Apple and Samsung have been trading punches in courts around the globe, with Cupertino claiming that Samsung has ripped off almost every conceivable aspect of their iPhone and iPad intellectual property. Apple has made a strong case, even getting a sales injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, but it may be Samsung’s own lawyers who just delivered the K.O… to their own jaw.
How? Reuters is reporting that Samsung’s own lawyers told a US District judge that they couldn’t tell the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab 10.1.
According to this report U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh asked a Samsung attorney if he could tell which tablet was which.
The answer? “Not at this distance, your honor.” D’oh!
It gets worse. “Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh then asked. It took minutes for a Samsung attorney to provide the right answer.
Even though Apple seems to me to have a strong case, it’s hard to chalk this up to anything but idiocy: the Galaxy Tab 10,1 looks remarkably different from the iPad even at a distance thanks to their different shapes. What morons.
[via Gizmodo]
John Brownlee is a writer for Fast Company, and a contributing writer here at CoM. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his wife and two parakeets. You can follow him here on Twitter.
22 responses to “Samsung’s Lawyers Tell Judge That They Can’t Tell The Difference Between An iPad And A Galaxy Tab”
most lawyers are book nerds, not tech nerds :D
When asked by the judge to tell the difference between the two devices, Samsung lawyers poured through reams of engineering data and cad printouts.Â
Apple’s team merely replied, “The one that just works, your honor.”
Im a lawyer and a tech nerd. I think the report may be misreported perhaps. What may have been said, is that at this distance, the difference in the intellectual property is very similar, in that they both support similar physical attributes. Unfortunately this is negated by them, for not knowing between the two, at what i assume is a relatively close range. This is a blatant failure on Samsung’s attorneys. However the question could have been, can you tell me which patents are owned by samsung and which by apple, and where are they in the devices. But sadly i don’t think this is the case, or a case they should be working on. I think i know someone is going to be fired. I would like to see apple win, with people riding on the tailcoats of apples success. However, there is also the concept of competition, and that you cant patent or own an idea, like a phone, but you can patent and own how you make that concept. You can own the words of the book. But not the design of the book itself.
They look different to US. We have seen them a million times, obsessed over every little curve, and spent countless hours fiddling with them. On the other hand, the more regular people can’t distinguish. These are the people who are gullible and Apple want to make sure they know one from the other. And hence the lawsuit(s).
you can patent a book design if it is a NEW book design. You can patent the picture on the front or the pattern on the back if you want. Smuckers patented the design on the cap of their jelly, and they are a food producer, not a hardware manufacturer.
And you don’t misreport a report…… you misreport. Period. Its the facts your misreporting.
Look up copyright, trademark, and patent. Â Then come back and see where you’re confused.
That conversation actually took place? Doubtful.
You cant Patent a book design. The concept of a wizard book, or the idea of a book can not be patented, as a matter of law. Otherwise every book would have to pay royalties to the first person who thought about putting words in a book form. Utter nonsense. You can copyright the contents of your book, including the front cover image. But that image isn’t patentable, Its copyright. I cant say i know what smuckers is, So it could be a Trademark issue, or copyright, or potentially patent. Im an English lawyer, not an american one, so i didn’t study anything on smuckers. And you don’t have to be a manufacturer to own a patent, you just have to create something that is unique and original that “shows the sweat of the brow.”So regardless of being a food company of not, they can own intellectual property, so doesn’t seem like such a big deal.Â
And you can technically misreport a report. If a written document (a report) has been falsely reported, or made claims about it that are in effect nonsense, then it has been misreported. I had to study english language and literature, and grammar as well, surprisingly. So if you want to criticise my legal knowledge, by all means, but make sure you have the relevant IP knowledge before hand.Â
this is Brownlee, so of course.
Strange, Ford never sues Chevrolet over people not being able to tell their trucks apart, and the body styles are very very similar if not identical.