Judge Rules Galaxy Tab "Not as Cool" as iPad, Legally Speaking

Image for article titled Judge Rules Galaxy Tab "Not as Cool" as iPad, Legally Speaking

Samsung mustn't know whether to celebrate or not. A UK judge has ruled that the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe Apple's registered design, in large part because it's "not as cool" as the iPad. Ouch.

Advertisement

Speaking in court this morning, Bloomberg reports, Judge Colin Birss explained that the Galaxy tablets "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design... They are not as cool."

As a result, Biriss has judged that consumers are unlikely to confuse the two tablets, meaning that Samsung's product doesn't infringe Apple's registered design. Intriguingly, he explained that the Galaxy Tab had "unusual details" on the back which set it apart as different to the iPad.

Apple has 21 days to appeal against the ruling which, knowing its track record, it probably will. Meanwhile, Samsung is no doubt trying to work out whether to be happy or not. [Bloomberg]

DISCUSSION

By
Beautyspin

This is BS. The actual ruling is as shown -

In a ruling on July 9, 2012, the High Court of England & Wales sided with Samsung that the designs of the Galaxy Tab series of products are 'different' from an Apple tablet design, and do not infringe Apple’s Registered Community Design No. 181607-0001. Samsung products subject to this trial were the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Galaxy Tab 8.9, and the Galaxy Tab 7.7.

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

"However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004.

"Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'

It states that the original IPAD design is not so original..