or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's victory over HTC may set high royalty precedent for Android devices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's victory over HTC may set high royalty precedent for Android devices - Page 2

post #41 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

No, it's not. The definition of "obvious" is variant over time.

At the time it was patented, it was not "obvious," or it wouldn't have been granted.

Because no patent granted has ever subsequently been invalidated either in part or whole due to obviousness right?
post #42 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is partially what fuels the debate though.

Normal, (non-geeks) would argue that this is entirely backwards. Stealing other people's ideas is generally the thing that most people think should be most illegal and is what patent law is intended to protect us from. Outside of computer hackers, it's never been the case that stealing ideas has been considered "generally good."

On the other hand, most people also see "code" as just a bunch of language that describes the idea and therefore something that anyone should be able to copy any time they want. Code is generally seen as the same as a paragraph describing an idea rather than an idea or innovation itself.

If what you say is true about how geeks view things, then they are operating with opposite assumptions than those the rest of the population employs in these cases. It's also worth noting that the patent office sees things closer to the way the general population thinks than they do the way the "geeks" think.

Really - so you think Shakespeare was terrible because he 'stole' his ideas? But plagiarism, which only steals the words is ok? Why aren't plots patentable?

It's not just geeks who think this, it's just only geeks who think this CLEARLY.
post #43 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Really - so you think Shakespeare was terrible because he stole his ideas? But plagiarism, which only steals the words is ok?

It's not just geeks who think this, it's just only geeks who think this CLEARLY.

i didn't say either was right or wrong, I merely pointed out the differences in "world-view" as it were.

Also you are messing things up by bringing up Shakespeare in that I was talking about patent law on devices, whereas a discussion of Shakespeare would involve copyright law and literature which is enough of a different thing as to make the analogy very difficult at best.

Even in literature however, you can't "steal ideas." You can do a Romeo and Juliette type of story, but you can't just copy Romeo and Juliette. Also, you realise that discussions like this are going to go down a rabbit hole over what an "idea" is in any case, so it's probably pointless to continue.

I think it's pretty clear that "geeks" think of "code" in an entirely different way from the general population though regardless of what one thinks about whether this is right/wrong good/bad.
post #44 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Because no patent granted has ever subsequently been invalidated either in part or whole due to obviousness right?

Not that I'm aware of, but I just meant to point out the inaccuracy of the overly broad statement. It doesn't really affect what I said either way.
post #45 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Not that I'm aware of, but I just meant to point out the inaccuracy of the overly broad statement. It doesn't really affect what I said either way.

Yes it does - you stated that the very fact of the patent being granted meant that ipso facto it was valid and non-obvious. If that was the case it would be impossible to invalidate patents, which is of course not the case.

If you meant to point out the inaccuracy of an overly broad statement you might want to avoid doing it with an inaccurate and overly broad statement.
post #46 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.

Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.

Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product


This product is not actually made by Samsung. It is however certified by them and they do sell it.
post #47 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

i didn't say either was right or wrong, I merely pointed out the differences in "world-view" as it were.

Also you are messing things up by bringing up Shakespeare in that I was talking about patent law on devices, whereas a discussion of Shakespeare would involve copyright law and literature which is enough of a different thing as to make the analogy very difficult at best.

Except we're talking about software which can indeed be copyrighted, so perhaps it's better considered like literature and music, where copying ideas is completely acceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variati...Theme_by_Haydn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variati...ganini_(Brahms)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variati...eme_of_Corelli



Quote:
I think it's pretty clear that "geeks" think of "code" in an entirely different way from the general population though regardless of what one thinks about whether this is right/wrong good/bad.

I'll agree with that statement, but I would have to add that geeks being the people who write code are in a better place to judge what kind of artistic domain it most closely resembles than laymen.
post #48 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.

Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.

Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product


You've got to be kidding me!

Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!
post #49 of 91
"Mike Abramsky with RBC Capital Markets believes that Apple has the upper hand over HTC, which is a smaller handset maker"

Apple has hand? It's handy to have hand, especially if you make handsets.
post #50 of 91
These patents turn 17 years old this summer and next spring anyways, so why is this a big issue? With appeals this case will clearly extend beyond the patent viability of both offending patents. After all patents are only good for 17 years, then it is public domain.
post #51 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76 View Post

At times like this I always refer back to this gorgeous web of legal action, write the whole industry off as a sorry mess and try to get on with my day.


great beach towel


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #52 of 91
To give everyone a piece of history, after the merger with NeXT and Apple, Apple contacted Adobe about renegotiating the cost of the cross-licensing fee for Postscript that is part of Display Postscript [co-developed by Adobe and NeXT] and Adobe's answer was they weren't going to reduce the fee they charged on each sale of the future version of Mac OS that they charge on the current version of Openstep.

The User Environment for Openstep was $700/seat at that time. Adobe was charging $10 for every seat.

With the cost of Consumer OS prices dictated by Microsoft Adobe did not want to renegotiate the cost down one penny.

Thus, Display PDF was born, patent free from Adobe. This was possible due to NeXT Engineers knowledge of Postscript and PDF. At the time, Apple had to always be a revision or two behind in PDF technology in it's release--part of an agreement reached by Adobe who has subsequently moved PDF/FDF to ISO status.

I'm not sure the similar $5 per user fee that Microsoft is charging for a large amount of patents will equate to the same for Apple.
post #53 of 91
Perhaps there will be Apple sympathizers here to make this poll more balanced.
http://www.wepolls.com/p/1322167
post #54 of 91
Patents are generally written to be as general as possible. If you make them very specific you make it easy for folks to create around the patent. Further, smart phones are essentially computers. Apple's computer related patents would carry over to a smart phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

The two patents HTC allegedly infringes are incredibly general and describe functions that are surely not specific to mobile phones.
post #55 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

What does Apple litigating against Android handset makers have to do with HP and Palm? And if Apple is "one of the copycats", why did the entire mobile handset industry shift to Apple's model only after the iPhone was released?

Well said.
post #56 of 91
Too soon to say about much of this but as one who considers much of Androids design a total rip of Apples and a betrayal by Eric Schmidt, I would love to see some kind of payback down the line here. And if Larry Ellison gets in on the fun, I would feel even better about it.

I 'love the competition' and all, but straight up copying something as brilliant as the iPhone with no comeuppance would be like Rupert Murdoch getting away with bribing cops.
post #57 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Yes it does - you stated that the very fact of the patent being granted meant that ipso facto it was valid and non-obvious. If that was the case it would be impossible to invalidate patents, which is of course not the case.

If you meant to point out the inaccuracy of an overly broad statement you might want to avoid doing it with an inaccurate and overly broad statement.

It seems to me that you're still upset about the argument yesterday where you were bested by someone else, and that you're carrying over this anger towards me today for some reason.

I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors. Since my belief is that you "know what I meant" and that you don't really have a counter argument to it anyway (or necessarily even disagree), I'm just going to stop talking about this.
post #58 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 513 View Post

Those 2 patents are 17 years and 15 years old. So they will expire in 3 and 5 years, cool.

Don't know if you are aware of this, but writing " http://www.appleinsider.com " in this text field, and if the forum software (here vBulletin Solutions) recognize it as an URL, Apple could sue them too.

Yeah...

There are two more things. It is interesting that articles about this topic on this site always report about the ruling as the done thing, that only needs approval from the panel, and HTC/Android is doomed already. If you look at any less biased site, they usually note that this panel already recommended that all the patent infringement in this case should be dismissed, and it is very rare that judge went against this recommendation. It is generally believed, that he would need to bring strong evidence to make the panel to change their initial decision, so it is a small victory for Apple, but there is still a very long way ahead for them for this to have any meaning.

The other thing is very interesting aspect of the patent law. Patent office grants you the patent, but there is no guarantee that patent "stands". If you try to sue someone, then and only then the patent is eventually evaluated if it has any merit, and can be dismissed forever. This happened to the other 8 patents in this claim and very well the same fate may meet the remaining two.

Pretty much all the "multitouch" patents are in this risky zone, as this is clearly a prior art and Apple knows they have very limited usability, other than being items in their 1000+ patent portfolio used to deter anybody and force him to pay licence fees instead.

The whole patent law is totally screwed and it is the end customers who pay the final price for all these lawyers and diminished rate of innovation.
post #59 of 91
Listen, i understand that intellectual property is a valuable asset to a company, but on the other hand, it also stifles competition when a company has a vague patent and goes after any company that infringes upon it. If Apple is trying to slow the competition, i get that, but if they are ruthless enough they will push Companies like samsung out of the android market. Good move for apple, bad outcome for consumers. As for digital patents, you should not be able to patent any little tiny gizmo or feature, rather an OS, Core function or Source Code should be the primary focus when applying for a patent. It's basically like if Crest toothpaste patented every ingredient in its toothpaste individually. I dont think apple has any problems selling their products, so i find it silly that they are pursuing so many lawsuits over small infringements that are minimal. Why isn't Google suing? Easy, its an open source code as of now, so they have no interest in suing. You know i used to like apple, thought they were a decent innovative company. They have become a corporate giant, their bottom line is the most important, and they are trying to rape smaller tech companies into paying them royalties. Sound familiar? Microsoft! That is what they are becoming. Microsoft!
post #60 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevint View Post

It's basically like if Crest toothpaste patented every ingredient in its toothpaste individually.!

That's a profoundly bad analogy. Any new ingredient that Crest might want to use in toothpaste would require extensive testing to prove it was biologically safe. THat's actually a case where patent protection is absolutely deserved, even necessary.
post #61 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

There are two more things. It is interesting that articles about this topic on this site always report about the ruling as the done thing, that only needs approval from the panel, and HTC/Android is doomed already. If you look at any less biased site, they usually note that this panel already recommended that all the patent infringement in this case should be dismissed, and it is very rare that judge went against this recommendation. It is generally believed, that he would need to bring strong evidence to make the panel to change their initial decision, so it is a small victory for Apple, but there is still a very long way ahead for them for this to have any meaning.

You're mixing things up a bit. The ITC staff recommended the patents be considered non-infringed, the Judge overruled them on these two. The ITC panel is the last stage, which is yet to come. The panel will make the final determination, though it may bounce up and down a bit before they do.
post #62 of 91
Maybe it is bad for consumers. However, before Apple came out with the iPhone (after investing hundreds of millions of dollars and getting AT&T to radically change it's way of doing business) consumers choices in the smart phone world stunk. You had RIM and Windows. The carriers put all this horrible software on your phones, and greatly limited what you could do.

So consumers are better off now that Apple took a huge gamble with its money. It was far easier for Apple's competitors to copy the iPhone then it was for Apple to come up with the initial phone. There are some press clippings suggesting the heads of RIM thought it was impossible the iPhone would do what Jobs claimed it would do.

If Apple's competitors can just copy Apple's ideas to compete with Apple that kills innovation, which in the long run harms consumers. Further, it isn't necessary. Palm and Microsoft responded to the iPhone in an innovative manner. Apple isn't suing either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevint View Post

Listen, i understand that intellectual property is a valuable asset to a company, but on the other hand, it also stifles competition when a company has a vague patent and goes after any company that infringes upon it. If Apple is trying to slow the competition, i get that, but if they are ruthless enough they will push Companies like samsung out of the android market. Good move for apple, bad outcome for consumers.
post #63 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors.

What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.

At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.
post #64 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You've got to be kidding me!

Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!

what about this

http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/

the samsung tablet accessory is more like the incase thing.

It looks from the photos to be a case with a cover that folds to allow the tablet to be propped up. several speck cases do the same thing.
post #65 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.

At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.

Yeah, blah blah blah.

All I'm going to say to this one is that you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that you have no idea one way or the other about. Here you assume that a single clerk who is dumb, made a mistake about obviousness on the patent because ... well basically just because you disagree about the obviousness of the invention *today*. Then you throw yourself back to 15 years ago, and assume all kinds of stuff not in evidence and about which you couldn't possibly know and pronounce it to be fact.

Your doing some of the very things you are accusing me of here not the least of which is simplifying the patent application process to the point where a single clerk is looking at a piece of paper, presumably with a big "approved" stamp in one hand and a "rejected" stamp in the other. I don't know the details of how patents are, or were approved in the US of A, but the idea that a single person making some kind of quick (and you think incorrect) judgement about it is almost certainly wrong.

You've just wasted my time over and over again here with this silly argument and haven't (yet) proved anything I've said to be incorrect. Again, all I'm saying is that the patent wasn't obvious at the time, because I happen to know that this is one of the central things the patent office checks for ("obviousness"). You then retorted with words to the effect of "Oh yeah? well if it became obvious in the interim it would have been retracted" (which is actually an argument for my point of view if you think about it), failing to even notice that I never claimed that it wouldn't, and specifically implied that I had no knowledge of the "retraction process" or if there even is one.

Your so hot to be right, that you're not even paying attention to what I was arguing.
post #66 of 91
Actually, one patent is good for 20 years as it was filed after June 8, 1995. The other is good for 17 years. Nonetheless, any ITC ban would go into effect way before the appeal process in the Courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post

These patents turn 17 years old this summer and next spring anyways, so why is this a big issue? With appeals this case will clearly extend beyond the patent viability of both offending patents. After all patents are only good for 17 years, then it is public domain.
post #67 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I guess you forget that Apple has stolen/misused others' patents and has had to pay out. Apple is NO BETTER than any of these other companies when it comes to patent infringement.

So will Apple go after MS next if they start to gain more market share?

From the anger of your post, I think you have more to worry about than a phone.

Apple and MS have a lot of cross licensing in place, they will likely continue to expand it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

It's not borrowing if it's obvious. The first patent is definitely obvious from a software development standpoint.

Was it obvious 17 years ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Obviously that's the situation, and nobody should blame Apple for patenting everything that they can legally get away with, and litigating based on any patent that they can get. It's certainly not like they're beating up on small independent software makers here.

But you can't expect to hear a lot of cheering from software developers either. It's kinda like we're back in WW-1 watching our own soldiers use poison gas on the enemy. We may hope our side wins but we also hope that the weapons get banned.

You should win Analogy of the year

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It seems to me that you're still upset about the argument yesterday where you were bested by someone else, and that you're carrying over this anger towards me today for some reason.

I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors. Since my belief is that you "know what I meant" and that you don't really have a counter argument to it anyway (or necessarily even disagree), I'm just going to stop talking about this.

I don't recall you saying ipso facto?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.

At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.

Most of what you claim he is saying has only been said by you.

Btw. It does matter if it was obvious when the patent was granted. Who thinks it was not obvious is a lot less important then when it was not obvious. Everything seems obvious after we have used it for 15 years.
post #68 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

What you said is something that keeps getting said - it's not the first time you've said it either. It's one of those glib lines that makes superficial sense but is rooted deep in error.

At best the fact that the patent was awarded means that it wasn't obvious to the patent clerk, but obvious in this context means obvious to somebody grounded in the problem domain - and naturally enough patent clerks are often not. They don't make patent clerks like Einstein these days.

Einstein wouldn't know 99% of what is patented today. Sorry, but he wouldn't.
post #69 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Yeah, blah blah blah.

All I'm going to say to this one is that you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that you have no idea one way or the other about. Here you assume that a single clerk who is dumb, made a mistake about obviousness on the patent because ...

This is getting ugly.

You suggested that the fact that the patent was granted is a proof that the idea wasn't obvious.

Cloudgazer called you out and gave as an example the fact that patents do in fact get invalidated after they have been granted based on having been obvious (although not necessarily obvious to the clerk that granted them initially).

You have since resorted to bringing up yesterday's discussions, suggesting that cloudgazer was angry, and (seemingly) refusing to argue further. That is no way to conduct a civilized discourse.

I have to give the point to cloudgazer on this one.
post #70 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.

Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.

Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product


I was waiting for someone to copy and paste that tripe here:

1: This is NOT a Samsung product. Even the article you got this from got that right. it is a product that Samsung approved (much like accessories seek approval for the "made for ipod" sticker)
2: The Smart case is NOT apple's design. The idea of a triangle folding cover isn't new, and the first case made for an ipad with this design was NOT MADE BY APPLE. It was made by incase: http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/

As for your 'Well most people understand copying as this" argument, that's pointless. What most people think doesn't matter because 1) we're discussing patent law here. 2) Most people are idiots when it comes to things that are not in their field (and sometimes idiots in their own field)

The patent system is broken. The fact that developers are removing their apps from US markets proves this. Just because it's supporting a side you tend to agree with this time doesn't make the practice any more "valid."
post #71 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ufwa View Post

what about this

http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/

the samsung tablet accessory is more like the incase thing.

It looks from the photos to be a case with a cover that folds to allow the tablet to be propped up. several speck cases do the same thing.

Lol, I didn't know about this one... Reminiscent of the WiFi syncing theft...


Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You've got to be kidding me!

Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!

Apparently, they don't... Wait, were you asking about Apple or Samsung?
post #72 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

All I'm going to say to this one is that you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that you have no idea one way or the other about. Here you assume that a single clerk who is dumb, made a mistake about obviousness on the patent because ... well basically just because you disagree about the obviousness of the invention *today*. Then you throw yourself back to 15 years ago, and assume all kinds of stuff not in evidence and about which you couldn't possibly know and pronounce it to be fact.

All I'm going to say is that you have a nasty habit of stating I'm stating something that you can't actually quote me stating. Actually the assumptions here are all yours. You assume that because a patent (or claim on a patent) is granted it is non-obvious - I am saying that at most one can say it was non-obvious to the clerk. I am also saying that some patents or claims on patents are subsequently invalidated because they are in fact obvious. In those cases the clerk was at best mistaken - ie. to the clerk it was not obvious, but in fact to an experienced practitioner it was.

I am not saying that this patent is necessarily obvious, I don't need to since my contention is that it was not even novel, and I provided a specific example of it in the last thread which nobody was able to refute. The emacs text editor running folding minor mode and font lock, a publicly available unix development environment back in the early 90s.

Now if you are stating that claims or entire patents are never invalidated for being obvious then we can dismiss that.

http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/2...id-as-obvious/
http://frisinaip.com/federal-circuit...r-obviousness/

easy to find more, just google for 'patent invalidated obviousness' or 'claim invalidated obviousness'. It's really rather, well, obvious.

Quote:
Again, all I'm saying is that the patent wasn't obvious at the time, because I happen to know that this is one of the central things the patent office checks for ("obviousness"). You then retorted with words to the effect of "Oh yeah? well if it became obvious in the interim it would have been retracted" (which is actually an argument for my point of view if you think about it), failing to even notice that I never claimed that it wouldn't, and specifically implied that I had no knowledge of the "retraction process" or if there even is one.

Now you're just taking your wrongness and compounding it with extreme wrongness. A patent which is invalidated due to being obvious is invalidated because it is considered that it was obvious at the time of filing, not because it is obvious now - that would be ridiculous. The invalidating judge is not saying that the patent is merely obvious now, he is saying that the patent office was incorrect in its determination of non-obviousness then.

Again this is all rather obvious.


Quote:
Your so hot to be right, that you're not even paying attention to what I was arguing.

You're so unable to admit to being wrong that you just digging yourself in deeper.
post #73 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Einstein wouldn't know 99% of what is patented today. Sorry, but he wouldn't.

Perhaps not, but in whatever field he was assigned i'd trust him to figure out if it was obvious The guy could create general relativity on one hand, and help develop a refrigerator design on the other.
post #74 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Apple and MS have a lot of cross licensing in place, they will likely continue to expand it.

Can you find a citation for that? I'm not being contentious here, I've looked after somebody else asked and all I can find is the late 90s deal which ran 5 years and no evidence it was ever renewed.

Quote:
Most of what you claim he is saying has only been said by you.

I'm really not putting words into his mouth here. This isn't the first time he's said something that presumes that all patents are automatically valid just because they were granted. A few days ago he said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

What's obvious *now* wasn't obvious when they were patented or someone else would have done it wouldn't they?

Which was equally sophomoric, perhaps even worse.

Quote:
Btw. It does matter if it was obvious when the patent was granted. Who thinks it was not obvious is a lot less important then when it was not obvious. Everything seems obvious after we have used it for 15 years.

Absolutely, the test is whether it would be obvious to a person well grounded in the available prior art at the time of filing. I would actually say that in this case it's worse than that, it's fully pre-empted by prior art, but that's just my opinion.
post #75 of 91
To say the smart cover is not an Apple design is a little disingenuous. Sure, the over all design looks very similar to the Incase design. The innovation Apple brought to the table is the magnets that act to align the cover, hold it in place, and turn the device off and on. Those features seem to be uniquely Apple. That typically is what Apple always does is build on something that is already out there. Further, Apple's design only covers the front, while Incase's design wraps around the whole thing and is affixed to the back. I can't see anything Apple's competitors are adding to the design.

With that said, it should be noted, Apple's means of protecting the Smart Cover design are limited to trademark law and possibly patent law. Neither Incase, Apple, or anybody else can copyright the overall design of the cover because it likely would be considered a useful article and not be eligible for copyright protection. However, by the knock off using the name Smart Case, it is possible Apple could win a trademark fight based on Apple's Trademark on the mark "Smart Cover." That seems like a clear attempt to build on the good will Apple has developed using the mark Smart Cover.

Apple also has at least one patent covering Smart Covers, and could possible assert those rights if any type of interactive functionality is added between the third parties cover and Samsung's devices (e.g. removing the cover turns the device on).

Further, it is interesting to note, Incase has not said a word about Apple's case. It is possible Apple collaborated with Incase. Whatever the situation might be, Incase's design borrows from many other ideas. For instance, gymnastic mats that fold in a very similar way. Some truck bed covers. Also I remember my mother's kitchen table came with a protection pad that worked just like this cover. The Smart Cover undoubtedly seems inspired by Incase's design, but under copyright law that is fine. In turn, Samsung's knock off case maker is also free to be inspired by Apple with the possible exception of the name. The parties also might not be able to use the exact same colors, as colors are protected under copyright as well (try mixing a Ralph Lauren color using some other company's paint at a place like Home Depot).




Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

I was waiting for someone to copy and paste that tripe here:

1: This is NOT a Samsung product. Even the article you got this from got that right. it is a product that Samsung approved (much like accessories seek approval for the "made for ipod" sticker)
2: The Smart case is NOT apple's design. The idea of a triangle folding cover isn't new, and the first case made for an ipad with this design was NOT MADE BY APPLE. It was made by incase: http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/

As for your 'Well most people understand copying as this" argument, that's pointless. What most people think doesn't matter because 1) we're discussing patent law here. 2) Most people are idiots when it comes to things that are not in their field (and sometimes idiots in their own field)

The patent system is broken. The fact that developers are removing their apps from US markets proves this. Just because it's supporting a side you tend to agree with this time doesn't make the practice any more "valid."
post #76 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

To say the smart cover is not an Apple design is a little disingenuous. Sure, the over all design looks very similar to the Incase design. The innovation Apple brought to the table is the magnets that act to align the cover, hold it in place, and turn the device off and on. Those features seem to be uniquely Apple. That typically is what Apple always does is build on something that is already out there. Further, Apple's design only covers the front, while Incase's design wraps around the whole thing and is affixed to the back. I can't see anything Apple's competitors are adding to the design.

With that said, it should be noted, Apple's means of protecting the Smart Cover design are limited to trademark law and possibly patent law. Neither Incase, Apple, or anybody else can copyright the overall design of the cover because it likely would be considered a useful article and not be eligible for copyright protection. However, by the knock off using the name Smart Case, it is possible Apple could win a trademark fight based on Apple's Trademark on the mark "Smart Cover." That seems like a clear attempt to build on the good will Apple has developed using the mark Smart Cover.

Apple also has at least one patent covering Smart Covers, and could possible assert those rights if any type of interactive functionality is added between the third parties cover and Samsung's devices (e.g. removing the cover turns the device on).

Further, it is interesting to note, Incase has not said a word about Apple's case. It is possible Apple collaborated with Incase. Whatever the situation might be, Incase's design borrows from many other ideas. For instance, gymnastic mats that fold in a very similar way. Some truck bed covers. Also I remember my mother's kitchen table came with a protection pad that worked just like this cover. The Smart Cover undoubtedly seems inspired by Incase's design, but under copyright law that is fine. In turn, Samsung's knock off case maker is also free to be inspired by Apple with the possible exception of the name. The parties also might not be able to use the exact same colors, as colors are protected under copyright as well (try mixing a Ralph Lauren color using some other company's paint at a place like Home Depot).

I hope they weren't granted any patents for having the device power on when the cover is removed. That's not a new idea, at all. Apple just changed the packaging.

Blackberry's have had this function for quite awhile. You slide your blackberry into a OEM pouch, it goes to sleep, pull it out, and the screen lights up again. Blackberry's solution is actually more advanced because you can have the pouch define profiles. For example, on my blackberry, I had it set up so when the phone was in it's holster, the ONLY noise it would make would be if someone called me. Texts, emails, etc. all were silenced. Pull it out of the holster, and the text message had a ringtone again.

If they got a patent for the fact that it wakes the screen on removal, it just further showcases how broken the patent system is. Now, implementations like Evernote's "quiz" are (to my knowledge) unique, but waking a screen with magnets is not.

Additionally, the samesung case is secured to the device by something that wraps around the back, not a magnetic hinge.


It is telling that InCase said nothing. In fact, what they said is "we will make no comment." that doesn't sound like there was a healthy bargain between the two. I am NOT implying that Apple "stole" anything. (as you and I both agree, the concept is far from unique.. at least when it comes to triangle folds) All I was trying to point out was how off Peabody's statement was that he 1) implied that Samsung made the case 2) implied that Apple came up with the idea for the case.
post #77 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

However, by the knock off using the name Smart Case, it is possible Apple could win a trademark fight based on Apple's Trademark on the mark "Smart Cover." That seems like a clear attempt to build on the good will Apple has developed using the mark Smart Cover.

The problem Apple will have there is that there is an existing Smart Case product which has a tradmark. Presumably this means the samsung knockoff won't be able to be marketed in the US anyway - at least not by that name.

http://www.aviiq.com/pages/smart-case-for-ipad-2

Their best approach would probably be to go for trade dress, since it makes the 10.1 look even more like an iPad-2 than it already did.
post #78 of 91
It scares me that so many people actually want to just see android fail. My question is why. What do you get by android failing? For that matter why do you hate android its software if you don't like then don't use it. Right now the various android headset makers are innovating like crazy. Apple just can sit back and watch as samsung, htc, and other android OEMs compete and they can get first hand knowledge of what features consumers want and what is just a gimmick all this without spending a dime. Android being free allows it to be the perfect testing bed for new smartphone features.
post #79 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Apple had to recently pay Nokia because of some patents. Fair is fair and anybody is free to sue Apple if they wish, and Apple is also free to do the same.

And I am hardly angry. I don't care much for sports, and I don't have any sports team which I cheer on and I see this as sports (and war), and I am rooting for Apple. This is entertainment.

The issue between Nokia vs. Apple was a little more complicated than it seemed. Apple was willing to pay Nokia's license fees but Nokia being the greedy bastards that they are decided to gouge Apple by charging Apple a higher license fees than they were to other licensees. Apple said fuck you to Nokia and decided to not pay them anything and Nokia sued them. Apple may have lost the decision
to Nokia but after the settlement I doubt that Apple's paying the premium that Nokia originally demanded.
post #80 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The problem Apple will have there is that there is an existing Smart Case product which has a tradmark. Presumably this means the samsung knockoff won't be able to be marketed in the US anyway - at least not by that name.

http://www.aviiq.com/pages/smart-case-for-ipad-2

Their best approach would probably be to go for trade dress, since it makes the 10.1 look even more like an iPad-2 than it already did.

My gut armchair-legal opinion is that trade dress is the most likely defense. Just looking at it, you'd think it was an iPad 2 with a Smart Cover; is it just me, or do the fold lines seem the exact same spacing?. Plus, the colors seem oddly familiar. That combo, plus the name, make it an obvious offender.

That said, it appears to be Korean-only for now. If it makes it to the U.S., I'd expect a name change, but I still think Apple might win on trade dress.

As has been said, this is NOT Samsung. However, apparently the owner is related to a Samaung exec and they appear to be closely related companies.

This kind of stuff makes your blood boil, but then again who are we to enforce Western beliefs about IP, if it's not being sold in the West? IP beliefs are not universal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's victory over HTC may set high royalty precedent for Android devices
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's victory over HTC may set high royalty precedent for Android devices