originally published as Coolness of iPad Grounds for Dismissal of Apple’s Patent Case vs. Samsung
In London’s High Court today, British judge Colin Birss dismissed Apple’s claim of patent infringement against Samsung citing that, in addition to being “not as cool, Galaxy Tablets do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.” The ruling, which is by no means an end to the patent war between Apple and Samsung, favored Samsung but only because their Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 wasn’t “as cool” as Apple’s iPad, and therefore consumers would never confuse the two, according to Birss.
“The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following: From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back,” Birs said.
Judge Birss also stated two distinctive features on the Galaxy Tab that also provides grounds for his ruling. The first being the thickness of the devices, the Samsung is actually thinner that the iPad measuring 8.6mm versus Apple’s 9.4mm. The other feature was the “unusual details” on the back on the Galaxy Tab that the iPad did not have according to the ruling. What those details are wasn’t specified, but was speculated to be, at least in part, the giant uppercase “SAMSUNG” lettering.
Apple has 21 days to appeal the ruling, but why would you want to reverse a decision that is based on your product being ‘cooler’ than your competitors? Would that mean they don’t agree with Judge Birss and his findings that iPad’s are cooler than Galaxy Tabs?
A spokeswoman for Samsung welcomed the ruling and also accused Apple of “excessive legal claims”. This perhaps in an attempt to deter appeal by positioning Apple as a sue happy company stifling innovation. “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.