Back to Mobile View

Skip to Content

German ban on Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales upheld

by Kelly Hodgkins Sep 9th 2011 at 9:00AM

Samsung was dealt a major setback today in Germany. A district court in Dusseldorf ruled that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is too similar to the iPad 2, and sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany will continue to be blocked. The decision also prevents Samsung's German subsidiary from selling the tablet device elsewhere in the EU, though other Samsung divisions can sell in those countries.

Samsung confirmed it will appeal the decision and said via a spokesperson "We are disappointed with this ruling and believe it severely limits consumer choice in Germany." Samsung still faces a similar case in Japan and the US. Undeterred by the ruling, Samsung and carrier NTT DoCoMo still plan to launch the launch tablet device next month.



View Tags

Related Stories

Categories

Apple iPad

Samsung was dealt a major setback today in Germany. A district court in Dusseldorf ruled that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is too similar to the...
 

Add a Comment

Sign in »
*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

27 Comments

Filter by:
Spine

There's nothing wrong with monopoly. Right?

September 09 2011 at 1:51 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
Kevin

This is a spat between giant Apple and even more giant Samsung.

September 09 2011 at 11:58 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
P Howard Dilling

The consumer has plenty of choices with the iPad: Wifi or 3G, 16, 32, or 64 Gigs, and Black or White. I don't know what else anyone could possibly want, the real deal or a badly done clone.

September 09 2011 at 11:05 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to P Howard Dilling's comment
Rorsemp

You make me laugh, "a badly done clone", yes you're right of course; a thinner and lighter tablet must be a clone of the heavier and thicker iPad! It's not a clone, it's a tablet running Android. It's currently the highest rated tablet running android and Apple wouldn't have court injunctions if it wasn't a viable rival. So for now, how about you comment on things that you know, not just things you are guessing.

September 09 2011 at 11:14 AM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
7 replies to Rorsemp's comment
Daniel

It's about choice-- if people want to buy something, they should have the right to do so, regardless of your opinion of whether or not it's good or not. Really, this is about a huge multi-national corporation abusing the patent system in order to limit competition where they have about a 90% market share. Stop and think if you would be for that kind of behavior if it was any other company.

Just because you like Apple's products doesn't mean you have to be fore their monopolistic abuses.

September 09 2011 at 12:55 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Daniel's comment
Publius

Daniel, I'm not defending a monopolistic abuse of power. At best, I am making a case for the patent/copyright/trademark system. Take Apple The Company out of it: Company X developed a product, and secured patents for it (which in itself can be seen as a recognition of the innovation). When Company Y makes products using those patents without authorization from Company X, then Company X is using, not abusing, the patent system to defend their patent. As I understand it, they could even lose the patent if they don't defend it vigorously.

Now one can take multiple issues here: that Company X shouldn't have received a patent in the first place, or that Company X is leveraging the court system to deny Company Y access to the market (which is I guess the case that you're making).

All in all, I stand by my point: before iPad, nothing. After iPad, clones (even if they are good clones) that claim to be innovating when they are building that innovation upon patent abuses. In German it's called decorating one's own nest with the feathers of others (das eigene Nest mit fremden Federn schmücken).

I can respectfully disagree with your take on things. And at the end of the day, no one, not Apple, not Samsung, not Google nor the patent office or the courts will give a damn about what you and I post on a blog. So it's not worth getting worked up over.

September 09 2011 at 2:42 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down
Ian Betteridge

I think you've misread the court ruling. Certainly, your headline is very misleading.

This isn't a permanent ban: it's upholding a *preliminary* injunction. This simply means Samsung is barred from selling the Tab in Germany until the end of the main case (in German: "Hauptsacheverfahren"), which the same regional court will hear. Only at the end of that case will the Tab be banned permanently (or not), and even then it's subject to appeal.

September 09 2011 at 10:36 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
alderud

Samsung stated in an email that the ruling “restricts design innovation and progress in the industry".
Copying is design innovation?

September 09 2011 at 10:17 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to alderud's comment
Digitaljedi1

Wow so you don't think that iOS5 isn't copying from no one, WOW such fanboys

September 09 2011 at 10:29 AM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
5 replies to Digitaljedi1's comment
Erik van den Ordel

Right. Trying to copy someone else's design as closely as possible, with juuuuust enough difference to try and avoid a lawsuit such as this one, is basically the opposite of design innovation.

This case really has nothing to do with 'progress in the industry'. The majority of real progress with phones and tablets has to come from the software they run and infrastructure that supports them. This case is about 'company S' making their product look and feel too much like the products of 'company A', which company A spent lots of time and money actually creating new and innovative designs for, and potentially causing consumer confusion.

Imagine a car company putting out a car that is virtually identical to another (totally separate, not owned by the same corporation) company's car design - down to the size and shape of the headlights, trim pieces, color options, and seats, but with different door handles and a different dashboard configuration. Would that be considered blatant copying, or 'design innovation' and 'progress in the industry'? Same case, here.

September 09 2011 at 11:17 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
4 replies to Erik van den Ordel's comment
VanillaSpice

Boom.

September 09 2011 at 9:45 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.