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

245

Comments

  • Reply 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.


     


    image


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


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

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 23 of 96
    sflocal wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 96
    kharvel wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 25 of 96
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    ascii wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 26 of 96
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    So Samsung is saying they copied the Fidler tablet then?
  • Reply 27 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.

    ascii wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 96
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    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.
  • Reply 29 of 96
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member


    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. 

  • Reply 30 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    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.

  • Reply 31 of 96
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    hill60 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 96
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 33 of 96
    japmjapm Posts: 36member


    It's all COINCIDENCE people WAKE UP!


     


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


     


    image

  • Reply 34 of 96
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member

    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?

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 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?

  • Reply 37 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    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.

  • Reply 38 of 96
    loptimist wrote: »
    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?
  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 40 of 96
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,882member

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.