decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

I'm sorry Apple, I'm afraid you can't do that. | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yup, I know
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
I run a Linux-based netbook on the airplane and people think it must be a
Macbook. They know it does not look like I am running Windows, so it must be

Unfortunately, the law is stupid. Created by greedy corporate lawyers and
bribed judges for the benefit of corporations that want to crush competitors.
Do not look for logic or sense in the U.S. legal system. Assume corruption and
bribery and you will get it right every time.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Trade Dress idiocy
Authored by: calris74 on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT
When I was doing the markup of Apple's trial brief, I almost choked when I got to the end and saw the claimed 'trade dress'. I still cannot get over anyone thinking that the trade dress has ANY kind of legitimacy given prior art and plain old boring basic design concepts.

It really shows how mean-spirited Apple is. They've gone after ALL of Samsung's profits, claimed lost profits, claimed dilution of brand recognition, etc. Why, because Samsung is #1 and has the most money to extract. They didn't go after any other tablet or phone manufacture producing obvious iPhone / iPad knockoffs - why?
  1. They are small fry and;
  2. having a few more phones and tablets out there that look exactly like the iPhone / iPad is good for apple - It makes the iPhone and iPad appear more popular
I used to love Apple. My first computer was an Apple IIe - I could hack on that all I liked. I had an iPhone 3GS but switched to Android because Apple became too restrictive - It was Apple's way or the highway. I will never again buy an Apple product if I can possibly avoid it (my daughter is getting an iPad, but there is no other option because the applications she needs are not available for Android).

Dear Apple, please see 'Linus Re. nVidia'

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I concur
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
I have met a significant number of people who think that "iPad" is the
generic term for a tablet form factor.

They're not stupid people either.

Perhaps <evil> the name and the form factor have become

That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Trade Dress idiocy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:54 AM EDT
Scene from 2004 of a lawyer holding what /appears/ to be an iPad (I think it's a paper folder, but look at the pic)


2003 Windows Tablet, note the rounded corners;

Windows tablet

And the icons at the bottom of a display? Think I had this installed in 2002 for the first version;


Apple's /really/ throwing out a reality distortion field here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:12 PM EDT
What many have difficult to understand is that, outside the ´tech world´, most
people doesn't have a clue about what an OS is, or what a microprocessor is,
or... It is quite anecdotal. But this really an issue here, since if you look at
one of those many galaxies out there, you have to look closely to notice it is a
samsung... otherwise, on the hurry, you may be mistaken. And the point here
isn't the
rectangle (all phones are like that) but the overall appearance. I mean, before
iPhone, all phones were quite different, there was all sort of layouts, styles,
(in the lower and upper end...). As they say, there was no
design reference.
Now, when you look at the upper end, they look all the same (as an iPhone, a bit
bigger, a bit smaller, thicker...but overall alike).

But there is one thing that is bothering me most,
I mean, I started reading groklaw about 2003, it was refreshing in the sense,
above the opinions, there was always reference to written law, so that anyone
could follow the logic...
And now, in this ´apple x samsung´ theater, I see more and
more opinions of how wrong the ´trade law´ is, how unfair
the magistrate is..and..and...
to the point that the acts of a ´lawyer´ (against a court order) get
It seams that, since the logic don´t follows, you need emotion.

I have no stake on apple, I have had phones from samsung (peace of ...),
motorola (mostly a pain), siemens (quite nice), nokia (always reliable)...
and apple (expensive, but simply works).
AND they are worlds apart, specially when
you compare the phones before and after apple got into it.

We can discuss if the law is fair, if there is ´prior art´,
if the tactics are ´lawful/fair´...
But is really hard to argue that, without Apple we would
having phones like the ones we have today, or that
the ´face/style/design´ of the phones would be like the
ones from apple, or even if there would be an android ...
Symbian was king, windows phone 6.5 was a knight, HTC/samsung
were trying to ´imitate them´...this was before...

Apple was a real game changer in that process, and the establishment got

And the way I understand ´trademark law´, ´design and trade dress´, the whole
idea is to ´exclude the others´, and make sure no one will ´eat my encilhada´.
(which is obviously unfair for the others...). Many will not agree, but Apple
trait their devices as ´porches/ferraris´ (or a gucci/loui viton purse), and
they stick a price on it. If, lets say, samsung produce phones that, on the
surface are mostly equal, but for the half of it, they loose value, as simple as
I´m sure they don´t care if samsung, nokia would sell ´better spec. phones´, for
half the price, but with different design/appearance/interface, so that they
could still ´over price´ their phones...
just for being apple (like they do with their mac´s).

This is the best for the end user? Well, that´s hard to answer. No one is obeyed
to buy from A or B. But, if you like the quality of a BMW, the engine of a BMW,
the comfort of a BMW, the safety of a BMW, you should better be prepared to pay
for it, and don´t expect that a Korean company would produce a ´c 180 cabriolet´
mainly identical to original one, but with a different logo...

Last point, samsung is the power it is today, in part because of apple, what
reminds that apple is really searching for new suppliers...this is going to be a
long war.

Well, as for opinion, this is mine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm sorry Apple, I'm afraid you can't do that.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Trade Dress idiocy
Authored by: belboz on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:53 AM EDT
Just adding a device to the list: Kindle 2. I occupationally
get asked: "Is that an iPad"?

Apple will have no problems finding people who will swear
that they think a Samsung device (or Kindle 2/DX /Fire etc.
looks like iPads.)

Just take a Kindle in you hand and ask enough random persons
(I suppose elderly people are best) "What do you think this

It is not because the people are stupid. They just don't
care about tech, so they do not know the devices and the
iPad is tho only one who received so much general press.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )