The problem with upholding the Apple's design claim is that it will give a way too favorable advantage to Apple in the long run.
Current design trend is minimal and simple; rather than adding craps on the hardware, people now try to make it clean and slim. I will give some credits to Apple for leading this trend.
In that case, if Apple succeed in this lawsuit against Samsung who tried to mimic Apple's design philosophy and doing so blatantly copied some of their accessories, all the other manufacturers will be discouraged from designing or manufacturing the designed in such a way products.
Then people will ask, while buying another Apple product, why do other manufacturers make products this ugly? Well, you know why. Apple will sue you if you make it clean like Apple does.
Also to note is that Apple's design is more of a bare minimum of a product type.
Even if technology allows in the future, if Apple's current design is upheld to be a right, others cannot make a paper like tablet without adding some dongles and shit around the side corner or back, or make the display triangle. (I know it is extreme but you see how ruling on a design can have serious consequences.) I perceive some counter arguments for this argument, but I am more of an opinion with not upholding Apple's design claim, so I will stop here.
This real issue is:
We all have to recognize that Apple decided to go after Samsung with EVERYTHING THEY HAD after Samsung refused (after negotiations with Jobs) to stop copying Apple's "trade dress" (the box design, the cable design, etc. etc. etc.). Apple had this community design patent sitting in the drawer and said "Hey! Look what we have here. A community design patent. Lets throw this at Samsung and see if it sticks. Worth a try right?"
So Apple is suing Samsung with every single patent, copyright, trademark, design patent, etc. that they have right now. But it isn't about the stupid (yes, I agree it is stupid) community design patent for the rounded rectangle. It is a war over Apple's desire to have and protect their unique BRAND. Apple will use every weapon to win this one.
So, in a war, does one really care what weapons are used, so long as they are legal?
Trust in this: Apple will win. Samsung will stop copying. And the apparent senselessness of this war will recede.
We all have to recognize that Apple decided to go after Samsung with EVERYTHING THEY HAD after Samsung refused (after negotiations with Jobs) to stop copying Apple's "trade dress" (the box design, the cable design, etc. etc. etc.). Apple had this community design patent sitting in the drawer and said "Hey! Look what we have here. A community design patent. Lets throw this at Samsung and see if it sticks. Worth a try right?"
So Apple is suing Samsung with every single patent, copyright, trademark, design patent, etc. that they have right now. But it isn't about the stupid (yes, I agree it is stupid) community design patent for the rounded rectangle. It is a war over Apple's desire to have and protect their unique BRAND. Apple will use every weapon to win this one.
So, in a war, does one really care what weapons are used, so long as they are legal?
Trust in this: Apple will win. Samsung will stop copying. And the apparent senselessness of this war will recede.
I'm inclined broadly to agree with this view of things. There has been a lot of nitpicking over individual elements of design, UI implementation of app drawers, notification trays, which screenshots to argue over, and a general attempt to focus on differences, but the bottom line is that many people feel that it is obvious that Samsung has deliberately sought to imitate Apple's products, accessories and packaging. Not identically, and not with every product - that would be dumb - but still close enough to benefit from the successful branding that Apple has achieved. Apple management apparently think that is unfair and going to far. Negotiation apparently failed, so Apple moved on to using legal options. Some of those options may themselves seem unreasonable, but Apple didn't make the rules - they are just playing by them.
As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
I'm inclined broadly to agree with this view of things. There has been a lot of nitpicking over individual elements of design, UI implementation of app drawers, notification trays, which screenshots to argue over, and a general attempt to focus on differences, but the bottom line is that many people feel that it is obvious that Samsung has deliberately sought to imitate Apple's products, accessories and packaging. Not identically, and not with every product - that would be dumb - but still close enough to benefit from the successful branding that Apple has achieved. Apple management apparently think that is unfair and going to far. Negotiation apparently failed, so Apple moved on to using legal options. Some of those options may themselves seem unreasonable, but Apple didn't make the rules - they are just playing by them.
As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.
It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.
I challenge you to show me one declaration by any judge that Apple invented multitouch. Otherwise, stop spouting lies or displaying ignorance.
Multitouch has been around since the days of the first Mac. Even Apple's version of multitouch was not first invented there. They acquired it.
As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
True dat. And Apple breaks rules all the time, knowingly infringing copyrights and trademarks, and then buying their way out of trouble only when pushed.
It's true that they will likely win a few battles against Samsung. But Apple itself has also acknowledged infringing on Samsung IP.
If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around
Well, if it was so danged easy, they should have done it, and saved everybody a world of grief. So you're probably full of that dark, brown, smelly stuff.
If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
When you say "treated with similar hostility", do you mean by Apple, or by posters on forums like this?
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.
And Apple did improve them.
But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
True dat. And Apple breaks rules all the time, knowingly infringing copyrights and trademarks, and then buying their way out of trouble only when pushed.
It's true that they will likely win a few battles against Samsung. But Apple itself has also acknowledged infringing on Samsung IP.
How this will shake out remains to be seen.
Sure, but pushing the envelope, infringing, negotiating, settling etc., is a normal part of doing business, especially in the tech sector. They all do that, because that has long been the most successful strategy.
It doesn't work too well in isolation - i.e if you are not innovating (directly or by purchasing innovative technology rights) and patenting enough yourself to have the bargaining chips for the negotiation phase. That has to be one of the reasons behind the big patent acquisition drives that we have seen recently.
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
I don't know about that, dude. I saw a Samsung Galaxy S2 next to an HTC on one side and an LG on the other side. From about 10 ft, they are hardly distinguishable.
I don't know about that, dude. I saw a Samsung Galaxy S2 next to an HTC on one side and an LG on the other side. From about 10 ft, they are hardly distinguishable.
Sure, but pushing the envelope, infringing, negotiating, settling etc., is a normal part of doing business, especially in the tech sector. They all do that, because that has long been the most successful strategy.
It doesn't work too well in isolation - i.e if you are not innovating (directly or by purchasing innovative technology rights) and patenting enough yourself to have the bargaining chips for the negotiation phase. That has to be one of the reasons behind the big patent acquisition drives that we have seen recently.
Indeed. And this has been the *understanding* in the telecom industry. I won't sue you for infringing my IP if you won't sue me. Or, here's $2 for your IP and please pay me back $2.25 for mine. Then you have the IBM model (now usurped by Microsoft) - you're violating one of our patents ... 2 weeks of discussion later - ok, so you might be able to defend yourself wrt that patent, but here are the other 2000 patents we think you might be infringing. How long do you want to spend arguing?
Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
"A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."
"In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit. A "prerogative" is in effect an exclusive right. The term is restricted for use for official state or sovereign (i.e., constitutional) powers. Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly."
Comments
I should stop replying all these comments...
The problem with upholding the Apple's design claim is that it will give a way too favorable advantage to Apple in the long run.
Current design trend is minimal and simple; rather than adding craps on the hardware, people now try to make it clean and slim. I will give some credits to Apple for leading this trend.
In that case, if Apple succeed in this lawsuit against Samsung who tried to mimic Apple's design philosophy and doing so blatantly copied some of their accessories, all the other manufacturers will be discouraged from designing or manufacturing the designed in such a way products.
Then people will ask, while buying another Apple product, why do other manufacturers make products this ugly? Well, you know why. Apple will sue you if you make it clean like Apple does.
Also to note is that Apple's design is more of a bare minimum of a product type.
Even if technology allows in the future, if Apple's current design is upheld to be a right, others cannot make a paper like tablet without adding some dongles and shit around the side corner or back, or make the display triangle. (I know it is extreme but you see how ruling on a design can have serious consequences.) I perceive some counter arguments for this argument, but I am more of an opinion with not upholding Apple's design claim, so I will stop here.
This real issue is:
We all have to recognize that Apple decided to go after Samsung with EVERYTHING THEY HAD after Samsung refused (after negotiations with Jobs) to stop copying Apple's "trade dress" (the box design, the cable design, etc. etc. etc.). Apple had this community design patent sitting in the drawer and said "Hey! Look what we have here. A community design patent. Lets throw this at Samsung and see if it sticks. Worth a try right?"
So Apple is suing Samsung with every single patent, copyright, trademark, design patent, etc. that they have right now. But it isn't about the stupid (yes, I agree it is stupid) community design patent for the rounded rectangle. It is a war over Apple's desire to have and protect their unique BRAND. Apple will use every weapon to win this one.
So, in a war, does one really care what weapons are used, so long as they are legal?
Trust in this: Apple will win. Samsung will stop copying. And the apparent senselessness of this war will recede.
This real issue is:
We all have to recognize that Apple decided to go after Samsung with EVERYTHING THEY HAD after Samsung refused (after negotiations with Jobs) to stop copying Apple's "trade dress" (the box design, the cable design, etc. etc. etc.). Apple had this community design patent sitting in the drawer and said "Hey! Look what we have here. A community design patent. Lets throw this at Samsung and see if it sticks. Worth a try right?"
So Apple is suing Samsung with every single patent, copyright, trademark, design patent, etc. that they have right now. But it isn't about the stupid (yes, I agree it is stupid) community design patent for the rounded rectangle. It is a war over Apple's desire to have and protect their unique BRAND. Apple will use every weapon to win this one.
So, in a war, does one really care what weapons are used, so long as they are legal?
Trust in this: Apple will win. Samsung will stop copying. And the apparent senselessness of this war will recede.
I'm inclined broadly to agree with this view of things. There has been a lot of nitpicking over individual elements of design, UI implementation of app drawers, notification trays, which screenshots to argue over, and a general attempt to focus on differences, but the bottom line is that many people feel that it is obvious that Samsung has deliberately sought to imitate Apple's products, accessories and packaging. Not identically, and not with every product - that would be dumb - but still close enough to benefit from the successful branding that Apple has achieved. Apple management apparently think that is unfair and going to far. Negotiation apparently failed, so Apple moved on to using legal options. Some of those options may themselves seem unreasonable, but Apple didn't make the rules - they are just playing by them.
As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
I'm inclined broadly to agree with this view of things. There has been a lot of nitpicking over individual elements of design, UI implementation of app drawers, notification trays, which screenshots to argue over, and a general attempt to focus on differences, but the bottom line is that many people feel that it is obvious that Samsung has deliberately sought to imitate Apple's products, accessories and packaging. Not identically, and not with every product - that would be dumb - but still close enough to benefit from the successful branding that Apple has achieved. Apple management apparently think that is unfair and going to far. Negotiation apparently failed, so Apple moved on to using legal options. Some of those options may themselves seem unreasonable, but Apple didn't make the rules - they are just playing by them.
As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
we? forgive my language but who the fuck are you?
Among others, he's me, SFB....
SFB....
Super-Fly Brosephus?
"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.
It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.
I challenge you to show me one declaration by any judge that Apple invented multitouch. Otherwise, stop spouting lies or displaying ignorance.
Multitouch has been around since the days of the first Mac. Even Apple's version of multitouch was not first invented there. They acquired it.
As a corollary - if Apple break the rules then it is to be expected that they will get sued. Where they are not getting sued, you can bet that it is not due to the altruism of Samsung, Google or anyone else.
True dat. And Apple breaks rules all the time, knowingly infringing copyrights and trademarks, and then buying their way out of trouble only when pushed.
It's true that they will likely win a few battles against Samsung. But Apple itself has also acknowledged infringing on Samsung IP.
How this will shake out remains to be seen.
If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around
Well, if it was so danged easy, they should have done it, and saved everybody a world of grief. So you're probably full of that dark, brown, smelly stuff.
If Apple only focused it's efforts with these patents towards the blatant infringer (from here on out referred to as Samsung) then I'd have zero issues with it. Like almost every Android fansite griped when Touchwhiz 2.0 was first showcased "WTF? THEY ARE COPYING APPLE!!"
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
But that's not enough...leading me to believe that there's more to it than "Ayo, Sammy boy, stop copying."
When you say "treated with similar hostility", do you mean by Apple, or by posters on forums like this?
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
No question that tablets and notification systems, not to mention tablets with notification systems have been out there for a long time. So has multitouch.
And Apple did improve them.
But to say that Apple did not innovate or invent is either deliberately inflammatory or simply ignorant. In either scenario, you're an idiot.
It is about monopoly nothing else.
Um, that's what a patent is; a monopoly.
True dat. And Apple breaks rules all the time, knowingly infringing copyrights and trademarks, and then buying their way out of trouble only when pushed.
It's true that they will likely win a few battles against Samsung. But Apple itself has also acknowledged infringing on Samsung IP.
How this will shake out remains to be seen.
Sure, but pushing the envelope, infringing, negotiating, settling etc., is a normal part of doing business, especially in the tech sector. They all do that, because that has long been the most successful strategy.
It doesn't work too well in isolation - i.e if you are not innovating (directly or by purchasing innovative technology rights) and patenting enough yourself to have the bargaining chips for the negotiation phase. That has to be one of the reasons behind the big patent acquisition drives that we have seen recently.
The problem comes when the Xooms, the Flyers, the HTC phones, etc are being treated with similar hostility despite the fact that these products not only don't infringe blatantly, they in some cases go out of their way to distance their looks from apple's.
I don't know about that, dude. I saw a Samsung Galaxy S2 next to an HTC on one side and an LG on the other side. From about 10 ft, they are hardly distinguishable.
Um, that's what a patent is; a monopoly.
Not true at all.
I don't know about that, dude. I saw a Samsung Galaxy S2 next to an HTC on one side and an LG on the other side. From about 10 ft, they are hardly distinguishable.
Did they look like iPhones?
Not true at all.
You saying it's not true doesn't make it so.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/...t.html?_r=1&hp
Only if Apple has valid patents. You need to read the article.
Sure, but pushing the envelope, infringing, negotiating, settling etc., is a normal part of doing business, especially in the tech sector. They all do that, because that has long been the most successful strategy.
It doesn't work too well in isolation - i.e if you are not innovating (directly or by purchasing innovative technology rights) and patenting enough yourself to have the bargaining chips for the negotiation phase. That has to be one of the reasons behind the big patent acquisition drives that we have seen recently.
Indeed. And this has been the *understanding* in the telecom industry. I won't sue you for infringing my IP if you won't sue me. Or, here's $2 for your IP and please pay me back $2.25 for mine. Then you have the IBM model (now usurped by Microsoft) - you're violating one of our patents ... 2 weeks of discussion later - ok, so you might be able to defend yourself wrt that patent, but here are the other 2000 patents we think you might be infringing. How long do you want to spend arguing?
Two things changed the status quo. First, Apple doesn't play by implicit rules (they barely play by explicit rules). Second, Samsung has been excessive in their sincerest expression of flattery for Apple.
You saying it's not true doesn't make it so.
Damn, you're right. You saying so must make it true.
Juvenile answer.
Not true at all.
From Wikipedia:
"A patent ( /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention."
"In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit. A "prerogative" is in effect an exclusive right. The term is restricted for use for official state or sovereign (i.e., constitutional) powers. Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly."