Apple Files Patent Suit Against Samsung Over Galaxy Line of Phones and Tablets(mobilized.allthingsd.com)
mobilized.allthingsd.com
Apple Files Patent Suit Against Samsung Over Galaxy Line of Phones and Tablets
http://mobilized.allthingsd.com/20110418/apple-files-patent-suit-against-samsung-over-galaxy-line-of-phones-and-tablets/
110 comments
There's only so much variation you can have once you've decided that most of the surface area of a phone is going to be taken up by a touch-sensitive screen.
Yeah, exactly: Samsung was FORCED into using the exact same number of icons, arranged in the same 5 rows of 4 icons, in the exact same shape. Also forced into a 4-icon shaded bar at the bottom with the 4 key icons in said bar, and forced into using a near-identical "phone" icon in the exact same place, because after all, a light-green phone icon with a diagonally-slanted depiction of a phone handset was the only possible way to go. Samsung was also clearly forced into using the exact same means of depicting multiple screens of icons.
Come on. Samsung clearly didn't even TRY to distinguish their product, here. This is about as obvious as it gets.
Come on. Samsung clearly didn't even TRY to distinguish their product, here. This is about as obvious as it gets.
The 5x4 layout seems pretty unremarkable -- should each phone manufacturer have to trademark their own layout (n,m), for nonzero integers n,m? Will small players be forced to adopt button grids like 21x1 if they can't license actually-usable arrangements?
I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable. The color is more interesting, until you look at wikipedia and see that mobile phones were using almost the exact same iconography -- phone silhouette over light green background -- at least as far back as 1989:
Nokia Mobira Cityman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia#First_mobile_phones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_150_and_nokia_1100.j...
The only difference is that the icon has been rotated and now has a shorter aspect ratio. Also the silhouette is now white instead of black.
I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable. The color is more interesting, until you look at wikipedia and see that mobile phones were using almost the exact same iconography -- phone silhouette over light green background -- at least as far back as 1989:
Nokia Mobira Cityman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia#First_mobile_phones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_150_and_nokia_1100.j...
The only difference is that the icon has been rotated and now has a shorter aspect ratio. Also the silhouette is now white instead of black.
>I don't think it's reasonable that a simple silhouette of a phone, used as an icon to represent a phone, is trademarkable.
Trademarks are an interesting case, though. You can trademark common ideas, especially if you're the first one to get the trademark for that specific use. They're extremely focused in that they can only be used in a specific way. MS' trademarks on Windows and Word, for example, only apply to operating systems and word processors.
Trademarks are an interesting case, though. You can trademark common ideas, especially if you're the first one to get the trademark for that specific use. They're extremely focused in that they can only be used in a specific way. MS' trademarks on Windows and Word, for example, only apply to operating systems and word processors.
Most of your points would apply if you substituted Samsung with Apple and Apple with Palm.
You probably meant it the other way around: Palm's Pilot (1996) borrowed heavily from Apple's Newton MessagePad (1993).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_MessagePad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_MessagePad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000
According to Jobs, anything created while he wasn't there is not canon.
Definitely funny, but Steve Jobs ≠ Apple, even though Wall St hasn't realized it yet.
Wrong on both counts. Steve Jobs IS Apple, as evidenced by the rather impressive performance of Apple since he returned as CEO, and Wall St. HAS realized it, and Wall St. is right.
Or do you think someone else is chiefly responsible?
Jobs built a great team, and of course he didn't do it all himself, but he sure makes one hell of a great figurehead. :)
Or do you think someone else is chiefly responsible?
Jobs built a great team, and of course he didn't do it all himself, but he sure makes one hell of a great figurehead. :)
Windows Phone 7 looks pretty substantially different from iOS. Unlike most of the rapid followers of the iPhone, it looks like Microsoft really tried to rethink a mobile interface. It looks different and fresh, even if it's not the best mobile operating system out there.
Samsung's design isn't just derivative, it's more or less a straight copy. Microsoft illustrates that there's no necessity built into the medium that requires an iOS-like interface.
Apple may forever be chasing "look and feel" violations in vain, but I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off.
Samsung's design isn't just derivative, it's more or less a straight copy. Microsoft illustrates that there's no necessity built into the medium that requires an iOS-like interface.
Apple may forever be chasing "look and feel" violations in vain, but I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off.
> I think they have a point when they say that Samsung's interface is basically just a rip off.
A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm.
A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm.
"A grid of icons isn't exactly new. Palm did it before Apple. Windows 3.11 before Palm."
Apple's Newton OS came three years before Palm's Pilot. Apple's Mac System came 8 years before Windows 3.11. They all used grids of icons, it's part of the desktop metaphor. If that were the only thing Samsung copied, I doubt they would be getting sued now.
Apple's Newton OS came three years before Palm's Pilot. Apple's Mac System came 8 years before Windows 3.11. They all used grids of icons, it's part of the desktop metaphor. If that were the only thing Samsung copied, I doubt they would be getting sued now.
There seem to be more similarities than just a grid of icons.
Correction: It's Google's interface. Apple is suing all of Google's hardware partners, but the software Apple is complaining about is Google's. It isn't in the All Things D article, but TechCrunch's coverage includes the important fact that the suit includes the Nexus S, which is stock Android: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/18/apple-sues-samsung-claims-i...
Samsung doesn't use Google's stock Android UI. It uses its own TouchWiz UI [1], which it also put on its proprietary OS phones and Bada phones.
HTC also doesn't use Google's stock Android UI. It uses its own Sense UI [2], which it also put on BREW and Windows Mobile phones.
Other Android handset makers also created their own custom UIs. Motorola has Motoblur [3], SonyEricsson has the 'UX' platform [4].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchwiz
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Sense
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoblur
[4] http://www.xperiax10.net/2009/11/18/se-launches-nexus-ux-pla...
HTC also doesn't use Google's stock Android UI. It uses its own Sense UI [2], which it also put on BREW and Windows Mobile phones.
Other Android handset makers also created their own custom UIs. Motorola has Motoblur [3], SonyEricsson has the 'UX' platform [4].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchwiz
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Sense
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoblur
[4] http://www.xperiax10.net/2009/11/18/se-launches-nexus-ux-pla...
I know all that, but the Nexus S — which is included in Apple's suit — is completely stock Android as far as I know, so Samsung's modifications seem to be irrelevant to Apple's beef with the phones.
Phone vendors customize the default UI pretty heavily sometimes. In this case, it appears they customized it to make it look more like iOS.
As also mentioned elsewhere, the Nexus S — which is included in Apple's suit — is completely stock Android as far as I know, so Samsung's modifications seem to be irrelevant to Apple's beef with the phones.
/me looks around for Nexus S photos
Yeah, there there's too much of a difference (IMO), especially as the device itself looks substantially different. Android, I think, looks plenty different to avoid the suit - the Galaxy S in particular, though, doesn't. Not sure what their aim is there.
Yeah, there there's too much of a difference (IMO), especially as the device itself looks substantially different. Android, I think, looks plenty different to avoid the suit - the Galaxy S in particular, though, doesn't. Not sure what their aim is there.
Where does the coloured background for the Android icons come from? On my Nexus One, all the icons are transparent, but on my Samsung devices the icons have colored backgrounds. It seems as if this is another thing Samsung did to make it more like the iPhone. Can anyone confirm this?
(Messaging, browser, and the keyboard shading also seem to reflect much more iPhone than stock Android.)
(Messaging, browser, and the keyboard shading also seem to reflect much more iPhone than stock Android.)
Jason Fried has a great piece on this idea: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/575-but-theres-only-so-many-w...
I'm sure people claimed that prior to iOS's success as well.
As much as I usually hate Apple, I'm with you on this one. One of my coworkers had the phone in that picture, and I almost asked her when she got an iPhone before I recognized that some of the icons were a bit off.
Wow. That's almost as if someone would take the original Xerox Parc computer designs and, you know, build a copied computer of and sell in their own name.
Wait, so Xeroc Parc had a massively successful GUI computing product that they proved the commercial viability of through their own risk, capital, and initiative?
What's it matter if something is popular before copying it? If anything it's more of a dick move to copy something relatively unknown.
It doesn't matter if something is popular, but this case heavily revolves around Trade Dress and consumer confusion. If Xerox's OS never became a commercial product those issues are moot.
Outside of this article I'm not sure if this isn't more of a trademark and IP suit then pure patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
Outside of this article I'm not sure if this isn't more of a trademark and IP suit then pure patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
Didn't xerox trade rights for apple stock. Yes. I Believe they did. End of debate.
IIRC, Apple licensed GUI elements from PARC.
Considering they filed a suit against Apple for infringement, I don't think that was the case.
New York Times [1] -- March 24, 1990:
"A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc. [...] Even if Xerox prevails on the one count it can still pursue, it cannot win much because the judge threw out all the counts seeking damages, attorneys involved in the case said. [...]
Xerox had sought to have Apple's Macintosh screen copyrights declared invalid, contending that they were fraudulently obtained because Apple had failed to tell the Copyright Office about Xerox's prior work. Xerox also accused Apple of unfair competition, saying that Apple's claim to Macintosh screen technology had made it difficult for Xerox to license its technology to other companies."
I think the Wikipedia article on Apple v. Microsoft says it best:
"Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple."
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
"A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc. [...] Even if Xerox prevails on the one count it can still pursue, it cannot win much because the judge threw out all the counts seeking damages, attorneys involved in the case said. [...]
Xerox had sought to have Apple's Macintosh screen copyrights declared invalid, contending that they were fraudulently obtained because Apple had failed to tell the Copyright Office about Xerox's prior work. Xerox also accused Apple of unfair competition, saying that Apple's claim to Macintosh screen technology had made it difficult for Xerox to license its technology to other companies."
I think the Wikipedia article on Apple v. Microsoft says it best:
"Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple."
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
>> Considering they filed a suit against Apple for infringement, I don't think that was the case.
That's a stupid comment, you even don't mention the outcome of the suit. Ppl fire suits all the time because they think they got a bad deal.
That's a stupid comment, you even don't mention the outcome of the suit. Ppl fire suits all the time because they think they got a bad deal.
From the 1989 article that you linked to:
"A visit by Steven P. Jobs, Apple's co-founder, to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in November 1979, is widely recounted in Silicon Valley chronicles as the inspiration for the Lisa and the Macintosh. It was then that he was shown Smalltalk, the first computer language using a mouse, the hand-held device used to instruct the computer. Several former Xerox employees worked on the Lisa and the Macintosh. [...]
Ronald S. Laurie, a copyright lawyer with Irell & Minella in Menlo Park, Calif., said Xerox's claim could be weakened because of the long delay in filing suit, some five years after the introduction of the Macintosh. 'There's a legal doctrine that you can't just sit around while someone's infringing your rights and not complain,' he said. In addition, he said, Xerox is 'going to have to show that when Star interface was published in 1981 there was a copyright notice published with it,' 'I don't know if it was published without notice,' he said, 'but I'll bet it was; in those days nobody put c's in a circle on computer screens.'"
Then there's PBS' 1996 "Triumph of the Nerds", in which the execs of the 80s are interviewed about the situation back then [1]:
"Larry Tesler: 'Everybody wanted to make a real difference, we really thought that we were changing the world and that at the end of this project or this set of projects personal computing would burst on the scene exactly the way we had envisioned it and take everybody by total surprise.'
But the brilliant researchers at PARC could never persuade the Xerox management that their vision was accurate. Head Office in New York ignored the revolutionary technologies they owned three thousand miles away. They just didn't get it.
John Warnock: 'None of the main body of the company was prepared to accept the answers. So there was a tremendous mismatch between the management and what the researchers were doing and these guys had never fantasized about what the future of the office was going to be and when it was presented to them they had no mechanisms for turning those ideas into real live products and that was really the frustrating part of it was you were talking to people who didn't understand the vision and yet the vision was getting created everyday within the Palo Alto Research Centre and there was no one to receive that vision.' [...]
Steve Jobs had co-founded Apple Computer in 1976. The first popular personal computer, the Apple 2, was a hit - and made Steve Jobs one of the biggest names of a brand-new industry. At the height of Apple's early success in December 1979, Jobs, then all of 24, had a privileged invitation to visit Xerox Parc.
Steve Jobs: 'And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first one I didn't even really see the other two. [...] I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.'
Adele Goldberg: 'He came back and I almost said asked, but the truth is, demanded that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk System and the then head of the science centre asked me to give the demo because Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo and I said no way. I had a big argument with these Xerox executives telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink and I said that I would only do it if I were ordered to do it cause then of course it would be their responsibility, and that's what they did.'
Larry Tesler: 'After an hour looking at demos they [Apple] understood our technology, and what it meant more than any Xerox executive understood after years of showing it to them.'"
And then there's an 1996 essay [2] by Bruce Horn, who worked at both Xerox PARC and Apple:
"For more than a decade now, I've listened to the debate about where the Macintosh user interface came from. Most people assume it came directly from Xerox, after Steve Jobs went to visit Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). This "fact" is reported over and over, by people who don't know better (and also by people who should!). Unfortunately, it just isn't true - there are some similarities between the Apple interface and the various interfaces on Xerox systems, but the differences are substantial."
Lastly, a 2000 Motley Fool article [3] states:
"Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called "Apple," the Xerox PARC commandos were forced -- under protest -- to give Apple's engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work. The result was the Apple Macintosh, which Microsoft later copied to create Windows."
[1] http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html
[2] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=On_Xerox,_Apple_a...
[3] http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000918.htm
"A visit by Steven P. Jobs, Apple's co-founder, to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in November 1979, is widely recounted in Silicon Valley chronicles as the inspiration for the Lisa and the Macintosh. It was then that he was shown Smalltalk, the first computer language using a mouse, the hand-held device used to instruct the computer. Several former Xerox employees worked on the Lisa and the Macintosh. [...]
Ronald S. Laurie, a copyright lawyer with Irell & Minella in Menlo Park, Calif., said Xerox's claim could be weakened because of the long delay in filing suit, some five years after the introduction of the Macintosh. 'There's a legal doctrine that you can't just sit around while someone's infringing your rights and not complain,' he said. In addition, he said, Xerox is 'going to have to show that when Star interface was published in 1981 there was a copyright notice published with it,' 'I don't know if it was published without notice,' he said, 'but I'll bet it was; in those days nobody put c's in a circle on computer screens.'"
Then there's PBS' 1996 "Triumph of the Nerds", in which the execs of the 80s are interviewed about the situation back then [1]:
"Larry Tesler: 'Everybody wanted to make a real difference, we really thought that we were changing the world and that at the end of this project or this set of projects personal computing would burst on the scene exactly the way we had envisioned it and take everybody by total surprise.'
But the brilliant researchers at PARC could never persuade the Xerox management that their vision was accurate. Head Office in New York ignored the revolutionary technologies they owned three thousand miles away. They just didn't get it.
John Warnock: 'None of the main body of the company was prepared to accept the answers. So there was a tremendous mismatch between the management and what the researchers were doing and these guys had never fantasized about what the future of the office was going to be and when it was presented to them they had no mechanisms for turning those ideas into real live products and that was really the frustrating part of it was you were talking to people who didn't understand the vision and yet the vision was getting created everyday within the Palo Alto Research Centre and there was no one to receive that vision.' [...]
Steve Jobs had co-founded Apple Computer in 1976. The first popular personal computer, the Apple 2, was a hit - and made Steve Jobs one of the biggest names of a brand-new industry. At the height of Apple's early success in December 1979, Jobs, then all of 24, had a privileged invitation to visit Xerox Parc.
Steve Jobs: 'And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first one I didn't even really see the other two. [...] I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.'
Adele Goldberg: 'He came back and I almost said asked, but the truth is, demanded that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk System and the then head of the science centre asked me to give the demo because Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo and I said no way. I had a big argument with these Xerox executives telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink and I said that I would only do it if I were ordered to do it cause then of course it would be their responsibility, and that's what they did.'
Larry Tesler: 'After an hour looking at demos they [Apple] understood our technology, and what it meant more than any Xerox executive understood after years of showing it to them.'"
And then there's an 1996 essay [2] by Bruce Horn, who worked at both Xerox PARC and Apple:
"For more than a decade now, I've listened to the debate about where the Macintosh user interface came from. Most people assume it came directly from Xerox, after Steve Jobs went to visit Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). This "fact" is reported over and over, by people who don't know better (and also by people who should!). Unfortunately, it just isn't true - there are some similarities between the Apple interface and the various interfaces on Xerox systems, but the differences are substantial."
Lastly, a 2000 Motley Fool article [3] states:
"Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called "Apple," the Xerox PARC commandos were forced -- under protest -- to give Apple's engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work. The result was the Apple Macintosh, which Microsoft later copied to create Windows."
[1] http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html
[2] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=On_Xerox,_Apple_a...
[3] http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000918.htm
What is your point?
Heh, just after writing that post, I wondered whether I should've added a TL;DR. Here goes:
Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center made incredible tech that corporate Xerox didn't see any commercial use for. Corporate Xerox did however see a chance to make a quick buck, by being able to invest in pre-IPO Apple in exchange for letting Apple see what the kooky guys and gals in Palo Alto were brewing. Apple got invited to PARC at least twice. Steve Jobs was very impressed by the idea of the Graphical User Interface. The Apple folks didn't copy any code from Xerox, but built their own system based on what they saw and what needed improving. Xerox is alleged to have bought $1 million in pre-IPO Apple shares. If true, corporate Xerox didn't blow it once, but twice. Those shares would now be worth more than the whole of Xerox, if they had held on to them.
PS: I very much enjoyed the other explanations of what my point might be. (and yes, I'm a bit of a hoarder. Evernote is my enabler.)
Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center made incredible tech that corporate Xerox didn't see any commercial use for. Corporate Xerox did however see a chance to make a quick buck, by being able to invest in pre-IPO Apple in exchange for letting Apple see what the kooky guys and gals in Palo Alto were brewing. Apple got invited to PARC at least twice. Steve Jobs was very impressed by the idea of the Graphical User Interface. The Apple folks didn't copy any code from Xerox, but built their own system based on what they saw and what needed improving. Xerox is alleged to have bought $1 million in pre-IPO Apple shares. If true, corporate Xerox didn't blow it once, but twice. Those shares would now be worth more than the whole of Xerox, if they had held on to them.
PS: I very much enjoyed the other explanations of what my point might be. (and yes, I'm a bit of a hoarder. Evernote is my enabler.)
By sheer bulk, his point is that quotations from people who were there are more interesting than an "IIRC".
I think he must be a compulsive horder.
Any clue why Apple is beating around the bush and not going after the main source (especially since this is just finishing off the trifecta of suing the main Android OEMs). While Samsung has been pretty blatant in their ripoffs of the iPhone design, I'd have to imagine they are better suited to fend off Apple than Google in this field and the suit is somewhat biting the hand that feeds Apple supplies. Are they just trying to make it known that "You go Android and we sue"?
> Any clue why Apple is beating around the bush and not going after the main source
Because Google is not actually doing anything infringing.
Google is writing code, but software patents in the US do not apply to abstract code. They apply to specific devices. So if a patent is being infringed, it is done by the phone manufacturers and shippers, and not Google.
If that sounds odd, then it is, but that is how the patent system currently works.
Because Google is not actually doing anything infringing.
Google is writing code, but software patents in the US do not apply to abstract code. They apply to specific devices. So if a patent is being infringed, it is done by the phone manufacturers and shippers, and not Google.
If that sounds odd, then it is, but that is how the patent system currently works.
Also, the button layout that they complain about isn't necessarily stock android. It's a UI modification Samsung put on top of things. This is stick android 2.3, for example:
http://www.itsagadget.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/...
The article specifies three design patents. So it doesn't appear to be about Android, but rather just physically-similar devices.
That is what the article focuses on, but the actual suit includes the Android operating system itself. Passing reference in the article to Android as "core technology".
Edit: Case in point, the Nexus S is named in the suit despite being pure Android and having a fairly unique design.
Edit: Case in point, the Nexus S is named in the suit despite being pure Android and having a fairly unique design.
"In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons."
If the main thrust of the suit is around the physical design, they probably have to go after the OEMs, not Google. Seems like Google could probably duck that.
If the main thrust of the suit is around the physical design, they probably have to go after the OEMs, not Google. Seems like Google could probably duck that.
"Any clue why Apple is beating around the bush and not going after the main source"
It might be because Google is too powerful. It might be because Google isn't the one putting the OS on phones and selling them, companies like HTC and Samsung are -- maybe that makes it difficult to successfully sue Google directly. In any case, it's clear that Apple and Microsoft are willing to do anything to keep Android from becoming a dominant mobile OS. As John Gruber wrote [1]:
"The patent suit against HTC [...] is all about Google - about creating a situation where Android is no longer a free operating system for handset makers in the U.S., because the cost of using it is an expensive legal defense against Apple."
Perhaps also of interest: a John Gruber piece [2] arguing against software patents, using quotes from Paul Graham, Tim Bray, and Will Shipley.
[1] http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/napalm_in_the_morning
[2] http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin...
It might be because Google is too powerful. It might be because Google isn't the one putting the OS on phones and selling them, companies like HTC and Samsung are -- maybe that makes it difficult to successfully sue Google directly. In any case, it's clear that Apple and Microsoft are willing to do anything to keep Android from becoming a dominant mobile OS. As John Gruber wrote [1]:
"The patent suit against HTC [...] is all about Google - about creating a situation where Android is no longer a free operating system for handset makers in the U.S., because the cost of using it is an expensive legal defense against Apple."
Perhaps also of interest: a John Gruber piece [2] arguing against software patents, using quotes from Paul Graham, Tim Bray, and Will Shipley.
[1] http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/napalm_in_the_morning
[2] http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/this_apple_htc_patent_thin...
Much more effective to go after individual phone makers.
If you go after Google you go after a company that obviously has a big stake in mobile share and will want to fight for it.
If you go after individual phone makers, they have to decide if it is worth continuing going down this path. Even more likely, a new phone maker might get scared off at producing a clone that doesn't have the financial resources to fight Apple.
If you go after Google you go after a company that obviously has a big stake in mobile share and will want to fight for it.
If you go after individual phone makers, they have to decide if it is worth continuing going down this path. Even more likely, a new phone maker might get scared off at producing a clone that doesn't have the financial resources to fight Apple.
From the article "In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons."
It looks like this is more around form factor which is on Samsung, and only slightly related to screen UI.
It looks like this is more around form factor which is on Samsung, and only slightly related to screen UI.
I guess Google needs those Nortel patents more than ever now, if only to fight off such patent lawsuits against its partners.
Maybe because of Google Maps on iDevices. Very hard to replace, as there are only 3 companies, including Google, who own somewhat global routing maps.
Keep in mind that the map software itself was created by Apple. Also keep in mind that there is almost certainly some sort of SLA/contract ensuring continued access to Google Maps data for some time period, and that it would not be particularly impossible to switch to, say, Bing-powered map graphics.
> Keep in mind that the map software itself was created by Apple.
Sure but it's just using google maps API with a fancy UI.
> Also keep in mind that there is almost certainly some sort of SLA/contract ensuring continued access to Google Maps data for some time period
And I'm pretty sure there's a clause that would void that contract should apple sue google over patents.
> say, Bing-powered map graphics
Bing map is way inferior to google maps, otherwise apple would have switched a long time ago.
Sure but it's just using google maps API with a fancy UI.
> Also keep in mind that there is almost certainly some sort of SLA/contract ensuring continued access to Google Maps data for some time period
And I'm pretty sure there's a clause that would void that contract should apple sue google over patents.
> say, Bing-powered map graphics
Bing map is way inferior to google maps, otherwise apple would have switched a long time ago.
Bing map is way inferior to google maps, otherwise apple would have switched a long time ago.
The major companies making maps are TeleAtlas, Navteq, and Google. TeleAtlas is owned by TomTom, Navteq is owned by Nokia. Navteq is used by Google, Microsoft and Mapquest. If Apple ever wanted to switch to another map provider, it wouldn't need a middleman like Microsoft.
Sure but it's just using google maps API with a fancy UI.
If so, then I reckon that's temporary, given that Apple bought companies like Placebase, Poly9, and Siri.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/14/apple_acquires...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/01/apple_purchase...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/28/apple_acquires...
The major companies making maps are TeleAtlas, Navteq, and Google. TeleAtlas is owned by TomTom, Navteq is owned by Nokia. Navteq is used by Google, Microsoft and Mapquest. If Apple ever wanted to switch to another map provider, it wouldn't need a middleman like Microsoft.
Sure but it's just using google maps API with a fancy UI.
If so, then I reckon that's temporary, given that Apple bought companies like Placebase, Poly9, and Siri.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/14/apple_acquires...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/01/apple_purchase...
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/28/apple_acquires...
Would all the knee-jerk comment posters actually click through and see that it's not an 'Android' lawsuit.
except the Samsung Wave, running on Bada and similary looking to the iPhone is not cited in the lawsuit...
The Wave2 looks very unlike an iPhone. I would never mistake the two.
However, the Samsung i9000S (Galaxy S) looks very much like the iPhone (3GS) and on casual observation may be mistaken for one another.
It takes a lot to get trade-dress lawsuits won, so I expect this will only put pressure on Samsung to do what Apple wants, and is not intended to actually win.
(which, btw, shows how broken the legal system is, since cases are more used to bully smaller players than to win on merits)
However, the Samsung i9000S (Galaxy S) looks very much like the iPhone (3GS) and on casual observation may be mistaken for one another.
It takes a lot to get trade-dress lawsuits won, so I expect this will only put pressure on Samsung to do what Apple wants, and is not intended to actually win.
(which, btw, shows how broken the legal system is, since cases are more used to bully smaller players than to win on merits)
http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Samsung-Wave/
That doesn't look all that much like the iPhone, to be honest.
That doesn't look all that much like the iPhone, to be honest.
Patent-a-geddon continues. I wonder if this is an artifact of the great expiring due to start in 2015 of various silly patents.
Source? Considering software patents are continuously filed and granted, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
The great surge of technology patents started around 1990 and had really picked up steam by 1995 [1]. Patents, unlike Copyrights, are not 'renewable' in the sense that once their 20 year term expires they revert to the public domain by law. Further, now that folks have successfully litigated bogus Patent Marking [2] you can't use an old Patent number on your design to intimidate folks into not copying it.
So while filing rates continue to be high (although as you see from the linked graph issue rates have been falling) the patent office has become better educated about what should be and what shouldn't be patentable (not perfect yet but its getting noticeably better, if only because patent examiners are entering the market who grew up in a digital age).
So a side effect is that when the patent claims for issued patents expire, that's it, no more revenue. You can perfectly legally implement the RSA key exchange algorithm now (as an example) without infringing on any patents. This was speculated to be the primary reason that RSA Data Security Inc was trying to get people signed up to use their Copyrighted implementation of same, since if you licensed the copyrighted code, and then decided to stop paying them license fees and implement it yourself they couldn't sue you for patent infringement but they would want to go through your code to see that you hadn't used large parts of their software in your new design. That approach was unavailable if you hadn't been given access to their source code.
So starting in 2010, and accelerating until 2020 all of those patents that were issued between 1990 and 2000 will revert to being public domain. It is one of the reasons I predict a tech boom in 2015 - 2025 :-).
I did not anticipate however that prior to their death that these companies would go all out in try to extract some, possibly any, value from them by suing the pants off everyone. I don't know, but I suspect that this is at least partly responsible for the current fracas.
[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=patents+us
[2] http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/09/02/patent-marking-law...
So while filing rates continue to be high (although as you see from the linked graph issue rates have been falling) the patent office has become better educated about what should be and what shouldn't be patentable (not perfect yet but its getting noticeably better, if only because patent examiners are entering the market who grew up in a digital age).
So a side effect is that when the patent claims for issued patents expire, that's it, no more revenue. You can perfectly legally implement the RSA key exchange algorithm now (as an example) without infringing on any patents. This was speculated to be the primary reason that RSA Data Security Inc was trying to get people signed up to use their Copyrighted implementation of same, since if you licensed the copyrighted code, and then decided to stop paying them license fees and implement it yourself they couldn't sue you for patent infringement but they would want to go through your code to see that you hadn't used large parts of their software in your new design. That approach was unavailable if you hadn't been given access to their source code.
So starting in 2010, and accelerating until 2020 all of those patents that were issued between 1990 and 2000 will revert to being public domain. It is one of the reasons I predict a tech boom in 2015 - 2025 :-).
I did not anticipate however that prior to their death that these companies would go all out in try to extract some, possibly any, value from them by suing the pants off everyone. I don't know, but I suspect that this is at least partly responsible for the current fracas.
[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=patents+us
[2] http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/09/02/patent-marking-law...
"“Samsung’s Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,” Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung’s tablet, like Apple’s, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons."
Ah yes, rectangles with rounded corners, the presence of black borders, and the ability to have icons.
But joking aside, the samsung one sold in Korea does look very similar.
Ah yes, rectangles with rounded corners, the presence of black borders, and the ability to have icons.
But joking aside, the samsung one sold in Korea does look very similar.
Trade dress concerns trademarks, not patents.
This is actually a pretty good example of patenting "product" and not "process". No comment on if this is good or bad, but we should probably decide explicitly if we're going to grant monopolies on entire kinds of products. It seems more like a trademark issue than a patent issue.
>No comment on if this is good or bad, but we should probably decide explicitly if we're going to grant monopolies on entire kinds of products.
That's exactly what the patent system was intended for, though. If you invented a new product, you were granted an effective monopoly on that specific invention for a certain amount of time(now 25 years in the US).
That's exactly what the patent system was intended for, though. If you invented a new product, you were granted an effective monopoly on that specific invention for a certain amount of time(now 25 years in the US).
I was under the impression that it was something more like "method and process for making a better mouse trap" and not "any old thing that catches mice". We're to the point now that mouse trap makers are suing the breeders of cats.
Anyone here notice that this suit basically comes right around the time that a credible iPod Touch competitor arrives?
Maybe there's another "line in the sand" that Apple had set for the Google/Android that just got stepped over?
Maybe there's another "line in the sand" that Apple had set for the Google/Android that just got stepped over?
As far as I know, the Galaxy Player isn't even on the market yet [1]. However, it does very much look like an older generation iPod touch. It even has the same color scheme and metal rim.
iPod touch: http://media.obsessable.com/media/2008/09/12/575/apple-ipod-...
Galaxy Player: http://www.samsunghub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/galaxy-...
But no, I don't think the release of the Galaxy Player has much to with it. I'm willing to bet Apple would've sued Samsung anyway, as Apple has been hunting Android handset makers since early last year.
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/16/samsung-galaxy-player-4-a...
iPod touch: http://media.obsessable.com/media/2008/09/12/575/apple-ipod-...
Galaxy Player: http://www.samsunghub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/galaxy-...
But no, I don't think the release of the Galaxy Player has much to with it. I'm willing to bet Apple would've sued Samsung anyway, as Apple has been hunting Android handset makers since early last year.
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/16/samsung-galaxy-player-4-a...
Apple is lame. They claim Nokia is suing them with dumb patents and then proceed to sue others with their dumb patents...
Frankly, those images are rather damning. The devices and the interface are too similar for Apple to just let this slide. If anything I would say Apple has to do this to avoid setting a very dangerous precedent.
Those images are not that damning imo. Both phones are rectangular and thin. Does Apple have a monopoly on rectangular, thin phones? My G1 would look the same if it were thinner.
Does Apple have a monopoly on icons arranged in a grid? If so, the Windows desktop and many other interfaces are at risk.
Does Apple have a monopoly on icons arranged in a grid? If so, the Windows desktop and many other interfaces are at risk.
It's trademark... No you can't go on individual features, like being rectangular, or a grid of icons, or thin, but once you put that all together in a certain way, you start getting into design trademarks.
Samsung's phone is close to the same dimensions AND has the grid of applications AND has that grid at the same dimensions AND has the "dock" AND that "dock" has 4 applications AND the phone has a single "home" button at the bottom AND the speaker at the top is thin and rectangular... as the iPhone.
Yes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but when you start confusing consumers as to who's is who's, you're no longer in the "flattery" area.
Samsung's phone is close to the same dimensions AND has the grid of applications AND has that grid at the same dimensions AND has the "dock" AND that "dock" has 4 applications AND the phone has a single "home" button at the bottom AND the speaker at the top is thin and rectangular... as the iPhone.
Yes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but when you start confusing consumers as to who's is who's, you're no longer in the "flattery" area.
I believe you only can stand on the "dock" issue, not including it having 4 apps, as the grid constitutes that number. EVERY other point can be found together on phones pre-dating the iPhone.
Even if the concept of third-party prior art applied to trademark disputes, there would have to be a pre-iPhone product that exhibited all of those features for it to be a good defense. Merely showing that each feature had appeared before in some product would not be sufficient.
Samsung's phone has an optical trackpad, a back button, and a home button at the bottom.
With the trackpad in the middle.
Oh crap, they have a speaker at the top, too. My goodness. I guess I'll have to make my next mobile phone ovoid with the speaker on the bottom and the icons arranged in a dodecahedron.
With the trackpad in the middle.
Oh crap, they have a speaker at the top, too. My goodness. I guess I'll have to make my next mobile phone ovoid with the speaker on the bottom and the icons arranged in a dodecahedron.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't really see how this has anything to do with trademarks.
The article mentions trademarks only insofar as some icons on the Galaxy may infringe on trademarks held by Apple (i.e., the icon is so close to the iOS version that a consumer would not be able to tell the difference).
Everything else is a patent dispute, and I think all of us know the validity of these patent-based suits.
It really doesn't have anything to do with trademarks at all, except for a couple of instances of icons distributed with the phone.
The article mentions trademarks only insofar as some icons on the Galaxy may infringe on trademarks held by Apple (i.e., the icon is so close to the iOS version that a consumer would not be able to tell the difference).
Everything else is a patent dispute, and I think all of us know the validity of these patent-based suits.
It really doesn't have anything to do with trademarks at all, except for a couple of instances of icons distributed with the phone.
>It's trademark... No you can't go on individual features, like being rectangular, or a grid of icons, or thin, but once you put that all together in a certain way, you start getting into design trademarks.
If it is the trademarks, it's really no surprise that Apple is suing. In order to keep a trademark, you have to maintain it. So Apple probably had to sue to keep their iphone trademarks.
Google has the same issue with the use of the word "Google" as a verb.
If it is the trademarks, it's really no surprise that Apple is suing. In order to keep a trademark, you have to maintain it. So Apple probably had to sue to keep their iphone trademarks.
Google has the same issue with the use of the word "Google" as a verb.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Patents on a product's "image" are just as ridiculous as software patents. Apple tried the same thing when they sued Microsoft over the Windows GUI and lost.
'The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]"'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
How is a smart phone any different? This isn't innovation, just desperation.
'The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]"'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
How is a smart phone any different? This isn't innovation, just desperation.
Even Windows 3.1 is at risk! http://img.zdnet.com/techDirectory/_PROGMAN.GIF
Apple did sue Microsoft over Windows interface.
I wonder how Bill Gates feels nowadays for saving Apple, when Steve Jobs got back. Without MS moral support - promising future releases of Mac Office, and a ton of money - Apple would've probably went bust than.
I wonder how Bill Gates feels nowadays for saving Apple, when Steve Jobs got back. Without MS moral support - promising future releases of Mac Office, and a ton of money - Apple would've probably went bust than.
Im sure Bill Gates feels fine about saving Apple. The only reason Microsoft bailed out Apple was to fight the antitrust suit the U.S. government filed against it. By saving Apple, M$ could (and did) claim it still had a competitor in the market, so it wasn't a monopoly. As long as they distributed Office and IE for Mac OS, M$ could claim they weren't being anti-competitive by bundling IE with Windows and not releasing key Windows API's to 3rd party developers.
Sigh, see the paragraph starting "In 1995 Video for Windows became an issue in a lawsuit Apple filed against Microsoft"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_for_Windows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_for_Windows
I wonder if these images are damning.
Apple copying Dieder Ram
http://theplanninglab.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/...
Apple copying Dieder Ram
http://theplanninglab.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/...
Fortunately, all those patents are now expired. And more practically, those Braun products are no longer on the market, so Apple can't steal their market share.
It's a grid of icons. Nokia's menu screen has looked like that for a long, long time.
There may well be good legal or strategic reasons for suing but all those lawsuits sure suck for the consumer. I, the consumer, want everyone to copy everything. I don't want some cool feature to not be availible to me merely because of legal reasons.
I want Apple to blatantly copy WebOS multitasking or notifications.
There may well be good legal or strategic reasons for suing but all those lawsuits sure suck for the consumer. I, the consumer, want everyone to copy everything. I don't want some cool feature to not be availible to me merely because of legal reasons.
I want Apple to blatantly copy WebOS multitasking or notifications.
Did you see the pics at the bottom? I thought I was looking at an iPhone photo until I looked a bit closer.
Indeed. With the exception of the notification bar's organization, it was quite difficult to distinguish the two.
I'm against overuse of patents and trademarks, but even to me these are very clearly too similar.
I'm against overuse of patents and trademarks, but even to me these are very clearly too similar.
But is putting finger-sized icons on a mobile device something that Apple "invented"? It's not exactly a new technology or concept, it's simply obvious. I recall owning an iPaq that did the same thing years before the iPhone was released. And for that matter every old fashioned telephone ever produced had finger sized icons.
It's not the finger-sized icons that are the issue. What makes it very similar to the iPhone are:
* the general smooth, rectangular shape of the phone, including a large, center button below the screen
* a color-coded section of four buttons at the bottom of the screen that take up the whole space and include "phone", icon on the left-most side.
* a speaker in a thin-rectangular shape above the screen.
There are a great number of small differences between them, but they are very, very similar. Compare the new Samsung phone with a regular Android UI (e.g. http://www.techwhizz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Android-... (from http://www.techwhizz.com/feel-android-2-3-gingerbread-cyanog... ) and notice that, while the two user interfaces accomplish similar things and both use large buttons, the Samsung UI is incredibly and inappropriately close to the iPhone's, especially if Apple has made a point of claiming that precise format as their own.
* a color-coded section of four buttons at the bottom of the screen that take up the whole space and include "phone", icon on the left-most side.
* a speaker in a thin-rectangular shape above the screen.
There are a great number of small differences between them, but they are very, very similar. Compare the new Samsung phone with a regular Android UI (e.g. http://www.techwhizz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Android-... (from http://www.techwhizz.com/feel-android-2-3-gingerbread-cyanog... ) and notice that, while the two user interfaces accomplish similar things and both use large buttons, the Samsung UI is incredibly and inappropriately close to the iPhone's, especially if Apple has made a point of claiming that precise format as their own.
I honestly have to disagree. I remember the day the iPhone was announced. There was nothing like it. Touch screen phones, yes. Apps on phones yes.. but nothing quite like the iPhone. They truly innovated there, and there are some companies ripping them off.
Note that not all Android OS devices are so clearly trying to be a knock off iPhone. A lot of the most popular Android devices (like the HTC) have gone in unique directions. Some are being iPhone knock-offs though, and Apple has a right to protect their ideas as well as their brand.
Note that not all Android OS devices are so clearly trying to be a knock off iPhone. A lot of the most popular Android devices (like the HTC) have gone in unique directions. Some are being iPhone knock-offs though, and Apple has a right to protect their ideas as well as their brand.
They're all suing each other. I'm sure someone will post that chart that shows all the mobile players and their largely reciprocal lawsuits amongst each other.
This is standard procedure among the big companies and it's how the business works. They do this to try and get corps to pay licensing fees to each other, and the lawyers encourage it because lawyers like money. I doubt many of these are really adversarial, it's just big business in its normal course trying to get as much money out of everyone as possible, and establish a precedent that if you don't comply with demands, it will cost you even more money. This, of course, is not really relevant to these big companies anyway unless one of these cases establishes a harmful or undesirable precedent.
This is standard procedure among the big companies and it's how the business works. They do this to try and get corps to pay licensing fees to each other, and the lawyers encourage it because lawyers like money. I doubt many of these are really adversarial, it's just big business in its normal course trying to get as much money out of everyone as possible, and establish a precedent that if you don't comply with demands, it will cost you even more money. This, of course, is not really relevant to these big companies anyway unless one of these cases establishes a harmful or undesirable precedent.
These are the same guys that have copied Dieder Ram's designs over the last decade. So I guess it's okay to "take inspiration" from other products, but not copy directly? Either that, or this is a non-issue and Apple just wants to keep their lawyers busy. (I just wasted 5 mins as I believe it's the latter.)
Yes thank you. If we need a picture..
http://theplanninglab.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/...
http://theplanninglab.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/...
Here's some pictures from the Palm OS a few years before iOS:
http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=6542
I guess if the issue is that the grid has to be 4x4 w/ a black background. But otherwise, this looks like the standard paradigm for app launching on mobile phones.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=6542
I guess if the issue is that the grid has to be 4x4 w/ a black background. But otherwise, this looks like the standard paradigm for app launching on mobile phones.
And here's a screenshot of Apple's Newton OS, which came out three years before Palm released its Pilot in 1996.
http://pdadb.net/img/os/newton/newton_os_2.0_all_icons.png
The lawsuit isn't just about Samsung using a desktop metaphor. They copied all sorts of hardware and software characteristics from the iPhone.
http://pdadb.net/img/os/newton/newton_os_2.0_all_icons.png
The lawsuit isn't just about Samsung using a desktop metaphor. They copied all sorts of hardware and software characteristics from the iPhone.
Are they suing using the Newton UI patent? I don't think so. Shipping and patenting 10 years later doesn't help. In fact this Apple could be prior art against itself.
This just weakens Apple's position.
This just weakens Apple's position.
My point is that Apple isn't suing just because Samsung chose to use a home screen filled with icons.
From the article:
"It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging." an Apple representative told Mobilized.
And from the WSJ article about the same topic:
Alan Fisch, an attorney with Kaye Scholer LLP in Washington D.C., said, "By sheer volume alone, this is a substantial assertion of intellectual property rights."
From the article:
"It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging." an Apple representative told Mobilized.
And from the WSJ article about the same topic:
Alan Fisch, an attorney with Kaye Scholer LLP in Washington D.C., said, "By sheer volume alone, this is a substantial assertion of intellectual property rights."
Except it also looks a lot like the HP iPaq 100 series that predates the iPhone. A full screen touch device with no keyboard and rounded corners. The 200 series came in black.
Apple's alleged "trade dress" is the evolution of the touch device w/ no keyboard.
Apple's alleged "trade dress" is the evolution of the touch device w/ no keyboard.
Apple's alleged "trade dress" is the evolution of the touch device w/ no keyboard.
You're one of the few people who have actually seen Apple's court filing? I'd appreciate it if you'd share it with me. My email address is in my profile.
As for the iPAQ 100 & 200: they aren't phones, they came after [1] the introduction of the iPhone [2], and I personally don't think they look anything like Samsung's Galaxy S or Apple's iPhone:
http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/ppct/2007/IPAQ-200-highres.j...
[1] iPAQ 100 & 200 announcement: September 6, 2007: http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/06/hp-unleashes-ipaq-series-...
[2] iPhone announcement: January 9, 2007: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-apple-iphone/
You're one of the few people who have actually seen Apple's court filing? I'd appreciate it if you'd share it with me. My email address is in my profile.
As for the iPAQ 100 & 200: they aren't phones, they came after [1] the introduction of the iPhone [2], and I personally don't think they look anything like Samsung's Galaxy S or Apple's iPhone:
http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/ppct/2007/IPAQ-200-highres.j...
[1] iPAQ 100 & 200 announcement: September 6, 2007: http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/06/hp-unleashes-ipaq-series-...
[2] iPhone announcement: January 9, 2007: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-apple-iphone/
You are right on the date. Off by some months that year... in any case, just to make sure I'm not off again, we can just go back to an early iPaq, such as the 3100.
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2001pmc/pr2001012902...
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/10680_div/1068...
Announced in 2001. A mere six years before the iPhone was announced. Sure, doesn't look exactly like the iPhone, but if one can't see that the evolutionary footprint wasn't established, they aren't looking very hard.
Put it another way, if you show me an iPaq in 2001 and say in 10 years phones will look like the Samsung Galaxy my response would probably be, "disappointingly little will change over 10 years".
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2001pmc/pr2001012902...
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/10680_div/1068...
Announced in 2001. A mere six years before the iPhone was announced. Sure, doesn't look exactly like the iPhone, but if one can't see that the evolutionary footprint wasn't established, they aren't looking very hard.
Put it another way, if you show me an iPaq in 2001 and say in 10 years phones will look like the Samsung Galaxy my response would probably be, "disappointingly little will change over 10 years".
doesn't look exactly like the iPhone
I agree completely. And if we're going that far back in time, I'd say that Apple's Newton MessagePad was closer to the iPhone than the iPAQ 3100 was.
So there we are, back where we started. I propose we just wait until we know exactly what Apple is suing Samsung for. To name one possibility, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple uses one of its multitouch patents against Samsung.
I agree completely. And if we're going that far back in time, I'd say that Apple's Newton MessagePad was closer to the iPhone than the iPAQ 3100 was.
So there we are, back where we started. I propose we just wait until we know exactly what Apple is suing Samsung for. To name one possibility, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple uses one of its multitouch patents against Samsung.
Well let's continue the discussion when the filing is released. :-)
Sooner than I had expected, here it is:
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/podcasts/apple-samsung-lawsuit.pdf
Nilay Patel did a write-up:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/podcasts/apple-samsung-lawsuit.pdf
Nilay Patel did a write-up:
http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
And just to add to the mix. Apparently the LG Prada predates the iPhone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_pic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_pic...
If we're going by your earlier, broad description, then yes, they're similar:
A full screen touch device with no keyboard and rounded corners.
Here's a comparison between LG Prada and the original iPhone: http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-...
But as we can now read in Apple's court filing, that's not what Samsung is getting sued over. The similarities between Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Galaxy devices go way further.
A full screen touch device with no keyboard and rounded corners.
Here's a comparison between LG Prada and the original iPhone: http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-...
But as we can now read in Apple's court filing, that's not what Samsung is getting sued over. The similarities between Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Galaxy devices go way further.
[deleted]
Apple invented the phone, the idea of representing applications as icons in a grid, and the idea of having quick access to specific applications.
Those features have existed in countless other operating systems, and DEs? Blasphemy.
Those features have existed in countless other operating systems, and DEs? Blasphemy.
Singularity should not ben pattentable. Like 15 years ago i described how myspace future phone would be like: no physical buttons taking space, a gps, runs linux, and a thinnier form than my current ipaq. So, after a decade after the first ipaqs the samsung galaxy from where i am typing finally arrives.
I think they have an actual case here. That's about as blatantly-copying as you can get without making a complete knock-off that's designed to fool people.