It's not just about confusion, though that's part of it. It's about copying the major aesthetic choices in such a way that a very distinctive product starts to become a commodity.
In this case function dictates form. Tablets are 90% screen which leaves very few aesthetic choices to make. They are all going to look similar.
Remember the HP Slate, shown to the public before the original iPad but still managed to look very similar to what Apple would later revealed, not because one company was copying the other's design but because all tablets are going to look similar.
As far as I know, the Apple complaint leading to the injunction on Samsung was submitted in German. Has someone here read an English translation from front to back so as to warrant the passion shown here? Or are there many German speakers in the US, the country known for multilingualism (cough cough).
I originally thought Apple was concerned with Samsung copying look and feel too closely. Now it looks like simply producing a tablet may attract Apple's lawyers.
Sorry, but in my view this looks more and more like Apple intends to litigate itself to an untouchable market presence. The bigger they're getting the more dangerous they're looking to me. Until they lose one or more of these ("look and feel"?) lawsuits, anyone who wants to build a smartphone or tablet needs to allow for lots of legal fees no matter how little it actually looks like an Apple product.
I agree, it;s totally out of hand. You can rant on about Apple defending their IP all day - this isn't about that. It's about controlling the market through litigation and the threat of litigation.
If you were a small company trying to launch a product you would be cooked, as you would spend all of your balance on this crap. It will have to end with a review of the US patent system ,as it;s a farce. It's now just a stick for big companied to beat people over the head with. Apple recognised this early and got in first on loads of products - but that doesn't make it right.
They are looking worse and worse as this goes on. Seriously, look and feel? If they don't sue RIM and HP then this is all about Google and fear of Samsungs products - and nothing at all to do with IP.
Edge to Edge glass isn't unique to apple, it's not unique to Tablets. I don't know who came up with the idea to go edge to edge, but I know the concept existed before the iphone, even if a device didn't ship with it yet (though it might've)
It certainly isn't and I believe the first place i saw it was on Sony laptops, but that's neither here nor there. There's no requirement on a design patent or community design that the individual elements be novel, the only requirement is that the combination of elements is.
Sony for example have gone with two tablet designs, one a double screen folding device and the other where the edge to edge screen surface actually extends to the back. Sony's devices use that design element, but they add enough new elements that they clearly don't infringe - and that's as much because Sony wants a significantly differentiated aesthetic as for legal reasons.
You may be right that the Xoom is sufficiently different to pass muster, you may also be wrong - apple is entitled to take the view that it doesn't until the court says otherwise. Apple doesn't appear to have gone for a preliminary injunction against the Xoom which may indicate that they are less confident than against the Galaxy 10.1.
The minimal design of the iPad is simply utilitarian IMO. How much does another tablet need to differ not to "copy" it? Apparently significantly different dimensions don't cut it. Does adding a chrome trim or changing the color change it enough combined with the dimension differences?
Related to that, this video is worth a well worth a view. All about an industry where copying is not only common but blatant. Yet the industry thrives.
In this case function dictates form. Tablets are 90% screen which leaves very few aesthetic choices to make. They are all going to look similar.
Remember the HP Slate, shown to the public before the original iPad but still managed to look very similar to what Apple would later revealed, not because one company was copying the other's design but because all tablets are going to look similar.
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
Yet those differences don't keep Apple from using their near-unlimited resources to attack any competitor who might have any possibility of getting traction. It's great to see that Apple's found a use for all those billions they've saved up.
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
It's your own fault if you create a design so minimalistic, that in an instant it became more or less the archetype for tablets. "Patenting" a archetype-design is a monopoly, because most of us find the archetype to be the "best".
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
The iPad wasn't the first having this design and aesthetics
I don't really post on this board much, few times before but this time it is a bit too much. I totally agree with samsung case, either the tab or the S and S2 but Xoom, I see no resemblance whatsoever.
Everyone keeps saying that there are plethora of ways to design a tablet and clearly Xoom is one of them and iPad is the other. They are far-removed, like cousins that are not even aware they are cousins. Big fan of Apple, can't stand android past a week but suing Xoom, really. Apple just annoys me for the first time.
It looks like the only way to not "blatantly copy" apple is to design a spherical device with a spherical screen and buttons either in a spherical shape or in an "X" shape.
Anybody smell $$$$$?,Quick, somebody should go to germany and start filing up devices with above mentioned dimensions.
The minimal design of the iPad is simply utilitarian IMO. How much does another tablet need to differ not to "copy" it? Apparently significantly different dimensions don't cut it. Does adding a chrome trim or changing the color change it enough combined with the dimension differences?
Related to that, this video is worth a well worth a view. All about an industry where copying is not only common but blatant. Yet the industry thrives.
Be sure to watch at least the first 5 minutes and from the 13-15 minute mark before tuning out. You're really not that busy.
Interesting presentation, but I think we have to be careful when applying rules that work well in one domain to another. If Samsung were operating in the fashion industry then its business simply would't work because it would be making very close copies of say a Prada design, at a similar level of build quality and at a similar price. But no fashionista would ever buy such a product, in fact they'd be less likely to buy any product from a firm that operated in such a way - because those firms would be fundamentally unfashionable.
It may not be possible for Samsung to be as visually distinct from Apple as Prada is from Gucci, but I don't think there's any proof yet that this is so. Sony seems to be managing it.
Wow. Thanks for that link Daftari. The AI article implies this has to do with patent claims against Samsung, when it's apparently nothing of the sort. Looks like a system ripe for abuse.
I can understand the lawsuite against Samsung, as the Galazy was a blatent knock-off. The motorola Xoom, on the other hand - I'm not a fan of Android tablets (and the only good thing Motorola has ever done is the 68k CPU architecture) but I think Apple may be going a bit OTT with a filling against Motorola. I am only taking this at face value, however. I have not read the specifics of the claim as of yet.
It's your own fault if you create a design so minimalistic, that in an instant it became more or less the archetype for tablets. "Patenting" a archetype-design is a monopoly, because most of us find the archetype to be the "best".
It looks like the only way to not "blatantly copy" apple is to design a spherical device with a spherical screen and buttons either in a spherical shape or in an "X" shape.
Anybody smell $$$$$?,Quick, somebody should go to germany and start filing up devices with above mentioned dimensions.
Interesting link but that particular post neglects a salient point (insofar as I can tell from a quick read) - this is only a preliminary injunction. If the ruling in the actual court proceedings goes against Apple, they may have to pay substantial damages to Samsung. This is the risk stopping companies (large or small) from excessively abusing the system (although *excessive* is a subjective characterization).
Interesting link but that particular post neglects a salient point (insofar as I can tell from a quick read) - this is only a preliminary injunction. If the ruling in the actual court proceedings goes against Apple, they may have to pay substantial damages to Samsung. This is the risk stopping companies (large or small) from excessively abusing the system (although *excessive* is a subjective characterization).
The point though is that they filed this injunction in the EU's version of "patent Troll county" (we have the east district of texas) and they filed it 1) without informing samsung (and I'm assuming motorola) and 2) because of number 1, it was basically a one sided case.
Comments
It's not just about confusion, though that's part of it. It's about copying the major aesthetic choices in such a way that a very distinctive product starts to become a commodity.
In this case function dictates form. Tablets are 90% screen which leaves very few aesthetic choices to make. They are all going to look similar.
Remember the HP Slate, shown to the public before the original iPad but still managed to look very similar to what Apple would later revealed, not because one company was copying the other's design but because all tablets are going to look similar.
So anyone can duplicate Jonny Ive's designs, change a couple of details, and it's okay?
Which Ive design has Motorola copied?
And Crunchpad and HP Slate presented before the first iPad looked exactly like an iPad
Are RIM and HP selling their respective tablets in Europe?
Of course, there is a market outside the US mate.
I originally thought Apple was concerned with Samsung copying look and feel too closely. Now it looks like simply producing a tablet may attract Apple's lawyers.
Sorry, but in my view this looks more and more like Apple intends to litigate itself to an untouchable market presence. The bigger they're getting the more dangerous they're looking to me. Until they lose one or more of these ("look and feel"?) lawsuits, anyone who wants to build a smartphone or tablet needs to allow for lots of legal fees no matter how little it actually looks like an Apple product.
I agree, it;s totally out of hand. You can rant on about Apple defending their IP all day - this isn't about that. It's about controlling the market through litigation and the threat of litigation.
If you were a small company trying to launch a product you would be cooked, as you would spend all of your balance on this crap. It will have to end with a review of the US patent system ,as it;s a farce. It's now just a stick for big companied to beat people over the head with. Apple recognised this early and got in first on loads of products - but that doesn't make it right.
They are looking worse and worse as this goes on. Seriously, look and feel? If they don't sue RIM and HP then this is all about Google and fear of Samsungs products - and nothing at all to do with IP.
Edge to Edge glass isn't unique to apple, it's not unique to Tablets. I don't know who came up with the idea to go edge to edge, but I know the concept existed before the iphone, even if a device didn't ship with it yet (though it might've)
It certainly isn't and I believe the first place i saw it was on Sony laptops, but that's neither here nor there. There's no requirement on a design patent or community design that the individual elements be novel, the only requirement is that the combination of elements is.
Sony for example have gone with two tablet designs, one a double screen folding device and the other where the edge to edge screen surface actually extends to the back. Sony's devices use that design element, but they add enough new elements that they clearly don't infringe - and that's as much because Sony wants a significantly differentiated aesthetic as for legal reasons.
You may be right that the Xoom is sufficiently different to pass muster, you may also be wrong - apple is entitled to take the view that it doesn't until the court says otherwise. Apple doesn't appear to have gone for a preliminary injunction against the Xoom which may indicate that they are less confident than against the Galaxy 10.1.
Related to that, this video is worth a well worth a view. All about an industry where copying is not only common but blatant. Yet the industry thrives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Be sure to watch at least the first 5 minutes and from the 13-15 minute mark before tuning out. You're really not that busy.
In this case function dictates form. Tablets are 90% screen which leaves very few aesthetic choices to make. They are all going to look similar.
Remember the HP Slate, shown to the public before the original iPad but still managed to look very similar to what Apple would later revealed, not because one company was copying the other's design but because all tablets are going to look similar.
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
Yet those differences don't keep Apple from using their near-unlimited resources to attack any competitor who might have any possibility of getting traction. It's great to see that Apple's found a use for all those billions they've saved up.
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
It's your own fault if you create a design so minimalistic, that in an instant it became more or less the archetype for tablets. "Patenting" a archetype-design is a monopoly, because most of us find the archetype to be the "best".
The argument that they're all going to look similar would be much stronger if in fact they actually did all look similar. Since they don't it's rather weak. The reason that you think they all have too look similar is because many manufacturers have consciously or unconsciously been copying the iPads aesthetics.
The iPad wasn't the first having this design and aesthetics
Everyone keeps saying that there are plethora of ways to design a tablet and clearly Xoom is one of them and iPad is the other. They are far-removed, like cousins that are not even aware they are cousins. Big fan of Apple, can't stand android past a week but suing Xoom, really. Apple just annoys me for the first time.
It looks like germany is to EU what texas is to US when it comes to bogus IP lawsuits.
How bad EU system is? read the following
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/Th..._USPTO_Was_Bad
It looks like the only way to not "blatantly copy" apple is to design a spherical device with a spherical screen and buttons either in a spherical shape or in an "X" shape.
Anybody smell $$$$$?,Quick, somebody should go to germany and start filing up devices with above mentioned dimensions.
The minimal design of the iPad is simply utilitarian IMO. How much does another tablet need to differ not to "copy" it? Apparently significantly different dimensions don't cut it. Does adding a chrome trim or changing the color change it enough combined with the dimension differences?
Related to that, this video is worth a well worth a view. All about an industry where copying is not only common but blatant. Yet the industry thrives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Be sure to watch at least the first 5 minutes and from the 13-15 minute mark before tuning out. You're really not that busy.
Interesting presentation, but I think we have to be careful when applying rules that work well in one domain to another. If Samsung were operating in the fashion industry then its business simply would't work because it would be making very close copies of say a Prada design, at a similar level of build quality and at a similar price. But no fashionista would ever buy such a product, in fact they'd be less likely to buy any product from a firm that operated in such a way - because those firms would be fundamentally unfashionable.
It may not be possible for Samsung to be as visually distinct from Apple as Prada is from Gucci, but I don't think there's any proof yet that this is so. Sony seems to be managing it.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/Th..._USPTO_Was_Bad
It's your own fault if you create a design so minimalistic, that in an instant it became more or less the archetype for tablets. "Patenting" a archetype-design is a monopoly, because most of us find the archetype to be the "best".
Perhaps Samsung didn't copy Apple
It looks like EU IP system is just as screwed up as that of US(USPTO).
It looks like germany is to EU what texas is to US when it comes to bogus IP lawsuits.
How bad EU system is? read the following
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/Th..._USPTO_Was_Bad
It looks like the only way to not "blatantly copy" apple is to design a spherical device with a spherical screen and buttons either in a spherical shape or in an "X" shape.
Anybody smell $$$$$?,Quick, somebody should go to germany and start filing up devices with above mentioned dimensions.
Interesting link but that particular post neglects a salient point (insofar as I can tell from a quick read) - this is only a preliminary injunction. If the ruling in the actual court proceedings goes against Apple, they may have to pay substantial damages to Samsung. This is the risk stopping companies (large or small) from excessively abusing the system (although *excessive* is a subjective characterization).
Interesting link but that particular post neglects a salient point (insofar as I can tell from a quick read) - this is only a preliminary injunction. If the ruling in the actual court proceedings goes against Apple, they may have to pay substantial damages to Samsung. This is the risk stopping companies (large or small) from excessively abusing the system (although *excessive* is a subjective characterization).
The point though is that they filed this injunction in the EU's version of "patent Troll county" (we have the east district of texas) and they filed it 1) without informing samsung (and I'm assuming motorola) and 2) because of number 1, it was basically a one sided case.