So thus the attempt to link the design patents to functionality, because otherwise the argument fails.
Then Apple counters with several ways to perform the same function without that design element to show that what they did was not the 'obvious' functional choice but a look one.
Example. The home button could have been a button on the side like the volume and sleep/wake button. Or a software button like the assistive touch one.
But does Apple's design add any technical innovative effects on previous non-Apple tablet designs that are worth patent protections?
That is a functional patent issue, not a design one. Design patents, as Samsung points out several times, are about ornament issues not functional ones. It's the look and feel of something, not how it works. Samsung is trying to invalidate Apple design partly under prior art and partly by saying that there's no other way for something to function those that item isn't just look and feel and can't be in a design patent, it should be in a functional one.
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.
Good thing that looks nothing like the iPad design patent Apple holds. The bezel isn't of uniform size on all sides of the display, the display's cover glass isn't edge-to-edge, their isn't a singular physical button centered on one size of the bezel, and to top it off, it isn't even a standalone tablet with it's nondetachable keyboard. This is a laptop with a swivel touchscreen. It even has a "trap door" for ports on size of it. This looks nothing like an iPad and if Samsung came out with a more svelt model today, Apple wouldn't be suing them for patent infringement.
first of all, there's no way apple would and should be awarded with 2 billions.
Yes they should. IF Samsung infringed on Apple's patents. Forget about whether Apple lost sales because of consumer confusion. Samsung infringing on a patent means they didn't pay to rightly use it, thus Apple is entitled to royalties on all items Samsung did sell. And as they are nonSEP then Apple can value that patent however they wish. If it comes out to $20 billion, that is their call. Samsung can try to get it reduced in appeal but Apple isn't obligated to be fair, reasonable or non discriminatory in this case.
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?
Learn about what patents actually protect before you embarrass yourself further. Especially as your tone is attempting to suggest you have some knowledge of the topic.
Good thing that looks nothing like the iPad design patent Apple holds. The bezel isn't of uniform size on all sides of the display, the display's cover glass isn't edge-to-edge, their isn't a singular physical button centered on one size of the bezel, and to top it off, it isn't even a standalone tablet with it's nondetachable keyboard. This is a laptop with a swivel touchscreen. It even has a "trap door" for ports on size of it. This looks nothing like an iPad and if Samsung came out with a more svelt model today, Apple wouldn't be suing them for patent infringement.
uhhh, you do realize that the Tab has a different camera placement, its bezel is not uniform and to top it off, there are ZERO physical buttons on the front of it.
So saying things like that kinda make it look like the Tab isn't infringing.
Oh, by the way, the keyboard IS detachable. It says so right there in the review and you can clearly see it in the bottom left picture. Its like the asus transformer. The keyboard can be removed easily by the user and the slate used on its own, or you can use the keyboard as a stand, or you can use it like a laptop, as i said, its like the transformer.
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 that consumers actually buy samsung's instead of apple's for what is being copied (i am saying cables and boxes and rectangular design), is that true? or 2) the brand image of apple is being hurt; for this to be true people must be confused between the apple's and samsung's product, and think of an inferior product (samsung's) to be apple's. is that true? i believe the 2 billion was assessed based on the 1) argument and if you guys actually think so, that means you guys think samsung copied that well.
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? would you honestly believe that other pizza companies should not produce peperoni pizza looking pizza???? so somehow put the peperoni underneath cheese or something? this is just ridiculous right? what apple is doing is similarly ridiculous. just because it involves some semiconductors, glasses, and metals instead of ham and cheese, that does not make apple's designs patent worthy.
You should change your name to Lobotomist it would explain you viewpoint better.
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.
So by reading a bunch of nonsense posts that say "the patent system is broken", "the patent system needs to be fixed", "the patent system needs to be completely overhauled", "no one should have patents for anything", and equally outlandish crap with no substance or legitimate thought behind it, I'm supposed to glean how the actual reason for this trial isn't actually the actual reason for this trial?
I don't know how the lawsuits will turn out, because the law is really, really bad at seeing the big picture - lawyers always argue down to fine points, debating over even the most vague definition of a word. It's insane. Like a judge once said "I don't know how to legally define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
Likewise, at this point we all know that Samesung's devices are a blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and technology. And that's not all. Samsung has a history of ripping everyone off. I don't think a single product they make has ever been an original idea from within Samsung.
I for one am done with Samsung. I will never by another Samsung branded product again. Regardless of what happens in court, I think Apple should put the screws to Samesung. Apple should source every single component for every single product they make from manufacturers other than Samsung. Why reward the company that's ripping you off by continuing to buy parts from the same? I know Apple's been working to lessen their dependence on Samsung parts, but I think it's time to kick it into high gear and sever all business with them, even if that means spending some of those billions of dollars on their own chip fab. Git 'er done.
uhhh, you do realize that the Tab has a different camera placement, its bezel is not uniform and to top it off, there are ZERO physical buttons on the front of it.
So saying things like that kinda make it look like the Tab isn't infringing.
Oh, by the way, the keyboard IS detachable. It says so right there in the review and you can clearly see it in the bottom left picture. Its like the asus transformer. The keyboard can be removed easily by the user and the slate used on its own, or you can use the keyboard as a stand, or you can use it like a laptop, as i said, its like the transformer.
The Tab's bezel looks uniform to me, at least for all the photos of it I googled for 'galaxy tab.' Yes the camera's in a different location, but I don't believe the patent mentions camera placement and since it doesn't add to or detract from the design of the Tab, it could be argued it's placement is irrelevant. I do give you there are no physical buttons on the face of the Tab, but considering it again doesn't add to or detract from the design of the device, it still looks strikingly too similar to the iPad according to Apple.
Forgive me not noticing the keyboard unit actually detaches, it looks like the tablet part is almost useless without it. But I'll add that this Compaq design has a uniform shape for the front and back of the device, along with a thick strip of contrasting material and color running along the sides.
This case is arguing the difference between similarly designed products vs copied designed products.
Perhaps if Samsung had produced this as it's first Tab (even though it's from it's "Note" line):
See, Samsung can create a product that looks similar to an iPad without it looking like a direct copy of design. One wonders why they didn't just create their own iconic design in the first place.
Sorry, guy, but had you followed the link in the tweet you'd know that it wasn't Mr. Mulller making that statement. Here is the first paragraph from that referenced article…
"InformationWeek on Monday caught up with Christopher Canari, chairman of the American Bar Association’s design rights committee and former chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association committee on industrial design, to get his take on the Samsung (005930) vs. Apple (AAPL) patent trial. And so far, he says that based on what he’s seen, he thinks Samsung is in serious trouble."
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...
I disagree. In this particular case, I think that Apple is suing over the composite of ideas. After all, they did introduce the case as one of "slavishly copying". That is, if a vendor happens to make a tablet sharing just a few of the properties (like rectangular tablet with capacitive touchscreen and multitouch) they don't necessarily sue over that particular feature. But when the copying goes well beyond coincidence, to the point where numerous elements are cloned (including the custom dock port cable! WTF?) then Apple isn't going to let it slide. I don't blame them. Of course, once you get into the courtroom, you have to debate and obsess over every single patent and feature, but that doesn't mean you are suing over them each individually. It is the combined effect of Samsung's copying that is so alarming here, and a company of their size should know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
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.
Well I agree with you here, but I think that Samsung has gotten extremely close to that line with some of their phones and tablets vis-a-vis iPhone/iPad. It is clear from the documents, if not from the artifacts that were available even before trial, that their goal was to approach that line as closely as they could with the hope that they would be protected either by their FRAND patents (not so valuable per unit) and/or the fact that rectangular tablets existed before (a red herring) and/or by a lengthy, costly, litigation stonewalling (which may still go on for years via appeals, etc).
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.
So except for the swivel keyboard and stylus and handle and multi-touch on the iPad etc etc, it's exactly the same. Gee, that cleared everything up. Sorry, not prior art
So except for the swivel keyboard and stylus and handle and multi-touch on the iPad etc etc, it's exactly the same. Gee, that cleared everything up. Sorry, not prior art
I don't believe any of those items are addressed nor restricted by Apple's design patent. It could apply to an electronic device with any or all of those features, which might include some of the other devices mentioned.
I don't believe any of those items are addressed nor restricted by Apple's design patent. It could apply to an electronic device with any or all of those features, which might include some of the other devices mentioned.
The design patent lists a whole bunch of qualities, but it is understood to be a composite description. Apple is not asserting that nobody can produce a product with ANY of the individual qualities. They are asserting that Samsung has adopted too many to be coincidence, and did so deliberately. The documentation in court so far seems to back this up.
Meanwhile, this tablet from days gone by only seems to have a few things in common with iPad. I don't see them as being close enough in overall design to claim the other tablet as prior art. Nor do I think that Apple would sue if this other tablet came out after. No big deal.
I have heard over and over people claiming that patent lawsuits are so expensive and are destroying innovation. I wonder how much this lawsuit is costing vis a vis the actual profits and gross sales that are being considered. In this case, we are not talking about a product that one single person could ever hope to make. The cell phone market is so large that any competitor must be able to work in a field of competition where tens of billions of dollars are at stake in any given month. Even 2 billion sounds small to me compared to getting my company to stay in the fight for another year. The ultimate goal is control of a market with 250- 300 billion dollars worth of sales in any given year. If I were the CEO of Samsung and I could get the results I they have gotten from the business decision of copying the iPhone, I would have written a check for 2 billion and just started copying anyway. Especially, if I had known that it would put me in the number 2 position just as this market is consolidating. I am only talking about the iPhone not the iPad as well. If that is thrown in here as is the case, we are talking more like 500 -600 billion dollars a year in gross sales. That number is staggering.
Big picture, if Apple and Samsung get 80% of that market between them, they are looking at splitting 100 billion in profits a year. On the same note, it is not hard to understand why Samsung is willing to do what it did. This is just business in the biggest leagues. Compared to the head aches in the similarly large market of Oil production and sales this is a walk in the park. The oil companies have to deal with nation states, start wars of conquest to get control and fight encroachment from any new energy technology.
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?
Samsung didn't want to pay anywhere near what Apple was asking. Not even a fraction of that. So they figured that they would try to get away without paying. And they still might.
Comments
Then Apple counters with several ways to perform the same function without that design element to show that what they did was not the 'obvious' functional choice but a look one.
Example. The home button could have been a button on the side like the volume and sleep/wake button. Or a software button like the assistive touch one.
That is a functional patent issue, not a design one. Design patents, as Samsung points out several times, are about ornament issues not functional ones. It's the look and feel of something, not how it works. Samsung is trying to invalidate Apple design partly under prior art and partly by saying that there's no other way for something to function those that item isn't just look and feel and can't be in a design patent, it should be in a functional one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
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
Good thing that looks nothing like the iPad design patent Apple holds. The bezel isn't of uniform size on all sides of the display, the display's cover glass isn't edge-to-edge, their isn't a singular physical button centered on one size of the bezel, and to top it off, it isn't even a standalone tablet with it's nondetachable keyboard. This is a laptop with a swivel touchscreen. It even has a "trap door" for ports on size of it. This looks nothing like an iPad and if Samsung came out with a more svelt model today, Apple wouldn't be suing them for patent infringement.
Yes they should. IF Samsung infringed on Apple's patents. Forget about whether Apple lost sales because of consumer confusion. Samsung infringing on a patent means they didn't pay to rightly use it, thus Apple is entitled to royalties on all items Samsung did sell. And as they are nonSEP then Apple can value that patent however they wish. If it comes out to $20 billion, that is their call. Samsung can try to get it reduced in appeal but Apple isn't obligated to be fair, reasonable or non discriminatory in this case.
Learn about what patents actually protect before you embarrass yourself further. Especially as your tone is attempting to suggest you have some knowledge of the topic.
Your point would be better made with a first hand source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Good thing that looks nothing like the iPad design patent Apple holds. The bezel isn't of uniform size on all sides of the display, the display's cover glass isn't edge-to-edge, their isn't a singular physical button centered on one size of the bezel, and to top it off, it isn't even a standalone tablet with it's nondetachable keyboard. This is a laptop with a swivel touchscreen. It even has a "trap door" for ports on size of it. This looks nothing like an iPad and if Samsung came out with a more svelt model today, Apple wouldn't be suing them for patent infringement.
uhhh, you do realize that the Tab has a different camera placement, its bezel is not uniform and to top it off, there are ZERO physical buttons on the front of it.
So saying things like that kinda make it look like the Tab isn't infringing.
Oh, by the way, the keyboard IS detachable. It says so right there in the review and you can clearly see it in the bottom left picture. Its like the asus transformer. The keyboard can be removed easily by the user and the slate used on its own, or you can use the keyboard as a stand, or you can use it like a laptop, as i said, its like the transformer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Your point would be better made with a first hand source.
At 5:40 there is video of SJ at the iphone unveiling saying and I quote
"We have invented a new technology called multi-touch"
Did you even watch the video? SJ said Apple invented it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
let me walk through with you.
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 that consumers actually buy samsung's instead of apple's for what is being copied (i am saying cables and boxes and rectangular design), is that true? or 2) the brand image of apple is being hurt; for this to be true people must be confused between the apple's and samsung's product, and think of an inferior product (samsung's) to be apple's. is that true? i believe the 2 billion was assessed based on the 1) argument and if you guys actually think so, that means you guys think samsung copied that well.
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? would you honestly believe that other pizza companies should not produce peperoni pizza looking pizza???? so somehow put the peperoni underneath cheese or something? this is just ridiculous right? what apple is doing is similarly ridiculous. just because it involves some semiconductors, glasses, and metals instead of ham and cheese, that does not make apple's designs patent worthy.
You should change your name to Lobotomist it would explain you viewpoint better.
Originally Posted by Loptimist
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.
So by reading a bunch of nonsense posts that say "the patent system is broken", "the patent system needs to be fixed", "the patent system needs to be completely overhauled", "no one should have patents for anything", and equally outlandish crap with no substance or legitimate thought behind it, I'm supposed to glean how the actual reason for this trial isn't actually the actual reason for this trial?
I don't know how the lawsuits will turn out, because the law is really, really bad at seeing the big picture - lawyers always argue down to fine points, debating over even the most vague definition of a word. It's insane. Like a judge once said "I don't know how to legally define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
Likewise, at this point we all know that Samesung's devices are a blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and technology. And that's not all. Samsung has a history of ripping everyone off. I don't think a single product they make has ever been an original idea from within Samsung.
I for one am done with Samsung. I will never by another Samsung branded product again. Regardless of what happens in court, I think Apple should put the screws to Samesung. Apple should source every single component for every single product they make from manufacturers other than Samsung. Why reward the company that's ripping you off by continuing to buy parts from the same? I know Apple's been working to lessen their dependence on Samsung parts, but I think it's time to kick it into high gear and sever all business with them, even if that means spending some of those billions of dollars on their own chip fab. Git 'er done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
uhhh, you do realize that the Tab has a different camera placement, its bezel is not uniform and to top it off, there are ZERO physical buttons on the front of it.
So saying things like that kinda make it look like the Tab isn't infringing.
Oh, by the way, the keyboard IS detachable. It says so right there in the review and you can clearly see it in the bottom left picture. Its like the asus transformer. The keyboard can be removed easily by the user and the slate used on its own, or you can use the keyboard as a stand, or you can use it like a laptop, as i said, its like the transformer.
The Tab's bezel looks uniform to me, at least for all the photos of it I googled for 'galaxy tab.' Yes the camera's in a different location, but I don't believe the patent mentions camera placement and since it doesn't add to or detract from the design of the Tab, it could be argued it's placement is irrelevant. I do give you there are no physical buttons on the face of the Tab, but considering it again doesn't add to or detract from the design of the device, it still looks strikingly too similar to the iPad according to Apple.
Forgive me not noticing the keyboard unit actually detaches, it looks like the tablet part is almost useless without it. But I'll add that this Compaq design has a uniform shape for the front and back of the device, along with a thick strip of contrasting material and color running along the sides.
This case is arguing the difference between similarly designed products vs copied designed products.
Perhaps if Samsung had produced this as it's first Tab (even though it's from it's "Note" line):
See, Samsung can create a product that looks similar to an iPad without it looking like a direct copy of design. One wonders why they didn't just create their own iconic design in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac
Patent expert, huh? Yeah, right.
( PS. Note to Mr. Mueller, seeing as you are often quoted in AI, I hope you don't mind my using your tweet. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Google, Oracle Must Disclose Writer Payments, Judge Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-07/google-oracle-must-disclose-payments-to-bloggers-judge-rules.html
Sorry, guy, but had you followed the link in the tweet you'd know that it wasn't Mr. Mulller making that statement. Here is the first paragraph from that referenced article…
"InformationWeek on Monday caught up with Christopher Canari, chairman of the American Bar Association’s design rights committee and former chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association committee on industrial design, to get his take on the Samsung (005930) vs. Apple (AAPL) patent trial. And so far, he says that based on what he’s seen, he thinks Samsung is in serious trouble."
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
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...
I disagree. In this particular case, I think that Apple is suing over the composite of ideas. After all, they did introduce the case as one of "slavishly copying". That is, if a vendor happens to make a tablet sharing just a few of the properties (like rectangular tablet with capacitive touchscreen and multitouch) they don't necessarily sue over that particular feature. But when the copying goes well beyond coincidence, to the point where numerous elements are cloned (including the custom dock port cable! WTF?) then Apple isn't going to let it slide. I don't blame them. Of course, once you get into the courtroom, you have to debate and obsess over every single patent and feature, but that doesn't mean you are suing over them each individually. It is the combined effect of Samsung's copying that is so alarming here, and a company of their size should know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
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.
Well I agree with you here, but I think that Samsung has gotten extremely close to that line with some of their phones and tablets vis-a-vis iPhone/iPad. It is clear from the documents, if not from the artifacts that were available even before trial, that their goal was to approach that line as closely as they could with the hope that they would be protected either by their FRAND patents (not so valuable per unit) and/or the fact that rectangular tablets existed before (a red herring) and/or by a lengthy, costly, litigation stonewalling (which may still go on for years via appeals, etc).
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
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
So except for the swivel keyboard and stylus and handle and multi-touch on the iPad etc etc, it's exactly the same. Gee, that cleared everything up. Sorry, not prior art
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
So except for the swivel keyboard and stylus and handle and multi-touch on the iPad etc etc, it's exactly the same. Gee, that cleared everything up. Sorry, not prior art
I don't believe any of those items are addressed nor restricted by Apple's design patent. It could apply to an electronic device with any or all of those features, which might include some of the other devices mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I don't believe any of those items are addressed nor restricted by Apple's design patent. It could apply to an electronic device with any or all of those features, which might include some of the other devices mentioned.
The design patent lists a whole bunch of qualities, but it is understood to be a composite description. Apple is not asserting that nobody can produce a product with ANY of the individual qualities. They are asserting that Samsung has adopted too many to be coincidence, and did so deliberately. The documentation in court so far seems to back this up.
Meanwhile, this tablet from days gone by only seems to have a few things in common with iPad. I don't see them as being close enough in overall design to claim the other tablet as prior art. Nor do I think that Apple would sue if this other tablet came out after. No big deal.
Thompson
I have heard over and over people claiming that patent lawsuits are so expensive and are destroying innovation. I wonder how much this lawsuit is costing vis a vis the actual profits and gross sales that are being considered. In this case, we are not talking about a product that one single person could ever hope to make. The cell phone market is so large that any competitor must be able to work in a field of competition where tens of billions of dollars are at stake in any given month. Even 2 billion sounds small to me compared to getting my company to stay in the fight for another year. The ultimate goal is control of a market with 250- 300 billion dollars worth of sales in any given year. If I were the CEO of Samsung and I could get the results I they have gotten from the business decision of copying the iPhone, I would have written a check for 2 billion and just started copying anyway. Especially, if I had known that it would put me in the number 2 position just as this market is consolidating. I am only talking about the iPhone not the iPad as well. If that is thrown in here as is the case, we are talking more like 500 -600 billion dollars a year in gross sales. That number is staggering.
Big picture, if Apple and Samsung get 80% of that market between them, they are looking at splitting 100 billion in profits a year. On the same note, it is not hard to understand why Samsung is willing to do what it did. This is just business in the biggest leagues. Compared to the head aches in the similarly large market of Oil production and sales this is a walk in the park. The oil companies have to deal with nation states, start wars of conquest to get control and fight encroachment from any new energy technology.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
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?
Samsung didn't want to pay anywhere near what Apple was asking. Not even a fraction of that. So they figured that they would try to get away without paying. And they still might.
Using your own words, it's pretty simple, really.
Thompson
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie
Big picture, if Apple and Samsung get 80% of that market between them, they are looking at splitting 100 billion in profits a year.
Yeah, 80% marketshare Samsung, 20% Apple. 80% profits Apple, 20% Samsung.