For those of us old enough to remember Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft it's 'de ja vue' (sp) all over again
Other than it being a big IP lawsuit there's really no resemblance to the MS case. The MS case involved Apple trying to apply copyright law to look & feel, Apple was effectively trying to get the courts to make new law that extended copyright.
The Samsung case doesn't involve copyright at all, it involves Patents, Trade Dress and Trade Marks.
On the other hand you can exactly copy Coca-cola if you can figure out the secret formula and that's fine, but you can't put it in a red can with white flowing script logo,
This is your logic:
"trade dress" > "patents"
"Copying" Coca Cola's patented (most likely secret) formula isnt a big IP violations yet "copying" their "trade dress" (aka the way its cans LOOKS) is a major IP violation?
Patent violations have higher precedent than "trade dress" violations as the latter was instituted as a legal amendment ( or "add on" ) to the original law.
"Trade dress" is more difficult to conclusively make a decision as it is entirely subjective. They would need empirical proof. Just look at the latest lawsuit that the courts have rejected due to Apple's lack of CLEAR evidence stating that the competitors design would "confuse" consumers into thinking it was one of Apple's products.
In fact, Samsung will most likely reference that lawsuit as a precedent opinion set by the courts if Apple doesnt provide good and CLEAR evidence that suggest consumers are confused between two products. I forgot the exact lawsuit name but it is fairly recent ( within the last week or so). Too lazy to Google it.
THe Galaxy S i9000 (shown in the picture) with its Touchwiz interface certainly looks similar to theiPhone 3G; but the Galaxy tab 10.1? Yes the hardware looks similar but then again any device that is 90% screen is going to look similar. However, it is running Honeycomb which looks very different to iOS.
An how can you make a dock or a keyboard hat doesn't resembles others?
Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.
The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.
That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.
Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.
Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.
The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.
That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.
Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.
The problem is that the connector used by Samsung is an ANSI standard, not a Samsung developement.
And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?
From many March articles after the iPad2 intro:
"After feasting his eyes on the new iPad 2, Samsung's mobile division VP Lee Don-Joo went ahead and called his company's 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab "inadequate" and that "Apple made [iPad 2] very thin."
Samsung had to go back to the drawing board to copy the look and feel of the new iPad2, since they had anticipated the ipad2 to be as thick and similar to the original iPad, which is why their first 10.1 looked the way it did.
That said, if I was going to buy a non-iPad, it would be the Samsung.
-Icons: Tab 10.1 has Honeycomb without Samsung additions, icons doesn't reseemble nothing to iOS
-Home button: Tab 10.1 doesn't have a home button
-Hardware design and accesories: Ok, can you explain me how to build a keyboard dock or headphones or a tablet that doesn't ressembles another?
Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.
Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.
The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.
Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.
The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
What? How dare you actually *read* the patents before commenting on this forum! Burgers tell us everything we need to know about this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.
Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.
The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.
Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.
The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
THe Galaxy S i9000 (shown in the picture) with its Touchwiz interface certainly looks similar to theiPhone 3G; but the Galaxy tab 10.1? Yes the hardware looks similar but then again any device that is 90% screen is going to look similar. However, it is running Honeycomb which looks very different to iOS.
Have you seen a Samsung Tablet docking cable?
It is an exact replica of an iPod 30 pin dock connector.
Why the switch from HDMI and a micro USB as are used in phones?
An example, Nokia is releasing the N9, the "look and feel" is unmistakably Nokia, yet it is just another rectangular touchscreen based phone.
The picture of the "standard" you linked to clearly shows two buttons, one on either side, which look like some sort of release mechanism, where are these protrusions on Apple's dock connector, where are these protrusions on Samsung's cable?
The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
Android doesn't do the rubber banding (probably because of this patent). If you try to scroll past the end, the edge of the box glows orange to signify you can't scroll further. Maybe Samsung added rubber banding to Touchwiz but the Galaxy 10.1 isn't running Touchwiz.
Comments
For those of us old enough to remember Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft it's 'de ja vue' (sp) all over again
Other than it being a big IP lawsuit there's really no resemblance to the MS case. The MS case involved Apple trying to apply copyright law to look & feel, Apple was effectively trying to get the courts to make new law that extended copyright.
The Samsung case doesn't involve copyright at all, it involves Patents, Trade Dress and Trade Marks.
That was one of the worst things I've heard all day
C'mon no it wasn't. It was entertaining and his/her conviction is almost convincing. Good thing most of us aren't feeble minded.
On the other hand you can exactly copy Coca-cola if you can figure out the secret formula and that's fine, but you can't put it in a red can with white flowing script logo,
This is your logic:
"trade dress" > "patents"
"Copying" Coca Cola's patented (most likely secret) formula isnt a big IP violations yet "copying" their "trade dress" (aka the way its cans LOOKS) is a major IP violation?
Patent violations have higher precedent than "trade dress" violations as the latter was instituted as a legal amendment ( or "add on" ) to the original law.
"Trade dress" is more difficult to conclusively make a decision as it is entirely subjective. They would need empirical proof. Just look at the latest lawsuit that the courts have rejected due to Apple's lack of CLEAR evidence stating that the competitors design would "confuse" consumers into thinking it was one of Apple's products.
In fact, Samsung will most likely reference that lawsuit as a precedent opinion set by the courts if Apple doesnt provide good and CLEAR evidence that suggest consumers are confused between two products. I forgot the exact lawsuit name but it is fairly recent ( within the last week or so). Too lazy to Google it.
The burden of proof is in Apples court.
but the Galaxy tab 10.1?
Look at the picture in the middle of the article. It's not just the tablet, but it's the accessories for it that are complete ripoffs.
It's a pervasive pattern of copying across multiple incarnations-- icons, software layout, hardware design, button placement, accessories, etc.
Look at the picture in the middle of the article. It's not just the tablet, but it's the accessories for it that are complete ripoffs.
An how can you make a dock or a keyboard hat doesn't resembles others?
Again (again!)
It's a pervasive pattern of copying across multiple incarnations-- icons, software layout, hardware design, button placement, accessories, etc.
And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?
An how can you make a dock or a keyboard hat doesn't resembles others?
Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.
The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.
That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.
Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.
And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?
Icons, the "home button", hardware design and accessories all apply to the Galaxy Tab 10.1
Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.
The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.
That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.
Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.
The problem is that the connector used by Samsung is an ANSI standard, not a Samsung developement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI
Will Apple sue CEA?
And can you explain me what applies to Galaxy Tab 10.1?
From many March articles after the iPad2 intro:
"After feasting his eyes on the new iPad 2, Samsung's mobile division VP Lee Don-Joo went ahead and called his company's 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab "inadequate" and that "Apple made [iPad 2] very thin."
Samsung had to go back to the drawing board to copy the look and feel of the new iPad2, since they had anticipated the ipad2 to be as thick and similar to the original iPad, which is why their first 10.1 looked the way it did.
That said, if I was going to buy a non-iPad, it would be the Samsung.
Icons, the "home button", hardware design and accessories all apply to the Galaxy Tab 10.1
-Icons: Tab 10.1 has Honeycomb without Samsung additions, icons doesn't reseemble nothing to iOS
-Home button: Tab 10.1 doesn't have a home button
-Hardware design and accesories: Ok, can you explain me how to build a keyboard dock or headphones or a tablet that doesn't ressembles another?
-Icons: Tab 10.1 has Honeycomb without Samsung additions, icons doesn't reseemble nothing to iOS
-Home button: Tab 10.1 doesn't have a home button
-Hardware design and accesories: Ok, can you explain me how to build a keyboard dock or headphones or a tablet that doesn't ressembles another?
Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.
Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.
The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.
Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.
The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.
Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.
The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.
Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.
The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
THe Galaxy S i9000 (shown in the picture) with its Touchwiz interface certainly looks similar to theiPhone 3G; but the Galaxy tab 10.1? Yes the hardware looks similar but then again any device that is 90% screen is going to look similar. However, it is running Honeycomb which looks very different to iOS.
Have you seen a Samsung Tablet docking cable?
It is an exact replica of an iPod 30 pin dock connector.
Why the switch from HDMI and a micro USB as are used in phones?
An example, Nokia is releasing the N9, the "look and feel" is unmistakably Nokia, yet it is just another rectangular touchscreen based phone.
The problem is that the connector used by Samsung is an ANSI standard, not a Samsung developement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI
Will Apple sue CEA?
The picture of the "standard" you linked to clearly shows two buttons, one on either side, which look like some sort of release mechanism, where are these protrusions on Apple's dock connector, where are these protrusions on Samsung's cable?
The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.
Android doesn't do the rubber banding (probably because of this patent). If you try to scroll past the end, the edge of the box glows orange to signify you can't scroll further. Maybe Samsung added rubber banding to Touchwiz but the Galaxy 10.1 isn't running Touchwiz.
you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?