By 
Here’s a small victory (if you can call it that) for Samsung up against the possibility that they may have had to cease sales and advertisement of the Galaxy S, S II and Ace. They claimed Samsung violated patents of Apple’s which describe sliding on-screen to unlock a device and scrolling in the gallery (and the “bounce” after you hit the beginning or end of a list of photos). A judge has ruled that the slide-to-unlock patent claim and nine others are invalid and that that their infringement on the gallery patent can be remedied by disposing of the application – they’ll likely update it to comply. [Samsung Tomorrow (Translated)]
More information after a natural English translation/account of the proceedings. A judge ruled that the reason Apple’s claims were invalid is due to prior art and function. Specifically, they point out a 2005 phone (before anyone even knew of the iPhone) called the Neonode that had a similar slide-to-unlock feature.
They also said that the Galaxy S and S II’s device likeness claims are invalid due to the LG Prada – released well before the iPhone (2006) – taking precedence. Finally, the graphical user interface claim was thrown out due to the Nokia 7710, a 2004 phone that also boasted a grid-like interface for scrolling through applications.
“Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.”
Read more at osnews.com.
[Updated to achieve accuracy after rough translation, add additional details.]
The Netherlands Judge declared those patents invalid and found that Samsung was only violating the patent dealing with picture gallery “bounce”. That’s where this is coming from.
Samsung is not the only one that says they’re invalid, so did the judge. Big time translation fails this morning. The judge also ruled that the physical design is no too close to the iProducts and threw it out. This is mostly a huge victory for Samsung, who needs to update their Gallery app and that’s it.
Here’s a good read about the situation from a guy who is from the Netherlands (translations will be correct) and has been following these patent shenanigans for awhile.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung
Thanks for that link, it really sorted out the misinformation running rampant.
Is it the built-in Android gallery app or Samsung’s version of it?
that’s what I’m curious about too
tweakers.net reports that it’s the standard Android gallery-app, made by Google
This is getting ridiculous.
Getting? It’s been ridiculous for quite a while now.
Thanks for the corrections, guys. Relying on Google Translate translations can be tough.
@robojerk thanks for the link. I found this to be the most interesting take from it.
“Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.”
“They also said that the Galaxy S and S II’s device likeness claims are invalid due to the LG Prada – released well before the iPhone (2006) – taking precedence.”
So when is LG suing Apple for copying their formfactor? :D
Probably never. LG is probably busy doing actual business, sales and engineering.
“Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.”
Apple thinks they can sign their name on a blank framed canvas and then call it forgery if you do the same thing.
“Convertibles may be the new fashion trend, but slate tablets have some sizzle too. Motion Computing’s LE1600 is used by hospitals and insurance agents. The tablet retails for $2,049 and comes with a 1.5GHz Intel processor, 512MB of RAM and a 30GB hard drive.
Credit: Motion Computing” Release Date March 13, 2006 Hellooo!
How about a 1994 tablet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&list=FL35o7OCw90E-O5Wk8uWWSwQ&index=16
NICE FIND!! They knew EXACTLY what was coming.
A few things I wanna point out from that video. First is that black lady looked crazy in that yellow blazer. Second is at 3:30 that guys eyes looked like superimposed video game eyes and lastly, even back then they knew that video should be easily viewed on a website(unlike the non flash iPad of today).
Samsung used this in the case. I saw the Knight Rider company name on the article from osnews.
How about this for hardware design?
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/04/samsungs-digital-photo-frame/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
The fact that its made by Samsung …the irony….is overwhelming…
I heard Jobs is applying for a patent on “a big ball of burning gas used to heat a planet”. He wants to sue every living human for unpaid royalties in their blatant use of the sun without his permission. :)
This is huge for Samsung. Hopefully, the German courts take notice of this ruling. And the American courts…
Great news. I love the fact that the Judge agrees the a minimalistic design can not really be protected as it is too basic.
Haha to stupid Apple. Their lawyers were graduated from toilet.
“i” stands for “idiot”. Haha
If Samsung needs more prior art just look at the iPhone shaped device from the 1999 movie eXistenZ. It looks more like the iPhone than any Samsung model. IMDB Has the eXistenZ trailer and at the 12 second mark the iPhone look a like appears. Netflix has the movie on instant view; check out minute 6 with Jude Law at the security point. It even has a silver rim band. Jobs must be into Cronenberg.
Am beginning to think that I won’t buy anything else from Apple or Microsoft until they stop this silly patent war. Protecting one’s patents is OK (and even necessary), but they’ve gone well beyond reasonable into an all out war. Am thinking they don’t realize how much bad will they are creating in the buying public.
Am beginning to think that I won’t buy anything else from Apple or Microsoft until they stop this silly patent war. Protecting one’s patents is OK (and even necessary), but they’ve gone well beyond reasonable into an all out war. Am thinking they don’t realize how much bad will they are creating in the buying public.
Ok, so here’s what’s bugging me right now, Apple sues manufacturers for implementing a “slide to unlock” feature, but then blatantly rips off the pull down notification bar… and thinks nothing will happen? I’m no good with how the patents work, but you would think that one is pretty obvious.
“Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.” – a small compliment for Apple I suppose. I like the Samsung products.
This is good news for anyone who values competition and innovation. It’s hard to build an electric sports car if you have to worry about who patented the wheel.
try to take away my galaxy s did they..this is why i dislike apple
The far more important issue (that this legal situation highlights) is Samsung’s desperation to produce phones that are iPhone knockoffs. But infinitely more entertaining to me is the fact that Samsung apologists imitate the exact same zombie psychosis that the iPhone fanboys operate with.
Aren’t you all the least bit embarrassed and or ashamed?
It’s still pathetic that it took this long for a judge to finally say a fucking black rectangle computer with a touchscreen LCD is obvious. It’s also not surprising that it’s not a US judge.
Good news for all lovers of free-will to choose and healthy competition.Good news.Now I know why Steve Jobs is resigning,because from now onwards it is going to be just south-south motion.And he does not want his awesome inventive name associated with failure a second time.I see reasons with you my dear “awesome” Job.Take a long and well overdue rest.At least it can be said that you put a good fight even when you know it was the wrong fight and that could never have won.At least you gave it a shot.Adieus.