Perhaps in what might be read as a wake-up call for Apple, the Cupertino, Calif., gadget powerhouse was just served a dose of reality before a Dusseldorf court in Germany. A quick recap: Apple secured a sales ban on Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 in September on the grounds of too many similarities and patent infringement.

Samsung then re-engineered its device and re-introduced it under the Galaxy Tab 10.1N moniker, but Apple pushed for an injunction of that model, too. Today at the Dusseldorf court, presiding judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann made it known that Apple was pushing its luck with a request for an injunction.

According to Bloomberg, she said:

Consumers are well aware that there is an original and that competitors try to use similar designs, so buyers are vigilant when looking at products. We don’t think that someone buys a Samsung (005930) to make his table neighbor at the coffee house believe he owns an iPad.

Reuters quoted Judge Brueckner-Hofmann as saying:

According to the court’s assessment, the defendant has moved away sufficiently from the legally protected design.

According to fresh data by Bitkom, a technology and telecommunications association, Germany’s tablet market is worth an estimated 2.1 million units this year. The warning from Germany arrived after Justice Annabelle Bennett lifted a sales ban on Samsung’s Galaxy tablet in Australia on Nov. 30, prompting Apple to claim it would appeal to the High Court. Encouraged by those developments, Samsung recently  advertised its device as “the tablet Apple tried to stop.”

The Galaxy Tab 10.1N is a reengineered version of the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 with an added metal frame around the edges. Apple’s lawyers went to great lengths to describe in court documents how Samsung should redesign its device so that it does not infringe upon Apple’s patents. Here is a quick recap of what the lawyers for Apple wrote (believe it or not, it’s true):

• 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 relative to [Apple patent D'889] or that have a cluttered appearance.

Is Samsung were to follow these guidelines, the non-infringing Galaxy Tab, cynics would claim, might look something like this.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s