This is getting pretty silly. All of these guys borrow from each other, which is nothing new.
I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center. Even microsoft finally came out with their own copycat version of androids windowshade at this years build.
I don't see how slide to unlock is any different than the windowshade. Nothing to see here, just companies borrowing ideas from each other. Move along.
Yeah, ScamScum just "borrowed" all of Apple's hours of R&D to figure out how to lock a device so the battery wouldn't go dead but innovate and invent an intuative process and easy wasy for this to be done. If it's no big deal then why don't you just share all of your hard earned (doubt it) with me you imbecile.
The patent system is critical to invention and innovation. That is why patents are enshrined in the Constitution.
Now, that doesn't mean that the USTPO doesn't make some poor decisions. They do. Personally, I believe that software patents as a whole should not be allowed. But the fact is, the legal system is there to enforce the decisions which are made, whether or not they are good decisions in the first place.
Now, all that being said, Apple and Samsung are loved in battle because they don't like each other. That's something different. But that in no way implies that Apple should just throw up their arms and say, "Oh well. Forget it."
I must admit, as a holder of two software methodology patents myself, I just don't get the argument as to why software patents should not be allowed. What a patent protects, at the most basic level, is the hard work and resources that go into creating a new idea. Back in the Industrial Age, machines incorporated logic in mechanical workings. Today, that logic is called software and some of the most ingenious advances of the modern world are software advances. If IBM and others (Tibco comes to mind) couldn't protect their ideas around big data analysis, if Oracle couldn't protect ideas around super fast sorting or database mirroring, would they be motivated to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advancing the state of the art? Not so much if anyone could simply come along and steal those technologies. And patents are linear and proportional in their protection of ideas. Consider those who would argue that something like slide to unlock is silly to protect with a patent. That it's an idea that isn't worthy of patent protection. But that's a fallacious argument; if it's not worth much, then surely those who would infringe such a patent could simply apply a different method to solve the same problem. If you think a patented idea has no value then you should have no difficulty coming up with an equal or better idea. I think someone who sits at a desk and designs a novel software method to, say, vary the timing on an automobile engine, which can make an engine run more efficiently and produce more power without having to redesign the engine should be offered the same protection for her idea as the same person using a CAD program to design a new and novel engine architecture that yields the same efficiency and performance boosts, the only difference being the novel engine design actually gets turned into a physical device (an engine) and therefore satisfies the notion of a utility patent better in the mind of a person who is stuck in the Industrial Age.
I must admit, as a holder of two software methodology patents myself, I just don't get the argument as to why software patents should not be allowed. What a patent protects, at the most basic level, is the hard work and resources that go into creating a new idea. Back in the Industrial Age, machines incorporated logic in mechanical workings. Today, that logic is called software and some of the most ingenious advances of the modern world are software advances. If IBM and others (Tibco comes to mind) couldn't protect their ideas around big data analysis, if Oracle couldn't protect ideas around super fast sorting or database mirroring, would they be motivated to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advancing the state of the art? Not so much if anyone could simply come along and steal those technologies. And patents are linear and proportional in their protection of ideas. Consider those who would argue that something like slide to unlock is silly to protect with a patent. That it's an idea that isn't worthy of patent protection. But that's a fallacious argument; if its not worth much, then surely those who would infringe such a patent could simply apply a different method to solve the same problem. If you think a patented idea has no value then you should have no difficulty coming up with an equal or better idea. I think someone who sits at a desk and designs a novel software method to, say, vary the timing on an automobile engine, which can make an engine run more efficiently and produce more power without having to redesign the engine should be offered the same protection for her idea as the same person using a CAD program to design a new and novel engine architecture that yields the same efficiency and performance boosts, the only difference being the novel engine design actually gets turned into a physical device (an engine) and therefore satisfies the notion of a utility patent better in the mind of a person who is stuck in the Industrial Age.
I'm torn on SW patents. I think there needs to be a new category for protecting SW ideas that bridges aspects of both patens and copyrights with its own set of rules.
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
The answer to your question resides within the law. It states, not in these exact words (I'm too lazy tonight to go look it up) that if you publish before filing your patent application, you have, in effect, placed your invention into the public domain for all to freely use. So if you release a product with some innovation in it and you haven't previously applied for a patent on that innovation, you have just given it to your competition and they would be foolish not to adopt it unless they have an even better idea. I ran into this myself in the software industry. In a start-up company you are quick to get something out there in order to begin generating revenue or proving out an idea so that you can raise a round of investment. Inevitably there's a conversation between the product development guy (that would be me as co-founder and VP Product Development) and the CEO and CFO and marketing folks. You make your case to wait to file and they say, we don't even know if it has value until we test the market, so Go! And you go and you hope you remain more fleet of foot than the next guy who will have free access to your IP.
I'm torn on SW patents. I think there needs to be a new category for protecting SW ideas that bridges aspects of both patens and copyrights with its own set of rules.
Trademark law and design patents do that pretty well. Here's a write-up I did back in the days of the first big Apple/Samsung trial that explains this:
Apple's assertion in its lawsuits is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
To me, this article shows that something that in the final product and it's use is perceived as simple, natural and intuitive can indeed require intensive research to develop and design. Obviously, the engineering team at samsung can be assumed to own decent capabilities. Still, after many different approaches they finally hone in on the iPhone design solution. Just for this alone I would consider Apple's solution patent worthy. I don't know how many cues they took from the alleged prior art, however.
I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here: Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs. Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful. I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu. I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.
Willful infringement has nevervbeen so easy to prove, those dimwits carefully accumulated all the needed documentation -- which also proves how they either are incredibly clueless about the law, or that it was a calculated move where they expected to gain sufficient market dominance that it would be worth paying the triple damages that go with it. Either way, I hope they're severely punished. I wiuldn't be sad to see their arrogant business of shitty copycat phones go belly up.
Sorry for the gratuitous comment, but I just noticed that DED has written a weekend editorial. It's a grey, wet day here in London, and this is just the tonic. I haven't yet read it, but am looking forward to it. Thanks, Mr. Dilger!
Daniel is educating people with cold hard facts, not throwing out rumors like other sites.
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
We now see what happens when Samsung stopped copying every Apple idea. They release their fingerprint scanner that you have to actually laugh at when compared alongside Touch ID. Just look at what Samsung came up with for their S5, when they know Apple's lawyers will be filing complaint after complaint if the copycats continued. I think Samsung learned their lesson after the first verdict, and decided to copy, but just make the copy a little bit different to avoid being sued.
Case and point, the swipe to unlock was similar to Apple's but the test groups favored Apple's overwhelmingly. Now Samsung copied Touch ID, but not fully, and because if this, they have a very poor fingerprint scanner relative to Apple's.
I see Samsung struggling to innovate in the future. So, these lawsuits served their purpose, even if Apple doesn't collect a red cent. The lawsuit have had a tremendous effect just on the S5. Without them, Samsung might have, might, released an almost identical version of Touch ID.
I think you are a bit over optimistic here : Samsung does not care about the possible legal implications of copying. In this particular case , they were just unable to match the elegance and efficiency of Apple implementation ....
I'm not worried about Apple. I've noticed that other companies just can't stop themselves from making hard to understand UIs. They try but can never keep for long. It's in their genes. I tried the S5 a few days ago. I tried to be objective in my head and...well... I didn't like it. First thing I did is open the news feed and amazingly it lagged swiping to the feed and scrolling through it.
We now see what happens when Samsung stopped copying every Apple idea. They release their fingerprint scanner that you have to actually laugh at when compared alongside Touch ID. Just look at what Samsung came up with for their S5, when they know Apple's lawyers will be filing complaint after complaint if the copycats continued. I think Samsung learned their lesson after the first verdict, and decided to copy, but just make the copy a little bit different to avoid being sued.
Case and point, the swipe to unlock was similar to Apple's but the test groups favored Apple's overwhelmingly. Now Samsung copied Touch ID, but not fully, and because if this, they have a very poor fingerprint scanner relative to Apple's.
I see Samsung struggling to innovate in the future. So, these lawsuits served their purpose, even if Apple doesn't collect a red cent. The lawsuit have had a tremendous effect just on the S5. Without them, Samsung might have, might, released an almost identical version of Touch ID.
Their incompetence with coming up with a sensor like on the iPhone has nothing to do with them avoiding to copy. Touch sensors are also produced by Validity, maybe on par to those Authentec did. They didn't put one because they couldn't implement it properly, while the old tech they used they know pretty well, even if it sucks compared to Touch ID.
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
But it was one of the things that made the iPhone an iPhone.
Comments
Yeah, ScamScum just "borrowed" all of Apple's hours of R&D to figure out how to lock a device so the battery wouldn't go dead but innovate and invent an intuative process and easy wasy for this to be done. If it's no big deal then why don't you just share all of your hard earned (doubt it) with me you imbecile.
I must admit, as a holder of two software methodology patents myself, I just don't get the argument as to why software patents should not be allowed. What a patent protects, at the most basic level, is the hard work and resources that go into creating a new idea. Back in the Industrial Age, machines incorporated logic in mechanical workings. Today, that logic is called software and some of the most ingenious advances of the modern world are software advances. If IBM and others (Tibco comes to mind) couldn't protect their ideas around big data analysis, if Oracle couldn't protect ideas around super fast sorting or database mirroring, would they be motivated to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advancing the state of the art? Not so much if anyone could simply come along and steal those technologies. And patents are linear and proportional in their protection of ideas. Consider those who would argue that something like slide to unlock is silly to protect with a patent. That it's an idea that isn't worthy of patent protection. But that's a fallacious argument; if it's not worth much, then surely those who would infringe such a patent could simply apply a different method to solve the same problem. If you think a patented idea has no value then you should have no difficulty coming up with an equal or better idea. I think someone who sits at a desk and designs a novel software method to, say, vary the timing on an automobile engine, which can make an engine run more efficiently and produce more power without having to redesign the engine should be offered the same protection for her idea as the same person using a CAD program to design a new and novel engine architecture that yields the same efficiency and performance boosts, the only difference being the novel engine design actually gets turned into a physical device (an engine) and therefore satisfies the notion of a utility patent better in the mind of a person who is stuck in the Industrial Age.
I'm torn on SW patents. I think there needs to be a new category for protecting SW ideas that bridges aspects of both patens and copyrights with its own set of rules.
The answer to your question resides within the law. It states, not in these exact words (I'm too lazy tonight to go look it up) that if you publish before filing your patent application, you have, in effect, placed your invention into the public domain for all to freely use. So if you release a product with some innovation in it and you haven't previously applied for a patent on that innovation, you have just given it to your competition and they would be foolish not to adopt it unless they have an even better idea. I ran into this myself in the software industry. In a start-up company you are quick to get something out there in order to begin generating revenue or proving out an idea so that you can raise a round of investment. Inevitably there's a conversation between the product development guy (that would be me as co-founder and VP Product Development) and the CEO and CFO and marketing folks. You make your case to wait to file and they say, we don't even know if it has value until we test the market, so Go! And you go and you hope you remain more fleet of foot than the next guy who will have free access to your IP.
Trademark law and design patents do that pretty well. Here's a write-up I did back in the days of the first big Apple/Samsung trial that explains this:
Apple's assertion in its lawsuits is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
I remember phones before the iPhone ! Have people forgotten what Phones were like ,
iPhone has changed what we do with our phones
It took lots of innovation and investments !
Thank you apple for making a incredible phone which everybody copied
People who steal should be punished !
Hopefully justice will prevail
1. Why hasn't Apple been sued (or counter sued) for their "stealing"?
2. Are you sure Android actually had the idea first?
I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here: Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs. Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful. I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu. I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.
Either way, I hope they're severely punished. I wiuldn't be sad to see their arrogant business of shitty copycat phones go belly up.
Watch it from start to end and then you can talk shit !!
We seem to forget very easily
I apologise but I can't believe some of the comments
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
Case and point, the swipe to unlock was similar to Apple's but the test groups favored Apple's overwhelmingly. Now Samsung copied Touch ID, but not fully, and because if this, they have a very poor fingerprint scanner relative to Apple's.
I see Samsung struggling to innovate in the future. So, these lawsuits served their purpose, even if Apple doesn't collect a red cent. The lawsuit have had a tremendous effect just on the S5. Without them, Samsung might have, might, released an almost identical version of Touch ID.
DED for testimony !
I think you are a bit over optimistic here : Samsung does not care about the possible legal implications of copying. In this particular case , they were just unable to match the elegance and efficiency of Apple implementation ....
I tried the S5 a few days ago. I tried to be objective in my head and...well... I didn't like it. First thing I did is open the news feed and amazingly it lagged swiping to the feed and scrolling through it.
Their incompetence with coming up with a sensor like on the iPhone has nothing to do with them avoiding to copy. Touch sensors are also produced by Validity, maybe on par to those Authentec did. They didn't put one because they couldn't implement it properly, while the old tech they used they know pretty well, even if it sucks compared to Touch ID.
But it was one of the things that made the iPhone an iPhone.
I notice Florian Mueller refers to Samsung's documenta as "benchmarking"...
...don't forget that Samsung cheats on benchmarks too.