How To Avoid Infringing On Apple's Patents 323
bdking writes "In a public legal brief (PDF), Apple offers numerous design alternatives that Samsung could have used for its smartphones and tablets to avoid infringing on Apple's patents. Basically, as long as competitors' smartphones and tablets bear no resemblance to smartphones and tablets, everything's cool."
ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: a completely impractical eyesore that nobody would buy is something we will accept you selling.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ridiculous part is, HP tablet PCs from 10 years ago would completely "violate" Apple's design patents. The only difference between them visually was that Apple's iPad had a black bezel and a glossy screen.
Functionally, the iPad is thinner, lighter, and has a capacitive touch screen whereas the HP tablet PCs had a resisitive touch screen and a keyboard underneath the screen that added to the weight and thickness of the overall machine.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if the decade old HP tablet was released today it would not have 'violated' anything. These are design patents. It's more like copyright. It's the same kind of thing that stops anyone but Coke from selling cola in those specifically shaped bottles. And it's not about any one of the claimed similarities. It's about all of them at once.
If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case. Square buttons or a different colour or differently shaped speakers. Anything and the case would never have even been filed.
Every time this comes up on Slashdot the threads of filled with people treating these like a regular patent case. Running around for prior art and latching on to singe points of data. It got old months ago and has really killed any sort of actual discussion about the lawsuits.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Running around for prior art and latching on to singe points of data. It got old months ago and has really killed any sort of actual discussion about the lawsuits.
So did all the defending of Apple.
Smaller, thinner, neater are logical progressive steps in refining a design that is basically rectangular and has buttons. Apple might be inside the law when it says it "owns" this design for a tablet, but at the same time, this court case may well be the one that settles it once and for all.
To me, this case is the same as if IBM in its early days would have gone after anyone (including Apple) selling some sort of computational device consisting of a box to house everything in, some sort of rectangual screen and an input device consisting of letters and numbers - and tried to maintain a no competition policy using the courts to back its business plan.
Having said this, I don't mind Apple products, some are quite nice (though I am not a fan of bloaty iTunes at all), but trying to stop anyone making a neat black tablet with rounded corners? Give me a break already...
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Informative)
Because, of course, this [zdnet.co.uk] looks so much like this [theoldcomputer.com]. If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.
So just because you are the first in a field, you agree that no-one else can make anything in that field?
Just to /. this up a bit, how come there are so many brands of cars out there? Would you support Ford if they took anyone making a "engine powered vehicle, with room for two or more persons moving under it's own volition and comprising of four or more wheels, a steering device, optional room for belongings (referred to henceforth as a boot or trunk) and with interior seats for the persons travelling" to court claiming that they had patents for it?
Patents are supposed to be there to protect the inventor of a new idea, to allow them to market and make money off their new invention. Making an existing idea/product neater, giving it a pleasing case/housing and rounded corners should not be a patentable market distinction.
I am not totally blaming Apple for this however (though I do think this whole saga just reeks of nerd rage with a dash of angry Cartman tantrum voice thrown in). Apple seems to be playing inside the sandpit that the patent system has created - though it certainly appears that it is trying to push the limits of the sandpit as far as it can get away with. It isn't playing nice, but it (depending on the outcome of this case) may be playing within the rules of the game.
At the end of the day, big business is big business - it is there to make money, not friends. However, when I see companies behaving as poorly as this, I do tend to find it repugnant. I was an early adopter of the iPhone, now I am happily talking on my Samsung Galaxy S II.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Except IBM championed user interface standards like the Common User Access guidelines on which most non-Apple windowing systems are based. Apple, on the other hand, tries to sue it's competitors instead of making things intuitive for the users through common UI behaviour.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after Telvin_3D
Design Patent is more like copyright then a 'real' patent.
You have to copy pretty much everything to get into trouble. And that Samsung did. They could have used a rectangular case with rounded corners, a dark black bezel with two silver or tastefully grey lines running through the bezel and put the speakers on the side - they would have been fine.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Informative)
You have to copy pretty much everything to get into trouble. And that Samsung did. They could have used a rectangular case with rounded corners, a dark black bezel with two silver or tastefully grey lines running through the bezel and put the speakers on the side - they would have been fine.
People should really take time to read this disposition. Firstly, the advice that Apple gives how to make a design that is not covered by Apple's design patent is in each case accompanied by exhibits - so there are in each case one or several actual products that do exactly what Apple asks Samsung to do.
Second, Samsung seems to have come up with a list of items that they claim are prior art. And the expert witness then says "this is not prior art because it is different in this respect. This is not prior art because it is different in that respect. etc. etc.". In other words, each of the designs that Samsung claimed as prior art wouldn't be infringing on Apple's design patent because they are different.
To be in trouble, a design must match Apple's design patent in every single aspect. One difference, and Samsung would have been safe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean if the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 had something like a different aspect ratio? say a widescreen format perhaps, then it wouldn't be infringing?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SO: If Samsung had phones that were larger than the iPhone, OR they had capacitive buttons on the side of the home button, OR a camera module that wasn't in the top left corner, OR power button that wasn't on the top of the phone, OR speakers that aren't on the bottom of the device, OR a logo on the front of the device, they wouldn't be infringing?
Re: (Score:3)
"To be in trouble, a design must match Apple's design patent in every single aspect. One difference, and Samsung would have been safe."
But there are differences, that's precisely the point, the Samsung tablet is a different form factor and has Samsung clearly written on the front for starters. Also, on the front, it has more buttons, it has a more easily visible light sensor. It doesn't have a curved back like the iPad either, and the sides are completely different.
Look at this suggestion Apple made:
"Displa
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.
> So just because you are the first in a field, you agree that no-one else can make anything in that field?
Apparently....
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are supposed to be there to protect the inventor of a new idea, to allow them to market and make money off their new invention. Making an existing idea/product neater, giving it a pleasing case/housing and rounded corners should not be a patentable market distinction.
You are mistaking "Design Patents" vs good old regular patents. Design Patents are more like copyright but for industrial design so one company can not simply go out and exactly copy their competitors product and create customer confusion in the market. Should it be ok for a Korean or Chinese company to make an 99% copy of a Corvette car and then flood the USA market with it confusing customers if it's a real Corvette or a imported "copy". A Design Patent protects things like the styling of a particular make of car and it's distinctive qualities, like a Corvette looks very distinctive. It doesn't have anything to do with the internal suspension, ABS, traction control or other technical elements of the car that may be covered by other unrelated patents.
During the Australian Apple vs Samsung lawsuit the Judge held up an Samsung Galaxy Tab and an iPad in each hand and asked Samsung's head lawyer which one was made by his client. For a few yards away the Samsung lawyer was unable to correctly identify the Galaxy Tab. That is because Samsung intentionally designed their product to look as close as possible to Apples and create confusion in the market place. Motorola, HTC, Dell, HP, and Research in Motion can make tablets that don't create the same level of confusion amongst customers. Samsung can too make unique and distinctive products if they wanted. But instead they are trying to copy Apples to give them a competitive advantage over the other Andriod manufactures.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Insightful)
As said before in this thread, everyone taking Apple to task over this is painting an overly broad picture due to their anti-apple mindset. To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer. That's the case here. Other tablets are fine, just as other cars are. But Apple is seeking to disallow tablets designed to so closely resemble their product.
Perhaps design patents aren't the proper venue for this. Asi do agree with your reasoning about the existence of patents. However, another forum should turn out the same result. I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights.. :)
End point is, if you look at the tablet market, many companies have managed to come up with their own tablets with unique and identifiable designs that don't clearly leach every design aspect from the iPad. That samsung couldn't or didn't do that is their own fault, and to my mind, it's certainly understandable that a company that spent countless hours refining their products design should be able to prevent other players from passively sitting back and doing nothing but waiting for their competitors final design to emerge and then simply utilizing that design just about in its entirety.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer.
This comparison [mobilemegamall.com] of five tablets (Samsung Galaxy, and Galaxy 2, the Xoom, Playbook and iPad2) really shows in my opinion that there are certain things that every tablet will have:
1) Minimal design - something neat, something clean where the touch screen is the focal point.
2) Some sort of border around the screen - which is due to engineering constraints.
3) Will probably have rounded corners. (My monitor has rounded corners, so does my laptop, so did the ruler that I had in primary school.
To say that the Galaxy Tab 2 from every angle viewed, would pass for a [iPad2] to a casual observer is a stretch. To a casual observer any of those devices could be mistaken for any other. To a casual observer, a HP laptop could be mistaken as a Dell and vice-versa.
I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights.. :)
You can't trademark something that in itself is so broad - that's the whole point of most of the people that you seem to think are attacking Apple here. No company should be allowed to make a tablet (and have a design trademarked) that says "Screen, small border, rounded corners, one button" and stop anyone else making a tablet that had a screen, small border, rounded corners and a single button. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Would I support Apple if Samsung was putting an Apple logo on their tablet? Absolutely. They aren't. Apple generally uses a minimalist approach to presenting their products visually. That's fine, a lot of people like a clean, simple, minimalist approach. However, they cannot stop others using a minimalist approach.
Lastly, when Apple pulls this sort of shit [bbc.co.uk] it really makes it hard for someone like me to try to be understanding towards them in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
> Because, of course, this [zdnet.co.uk]
Oh man, I want one. But it has a rounded, metal bezel! How could Apple allow this?... Ok, I'm tired of this topic now.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Interesting)
The purpose is to stop customer confusion and "knock off" products.
This is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as "stifling competition to the detriment of the consumer". It is very hard for me to see the benefits for the consumer from stopping "knock off" products.
I've lived in Asia for many years - knock offs are sold openly in many countries, yet I know very few consumers who would not be able to tell the difference between a real leather Louis Vuitton bag and a cheap PU leather knock off. When a consumer actually chooses a knock-off, it is always a rational decision by them, which benefits them at least in their own eyes. The phrase "customer confusion" is only a cover word for anti-competitive practices by the companies who can afford to lobby for brand protection. In real life, consumers are very rarely confused. The rare cases where customer confusion may ensue or be detrimental are usually covered by PL and safety laws better anyway.
Also, anti-competitive legislation isn't even really necessary for a company that innovates to make good profits. Apple demonstrated this very well in the past decade. When they were innovative with the ipods, the music store, the first-gen iphones, even if it was mostly a case of "innovation" of looks and S&M techniques (as in sales and marketing), they were the unquestioned leader even without legal support, and commanded the highest margins in the industry.
Now that they have lost steam (as Ford model T has demonstrated, you can't really lead forever with one product) and are falling back to the trap of limiting consumer choice instead of innovating, they'll see more problems and less consumer goodwill.
Re: (Score:2)
If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case. Square buttons or a different colour or differently shaped speakers. Anything and the case would never have even been filed.
Square buttons? Where should the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, the device in question, have put square buttons?
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case. Square buttons or a different colour or differently shaped speakers. Anything and the case would never have even been filed.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has no face buttons at all. The earlier (7") Galaxy Tab had four face buttons (not one), and none of them looked anything at all like home buttons on iOS devices. Sure looks like Samsung changed (at least) "a single thing"...
Re: (Score:3)
If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case. Square buttons or a different colour or differently shaped speakers. Anything and the case would never have even been filed.
For that to be true the galaxy tab and the ipad would have to be pretty much identical and they are clearly not. For starters, the galaxy tab is smaller, has a different aspect ratio and a removable battery. By your argument there should be no case.
The truth is that apple doesn't want the competition and if they hadn't of sued on these grounds it would have used some other pretense.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Funny)
THAT's how samsung can get out of this - by having no case.
we can carry around a screen, battery and circuit boards connected by wires!
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.
Bullshit. Samsung changed quite a few things, but Apple conveniently ignores all the differences. If Samsung changed one of these "single things" then Apple would have ignored that single thing and still sued on the rest. And that is the point here... that Apple's laundry list of similarities, both individually and in sum, are self-servingly arbitrary. Samsung was going to get sued no matter what they came out with, not because of their similarity but because of their success in the market, and Jobs' obsession with killing Android.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal in making any tablet is to make the screen as large as possible, and the rest of it as small as possible. Something that looks like an iPad is the natural consequence of those goals. It shouldn't be patentable.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of a tablet as a replacement for a clipboard: similar in size to a sheet of paper (which is why 10" ones are more popular than 7" ones, except for ebook readers which are sized similar to paperback novels), and designed to be used while being carried in one hand.
This is also why minimizing weight is indeed super-critical: try holding something like a hardcover textbook in one hand (as if it were a clipboard) for a while and then you'll see why all those 2-4 lb Tablet PCs from a few years back failed.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not about any one of the claimed similarities. It's about all of them at once. If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.
Sorry but this is just plain wrong. Changing one lone design feature does not magically make a product non-infringing. Design patent: [wikipedia.org] "An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Informative)
If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.
The dimensions are different and doesn't Samsung's tablet have more than one button.
No, because the tablet being sued over is the 10.1, which has no face buttons.
Which is itself different from the iPad, which has one face button.
Re: (Score:3)
The ridiculous part is, HP tablet PCs from 10 years ago would completely "violate" Apple's design patents. The only difference between them visually was that Apple's iPad had a black bezel and a glossy screen.
And of course, the reason for that difference is that pretty much the entire computer and consumer electronics industry moved from silver bezels and matte screens to black bezels and glossy screens over those 10 years.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Funny)
Can't hate them entirely though, Apple made my life easier, I know who to ignore when outside and when dealing with people in general.
Ah. A user. Idiot! Some/many people want it to JFW, which it does.
Apple made my life easier too, by being instantly useful by family members and so far resisting f***ing up fairly well. Besides, it does actually work quite well, right down to recognizing that users are going to plug in PC keyboards on a Mac. Apple anticipated that they'd want to redefine an Alt key to be a Command key, so enabling that is a thirty second job which works instantly (no reboot necessary). Beats futzing around with xmodmap.
I own no Apple hardware, nor do I want any, but I appreciate their thorough attention to detail. Considering what they charge for iBaubles, that's at least something.
Re:ok so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which also happen to generally be items associated with how tablets looked like prior to the iPad.
Funny enough, those also line up with a bunch of other tablets, which sell rather well, and for companies Apple isn't suing. Like: The Nook, the Kindle, the Kindle Fire, etc., etc.
obvious choices (Score:5, Insightful)
What's notable about this list is that nearly all items are either industry-wide practices (rectangular phones with flat surfaces) or obvious design choices (a thin rim around the front maximize screen area compared with a thick rim). In particular Apple opted for choices anyone facing the design problem would make, but is now trying to prevent others from making the choices.
Even worse is that the remaining items reflect aesthetic choices on the part of Apple (no adornment, for example). Such choices should indeed be protected, but they are not inventions which deserve patent protection. Instead they are identifying marks which should be protected under trademark law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even worse is that the remaining items reflect aesthetic choices on the part of Apple (no adornment, for example). Such choices should indeed be protected, but they are not inventions which deserve patent protection. Instead they are identifying marks which should be protected under trademark law.
No. Such features can be claimed under a design patent.
Re: (Score:2)
How does lack of adornment qualify as an identifying mark?
Re: (Score:2)
How does lack of adornment qualify as an identifying mark?
You don't, by any chance, happen to develop TV remotes, do you?
Re:obvious choices (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the "rectangular" one caught my eye.
So, the other day, I'm watching a football game when this ad comes up. Oddly enough, a quick Google didn't find it. But it's for NFL Network. Essentially, we see this person go through his week keeping up with the latest doings in the NFL on various devices (PCs, Television, Laptop, Phone, and Tablet). The tablet looked like an iPad--except that it was longer (the iPad is more square than this was.)
So I immediately said, "Hm. Must be a Samsung tablet."
It was pretty easy for me to spot that this wasn't an iPad because the shape was different than the iPad.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the real issue is after you get past the rectangular design and thin bezel, Apple is afraid that people won't see any major differentiation between the iPad and a well engineered tablet running... pretty much anything else. [1] Or even worse, they'll appreciate features the competing tablet has that the iPad does not. [2] In other words, we'll fight this war in the marketplace, but just in case we'll turn the patent lawyers loose also.
[1] Except Windows 8.
[2] Probably not Metro.
Re:obvious choices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So... everything that was around before the iPhone?
I only joke a little. These lawsuits have never been about Samsung copying any single design feature, they have been about the copying of many design features. The inclusion of any one of these 'suggestions' (or any other significant design difference) would would have made the lawsuits DOA.
If the speakers/microphone were a set of stylized vertical grills (which might look quite nice actually), there would be no lawsuit. Square screen (and why couldn't som
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung is the only developer thats close to being even or taking over Apple in the market, hence why Apple is on them like a fat man on a ham sandwich and letting the others slide down in >10% of the marketshare land
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Samsung is the only developer that's close to being even or taking over Apple in the market ...
And you're also right in saying that there's nothing derivative or copycat about Samsung's designs, aside from the fact that they are faithful copies of Apple's designs, right down to the packaging.
You do realize you're slamming Samsung for making something that Apple says *looks* too much like one of their iBaubles?
Gee, and I thought the value in these things was what's inside; technology! Car analogy: I don't give a rat's ass what it looks like. I do care what it can do. You know, power, functionality, the stuff they can do and how they do it?
You should not be allowed on a tech site. Go back to art/marketroid school.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Squares are rectangular.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung were deliberately cloning Apple
What kind of idiotic mods modded this post up to +4? This is the kind of person who would probably claim that the F700 [gsmarena.com] was a clone of the iPhone since it's a black monolith with a single button. Never mind that it was released before the iPhone and that most of the samsung phones look much more like the F700 than the iPhone.
And apparently they copied the charger? This is beyond vapid. It's a cuboid with two pins on the end, just like the charger I had for my Zaurus SL-C3000 in 2004.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What kind of idiotic mods modded this post up to +4? This is the kind of person who would probably claim that the F700 [gsmarena.com] was a clone of the iPhone since it's a black monolith with a single button. Never mind that it was released before the iPhone and that most of the samsung phones look much more like the F700 than the iPhone.
There have been many claims on the web that the F700 was released before the iPhone. However, these claims were based on some heavily photoshopped evidence which changed the number "2007" to "2006" in a few images.
Re:ok so... (Score:5, Informative)
The LG Prada was announced and described about a month before the first iPhone. It has all the design elements that Apple is claiming. In fact, LG K850 still looks like a very nice and elegant phone next to the iPhone 4S.
Re: (Score:3)
What similarities? They are different sizes, different shapes, Samsung's lacks the button on the front panel, different thicknesses, shape of the back panel is different, location of the edge buttons are different wherever being different makes sense, and a different choice of external ports.
The only similarities is that they are both tablets, a computer form factor that has been dreamed of for the better part of a century, and who's design is older than Christ.
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Funny)
Next Step... (Score:2)
What about gestures? (Score:5, Funny)
Did apple patent gestures? Because i'm giving apple one right now.
How to avoid... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this help? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder if this does more harm than good for Apple's case. It points out the absolute absurdity of how far they are reaching. Not have a flat front? Not be rectangular? Not use black?
I know that any of these would have significantly distinguished these products from Apple''s, but so too does the "Samsung" emblazoned on the device. Looking at the front with the screen off, sure, my iPod touch might look a bit like a Samsung device. From 10 feet, it also looks like my wallet. This isn't quite as forehead slapping as Samsung's crack legal team not being able to tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and an iPad, but it's pretty close.
That, or these attorneys have an amazing sense of humor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does this help? (Score:4, Informative)
Not have a flat front? Not be rectangular? Not use black?
Remember - those are ANDs not ORs... or, at least, you need a 'critical mass' of those attributes to infringe.
I've had 4 cellphones (not a great cellphone person!).
Only one of them was black.
Only two of them were rectangular (i.e. 4 straight edges) and while they had rounded-off corners they were much less pronounced than on an iDevice.
None of them had a flat front (and definitely not flat in the iPhone "single sheet of glass" sense), two had soapbar-style bevelled edges and one of them has the "chin" which featured on the first few generations of Android phone.
The Kindle 3 doesn't break Apple's rules (its a rectangle with rounded corners, but the bezel is gently curved and its grey, not black), the ASUS transformer doesn't (front has bevelled edges - not flat, bezel isn't uniform) and plenty of other manufacturers past an present have managed to make phones, ereaders and tablets that don't look like iDevices.
Alternative solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
just drop all design patents altogether.
not really (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not how to avoid infringement, that's how to avoid litigation. And in this game, that's not the way business is done. There's "what's illegal" and there's "what you'll get called on". Somewhere in between there lies "what I can get away with". And that's generally what many shoot for. Staying in your comfort zone will just get you buried in the harsh world of business.
So really, getting a suit brought for infringement at this level really isn't big news. Losing said fight is bad, for whoever loses. It either gives someone a free pass to continue without (as much) further harassment, or tosses a large bucket of water in your foundry. It's a gamble for both sides.
Apple has a pisspile of ("good" and "bad") patents and prior art on tablet design and touch interfaces, and if you try to compete in their market with something they think they can shove you out with, you can absolutely bet on them trying. It's just good business. And in this case Apple has a strong upper hand because of their early successes in these markets. Don't blame Apple. Whoever made it to the top of the hill first is naturally going to work hard to push the others off as they approach, that's just how the game is played. Doesn't matter if it was Samsung, Google, Nokia, Microsoft, whoever. They'd be doing exactly the same thing if they were in Apple's position right now, fighting to stay on top.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem is this stifle competition and hurt us, the customers.
The solution? A sensible legal and patent system, where millions are not needed to defend against a frivolous lawsuit.
Captcha: inequity :)
Some more suggestions (Score:2)
How about some ideas that may reduce iphone'ish look while increasing the appear/functionality of a phone
* A bit more of a raised "lip" on the phone. Possibly some pinstriping, or even a physical pinstripe around the edge. Something similar to a built-in bumper, which actually helps protect against screen damage. How about slightly raised outer edges (not the screen part, just the bezel)
* Bring back more slide/spring-out keyboards. On-screen keyboards SUCK!
* Bring back physical call/disconnect/vibrate/unloc
Prophetic (Score:2)
Dunder Mifflin recently introduced The Pyramid. [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So .... (Score:4, Insightful)
so many more shapes to imitate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL a sock puppet phone. Now THAT is an original design!
Here's one design (Score:2)
I can't find the blog or news site where I originally saw this, but they gave a perfect example of a design that Samsung could have used that wouldn't violate any of Apple's design patents:
http://www.amazon.com/LeapFrog-LeapPad-Explorer-Learning-Tablet/dp/B004Z7H07K [amazon.com]
If iPhone design was so obvious... (Score:2)
How come most phones released before looked so different? Just look at RAZR designs before Droid or even luxury phones like Aura. Why the sudden change to black rounded rectangles? What is wrong with moving home button to the side and having a much bigger screen with dedicated space for keyboard?
We can argue if it should be permissible to copy design, but bottom line is Samsung tried to profit by selling Apple knock offs. The point of lawsuits may be moot anyway because consumers seem to prefer the original
Re: (Score:2)
Because it turned out to be a popular design?
How much of that popularity is due to the iPhone is a matter of endless debate, of course - but would you suggest that manufacturers instead use something that's less or even plain unpopular?
You already point out that 'most' phones weren't black rounded rectangles, thus omitting the one
shocking (Score:2)
I was expecting something like, "It has to be made out of wood and communicate in more's code". I'm impressed they allowed so many alternative possibilities.
Obviously Apple is holding it wrong... (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously Apple is holding it wrong...
Front surfaces that are not black or clear
The screen on the Galaxy tab is on the back.
-- Terry
someone didn't pass basic geometry (Score:2)
... display screens that are more square than rectangular ...
http://www.mathopenref.com/square.html [mathopenref.com]
A square can be thought of as a special case of other quadrilaterals, for example:
oh Apple [straferight.com]
One simple question: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's defined these categories (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, as long as competitors' smartphones and tablets bear no resemblance to smartphones and tablets, everything's cool.
But that's just recognition that Apple has completely defined 2 new categories. It's worth noting, of course, that Palm had smartphones well before Apple, but those look -nothing like- today's Smartphones, a category basically taken over by the introduction of the iPhone.
I'm looking forward to someone/some company doing something truly original. I don't think the iPhone is the last
Re: (Score:3)
"There is nothing new under the sun" -- some old guy who lived thousands of years ago.
Not much has changed since then.
Even the iPad is pretty much just one of those things they were using in Star Trek in the 1960s, which in turn were straight extrapolations from the clipboard, which in turn bears a remarkable functional resemblance to the clay tablets used to record the Epic of fucking Gilgamesh way back before Solomon even observed
It's hard for apple to sell this (Score:2)
This would appear to be the problem with minimalist design. If someone else does a minimalist design, it's likely to look similar. Something that largely resembles a picture frame.
How do you patent a style? (Score:2)
My understanding is that you can patent a function but not a style, logo, look..etc. Works of "art" are protected by copyrights not patents.
In either case Apple sucks for using legal systems to try and keep others from competing with them for reasons that are clearly bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that you can patent a function but not a style, logo, look..etc. Works of "art" are protected by copyrights not patents.
Your understanding should be extended to "design patents" (US, some other countries) and "industrial design registrations" (many other countries). Unlike a utility patent - which protects a functional or useful (i.e. one with 'utility') invention - a design patent protects a non-functional aesthetic design. In fact, if a design has a function beyond being aesthetically pleasing, it cannot be protected by a design patent.
In either case Apple sucks for using legal systems to try and keep others from competing with them for reasons that are clearly bullshit.
And Samsung sucks for making a tablet that's so identical to an iPad that not even the
The good news: you *can* avoid Apple's patents. (Score:2)
The bad news: *I've* patented living under a rock.
Now we have 2 tech giants to hate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Minimalism (Score:3)
A company whose design aesthetic (famously) is minimalism should not go around accusing others of copying them.
Minimalism is about getting down to the bare nature of things. Every other design would be an additive change, so they potentially have the ability to sue everyone else regardless of how different the design is if they can get away with this lawsuit.
Boy, it sure will be fun when Apple do TV's (Score:2)
So according to Apple, if a competitor emulates the look and feel of its own products then they should be banned from the market? And they've just shat on Samsung with smartphones and tablets for this reason, yet are now planning to enter a different market Samsung has led for decades? I'm really looking forward to seeing what contraptions Apple come up with which aren't large, thin, black rectangular devices controlled with a remote for showing TV pictures on.
Dilbert (Score:3)
Dilbert said it best:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-10-18/ [dilbert.com]
Who copied whom? (Score:4, Informative)
There's a pretty good comparison of how the orginal ipod copied a samsung mp3 player. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, either, they extended what palm was doing. Even MAC OS was copied from work Xerox was doing at Xerox parc. It's just that you couldn't patent software back then and now you can. I'm not sure when copyrights came into play.
In fact, copying others has always been Apples strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU [youtube.com]
"Good artists copy, great artists steal" ... "we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas" -- Steve Jobs
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Informative)
Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.
You didn't read the article, or you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. Any manufacturer is allowed to use any single detail of the design used in the iPhone or iPad. It is the sum of all those details that is the problem. Apple has a design patent for A + B + C + D + E. You claim "A is not allowed according to Apple". False. A is allowed. B is allowed. A + B is allowed. A + B + C + D + E is what is not allowed, and A + B + D + E might get you into trouble.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. And it's still crazy. They're all logical improvements. Thin bezel? Remember old TVs and how they were 90% bezel? Rectangular? Wtf? Lack of buttons? You've got a touchscreen, why do you need extra buttons? A non-flat screen? On a tablet? And so forth. The simple combination of these things shouldn't be protected.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your claim is that everything listed in TFA is generic design elements, and none of them are remotely patentable, either individually OR together. No rounded corners? Seriously? Nothing rectangular? No clear or black screen? I mean really, WTF. Honestly, what would you be saying if the first LCD screen manufacturer had included such outrageous things as part of their patented design?
Patents have never been about how something looks. They're about how something works.
Any respect I had left for Apple is completely eradicated after reading that article.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Samsung have market share, that's why. Samsung has problems because Apple want to give Samsung problems.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple just hasn't gotten around to suing the other companies yet. Samsung is the biggest threat, so they're trying to cut the head off the snake. It's not like Apple steals liberally from Android, either... biggest bunch of hypocrites. They do good design, but they take liberal inspiration from other products and then somehow convince their faithful that they're unique. They execute well, but they don't design in a complete vacuum.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Informative)
So, not Acer: http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/acer-tablet1.jpg [dialaphone.co.uk]
or Motorola: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2011/4/27/1303887422785/Motorola-Xoom-tablet-005.jpg [guim.co.uk]
or the HP Touchpad: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41I6VtL6D%2BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg [images-amazon.com]
or the Advent Vega: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_Vega [wikipedia.org]
or the Sony Tablet S: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Sony_Tablet_S.jpg/300px-Sony_Tablet_S.jpg [wikimedia.org]
or the Viewsonic G: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/ViewSonic_G_Tablet.JPG/220px-ViewSonic_G_Tablet.JPG [wikimedia.org]
no, none of these look remotely like an iPad. Except the Xoom, cause Apple have tried to sue Motorola for them. The rest haven't been sued because they're not black, with rounded edges and a single button with a rectangular screen.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:5, Informative)
what about that bit of the article that lists Apples complaints?
Looks to me like it's mostly LOLRectangle followed by a few LOLSquareIcons and LOLDesktop
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes "a more nuanced opinion" is really "idiots who can't accept reality". The issue is that the Samsung phone looks too much like the iPhone according to Apple. It's not a strawman argument to repeat what Apple has actually claimed. Yes, there's some additional parts to, but it's basically it's black, rectangular with square corners. Every other part of the claim is equally stupid. The reason the Samsung phone looks too much like the iPhone is that they're both constrained by the same design limitations and there are a limited number of ways to solve the problems. Smart phones with touch screens are going to be rectangular, with few buttons and most of the space dedicated to the screen or they're going to be terrible.
In this case the "more nuanced opinion" is an apologist trying to invent a rational where it isn't Apple trying to establish a legal monopoly on smart phones. The alternatives suggested by Apple are ridiculous at best.
Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart (Score:4, Informative)
If it's so completely outlandish how is it that everybody but Samsung seems to have no problems whatsoever
Samsung isn't the only company Apple has sued. They just happen to be the first ones to counter-sue, hence why all the news is about them.
As I recall, Apple has also sued HTC, Motorola, and Amazon.
Re: (Score:3)
Worth mentioning all those companies also have suits [motorola.com] against Apple [reuters.com], or in Amazon's case licensed patents like 1-click to them which are hardly different from Apple's patents. This graphic [arstechnica.com] should be well known by now and shows nobody is exactly blameless in this patent war. (People will argue about defensive vs offensive which is about as useful here as it would be in a nuclear holocaust.)
What I was getting at is that AFAIK, only Samsung has been taken to task over the much ridiculed "rectangle LOL"-patents.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple & Nokia reached an agreement over their patent disputes resulting in Apple paying Nokia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ripping Off"? Making a similar product to a competitor is not illegal.
Get specific about exactly how (trademarks, copyright? patents?) you think Samsung has behaved illegaly & we might start listening to you.
(are you really a SK sock-puppet?)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that laptop doesn't look at all like a MBP - the power button has a blue LED. Jobs would have never let them do that. White or green maybe but not blue.
(Actually does look exactly like a black keyboard MBP otherwise).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's absurd and insulting!
Jobs was Buddhist. He's obviously a ringworm in the bowels of Steve Ballmer.