Last week saw some major developments in the Apple vs. Samsung battle, but the consensus is not hopeful for the Galaxy series.
Apple has called the Korean manufacturer’s smartphone and tablet designs ‘slavish copies’ of the iPhone and iPad, and is pursuing judgments in ten countries.
On Wednesday, Samsung announced an upgrade designed to address the scrolling patent specified in an August injunction by a Dutch court. Samsung spokesman James Chung described the infringement as a “technological problem” and expressed confidence that the devices will be available for sale shortly.
However, the next day brought a temporary ban in Australia on the Galaxy Tab 10.1, as well as a hearing on the case that started it all: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 11-1846
Reuters reported that US District Court Judge Lucy Koh referred to her thoughts as “tentative” yet showed every indication that she favored Apple’s side.
“Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company’s tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked [Samsung Defense Attorney Kathleen] Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
“Not at this distance your honor,” said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.”
Frankly, from ten feet away, I’d have some difficulty distinguishing between my microwave and a Lian Li PC Case. Granted, they’re not competing products, and my eyesight isn’t exactly 20/20, but nevertheless this strikes me as a flawed and almost cavalier approach by the Judge.
Still, there is no mistaking ‘which way the wind is blowing’. Whatever the fundamental merits of each side’s case, Samsung has consistently failed to make enough right moves to put itself on equal footing with Apple.
“Given the weakness that Samsung’s defense has shown so far, and with its offensive strategy on shaky legal ground, Samsung may have little choice but to work things out with Apple, and likely on Apple’s terms,” writes Chris Foresman of Ars Technica.