Samsung ruled "not cool"

Samsung did not copy Apple’s iPad, High Court finds.

London’s High Court yesterday dismissed Apple’s claims, made last year, that the Korean manufacturer’s Galaxy Tab infringes the iPad design. Samsung’s designs did not have "the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design", Judge Colin Birss QC ruled. "They are not as cool."

The ruling is part of an ongoing global conflict over intellectual property between Apple and manufacturers of tablet computers and smartphones using Google’s Android mobile operating system.

The court found two major design differences between Samsung’s and Apple’s models. Galaxy Tabs were significantly thinner than the iPad designs, while the back detailing also distinguished Samsung’s design. "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", the judgement noted.

The judge said that it was unlikely that consumers would confuse the two designs. "The overall impression produced is different."

Samsung is the manufacturer of the most significant rivals to Apple’s iPhone and iPad. Its response to the ruling accused Apple of "ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments".

A spokesman for Samsung highlighted the computer’s distinctive back design, "a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity".

This is the second defeat for Apple in the British courts in less than a week. On Wednesday it lost a dispute over technology patents to HTC. The High Court found that the Taiwanese Android manufacturer had not infringed the patents, or that in covering "obvious" iPhone features, they were invalid.

Apple did not comment on the specific ruling, but repeated its earlier claims against Samsung. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas", a spokesman for the US company said.

Apple has been given 21 days to appeal against the British ruling.

Not cool. Photograph, Getty Images.

En Liang Khong is an arts writer and cellist.

Follow on twitter @en_khong

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What do Labour's lost voters make of the Labour leadership candidates?

What does Newsnight's focus group make of the Labour leadership candidates?

Tonight on Newsnight, an IpsosMori focus group of former Labour voters talks about the four Labour leadership candidates. What did they make of the four candidates?

On Andy Burnham:

“He’s the old guard, with Yvette Cooper”

“It’s the same message they were trying to portray right up to the election”​

“I thought that he acknowledged the fact that they didn’t say sorry during the time of the election, and how can you expect people to vote for you when you’re not actually acknowledging that you were part of the problem”​

“Strongish leader, and at least he’s acknowledging and saying let’s move on from here as opposed to wishy washy”

“I was surprised how long he’d been in politics if he was talking about Tony Blair years – he doesn’t look old enough”

On Jeremy Corbyn:

"“He’s the older guy with the grey hair who’s got all the policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well is what he comes across as” 

“I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles”

“He was just going to be the opposite of Conservatives, but there might be policies on the Conservative side that, y’know, might be good policies”

“I’ve heard in the paper he’s the favourite to win the Labour leadership. Well, if that was him, then I won’t be voting for Labour, put it that way”

“I think he’s a very good politician but he’s unelectable as a Prime Minister”

On Yvette Cooper

“She sounds quite positive doesn’t she – for families and their everyday issues”

“Bedroom tax, working tax credits, mainly mum things as well”

“We had Margaret Thatcher obviously years ago, and then I’ve always thought about it being a man, I wanted a man, thinking they were stronger…  she was very strong and decisive as well”

“She was very clear – more so than the other guy [Burnham]”

“I think she’s trying to play down her economics background to sort of distance herself from her husband… I think she’s dumbing herself down”

On Liz Kendall

“None of it came from the heart”

“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”

“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”

“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”

“With Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham there’s a lot of rhetoric but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of direction behind what they’re saying. There seems to be a lot of words but no action.”

And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:

“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.