08:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
That and how different can you make a tablet when it comes to size and shape? There are only so many ways to draw a rectangle...

Again it's possible, but is it commercially feasible and would people buy it? Probably not. So Apple gains an effective monopoly.

The ruling is akin to if Boeing patented the 737 design and said it now owned rights to all flying devices with a cylindrical central body and wings on the sides. The court could say "oh other types of flying devices are possible".

And they'd be right -- people could make gliders, helicopters, rockets, etc. But at the end of the day Boeing would gain a government-enforced monopoly over a major market.

That's a shocking precedent and is tremendously anti-competitive and abusively federalist.

P.S.
None of the Android tablets (including the Toshiba Excite mentioned below) are safe from this ruling. In short the ruling states that any tablet that's thin, rectangular, has a bezel, and has few face buttons is in infringement of Apple's IP.

So the Excite, the HTC Flyer, the Iconia, the Xoom, et al. are presumably all in infringement unless these companies can convince Apple to drop their claims via winning their own countersuit claims.

Or, some may escape if their sales are low enough Apple decides they aren't worth the cost of crushing.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
By MrBlastman on 9/9/2011 11:44:18 AM , Rating: 5
Someone had a RIMjob recently...


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 12:15:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Har har har, one down, less competition in tablet space now! Watch RIM stock climb up even more now, leaving you even less space to do your favorite activity - clueless RIM bashing, har har har :)))

What makes you think RIM is safe? It has less patents that Samsung, and the PlayBook is very minimalist. It even runs Android apps!

Sounds like an Apple lawsuit may be incoming soon. Maybe then you'll complain?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By nocturne_81 on 9/29/2011 6:28:35 AM , Rating: 1
Apple obviously has no interest in suing MS or RIM.. Not even considering that they all share parts of the holding company that got the nortel patent bundle (which obviously shows signs of collusion.. antitrust?).. Apple simply can't survive without MS.. and RIM..? Small potatoes.. they'd sooner fall apart under their own misdirection than gain enough market share to be a threat (not to say they don't have some great offerings).


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Tony Swash on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Helbore on 9/12/2011 5:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, Windows tablets are safe because Apple wouldn't dare. They've tried to sue Microsoft before. It didn't end well for them.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Helbore on 9/12/2011 5:22:01 AM , Rating: 4
The EU aren't stupid. Now they've handed Apple an effective monopoly, they'll wait a couple of years until they have a definitive monopoly and then fine them to high heaven for their anti-competitive practises.

I mean, if they allowed the free market to reign, then Apple might not gain a monopoly, in which case the couldn't fine them billions and all those MEPs wouldn't be able to get their 16 holidays a year.

They're a forward-thinking bunch in the EC.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Scootie on 9/9/2011 4:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why do u keep saying Apple released the first multitouch phone. Its not true. Even unborn child know today tha LG Prada was the first phone with a touchscreen on the market. Seriously. I cant believe idiots like you dont burn in the shame of their own stupidness.

"The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006.[2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006.[3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007.[1] LG Prada sold 1 million units[4][5] in the first 18 months."

Source Wikipedia. Go find it. 2006, you see that?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By DeluxeTea on 9/10/2011 7:48:15 AM , Rating: 3
Fact remains that it was released before the iPhone.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By justjc on 9/10/2011 4:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps even more important it launched with four icons at the buttom, keeping Android safe from Apple as LG should have the rights(before the LG they used 2, 3 or 5 icons in a row).


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Scootie on 9/12/2011 2:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares if it died fast or not. Fact is, it came out before iphone so whatever patent design apple has on touchscreen phones should be considered null or irrelevant in courts. The problem is old judges have no idea about how technology functions this days so they cant bring correct verdicts.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By FaceMaster on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By mcnabney on 9/9/2011 2:35:37 PM , Rating: 3
Because they are simple to use and trendy.

Being simple is a good thing. It allows more people to use a product effectively. I give Apple a +1 for that. But much of the Apple engine is fired by people who just buy Apple everything Apple. They spend the money because the product is cool. I have never gone in for designer brands, so I have never understood why people are happy to overspend and over-replace items when there is no need.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By FaceMaster on 9/9/2011 4:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
What, are you saying that Apple has no fanboys, or that they're all fanboys? Either way, you're wrong.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/2011 4:34:54 PM , Rating: 1
I'm saying fanboys buy tiny minority of the Apple stuff, the rest is bought by the common tech illiterate wealthy public who don't even know what the word "fanboy" means.


By FaceMaster on 9/9/2011 4:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with that to some extent. At University, all of the foreign students with lots of money always used Apple. I went to University unaware of Apple fanboys and hate-groups, my only experience with them being an i-pod that I won in a McDonalds monopoly competition (Which I swapped for an eeepc from foreign student, since I didn't like having to use itunes and didn't want to scratch or lose the beautiful product).

The thing that made me research Apple in the first place was when they looked down on my eeepc in disgust, and said that apples don't get viruses because Apple updates them to stop viruses. The blank stare they gave me when saying it fascinated me so much that I ended up spending hours looking into them as a company, trying to make sense of where they came from, and how they got to where they are today. I have nothing against Apple, but I don't like the small, rather vocal fanbase they seem to have.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JackBurton on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
lol, give me a break. Technology wasn't what was holding the manufactures back from the tablet market, it was their innovation (or lack thereof). NO ONE wanted to risk releasing a tablet because of past failures. Not until Apple released their HUGELY successful iPad did other manufactures get the courage to follow Apple's lead. And when they did, they just piggy backed off Apple's model. Pretty pathetic.

Err... how was a manufacturer in 2006 supposed to make a tablet with a 1 GHz dual-core ARMv9 processor and 10-inch multi-touch display when those technologies were in the research and development stage and nobody was capable of mass producing them?

How could having "innovation" magically bring these technologies to market overnight? Was Samsung supposed to ask a magical unicorn to somehow alter reality?

The only reason Apple was able to bring their product to market first is because they have very close ties with Asian parts suppliers and were able to leverage those connections to be the first to put the components together once the tech offered the first tablet.

At the time, if you recall, they weren't entirely successful. When used in the sun iPad Gen. 1s lacked sufficient cooling and would overheat and power off. In short the tablet they built was almost defective.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Hot+iPad+is+Overhe...

Samsung, et al. were indeed building identical tablet prototypes at this time, but opted to wait until they could produce fully working products.

Applle didn't invent anything about the iPad. Multi-touch was the work of research institutions in the 1980s. The production technology was the work of companies like Samsung and Foxconn. The CPU was the work of Samsung, Intrinsity, and ARM Holdings who establishes the base design. The "look" was well established in science fiction film and tv of the 1960s-1990s.

quote:
Pretty pathetic.

Your insistence at defending the outlandish claim that Apple somehow "invented the tablet" is what's pathetic.

Apple DID NOT invent the tablet... it was merely the first to launch a multi-touch design thanks to its strong supplier ties -- a design that was semi-defective, at that.

How hard is that to understand?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Denigrate on 9/9/2011 10:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nokia had THREE tablet devices out before Apple came out with the iPad. Apple basically waited until the tech caught up and then released theirs. Nokia should be the ones suing Apple for theft.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Denigrate on 9/9/2011 11:39:57 AM , Rating: 2
Jobs is also the one who freely admits Apple steals ALL their good ideas. Funny that Apple is such a sue happy company since they steal everything they sell.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By StevoLincolnite on 9/9/2011 1:17:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Haha, you wish Samsung could sue Apple for their, Samsung's, design patents. Alas, Samsung doesn't have any so bye bye Android-powered iPad clone, har har har. If Samsung doesn't have patents and Apple does have them - Samsung gotta pay for their piss poor job. There ya go :P They will pay dear.


The thing you're clueless about is that Samsung's sheer size makes Apple look tiny and insignificant, with many more fingers in many more markets across the entire planet.

Plus Samsung has a ton of patents in which it can use to fire back in other areas of tech, be it CPU design, Memory design, Storage, LCD screens the works.

If you think Apple will take down the behemoth Samsung due to stopping their Tablet sales... You will be sorely mistaken. - That market would be considered small and unimportant in the grand scheme of things to Samsung at this present time.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By symbiosys on 9/9/2011 4:22:05 PM , Rating: 3
Cap size... wow! Sorry, but do you know anything about companies? At last check Apple was one of the most un-important companies in the world. They solely rely on their iPhone and iPad for revenue.

They have no services. You are seriously brain washed to think that a company such as IBM, HP, Microsoft, etc.. etc... etc... aren't bigger than apple in the way they have money coming in. Apple don't provide any major services for constant income. There was a fantastic article about this and I will find it and reply.

Just know for know that cap size is no indication of a companies worth in human society. Apple have a few products they do well with. Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, HP, etc... etc.. do fantastic at selling thousands of service solutions and products to companies. mmmmm I wonder who's going to be around in the long run?

Apple Servers? Give me a break. HAHA!


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Alexstarfire on 9/9/2011 6:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing market cap really shows is how confident people are in the company, since it's only the total value of the shares it has sold. It terms of what it means for the company itself it is pretty meaningless. At best it can be used as an indicator, but that's it.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Xcpus on 9/10/2011 9:19:42 PM , Rating: 4
You Sir are a Douchebag.

The low level of respect that you give to others, the high degree of respect and admiration that you afford yourself as well as your low level of intellect is the exact definition of a Douchebag.

Pirks will henceforth be known as "Monsieur Douchebag"!


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/12/11, Rating: 0
By TakinYourPoints on 9/9/2011 3:23:35 PM , Rating: 1
Totally, it's whiny loser "should've could've" talk. Pretty funny.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By FaceMaster on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By cfaalm on 9/9/2011 2:59:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I dread to think how far behind we'd be if it wasn't for Apple releasing all of the products they released.


Seriously. All the world couln't have done without the iStuff for another 2 years?

The only religiously attacking is done by Apple themselves. It's the Cupertino Inquisition. Since the ruling in The Netherlands was different, let's just wait and see what the judgement is in other countries. I am not attacking Apple but I can vent my disgust about their way of competing, if you can call it that.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By thisisaname on 9/12/2011 3:40:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your insistence at defending the outlandish claim that Apple somehow "invented the tablet" is what's pathetic.


No more outlandish than Al Gore inventing the internet.


By AnnihilatorX on 9/10/2011 5:35:49 PM , Rating: 1
Lol JackBurton

You seriously need to watch that video where Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were together talking about future technologies before the iPad era. Bill Gates had iPadidea first lol. I smell a conspiracy here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRii9IYPM&feature...


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By jecs on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 10:40:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I am a designer and I work modeling in 3D. Samsung copied Apple and I can't believe I have to present any evidence here and there.

So what?
I do computer modeling and 3D art too.

I don't see how Samsung's device copies Apple's at all. It looks radically different. The devices' only similarities are in the state of the art. (i.e. the Boeing 737 and AirBus A380 both have wings on their side and cylindrical body.)

Send me a CV of your work if you think you're such an industry expert.

quote:
This is getting really out of proportion on some people minds. Think of a wristwatch. The sphere occupies about 90% of the front visual area. Well, would you complain there is not enough variety in the market. There is. There are even a lot of "lines" from different brands and in practically all price segments. It has nothing to do with what's inside, with the thickness or with the weight.

Do you really need help to see what the ruling was about?
Bring real designers to this discussion. Maybe in some other markets Apple wont win, but it would only be because on those markets the legal authorities find no trouble with redundancy on competing products. If they are fine with I still would complain about the lack of substantial differentiation, identity or personality in the "looks" of the designs.

The tablets are starting get tired on me, but mostly because of the counter Apple distortion field. Tablets will be important for myself when I will be able to replace my laptop for one, but I still can "see" unoriginal copies of something I don't really like.

I saw some images of SONY tablets and even they are minimalistic at least they included a variation curve on the top. Why Samsung couldn't find at least any considerable variation to own the design beyond discussion? Unacceptable, from the appearance point of view.


What exactly are you proposing? You seem to be rambling on without making your point. What kind of design to you think is sufficiently "non-iPad like" that is feasible to manufacture and which the market will accept?

quote:
If Samsung or many others get away with this WE are the ones to suffer from a uniform, minimalistic or elegant Apple world. And don't get me wrong I have 2 Macs and 2 PCs but enough with it. Only Apple has the right to be Apple as any mayor brand has it own image or has to find an identity.

What's a "mayor brand"?

And how is Samsung trying to be Apple??? Last I heard, they thought their product was SUPERIOR to Apple's, not the same.

Why in the world would a company want to be a competitor? They want to BEAT them.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By jecs on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
By EricMartello on 9/12/2011 12:12:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who on earth do you think you are to try intimidate me asking me for my CV? I don't have a boss, I have clients and they are the ones judging my work.


You are intimidated when someone asks you to back up a claim you made...it suggests you have little confidence in your abilities. You don't have a boss? It implies you are unemployed.

quote:
Don't be so pretentious. What I meant was a general study or work from a representative group of well recognized international industrial designers, not you or me and friends.


Sure, as long as they all work for Apple.

quote:
But, my "OPINION" that bothers you so much is legally supported at least by a decision in the highest court in Germany responsible for the case. Big deal? At least that is some legal ground in a well developed country in Europe.


Didn't Germany at one point make it illegal to be a jew in germany? Weren't the violators of that law penalized with death by gas chamber? Yeah...seems like germany has a track record of "questionable" legal decisions. I wouldn't be so quick to call a decision in a german court authoritative on anything, unless it is about the ethical treatment of jews.

quote:
I consider the 10.1 Galaxy tablet more beautiful in appearance than the iPad (don't get me wrong) but Samsung's line came to the market AFTER the Apple line, and that is a legal fact not an artistic opinion or something on a hidden department inside Apple or Samsung. And Samsung "ignored" that, played with it, or ultimately failed to propose a new design, different from the Apple line. This "game" from Samsung is not an innocent move, but an intentional coherent rational and strategical corporation decision.


The bottom line is that nobody will confuse the Samsung device for the Apple device, or vice versa. The products would compete on their own merits and it seems that Apple is admitting their device is inferior and unable to compete legitimately if it needs to resort to underhanded legal tactics to restrict its competitors.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Solandri on 9/9/2011 12:32:21 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
I am a designer and I work modeling in 3D. Samsung copied Apple and I can't believe I have to present any evidence here and there.

Hi. Please take a look at this image of Samsung's digital picture frame released 4 years before the iPad. I think you'll agree that Samsung simply took the design of their digital picture frame and turned it into a tablet. And if anything, it's more likely Apple saw Samsung's digital picture frame and copied its design for their iPad.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital...


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By CU on 9/9/2011 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
Very good example that Apple should not have won this.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 1:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hi. Please take a look at this image of Samsung's digital picture frame released 4 years before the iPad. I think you'll agree that Samsung simply took the design of their digital picture frame and turned it into a tablet. And if anything, it's more likely Apple saw Samsung's digital picture frame and copied its design for their iPad.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital...

Awesome find!!

I'll be sure to put this in my future pieces. Hopefully Samsung uses this in their appeal.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Camikazi on 9/9/2011 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's called prior art, meaning Apple did not create the design and the patent is invalid. You can't patent something someone else made years before. BTW the "hars" make you look like a complete moron.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By jecs on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Motoman on 9/9/2011 1:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
There you go. Prior art.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Boze on 9/9/2011 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
Two things on this.

1. You are a troll, and I hope you get banned from DailyTech. The sooner the better. While you occasionally make good points, the bulk of your posts are idiotic and short-sighted.

2. On the entire situation here, this is exactly what's causing consumers to start to steer away from Apple. The company that used to be anti-draconian has now become what it once hated. Funny how, once you have power and wealth, you'll jealously, even dangerously, guard it.

And make no mistake, this is in no way good for global consumers. Choice in the market spurs growth. And now that the global giants like Toshiba and Samsung and starting to ramp up development and make genuinely amazing devices, Apple's afraid, and they should be. Normally fear inspires a company to produce a superior product; in Apple's case it inspires them to produce a superior team of lawyers.

Disgusting.

I'll take a Thrive or a Galaxy Tab 10.1 over an iPad 2 simply on principle now.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By TakinYourPoints on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
By NicodemusMM on 9/9/2011 11:37:37 PM , Rating: 3
My bad for thinking you were going to say "Apple User"


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2011 2:14:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a word for people who buy inferior products based on silly things like "principle" rather than its merits or practical utility.


Umm can I watch Flash content on the iPad? Oh what was that about practical utility? Yeah shut the fuk up.

Please explain to me how the Tab is "inferior". Every reviewer I can find at least credits the Tab with being a "worthy competitor" to the iPad. It's far from inferior and there's nothing at all wrong with buying one.

You're ignorant. Typical for an Apple supporter but ignorant nonetheless.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By AmbroseAthan on 9/9/2011 2:18:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There you go. Useless without design patent. Keep soothing yourself though.


Prior Art is the defense against a design patent, so it is definitely not useless. Using Prior Art you can nullify most patents. This is why the Netherlands basically rejected most of Apple's patents.

I am really surprised by the German Court's decision because of him allowing the minimalist design patent stand. From a design standpoint (not tech), it is not original.

Some reading material on Prior Art:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By BugblatterIII on 9/9/2011 2:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
The courts rejected this picture frame as prior art? Got proof?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
By BugblatterIII on 9/9/2011 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Prior art doesn't need to be patented. It simply needs to demonstrate that Apple's patent wasn't for something original. This does exactly that.

Although quite why that judge would even need something like this is beyond me, unless the Reality Distortion Field was in effect. Perhaps the judge has an iPhone.


By sprockkets on 9/9/2011 2:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
You just found that? That's been quoted lots of times.

Here's the problem: Apple's community design was filed in 2004.

Don't get me wrong, that stupid CD looks little like an ipad, and the BS that Samsung has to change the shape because of it is also BS.

There are better examples predating that.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By jecs on 9/9/2011 4:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
The iPad was first to market and it is today a registered and a patented product. It is pointless if Samsung had some tablet prototype hidden that looks like the iPad because they may have many other tablet prototypes not "willing" to show to the public opinion.

Apple does that in fact, they play with prototypes, analyzes their options and then they choose the image or functions for their final product.

Samsung does the same, and every design company does that. And they patent those prototypes if they think those have a merit. That is why so many patents exist. But why Samsung did not patented "their" prototype? Because they did not believed they had something? I don't know. But they didn't. The less I can say is that Samsung is failing to protect their products, and also that is their fault.

Don't be so naive because you dislike Apple so much.

The German ruling is real and it damages Samsung image and market. That is Samsung fault more than an Apple mistake.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By TakinYourPoints on 9/9/2011 3:17:17 PM , Rating: 3
You get it. People talk about the core tech being ready but they ignore the execution.

Everyone laughed at the iPad when it was first introduced, but the moment it was a hit, existing paradigms for other tablets were thrown out the window and it was all about copying Apple's execution.

Execution is the important element that is flying over most people's heads here, and there is no way that companies like Samsung, Motorola, (aka creators of garbage user interfaces before 2008) wasn't heavily influenced by Apple here.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By jecs on 9/9/2011 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your argument.

Samsung is not the poor innocent company that did not know what they were facing. They have more prototypes hidden from the public than they are willing to admit, as every design department does. It was the money making iPad what made up everybody's mind. Eureka!!!


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Da W on 9/9/2011 10:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
Come on, the Galaxy Tab DOES look like an iPad.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/9/2011 10:58:23 AM , Rating: 4
How many different ways can you really do a slab of glass, plastic, and metal in a 10.1" form-factor?

How about LCD TV manufacturers start going after each other... wouldn't that be fun? :)


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By kittypuncher on 9/9/2011 11:11:54 AM , Rating: 4
OH CRAP! I just realized my Samsung LCD TV is rectangular, black edges and has a button on the bottom, in the middle! Apple is going to take on the TV market next!


By ClownPuncher on 9/9/2011 1:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Don't punch cats.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Da W on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Cerin218 on 9/9/2011 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
My LCD TV looks a lot like my dad's LCD TV. Weird coincidence huh? Or industrial espionage...


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Motoman on 9/9/2011 1:57:41 PM , Rating: 1
...and how much does your car look like pretty much every other car on the road?

How about your pants? Do they have 2 legs, a fly fastening system and a button or snap of some kind? Does your shirt have a hole for your head and 2 sleeves?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Solandri on 9/9/2011 12:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Come on, the Galaxy Tab DOES look like an iPad.

Actually, it looks a lot like Samsung's digital picture frame from 2006:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital...

Being a picture frame, it wasn't flat like a tablet. But you can clearly see that the black bezel with rounded corners and silver trim appearance which people are claiming is iconic of the iPad, pre-dates the iPad.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Cerin218 on 9/9/2011 11:03:04 AM , Rating: 3
Glad I got my Nook Color before Apple goes after them. You know, a thin rectangular tablet with a home button...


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By xdrol on 9/13/2011 6:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ruling essentially bans rival multitouch screen tablets...


You might miss the fact that in Europe (bar UK) court ruling are not applied to all similar cases automatically. So this ban (regardless how retarded it is) is not applied to tablets from any other company, or even to any other model of Samsung. They didn't ban anything just the Samsung Galaxy Tabs.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By semo on 9/9/2011 9:10:48 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder what would have happened if Volvo had the same thinking as Apple when they came up with the 3-point seat belt


By NicodemusMM on 9/9/2011 11:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to think something like this...

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Mac2311/Raced...


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By bogt on 9/9/2011 9:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Cerin218 on 9/9/2011 11:01:39 AM , Rating: 3
Funny how no one seems to believe that the tablet PC existed before the iPad. It isn't the first, nor is it the best. Just like every other Apple product apple makes.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Tony Swash on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By ICBM on 9/9/2011 2:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't Apple just sue Google, since they are the main perpetrator here.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/2011 2:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
Apple only sues hardware manufacturers who actually deliver goods, not the software companies. Hence Apple can't possibly go after MS or Google because Apple holds HARDWARE design patents, not the software ones. They could, in theory, go after RIM but RIM's hardware is different and original enough to exclude this possibility, no matter the amount of clueless BS Jason Mick is trying to sell here :)


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By bug77 on 9/9/2011 3:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple can't possibly go after MS or Google because Apple holds HARDWARE design patents, not the software ones


They went after HTC because of a context menu on a phone number. Is that hardware too?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/9/2011 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, HTC is a hardware maker too.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Lugaidster on 9/12/2011 9:57:31 AM , Rating: 1
Another proof you are a troll. Apple sued HTC, a hardware manufacturer, using a software patent allegedly broken by software made by Google, not HTC. Fucking coward if you ask me, not that a knowitall little prick like you would.

Probably weird to you since you seem to think Apple only has or sues using hardware patents. Let me break it to you, the most ridiculous software patents in the US (actually the world since its the only country foolish enough to award them) are owned by Apple.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Pirks on 9/12/2011 10:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be so dumb, Apple just sues based on design patents this time and this is why they go after hardware guys.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2011 12:20:52 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft had a tablet PC long before Apple ever did. And it didn't have a lot of buttons either.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Tony Swash on 9/9/2011 8:02:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Microsoft had a tablet PC long before Apple ever did. And it didn't have a lot of buttons either.


Yeah but Apple will only bother with tablets that are actually bought by anyone :)


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2011 8:36:07 PM , Rating: 1
The point was that it was prior art so their patent should be invalid in the first place dumbass. They did not invent the tablet. They only had the first successful one.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Uncle on 9/9/2011 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 1
This is so much Bullshit, next someone will have the patent to Square Cardboard boxes. Anyone without a cross license will be out of the square box business.Just make sure that the square box is a fair size.I can't believe a judge would grant a judgement on the "LOOK" of the product.Will we now go after desktop computers. No wonder the world is falling apart with the "minimalistic" brains in power.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By nocturne_81 on 9/29/2011 6:20:02 AM , Rating: 1
Ya... except that tablets went that route years back..

http://i.imgur.com/NbDRW.jpg

I think the whole iPad craze was quite hilarious.. Not only does it negate the design of windows tablets ranging all the way back to the 90s, but most hilarious of all -- it's absolutely useless!

Just goes to show that a successful product can be around for ages, but when Apple chooses to toss on some yuppy-glitter it's lauded as a revolution -- kind of like the symbian and WinMobile smartphones we've all head since the late 90s.

It's nothing new... all they did was put an apple on it.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By mooty on 9/9/2011 9:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, a prime example where a patent should not have been granted, or when the case should have been dismissed. The two tablets are obviously very different, though neither of them are designs that I personally like.


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By superPC on 9/9/2011 10:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
you know what?this ruling make me wonder what would happened if (when?) windows 8 tablet sales exploded. will apple also try to sue MS?


RE: That's seriously $*@@ed up.
By Camikazi on 9/9/2011 4:36:27 PM , Rating: 4
Apple poking that sleeping behemoth wouldn't be smart, MS doesn't sue much but when it doesn't it makes sure it's opponent usually doesn't survive long.


One more time:
By Motoman on 9/9/2011 10:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, blame Apple for their wild abuse of the patent system. And blame the patent and legal systems themselves, for being so open to such abuse.

Ultimately though, if you want to know who to blame, point your finger at each and every person who owns any Apple product.

The only reason Apple has the ludicrous amounts of cash required to levy such abuses against anyone and everyone is because *YOU* people keep buying their products.

F%cking stop it.




RE: One more time:
By nafhan on 9/9/2011 10:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm... I think patent reform has a better chance of happening than somehow convincing people to stop buying Apple products because they are evil monopolists. Plus, patent reform would have positive long term effects beyond the current issues with tablets.


RE: One more time:
By Motoman on 9/9/2011 1:20:45 PM , Rating: 1
Patent reform will be a massive undertaking requiring ludicrous amounts of politicking and legalese.

All it takes to not buy an Apple product is to...not buy it.


RE: One more time:
By nafhan on 9/9/2011 5:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but you not buying an iPhone, etc. has essentially no effect, and convincing a significant number of people to see things the way you do is a non trivial problem. So, I don't really see that as being easier or more effective. Now if Apple's own actions DO get to a point where they convince a number people not to buy their own products. That's a different story (and it may happen).

Plus, this isn't an either or proposition. Advocate for patent reform AND don't buy Apple :)


RE: One more time:
By Pirks on 9/9/2011 7:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now if Apple's own actions DO get to a point where they convince a number people not to buy their products. That's a different story (and it may happen).
Considering just released by JD Powers super duper high consumer satisfaction scores for iPhone - no, it may NOT happen. Quit dreaming.


RE: One more time:
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: One more time:
By ICBM on 9/9/2011 2:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think we will be lucky if RIM is around in a year.

Just because you make the hardware and software, and its good, does not mean you will be successful, which you are implying. Case in point would be Palm. WebOS was very nice, hardware was middle of the road. By your logic, Palm should have thrived.

People buy Apple products because other people have Apple products. I am not saying the Apple products are bad, they are fine. Hypothetical question here: What if Samsung, HP, Palm, etc. release a literal clone to the iphone? Say it is identical in every way possible(hardware and software) except it says Samsung or HP on the back. If priced the same, would people buy them?

No, people will buy the phone with the fruit on the back simply because its a status symbol.


RE: One more time:
By Pirks on 9/9/2011 2:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WebOS was very nice, hardware was middle of the road. By your logic, Palm should have thrived
Palm never had huge international fan base of RIM, its hardware sucked compared to latest RIM offers, and WebOS on TouchPad was so slow it was an insult to consumers. So very much unlike RIM's latest products. Which explains why RIM won't follow Palm's path into oblivion.
quote:
People buy Apple products because other people have Apple products
Same is true for BlackBerry products.
quote:
If priced the same, would people buy them?
No, because they don't have as strong consumer brand recognition as iPhone and BlackBerry brands both have.
quote:
people will buy the phone with the fruit on the back simply because its a status symbol
Old urban legend that still somehow survives in some weak minds. Slick high end BlackBerry 7 handsets like $629 Bold 9900 are much more of a status symbol than iPhone, Bold 9900 projects "I'm a rich business executive" image, and iPhone doesn't project anything remotely similar to that.


RE: One more time:
By ICBM on 9/9/2011 5:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
RIM was popular among the business crowd, however outside of those circles, it never gained a lot of traction. Brand recognition was there, but the coolness and popular factor was never there. Blackberry was made for business communications pre-iPhone. iPhone was made for everyone, and after a few updates to support exchange, it was a better option for business people too. RIM did nothing to change that until they brought in QNX. At this point, I wonder if QNX will be enough to save RIM.

Lets give RIM benefit of a doubt, and they put out a great QNX handset. Hmm, side by side, people will still pick iPhone for brand recognition and popularity. Is it the match.com commercial where the chick tells the guy iphone people have more sex than droid people? Notice she didn't mention RIM.

Palm hardware never flat out sucked, so I am not sure where that is coming from. Blackberry Torch was very weak on the hardware end. I went from 2 years on an iPhone1(ATT) to Palm Pre Plus(ATT). I loved my iPhone, but I liked the Pre better. It was a little sluggish, but the natural flow of the OS trumped the iPhone IMO.

Liking the WebOS on the phone made me wait for the Touchpad, and I am glad I did. I have no idea where you think the Touchpad is horrid device. Read Anand's review and others. It still needs more polish, but having my iPad and Touchpad side by side, I will pick Touchpad everytime. The ability to use the cards and keep applications open and just swipe between them makes up for the snappier feel of the iPad. Have you used both devices at length?

Back to point, Blackberry is associated with business. Lets look at Apple's own commercials with PC and Mac. PC was a guy in a business suit. He is the kind of guy who would use a blackberry. Nobody wants to be that guy. So no, Blackberry stands no chance of being the cool, hip, popular choice.


RE: One more time:
By Pirks on 9/12/2011 1:24:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
RIM was popular among the business crowd, however outside of those circles, it never gained a lot of traction
Gazillions of UK teens using BB do not believe you. And not just UK, there are dozens of countries outside of North America where BB is used by teens and young people in massive amounts, almost entirely owning these smaller regional smartphone markets.
quote:
RIM did nothing to change that until they brought in QNX
Lies. RIM already changed that with new BB7 devices that are being released to markets right now.
quote:
Have you used both devices at length?
Have you compared Playbook with TouchPad? When you use web browser on both you'd notice how TouchPad is slooowww, molassess slooowww. No wonder it was a flop.
quote:
Blackberry is associated with business
BB is associated with earthquake in Washington recently when iPhones and Androids stopped working while BBM never even stuttered. This is what BB image is about - dead iPhones and Androids, quake and destruction everywhere and BB standing on top unscathed and asking "WTF is going on? I haven't noticed anything. Why are these Androids dead while my BBM works as usual?"

That, my friend, is the REAL BlackBerry image. BB doesn't need to be cool and hip, this is for pussies. BB needs to the the phone of choice for any serious CEO of a large business. That's all BB needs, my friend. Not your cool junk.


RE: One more time:
By Tony Swash on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: One more time:
By Pirks on 9/12/2011 10:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How and why Apple products are so attractive to consumers is mostly invisible or misunderstood by many on this forum
Why don't you enlighten us about this how and why? Why don't you write a detailed post in the next Apple related thread here where you'd explain to us all these mysterious hows and whys?


RE: One more time:
By lelias2k on 9/10/2011 1:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
You know, I freaking hate Toyotas. I think they drive like crap. I probably will never get close to buying a Toyota. But it's the right of every person in this world to buy one, and I will never dare to say otherwise.


Important details
By Commodus on 9/9/2011 9:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
The judge in the case actually addressed the concerns about the design being generic: she said that no, there's more than one way to design a tablet, and Samsung got too close.

Personally, I think the community design in question is a bit too generic, but I can also say there's no question Samsung was shaping the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be more like the iPad 2. I was at the events in Barcelona and Orlando where Samsung showed both the original Tab 10.1 (which was "fat" and looked a bit more like an Eee Pad Transformer) and the redesigned one it made after it realized the old model couldn't compete. The current one was designed mostly to be slimmer and lighter than the iPad 2, but it used Apple-like techniques to get there.

Toshiba's Excite (AT200) is a better example of how to do a very thin tablet without aping iPad traits.




RE: Important details
By fleshconsumed on 9/9/2011 9:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about this: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/01/toshiba-at200-h... ?

Yes, nothing like an iPad...

/sarcasm

The ruling is stupid. There are only so many ways you can design something as basic as a tablet.


RE: Important details
By jecs on 9/9/2011 6:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ruling is stupid. There are only so many ways you can design something as basic as a tablet.


Samsung.

Use a black metallic and rounded border. Use some color line or plane somewhere to create a difference. Use different textures. Use a dualtone or tritone design. Use a peculiar button or light. Try to mix vessels, embossed shapes. Carve a hole or make one corner different from the others. Create a design theme for an expression. And now that I just mentioned mix everything with taste and give 10 different designers some liberty to create even more options and combinations.

There might be some others and better designers reading these comments. So come on and contribute! lecture me, teach me, teach us.


RE: Important details
By kittypuncher on 9/9/2011 9:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Toshiba's Excite (AT200) is a better example of how to do a very thin tablet without aping iPad traits.


How is the look of the AT200 that much different than an iPad? Based on this ruling, I could easily see Apple win a similar suit against Toshiba... It's square, it's black, it has minimal buttons on the front...
As others have posted here, I REALLY hope other judges aren't this stupid (or have their pockets lined in Apple funds).


RE: Important details
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/9/2011 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The judge in the case actually addressed the concerns about the design being generic: she said that no, there's more than one way to design a tablet, and Samsung got too close.

Personally, I think the community design in question is a bit too generic, but I can also say there's no question Samsung was shaping the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be more like the iPad 2. I was at the events in Barcelona and Orlando where Samsung showed both the original Tab 10.1 (which was "fat" and looked a bit more like an Eee Pad Transformer) and the redesigned one it made after it realized the old model couldn't compete. The current one was designed mostly to be slimmer and lighter than the iPad 2, but it used Apple-like techniques to get there.

The translated excerpts of the ruling I've read say that a less similar design is possible, but notably FAIL to elaborate what that design might be.

In my analysis above I point out the only conceivable alternatives, and why they are all, by degrees, commercially unviable.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 and iPad are radically different in shape/size and even color if you look @ the device's back. And they differ in button counts.

So it seems clear, according to the German court you either have to add lots of buttons, make it much thicker, or throw out the rectangle altogether. None of these options are attractive or viable.

A final option is that Samsung could color its bezel in an attempt to differentiate its design, but Apple's patent (see link) does not state that it only covers black bezels, so this would be unlikely to sway the court.

Again a simple principle could be applied to virtual any industry (e.g. Volvo gaining a monopoly on cars, Samsung gaining a monopoly on TVs, Boeing on planes, etc.). For example you could say "flying devices without side wings are possible, so Boeing's design patent that it owns all flying devices with wings on the side is valid."

The end result is the same -- one company is granted a monopoly.

The German court can claim it's not granting Apple exclusive ownership of a generic design, but that's essentially what it's doing -- even by the accounting of neighboring court in the Netherlands who said that the patent was overly generic.

Essentially multi-touch based tablets are the state of the art, and this ruling grants Apple a virtual government-enforced monopoly on them, plain and simple.

P.S.
The Toshiba Excite is also a minimalist design (it's only facial feature is a small gray half-circle on its short-side). It's still a thin, rectangular, relatively button-less, bezelled design Given this precedent, if it sees significant sales traction, Apple should be able to sue in German courts and ban in from German sales.


RE: Important details
By Commodus on 9/9/2011 12:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Think it depends on semantics. The Toshiba Excite, to me, would avoid the claim because it's proof you can be cosmetically different: it's not a tapered design, the back is brushed metal rather than anodized aluminum, and so on.

I wouldn't have granted the ban, but at the same time, it's hard to be completely sympathetic to Samsung, either. The Galaxy Tab 10.1's sole mission in life is to hop on a bandwagon Apple built, and it was more than a little dodgy when Samsung managed to completely redesign the outer shell to a more iPad 2-like frame in three weeks.

If it's truly the case that Apple is legislating a monopoly and there's a legal way to get that overturned, it will be. Otherwise, it's a bit of tilting at windmills!


RE: Important details
By Solandri on 9/9/2011 12:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think it depends on semantics. The Toshiba Excite, to me, would avoid the claim because it's proof you can be cosmetically different: it's not a tapered design, the back is brushed metal rather than anodized aluminum, and so on.

The problem is, the cosmetic aspects you are attributing to the iPad were already present on Samsung's digital picture frame 4 years before the iPad ever saw the light of day. They are not original nor innovative. Apple just happened to be the first to use them in a tablet, making this another one of those stupid "in a xxx" patents.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital...


RE: Important details
By adiposity on 9/9/2011 4:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
First let me state that I am completely against this lawsuit and hope Apple loses. In my opinion you should be able to make something that looks EXACTLY like an iPhone/iPad, and if it doesn't plagiarize the logo, etc., it should be legal.

That said, just having that picture frame doesn't really mean much for Samsung. I think the argument here is that Samsung changed their devices to look a lot like iPads, and considering the sequence of the success of the iPad and Samsung's new design, it certainly is possible that they were trying to mimic the iPad. Apparently there is something wrong with that but for the life of me I don't know what it is.

If every aspect of the iPad has been seen before then putting it together is a clever idea perhaps, but not really something protected, IMO. Obviously this judge disagrees.


OMFG
By Sazabi19 on 9/9/2011 8:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
Please... do NOT let the rest of the world be this stupid. Aren't judges supposed to have a higher education?




RE: OMFG
By Murloc on 9/9/2011 9:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
the problem is that the whole patent and rights system is flawed and a patent like this was allowed to be registered.
By the laws, these judges didn't act wrong. It's just that they should have used their power for the greater good.


RE: OMFG
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2011 9:19:44 AM , Rating: 4
Having a good education doesn't mean someone is smart.


RE: OMFG
By drycrust3 on 9/9/2011 10:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
No, judges are supposed to have a higher understanding of the law, and in the case of German judges, they are supposed to have a higher understanding of German law.
Until you know what the law in Germany is regarding patents, then you really have no idea as to whether the judge was biased or impartial.


RE: OMFG
By Boze on 9/9/2011 2:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Alrighty, 2 things on this.

1. If a law is a poor law, then it shouldn't be adhered to.

2. There's another instance of Germans adhering to poor laws and mandates. Look in your history book for the years 1941 - 1945.


RE: OMFG
By someguy123 on 9/9/2011 3:07:48 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone else find it a bit of a coincidence that this occurred in Germany?

Apple is Germany's master computer race?


RE: OMFG
By icanhascpu on 9/9/2011 10:13:09 PM , Rating: 3
They do, that's why I laugh at all this outrage. Most of the outrage is from people that don't know a damn thing the judge does, and latch onto irrelevant material like it makes their point for them.

Logic has no place when everyone has their pitchforks out. You would think Apple runs the patent laws for how these people are acting. Its funny.


I did it first
By siliconvideo on 9/9/2011 8:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
1) I patented the black rectangle 10 years ago, can I sue Apple and shut them down?

2) I'm patenting an apple shaped iPad today, think I'll get in trouble?




RE: I did it first
By xti on 9/9/2011 9:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
you should patent the played out joke...


RE: I did it first
By masamasa on 9/9/2011 11:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's already been patented. He's now being sued for using the joke without express written permission of the patent holder.


The Death Star...
By MrBlastman on 9/9/2011 10:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't have an explosion ring! Get that bogus, CGI'd photo off the page and put up the real one!

We can not let Lucas's atrocities go unchecked.




RE: The Death Star...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/9/2011 10:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
Check the file name of the image... then think about what's being blown up versus who is doing the destruction ;)

Thank you for playing ;)


RE: The Death Star...
By MrBlastman on 9/9/2011 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, yes, good point.

My original point still stands though! When Alderaan blew up in 1977, there was no shockwave. They later edited that in with the digial remakes. ;)

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-w...


LOL
By Bozzified on 9/9/2011 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
LOL this is so insane it's not even worth arguing about. Germans will be buying samsung tablets and other competitive products from neighboring countries.

This is such a corrupted ruling it's not even funny. It makes ZERO sense.

It's like saying, Audi only has the right to make cars and everyone else can make SUVs or airplanes but they can't make cars because they have windows and doors and 4 wheels.

Total nonsense.

I guess, Apple's cahooting in the judge's room behind closed doors and who knows what corruption is the only reasonable explanation. No sane person would rule this way.

Ridiculous. I hope HTC goes all the way and bans Apple from selling Macs, iPads, iPhones and everything they infringed on in the States. Now with Google's patents, S3 patents they can break Apple and completely destroy them and they should . So let them sell Macs, iPads and all their crap in Germany only.




RE: LOL
By TakinYourPoints on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By Pirks on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By Bozzified on 9/9/2011 11:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Your post would make sense if you actually took the time to understand what those numbers mean. Those numbers are for the very first Samsung tablet that came out that didn't run Honeycomb, that was 7" and was the very first tablet that came out after iPad.

You can look at that tablet as G1 was to Android when first Android phone came out.

But no worries, unlike with Android phones, Android tablet marketshare is at 30+ percent now. Apple dropped from 94% to 60% in less then a year. Their marketshare is dropping ridiculously faster than it did with iPHone after the first year.

To remind you, Android phones had barely 4% at the first year of release when iPhone absolutely dominated. Second year, Android tore Apple a new one and grew 1000%.

Comparing that to what is happening to tablets and how fast they are gaining marketshare, they will over take tablet market by Q2 next year.

When Tegra 3 quad core Android tablets come out for the holiday at lower price than iPad 2 it will destroy iPad sales. By the time iPad 3 comes out in 2012, it's already going to be over.

If anything we are seeing the exact same scenario happening with Android tablets as it did with Android phones but at a much faster rate.

This is why Apple has to lie, bribe and do everything they can to stifle competition because they already know they will lose.


RE: LOL
By DeluxeTea on 9/10/2011 9:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
And that info came from a Samsung competitor.


Wow, what a lot of noise.
By bupkus on 9/9/2011 1:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
If this is just an issue of similar appearance couldn't Samsung make these items in a decorative scheme, such as a border in colors or patterns unavailable by Apple?
Also, couldn't Samsung release tablets with a removable plastic overlay that makes it appear as if buttons are present? After all, we aren't talking about functionality but appearance... no?

Also, if items need to be thicker than the iPad couldn't they also be thinner? Do Apple's patents define thickness in absolute terms or is that just a relative term? Do these patents contain any metrics that limit dimensions or is this a subjective view of a judge with no specifications required? What appears similar to one may certainly not be by another.

Isn't this clearly a condition where abuses by seeing too much similarity and not seeing enough of the differences can be seen as protectionism creating unfair market exclusions. Couldn't this begin to step on the toes of international trade agreements?

Also, what the hell is a trade court? Isn't this to prevent counterfeits? If similar items are clearly labeled by their true manufacturer how can that be a counterfeit? I know who made my bluejeans because the label tells me.




RE: Wow, what a lot of noise.
By cfaalm on 9/9/2011 3:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't this clearly a condition where abuses by seeing too much similarity and not seeing enough of the differences can be seen as protectionism


That seems to be the Dutch ruling.


What about...
By ender707 on 9/9/2011 3:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Who holds the patent for Laptop / Mini Laptop (Netbook) design? Or E-Reader designs?

Don't all computer towers feature a boxy design with drive bays in the front and a few face buttons?

Don't all laptops feature a flip-up screen with a keyboard and trackpad?

Don't most E-readers feature a sort of minimalist rectangular design as well?

Just a heads up to Apple fans: If Apple has no competition, you will not get new products/updates ever. A monopoly is not good for anyone but Apple, which DOES NOT include their customers.




RE: What about...
By jecs on 9/9/2011 6:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Then, ask yourselves. Do the border on the Galaxy line NEEDS to be the same plain metallic and rounded border Apple used. NOOOOOOPE. I would like to see a black metallic "bad ass" tablet with an all black metallic border. Why not? And this is just one different concept from Apple. Or do you prefer the plain Apple look for ever because there is not another possible solution. This is well beyond the minimalistic concept for a tablet. This is a plain Samsung intentional corporate decision.

But you will see more differentiation in the future tablets and smartphones. I promise you this, I have "faith", and it will be better for everybody.


Poor Mick
By W00dmann on 9/9/2011 4:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
Another day, another Apple victory, another slanted / biased / immature / crybaby / hateful article by the vaunted Jason Mick, replete with yet another (!) Star Wars picture. Day after day, Mick reveals his lack of intellect and maturity. Hey Mick, how does it feel to be a perennial 5 year old? Better yet, explain to me why the courts seem to keep agreeing with Apple if their legal tactics are so unfair, as you claim?




RE: Poor Mick
By TakinYourPoints on 9/9/2011 4:06:11 PM , Rating: 1
RE: Poor Mick
By Pirks on 9/9/2011 4:07:35 PM , Rating: 1
No surprise here, Mick is just another uneducated Android fanboy, hence his idiotic trolling or RIM and Apple.


They took Apple's claims seriously?
By semo on 9/9/2011 9:07:57 AM , Rating: 3
This proves Germans have no sense of humour.

j/k




damn germans
By kleinma on 9/9/2011 9:52:13 AM , Rating: 3
Apple paid David Hasselhoff to tell the judge to rule in their favor, and since no German can say no to the Hoff, the ban hammer came down.

Apple's innovations amount to copy existing idea, give idea mass appeal, make it 2x as expensive as it needs to be to keep margins super high, sue all competition with baseless patents.




This is bad news for consumers.
By masamasa on 9/9/2011 11:00:48 AM , Rating: 3
That type of patent is a joke. It's like saying nobody can make a laptop because I made it first. Nobody can build a car because I built it first.

It promotes monopoly and screws the consumer by taking away competition and choice.

Screw you and your lame patents Apple.




another reason
By AMDftw on 9/9/2011 9:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
why Apple SUCKS B. sacks.




Sicking
By Onimuto on 9/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sicking
By Scootie on 9/9/2011 5:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
I like they way you think. We should have more like you around.


What?
By CU on 9/9/2011 10:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
The judge said the Galaxy Tab is a minimalist design like Apple's, but even the IPad isn't a minimalist design based on Apple's patent. "According to Apple's patent, a "minimalist" design is any thin rectangular tablet, with few buttons on its face." Few means more than 1 not 1 or 0.

Also, really, they patented a thin rectangular tablet with few buttons on the front. The judge should have not only sided with Samsung, but also throw out the patent because of prior art and vagueness/common design goal of tablets. Also I would love to see what other designs the judge thinks would make good tablets, but not be thin and rectangular with few buttons and still sale.




shocked
By Willhouse on 9/9/2011 10:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
Like most people here, I too am shocked.

I was thinking Google needs to step in and remove *all* of its technology from Apple products until these lawsuits go away. No search, no maps, nothing. Hell, make www.google.com incompatible with safari. Some people might still buy Apple, but no google would be a clear dealbreaker for me (when I'm in the market for these things). Apple shouldn't be allowed to have the best of google's tech and best of Apple's tech, and no google competition.

Maybe they have a contract or something, but do not renew or find a way out.




By jthistle on 9/9/2011 10:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Even though the tablets cannot be sold in German stores they can still be purchased from online stores based in countries where the tablets can be sold like the Netherlands. Unless Apple is able to get Samsung's tablets banned from everywhere on earth they still will be sold to the exclusion zones.




Ridiculously shaky ground
By Tanclearas on 9/9/2011 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
What is minimalist? How few buttons are required for it to be minimalist? How big or small do those buttons need to be? Do they need to be physical buttons, or can they be capacitive?

The Nokia 770 Internet Tablet was released in 2005. It is rectangular, with a bezel. It had four buttons on the face (one of which was surrounded by a D-pad). If the screen was multi-touch (not really widely and commercially available at the time), would they have needed that many buttons? If Apple had've used two buttons, would they have been in violation of copying Nokia's design? What about three buttons? I ask again, exactly how many buttons constitutes "minimalist"?

The ability to file (and be granted) a patent on a design that simply has fewer (or perhaps more) buttons than an existing device is absolutely ridiculous.




Looser...
By Yodog on 9/9/2011 11:22:46 AM , Rating: 1
Hey Mr. Jobs and Mr. Cook, are you afraid of the competitions?

What about star to make better products with an affordable price instead of suing other companies?




RE: Looser...
By AMDftw on 9/9/2011 2:10:32 PM , Rating: 1
They can afford it because they have trolls buying their products.


Lost the plot
By karndog on 9/9/2011 11:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
You know the great thing about Europe? Pretty much no matter where you are, you are within driving/train ride distance of several other countries in just about any direction.
Banned in Germany? No problem, just visit neighboring Holland, Switzerland, Czech Rep etc. Banned in France? Cool take a road trip to Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg.
Too lazy to take the trip? No worries just hit up Ebay and have it delivered into your country and to your doorstep the next day.

Unless Apple succeeds in getting the Samsung tablets banned in every country in the EU, people will still easily get their hands on them. The only thing they are changing is countries in close proximity to other countries that have had the ban approved will have their sales figures bigger than usual.

It looks as though Apple are serious in following this ridiculous patent war through. I hope the courts in more than half of the 200 something countries in the world rule against Apple, then hopefully they will lose more in legal fees than what they would be gaining from the bans.




Posted from her iPad
By PeaJay on 9/9/2011 11:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
I guess she took a page from Carol Bartz and posted her ruling from her iPad!!




Samsung is the biggest copycat
By vision33r on 9/9/2011 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see Apple going after Asus or Acer. It's obvious that Samsung needs the ban because the GalaxyTab looks too much like the iPad.




On The Border
By cfaalm on 9/9/2011 2:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe what I just read. How can there be two such different rulings in neighbouring countries?

Now is a good time to set up shop near the German border. "Ab jetzt, Galaxy Tabs im Sonderangebot."




Not worried
By Cache on 9/9/2011 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm fine with this, as the EU will eventually sue Apple for having a monopoly in the first place, and the EU will gain much-needed capital.




Apple has done it this time!
By Frostburn on 9/9/2011 4:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
So I've had enough of Apple... Just cause of that I've created my own patents, that prevent ANYONE from making babies! I've patented both the procedure and the resulting product, so... This may not actually kill Apple now, but I'm quite sure within a couple of decades Apple won't have anyone left to support this stupid company. -_- really, how much of a retard do you have to be to know this is just stupid... Oh, so now you cannot have blue eyes... Only Apple can have blue eyes... So now you cannot be thin... Only Apple can be thin, you either get fat or get lost... Oh so you don't have buttons? You better put some buttons on that bloody device or you're copying? Does that happens with clothing? Can I patent a T-Shirt with no buttons, and all of a sudden everyone that makes a T-Shirt with no buttons on it must put stupid useless buttons on it so that it's different from mine? Oh for God's Sake Apple... Just die already.




By renosablast on 9/9/2011 4:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
So, in Germany are the judges elected or appointed? And, like the US, are they bought and paid for with "campaign contributions", either directly or to the appointer? Something fishy about this ruling; especiialy in light of Apple being caught fabricating and "enhancing" evidence.




Lawyers, Liars
By Scootie on 9/9/2011 4:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
I heard that one once in a movie with Chris Cooper. Anyway, what I cant understand ... how on earth could Samsung loose all this trials to Apple all over the world? They have all the money they need ... how about firing curent lawyers and get some more competitive ones?




well then
By casper55117 on 9/9/2011 5:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
everyone seems to forget that In 2002, original equipment manufacturers' released the first tablet PCs designed to the Microsoft Tablet PC specification. This generation of Microsoft Tablet PCs were designed to run Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, the Tablet PC version of Windows XP.




I fill file patent to open mouth.
By Roy2001 on 9/9/2011 7:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
So all of you would shut up.




I wanted buttons anyway.
By MWink on 9/10/2011 11:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
While I am disgusted by this ruling, I would much rather have a tablet with a fair number of real buttons. Touch screens are good for some uses but not others. For instance, I just could not take seriously a touch screen only gaming device. I would like to see tablets add some useful buttons but not because some court made them.

I'm starting to be sorry I ever owned ANY Apple devices. At least I haven't given them any money in the last few years.




Well...
By luseferous on 9/10/2011 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Surely the answer is to make two of the edges slightly concave. Voila no rectangle. :)




By justjc on 9/10/2011 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
German consumers can still buy a Galaxy Tab in stores and the stores can still import and sell them, as it turned out that the court could only target the German branch of Samsung. The result is that when stock runs out the stores simply have to buy from another Samsung branch.

As such the victory luckily is more symbolic than anything and hopefully the Netherland trial will weigh heavier on the mind of the next European court Apple will try.

That said, they're crazy those Germans in the Düsseldorf court. After all a study of the courts dealings from 2006 to 2009 showed that the accuser in patent claims won 63% of the time(35% is world averange) even though it was the court with the most cases.




Far too troubling
By evo slevven on 9/10/2011 9:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
And frankly this patent judgement is also very horrible. In the broadest sense, allowing companies to effectively patent a design aspect can have horrible consequences. The first major one is that being able to patent shapes of consumer electronics is leading down to a bad road. Every company should be patenting TV designs and colors because we know nearly everyone has a thin, black~bezel based television design which seems to be something you can patent. You can also apparently make a viable case for a patent for other electronics; computer monitors, laptops (especially in the realm of ultra~thin notebooks) and smart phones.

Secondly this will kill a large desire to innovate and design. Apple may not have invented of have been the first to patent certain technologies (like multi~touch) but if you can patent a design or product that makes use of other features, you effectively prevent production of the product to an extent.

Thirdly the images and notes on the "minimalist design" are on public domain for all to see and, frankly, how were you able to patent something with the specifications regarding specificity, design and functionality. It seems Apple only had design covered but not specificity and functionality. I may as well patent the design for cars using 4 wheels because its a minimalist, functional design.

While this may be corporate warfare, its not good karma on Apple's end and may backfire on them.




Haters are gonna hate
By vision33r on 9/10/2011 11:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
You guys seem to forget that Microsoft had a hand and foot in the tablet space for over a decade and never gotten mass appeal. Those Microsoft Windows tablet are usually bulky, heavy, and slow.

Then came the internet webpads by Cowon, Archos, and Nokia. They were POS quality, slow, and unreliable.

Now Apple simply perfected the design and gained mass appeal and becomes the standard today.

As usual Google had to follow as they do everything today from social media, browser, phone, and even TV. They pretty much suck at everything except search. The only reason Android phones even existed because Apple does not license. If iOS was licensed to Sony and HTC, they will quickly put Android in their rear view mirror.




Apple is Out of its Mind
By thugbephine on 9/11/2011 6:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the Patient for a minimalist touchscreen slate should of never been granted to Apple in the first place. And now that it has, the court should invalidate it.

Just imagine if only 1 manufacture could create flat screen TVs? And you had no choices!!! I'm glad we don't live in that type of society when there is only 1 price, 1 design, to choose from.

Tablets aren't new, they been around for awhile. But now that they caught on, we need competition on the market. Otherwise you have an Ipad, that don't feature everything the consumer wants.... I feel sorry for the Germany consumers




Grand idea!
By priusone on 9/12/2011 3:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
Apple should get Lenovo and every other other laptop manufacturer banned from germany! Last time I checked, most, of not all other laptops copy the MacBook's concepts of having a keyboard, touchpad, Display, DVD drive, etc.

And while we're at it, Apple could lend out their lawyers to BMW and get all non-BMW vehicles banned from being sold in Germany. After all, when you compare vehicles, ie, engines, transmissions, doors, windows, locks, wheels, my god, they are all the same!




Good, Bad & Ugly
By garagetinkerer on 9/14/2011 2:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Steve Jobs known for saying:
"good artists copy, great artists steal!..."

First, they were out telling paying customers that they were holding their phone wrong. Now, we have the same bunch throwing more hissy and a fit? Why am i not surprised?

Prior art (especially tablet) exists in form of Windows tablet. Other than that, computer monitors have always been rectangular, though in varying proportions(based on aspect ratio et all). Monitors have had a rectangular design for ages, with very few buttons. Then how in the name of heaven or hell this plonker of a judge decides that Apple owns a rectangular minimalist touchscreen design? Of course touchscreen devices only came into market recently, as did 3D(another example). So patenting an existing design is asinine, but far more worse crime is to not invalidate it when a hearing comes to a court.




Crazy ruling is crazy...
By MistaP on 9/15/2011 2:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
First, I think the ruling is crazy as, like others said, it is basically a federally backed monopoly. It is like saying "Oh, we here at Sony were the first to produce a wider rectangular television that is as thin as a picture fram and you control with this thing we call a remote. Then, Samsung came out with a very very similar device to ours and thats not right so you should ban them from selling it." It is really that stupid. It might stand up in Germany, but I doubt it will stand up in US courts ... then again I wouldn't be shocked to be totally wrong on that.

Now, I will be the first to say I hate Apple. I also have an iPhone in my pocket. I hate their anti-competative practices and the way they try and lord over their customers use of their products. The Mac line of products I find absurdly laughable as I fail to see where they can compete with with the PC, but the mac in general is an idea as old as the company. The iPod, iPhone, iPad all represent new ventures apple has taken into the real of gadgetry rather than their freshman work which was all aimed ad competeing with PCs. What Apple has figured out how to do is how to design a trendy super/smart version of a device you already have ... and then really really want it. They were NOT the first with mp3 players or portable movie player but they were the first with a stylish design and a really high tech but simple to use way to interact with the devices. Then they did it with the cellphone, and finally they have done it with tablets. They are masters of innovation when it comes to how you interact with something and how the device presents itself. They aren't really masters of technological creation. Either way you want to look at it ... they are DAMN GOOD at what they do.




Tablets in Dutch...
By Calin on 9/12/2011 2:41:05 AM , Rating: 1
"Germans can of course drive to the Netherlands and buy Galaxy Tab 10.1s"

Only if they want to buy a Dutch-language tablet, I assume. For the uninformed, German has about as much in common with Dutch as English has.




Sweet!
By AnalogToDigitalKid on 9/9/11, Rating: -1
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki