This doesn't resemble an iPad to me, and even if it did the obscurity of the source nullifies any claim to obviousness. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far and doesn't get at the essence of the claim.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn’t resemble an iPad to me. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far.
The obscure device you found is on the left. iPad which is an actual product, is in the middle. Samsung's Tab is on the right. The iPad and Tab are practically identical.
The left two are only similar in that they are both rectangular. The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all different.
Ouch. It’s not an obscure device, it’s a freaking PADD. Did you never watch Star Trek?
Anyway, I don’t agree and since we all don’t have any empirical results – only different opinions – we might as well stop here. I only fear that the courts and the politicians who wrote the law also didn’t have any empirical results.
A couple blatant problems with your comparison, among others:
* That is not a final-representation of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Tab)
* The back and profile sides are nothing alike, for the Tab and Apple iPad.
* The front sides is only comparable in an obvious "shape," "size," and "materials," but all of these are also represented in previous art and even dozens of lines of monitor fabs.
Maybe you ought to be specific on what is so non-obvious about the iPad, because I have a feeling you are simply have not been made aware or fail to recognize previous art.
The "non-obvious" and "previous art" criteria are non-issues. This isn't a patent suit. Instead, it's a (very odd, IMHO) EU law that protects products from clones that would confuse consumers.
So I guess the standard here is whether or not someone would reasonably be fooled into thinking a Galaxy Tab was an iPad. Honestly, it seems reasonable to me. The Samsung looks like a clone.
Now, the law is ridiculous in the face of the fact that the devices aren't compatible. Treating the box that the things come in as the defining aspect that needs protection instead of the very different software contained therein is just insane. But apparently it's the law, and frankly it seems to have been applied correctly if I understand it right.
Both _ARE_ criteria of the requirements set in "COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs" [1]. IP; patent; potatoes; patatoes. I could have just as easily have said the Product has neither "individual character[istic]" nor is "novel."
If it was thought this injunction was just and applied correctly, I don't think we'd be arguing.
