Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/13/apple-injunction-letters/
17 comments
Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product.
The other day, I stuck a spare SIM into a 1st gen iPhone 8GB running iOS 3.1.2. Even on EDGE, the thing smokes my iPhone 3GS on iOS 5.1.1 bringing up the Maps program using 3G at the same location. It's positively slick, responsive, and just beautiful.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of bloat in both iOS and OS X now. My Macbook Pro running Lion is way slower than when it was running Snow Leopard, and the thing has an SSD! I've even disabled noatime and swap. That makes my machine faster, but it's still slower than it was.
The other day, I stuck a spare SIM into a 1st gen iPhone 8GB running iOS 3.1.2. Even on EDGE, the thing smokes my iPhone 3GS on iOS 5.1.1 bringing up the Maps program using 3G at the same location. It's positively slick, responsive, and just beautiful.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of bloat in both iOS and OS X now. My Macbook Pro running Lion is way slower than when it was running Snow Leopard, and the thing has an SSD! I've even disabled noatime and swap. That makes my machine faster, but it's still slower than it was.
It's crazy, isn't it? I don't think I'm ever going to "upgrade" the OS on my new iPhone. My iPhone 4 went from obscenely snappy to slow as my 3G when the 4 came out.
Sounds like free advertising for Samsung. If the products are good enough that Apple is playing dirty tricks to remove them to the market, maybe I need to reconsider buying a new iPhone when my contract runs out this fall.
I don't think that Apple is playing dirty tricks in this regard. I'm not particularly sympathetic to many kinds of patents that are being enforced these days, but Samsung is clearly trying to make slavish copies of Apple products, and Apple certainly is entitled to defend themselves against this.
I might not have been so sympathetic to Apple in this regard if I hadn't been fooled by Samsung products myself. E.g., a few months back I was in a Costco and saw a new iPad on display. I found this surprising, as I wasn't aware that there was a new iPad. I picked up the iPad and fiddled with it for a minute. I found it confusing, because it was so much like the iPad I had at home, except that some things were different in a way that I didn't expect. After a minute, I finally realized that this wasn't an iPad at all, but rather a Samsung tablet that had been designed to mimic the iPad in many important details.
I also recall seeing a TV show in which someone was speaking on an iPhone, only it wasn't any model of iPhone that I had seen before. I figured that it must have been a prop iPhone as perhaps Apple hadn't wanted to pay for the product placement in this episode. I vaguely recalled Apple suing Samsung over design patents and so I Googled for a minute. Sure enough, the "prop iPhone" was a real Samsung phone!
You can't knock-off a Chanel handbag. Why should you be able to knock-off an iPad or an iPhone?
Anyone who claims that Samsung isn't intentionally stealing Apple's design for their own profit is being disingenuous. And anyone who claims that Samsung couldn't easily differentiate their design from Apple's design is also be disingenuous. Other Android phones and tablets are not such slavish copies, and this is why Apple is going after Samsung, rather than other phone and tablet manufacturers.
I might not have been so sympathetic to Apple in this regard if I hadn't been fooled by Samsung products myself. E.g., a few months back I was in a Costco and saw a new iPad on display. I found this surprising, as I wasn't aware that there was a new iPad. I picked up the iPad and fiddled with it for a minute. I found it confusing, because it was so much like the iPad I had at home, except that some things were different in a way that I didn't expect. After a minute, I finally realized that this wasn't an iPad at all, but rather a Samsung tablet that had been designed to mimic the iPad in many important details.
I also recall seeing a TV show in which someone was speaking on an iPhone, only it wasn't any model of iPhone that I had seen before. I figured that it must have been a prop iPhone as perhaps Apple hadn't wanted to pay for the product placement in this episode. I vaguely recalled Apple suing Samsung over design patents and so I Googled for a minute. Sure enough, the "prop iPhone" was a real Samsung phone!
You can't knock-off a Chanel handbag. Why should you be able to knock-off an iPad or an iPhone?
Anyone who claims that Samsung isn't intentionally stealing Apple's design for their own profit is being disingenuous. And anyone who claims that Samsung couldn't easily differentiate their design from Apple's design is also be disingenuous. Other Android phones and tablets are not such slavish copies, and this is why Apple is going after Samsung, rather than other phone and tablet manufacturers.
> You can't knock-off a Chanel handbag. Why should you be able to knock-off an iPad or an iPhone?
I'll admit I'm not clear on US law, but aren't there some clothing makers who 'take inspiration' from high-end designer pieces and do very similar designs for the mass market? As long as they aren't labeled incorrectly, they don't seem to get into trouble.
(Not that this applies to this case, since I highly doubt most people would mistake Samsung phones for iPhones, not after a minute or two of using them. You yourself realised the devices weren't iOS in no time. In every mobile shop I walk into here, there are big Samsung signs and iPhone/iPad signs at the appropriate counters, and basically everyone knows what they're getting.)
Why should the icon layout or organisation of a mobile phone OS be protectable in the first place? All the old phones of yesteryear had icon menus as well. Or is sliding-screen navigation protected as well?
> I'm not particularly sympathetic to many kinds of patents that are being enforced these days, but Samsung is clearly trying to make slavish copies of Apple products, and Apple certainly is entitled to defend themselves against this.
Are you conflating patents with copyrighted design here? And how does the Galaxy Nexus 'slavishly' look or feel like an iPhone?
I'll admit I'm not clear on US law, but aren't there some clothing makers who 'take inspiration' from high-end designer pieces and do very similar designs for the mass market? As long as they aren't labeled incorrectly, they don't seem to get into trouble.
(Not that this applies to this case, since I highly doubt most people would mistake Samsung phones for iPhones, not after a minute or two of using them. You yourself realised the devices weren't iOS in no time. In every mobile shop I walk into here, there are big Samsung signs and iPhone/iPad signs at the appropriate counters, and basically everyone knows what they're getting.)
Why should the icon layout or organisation of a mobile phone OS be protectable in the first place? All the old phones of yesteryear had icon menus as well. Or is sliding-screen navigation protected as well?
> I'm not particularly sympathetic to many kinds of patents that are being enforced these days, but Samsung is clearly trying to make slavish copies of Apple products, and Apple certainly is entitled to defend themselves against this.
Are you conflating patents with copyrighted design here? And how does the Galaxy Nexus 'slavishly' look or feel like an iPhone?
IANAL, so I'm not arguing from legal principles, but from moral ones. If you want to sell something, you should sell something that is yours, not someone else's. Apple's design belongs to Apple, not to Samsung, and consequently, Samsung should not be allowed to sell it.
People who disagree with this, I guess, must somehow feel that design is a much easier task than writing software, and therefore design should be free. (Either that or you think that all software should be free too, but then we'll have to agree to disagree.) The reality of the matter is that good design is very difficult and very expensive. Why should Apple go to all the expense of developing a great design, just to have it stolen?
Re legal principles, there are such a thing as design patents, in addition to look-and-feel copyrights, though I have no opinion on their legal merits in general. As to how Apple will progress with this legal battle, I'm sure they will use any and all legal tactics that they believe will be effective. If one asserts that they might set some bad precedent in doing so, for all I know that may very well be the case. If it turns out this way, then Samsung is equally to blame for stealing Apple's design work.
Regarding the Nexus, I can't say. The Samsung phone I saw in a TV show that clearly IS a slavish copy is this one, or one very similar.
People who disagree with this, I guess, must somehow feel that design is a much easier task than writing software, and therefore design should be free. (Either that or you think that all software should be free too, but then we'll have to agree to disagree.) The reality of the matter is that good design is very difficult and very expensive. Why should Apple go to all the expense of developing a great design, just to have it stolen?
Re legal principles, there are such a thing as design patents, in addition to look-and-feel copyrights, though I have no opinion on their legal merits in general. As to how Apple will progress with this legal battle, I'm sure they will use any and all legal tactics that they believe will be effective. If one asserts that they might set some bad precedent in doing so, for all I know that may very well be the case. If it turns out this way, then Samsung is equally to blame for stealing Apple's design work.
Regarding the Nexus, I can't say. The Samsung phone I saw in a TV show that clearly IS a slavish copy is this one, or one very similar.
http://goo.gl/dJazg
> Apple's design belongs to Apple, not to Samsung, and consequently, Samsung should not be allowed to sell it.
I'm not sure that sole rights to a design is a moral principle. Imitating is the very basis of most design anyway - we take ideas from places and things we've seen and build upon them. If you acknowledge that designs don't occur in a vacuum, that they don't spring purely from the mind of the designer without outside influence, then maybe it's not morally wrong to take design elements from anything else, even a competing product. (The question of degree, however, is another matter.)
Product differentiation is heavily emphasised in marketing courses because it offers a competitive advantage over similarity. But that doesn't imply products need be differentiated in the first place.
Basically, IMO, companies can rail all they want about their designs being imitated, but the law shouldn't stop the appropriation of design elements -- except when it crosses the line into fake products, i.e. when there is intent to trick consumers into thinking a fake is the real thing. Taking the (perceived) pleasing aspects of a design should not be illegal.
I don't know, if it were a big company imitating the design of a small but up-and-coming rival, I would be more sympathetic to the small company, and maybe my stance would be different. But 'copying' design is not something that seems intrinsically wrong to me. I take design elements from other websites when I work on my project, and I wouldn't be able to blame another website if it took elements from me. If it imitated my design wholesale, I'd feel bemused and flattered, maybe angry if they were beating me at my own game, but I'd accept it as part of the game.
In this case, the Samsung phones I've had experience with have not looked like my iPhone 3GS, so I cannot agree that they slavishly imitate Apple's designs. The Galaxy S you linked does look similar, but the other Samsung phones I've seen do not (unless you consider rectangles with rounded corners to be sufficiently similar).
I'm not sure that sole rights to a design is a moral principle. Imitating is the very basis of most design anyway - we take ideas from places and things we've seen and build upon them. If you acknowledge that designs don't occur in a vacuum, that they don't spring purely from the mind of the designer without outside influence, then maybe it's not morally wrong to take design elements from anything else, even a competing product. (The question of degree, however, is another matter.)
Product differentiation is heavily emphasised in marketing courses because it offers a competitive advantage over similarity. But that doesn't imply products need be differentiated in the first place.
Basically, IMO, companies can rail all they want about their designs being imitated, but the law shouldn't stop the appropriation of design elements -- except when it crosses the line into fake products, i.e. when there is intent to trick consumers into thinking a fake is the real thing. Taking the (perceived) pleasing aspects of a design should not be illegal.
I don't know, if it were a big company imitating the design of a small but up-and-coming rival, I would be more sympathetic to the small company, and maybe my stance would be different. But 'copying' design is not something that seems intrinsically wrong to me. I take design elements from other websites when I work on my project, and I wouldn't be able to blame another website if it took elements from me. If it imitated my design wholesale, I'd feel bemused and flattered, maybe angry if they were beating me at my own game, but I'd accept it as part of the game.
In this case, the Samsung phones I've had experience with have not looked like my iPhone 3GS, so I cannot agree that they slavishly imitate Apple's designs. The Galaxy S you linked does look similar, but the other Samsung phones I've seen do not (unless you consider rectangles with rounded corners to be sufficiently similar).
You seriously cant tell iOS and Android apart?
Your statement feels like a work of fiction.
Your statement feels like a work of fiction.
I was referring to the physical aspects of the device more than anything else, though the home screen was also remarkably like iOS. All the icons looked a bit wrong, which caused the confusion that led me to more closely examine the physical device, looking for an Apple logo.
As to not being able to tell the difference between iOS and Android, I've never used Android, so I couldn't say. I have seen my friends using their Android devices, and all I can say about that is that their devices have looked rather blocky and cartoonish to me. The Samsung home screen did not have the Android blocky cartoonishness to it--it was much more iOS-like.
As to your claims about how my post "feels", please take your feelings and place them somewhere appropriate.
As to not being able to tell the difference between iOS and Android, I've never used Android, so I couldn't say. I have seen my friends using their Android devices, and all I can say about that is that their devices have looked rather blocky and cartoonish to me. The Samsung home screen did not have the Android blocky cartoonishness to it--it was much more iOS-like.
As to your claims about how my post "feels", please take your feelings and place them somewhere appropriate.
>As to your claims about how my post "feels", please take your feelings and place them somewhere appropriate.
That's uncalled for. I was being polite in my choice of words. Let me spell it out for you: Your story is the type of story a lawyer would write, to make a case in a front of a jury. Convincing in the mind, but totally unrealistic in reality. We could grab strangers from the street, and they would be able to tell the devices apart in a heartbeat.
For starters, the aspect ratio of Samsung devices and Apple devices is completely different. Yes, both products have rounded corners. Exactly like any other every mobile device in the last 20 years, because otherwise they would tear your clothes. Yes, they are as flat as they can be: again, not suprising.
There is often only one natural, optimal way for a vendor to engineer a device using the components that can now be produced at full-scale. The reason Samsung and Apple products look so much alike, is because they contain pretty much the same components: Apple products are essentially Samsung products with an Apple logo slapped on them. From the screens, to the chipsets.
So, for their products to look more alike is not that weird: they have been designed for the exact same set of limitations. (the form factor of Samsung components)
Finally, fashion does exist, and it is not owned by whoever happens to set the trend. From high heels, to low cut jeans, that's not so much copying designs, as it is about market research and listening to your customers.
And the right to 'own' a design requires that design to be superfluous. The three adidas bars are protected. The nike logo is protected. But nobody can sell a white T-shirt, and claim that design their own.
You can own branding. Copying designs is illegal only when it actually leads to consumer confusion, as an extension of trademarks. Apple isn't trying to own its design: it trying to own the whole concept of minimalism. That's function over form: and I personally love that, but you can't expect society to give any company a monopoly on minimalism.
Everybody is allowed to produce a white T-shirt. But only one company is allowed to put an apple on the back of that shirt.
That's uncalled for. I was being polite in my choice of words. Let me spell it out for you: Your story is the type of story a lawyer would write, to make a case in a front of a jury. Convincing in the mind, but totally unrealistic in reality. We could grab strangers from the street, and they would be able to tell the devices apart in a heartbeat.
For starters, the aspect ratio of Samsung devices and Apple devices is completely different. Yes, both products have rounded corners. Exactly like any other every mobile device in the last 20 years, because otherwise they would tear your clothes. Yes, they are as flat as they can be: again, not suprising.
There is often only one natural, optimal way for a vendor to engineer a device using the components that can now be produced at full-scale. The reason Samsung and Apple products look so much alike, is because they contain pretty much the same components: Apple products are essentially Samsung products with an Apple logo slapped on them. From the screens, to the chipsets.
So, for their products to look more alike is not that weird: they have been designed for the exact same set of limitations. (the form factor of Samsung components)
Finally, fashion does exist, and it is not owned by whoever happens to set the trend. From high heels, to low cut jeans, that's not so much copying designs, as it is about market research and listening to your customers.
And the right to 'own' a design requires that design to be superfluous. The three adidas bars are protected. The nike logo is protected. But nobody can sell a white T-shirt, and claim that design their own.
You can own branding. Copying designs is illegal only when it actually leads to consumer confusion, as an extension of trademarks. Apple isn't trying to own its design: it trying to own the whole concept of minimalism. That's function over form: and I personally love that, but you can't expect society to give any company a monopoly on minimalism.
Everybody is allowed to produce a white T-shirt. But only one company is allowed to put an apple on the back of that shirt.
> That's uncalled for. I was being polite in my choice of words.
And I wasn't? You effectively called me a liar, and yet I didn't tell you to fsck off. I gave you every choice about other uses for your thinly veiled accusation.
> Let me spell it out for you: Your story is the type of story a lawyer would write, to make a case in a front of a jury. Convincing in the mind, but totally unrealistic in reality.
I-A-N-A-L
F-U
>We could grab strangers from the street, and they would be able to tell the devices apart in a heartbeat.
If you say so. I guess I'm just stupid compared to strangers from the street, then?
> So, for their products to look more alike is not that weird
This is the type of thing a lawyer would write to be able to make a case in front of a jury. Do you work for Samsung? It feels to me like you are a paid shill for them, protecting their reputation on the internet.
Let me spell it out for you: The similarity between the iPad and the Samsung tablet was not accidental. The Samsung device was a slavish copy. This fact is well-proven by the fact that there are plenty of other tablets out there and none of the others are readily confusable with an iPad.
And I wasn't? You effectively called me a liar, and yet I didn't tell you to fsck off. I gave you every choice about other uses for your thinly veiled accusation.
> Let me spell it out for you: Your story is the type of story a lawyer would write, to make a case in a front of a jury. Convincing in the mind, but totally unrealistic in reality.
I-A-N-A-L
F-U
>We could grab strangers from the street, and they would be able to tell the devices apart in a heartbeat.
If you say so. I guess I'm just stupid compared to strangers from the street, then?
> So, for their products to look more alike is not that weird
This is the type of thing a lawyer would write to be able to make a case in front of a jury. Do you work for Samsung? It feels to me like you are a paid shill for them, protecting their reputation on the internet.
Let me spell it out for you: The similarity between the iPad and the Samsung tablet was not accidental. The Samsung device was a slavish copy. This fact is well-proven by the fact that there are plenty of other tablets out there and none of the others are readily confusable with an iPad.
There's some Hyundais and/or Kias that look awfully like Jaguars and BMWs. You'd do a double take in the street. Do the aped companies wage a public battle against them? No, they know their quality speaks for itself.
I have never seen two brands of cars that I couldn't distinguish in a second or two, any double-takes notwithstanding. It would not take me a minute. Nor have I seen two models of cars that were slavish copies. When the day comes that all tablets look almost exactly like iPads, and our brains have adapted to telling the brands apart from whatever subtle differences they possess, you might have a point. In the meantime, Samsung is clearly trying to sell their tablets based on making them as indistinguishable from an iPad as they can get away with making them.
I don't see how anyone can support this business model. If they were an honest company, they would market their tablet on its own merits, not on how much they can cause brand confusion, or on how closely they can mimic another company's design.
I don't see how anyone can support this business model. If they were an honest company, they would market their tablet on its own merits, not on how much they can cause brand confusion, or on how closely they can mimic another company's design.
So what you're saying is that the differences in these sample images: http://file.chosunonline.com/article/2004/08/13/888798282884... http://file.chosunonline.com/article/2004/12/12/455470214619... are easier to spot than the difference between one centred physical menu button and three software menu buttons? Which car brand is this one? http://i.imgur.com/bPhHK.jpg
I'm not interested in defending Samsung here, but I do agree with the posters upthread that Apple's actions do show a certain amount of insecurity. Again - did Mercedes-Benz or Jaguar say anything about the Amanti?
I'm not interested in defending Samsung here, but I do agree with the posters upthread that Apple's actions do show a certain amount of insecurity. Again - did Mercedes-Benz or Jaguar say anything about the Amanti?
Certain cars have a very distinctive look, and intentionally so. If another company were to try to make a car that slavishly tried to copy their distinctive look, then I think the first car company would have every right to sue the second car company. E.g., if another company were to make a car that would take you a minute to notice the difference between it and a Nissan Cube, then Nissan would be well within its rights to sue.
On other other hand, some cars are made to look "just like every other car". Clearly for the cars that are doing this, there is nothing to sue about.
On other other hand, some cars are made to look "just like every other car". Clearly for the cars that are doing this, there is nothing to sue about.
I'm not arguing about whether they would have the right to sue. I'm asking whether they do it in practice, and why or why not.
Do you think the Jaguar S-type and the Mercedes-Benz E-class are among the cars made to look just like every other car?
Do you think the Jaguar S-type and the Mercedes-Benz E-class are among the cars made to look just like every other car?
The Jaguar has a very distinctive front-grill. The rest of the car is less unique, but if someone were to copy the Jaguar down to the front grill, then Jaguar should sue.
The Mercedes is not very distinctive to my eye, other than the prominent round Mercedes ornament on the hood. If another car company were to make a luxurious-looking car with a round peace-sign ornament, for instance, on its hood, then Mercedes should sue.
As to whether car companies sue each other in practice, I have no idea. I'm sure they would, however, if they felt that (1) another car company were making a slavish copy of their design, (2) they had a good chance of winning the court case, and (3) the suit wouldn't somehow hurt their image too much.
The Mercedes is not very distinctive to my eye, other than the prominent round Mercedes ornament on the hood. If another car company were to make a luxurious-looking car with a round peace-sign ornament, for instance, on its hood, then Mercedes should sue.
As to whether car companies sue each other in practice, I have no idea. I'm sure they would, however, if they felt that (1) another car company were making a slavish copy of their design, (2) they had a good chance of winning the court case, and (3) the suit wouldn't somehow hurt their image too much.
Fashion can't be trademarked or copyrighted. You can slavishly copy a Chanel handbag if you don't also copy the logo. That's why many expensive brands use their logos in patterns on their handbags.
I agree with you, but don't forget that Steve Jobs vowed to go "thermonuclear war" on Android. It seems the folks at Apple are determined to follow through on that promise and will use any and all (potentially nasty) measures to see Android fail.
Just remember, patents are government-granted monopolies.
Lets not get into a conversation about the state of software patents in this country, or the quality and breadth of Apple's patents.
But I think it seems a bit unreasonable to ban the sale of an entire device which is based on hundreds if not thousands of patents just because it MIGHT (keep in mind this case was not won but Apple, this was a preliminary injunction) infringe on one or two software patents.
But I think it seems a bit unreasonable to ban the sale of an entire device which is based on hundreds if not thousands of patents just because it MIGHT (keep in mind this case was not won but Apple, this was a preliminary injunction) infringe on one or two software patents.
If you think you have a chance at winning a case about patents then not acting would be foolish.
edit: My point is that this IS a conversation about software patents and competition and not whether or not you are I think this is reasonable. If the system is broken and you, as a multi-billion company, don't take that competitive advantage someone else will.
edit: My point is that this IS a conversation about software patents and competition and not whether or not you are I think this is reasonable. If the system is broken and you, as a multi-billion company, don't take that competitive advantage someone else will.
Can we have a little break where people can make good products and compete fairly? Let's not be so eager to jump into the pit with another brutal monopoly.
edit: "If I don't take advantage, someone else will" is also known as mutually assured destruction. I liked the patent cold war better than what we're seeing now. Companies should shelve the nukes and go back to vying for customers with merits, not missiles.
edit: "If I don't take advantage, someone else will" is also known as mutually assured destruction. I liked the patent cold war better than what we're seeing now. Companies should shelve the nukes and go back to vying for customers with merits, not missiles.
So using them shows you have no balls to compete freely.
The best patent is the one never enforced. "Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product" still stands.
The best patent is the one never enforced. "Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product" still stands.
I hope you are consistent with that belief.
Because what Samsung is doing with its FRAND patents is 100x worse than what Apple is doing.
Because what Samsung is doing with its FRAND patents is 100x worse than what Apple is doing.
And the government granted Kevin Rose the monopoly to vote on things.
> Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product.
Isn't the quality of Apple's design part of the quality of their product? If other companies can copy Apple's design, then other companies can just copy a significant part of Apple's quality without putting in any of the effort and cost that Apple put into their design.
Okay, well, let's say for the point of argument is is morally okay for other companies to "borrow" Apple's design, and this is just tough luck for Apple. In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products? I.e., why not let other companies just make perfect knock-offs down to the circuit board level? And while we're at it, they should just be able to copy Apple's software too?
In that case, companies should compete on nothing other than their ability to manufacture commodities for as cheaply as possible.
Personally, I find the attitude that design should be free, while everything else should be IP, to be highly insulting to design experts and their expertise.
Isn't the quality of Apple's design part of the quality of their product? If other companies can copy Apple's design, then other companies can just copy a significant part of Apple's quality without putting in any of the effort and cost that Apple put into their design.
Okay, well, let's say for the point of argument is is morally okay for other companies to "borrow" Apple's design, and this is just tough luck for Apple. In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products? I.e., why not let other companies just make perfect knock-offs down to the circuit board level? And while we're at it, they should just be able to copy Apple's software too?
In that case, companies should compete on nothing other than their ability to manufacture commodities for as cheaply as possible.
Personally, I find the attitude that design should be free, while everything else should be IP, to be highly insulting to design experts and their expertise.
> Okay, well, let's say for the point of argument is is morally okay for other companies to "borrow" Apple's design, and this is just tough luck for Apple. In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products?
If a competing product has particular features, I do think it should be permissible to re-create those features in your own product. That's the reason why many folks here are against software patents - because the idea behind a feature should not be protected if a competitor can produce the same effect with its own engineering.
> In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products?
They can't, though, because they wouldn't have access to those aspects. Design and features are two things that are publicly exposed to the world, and personally I think you should be able to implement features your competitors have. Similarly, while I wouldn't copy a design wholesale, I don't think it should be wrong to take elements from others' designs.
If a competing product has particular features, I do think it should be permissible to re-create those features in your own product. That's the reason why many folks here are against software patents - because the idea behind a feature should not be protected if a competitor can produce the same effect with its own engineering.
> In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products?
They can't, though, because they wouldn't have access to those aspects. Design and features are two things that are publicly exposed to the world, and personally I think you should be able to implement features your competitors have. Similarly, while I wouldn't copy a design wholesale, I don't think it should be wrong to take elements from others' designs.
force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.
People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes, malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.
People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes, malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.
Wow. That's a whole lot of kool-aid.
For the record: all my computers, equipped with 3g modems and touchscreens or not, running a variety of OSes, are running just fine with none of those issues.
For the record: all my computers, equipped with 3g modems and touchscreens or not, running a variety of OSes, are running just fine with none of those issues.
>People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes, malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.
Really?
I thought that was the fee for not using Linux.
(looks around for cover)
Really?
I thought that was the fee for not using Linux.
(looks around for cover)
I assume Microsoft's patent extortion is included in the price of my Android tablet... sigh...
Licensing is a fair, non-monopolistic way to settle patent infringement. The fact that Android thrives despite the fee is proof of that. Microsoft is using the system as intended. The validity of the patent is another matter, but the companies paying the fee don't seem to be interested in settling it.
>the companies paying the fee don't seem to be interested in settling it.
I think most of the companies are not interested in a protracted legal battle with a partner many of them still rely on for licensing arrangements in other businesses. Microsoft is just playing "good cop" to Apple's existential "bad cop" threat. Doesn't mean they like paying tolls to Redmond.
I think most of the companies are not interested in a protracted legal battle with a partner many of them still rely on for licensing arrangements in other businesses. Microsoft is just playing "good cop" to Apple's existential "bad cop" threat. Doesn't mean they like paying tolls to Redmond.
I'll take that over weaponized patents. Microsoft is showing restraint, even if it's only because of their mutual interest in knocking Apple down a peg. I'll criticize Microsoft as soon as they use those patents to block competitors.
Extorting fees for every Android device sold shows restraint? Maybe by comparison to Apple, but I prefer not to grade on a curve.
And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please criticize away. :)
And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please criticize away. :)
Is it every device? I haven't been able to find a good overview that lists companies that have signed on and companies that haven't, or details on the specific patents. I couldn't speculate on what might have been without more information.
Set your spin filters to maximum and try this Microsoft article from last year: https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/...
I think they've sued a few more vendors into joining since then.
I think they've sued a few more vendors into joining since then.
I don't see much in the way of details. It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. By that understanding, a licensee could use Metro or something derived from it.
My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.
My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.
If only settling with Microsoft indemnified ODMs from future litigation risk!
This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive advantage in the market place!
The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)
This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive advantage in the market place!
The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)
> It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want.
"Not getting sued" should not need to be a product.
> My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something.
As I said, I don't want to grade on a curve. Both of those options suck.
"Not getting sued" should not need to be a product.
> My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something.
As I said, I don't want to grade on a curve. Both of those options suck.
[deleted]
Nope. Everything's working fine on my Windows 7 laptop.
Ignoring the obvious patent ridiculousness, I'm a little bit surprised and dismayed to see Apple going so hard after Android in this way.
1) As a consumer, competition in this space is overwhelmingly positive. You can already see a number of improvements Apple has made to iOS as a result of Android, and a strong Android OS will continue to keep them on their toes.
2) You have to wonder if it is even good for Apple to win in the long run. They have so much control over the iPhone ecosystem, getting too much market share in the mobile/tablet space would very likely garner unwanted attention from the DOJ. It is possible Android is a significant buffer against an anti-trust action similar to what Microsoft saw in the 90's.
1) As a consumer, competition in this space is overwhelmingly positive. You can already see a number of improvements Apple has made to iOS as a result of Android, and a strong Android OS will continue to keep them on their toes.
2) You have to wonder if it is even good for Apple to win in the long run. They have so much control over the iPhone ecosystem, getting too much market share in the mobile/tablet space would very likely garner unwanted attention from the DOJ. It is possible Android is a significant buffer against an anti-trust action similar to what Microsoft saw in the 90's.
This just tells me to go out and buy one of these, since Apple sees it as a threat. Which means its probably a decent device. They haven't pulled a stunt like this on all the other crappy tablets that have come out.
Like briandear mentioned, this is more directed towards Samsung in particular (although Android itself is a big part of it, and this is part of a broader war on Android), but at least part of the reason I think Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab so strongly is that is that, from a physical perspective, it looks quite a bit like the iPad. When a few of my co-workers got them and had them sitting on their desks, I sort of assumed that they were iPads - they very closely resemble them.
While I think Apple would still be pursuing them without the physical resemblance, at least some of the strong reaction you're seeing is due to it, so I wouldn't necessarily take their reaction as an endorsement of the Tab (although I have heard it is quite good).
While I think Apple would still be pursuing them without the physical resemblance, at least some of the strong reaction you're seeing is due to it, so I wouldn't necessarily take their reaction as an endorsement of the Tab (although I have heard it is quite good).
My guess if it looked like the iPad but provided a sub-par experience, Apple would be laughing in their Ivory Tower about how cute it is they think rounded tablet edges make all the difference.
According to the Isaacson book:
“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs in 2010.
And to Eric Schmidt regarding patent licensing: ”I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”
“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs in 2010.
And to Eric Schmidt regarding patent licensing: ”I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”
"... and that notifications UI, I want that too." ;)
They aren't going after Android (in this case.) This is about Samsung.
Everyone talks about how innovative Apple is and how innovative Steve Jobs was and how he changed 'the world'. But no one talks about how much innovation Apple has crippled more than they had contributed.
For example, a recent broad patent called Universal Search was used by Apple to sue Android OEM's and the end result? The feature was removed from certain Android phones to avoid litigation. And mind you, Universal search had long existed before Apple had patented it. This is just one example, but there are many many broad patents that Apple uses to cripple innovation. The end result is that the users lose more than these companies because they are missing out a lot of features that their devices are capable of implementing. Funny how this is something that is not written much about by these tech Journalists. You never see someone writing how Apple crippled innovation, but only how 'cool' Apple is or how 'innovative' they are. Pathetic.
We need a better, unbiased source for technology news. The current set of tech journalists sound more like Apple sales men. We live in a world where we are forced to read what the journalists think of the news rather than just the news itself. Hope someone from HN builds such a platform.
For example, a recent broad patent called Universal Search was used by Apple to sue Android OEM's and the end result? The feature was removed from certain Android phones to avoid litigation. And mind you, Universal search had long existed before Apple had patented it. This is just one example, but there are many many broad patents that Apple uses to cripple innovation. The end result is that the users lose more than these companies because they are missing out a lot of features that their devices are capable of implementing. Funny how this is something that is not written much about by these tech Journalists. You never see someone writing how Apple crippled innovation, but only how 'cool' Apple is or how 'innovative' they are. Pathetic.
We need a better, unbiased source for technology news. The current set of tech journalists sound more like Apple sales men. We live in a world where we are forced to read what the journalists think of the news rather than just the news itself. Hope someone from HN builds such a platform.
I love the fact that the huge legal teams from Samsung, HTC, Google etc can't find prior art for Apple's "universal search" patent but you can.
Or maybe if you actually read the patent you would realise it is for a specific client side, plug-in based implementation which at its time definitely didn't exist on any OS.
Or maybe if you actually read the patent you would realise it is for a specific client side, plug-in based implementation which at its time definitely didn't exist on any OS.
Wait, no prior art was found? Did I miss an announcement, a failed patent suit, or some other piece of news, or are you just assuming things there?
If the original patent is specific enough to cover only Apple's particular method of searching a phone, then how could Android's unified search be found to be infringing without some sort of reverse engineering or source code examination? If this examination had been done, surely we'd have the results published somewhere.
On the other hand, if the patent was general enough to cover any search across multiple components on a device, then surely it should not have been granted and we should not be cheering for a company that exercises such a monopoly?
If this unified search patent can be used to stop a phone from searching through multiple data types and components, do you actually think that's something that should stand up in court in the first place? Or are you just going to argue that Apple is just making use of the monopolies granted by the system, the rules of the game, and should be excused anyhow?
If the original patent is specific enough to cover only Apple's particular method of searching a phone, then how could Android's unified search be found to be infringing without some sort of reverse engineering or source code examination? If this examination had been done, surely we'd have the results published somewhere.
On the other hand, if the patent was general enough to cover any search across multiple components on a device, then surely it should not have been granted and we should not be cheering for a company that exercises such a monopoly?
If this unified search patent can be used to stop a phone from searching through multiple data types and components, do you actually think that's something that should stand up in court in the first place? Or are you just going to argue that Apple is just making use of the monopolies granted by the system, the rules of the game, and should be excused anyhow?
Ok, I'll come your way. So be it, let's assume this is a very 'innovative patent' as per your theory. Do you think they should be suing all the OEM's for such a ridiculous patent? As an end user, I lost a very important feature on my phone just because a random company whose products I don't even want to own is trying to prove how innovative it is. If you still support them, then I have nothing else to say. Have a nice day.
Although its not on mobile didn't Google's desktop search tools cover an awful lot of this? I certainly remember it returning, emails, documents and other textual data in the result. It also had plugin support.
It may not have existed on mobile but one could argue that much of it did already exist on the desktop, bringing similar functionality to a mobile is not especially innovative in my opinion, its a feature at best. Integrating things is not innovative either.
I would love to see the fireworks of Apple taking Google to court on search patent infringement.
It may not have existed on mobile but one could argue that much of it did already exist on the desktop, bringing similar functionality to a mobile is not especially innovative in my opinion, its a feature at best. Integrating things is not innovative either.
I would love to see the fireworks of Apple taking Google to court on search patent infringement.
It's quite sad to see this. How many people here are using the Galaxy Nexus? Google just pushed the 4.1 update and it is simply an awesome device and os. It definitely serves a more technical audience than the iPhone, but the power and customizability is amazing. I like the iPhone, but I just prefer the flexibility of the Nexus and the fact that no contract is required. The direct from Google model and Android's open philosophy simply works better for me. Choice is a good thing, the last time I checked.
Thanks for the recommendation. AT&T contract just expired, and I'm looking into getting an Android.
Besides the nice hardware on the Nexus (although not quite as powerful as the Galaxy S III), you get almost instant OS updates. Other devices have to wait a few months (if they ever get the updates) since the carriers control the updates and have custom themes on top of Android.
I don't really care about "powerful" hardware, but I have heard bad things about the GPS and camera in the Nexus, which, combined, are about 80% of the reason I use a smart phone. I'm going to give the GS3 a shot and just hope that the wonderful folks at Cyanogen will work their magic.
Being Sicilian I'm well placed to know how to name this kind of acts: mafia.
The only difference with traditional mafia is that in this case the act is dressed with the clothes of a big corporation but the underlying meaning of this kind of acts is just the same.
The only difference with traditional mafia is that in this case the act is dressed with the clothes of a big corporation but the underlying meaning of this kind of acts is just the same.
You mean outside of the physical coercion, eh? That seems like a big difference in my head.
If I petition the city to have my neighbor trim back his tree, it is one thing. If I beat him and threaten his family as an encouragement to trim the tree and give me $20, it is another thing altogether.
If I petition the city to have my neighbor trim back his tree, it is one thing. If I beat him and threaten his family as an encouragement to trim the tree and give me $20, it is another thing altogether.
Actions can be mafia even without physical violence.
As everyone can see the notice was sent by Apple itself not by an US institution like a tribunal or a governmental agency.
Even juridical acts can be a form of violence expecially if they came from a big organization against a small retailer. The fact that there is no physical violence put them in another plan but violence and intimidations are always of the same nature and qualifies this act as mafia (in my point of view).
As everyone can see the notice was sent by Apple itself not by an US institution like a tribunal or a governmental agency.
Even juridical acts can be a form of violence expecially if they came from a big organization against a small retailer. The fact that there is no physical violence put them in another plan but violence and intimidations are always of the same nature and qualifies this act as mafia (in my point of view).
I would attribute the mafia-style handling even more to Microsoft who basically formed a protection racket demanding fees from all Android manufacturers who want to build devices using a free and open source OS.
In the USA the government is the mafia. Similar to mafia's strength with 40 percent unemployment in So. Italy. The goal of US government is 40 percent unemployment which will give them ultimate control over the population. It has nothing to do with Republican or Democratic parties. You see the truth.
Citation needed.
It's sad to see what Apple is becoming.
They can not win this war, probably not even delay the outcome by a measurable margin.
Meanwhile Android begins to leapfrog them not only on hardware (which has been the case for a while, short of tablets) but also on software and the holy grail of user-experience.
They still have quite an edge on the UX-front but that is destined to fade if they don't come to their senses really soon now.
They can not win this war, probably not even delay the outcome by a measurable margin.
Meanwhile Android begins to leapfrog them not only on hardware (which has been the case for a while, short of tablets) but also on software and the holy grail of user-experience.
They still have quite an edge on the UX-front but that is destined to fade if they don't come to their senses really soon now.
The way I understand it, they're not doing it for profit. They're doing it to scare the hell out of Google, Samsung and HTC not to copy the design of Apple's products. They're just making an example of Samsung to show that they're ready to whatever necessary to protect their IP, even at the cost of tarnishing their own brand.
Patent Trolling by Apple. This is just silly, do they really believe they can keep their edge this way? Intimidating 3rd party vendors?
If Apple really felt their product was superior, I'm sure they wouldn't need to worry about their competition enough to sue them.
Sorry, but that statement is just silly.
To bring any new product to market inevitably requires a lot of R&D, development expenses, and a certain amount of risk-taking, hoping you really are inventing the next great thing.
Once a product is proven to be successful it is relatively simple for a competitor to attempt to copy or duplicate the most popular facets of that device. Because they did not have to spend resources on the same development and market testing, it stands to reason that the copy product could also be sold much more cheaply than the original, giving the competitive product a significant cost advantage (or giving the company creating the product a higher profit margin, or both).
I'm not saying anything specific about Apple or Samsung in this case, but product superiority alone is rarely the competition killer you appear to make it out to be.
To bring any new product to market inevitably requires a lot of R&D, development expenses, and a certain amount of risk-taking, hoping you really are inventing the next great thing.
Once a product is proven to be successful it is relatively simple for a competitor to attempt to copy or duplicate the most popular facets of that device. Because they did not have to spend resources on the same development and market testing, it stands to reason that the copy product could also be sold much more cheaply than the original, giving the competitive product a significant cost advantage (or giving the company creating the product a higher profit margin, or both).
I'm not saying anything specific about Apple or Samsung in this case, but product superiority alone is rarely the competition killer you appear to make it out to be.
That's reading a bit too much into it.
Apple's lawyers have always been busy. In the "PC era", Apple sued businesses that dared to use an apple as its logo.
Apple's lawyers have always been busy. In the "PC era", Apple sued businesses that dared to use an apple as its logo.
What I have gathered from US law is that they have to do it in order to protect their trademark. If they don't sue, it's same as giving up the trademark. Please correct if I'm wrong.
You get a trademark for a specific context.
If Apple's trademark was restricted to the context of computing (likely), then suing anyone who dared using an Appple in their logo was beyond the score of necessary protection.
If Apple's trademark was restricted to the context of computing (likely), then suing anyone who dared using an Appple in their logo was beyond the score of necessary protection.
One problem Apple computer had is that it's trademark was limited to computing. That caused problems when they branched out to other markets such as 'computers that can do MIDI'
In particular, they had quite a few disagreements with Apple Records about doing audio. Even though more or less the only people who know Apple Corps/Records think "of the Beatles' records", they took action against Apple even as early as 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)
I think those lawsuits may have affected company culture at Apple Computer, now Apple Inc.
In particular, they had quite a few disagreements with Apple Records about doing audio. Even though more or less the only people who know Apple Corps/Records think "of the Beatles' records", they took action against Apple even as early as 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)
I think those lawsuits may have affected company culture at Apple Computer, now Apple Inc.
Which is exactly what they do
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-ta...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-ta...
I guess it is just an issue of semantics, but while I disagree with Apple here, I have a hard time calling them a 'patent troll'. To me, that always indicated an NPE who was suing random people over a patent that had never actually been implemented in a product.
I think Apple is wrong (and a little short-sighted) here, but I don't think this puts them on the same level as Lodsys or IV.
I think Apple is wrong (and a little short-sighted) here, but I don't think this puts them on the same level as Lodsys or IV.
Apple is definitely a patent troll, even if they're doing it indirectly. Ever hear of the Rockstar Consortium?
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/
There is ZERO evidence that Apple has used core FRAND patents (which that article refers to) against its competitors.
But Samsung, HTC, Google etc have. Hence the ITC/EU investigation of those companies.
But Samsung, HTC, Google etc have. Hence the ITC/EU investigation of those companies.
It may just be my perverse nature, or some variant of Streisand Effect... but this just makes me want to buy one.
[disclosure: I'm long AAPL]
[disclosure: I'm long AAPL]
I remember reading in a 1st Circuit (I think) opinion that something like 60% of challenged patents are invalidated. This strategy strikes me as quite dangerous for Apple. They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue, and they could lose everything. Worse, even if they win, the patents at issue will be worked around and it will be a temporary setback. Apple really gets very little out of this fight.
So yeah, given that reality it would probably be smarter to try to focus on, well, actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom.
So yeah, given that reality it would probably be smarter to try to focus on, well, actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom.
No doubt Apple and their lawyers know this too. What they get out of this is temporary removal of a competing product from sale. This almost certainly has bottom line benefits for Apple.
Courtrooms and patents are just another tool big corporations use to compete. Apple is particularly aggressive as is Microsoft but many companies do this. Motorola comes to mind and Nokia as well.
This needs to be fixed at the congressional level but good luck with that. Congress thinks the current patent system is pretty much perfect. Hopefully, with people like Posner finally speaking out, this changes
Courtrooms and patents are just another tool big corporations use to compete. Apple is particularly aggressive as is Microsoft but many companies do this. Motorola comes to mind and Nokia as well.
This needs to be fixed at the congressional level but good luck with that. Congress thinks the current patent system is pretty much perfect. Hopefully, with people like Posner finally speaking out, this changes
> They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue
And the other half get significantly strengthened.
And the other half get significantly strengthened.
define "strengthened."
I don't know what percentage of patents survive by being read narrowly by a court.
The thing is that three things can happen to a patent when it is challenged:
1) The court can say "that's not a valid patent" kind of like the Supreme Court recently did in Mayo v. Prometheus (Prometheus patented how to interpret test results. The Supreme Court said you couldn't patent the results of the test, just the method of testing.)
2) The court can say "Ok, so the following is legitimate prior art, and additionally if we read this broadly, it can't be patentable, and so what's left when we read it narrowly and leave out the areas covered by the prior art is yours." In this case the patent is "strengthened" in the sense that everyone has a better idea of what will happen next time in court but it is also narrowed.
3) The court can let the patent stand as-is.
The problem is that while the latter two seem like they strengthen the legal position the next time around, where a patent was previously unknown or disputed, they also weaken the market impact because they provide larger reasons to work around the patent.
So I don't know. I don't see an upside for Apple here other than a very, very temporary edge in the marketplace.
I don't know what percentage of patents survive by being read narrowly by a court.
The thing is that three things can happen to a patent when it is challenged:
1) The court can say "that's not a valid patent" kind of like the Supreme Court recently did in Mayo v. Prometheus (Prometheus patented how to interpret test results. The Supreme Court said you couldn't patent the results of the test, just the method of testing.)
2) The court can say "Ok, so the following is legitimate prior art, and additionally if we read this broadly, it can't be patentable, and so what's left when we read it narrowly and leave out the areas covered by the prior art is yours." In this case the patent is "strengthened" in the sense that everyone has a better idea of what will happen next time in court but it is also narrowed.
3) The court can let the patent stand as-is.
The problem is that while the latter two seem like they strengthen the legal position the next time around, where a patent was previously unknown or disputed, they also weaken the market impact because they provide larger reasons to work around the patent.
So I don't know. I don't see an upside for Apple here other than a very, very temporary edge in the marketplace.
"... actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom."
They're doing both, and it's a very slippery slope if they send the message that they are not willing to protect their patents.
I do agree, though, that it is a shame all of this effort is put into legal battles for what is usually minimal benefit. And that goes for the legal system in general.
They're doing both, and it's a very slippery slope if they send the message that they are not willing to protect their patents.
I do agree, though, that it is a shame all of this effort is put into legal battles for what is usually minimal benefit. And that goes for the legal system in general.
What did we think they were going to spend millions in court trying to remove competitors then not act on it ?
Apple's suing on "form factor" ????
We need to curtail the Patent Industry, not Samsung.
Samsung DID straight up copy Apple. Apple isn't going after other manufacturers, just this specific one for these specific devices. Here's a little side-by-side comparison of what Samsung did: http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga...
This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design.
Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.
This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design.
Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.
You're confusing trademarks with patents. Trademarks are supposed to avoid consumer confusion. In fact, in trademark lawsuits it's required that you establish that there's consumer confusion, or else you have no case. It's common on these lawsuits that consumers are interviewed and asked if they're confused by the products. Apple would've done this if they had a trademark case against Samsung. In any other IP case which isn't trademark, pointing confusion, as in the Samsung lawyer example, is just a meaningless gimmick that serves no real purpose. [1] But Apple isn't suing Samsung for trademark infringement, they're suing for patents. Which means to stop Samsung for using Apple's technological "inventions". So your argument is invalid, Apple is not trying to establish confusion. They're going specifically after Samsung simply because they're by far the biggest target. And the examples in your blog are blatant cherry-picking. [2]
[1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/
[2] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/
[1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/
[2] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/
You might want to do a bit of research on something called a "design patent".
Still, I think a patent only reaches functional aspects.
I would be just as surprised if you could patent a shade of green as if you could patent the meaning of a test result.
I would be just as surprised if you could patent a shade of green as if you could patent the meaning of a test result.
Design and functionality are interlinked.
And it is pretty common to trademark colours.
And it is pretty common to trademark colours.
But trademarks aren't a part of this lawsuit, are they?
The point is that if Apple was suing under trademarks they would have done things differently, but don't appear to be doing so, probably because patents have wider protections than trademarks do.
You can trademark a color in a certain context, but I doubt you can trademark the color and then enforce general ownership rights to it.
After all even in more specific contexts, I seem to remember 'Gel Cel' being impermissibly generic as a trademark.
The point is that if Apple was suing under trademarks they would have done things differently, but don't appear to be doing so, probably because patents have wider protections than trademarks do.
You can trademark a color in a certain context, but I doubt you can trademark the color and then enforce general ownership rights to it.
After all even in more specific contexts, I seem to remember 'Gel Cel' being impermissibly generic as a trademark.
Lets at least compare the products in question. The link in your comment compares the Galaxy Tab 7 to the iPad 2, and even then is making its comparison based on very old pictures. I went to Samsung's and Apple's website and downloaded images of the home screen of the products in question.
Quick side by side job-
Tab10 vs iPad: http://i.imgur.com/3jnEf.png
Galaxy Nexus vs iPhone: http://i.imgur.com/eZAyj.png
You are free to choose which you think looks "better" but the design is not even similar. One is made of glass of and aluminum, the other of glass and plastic. The differences between the the Galaxy Nexus and the 4s is even more striking. My comparison doesn't go a good job of showing the scale but they are no where near the same size either.
If you really want to compare old and completely unrelated devices, have a look at this picture that made its rounds on Google+ during the #boycottapple time: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nMgzXpDyNhA/Ta3iBWUo3bI/AAAAAAAAM1...
Quick side by side job-
Tab10 vs iPad: http://i.imgur.com/3jnEf.png
Galaxy Nexus vs iPhone: http://i.imgur.com/eZAyj.png
You are free to choose which you think looks "better" but the design is not even similar. One is made of glass of and aluminum, the other of glass and plastic. The differences between the the Galaxy Nexus and the 4s is even more striking. My comparison doesn't go a good job of showing the scale but they are no where near the same size either.
If you really want to compare old and completely unrelated devices, have a look at this picture that made its rounds on Google+ during the #boycottapple time: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nMgzXpDyNhA/Ta3iBWUo3bI/AAAAAAAAM1...
Nice work there detective. Unfortunately that Galaxy you showed is the 10.1n which is the modified version to make it deliberately look different than an iPad.
Here is the "original" Galaxy Tab.
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/...
Here is the "original" Galaxy Tab.
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/...
That does look a little more iPady... However, I'm assuming that this (the 10.1n) is the model that most retailers are currently selling, and that Apple was sending letters to stop the sale of... The more salient point and the injunction that has been since been reversed is for the Galaxy Nexus which is in no way similar to the iPhone 4s.
Unrelated, who uses a tablet from 10 ft away anyway?
Unrelated, who uses a tablet from 10 ft away anyway?
Grow up.
The simple fact is this: Apple can't demonstrate 10, let alone any meaningful number of people who accidentally bought a Galaxy when they meant to pick up an iPad/iPhone.
It doesn't happen.
The simple fact is this: Apple can't demonstrate 10, let alone any meaningful number of people who accidentally bought a Galaxy when they meant to pick up an iPad/iPhone.
It doesn't happen.
This is similar to how Scott toilet paper completely copied Charmin toilet paper.
Exhibit A, a Scott toilet paper roll:
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4937842907021398&pid=1.5
Exhibit B, a Charmin toilet paper roll:
http://www.coloredtoiletpaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01...
Also, I usually like to shop for rolls by unpackaging them, placing them side by side, stepping back 20 meters and just staring at them from the other side of the store, and now I was totally confused as to which was which. I don't understand why more people aren't up in arms about this. Scott clearly had the intent to copy Charmin's paper-around-roll design philosophy. The world needs more patents to prevent this.
Exhibit A, a Scott toilet paper roll:
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4937842907021398&pid=1.5
Exhibit B, a Charmin toilet paper roll:
http://www.coloredtoiletpaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01...
Also, I usually like to shop for rolls by unpackaging them, placing them side by side, stepping back 20 meters and just staring at them from the other side of the store, and now I was totally confused as to which was which. I don't understand why more people aren't up in arms about this. Scott clearly had the intent to copy Charmin's paper-around-roll design philosophy. The world needs more patents to prevent this.
There are toilet paper patents: http://www.onemanclapping.org/2009/01/patents-toilet-paper.h...
None of these are about the paper-around-the-cylinder design. Clearly it is needed so that we can promote innovation in the roll shape. Why can't Scott opt for a rectangular (prism) roll?
It's easy to see that they copied on the software side, but there are only so many ways you can distinguish a flat rectangle while making it useful for its intended function. Not everyone is willing to take a huge leap like with the nice-looking and distinct Lumia 900.
As for the box, I like Samsung's. All apple did was plaster a picture of the iPad on the front of a box.
As for the box, I like Samsung's. All apple did was plaster a picture of the iPad on the front of a box.
The galaxy nexus is a stock android device, no such UI modifications from samsung are present here. Instead, apple is going after device-wide search and some other ridiculous patents.
Well, I don't know much about the actual lawsuit, but in order to get back into compliance Samsung has rolled out an update that disables the search function from searching the actual phone. That's right, Apple has somehow patented a text-based search of the items on a device. What a brilliant, non-obvious idea! Right up there with the light bulb. I deserves a government-sanctioned, and protected, monopoly!
Your comment made me laugh so hard.
Ordered one a minute ago in protest.
If you're in the US and near the Canadian border both are available here in Canada, I think.
http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus
I don't know if is the new one or not: http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-...
http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus
I don't know if is the new one or not: http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-...
Wasn't the temporary ban on the Galaxy Nexus lifted? Apple is still sending these takedown notices right now, even though the ban was lifted?
According to the article, Apple was sending the takedowns before the lift.
"Apple began sending those notices associated with the Galaxy Nexus on June 3, the same day U.S. Judge Lucy Koh turned down Samsung’s appeal on the injunction. Three days later, however, Judge Koh suspended the injunction."
The Verge probably makes this part more clear:
"According to Samsung, several sellers received letters ordering them to cease selling the two devices in late June and early July, before the ban on the Galaxy Nexus was stayed."
- http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-gal...
"Apple began sending those notices associated with the Galaxy Nexus on June 3, the same day U.S. Judge Lucy Koh turned down Samsung’s appeal on the injunction. Three days later, however, Judge Koh suspended the injunction."
The Verge probably makes this part more clear:
"According to Samsung, several sellers received letters ordering them to cease selling the two devices in late June and early July, before the ban on the Galaxy Nexus was stayed."
- http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-gal...
Ban on Galaxy Nexus was lifted but not on Galaxy Tab. Nexus is only sold online, tab is the one being sold in retail. Apple's letter only references the tab.
There doesn't seem to be any information stating whether or not Apple made any attempt to tell retailers they could sell these products again after the injunction was lifted.
This is as anti-competitive behavior at its worse. Before we know it Apple will have formed the OAAA (Only Apple Association of America) and be lobbying congress to force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.