>So why aren't we reading articles saying 'Sales of Samsung USB cables banned'
This almost borders on the deliberately obtuse, here.
The USB cable doesn't exist in isolation, a decorative piece in the packaging, to be displayed on your desk as the proud owner of a Samsung product.
The cable plugs into the tablets Samsung is selling. Only those tablets, no others. The cables serve no other use. These tablets have a port on the bottom that has been specifically to designed to fit these and only these cables. So this pretty blatantly lifted design is integral to the tablet. Not just the cable.
Which is the smoke in the gun barrel. It's the obvious signal that says Samsung was looking in a very specific, singular direction when they made their design decisions.
But let's go with your thinking, here:
If such a ban prevailed, and those cables were forbidden from distribution anywhere on earth, even inside the box of a Samsung tablet, the tablet would not function. Couldn't charge.
So it would be an effective short term remedy. And, there again, your smoking gun. The most critical, non-negotiable piece of the entire device was lifted wholesale from Apple.
It's an ANSI-standard PDMI cable. David McLauchlan of Microsoft chaired the PDMI committee.
Anyone copying the no strain relief cables should be shot, though. I appear to have lost the charging cable for my Galaxy Tab, so I can't check that right now.
EDIT: Found them. The cables that came with my Tab have strain relievers. They're hard to see, but they're there. Point for Samsung.
Apple are asking them to change a whole load of things - colour, size, proportionality etc. Why not just ask them to change the cable?
Let's put it the other way - if someone came out and said they had a patent on some part of Apple's power cable - be it a design patent or a technology one - would you say that Apple would have to stop selling iPads? Or just stop selling those particular cables, and design around it?
For a similar case, look at the recent Doom 3 source code release. John Carmack had to remove the code for Carmack's Reverse because it infringed a Creative Labs patent (which had been licensed specifically to id, not to outside developers). He didn't have to remove the whole code base, just the one bit that actually infringed.
And a new port. Given the scenario where that cable is banned, they'd need to replace the port on every existing tablet they've sold. This is a linchpin.
The point is that this isn't something that exists in isolation. This is evidence that suggests Samsung is comfortable ripping off Apple, and did so. Pretty blatantly. And so if they did it here, you think they didn't do it elsewhere in their industrial design?
This almost borders on the deliberately obtuse, here.
The USB cable doesn't exist in isolation, a decorative piece in the packaging, to be displayed on your desk as the proud owner of a Samsung product.
The cable plugs into the tablets Samsung is selling. Only those tablets, no others. The cables serve no other use. These tablets have a port on the bottom that has been specifically to designed to fit these and only these cables. So this pretty blatantly lifted design is integral to the tablet. Not just the cable.
Which is the smoke in the gun barrel. It's the obvious signal that says Samsung was looking in a very specific, singular direction when they made their design decisions.
But let's go with your thinking, here:
If such a ban prevailed, and those cables were forbidden from distribution anywhere on earth, even inside the box of a Samsung tablet, the tablet would not function. Couldn't charge.
So it would be an effective short term remedy. And, there again, your smoking gun. The most critical, non-negotiable piece of the entire device was lifted wholesale from Apple.