Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents... - Page 2

Two interesting videos

http://www.youtube.com/embed/L1s_PybOuY0?start=308&fs=1&feature=oembed

Steve jobs saying Apple invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EwRjb4fNWAI?fs=1&feature=oembed

A device shown to the public, and apparently to Apple, way before Apple seemingly invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY

On another note. here is an interesting review of the slate that Samsung says was rectangular with rounded edges way before the ipad

http://pencomputing.com/frames/tpc_compaq.html

Then again, that tablet doesn't support muti-touch (i think), even though it wouldn't matter cause the DESIGN of it seems to make the ipad design pretty obvious, aside form the color black of course. Interesting also the detachable keyboard which Asus has totally stole, lol. 

So here's the question. The diff between the compaq and the ipad design is one button, its black, its thinner, and i guess it has no rim around it, the screen is smaller, headphone jack in diff location?

The difference between the ipad design and the tab is the tab has no button, its camera is a diff location, the tab is thinner, headphone jack in diff location, the screen is larger?

You have to pay extra for the keyboard accessory in both though.....

And those are just the diff with the front panels. The back of the devices are TOTALLY diff. I guess what i'm trying to ask is, how many diff must there be before it isn't copying? Cause you can easily list 15 differences between the ipad and the galaxy tab just from a design point of view, not including any software. 

It goes back to the same TV argument. If Apple win this design case, how long would it be till TV manufacturers start to sue each other as well as restrict any other manufacturer from making a rectangular black TV with a slim profile and black bezel? Cause surely one of these is infringing on somebody's design patent

http://samsungln46c750.com/images/51O6ijR4XQL._AA1024_.jpg

http://nieuwe-3d-led-tv.nieuwe-elektronica-kopen.nl/wp-content/uploads/Sony-EX650-LED-TV-21.jpg

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/38/panasonic_led-tv.jpg

http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20091016/33674153-2-440-ANGL_270x202.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/06/lgbye.jpg

If I was a lawyer and looked at those from 20 ft away I would have a hell of time knowing which is which. Tell you what though, i STILL wouldn't be dumb enough to go into a store looking for an LG and end up leaving with a Sharp. You have to be pretty stupid to do that, even if they do look alike

Originally Posted by Loptimist 
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… or 2) the brand image of apple is being hurt…

Or three, the meaningful one, that Apple's legally-protected intellectual property has been infringed.

How about coming back with an argument above the level of 'completely uninformed troll' before we continue? 

There's no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves in every thread when you people come in and crap on it with your lack or willful ignorance of knowledge. It's on you to have an actual argument if you want to argue with the consensus at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Or three, the meaningful one, that Apple's legally-protected intellectual property has been infringed.

 

 

How about coming back with an argument above the level of 'completely uninformed troll' before we continue? 

 

There's no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves in every thread when you people come in and crap on it with your lack or willful ignorance of knowledge. It's on you to have an actual argument if you want to argue with the consensus at hand.

OK.  You can keep calling me a "completely uninformed troll" but you will realize how ignorant that "or three, the meaningful one..." is once you read for even 10 minutes about remedies. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktinsley 

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.

Now tell me this: why isn't Microsoft Phone sued by Apple yet (if Apple is so against company using their idea like you said)? Why is Microsoft different than Samsung?

Quote:

Originally Posted by matrix07 

Now tell me this: why isn't Microsoft Phone sued by Apple yet (if Apple is so against company using their idea like you said)? Why is Microsoft different than Samsung?

MS have a licensing agreement with Apple. 

Apple tried to get Samsung to take one as well, but Samsung declined. Hence the suit. Pretty straightforward and simple really. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


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.

True. If that's the best way to do things then negotiate for the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy3 

MS have a licensing agreement with Apple. 

 

Apple tried to get Samsung to take one as well, but Samsung declined. Hence the suit. Pretty straightforward and simple really. 

And that exactly show Apple didn't prevent their tech from being used by other companies like he suggested, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by matrix07 

And that exactly show Apple didn't prevent their tech from being used by other companies like he suggested, isn't it?

I didn't read the history of the argument you guys had, i was just answering a question I saw. 

Leave me out of it, lol

EDIT: I must admit, Apple must have been pretty surprised by Samsung denying the offer. 

OF COURSE they didn't expect them to pay full price, they negotiate, get some cross licensing and move on. You know, like ALL companies do in business everyday. They must have went about it as a formality and didn't think twice about it. 

I really wonder why Samsung was so resistant seeing as they have cross licensing deals with so many other companies. What about the Apple offer do we not know, that made Samsung so resistant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

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

I really don't think you are giving them enough credit, but it is not because I think they what they are honest, hard-working lawyers that deserve more credit and respect. I think from the defense Samsung is mounting they are really reaching to find devices so they can make claims of "prior art" and "obvious".  The ONLY question is whether the jury will see through it or buy what Samsung is saying. All Samsung must do is convince them (or confuse them) enough to win, and that's a hard thing judge until the final verdict.   I am pretty sure most (if not all) of us have been surprised by a jury's decision at some point in our lives.

I do have a few questions though.  I have seen cases like this where the jury rules "guilty" or "not guilty" on various aspects of the case and damages awarded end up being more (or less) than expected.  I am assuming a partial victory for Apple is an option, but am I wrong about this?  Also, am I correct in assuming the jury ultimately decides the damages that should be paid?  Obviously everything can be appealed and nothing is final, but people are stating a lot of absolutes here.  I am not saying you're wrong to do so, I am just wondering: is this trial is different from others I have followed (beyond the obvious emotions and opinions involved)?

The reason I ask is that Samsung may be aiming to lessen the blow and cause just enough uncertainty that they loose, but not as big is that could have.  That might be a smart, albeit underhanded, strategy PURELY from a legal point of view....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz 

"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.

This is the most on-point comment made to date.  If you don't understand functional vs design patents, then you're likely putting your foot in your mouth discussing the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcode 

 

This is the most poignant comment made to date.  If you don't understand functional vs design patents, then you're likely putting your foot in your mouth discussing the matter.

The compaq tablet which Samsung is pointing to with the rectangular shape, rounded edges and all glass front DID go into production as a commercial product, and people did buy it. 

Here's a review actually.....from 2002

http://pencomputing.com/frames/tpc_compaq.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy3 

The compaq tablet which Samsung is pointing to with the rectangular shape, rounded edges and all glass front DID go into production as a commercial product, and people did buy it. 

Here's a review actually.....from 2002

 

http://pencomputing.com/frames/tpc_compaq.html

 Good thing that looks nothing like the iPad design patent Apple holds. The bezel isn't of uniform size on all sides of the display, the display's cover glass isn't edge-to-edge, their isn't a singular physical button centered on one size of the bezel, and to top it off, it isn't even a standalone tablet with it's nondetachable keyboard. This is a laptop with a swivel touchscreen. It even has a "trap door" for ports on size of it. This looks nothing like an iPad and if Samsung came out with a more svelt model today, Apple wouldn't be suing them for patent infringement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverpraxis 

 Good thing that looks nothing like the iPad design patent Apple holds. The bezel isn't of uniform size on all sides of the display, the display's cover glass isn't edge-to-edge, their isn't a singular physical button centered on one size of the bezel, and to top it off, it isn't even a standalone tablet with it's nondetachable keyboard. This is a laptop with a swivel touchscreen. It even has a "trap door" for ports on size of it. This looks nothing like an iPad and if Samsung came out with a more svelt model today, Apple wouldn't be suing them for patent infringement.

uhhh, you do realize that the Tab has a different camera placement, its bezel is not uniform and to top it off, there are ZERO physical buttons on the front of it.

So saying things like that kinda make it look like the Tab isn't infringing. 

Oh, by the way, the keyboard IS detachable. It says so right there in the review and you can clearly see it in the bottom left picture. Its like the asus transformer. The keyboard can be removed easily by the user and the slate used on its own, or you can use the keyboard as a stand, or you can use it like a laptop, as i said, its like the transformer. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 


Your point would be better made with a first hand source.

At 5:40 there is video of SJ at the iphone unveiling saying and I quote

"We have invented a new technology called multi-touch"

Did you even watch the video? SJ said Apple invented it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loptimist 

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.

You should change your name to Lobotomist it would explain you viewpoint better.

Originally Posted by Loptimist 
OK.  You can keep calling me a "completely uninformed troll" but you will realize how ignorant that "or three, the meaningful one..." is once you read for even 10 minutes about remedies. 

So by reading a bunch of nonsense posts that say "the patent system is broken", "the patent system needs to be fixed", "the patent system needs to be completely overhauled", "no one should have patents for anything", and equally outlandish crap with no substance or legitimate thought behind it, I'm supposed to glean how the actual reason for this trial isn't actually the actual reason for this trial? 

I don't know how the lawsuits will turn out, because the law is really, really bad at seeing the big picture - lawyers always argue down to fine points, debating over even the most vague definition of a word.  It's insane.  Like a judge once said "I don't know how to legally define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

Likewise, at this point we all know that Samesung's devices are a blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and technology.  And that's not all.  Samsung has a history of ripping everyone off.  I don't think a single product they make has ever been an original idea from within Samsung.

I for one am done with Samsung.  I will never by another Samsung branded product again.  Regardless of what happens in court, I think Apple should put the screws to Samesung.  Apple should source every single component for every single product they make from manufacturers other than Samsung.  Why reward the company that's ripping you off by continuing to buy parts from the same?  I know Apple's been working to lessen their dependence on Samsung parts, but I think it's time to kick it into high gear and sever all business with them, even if that means spending some of those billions of dollars on their own chip fab.  Git 'er done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy3 

 

uhhh, you do realize that the Tab has a different camera placement, its bezel is not uniform and to top it off, there are ZERO physical buttons on the front of it.

 

So saying things like that kinda make it look like the Tab isn't infringing. 

 

Oh, by the way, the keyboard IS detachable. It says so right there in the review and you can clearly see it in the bottom left picture. Its like the asus transformer. The keyboard can be removed easily by the user and the slate used on its own, or you can use the keyboard as a stand, or you can use it like a laptop, as i said, its like the transformer. 

 The Tab's bezel looks uniform to me, at least for all the photos of it I googled for 'galaxy tab.' Yes the camera's in a different location, but I don't believe the patent mentions camera placement and since it doesn't add to or detract from the design of the Tab, it could be argued it's placement is irrelevant. I do give you there are no physical buttons on the face of the Tab, but considering it again doesn't add to or detract from the design of the device, it still looks strikingly too similar to the iPad according to Apple.

Forgive me not noticing the keyboard unit actually detaches, it looks like the tablet part is almost useless without it. But I'll add that this Compaq design has a uniform shape for the front and back of the device, along with a thick strip of contrasting material and color running along the sides.

This case is arguing the difference between similarly designed products vs copied designed products.

Perhaps if Samsung had produced this as it's first Tab (even though it's from it's "Note" line):

See, Samsung can create a product that looks similar to an iPad without it looking like a direct copy of design. One wonders why they didn't just create their own iconic design in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybacmac 

 

 

 

 

Patent expert, huh? Yeah, right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRulez 

 

Google, Oracle Must Disclose Writer Payments, Judge Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-07/google-oracle-must-disclose-payments-to-bloggers-judge-rules.html

 

Sorry, guy, but had you followed the link in the tweet you'd know that it wasn't Mr. Mulller making that statement. Here is the first paragraph from that referenced article…

"InformationWeek on Monday caught up with Christopher Canari, chairman of the American Bar Association’s design rights committee and former chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association committee on industrial design, to get his take on the Samsung (005930) vs. Apple (AAPL) patent trial. And so far, he says that based on what he’s seen, he thinks Samsung is in serious trouble."

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktinsley 

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...

I disagree.  In this particular case, I think that Apple is suing over the composite of ideas.  After all, they did introduce the case as one of "slavishly copying".  That is, if a vendor happens to make a tablet sharing just a few of the properties (like rectangular tablet with capacitive touchscreen and multitouch) they don't necessarily sue over that particular feature.  But when the copying goes well beyond coincidence, to the point where numerous elements are cloned (including the custom dock port cable!  WTF?)  then Apple isn't going to let it slide.  I don't blame them.  Of course, once you get into the courtroom, you have to debate and obsess over every single patent and feature, but that doesn't mean you are suing over them each individually.  It is the combined effect of Samsung's copying that is so alarming here, and a company of their size should know better.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktinsley 

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.

Well I agree with you here, but I think that Samsung has gotten extremely close to that line with some of their phones and tablets vis-a-vis iPhone/iPad.  It is clear from the documents, if not from the artifacts that were available even before trial, that their goal was to approach that line as closely as they could with the hope that they would be protected either by their FRAND patents (not so valuable per unit) and/or the fact that rectangular tablets existed before (a red herring) and/or by a lengthy, costly, litigation stonewalling (which may still go on for years via appeals, etc).

Thompson

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy3 

The compaq tablet which Samsung is pointing to with the rectangular shape, rounded edges and all glass front DID go into production as a commercial product, and people did buy it. 

Here's a review actually.....from 2002

 

http://pencomputing.com/frames/tpc_compaq.html

So except for the swivel keyboard and stylus and handle and multi-touch on the iPad etc etc, it's exactly the same.  Gee, that cleared everything up.  Sorry, not prior art

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

 

So except for the swivel keyboard and stylus and handle and multi-touch on the iPad etc etc, it's exactly the same.  Gee, that cleared everything up.  Sorry, not prior art

I don't believe any of those items are addressed nor restricted by Apple's design patent. It could apply to an electronic device with any or all of those features, which might include some of the other devices mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

I don't believe any of those items are addressed nor restricted by Apple's design patent. It could apply to an electronic device with any or all of those features, which might include some of the other devices mentioned.

The design patent lists a whole bunch of qualities, but it is understood to be a composite description.  Apple is not asserting that nobody can produce a product with ANY of the individual qualities.  They are asserting that Samsung has adopted too many to be coincidence, and did so deliberately.  The documentation in court so far seems to back this up.

Meanwhile, this tablet from days gone by only seems to have a few things in common with iPad.  I don't see them as being close enough in overall design to claim the other tablet as prior art.  Nor do I think that Apple would sue if this other tablet came out after.  No big deal.

Thompson 

I have heard over and over people claiming that patent lawsuits are so expensive and are destroying innovation.  I wonder how much this lawsuit is costing vis a vis the actual profits and gross sales that are being considered.  In this case, we are not talking about a product that one single person could ever hope to make.  The cell phone market is so large that any competitor must be able to work in a field of competition where tens of billions of dollars are at stake in any given month.  Even 2 billion sounds small to me compared to getting my company to stay in the fight for another year.  The ultimate goal is control of a market with 250- 300 billion dollars worth of sales in any given year.  If I were the CEO of Samsung and I could get the results I they have gotten from the business decision of copying the iPhone, I would have written a check for 2 billion and just started copying anyway.  Especially, if I had known that it would put me in the number 2 position just as this market is consolidating.  I am only talking about the iPhone not the iPad as well.  If that is thrown in here as is the case, we are talking more like 500 -600 billion dollars a year in gross sales.  That number is staggering.  

Big picture, if Apple and Samsung get 80% of that market between them, they are looking at splitting 100 billion in profits a year.  On the same note, it is not hard to understand why Samsung is willing to do what it did.  This is just business in the biggest leagues.  Compared to the head aches in the similarly large market of Oil production and sales this is a walk in the park.  The oil companies have to deal with nation states, start wars of conquest to get control and fight encroachment from any new energy technology.  

deleted

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy3 

 

I really wonder why Samsung was so resistant seeing as they have cross licensing deals with so many other companies. What about the Apple offer do we not know, that made Samsung so resistant?

Samsung didn't want to pay anywhere near what Apple was asking.  Not even a fraction of that.  So they figured that they would try to get away without paying.  And they still might.

Using your own words, it's pretty simple, really.

Thompson

Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie 

Big picture, if Apple and Samsung get 80% of that market between them, they are looking at splitting 100 billion in profits a year.

Yeah, 80% marketshare Samsung, 20% Apple. 80% profits Apple, 20% Samsung.