or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents should be invalidated
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents...

post #1 of 96
Thread Starter 
In continued Apple v. Samsung court proceedings, a top Samsung designer denied copying Apple's icons, and an expert witness said the Cupertino company's design patents should be invalidated due to prior art.

Samsung designer Jeeyuen Wang

Samsung on Tuesday called to the stand Jeeyuen Wang, a senior designer at the South Korean company who gave testimony through a translator, in an effort to counter Apple's allegations that multiple Samsung devices copied the layout and imagery of iOS, reports CNet.

Earlier in the trial, Apple offered internal Samsung documents which compared the iPhone side-by-side with the Korean company's handsets, alleging iOS icons and UI assets were blatantly copied. Wang admitted that she did look at products from other companies, including Apple, but denied stealing the icons outright, saying instead that it was part of the design process.

"I also look at the icons that come up on Web sites or Webs, and airport signing systems, so I'd pay attention to all these things," Wang said.

The designer claims hundreds of people around the world worked tirelessly on Samsung's iconography, adding that she herself was only able to sleep two or three hours a night.

In refuting Apple's copycat accusations, Wang gave specific examples of how the designs of certain icons were decided. She notes the photo app icon seen on Samsung handsets was inspired by a wallpaper image, and not the sunflower icon that appears in iOS.

"At the time, there was a wallpaper that was in the image of flowers for an AMOLED LCDs and everyone in our team kind of liked the image," Wang said. "We had come to a conclusion that we would adopt this image for the icon."

Wang also said Samsung's phone app icon, referred to internally as a "dumbbell," was there before she began work on the project in 2002 and was green because the color had the connotation of "go."

Samsung Icons
Page from Samsung's "Mobile icon design for 2011" document. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


During cross-examination, Apple counsel introduced yet another internal Samsung document titled "Samsung mobile icon design for 2011," which studied the effectiveness of its iconography changes from 2007 to 2011. Included in the document were more comparisons to the iPhone as well as sections titled "Design direction" and "Design approach," the latter of which contained an example iOS guideline that ensures third-party icons remain consistent across the platform. The appendix contained hyperlinks to developer icon guidelines for Apple's Mac OS X and Android.

Apple then brought out the 132-page "relative evaluation report" and asked Wang how the company's phone app icon design changed from a number pad to the so-called "dumbbell" image seen on current handsets. The designer claimed she had never seen the document or the old phone app icon before.

"This is a very confusing icon," Wang said, referring to the calculator-like phone icon. "When I looked at it for the first time since getting here it looked like a calculator to me, so it's hard for me to recognize it as a phone."



Patent expert Itay Sherman

Following Wang's testimony was Itay Sherman, avid inventor and CEO of multi-touch company DoubleTouch, who took the stand to argue against the validity of Apple's design patents.

According to in-court reports from All Things D, Sherman's testimony took shots at Apple's design patents, which he says are functional rather than ornamental. The patent expert also argued a number of alleged prior art claims, including a Japanese design patent from 2005 that bears passing resemblance to the iPhone with its rounded corners, rectangular shape and "lozenge-shaped" speaker.

Sherman said the Japanese property alone should be enough to invalidate two iPhone patents because it ?renders both of these designs obvious,? but brought up another Japanese patent as well as LG's Prada handset to demonstrate Apple's designs are "obvious."

Samsung moved to Apple's iPad design patents, which Sherman also said should be rendered obvious as two alleged prior art designs, the 1994 Fidler tablet concept and Compaq's TC1000 tablet computer from 2002, both share the iPad's thin, rectangular shape with rounded corners. The rectangle shape has been a major argument in Samsung's defense strategy, and Sherman hammered it home by saying the shape of the iPad and iPhone is functional, not ornamental. He explains the design elements of the devices are dictated by the content meant to be displayed on them, like webpages and movies, which happen to be rectangular.

As for the Fidler design, creator Roger Fidler appeared in a brief video deposition directly prior to Sherman's testimony and claimed he showed the tablet concept to Apple in 1994, reports CNet. The publication points out Apple would apply for an iPad-related design patent that same year. Fidler goes on to say that he worked with Apple and a number of other tech companies at the Informational Design Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., to see if his design could be brought to market. The project was ultimately scrapped.

Fidler Concept
Photo of Fidler tablet concept. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


During cross-examination, Apple' lawyer brought Sherman's pedigree into question, saying that he is an electrical engineer and not a designer. In arguing against the Compaq tablet claims, Apple notes the tablet's border design differs from the iPad's monolithic glass facade.

In opposition to Sherman's assertion that the iPad's design is based on function, Apple presented an alternative design example in a teardrop-shaped tablet made by Sony. The iPhone's design patents were also discussed, with Apple's lawyer pointing out small discrepancies in design like the raised button on the LG Prada's front screen.

Apple v. Samsung is set to continue throughout the week with closing arguments set for next Tuesday.
post #2 of 96

That Fidler tablet looks like a mockup with a newspaper-clipping glued onto the face!

post #3 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

That Fidler tablet looks like a mockup with a newspaper-clipping glued onto the face!

Apple lawsuit has no merit..they have never invented anything just copy here and there like anyone else..

"Apple people have no objectivity when it comes to criticism of Apple.." Lenovo X1 Carbon is out..bye bye MBAir

Reply

"Apple people have no objectivity when it comes to criticism of Apple.." Lenovo X1 Carbon is out..bye bye MBAir

Reply
post #4 of 96

I really don't give a rats ass about the dam Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?

post #5 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Apple lawsuit has no merit..they have never invented anything just copy here and there like anyone else..

I'm an Android fan like none-other but that is entirely bullshit.

They are fully and appropriately credited with reinvigorating (or perhaps even launching) the modern smartphone market. Without them we'd just NOW probably be getting a phone of the caliber of the original iPhone (maybe a bit more powerful but still).

Maybe they didn't invent the specific tech but their vision has led to some great strides in the tech sector.

I do not agree with their lawsuits (at least a lot of them) but to deny them credit is either a lie or purposeful blindness.
post #6 of 96
The mockup is close, but no cigar.

The border is asymmetrical for starters, thicker at the bottom than the top, there also seems to be an indentation on the right hand side, extending from the centre to the top right corner, as it protrudes slightly, it is also not like Apple's design patent.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #7 of 96

"I really don't give a rats ass about the dam Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?"

 

That is exactly why this lawsuit is important. If Apple wins then real technological advances and progress will be much harder to make in America. Sorry to bore you.

post #8 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark View Post

"I really don't give a rats ass about the dam Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?"


That is exactly why this lawsuit is important. If Apple wins then real technological advances and progress will be much harder to make in America. Sorry to bore you.

Forcing manufacturers to adopt innovation, rather than imitation will be a good thing for consumers and speed up technological advances and progress as research focuses on bringing something new rather than finding different ways to build the same mousetrap.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #9 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Forcing manufacturers to adopt innovation, rather than imitation will be a good thing for consumers and speed up technological advances and progress as research focuses on bringing something new rather than finding different ways to build the same mousetrap.

In principle this is true, and believe me, I'm the biggest Apple nerd ALIVE (fact) but what Apple is doing here, either by choice or by force of a broken legal system, is not stopping a company from copying their products. What Apple is arguing here is that Samsung should not be able to use any ideas that Apple seems to believe are all 100% new and theirs. And sure, Apple did certainly bring a TON of new stuff to the table with the iPhone but no company ever creates things in a complete vacuum, and ideas are not legal property. After all, Apple themselves uses ideas from other products and companies ALL THE TIME. All companies do. It's just a part of creativity. In fact it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something that doesn't in some way connect back to something else.

What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.

post #10 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

In principle this is true, and believe me, I'm the biggest Apple nerd ALIVE (fact) but what Apple is doing here, either by choice or by force of a broken legal system, is not stopping a company from copying their products. What Apple is arguing here is that Samsung should not be able to use any ideas that Apple seems to believe are all 100% new and theirs. And sure, Apple did certainly bring a TON of new stuff to the table with the iPhone but no company ever creates things in a complete vacuum, and ideas are not legal property. After all, Apple themselves uses ideas from other products and companies ALL THE TIME. All companies do. It's just a part of creativity. In fact it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something that doesn't in some way connect back to something else.

What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.

 

Excellent post.

 

J.

post #11 of 96

They included a hyperlink to Apple's icon design guidelines in their document? That's a bit of a smoking gun isn't it?

post #12 of 96

Apple's big value add is an ecosystem that works relatively seamlessly, not a rectangular shape or a particular design of an icon. Not only is this case without merit (the patents as described mostly fail the obviousness test, and some like design of an icon are more clearly in the copyright than patent space), but they are obscuring the fact of their key competitive advantage by going after Samsung like this. Android fills a different need for people who want more control over what they can run on their device, at the expense of a higher chance of something breaking. That's a pretty clear choice, and I don't see some passing visual resemblance between the two undermining Apple's advantages.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #13 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Apple lawsuit has no merit..they have never invented anything just copy here and there like anyone else..


Stay on your meds.

post #14 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Forcing manufacturers to adopt innovation, rather than imitation will be a good thing for consumers and speed up technological advances and progress as research focuses on bringing something new rather than finding different ways to build the same mousetrap.


It's just me, but I don't think this trial has Apple focusing on "innovation". To me, and I'll admit I might just be a stupid idiot not understanding anything (but I don't think I am), it seems that Apple here is focusing on pure marketing.

 

Now, it's also an interesting question, but if Apple wins, I agree that innovation will be made harder. Just imagine the number of car manufacturers that will have to innovate by making cars with a different number of wheels than four...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #15 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Apple lawsuit has no merit..they have never invented anything just copy here and there like anyone else..


You mad? Apple is one of the most innovative companies out there.

 

That Apple lawsuit might not be the best example, but dissing Apple for being "just copiers" is pretty much the most stupid thing you could say...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #16 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

 

What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.

 

Hear hear,  I owned a Windows smartphone, two actually, they were complete rubbish owing to the need to have a microscope to see the text and a stylus to drive the screen - but it was clearly Windows.

 

Aan iPhone / iPod / iPad IS an Apple product, Apple deserve to be protected from copyists, no matter how large the company doing the copying.  I own a Sony tablet S,  the one with the teardrop shape, it runs Android, it doesn't LOOK like an iPad, it works like a tablet should - but it doesn't clone the iconography representing multiple pages like the Samsung one does on the right with dots to indicate which screen you are on - pure Apple RIP OFF,  if Sony could find a different way of representing without copying, so should Samsung.

 

BTW if you buy any Apple product you are guaranteed to find the same effort into look, feel and manufacturing quality - which is part of the 'attraction' of Apple products,  its a pity Samsung don't put more effort into Industrial Design for all their other products instead of copying.

post #17 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

In principle this is true, and believe me, I'm the biggest Apple nerd ALIVE (fact) but what Apple is doing here, either by choice or by force of a broken legal system, is not stopping a company from copying their products. What Apple is arguing here is that Samsung should not be able to use any ideas that Apple seems to believe are all 100% new and theirs. And sure, Apple did certainly bring a TON of new stuff to the table with the iPhone but no company ever creates things in a complete vacuum, and ideas are not legal property. After all, Apple themselves uses ideas from other products and companies ALL THE TIME. All companies do. It's just a part of creativity. In fact it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something that doesn't in some way connect back to something else.

What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.

In part, I agree with you. I disagree that Apple is deliberately going overboard to block everybody from everything. No one should forget that long before this trial Apple approached Samsung to try to settle this matter. Nor should anyone forget that Apple did reach an agreement with Microsoft to avoid "cloning". Microsoft of all companies!!!!  Apple has been open to alternatives. IMO, it is Samsung that has been obstructive. Posters to AI in other threads have cited South Korean news reports of Samsung shenanigans that range from the shady to downright illegal. I mean really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that more than any other manufacturer, Samsung shamelessly copied the iPhone. Ah, but to prove that in a court of law! You yourself wrote, "…or by force of a broken legal system…" I won't judge whether the legal system is broken but I do believe within the rules governing court procedures and how judgements are arrived at, the extreme legal wrangling we are witnessing is unavoidable.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #18 of 96

Isn't it amazing? No one at Samsung copied anything off the iPhone, and yet somehow their product came out so similar.

post #19 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Now, it's also an interesting question, but if Apple wins, I agree that innovation will be made harder. Just imagine the number of car manufacturers that will have to innovate by making cars with a different number of wheels than four...

 

If Apple wins, then Samsung will simply be forced to follow in the path of Sony and Microsoft:  invent their own products and unique designs.

 

The very existence of the Sony Tablet S and the Microsoft Surface tablet invalidates any and all doomsday scenarios associated with an Apple win in this trial.  

 

In fact, the Sony Tablet S was showcased in the trial, as mentioned in the article.  It will be entered into evidence.  When the jury looks at the Sony Tablet S and compares it with the Samsung Galaxy Tab, they'll have no choice but to come to the conclusion that Samsung willfully infringed on the Apple design patents.  Remember, Apple used the Tablet S as their own evidence so that implies to the jury that they do not consider the Tablet S to be an infringing product as far as the design patents are concerned.  The jury will most certainly take that into consideration and use this fact to discount the comical Samsung arguments about "rectangles".  Any reasonable person will come to the conclusion that it IS possible to develop a unique design and it IS possible to invent new stuff.

 

As for the alleged "prior art" evidence, the jury will be out on that but I don't think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that these non-functional mock-ups are in any way comparable with the iPad and the Galaxy Tab.  The functional tablets that did exist prior to the iPad look nothing like the iPad and the Samsung legal team knows this.  This is precisely why they did not point to any of the functional tablets as part of their defense.  

post #20 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Apple lawsuit has no merit..they have never invented anything just copy here and there like anyone else..

 

Whatever it is you read before coming here... stop reading it. It's making you say silly things. 

post #21 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Patent expert Itay Sherman
Following Wang's testimony was Itay Sherman, avid inventor and CEO of multi-touch company DoubleTouch, who took the stand to argue against the validity of Apple's design patents.
According to in-court reports from All Things D, Sherman's testimony took shots at Apple's design patents, which he says are functional rather than ornamental. The patent expert also argued a number of alleged prior art claims, including a Japanese design patent from 2005 that bears passing resemblance to the iPhone with its rounded corners, rectangular shape and "lozenge-shaped" speaker.

 

 

 

 

Patent expert, huh? Yeah, right.

 

1000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( PS. Note to Mr. Mueller, seeing as you are often quoted in AI, I hope you don't mind my using your tweet. ;-)

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #22 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


You mad? Apple is one of the most innovative companies out there.

 

That Apple lawsuit might not be the best example, but dissing Apple for being "just copiers" is pretty much the most stupid thing you could say...

 

It is a fact that Apple spends huge amounts of money on R&D. They generate more patentable ideas than most companies and have since the 80's. When I worked at Apple the Advanced Technology Group was the pie in the sky team that was task with inventing new exciting stuff with no particular mandate for it to be able to be put in a product (at least in the near future). That grip used to have one of the most interesting presentations at WWDC also. They don't exist as an organization as a whole anymore nut are spread out amongst the different groups. Many prototypes both software and hardware came out of there and still come from the same folks -- I can tell you that few of those patents we see are just from sketches on the back of an envelope but real R&D and lab work to prove contests.

 

Some of Apple's stuff may look similar but it is hardly copied on a 3D printer like Samsung tends to do -- but this is prevalent in the Asia community. No one has a second thought about copy and refine. That is a way of life -- no that is not a racist remark it happens to be a cultural thing. Asians apparently only file patents when it is an eastern company that stands to gain by trying to sue a western company. Then they are willing to play by our rules. Otherwise there laws do not protect IP from the west.

post #23 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

That Fidler tablet looks like a mockup with a newspaper-clipping glued onto the face!

The more these trials unravel, the more I despise these companies. I can't even look at an Android device anymore without having the urge to vomit.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #24 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

If Apple wins, then Samsung will simply be forced to follow in the path of Sony and Microsoft:  invent their own products and unique designs.  

Thank you.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #25 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Isn't it amazing? No one at Samsung copied anything off the iPhone, and yet somehow their product came out so similar.

Samsung makes the iPhone screen. Once the tech was worked out it didn't take a genius to design a touch screen phone instead of a stylus one
post #26 of 96
So Samsung is saying they copied the Fidler tablet then?
post #27 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

In principle this is true, and believe me, I'm the biggest Apple nerd ALIVE (fact) but what Apple is doing here, either by choice or by force of a broken legal system, is not stopping a company from copying their products. What Apple is arguing here is that Samsung should not be able to use any ideas that Apple seems to believe are all 100% new and theirs. And sure, Apple did certainly bring a TON of new stuff to the table with the iPhone but no company ever creates things in a complete vacuum, and ideas are not legal property. After all, Apple themselves uses ideas from other products and companies ALL THE TIME. All companies do. It's just a part of creativity. In fact it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something that doesn't in some way connect back to something else.
What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.

Where do you draw the line between an exact copy and a near-exact copy? In your view, I guess a 'Rollex' watch is OK because it's not an exact copy?

In the REAL world, the line is usually drawn in two places:
1. Where design patents (or utility patents, for that matter) exist and are infringed.
2. Where the copy is similar enough to cause confusion.

Apple has clearly demonstrated that both situations have occurred and Samsung is blatantly copying their designs. There are two problems with this:

1. On a pure financial basis, Samsung is unfairly benefiting from the confusion and the similarity. I don't think it matters whether customers are buying Samsung products because they think they're Apple products (which happens frequently according to the testimony presented in this case) or customers are buying the Samsung phone because they think it's "close enough". Either way, Samsung is benefiting from Apple's work. Instead of being the clear leader in Smart Phone sales, Apple is possibly (although the actual numbers presented in this case bring that into question) #2 and is losing billions in sales.
2. It stifles innovation. Whether you like Windows Phone 8 or not (or the TouchPad as another example), they're different enough to not cause massive confusion and required their vendors to come up with new ways to do things. THAT is what innovation is about and, in the end, that leads the market forward.

I am just astounded at how many people are OK with Samsung's blatant copying and think Apple should just let them get away with it - even if it costs them billions of dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Isn't it amazing? No one at Samsung copied anything off the iPhone, and yet somehow their product came out so similar.

It's even worse than that. Samsung's own testimony is that they developed multiple prototypes that didn't look much like the iPhone and then used Apple's guidelines (see the references in this thread, for example) to make the final product look so much like Apple's. That pretty clearly demonstrates that there's more than one way to make a phone - many of Samsung's prototypes were quite different than the iPhone but they kept moving closer and closer. The copying is obvious.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 96
IMO, looking at just the arguments of this day isn't looking at the whole picture of why Apple felt they had to take this to trial.

I'm not claiming to know anything about the legal system, but I know a little about creative/intellectual property, being an architect.

I think one of the many reasons Apple decided this was worth a trial was the notion of precedent. I may be wrong, but I think that in some cases, if a patent or copywrite is infringed in any way and it is not challenged, the matter is opened up for future...allowing more people to infringe, thus setting a precedent that other minor cases were not challenged. I might be wrong, but at least in copy written material, this could work against the protection of such a patent as well.

There was a minor hooplah with the USOC and a bunch of crafters that wanted to use the Olympic name and logo for NFP purposes and were denied use due to copywrite law. After reading up on the legal matters of that, I discovered this "precedent" clause that could be applicable in this case.

My point is, if the notion of "precedent" is valid in patents, then I think Apple probably felt they had to argue every minor instance with Samsung... in order not to set such a precedent.

I probably didn't explains the right so if there are any legal experts out there, I'd like to know if this notion has any place in this case.
post #29 of 96

Even if an icon's inspiration came from a completely unrelated source as in the photos icon case Samsung was designing such icon for use on a handset and the leading handset the iPhone had already been using a near identical icon already. A decent company or designer would have steered clear of this "coincidence" and used another idea. 

post #30 of 96
Originally Posted by microview View Post
I really don't give a rats ass about the dam Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?

 

No. You have the option of NOT reading these stories, but apparently you don't care about that option. And I see you've just copied and pasted this trash from CultOfMac, so you really ought to think before you post anything else here again.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/15/12 at 6:23am

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #31 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Forcing manufacturers to adopt innovation, rather than imitation will be a good thing for consumers and speed up technological advances and progress as research focuses on bringing something new rather than finding different ways to build the same mousetrap.

While I'll wholeheartedly agree with you the reality is that copying Apple has proven to be more profitable than doing something different. How well is Samsung doing versus RIM and Nokia/MS? I've used plenty of mousetraps and the best ones are those that are modeled after the original one. I don't condone copying but I understand why it's done.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 96

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:03pm
post #33 of 96

It's all COINCIDENCE people WAKE UP!

 

Samsung did not copy anything, they invent and design their own devices.

 

1000

post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post

Apple lawsuit has no merit..they have never invented anything just copy here and there like anyone else..

 

At some point someone as to innovate. How can anyone else copied somebody else all the time?

post #35 of 96

"According to in-court reports from All Things D, Sherman's testimony took shots at Apple's design patents, which he says are functional rather than ornamental. The patent expert also argued a number of alleged prior art claims, including a Japanese design patent from 2005 that bears passing resemblance to the iPhone with its rounded corners, rectangular shape and "lozenge-shaped" speaker."

 

I think this is worth talking about:

 

There are two types of patents being discussed in this case. One are functional patents, on specific ways of solving a problem. The other are design patents, covering aspects of the design itself. These are much more like trademarks, and are considered using similar criterion.

 

We're all aware of "obviousness" and "prior art" in terms of functional patents. It is very important to note that these do NOT apply to design patents. It is perfectly OK for Apple to have a design patent on a device with prior art. The point of interest in these cases is whether or not the design was in widespread use prior to the patent being granted. That's not "any example of it", but "it was widely used".

 

Sherman's examples of mock-ups are not germain. Unless those devices went into production and use, then, like trademarks, they aren't defendable.

 

So thus the attempt to link the design patents to functionality, because otherwise the argument fails.

post #36 of 96

Apple leads and Samsung follows.

 

So what?  Samsung did not use Apple's form factor as-is and brand it with Samsung logo.  It also did not try to convey Samsung's product is an Apple's product.

Consumers are smart enough to distinguish the two products especially for price ranges this high, and hence Apple probably would never win on the likelihood of consumer confusion arguments.

 

Of course, there was and is consumer demand for Apple's designs because many find Apple's designs cool.  But does Apple's design add any technical innovative effects on previous non-Apple tablet designs that are worth patent protections?  A cup with handle may have some technical innovative effects on cups that do not have handle in that it can help people to carry it around even when hot water is contained.  Even this is a questionable effect to grant a patent protection.  Think hard again what Apple's design really do.  Do you guys really find some magical distinctive unique and special effects in Apple's? (setting aside, oh, cool effects).  Those effects will be preserved as long as people are not confused between Apple's and Samsung's products and that's something trademark law protects rather than patent law.

 

2 billions of damages?  Come on.  Apple did not lose a dime because Samsung copied Apple.  I really doubt how many people really bought Samsung's product because it looks like an Apple's product.  At best, Samsung's design is (as the UK judge mentioned) an inferior one compared to Apple's. 

 

Are you guys saying that consumers are that stupid?

post #37 of 96
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post
Apple leads and Samsung follows. So what?

 

So the manner in which they followed was illegal.

 

Samsung did not use Apple's form factor as-is and brand it with Samsung logo.  It also did not try to convey Samsung's product is an Apple's product.

 

That's exactly what they did.

 

But does Apple's design add any technical innovative effects on previous non-Apple tablet designs that are worth patent protections?

 

You're joking, right? Of course they do.

 

Think hard again what Apple's design really do.

 

Why aren't you?

 

Do you guys really find some magical distinctive unique and special effects in Apple's? (setting aside, oh, cool effects).

 

Yes. Period. Go actually use an iPad and then their competitors to see what we mean (and you're talking about hardware, so don't bring up software).

 

2 billions of damages?  Come on.

 

I know, right? Needs to be 20. Could easily be 20. Apple doesn't care about the money. They care about forcing Samsung to stop all of this crap for all eternity.

 

Apple did not lose a dime because Samsung copied Apple.

 

It's not for you to say that.

 

Are you guys saying that consumers are that stupid?

 

Samsung's lawyers are. And lawyers are supposed to be smart.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #38 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Apple leads and Samsung follows.

So what?  Samsung did not use Apple's form factor as-is and brand it with Samsung logo.  It also did not try to convey Samsung's product is an Apple's product.
Consumers are smart enough to distinguish the two products especially for price ranges this high, and hence Apple probably would never win on the likelihood of consumer confusion arguments.

Of course, there was and is consumer demand for Apple's designs because many find Apple's designs cool.  But does Apple's design add any technical innovative effects on previous non-Apple tablet designs that are worth patent protections?  A cup with handle may have some technical innovative effects on cups that do not have handle in that it can help people to carry it around even when hot water is contained.  Even this is a questionable effect to grant a patent protection.  Think hard again what Apple's design really do.  Do you guys really find some magical distinctive unique and special effects in Apple's? (setting aside, oh, cool effects).  Those effects will be preserved as long as people are not confused between Apple's and Samsung's products and that's something trademark law protects rather than patent law.

2 billions of damages?  Come on.  Apple did not lose a dime because Samsung copied Apple.  I really doubt how many people really bought Samsung's product because it looks like an Apple's product.  At best, Samsung's design is (as the UK judge mentioned) an inferior one compared to Apple's. 

Are you guys saying that consumers are that stupid?

Are some AI posters really this pathological?
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #39 of 96

let me walk through with you.

 

first of all, there's no way apple would and should be awarded with 2 billions.  

in order to be awarded - it has to be 1) samsung copied apple so well that consumers actually buy samsung's instead of apple's for what is being copied (i am saying cables and boxes and rectangular design), is that true? or 2) the brand image of apple is being hurt; for this to be true people must be confused between the apple's and samsung's product, and think of an inferior product (samsung's) to be apple's. is that true? i believe the 2 billion was assessed based on the 1) argument and if you guys actually think so, that means you guys think samsung copied that well.

 

infringing on the apple's patents? seriously, does that mean a pizza company will patent their delicious looking pizza every single time when they come up with a new one that was not widespread before? how about peperoni pizza? would you honestly believe that other pizza companies should not produce peperoni pizza looking pizza???? so somehow put the peperoni underneath cheese or something? this is just ridiculous right? what apple is doing is similarly ridiculous. just because it involves some semiconductors, glasses, and metals instead of ham and cheese, that does not make apple's designs patent worthy.

post #40 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


It's just me, but I don't think this trial has Apple focusing on "innovation". To me, and I'll admit I might just be a stupid idiot not understanding anything (but I don't think I am), it seems that Apple here is focusing on pure marketing.

 

Now, it's also an interesting question, but if Apple wins, I agree that innovation will be made harder. Just imagine the number of car manufacturers that will have to innovate by making cars with a different number of wheels than four...


wow, you think a Mustang looks like anything else? A corvette? A porche? a VW bug? a Hummer? A Nissan Cube? A prius? I can go on...

 

Try harder.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents should be invalidated