UK judge rules that Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the iPad’s design, “not as cool”

July 10, 2012
4
11
1 6 4

apple-vs-samsung-war

One of Apple’s legal claims against Samsung, based on the alleged similarity between the Samsung Galaxy Tab and the iPad, was thrown away in an UK court last week. A British High Judge, Colin Biriss ruled that there is a big difference between both products, although he did noted that there are some design similarities.

What’s interesting is that the judge’s somehow expressed his appreciation for Apple’s designs. Biriss stated that the Galaxy Tab devices “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design”. The judge also said that even though the devices are not identical, they are “rather similar” in appearance from the front.

Biriss’ final conclusion on the argument was that the Galaxy Tab’s design was simply “not as cool”, compared to Apple’s tablet. The judges said that the Galaxy Tab’s thinness and design of the rear side differentiated it from the iPad, enough to ensure that customers can’t confuse them.

The legal team at Samsung might be not pleased that they don’t live up to the UK judge’s expectations, however, they are delighted that they won the case, stating that:

“Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.”

In case you have not been following the recent legal spats between Samsung and Apple, just last week, Apple obtained a preliminary injunction against Samsung, preventing further sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States. Cupertino has also obtained a temporary ban against the Galaxy Nexus, although Google is widely expected to issue a software patch that will remove the feature that the court found infringing. Apple’s offense hasn’t been so strong in the United Kingdom, with HTC winning an important battle just last week.

What do you think Apple’s next “jab” at Samsung will be? Do you think that this whole case seems necessary? I would love to hear your comments on this revolving court battle.

Comments