A rectangular handheld device with four primary buttons and apps laid out in a grid....hmmm...where have I seen that before?
The Apple Newton had a similar layout and predates those...
Quote:
If patents can apply to an aluminum ring around the bezel the world is in a sorry state.
It's called a "Design Patent". A regular utility patent covers novel functional features. A design patent covers purely aesthetic features, i.e., the "look and feel" of a thing.
While the article doesn't link to the patent in dispute, the artwork shown from the claim looks like it would be from a design patent, and the Samsung phone is nearly a clone.
So your argument that that Apple's lawsuit is bogus is that they lost to Creative or copying their UI too much?
I'm pointing out the absurdity of what some companies call "innovation" and the ridiculous extent of how badly the patent system is screwed up. When you can patent a simple UI element that had been around on desktops for years by simply slapping a virtually identical implementation on an MP3 player, then it's in a very sorry state indeed.
And Apple didn't lose, they settled the case. Big difference.
Quote:
I seem to recall Apple purchasing rights by Xerox Parc.
And Xerox still tried to sue them for it, so I doubt it was as cut-and-dried as that.
Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?
Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.
I think you drilled down too much on the technology parts. Maybe I overlooked, but the article says Apple is suing Samsung for "overall look & feel". Not who invented what first. And you can see from other post here about those old phones. They don't have iPhone's "look & feel" and you wont mistake them from iPhone.
Unfortunately, I did mistaken the phone yesterday. My friend pulled out her phone to play. I told her to go to App Store to download this game, then she said "Oh, its not an iPhone. It's Android phone from Samsung" and I'm not the first one that asked her about her new "iPhone".
Look & feel is very important to patent. This is why LV, Chanel, Fendi spent tons of money on suing those counterfeits. Is it worth their time to sue the conterfeits? Maybe not. But they do need to defend their images & styles. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's shoes? You spent billions of $$ and years of researching to finalizing a product and take people away from stylus/keyboard to use fingers. Then some companies just jump on and start copying your product. What will you do?
I think you drilled down too much on the technology parts. Maybe I overlooked, but the article says Apple is suing Samsung for "overall look & feel". Not who invented what first. And you can see from other post here about those old phones. They don't have iPhone's "look & feel" and you wont mistake them from iPhone.
Unfortunately, I did mistaken the phone yesterday. My friend pulled out her phone to play. I told her to go to App Store to download this game, then she said "Oh, its not an iPhone. It's Android phone from Samsung" and I'm not the first one that asked her about her new "iPhone".
Look & feel is very important to patent. This is why LV, Chanel, Fendi spent tons of money on suing those counterfeits. Is it worth their time to sue the conterfeits? Maybe not. But they do need to defend their images & styles. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's shoes? You spent billions of $$ and years of researching to finalizing a product and take people away from stylus/keyboard to use fingers. Then some companies just jump on and start copying your product. What will you do?
The Vibrant’s industrial design is shockingly similar to the iPhone 3G: The rounded curves at the corners, the candybar shape, the glossy, black finish and the chrome-colored metallic border around the display. The Vibrant even has its volume and ringer buttons in almost the same spot as the iPhone 3G.
You miss the point. It doesn't have to be completely innovative. It is a look and feel lawsuit. Is Nintendo the only company to ever make a platform game? No, but if Samsung released a game that involved a plumber with a hat and a mustache saving a princess and the plumber is named Nario. Then they are going to get sued.
Samsung didn't just recreate some aspects of the iPhone software and hardware look and feel. They copied the phone. My link above goes to the prior thread I started on this matter. It contains links to half a dozen reviews of the Samsung noting the ability to confuse it with the 3G.
The one that really confused me was the 7" Tab being confused as an iPad. I might give 'em the Vibrant. Never looked at that one till now and there's more than a passing resemblance. But throwing in the Tab makes it look like they're stretching for the sake of a lawsuit.
Not likely, Samsung is a conglomerate. These are all different divisions run by different people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
I think Apple has a strong case. That is borrowing too many direct elements of the iPhone to be a coincidence of design. The question is whether Apple?s patents will hold up in court (or if Samsung thinks the patents will hold up should they chose not to settle).
Indeed, I'd say this is an open and shut case.
Of course the patents will hold up. These are design patents on easily documented design elements (akin to trade dress and trademarks.) It may take time and it well may not go all the way through the courts, but Samsung will capitulate and pay a settlement.
[QUOTE=mbmcavoy;1849717]The Apple Newton had a similar layout and predates those...
Apple changed the game with the Newton. Scully wanted to change the way we thought of computing but the technology just wasn't able to do 'small' yet. it was scully who correctly saw the future a bit before steve jobs did. but this is just standard operating procedure for steve jobs. he has been documented by former employees for hearing an idea from them, poo-pooing or dismissing it, then coming back weeks or more later and saying 'i have this great idea!' and then spewing out the same idea and claiming it as his own. Now THAT is far more disgusting than what samsung is doing.
Sure you do. There's absolutely nothing Apple can do about China. Patents aren't valid worldwide.
They're valid wherever they're registered.
Apple is doing a lot of business in China.
No doubt they have registered patents in China too, although I'm unfamiliar with Chinese patent law and don't even know if they have something akin to design patents. They do have trademark protections that work similarly, though.
they could probably get away with back and profile. The front on the other hand.
Yeah, The bump at the bottom was probably created to make the Samsung look "different enough." The back is the only really strongly differentiated part though. Notice that the word "Apple" and the Apple logo don't even appear anywhere on the front of the phone, even in the UI. The Samsung phone, on the other hand has the Samsung name (which is their logo/trademark) prominently displayed. Also the word Samsung appears repeatedly in the UI. They're so unsure that their phone will be recognized that they include it in icon titles (Samsung E-mail and Samsung Apps.) This is why Apple trademarks things like "iTunes" and "App Store." It allows them to be subtle and brief while still presenting a strong brand presence. No long, 2 line icon titles for Apple.
Is this a proxy battle over Android or are they really suing about the "look and feel" of Samsung products (regardless of OS)?
Also, I wonder if Apple is trying to force Samsung to choose between being a supplier to Apple and selling their own tablets/phones. If forced to choose, I bet Samsung would give up being a supplier to Apple. They might make more money supplying Apple today, but I'm sure they fancy themselves as something more than that.
If Apple gave Samsung an ultimatum along the lines of "if you sell components to our competitors we'll stop buying them from you" or "if you don't stop making a competitor to our products we'll cancel our component contracts" they would put themselves in line for a pretty huge antitrust ass kicking.
In other words... it ain't gonna' happen.
I think your first point was spot on. It's hard for Apple to sue Google... so they need to put the squeeze on Android partners.
The iPhone and iPad are now the crown jewels of Apple. Of course they need to defend them.
Of course but also if they don't defend their patent it sets a precedent the next time it comes up. If they let the small stuff slide the competition can continue chipping away at the iOS advantage. Nothing personal, just business.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.
I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.
Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?
You are confusing the term 'original' with the term 'innovative'. What you are describing, to prove you misguided point, is the very idea of innovation.
Comments
A rectangular handheld device with four primary buttons and apps laid out in a grid....hmmm...where have I seen that before?
The Apple Newton had a similar layout and predates those...
If patents can apply to an aluminum ring around the bezel the world is in a sorry state.
It's called a "Design Patent". A regular utility patent covers novel functional features. A design patent covers purely aesthetic features, i.e., the "look and feel" of a thing.
While the article doesn't link to the patent in dispute, the artwork shown from the claim looks like it would be from a design patent, and the Samsung phone is nearly a clone.
So your argument that that Apple's lawsuit is bogus is that they lost to Creative or copying their UI too much?
I'm pointing out the absurdity of what some companies call "innovation" and the ridiculous extent of how badly the patent system is screwed up. When you can patent a simple UI element that had been around on desktops for years by simply slapping a virtually identical implementation on an MP3 player, then it's in a very sorry state indeed.
And Apple didn't lose, they settled the case. Big difference.
I seem to recall Apple purchasing rights by Xerox Parc.
And Xerox still tried to sue them for it, so I doubt it was as cut-and-dried as that.
Was Creative innovative for putting what was essentially column view on a mobile device? Because that was one of five patents with which they sued Apple over the iPod and got a nice $100 million settlement. At what point do you call something "truly innovative" as opposed to simply migrating existing ideas to a similar platform?
Gimme a friggin' break. Nobody is going to mistake one of these Samsung phones for an iPhone. Is Samsung mimicking the iPhone? I'd say so. Is this worthy of a lawsuit? No, this is more of a business tactic than anything. I guess the Mac OS was just a plagiarism of the Xerox Star as well. I seem to remember Apple failing to win a suit against Microsoft for Windows. Furthermore, if this is a patent, then how the hell is it that you can PATENT the look and feel of a device? That's beyond absurd. Software patents are bloody evil.
I think you drilled down too much on the technology parts. Maybe I overlooked, but the article says Apple is suing Samsung for "overall look & feel". Not who invented what first. And you can see from other post here about those old phones. They don't have iPhone's "look & feel" and you wont mistake them from iPhone.
Unfortunately, I did mistaken the phone yesterday. My friend pulled out her phone to play. I told her to go to App Store to download this game, then she said "Oh, its not an iPhone. It's Android phone from Samsung" and I'm not the first one that asked her about her new "iPhone".
Look & feel is very important to patent. This is why LV, Chanel, Fendi spent tons of money on suing those counterfeits. Is it worth their time to sue the conterfeits? Maybe not. But they do need to defend their images & styles. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's shoes? You spent billions of $$ and years of researching to finalizing a product and take people away from stylus/keyboard to use fingers. Then some companies just jump on and start copying your product. What will you do?
I think you drilled down too much on the technology parts. Maybe I overlooked, but the article says Apple is suing Samsung for "overall look & feel". Not who invented what first. And you can see from other post here about those old phones. They don't have iPhone's "look & feel" and you wont mistake them from iPhone.
Unfortunately, I did mistaken the phone yesterday. My friend pulled out her phone to play. I told her to go to App Store to download this game, then she said "Oh, its not an iPhone. It's Android phone from Samsung" and I'm not the first one that asked her about her new "iPhone".
Look & feel is very important to patent. This is why LV, Chanel, Fendi spent tons of money on suing those counterfeits. Is it worth their time to sue the conterfeits? Maybe not. But they do need to defend their images & styles. Why don't you put yourself in Apple's shoes? You spent billions of $$ and years of researching to finalizing a product and take people away from stylus/keyboard to use fingers. Then some companies just jump on and start copying your product. What will you do?
Then why did they include a NexusS?
The Vibrant’s industrial design is shockingly similar to the iPhone 3G: The rounded curves at the corners, the candybar shape, the glossy, black finish and the chrome-colored metallic border around the display. The Vibrant even has its volume and ringer buttons in almost the same spot as the iPhone 3G.
Fortune.com
The Vibrant looks like a thinner, lighter -- but also bigger -- iPhone 3GS, while the Captivate's edges are more square.
I much prefer the rounded, soft iPhone 3GS-type plastic that the Galaxies have.
Or rather, in Apple's case, beat them and sue them.
Good move, Apple - about time.
Lol, thanks. I was wondering wth he was talking about. I don't have exact numbers, but I would guess galaxy sales are 10% or less of iPhone sales.
In tablets, well that is not even worth bringing up.
You miss the point. It doesn't have to be completely innovative. It is a look and feel lawsuit. Is Nintendo the only company to ever make a platform game? No, but if Samsung released a game that involved a plumber with a hat and a mustache saving a princess and the plumber is named Nario. Then they are going to get sued.
Samsung didn't just recreate some aspects of the iPhone software and hardware look and feel. They copied the phone. My link above goes to the prior thread I started on this matter. It contains links to half a dozen reviews of the Samsung noting the ability to confuse it with the 3G.
Only if he has a brother named Puigi.
What makes Apple's move interesting is Apple using Samsung for a supplier. Apple either plans to stop using Samsung as a supplier or force a settlement with Samsung perhaps by getting a discount on parts.
what matters is what impact the case has now.
will Samsung try to make its copying less obvious for upcoming products - even with some delay? yes.
will it sharply discourage more knockoff products? from top-tier OEM's, yes. from others, no.
will the copycat label hurt Samsing and others marketing and boost iOS products? a liitle.
does this add to the overall cloud of uncertainty surrounding Andriod's future - Oracle's suit and the others? definitely.
will OEM's respond by forking Android into differentiated non-Google variants, or developing their own OS? yes.
who will Apple sue next, in addition to HTC, Nokia, and Samsung? we'll see!
I normally agree with apple on most of their lawsuits. This one seems a bit general. "copy the look and feel".
Yes, very general.
Look particularly at:
The overall shape
The radius of the edges
The basic proportions and curves
The overal color
The design of speaker opening
the number size and placement of icons
The colors use in the interface.
Heck, look at how the product is displayed on a reflective white seamless background.
If that isn't enough, this one detail is worthy of notice:
Look at the placement of the phone icon (lower left corner.)
And while you're there, notice the color and design of that icon.
But of course this is just a general similarity.
I predict Samsung will be making some major changes.
Yes, very general.
Look particularly at:
The overall shape
The radius of the edges
The basic proportions and curves
The overal color
The design of speaker opening
the number size and placement of icons
The colors use in the interface.
If that isn't enough, this one detail is worthy of notice:
Look at the placement of the phone icon (lower left corner.)
And while you're there, notice the color and design of that icon.
But of course this is just a general similarity.
I predict Samsung will be making some major changes.
they could probably get away with back and profile. The front on the other hand.
You don't patent your designs only to sit back and let the world illegal use them. Sorry, but your company deserves it's investment be protected.
Sure you do. There's absolutely nothing Apple can do about China. Patents aren't valid worldwide.
I think Apple has a strong case. That is borrowing too many direct elements of the iPhone to be a coincidence of design. The question is whether Apple?s patents will hold up in court (or if Samsung thinks the patents will hold up should they chose not to settle).
Indeed, I'd say this is an open and shut case.
Of course the patents will hold up. These are design patents on easily documented design elements (akin to trade dress and trademarks.) It may take time and it well may not go all the way through the courts, but Samsung will capitulate and pay a settlement.
Apple changed the game with the Newton. Scully wanted to change the way we thought of computing but the technology just wasn't able to do 'small' yet. it was scully who correctly saw the future a bit before steve jobs did. but this is just standard operating procedure for steve jobs. he has been documented by former employees for hearing an idea from them, poo-pooing or dismissing it, then coming back weeks or more later and saying 'i have this great idea!' and then spewing out the same idea and claiming it as his own. Now THAT is far more disgusting than what samsung is doing.
Sure you do. There's absolutely nothing Apple can do about China. Patents aren't valid worldwide.
They're valid wherever they're registered.
Apple is doing a lot of business in China.
No doubt they have registered patents in China too, although I'm unfamiliar with Chinese patent law and don't even know if they have something akin to design patents. They do have trademark protections that work similarly, though.
they could probably get away with back and profile. The front on the other hand.
Yeah, The bump at the bottom was probably created to make the Samsung look "different enough." The back is the only really strongly differentiated part though. Notice that the word "Apple" and the Apple logo don't even appear anywhere on the front of the phone, even in the UI. The Samsung phone, on the other hand has the Samsung name (which is their logo/trademark) prominently displayed. Also the word Samsung appears repeatedly in the UI. They're so unsure that their phone will be recognized that they include it in icon titles (Samsung E-mail and Samsung Apps.) This is why Apple trademarks things like "iTunes" and "App Store." It allows them to be subtle and brief while still presenting a strong brand presence. No long, 2 line icon titles for Apple.
Is this a proxy battle over Android or are they really suing about the "look and feel" of Samsung products (regardless of OS)?
Also, I wonder if Apple is trying to force Samsung to choose between being a supplier to Apple and selling their own tablets/phones. If forced to choose, I bet Samsung would give up being a supplier to Apple. They might make more money supplying Apple today, but I'm sure they fancy themselves as something more than that.
If Apple gave Samsung an ultimatum along the lines of "if you sell components to our competitors we'll stop buying them from you" or "if you don't stop making a competitor to our products we'll cancel our component contracts" they would put themselves in line for a pretty huge antitrust ass kicking.
In other words... it ain't gonna' happen.
I think your first point was spot on. It's hard for Apple to sue Google... so they need to put the squeeze on Android partners.
The iPhone and iPad are now the crown jewels of Apple. Of course they need to defend them.
Of course but also if they don't defend their patent it sets a precedent the next time it comes up. If they let the small stuff slide the competition can continue chipping away at the iOS advantage. Nothing personal, just business.
Complete and utter bullshit. Apple didn't make anything here that was truly innovative. They just made very good use of existing ideas and built a product with them. Multitouch was demonstrated long before Apple used it. Accelerometers were used before Apple built the iPhone. You might as well say that Apple ripped off previous smartphone/PDA devices by using the icon grids and multiple screens containing them.
I don't think that YOU have ever had an innovative idea in your life and don't even know what one is. Get your lips off Apple's ass long enough to take a look at reality. I love my iPhone, but I'm not going to pretend that it's a huge, groundbreaking innovation. It isn't. It's just a very good use of existing ideas packaged in a simple-to-use device. Try getting over your obvious pro-Apple bias and take a look at reality.
Apple is very good at building on existing ideas, making a solid product out of them, and calling it innovation when it's usually little more than just polish and the smart addition of a few new features. Xerox PARC, anyone?
You are confusing the term 'original' with the term 'innovative'. What you are describing, to prove you misguided point, is the very idea of innovation.