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

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.  

    Insignificant. Even if the lawsuit costs Apple $100,000,000 (which is very unlikely), that's only a tiny fraction of the profits involved - especially when you consider what happens to Apple's future products if competitors are allowed to simply make near-identical copies of all their products.
    waybacmac wrote: »

    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…

    "<em style="line-height:22px;">InformationWeek</em>
    <span style="line-height:22px;"> 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 </span>
    <a href="http://www.bgr.com/tag/samsung" style="color:rgb(0,102,203);line-height:22px;" target="_blank">Samsung</a>
    <span style="line-height:22px;"> (</span>
    <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_ylt=AlOI.2dV4YwXBbgU4FMvFbDxVax_;_ylu=X3oDMTFlMzlydHRzBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDeWZpU3ltYm9sTG9va3VwUmVzdWx0cwRzbGsDMDA1OTMwa3M-?s=005930.KS" style="color:rgb(0,102,203);line-height:22px;" target="_blank">005930</a>
    <span style="line-height:22px;">) vs. </span>
    <a href="http://www.bgr.com/tag/apple" style="color:rgb(0,102,203);line-height:22px;" target="_blank">Apple</a>
    <span style="line-height:22px;"> (</span>
    <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl&ql=1" style="color:rgb(0,102,203);line-height:22px;" target="_blank">AAPL</a>
    <span style="line-height:22px;">) patent trial. And so far, he says that based on what he’s seen, he thinks </span>
    <a href="http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone/" style="color:rgb(0,102,203);line-height:22px;" target="_blank">Samsung is in serious trouble</a>
    <span style="line-height:22px;">."</span>

    While it's nice to have a patent expert confirm it, it has been clear throughout this trial that Samsung is in serious trouble.
    japm wrote: »
    [SIZE=16px]It's all COINCIDENCE people WAKE UP![/SIZE]

    [SIZE=16px]Samsung did not copy anything, they invent and design their own devices.[/SIZE]

    1000

    My favorite is their copy of the Smart Cover.
  • Reply 82 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    My favorite is their copy of the Smart Cover.


     


    Mine as well, but wasn't that a third party's?

  • Reply 83 of 96
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member


    Contrary to the other "posters," I see no insight in your post.


    Would you like to be specific about exactly what *ideas* Apple is trying to patent that they shouldn't?


    And while your at it why don't you tell us what Apple could protect if not these *ideas*?


    It seems to me these vague *ideas* you refer to are actually very specific and unique design and utility patents, which are the whole basis of intellectual property rights. The *ideas* that aren't very specific and unique design and utility patents would appear to be more about copyrights and trade dress which are also protectable intellectual property.


     


    I'll be the first one to admit that there are some problems with the patent system, but Apple patenting ideas rather than inventions, processes, or designs certainly isn't one of them. On the other hand, the ease and impunity with which companies like Samsung can infringe on those patents is one of the problems (and always has been.)  


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    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.


  • Reply 84 of 96
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member


    You are correct on one thing, it's just you.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


    It's just me, but I don't think this trial has Apple focusing on "innovation". . . .


  • Reply 85 of 96
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member


    You ought to know that exactly at 5:40 of that video you had just entered what SJ's associates famously coined as "Reality Distortion Field". On every keynote and product launching, SJ had been successful in warping people's mind around him, be the presses, apologists and other attendees, into his rather formidable "Reality Distortion Field" [RDF]. The place like AI is so full of SJ's RDF; otherwise, it ain't gonna be called "Apple Insider", is it?.


     


    When in the past, during its glory days, Microsoft made "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" [FUD] as its daily schtick, Apple nowadays employs both FUD and RDF to stiffle competition. Barely a notion of a brand new Iphone to be released in October is enough to make a great many people in the US [especially] to delay buying their new phones even when competitors already outed many compelling and highly advanced alternatives. The fact is until we see one or hold one in our hand, it is only qualified to be called a vaporware. 


     


    So, to answer your question, no, Apple doesn't invent many of the things it claims to have invented, and that will include the "multi-touch" thingy. Phew..., I have to employ the strongest spell available concocted by the collective voodoo masters in Jamaica to deflect the strong RDF here just to make it possible to write this.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    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. 


  • Reply 86 of 96

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


    You ought to know that exactly at 5:40 of that video you had just entered what SJ's associates famously coined as "Reality Distortion Field". On every keynote and product launching, SJ had been successful in warping people's mind around him, be the presses, apologists and other attendees, into his rather formidable "Reality Distortion Field" [RDF]. The place like AI is so full of SJ's RDF; otherwise, it ain't gonna be called "Apple Insider", is it?.


     


    When in the past, during its glory days, Microsoft made "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" [FUD] as its daily schtick, Apple nowadays employs both FUD and RDF to stiffle competition. Barely a notion of a brand new Iphone to be released in October is enough to make a great many people in the US [especially] to delay buying their new phones even when competitors already outed many compelling and highly advanced alternatives. The fact is until we see one or holding one in our hand, it is only qualified to be called a vaporware. 


     


    So, to answer your question, no, Apple doesn't invent many of the things it claims to have invented, and that will include the "multi-touch" thingy. Phew..., I have to employ the strongest spell available concocted by the collective voodoo masters in Jamaica to deflect the strong RDF here just to make it possible to write this.





    Perhaps he was referring to Fingerworks (at that point was part of Apple since 2005) when he said this? Just a thought.


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks


     


    More news on the subject. As you said, it may be a bit of his RDF, but considering it appears they arranged for the patent rights from the original inventor, he potentially just shortcutted to "we invented it." As with the original Mac GUI, the original idea may not have been theirs, but they (Apple) did a lot of work on improving and refining it to make it what it was by the original release. Just as they paid for access to Xerox Parq, they appear to have acquired the base multitouch patent rights from the original holder (and then went to work making it better).


     


    http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/24/apple-secures-multitouch-related-patent-dating-back-to-1995-from/


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/29/apple_multitouch_patent/

  • Reply 87 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,301member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Mine as well, but wasn't that a third party's?



    Yup.

  • Reply 88 of 96
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    Two interesting videos


     



    Steve jobs saying Apple invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY


     



     


    In which dictionary does "introduce" have the same meaning as "invent"?

  • Reply 89 of 96
    blursdblursd Posts: 123member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


    "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.



    Criterion = singular.  Criteria = plural

  • Reply 90 of 96

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blursd View Post


    Criterion = singular.  Criteria = plural





    Thank you. I believe confusing these two words is more common than "your" and "you're".

  • Reply 91 of 96
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    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. 



     


    You can't patent an idea.


     


    Steve Job's was talking about the invention of THE IMPLEMENTATION of an idea.

  • Reply 92 of 96

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Mine as well, but wasn't that a third party's?





    It was. At first, it appeared the company Anymode had Samsung certify this cover. But Samsung subsequently made a denial of that happening, and forced Anymore to remove the product from their website.

  • Reply 93 of 96
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    So I suppose Samsung considers this prior art? :lol:

    bill-gates-tablets.jpg
  • Reply 94 of 96
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    And let's not forget this one. A big seller I'm sure. :lol:

    saupload_ballmer.jpg
  • Reply 95 of 96
    philkyphilky Posts: 20member
    It seems rather missing the point to argue about the "rectangular shape" when the bigger question is about the whole new user experience that iPhone brought to consumers. Did the world see a smart phone that doesn't use a pen before the iPhone for example? NO! It follows then anything that provides a similar user experience is a copycat. In 2007 Samsung launched an LCD TV that had a "wine glass" shape that was remarkebly similar to a 25" Bang & Olufsen CRT TV launched in early 2000s. B&O must be aware of this but maybe they were just too small to take on Samsung, especially when they were relying heavily on Samsung for parts and even a couple of OEM products at that time. Android fanboys can dislike Apple and Steve Jobs, but please don't distort the facts!
  • Reply 96 of 96
    rarerare Posts: 25member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by microview View Post


    ... 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?



     


    You could set up a custom RSS feed to filter out the topics you don't want to see. For an example, see The Verge, Ltd. Pipe.

Sign In or Register to comment.