USPTO finds Apple iPhone design patent invalid in court fight against Samsung

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 113
    freerange wrote: »
    Let me get this straight - the patent is invalid because of prior art, but the prior art is Apple's. That makes no fk'n sense!!!!!
    Yes it does. If you put something in the public domain you can't patent it. Simples
  • Reply 82 of 113
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Yet Android engineers were taken by surprise by how the iPhone worked, needing to go back and rethink the interface for an upcoming "Google phone". So which is it, Schmidt wasn't taking a thing he learned from Apple back to Google to begin with or was the entire story about needing to go back to the drawing board after the iPhone reveal a fake and Google knew all along because Schmidt stole it?



    A little common sense can go a long way.



    From what I remember, those reactions on iPhone interface was made originally by Blackberry and Palm.

     

    Without bringing any research back to Google, Schmidt surely has done pretty much the same has Steve Jobs has done 30 years before by eavesdropping Xerox Parc's research leaking no secret sauce to Apple but giving them new computers paradigms to work on for a new operating system. Early android prototypes showed how much the first Android prototype has go from a blackberry/PalmOS buttons galore siamese twin to iPhone's buttons less approche. 

     

    I'm curious when Schmidt has first know about the iPhone, I'm sure Apple already had a working prototype when Google acquired Android in 2005. 

  • Reply 83 of 113
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member
    bigmac2 wrote: »

    I'm curious when Schmidt has first know about the iPhone, I'm sure Apple already had a working prototype when Google acquired Android in 2005. 
    According to Apple's timeline submitted to the court in the Samsung trial they did not have iPhone prototypes until early in 2006. I think AI had a story on it awhile back. Steve Jobs didn't even greenlight the project until late in 2005.
  • Reply 84 of 113
    ronnronn Posts: 567member
    Yes it does. If you put something in the public domain you can't patent it. Simples

    It wasn't put in the public domain. It simply wasn't proven to be a "novel approach" to the prior art. Otherwise, patent holders would essentially give their patents indefinite protection.
  • Reply 85 of 113
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    According to Apple's timeline submitted to the court in the Samsung trial they did not have iPhone prototypes until early in 2006. I think AI even had a story on it awhile back.



    Sorry I wasn't clear enough, I don't think Apple had a hardware prototype for the iPhone in 2005, I was referring more on the touch UI and iPhone OS which development originated from the iPad development in early 2000's. 

  • Reply 86 of 113
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,514member
    bigmac2 wrote: »

    Sorry I wasn't clear enough, I don't think Apple had a hardware prototype for the iPhone in 2005, I was referring more on the touch UI and iPhone OS which development originated from the iPad development in early 2000's. 
    Ah, gotcha. Fair enough and I agree.
  • Reply 87 of 113
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by grkm3 View Post



    The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.


    ...

    Woah there pal...is it me or did someone just transform from a jabbering idiot to an eloquent patent expert?

  • Reply 88 of 113
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grkm3 View Post



    The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.


    ...

    Woah there pal...is it me or did someone just transform from a jabbering idiot to an eloquent patent expert?


    No, it's just you. Read the documents

  • Reply 89 of 113
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

     

    No, it's just you. Read the documents




    Elaborate...not sure what you're trying to say here.

     

    Why is it "just me".

     

    I'm saying that grkm3 plagiarized. No citation, no reference...took it as his own.

  • Reply 90 of 113
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

     

    Woah there pal...is it me or did someone just transform from a jabbering idiot to an eloquent patent expert?




    No, he/she/it just directly copied text from the FOSS Patents web site.

  • Reply 91 of 113
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Derek Bolander View Post



    Apple should just dump iPhones for free in South Korea.



    Great idea!  And build a version that only allows a Korean language version of the OS.  Then they can sell them below cost without risk of the product polluting their other markets.

    By the way, price wars on home turf is exactly how some other industries threaten their competitors. Tech companies don't do this much because patents are a better option...or at least they used to be. 

  • Reply 92 of 113
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    I've been preaching for years that the anti-patent movement is a bad thing.  What goes around comes around.

  • Reply 93 of 113
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

     

    I've been preaching for years that the anti-patent movement is a bad thing.  What goes around comes around.




    Of course it's a bad thing. Private property ownership has been under assault by Socialists, progressives and Communists non-stop for years and it hasn't helped that the president has joined the chorus.

  • Reply 94 of 113
    "As seen in the image above, taken from the USPTO's decision, D'677 shows different design attributes from Apple's own prior art and therefore does not meet requirements of patentability laid out in Title 35 of the U.S. Code."

    This does not make any sense. If Apple's prior patents were prior art, then the finding by the USPTO would be that they have the *SAME* design attributes as the prior art, which the drawings appear to show. Therefore, the lesson for patentees here is that design drawings in a utility application can qualify as prior art for subsequent design patents on the same design.
  • Reply 95 of 113
    The caption and article are incorrect (as is much of the information you will ever read about patents that gets published). The later design patent could only be denied because it had the *SAME* design as the previously filed and published applications from Apple (not different as stated here wrongly), and a post ex facto priority claim was denied.
  • Reply 96 of 113

    The patent laws (and most laws in general) are not based on simplistic understandings of the subject matter, as that would be unworkable.  Patents are a kind of monopoly granted by the government under certain rules for subject matter that is described and given to the public domain for free use by all after the patent term expires.  Here Apple failed to file a *DESIGN PATENT* in a timely manner that only covers the ornamental shape and form of the object being patented.  In other words, Apple did not ask for the design to be protected before they published that same design in a prior *UTILITY PATENT* for some other claimed subject matter (method, device, material, etc.).  So Apple failed to make proper design patent filings according to the rules that apply to everyone.  It is not idiotic when you take some time to understand the material.

     

    Sadly, this article is dead wrong because the new design patent was rejected for being the *SAME* not *DIFFERENT* as published here.

  • Reply 97 of 113

    What about if you were the absolute first one to ever design a phone with round corners, ever before anyone else?  You might feel different about way patents protect those who first have the idea.  Note that patent ideas are specified and documented and published in the public domain.

  • Reply 98 of 113

    The article and the caption is wrong.  The patent could not be rejected for being different.  The design patent must have been rejected because the previous Apple patents were published and included the same design, and no priority grant was given.  So if the previous patents were prior art, then the issue is that the earlier drawings were the *SAME* as the design Apple tried to get patented.  Note that a design patent only covers ornamental or external form of an object, not function.

  • Reply 99 of 113
    It's a "Design" patent -- obviousness is not the only issue. If it were a technical patent -- sure.

    Not sure the specifics of the Design patent, but here it looks like the basic "look and feel" of the product to make it distinctive.

    Samsung, according to a third party company, changed their original design that was more like a Blackberry, and went screen by screen on the iPhone to document where their device differed. NOT to make improvements based on good ideas, but in order to make it similar.

    They even had a big Sunflower to designate their imaging app, along with a home screen very similar to the iPhone.

    Everyone just assumes the iPhone design is obvious, because every phone NOW looks like an iPhone -- they certainly didn't before it's release.

    Personally, I wish someone would put some indented curves for the hands on the back face, so these phones weren't just like a bar of soap. And I could definitely improve the interface -- but nobody is asking me.

    I'm not sure if UPTSO is another regulator captured by industry. I also thought their main job was to cross license patents so technology could be shared?
  • Reply 100 of 113
    frankiefrankie Posts: 380member
     Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Of course it's a bad thing. Private property ownership has been under assault by Socialists, progressives and Communists non-stop for years and it hasn't helped that the president has joined the chorus.


     

    Your political comments are freaking hilarious.  They make you sound like a 5th grader at best.  Commies...Obama...yadda yadda fox news yadda...

     

    We are trillions in debt not from helping poor and middle class people but from giving it all to the rich.  PERIOD.

     

    Right now the 6 families of Walmart own more wealth than half the entire country.  Right now any Billionaire can anonymously legally donate as much as they want to anyone.  They've shown in studies that whomever spends the most money, regardless of political party, wins 92% of the time.  You can basically BUY our government.  Socialism didn't create that, greed in capitalism did.  I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would call the modern GOP traitors and I'm not even a Democrat.

     

    Your partisan conservative mindset are the problem with this country, not Obama who happens to be as capitalistic as anyone.  

Sign In or Register to comment.