Apple, Samsung drop 'impressive' number of patent claims against each other

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.


     


     



    Just like sony had the air design first :D. Anyway I doubt they'd get a patent on something so broad.

  • Reply 22 of 36
    macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,778member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


     


    Exactly how is pointing out that most other electronic components look virtually IDENTICAL across brands, but yet they manage to not sue each other over design 'irrelevant'??? I'm sorry that you seem to be having some difficulty making the connection :(





    The issue is trade dress. All autos have a very similar "look" to them, however each have details that identify their brands. THIS is what the suit is about. Samsung infringed on Apple's trade dress in addition to various patents that Apple invented to give their products a certain "feel". For example when you scroll to an end of a list, there is a kind of neat "bounce" you get. It's an electronic mimic of a mechanical action that Apple invented. The list doesn't have to bounce, but Apple made it do that, and then patented it. Samsung copied that action. Samsung copied a whole group of such actions that Apple invented to give it's products a certain feel to their user. Samsung could have created their own UI "feel" but they didn't. Apple is suing for a whole raft of tiny things they invented to give their product a distinctive look and feel.

  • Reply 23 of 36
    macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,778member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.


     



     


    I wonder at what point a computer moved from being a "luggable" to a "portable" to a "laptop." The most innovative thing I see Apple bringing to a "laptop" was the trackpad. They may have some patents on it because other manufacturers have terrible trackpads in comparison. By milling their portable cases out of a solid chunk of aluminum, Apple makes the most rigid laptops on the market. Taking that to the MBA makes me wonder how well many of the ultraportables will act over their expected life -- a somewhat flexible design ought to start acting flaky long before they are expected to do so.


     


    If laptops are the product of an evolutionary process, then Apple has been the energy behind pushing that evolution at a much faster pace then it would have otherwise.

  • Reply 24 of 36
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post




    The issue is trade dress. All autos have a very similar "look" to them, however each have details that identify their brands. THIS is what the suit is about. Samsung infringed on Apple's trade dress in addition to various patents that Apple invented to give their products a certain "feel". For example when you scroll to an end of a list, there is a kind of neat "bounce" you get. It's an electronic mimic of a mechanical action that Apple invented. The list doesn't have to bounce, but Apple made it do that, and then patented it. Samsung copied that action. Samsung copied a whole group of such actions that Apple invented to give it's products a certain feel to their user. Samsung could have created their own UI "feel" but they didn't. Apple is suing for a whole raft of tiny things they invented to give their product a distinctive look and feel.



     


    I have no issue with with trade dress as it is designed to prevent counterfeiting products and prevent manufacturers from "deceiving the origin" of their product. However, since Samsung stamps their name in bold on the front of their devices, I don't see how anyone can claim deception and suggest this as an issue. That is why most of these trade dress issues have now been thrown out abroad.


     


    What bothers me is that we all see the absurdity in allowing a TV manufacturer to consider a bezeled rectangle shape, with squared corners and control buttons on the right hand side as their "unique design", but yet we give Apple a free pass when they essentially claim the same thing with their bezeled rectangle shape, rounded corners, and button at the bottom closest to the thumb in holding position. Not only that, but many here in la-la land even seem to condone this action that games and unduly burdens our legal system.


     


    I also have no problem with people protecting their intellectual property. I do however have problems with companies that "steal" the invention of others, rush to get the patent first, and then have the nerve go around and sue. Contrary to Steve Job's statement, Apple did not invent the multi-touch gesture. Contrary to your comment on Apple's scrolling "bounce", they did not invent easing functions in UI programming. Dozens of others assertions have been made of patent infringement from both sides, and almost ALL thrown out, here and abroad. This has become nothing more than a monumental waste of time and energy, but will hopefully help to highlight the need for revamping the patent process. I just wish companies could compete without the frivolous lawsuits so that this wasn't necessary.

  • Reply 25 of 36
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    e_veritas wrote: »
    Contrary to Steve Job's statement, Apple did not invent the multi-touch gesture.
    Where is the quote from Jobs that Apple invented the first multi-touch gesture? I seem to recall Apple having the foresight to buy the patents specifically related to multi-touch patents. But that doesn't mean there implementation isn't superior or that they didn't also improve on the design. In fact it seems quite silly to think that Apple didn't improve on the multi-touch capacitance patents they legally acquired.
  • Reply 26 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    e_veritas wrote: »
    I have no issue with with trade dress as it is designed to prevent counterfeiting products and prevent manufacturers from "deceiving the origin" of their product. However, since Samsung stamps their name in bold on the front of their devices, I don't see how anyone can claim deception and suggest this as an issue. That is why most of these trade dress issues have now been thrown out abroad.

    What bothers me is that we all see the absurdity in allowing a TV manufacturer to consider a bezeled rectangle shape, with squared corners and control buttons on the right hand side as their "unique design", but yet we give Apple a free pass when they essentially claim the same thing with their bezeled rectangle shape, rounded corners, and button at the bottom closest to the thumb in holding position. Not only that, but many here in la-la land even seem to condone this action that games and unduly burdens our legal system.

    Just stamping a different name doesn't excuse it, putting a "Hyundai" logo doesn't mean they didn't steal the unique styling of a Jaguar. Samsung has copied the design language such that if the logos were blacked out, it would be very easy to mistake in identifying which is which, even one of Samsung's lawyers made that mistake. They've also copied accessory designs and packaging designs. Pretending this didn't happen doesn't help your argument. Pretending that every rectangle is the same as every other doesn't help your argument either. The specific treatments to add shape do matter, such as specific radius, specific shapes of bevels and offsets were pretty blatantly copied. There is a great variety of things that can be done to make a product unique, there's no need to copy a competing product to do so.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    You realize that Apple invented the modern laptop, right? They probably could have protected their designs in this fashion.


     



     


    This comment speaks volumes to your warped perspective of reality. But wait, why stop there, didn't Apple also invent the Internet? I don't think TV was even around until Apple TV, right?

  • Reply 28 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

    This comment speaks volumes to your warped perspective of reality. But wait, why stop there, didn't Apple also invent the Internet? I don't think TV was even around until Apple TV, right?


     


    Calm down and go educate yourself

  • Reply 29 of 36
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Calm down and go educate yourself
    And they've reinvented the market with the MBA.

    They've also reinvented the tablet market with the iPad but I'm sure e_veritas will foolishly point out that tablets existed before 2010.
  • Reply 30 of 36
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Calm down and go educate yourself

    NEC Ultralite seems to predate the first Apple notebook by about a month.

    http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/necultralite/
  • Reply 31 of 36
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    Just stamping a different name doesn't excuse it, putting a "Hyundai" logo doesn't mean they didn't steal the unique styling of a Jaguar. Samsung has copied the design language such that if the logos were blacked out, it would be very easy to mistake in identifying which is which, even one of Samsung's lawyers made that mistake. They've also copied accessory designs and packaging designs. Pretending this didn't happen doesn't help your argument. Pretending that every rectangle is the same as every other doesn't help your argument either. The specific treatments to add shape do matter, such as specific radius, specific shapes of bevels and offsets were pretty blatantly copied. There is a great variety of things that can be done to make a product unique, there's no need to copy a competing product to do so.


     


    Again, my contention is that a bezeled rectangle, rounded corners, and button at the bottom does not qualify as a "unique design". How you compare such a broad design to that of a car is beyond me. Fortunately, most courts around the globe have decided to not use your definition of "unique design" as well.


     


    The fact that a lawyer can't distinguish between 2 products from a distance is completely anecdotal, but I love how you rely on it to support your case. I have several black computer monitors of the same shape that would be difficult to distinguish from across a court room and without being able to see the branding at the bottom. According to your obscure logic, I guess Dell, should be suing Sony now, or vice versa???


     


    Your suggestion that minute details were copied in the shape are complete fabrications. For crying out loud, the iPad vs Galaxy case with the lawyer that you brought up didn't even have the same aspect ratios...

  • Reply 32 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

    NEC Ultralite seems to predate the first Apple notebook by about a month.

    http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/necultralite/


     


    Apple was the first with the modern laptop design: screen on a hinge on top, keyboard to the back of the lower portion, navigation device and palm rests in front of the keyboard.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


    According to your obscure logic, I guess Dell, should be suing Sony now, or vice versa???



     


    Just to clarify, are you a Newton or a Leibniz man?

  • Reply 33 of 36
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    And they've reinvented the market with the MBA.

    They've also reinvented the tablet market with the iPad but I'm sure e_veritas will foolishly point out that tablets existed before 2010.


     


    No one is detracting from Apple's superior industrial design. I own a MBA myself as I find it to be competitively priced for what it is. However, you don't see me running around saying that Apple should own the patent on laptops because of how great it is.

  • Reply 34 of 36
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Apple was the first with the modern laptop design: screen on a hinge on top, keyboard to the back of the lower portion, navigation device and palm rests in front of the keyboard.


     


     


    Just to clarify, are you a Newton or a Leibniz man?



     


    Phew, it is good to see that if we cherry pick and define our own criteria for modern laptop, we can show that Apple was indeed first. For what is is worth, the first clam shell, hinged laptop was the GRiD Compass in 1982 and is typically noted as the first modern laptop computer.

  • Reply 35 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

    Phew, it is good to see that if we cherry pick and define our own criteria for modern laptop, we can show that Apple was indeed first.


     


    Campfire_Pinecone.png


     


    First modern convection oven.


     


    There, see what "not cherry-picking" gets you?

  • Reply 36 of 36
    e_veritase_veritas Posts: 248member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    First modern convection oven.


     


    There, see what "not cherry-picking" gets you?



     


    But to my point, are you suggesting that whoever came up with the bonfire should be laying claims to the patent on "convection ovens"?


     


    I see that you are very good as drawing tangents to the conversation, but not very good at relating them to the crux of the discussion....

Sign In or Register to comment.