Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents should b

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 96
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    microview wrote: »
    <span style="font-family:'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(227,244,255);">I really don't give a rats ass about the dam Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?</span>

    <strong>such as things made by Apple?... </strong>
    :rolleyes:
  • Reply 42 of 96
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member


    Two interesting videos


     



    Steve jobs saying Apple invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY


     



    A device shown to the public, and apparently to Apple, way before Apple seemingly invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY


     


    On another note. here is an interesting review of the slate that Samsung says was rectangular with rounded edges way before the ipad


    http://pencomputing.com/frames/tpc_compaq.html


     


    Then again, that tablet doesn't support muti-touch (i think), even though it wouldn't matter cause the DESIGN of it seems to make the ipad design pretty obvious, aside form the color black of course. Interesting also the detachable keyboard which Asus has totally stole, lol. 


     


     


    So here's the question. The diff between the compaq and the ipad design is one button, its black, its thinner, and i guess it has no rim around it, the screen is smaller, headphone jack in diff location?


     


    The difference between the ipad design and the tab is the tab has no button, its camera is a diff location, the tab is thinner, headphone jack in diff location, the screen is larger?


     


    You have to pay extra for the keyboard accessory in both though.....


     


    And those are just the diff with the front panels. The back of the devices are TOTALLY diff. I guess what i'm trying to ask is, how many diff must there be before it isn't copying? Cause you can easily list 15 differences between the ipad and the galaxy tab just from a design point of view, not including any software. 


     


    It goes back to the same TV argument. If Apple win this design case, how long would it be till TV manufacturers start to sue each other as well as restrict any other manufacturer from making a rectangular black TV with a slim profile and black bezel? Cause surely one of these is infringing on somebody's design patent


     


     


    http://samsungln46c750.com/images/51O6ijR4XQL._AA1024_.jpg


    http://nieuwe-3d-led-tv.nieuwe-elektronica-kopen.nl/wp-content/uploads/Sony-EX650-LED-TV-21.jpg


    http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/38/panasonic_led-tv.jpg


    http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20091016/33674153-2-440-ANGL_270x202.jpg


    http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/06/lgbye.jpg


     


    If I was a lawyer and looked at those from 20 ft away I would have a hell of time knowing which is which. Tell you what though, i STILL wouldn't be dumb enough to go into a store looking for an LG and end up leaving with a Sharp. You have to be pretty stupid to do that, even if they do look alike

  • Reply 43 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

    first of all, there's no way apple would and should be awarded with 2 billions.  


    in order to be awarded - it has to be 1) samsung copied apple so well… or 2) the brand image of apple is being hurt…



     


    Or three, the meaningful one, that Apple's legally-protected intellectual property has been infringed.


     



    infringing on the apple's patents? seriously, does that mean a pizza company will patent their delicious looking pizza every single time when they come up with a new one that was not widespread before? how about peperoni pizza?



     


    How about coming back with an argument above the level of 'completely uninformed troll' before we continue? 


     


    There's no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves in every thread when you people come in and crap on it with your lack or willful ignorance of knowledge. It's on you to have an actual argument if you want to argue with the consensus at hand.

  • Reply 44 of 96
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    cubefan wrote: »
    Hear hear,  I owned a Windows smartphone, two actually, they were complete rubbish owing to the need to have a microscope to see the text and a stylus to drive the screen - but it was clearly Windows.

    Aan iPhone / iPod / iPad IS an Apple product, Apple deserve to be protected from copyists, no matter how large the company doing the copying.  I own a Sony tablet S,  the one with the teardrop shape, it runs Android, it doesn't LOOK like an iPad, it works like a tablet should - but it doesn't clone the iconography representing multiple pages like the Samsung one does on the right with dots to indicate which screen you are on - pure Apple RIP OFF,  if Sony could find a different way of representing without copying, so should Samsung.

    BTW if you buy any Apple product you are guaranteed to find the same effort into look, feel and manufacturing quality - which is part of the 'attraction' of Apple products,  its a pity Samsung don't put more effort into Industrial Design for all their other products instead of copying.

    good post. the reason Steve Jobs had admiration for SONY is that they DO NOT copy.

    go back and look at SONY products they are all different.
  • Reply 45 of 96

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Or three, the meaningful one, that Apple's legally-protected intellectual property has been infringed.


     


     


    How about coming back with an argument above the level of 'completely uninformed troll' before we continue? 


     


    There's no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves in every thread when you people come in and crap on it with your lack or willful ignorance of knowledge. It's on you to have an actual argument if you want to argue with the consensus at hand.



     


    OK.  You can keep calling me a "completely uninformed troll" but you will realize how ignorant that "or three, the meaningful one..." is once you read for even 10 minutes about remedies. 

  • Reply 46 of 96
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post


    In principle this is true, and believe me, I'm the biggest Apple nerd ALIVE (fact) but what Apple is doing here, either by choice or by force of a broken legal system, is not stopping a company from copying their products. What Apple is arguing here is that Samsung should not be able to use any ideas that Apple seems to believe are all 100% new and theirs. And sure, Apple did certainly bring a TON of new stuff to the table with the iPhone but no company ever creates things in a complete vacuum, and ideas are not legal property. After all, Apple themselves uses ideas from other products and companies ALL THE TIME. All companies do. It's just a part of creativity. In fact it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something that doesn't in some way connect back to something else.


    What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.



    Now tell me this: why isn't Microsoft Phone sued by Apple yet (if Apple is so against company using their idea like you said)? Why is Microsoft different than Samsung?

  • Reply 47 of 96
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    Now tell me this: why isn't Microsoft Phone sued by Apple yet (if Apple is so against company using their idea like you said)? Why is Microsoft different than Samsung?



    MS have a licensing agreement with Apple. 


     


    Apple tried to get Samsung to take one as well, but Samsung declined. Hence the suit. Pretty straightforward and simple really. 

  • Reply 48 of 96
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    While I'll wholeheartedly agree with you the reality is that copying Apple has proven to be more profitable than doing something different. How well is Samsung doing versus RIM and Nokia/MS? I've used plenty of mousetraps and the best ones are those that are modeled after the original one. I don't condone copying but I understand why it's done.


    True. If that's the best way to do things then negotiate for the right.

  • Reply 49 of 96
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    MS have a licensing agreement with Apple. 


     


    Apple tried to get Samsung to take one as well, but Samsung declined. Hence the suit. Pretty straightforward and simple really. 



    And that exactly show Apple didn't prevent their tech from being used by other companies like he suggested, isn't it?

  • Reply 50 of 96
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    And that exactly show Apple didn't prevent their tech from being used by other companies like he suggested, isn't it?



    I didn't read the history of the argument you guys had, i was just answering a question I saw. 


     


    Leave me out of it, lol


     


    EDIT: I must admit, Apple must have been pretty surprised by Samsung denying the offer. 


     


    OF COURSE they didn't expect them to pay full price, they negotiate, get some cross licensing and move on. You know, like ALL companies do in business everyday. They must have went about it as a formality and didn't think twice about it. 


     


    I really wonder why Samsung was so resistant seeing as they have cross licensing deals with so many other companies. What about the Apple offer do we not know, that made Samsung so resistant?

  • Reply 51 of 96
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    microview wrote: »
    <span style="font-family:'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(227,244,255);">I really don't give a rats ass about the dam Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?</span>

    This site is about Apple, not tech. So yes they are going to fill it up with story after story about the various suits because Apple is involved.

    If you want to talk about 'real technological innovations' you'll need to find another site for that.
  • Reply 52 of 96
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    matt clark wrote: »
    "
    That is exactly why this lawsuit is important. If Apple wins then real technological advances and progress will be much harder to make in America. Sorry to bore you.

    And how exactly is a design patent victory going to stop progress. How exactly is asserting a company's requirement to abide by FRAND rules they volunteered to follow originally going to stop progress. How is asserting a company's right to control access to their nonSEP going to stop progress.
  • Reply 53 of 96
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    ascii wrote: »
    They included a hyperlink to Apple's icon design guidelines in their document? That's a bit of a smoking gun isn't it?

    That and the comparisons of he icons and everything might not look good. Especially when they claim they looked at dozens of other sources, but have no reports etc to back that up. And despite claims they were prototyping the eventual designs way before the iPhone and iPad came out they have little to nothing to back that up. And nothing prior to the iPhone and iPad to show they were moving that direction anyway. Even when they had a kind of similar prototype on the shelf they didnt move on it until after Apple released.

    Some of these things could have been in the emails they destroyed by they can't prove that either and without proof the jury will be forced to assume they don't exist since only a truly stupid company would get rid of things that they could use to defend themselves in a lawsuit. And only a truly stupid company would assume they would never be in a lawsuit
  • Reply 54 of 96

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Samsung's lawyers are. And lawyers are supposed to be smart.



     


     


    I really don't think you are giving them enough credit, but it is not because I think they what they are honest, hard-working lawyers that deserve more credit and respect. I think from the defense Samsung is mounting they are really reaching to find devices so they can make claims of "prior art" and "obvious".  The ONLY question is whether the jury will see through it or buy what Samsung is saying. All Samsung must do is convince them (or confuse them) enough to win, and that's a hard thing judge until the final verdict.   I am pretty sure most (if not all) of us have been surprised by a jury's decision at some point in our lives.


     


    I do have a few questions though.  I have seen cases like this where the jury rules "guilty" or "not guilty" on various aspects of the case and damages awarded end up being more (or less) than expected.  I am assuming a partial victory for Apple is an option, but am I wrong about this?  Also, am I correct in assuming the jury ultimately decides the damages that should be paid?  Obviously everything can be appealed and nothing is final, but people are stating a lot of absolutes here.  I am not saying you're wrong to do so, I am just wondering: is this trial is different from others I have followed (beyond the obvious emotions and opinions involved)?


     


    The reason I ask is that Samsung may be aiming to lessen the blow and cause just enough uncertainty that they loose, but not as big is that could have.  That might be a smart, albeit underhanded, strategy PURELY from a legal point of view....

  • Reply 55 of 96
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    . Just imagine the number of car manufacturers that will have to innovate by making cars with a different number of wheels than four...

    Just imagine how that's not an issue since that design patent expired about 70 years ago.
  • Reply 56 of 96
    bcodebcode Posts: 141member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


    "According to in-court reports from All Things D, Sherman's testimony took shots at Apple's design patents, which he says are functional rather than ornamental. The patent expert also argued a number of alleged prior art claims, including a Japanese design patent from 2005 that bears passing resemblance to the iPhone with its rounded corners, rectangular shape and "lozenge-shaped" speaker."


     


    I think this is worth talking about:


     


    There are two types of patents being discussed in this case. One are functional patents, on specific ways of solving a problem. The other are design patents, covering aspects of the design itself. These are much more like trademarks, and are considered using similar criterion.


     


    We're all aware of "obviousness" and "prior art" in terms of functional patents. It is very important to note that these do NOT apply to design patents. It is perfectly OK for Apple to have a design patent on a device with prior art. The point of interest in these cases is whether or not the design was in widespread use prior to the patent being granted. That's not "any example of it", but "it was widely used".


     


    Sherman's examples of mock-ups are not germain. Unless those devices went into production and use, then, like trademarks, they aren't defendable.


     


    So thus the attempt to link the design patents to functionality, because otherwise the argument fails.



     


    This is the most on-point comment made to date.  If you don't understand functional vs design patents, then you're likely putting your foot in your mouth discussing the matter.

  • Reply 57 of 96
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    kharvel wrote: »

    As for the alleged "prior art" evidence, the jury will be out on that but I don't think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that these non-functional mock-ups are in any way comparable with the iPad and the Galaxy Tab.  

    Two points on this.

    1. Were these mockups public knowledge at the time they were created or have they been in an archive for most of this time. If they were public knowledge how public. Is it conceiveable that any designer could have easily found the mockups in a search for previous designs given the tech of the time.

    2. If they are going to use nonfunctioning mockups of ideas why not allow the whole 2001 defense. Is it not also a nonfunctioning mockup of an idea?
  • Reply 58 of 96
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bcode View Post


     


    This is the most poignant comment made to date.  If you don't understand functional vs design patents, then you're likely putting your foot in your mouth discussing the matter.



    The compaq tablet which Samsung is pointing to with the rectangular shape, rounded edges and all glass front DID go into production as a commercial product, and people did buy it. 


    Here's a review actually.....from 2002


     


    http://pencomputing.com/frames/tpc_compaq.html

  • Reply 59 of 96
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    antkm1 wrote: »
    .
    My point is, if the notion of "precedent" is valid in patents, then I think Apple probably felt they had to argue every minor instance with Samsung... in order not to set such a precedent.
    .

    Precedent is valid in all legal issues. Civil and criminal.

    And you do seem to have a grasp of the basic notion. Precedent can be used to win a case, depending on jurisdiction. Both Apple and Samsung are trying to both set precedent and stop it, depending on the issue.
  • Reply 60 of 96
    Or three, the meaningful one, that Apple's legally-protected intellectual property has been infringed.


    How about coming back with an argument above the level of 'completely uninformed troll' before we continue? 

    There's no reason for us to keep repeating ourselves in every thread when you people come in and crap on it with your lack or willful ignorance of knowledge. It's on you to have an actual argument if you want to argue with the consensus at hand.

    Trying to reason with people with an agenda reminds me of an episode of Friends- "The one where Joey speaks French".

    The crowning moment was when Phoebe apologizes in French to the director, imploring the director to play along because her "brother" (Joey) was demeuré.
Sign In or Register to comment.