Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer
Apple scored another victory in its patent battle against Samsung today when a German court upheld the preliminary injunction banning sales of the company’s Galaxy 10.1 tablet computer in the country.
“The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible,” Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said in her verdict. “For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks [like the iPad].”
Among my chums on Twitter, opinion is split on the Apple/Samsung spat. Some argue that Samsung is being bullied and that Apple’s design is ‘obvious’ and therefore suing Samsung isn’t fair. I agree with the German court: tablets didn’t look like the iPad before Apple’s device appeared, and now they all do. In the case of Samsung, a bunch of other stuff, such as icons, is almost identical too. I’m not sure Samsung has been trying to ‘trick’ people, but if I had any respect for Samsung I’d have lost it on hearing the company’s statement:
[We] believe that by imposing an injunction based on this very generic design right, this ruling restricts design innovation and progress in the industry.
Copying a successful competitor is not innovation; and if the design is ‘very generic’ why didn’t other companies do it first or simultaneously, rather than many months after Apple?
I’m somewhere in the middle. Did Samsung copy Apple’s hardware and software designs shamelessly? Yes, of course they did.
Should Apple be granted an injunction on sales of such products? Hrmm. Tricky. Feels dangerous for the industry as a whole. _Continued_ innovation is the most healthy and valid currency, not resting on laurels.
Then there’s the question about whether this renewed aggressiveness in pursuing wide-ranging litigation against copycats signals a shift in corporate governance at Apple.
@Matt – I almost completely agree. Unfortunately, companies such as Samsung *aren’t* continually innovating; they are continually copying Apple’s designs in the mobile space and profiting from it. Personally, I’d prefer the iPad/iPhone be allowed to beat the Galaxy Tab Menagerie in open competition but I think Apple have finally drawn a line in the sand and said enough’s enough.
I think “is it unfair” and “should it be illegal” are two entirely different questions. It annoys me to no end that people always conflate the two. A lot of stuff isn’t fair. It’s not fair that some people are born rich and inherit billions, while others are born poor and never get a chance to become wealthy. That doesn’t mean that there should be a law against inheriting money from your parents.
So why exactly should the government prevent Samsung from using a design that is heavily inspired by Apple’s designs? Why should our tax dollars be used to protect Apple from competition? Just because what Samsung does feels unfair to some of us? And if that’s the case, should Apple be prevented from selling its stuff because its designs are heavily inspired by (and sometimes direct copies of) designs by Dieter Rams?
If Samsung’s design are actually confusing to people, if people think they’re buying an Apple iPad when they buy a Samsung product, that would be one reason. But if that’s not it, then what *is* it?