Even though I mock the rectangle thingie from time to time, reality is that the Apple's patents are not premised on rounded rectangles per se. There is more to the design patents than just that.
They WERE a key source for the Production of iPhones.
Now they are in a lawsuit case with their own CUSTOMER.
Whether or not Apple stops Samsung -- Samsung has already lost with this deal, because they MAKE MORE as manufacturers of other people's ideas than they ever will with this me-to Android phone.
>> How many POTENTIAL customers of Samsung have decided to go with a company that perhaps doesn't have a competitive product in the offing? Samsung is a huge, semi-governmental entity, and it's marketing is stepping on it's manufacturing.
It's like if IBM opened a restaurant, and gave food poisoning to a whole bunch of Bankers, and that restaurant said; "Screw you guys if you eat with your feet!" Wouldn't the loss in mainframes to Banks kind of overshadow the loss of restaurant eaters?
So, Samsung has a LOSE/LOSE situation, and if they lose the lawsuit, that will be LOSE/LOSE/LOSE.
Oh hell, IF we must measure great products but the number of patents issue per year....I hope that is a joke. All the great inventors are only known for a few great inventions not a gazillion half-baked patents that only sounds good on paper.
These Samsung patents don't even sound good on paper;
Method for turning tex into speech? Somehow different than the text to speech on the Mac for a decade?
They are patenting ideas here -- not methods. And all the prior art to function and interface happened on the iPhone. Samsung makes a phone while producing iPhones -- doesn't that also give them Privileged insider information and raise the bar a bit on their side?
Apple could, however, come out and make inferior Washing Machines -- it's not like they have insider information on Samsung. Hopefully, they can avoid that unique method for "applying water with pressure to soiled dishes."
Does Samsung have any patent at all? We all know Apple invented everything in the mobile phone market. All the others are mere copycats with not enough brains to create anything.
Noted there long enough before Apple debuted the Cinema display lines in that styling. Samsung doesn't necessarily make bezels for them either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor
Apple does not have a design patent for rectangular tablets. They have a design patent for the iPad. You can easily make a rectangular tablet that doesn't look like an iPad.
Samsung just needs to design their own products instead of blatantly copying Apple's ones.
They've copied each other many times, although it's probably been more Samsung copying Apple in aesthetics. In terms of internals used, they're commoditized parts. Anyway there has been plenty of prior art on the ipad design, Design patents anyway do not cover fit and finish. They basically cover decoration. It was noted in one of the patent cases too. The article is on this site somewhere. Apple's designs always go for simplicity, and the patents have been too ambiguous. Recall where they lost to that Spanish company that they sued a few months back? They will pretty much sue "anyone" who puts out a rectangular tablet of comparable density, and people saw the ipad first with it being all over the media. At this point they don't have to be copies for people to start to judge whether or not they are copies.
It's just moved on from the Windows vs. Mac thing on the desktop into phones and tablets. It will another thing at some point.
Noted there long enough before Apple debuted the Cinema display lines in that styling. Samsung doesn't necessarily make bezels for them either.
They've copied each other many times, although it's probably been more Samsung copying Apple in aesthetics. In terms of internals used, they're commoditized parts. Anyway there has been plenty of prior art on the ipad design, Design patents anyway do not cover fit and finish. They basically cover decoration. It was noted in one of the patent cases too. The article is on this site somewhere. Apple's designs always go for simplicity, and the patents have been too ambiguous. Recall where they lost to that Spanish company that they sued a few months back? They will pretty much sue "anyone" who puts out a rectangular tablet of comparable density, and people saw the ipad first with it being all over the media. At this point they don't have to be copies for people to start to judge whether or not they are copies.
It's just moved on from the Windows vs. Mac thing on the desktop into phones and tablets. It will another thing at some point.
Prior art that Samsung could have used when they launched the Galaxy Tab 10.1v, but they didn't they revised and pulled it as soon as Apple released the iPad 2.
Technically Apple's design patents are not for a two dimensional rectangle but for a three dimensional iPad.
No matter how many times it is mindlessly repeated, APPLE DID NOT PATENT A RECTANGLE.
Endlessly repeating nonsense does not make it true.
Technically, you're right, as I've mentioned above.
But here's an excerpt from Apple's description of design alternatives *recommended* to Samsung:
"40. For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black (Exs. 2-4) or clear (Exs. 4-6); front surfaces that are not rectangular (Exs.7-10), not flat (Exs. 11-13), and without rounded corners (Exs. 9, 14, 15); display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all (Exs. 8, 16, 17); display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone (Exs. 18-20, 37) and that have substantial lateral
borders (Exs. 21-22); speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends (Exs. 12, 15, 23, 24, 37) and that are not centered above the display screen (Exs. 12, 25, 26); front surfaces that contain substantial adornment (Exs. 9, 15, 19); and phones without bezels at all (Exs. 11, 13, 18) or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile (Ex. 21).
41. For the D’889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides (Exs. 27-29) or that do not have four rounded corners (Exs. 28, 30-32); front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear (Exs. 27, 28, 33, 34) and that have substantial adornment (Exs. 28, 35); thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface (Exs. 28, 34-36); and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a
cluttered appearance (Exs. 28, 33, 38)."
So, the best (only?) way for Samsung to square this with Apple is to stay away from rounded rectangles. If you look at Jobs' history, he did seem to believe he introduced rounded rectangles to the computer industry, including software (i.e. GUI elements) and hardware.
It's like if IBM opened a restaurant, and gave food poisoning to a whole bunch of Bankers, and that restaurant said; "Screw you guys if you eat with your feet!" Wouldn't the loss in mainframes to Banks kind of overshadow the loss of restaurant eaters?
That's a terrible analogy. Furthermore, who eats restaurants?
Comments
Even though I mock the rectangle thingie from time to time, reality is that the Apple's patents are not premised on rounded rectangles per se. There is more to the design patents than just that.
Indeed! The display is centered!
Indeed! The display is centered!
There's also the thin form factor.
There's also the thin form factor.
Don't forget the black bezel.
Apple researched every single color in the rainbow, exhaustively and extensively, and based upon that, they innovated and invented the black bezel.
Then they patented the hell out of it.
Now, Samsung comes along and just copies everything Apple does, "even as" they should instead be grateful that Apple is their bestest customer.
/s
Now they are in a lawsuit case with their own CUSTOMER.
Whether or not Apple stops Samsung -- Samsung has already lost with this deal, because they MAKE MORE as manufacturers of other people's ideas than they ever will with this me-to Android phone.
>> How many POTENTIAL customers of Samsung have decided to go with a company that perhaps doesn't have a competitive product in the offing? Samsung is a huge, semi-governmental entity, and it's marketing is stepping on it's manufacturing.
It's like if IBM opened a restaurant, and gave food poisoning to a whole bunch of Bankers, and that restaurant said; "Screw you guys if you eat with your feet!" Wouldn't the loss in mainframes to Banks kind of overshadow the loss of restaurant eaters?
So, Samsung has a LOSE/LOSE situation, and if they lose the lawsuit, that will be LOSE/LOSE/LOSE.
Indeed! The display is centered!
Blitz, try to keep up with what is at issue.
There seems to be more noise than signal to your broadcast.
Oh hell, IF we must measure great products but the number of patents issue per year....I hope that is a joke. All the great inventors are only known for a few great inventions not a gazillion half-baked patents that only sounds good on paper.
These Samsung patents don't even sound good on paper;
Method for turning tex into speech? Somehow different than the text to speech on the Mac for a decade?
They are patenting ideas here -- not methods. And all the prior art to function and interface happened on the iPhone. Samsung makes a phone while producing iPhones -- doesn't that also give them Privileged insider information and raise the bar a bit on their side?
Apple could, however, come out and make inferior Washing Machines -- it's not like they have insider information on Samsung. Hopefully, they can avoid that unique method for "applying water with pressure to soiled dishes."
Indeed! The display is centered!
Technically Apple's design patents are not for a two dimensional rectangle but for a three dimensional iPad.
No matter how many times it is mindlessly repeated, APPLE DID NOT PATENT A RECTANGLE.
Endlessly repeating nonsense does not make it true.
Does Samsung have any patent at all? We all know Apple invented everything in the mobile phone market. All the others are mere copycats with not enough brains to create anything.
I don't know, hey let's ask British Telecom.
Technically Apple's design patents are not for a two dimensional rectangle but for a three dimensional iPad.
No matter how many times it is mindlessly repeated, APPLE DID NOT PATENT A RECTANGLE.
Endlessly repeating nonsense does not make it true.
Just a question...why didn't they use the actual iPad design against the Tab?
But samsung stuff go great with apple products!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1199/4
Noted there long enough before Apple debuted the Cinema display lines in that styling. Samsung doesn't necessarily make bezels for them either.
Apple does not have a design patent for rectangular tablets. They have a design patent for the iPad. You can easily make a rectangular tablet that doesn't look like an iPad.
Samsung just needs to design their own products instead of blatantly copying Apple's ones.
They've copied each other many times, although it's probably been more Samsung copying Apple in aesthetics. In terms of internals used, they're commoditized parts. Anyway there has been plenty of prior art on the ipad design, Design patents anyway do not cover fit and finish. They basically cover decoration. It was noted in one of the patent cases too. The article is on this site somewhere. Apple's designs always go for simplicity, and the patents have been too ambiguous. Recall where they lost to that Spanish company that they sued a few months back? They will pretty much sue "anyone" who puts out a rectangular tablet of comparable density, and people saw the ipad first with it being all over the media. At this point they don't have to be copies for people to start to judge whether or not they are copies.
It's just moved on from the Windows vs. Mac thing on the desktop into phones and tablets. It will another thing at some point.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1199/4
Noted there long enough before Apple debuted the Cinema display lines in that styling. Samsung doesn't necessarily make bezels for them either.
They've copied each other many times, although it's probably been more Samsung copying Apple in aesthetics. In terms of internals used, they're commoditized parts. Anyway there has been plenty of prior art on the ipad design, Design patents anyway do not cover fit and finish. They basically cover decoration. It was noted in one of the patent cases too. The article is on this site somewhere. Apple's designs always go for simplicity, and the patents have been too ambiguous. Recall where they lost to that Spanish company that they sued a few months back? They will pretty much sue "anyone" who puts out a rectangular tablet of comparable density, and people saw the ipad first with it being all over the media. At this point they don't have to be copies for people to start to judge whether or not they are copies.
It's just moved on from the Windows vs. Mac thing on the desktop into phones and tablets. It will another thing at some point.
Prior art that Samsung could have used when they launched the Galaxy Tab 10.1v, but they didn't they revised and pulled it as soon as Apple released the iPad 2.
Technically Apple's design patents are not for a two dimensional rectangle but for a three dimensional iPad.
No matter how many times it is mindlessly repeated, APPLE DID NOT PATENT A RECTANGLE.
Endlessly repeating nonsense does not make it true.
My fault entirely: they patented a THIN, ROUND CORNER rectangle
Technically Apple's design patents are not for a two dimensional rectangle but for a three dimensional iPad.
No matter how many times it is mindlessly repeated, APPLE DID NOT PATENT A RECTANGLE.
Endlessly repeating nonsense does not make it true.
Technically, you're right, as I've mentioned above.
But here's an excerpt from Apple's description of design alternatives *recommended* to Samsung:
"40. For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black (Exs. 2-4) or clear (Exs. 4-6); front surfaces that are not rectangular (Exs.7-10), not flat (Exs. 11-13), and without rounded corners (Exs. 9, 14, 15); display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all (Exs. 8, 16, 17); display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone (Exs. 18-20, 37) and that have substantial lateral
borders (Exs. 21-22); speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends (Exs. 12, 15, 23, 24, 37) and that are not centered above the display screen (Exs. 12, 25, 26); front surfaces that contain substantial adornment (Exs. 9, 15, 19); and phones without bezels at all (Exs. 11, 13, 18) or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile (Ex. 21).
41. For the D’889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides (Exs. 27-29) or that do not have four rounded corners (Exs. 28, 30-32); front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear (Exs. 27, 28, 33, 34) and that have substantial adornment (Exs. 28, 35); thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface (Exs. 28, 34-36); and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a
cluttered appearance (Exs. 28, 33, 38)."
So, the best (only?) way for Samsung to square this with Apple is to stay away from rounded rectangles. If you look at Jobs' history, he did seem to believe he introduced rounded rectangles to the computer industry, including software (i.e. GUI elements) and hardware.
It's like if IBM opened a restaurant, and gave food poisoning to a whole bunch of Bankers, and that restaurant said; "Screw you guys if you eat with your feet!" Wouldn't the loss in mainframes to Banks kind of overshadow the loss of restaurant eaters?
That's a terrible analogy. Furthermore, who eats restaurants?
That's a terrible analogy. Furthermore, who eats restaurants?
Maybe the analogy makes sense when you're buzzed........ nope, still doesn't make sense.