Apple Denied Appeal in Australian Galaxy Tab Ban Case

[kartu]

Apple's helpful guidelines for competitors to avoid patent infringement

No, this is not a joke.

In its public legal brief from Nov. 28, Apple (In section 2-40 and 2-41) lays out what Samsung could have done differently to avoid "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad designs:

Apple offers alternative smartphone designs Samsung could have used instead:
Front surfaces that are not black or clear
Front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners
Display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all
Display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders
Speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen
Front surfaces that contain substantial adornment
Phones without bezels at all or very different-looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile


The tablet alternatives Apple felt Samsung should have explored:
Overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners
Front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment
Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface
Profiles that are not thin
A cluttered appearance (no, this is still not a joke)

http/www.pcworld.com/article/245493/apple_to_samsung_dont_make_thin_or_rectangular_tablets_or_smartphones.html

 

[santfu]

[citation][nom]Uberragen21[/nom]"iPad 2 Carries Bill of Materials of $326.60"iPad 2 BOM"The Samsung Galaxy Tab has a Bill of Materials (BOM) of $205.22"Galaxy Tab 10.1 BOMI believe that BOM is for the 16 GB models on both tablets. Kind of makes you wonder why Samsung doesn't make their product much more competitively priced. I can only assume the company needs to make up loses from the extended legal battles.[/citation]

On top of the BOM, you have overheads, then transport then profit for the manufacturer and finally the retailer's margin. (and that is assuming the manufacturer sells directly to the retailer)

I still see little use for tablets, and it's interesting that in order for other companies to find a space they need to sell cheap (see amazon). Apple is very fortunate in that it has got lucky and found a place in some peoples hearts that means they buy what apple sell regardless of need (new religion anyone?).

 

[kartu]

By the way, tablet on the picture above is Motorola Xoom, not Galaxy Tab.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Apple's helpful guidelines for competitors to avoid patent infringement[/citation]
Translation: "don't make anything that could even be mistaken for a tablet."

...Or a touch-screen phone, or a touch-screen MP3 player. Once you look over those "suggestions," you'd realize that design-wise, the iTouch, iPhone, and iPad are all essentially IDENTICAL.

It's become clear that this is abuse of design patents: it's supposed to be invention patents that give you a legal monopoly over a sector. Design patents are PURELY so that customers don't confuse products. And it's clear that what they describe is not what people associate with "iPad," but instead "tablet computers."

Glad to see the house of cards Apple's got here is finally coming down.

 

[gokanis]

[citation][nom]nao1120[/nom]Good to have some competition. I think a 300 dollar price tag would be reasonable for a tablet. Since it costs 170-200 to make. I don't have a use for one yet.... Maybe when there is a use later on in life.[/citation]
It costs 200+ for a kindle fire and they are losing money selling it. So you had better recalculate your statement a bit on the tab.

 

[zybch]

[citation][nom]gokanis[/nom]It costs 200+ for a kindle fire and they are losing money selling it. So you had better recalculate your statement a bit on the tab.[/citation]
They lose a couple of bucks, but get more than that back on the first purchase made by the owner.
Regardless, I recently bought an acer iconia 32gig 10" tablet for $320 (the same or slightly better specs than the galaxy tab) and use it quite a bit. Its still not even close to being as functional as a notebook or even netbook, but its a whole lot more useful than apple's crippled tablet and has a heap more features like a front facing camera perfect for skype.

 

[danwat1234]

Apple got served

 

[codefuapprentice]

Seriously apple....WTF?....Ever heard of competition??....that word which describes a rival company's products?....No?? of course not, Apple are anal to the end With or without Steve jobs

 

[eddieroolz]

An injunction denied, but I doubt Samsung's woes are far from over.

 

[JMcEntegart]

By the way, tablet on the picture above is Motorola Xoom, not Galaxy Tab.

No, it's not.

 

[stalker7d7]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]Not exactly. Until a judgement was made, there was a chance that samsung was harming apple in some way. The judge cannot arbitrarily be anti-apple and say, "Aw, ya lousey bunch of patent trolls!", but instead has to actually be impartial. Therefore the court has an obligation to avoid any potential damage until a determination could be made. Samsung was offered a chance to get a quick answer so as not to waste time. They refused.[/citation]

The wording is the problem. It said they refused an early final hearing, not that they stalled for a late final hearing.

 

[leper84]

[citation][nom]Uberragen21[/nom]"iPad 2 Carries Bill of Materials of $326.60"iPad 2 BOM"The Samsung Galaxy Tab has a Bill of Materials (BOM) of $205.22"Galaxy Tab 10.1 BOMI believe that BOM is for the 16 GB models on both tablets. Kind of makes you wonder why Samsung doesn't make their product much more competitively priced. I can only assume the company needs to make up loses from the extended legal battles.[/citation]


Just to clear it up- your link says that teardown is for the 7 inch Galaxy, not the 10.1. Not to mention the article is dated Nov 2010 and the 10.1 wasn't released until June of this year.

 

[DaddyW123]

Now I hope Samsung sues Apple back for loss of potential income due to the frivolous lawsuit!