Apple's suggestions to Samsung to work-around its iPhone and iPad design patents(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple's suggestions to Samsung to work-around its iPhone and iPad design patents
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/2/2596527/apple-samsung-design-patent-iphone-ipad-work-around
22 comments
Because those suggestions amount exactly to that, right?
Go forbid Samsung actually tried "a not entirely flat front surface" for their tablets, right? You know, like the ones used in most of the phones they make. Or that they made it non rectangular. Or added a couple of buttons to the front face, like the Kindle had. Because, Samsung totally values "thin" and "non cluttered appearance" otherwise, right? Because that's how the company rolled pre-iPad.
Or is it because no one can produce anything other than the current iPad/iPhone form viably? So, when Apple redesigns the iPhone/iPad in a couple of years, it would be like they discovered non-circular wheels, right?
Go forbid Samsung actually tried "a not entirely flat front surface" for their tablets, right? You know, like the ones used in most of the phones they make. Or that they made it non rectangular. Or added a couple of buttons to the front face, like the Kindle had. Because, Samsung totally values "thin" and "non cluttered appearance" otherwise, right? Because that's how the company rolled pre-iPad.
Or is it because no one can produce anything other than the current iPad/iPhone form viably? So, when Apple redesigns the iPhone/iPad in a couple of years, it would be like they discovered non-circular wheels, right?
These arguments are paper-thin.
* Tablets are flat because LCDs are flat.
* Tablets are rectangular because LCDs are rectangular.
* Tablets have rounded corners and bezels because it's difficult to manufacture the unit if the screen extends right to the edges.
* Samsung has been touting "slimness" and "world's thinnest" on their phones for almost a decade.
* Samsung has also been doing "non-cluttered" for a long time, e.g. they partnered with Porsche Design back in 2002 for some designs.
* A black front panel and steel rim was common on phones before Apple entered the business. An example from 2006: [1]
The obsession with button counts is sort of understandable, because Apple did pioneer the single-button phone (and they did an amazing job with it). But they're not going to stick with that same design forever. If Apple moves to a buttonless design as has been rumored, should Nokia sue them because the N9 got there first [2]? Of course not.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_6233 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9
* Tablets are flat because LCDs are flat.
* Tablets are rectangular because LCDs are rectangular.
* Tablets have rounded corners and bezels because it's difficult to manufacture the unit if the screen extends right to the edges.
* Samsung has been touting "slimness" and "world's thinnest" on their phones for almost a decade.
* Samsung has also been doing "non-cluttered" for a long time, e.g. they partnered with Porsche Design back in 2002 for some designs.
* A black front panel and steel rim was common on phones before Apple entered the business. An example from 2006: [1]
The obsession with button counts is sort of understandable, because Apple did pioneer the single-button phone (and they did an amazing job with it). But they're not going to stick with that same design forever. If Apple moves to a buttonless design as has been rumored, should Nokia sue them because the N9 got there first [2]? Of course not.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_6233 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9
I have to agree with this point. Apple's patent policy seems to be to throw patents against the wall and hope something sticks. At the end of the day, there are a limited number of ways to design a device efficiently, so of course Samsung will take obvious steps like making a rectangular, flat phone. There are also certain types of aesthetics which will be more appealing to customers. Why should Apple hold a monopoly on intelligent design? Did they invent the concept of slimness or simplicity?
These are Apple's suggestions - except for the last one:
http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-com...
Samsung was familiar with the different ways tablet can be made. This is what Samsung tablets looked like before the iPad:
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo...
http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-com...
Samsung was familiar with the different ways tablet can be made. This is what Samsung tablets looked like before the iPad:
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo...
That same list applies to before and after android as well.
> * Tablets have rounded corners and bezels because it's difficult to manufacture the unit if the screen extends right to the edges.
Also, my guess is that sharp corners may cause injuries and poke holes in things when they fell / someone hits oneself with it. Another reason for there being no real obvious alternative.
Also, my guess is that sharp corners may cause injuries and poke holes in things when they fell / someone hits oneself with it. Another reason for there being no real obvious alternative.
Slightly unrelated, but I think Nokia N9 is a perfect example of a phone design that doesn't have a flat front surface. The screen part is slightly thicker than the rest.
"""These arguments are paper-thin."""
Let's see:
"""* Tablets are flat because LCDs are flat."""
That's the screen part. Tables are not all screen. They have the surrounding area (bezels), buttons etc.
"""* Tablets are rectangular because LCDs are rectangular."""
That's the screen part. You can easily make a design with rounded corners to look say like (_) (add a top edge in there). You could also just make a square tablet (there were several phones with square displays, pre-iPhone at least).
"""* Tablets have rounded corners and bezels because it's difficult to manufacture the unit if the screen extends right to the edges."""
What does "difficult" mean? It is also more difficult to make a unibody aluminum computer that a plastic, segmented body one, but Apple also does that. It is also harder to produce a "retina" display, but again the iPhone has one. And it's not even a screen extending to the edges is unheard of: Apple does it for the iMac and some MBP's IIRC.
"""* Samsung has been touting "slimness" and "world's thinnest" on their phones for almost a decade."""
They seem to promote everything at once to catch every tiny niche of the market. For example, here are the models they currently sell in the US:
http://www.minimallyminimal.com/journal/2011/11/16/coffee-ti...
Yeah, the value slimness alright. They also value big screens, small screens, colors, blacks and white, thick bricks, you name it, they've got it.
"""* Samsung has also been doing "non-cluttered" for a long time, e.g. they partnered with Porsche Design back in 2002 for some designs."""
See above.
But really it's not any one of the design decisions taken separately that's the WTF. Sure, you can go and support each and everyone of them.
It's the total sum of them that's the WTF. All design decisions being similar is not a coincidence, it's a copycat design.
And no, NO bloody tablet/phone design is so "eternal" that no one can produce something different. Amazon does. Even Apple will do it in a year or so, and the Samsung will copy that too.
Let's see:
"""* Tablets are flat because LCDs are flat."""
That's the screen part. Tables are not all screen. They have the surrounding area (bezels), buttons etc.
"""* Tablets are rectangular because LCDs are rectangular."""
That's the screen part. You can easily make a design with rounded corners to look say like (_) (add a top edge in there). You could also just make a square tablet (there were several phones with square displays, pre-iPhone at least).
"""* Tablets have rounded corners and bezels because it's difficult to manufacture the unit if the screen extends right to the edges."""
What does "difficult" mean? It is also more difficult to make a unibody aluminum computer that a plastic, segmented body one, but Apple also does that. It is also harder to produce a "retina" display, but again the iPhone has one. And it's not even a screen extending to the edges is unheard of: Apple does it for the iMac and some MBP's IIRC.
"""* Samsung has been touting "slimness" and "world's thinnest" on their phones for almost a decade."""
They seem to promote everything at once to catch every tiny niche of the market. For example, here are the models they currently sell in the US:
http://www.minimallyminimal.com/journal/2011/11/16/coffee-ti...
Yeah, the value slimness alright. They also value big screens, small screens, colors, blacks and white, thick bricks, you name it, they've got it.
"""* Samsung has also been doing "non-cluttered" for a long time, e.g. they partnered with Porsche Design back in 2002 for some designs."""
See above.
But really it's not any one of the design decisions taken separately that's the WTF. Sure, you can go and support each and everyone of them.
It's the total sum of them that's the WTF. All design decisions being similar is not a coincidence, it's a copycat design.
And no, NO bloody tablet/phone design is so "eternal" that no one can produce something different. Amazon does. Even Apple will do it in a year or so, and the Samsung will copy that too.
If Apple were a car maker, they'd be suggesting that it'd be nice if other auto manufacturers didn't exactly mimic their body styles.
There's a difference between overall form factor and the actual design of a product. If Kia started selling a car whose profile was nearly indistinguishable from an Infiniti G37, Nissan would have a legitimate beef. Just as Apple does here, and just as they did when people started ripping off their iMac design, once upon a time:
http://en.akihabaranews.com/20416/legacy-unused/pc/retro-wor...
Would you defend that iMac knockoff?
There are innumerable ways to design anything. Just because Apple is willing to spend the money to figure out the best ones for their brand doesn't mean everyone else gets to lift the design whole.
There's a difference between overall form factor and the actual design of a product. If Kia started selling a car whose profile was nearly indistinguishable from an Infiniti G37, Nissan would have a legitimate beef. Just as Apple does here, and just as they did when people started ripping off their iMac design, once upon a time:
http://en.akihabaranews.com/20416/legacy-unused/pc/retro-wor...
Would you defend that iMac knockoff?
There are innumerable ways to design anything. Just because Apple is willing to spend the money to figure out the best ones for their brand doesn't mean everyone else gets to lift the design whole.
A tablet is, by definition, a minimalistic device. Concepts like "rounded borders" have been used for quite a bit longer than tablets, and applying a basic design principal should hardly be considered infringing.
No one is going to buy a Samsung device because they think it's an iPad- or even that it looks like an iPad. The difference between the two devises is really about the internals and, much more importantly, the operating system. I've got a ton of Apple devices that I really love, including an iPad, but I really don't see this as anything other than Apple trying to shut competitors out of the market.
No one is going to buy a Samsung device because they think it's an iPad- or even that it looks like an iPad. The difference between the two devises is really about the internals and, much more importantly, the operating system. I've got a ton of Apple devices that I really love, including an iPad, but I really don't see this as anything other than Apple trying to shut competitors out of the market.
> A tablet is, by definition, a minimalistic device.
Yeah. Today. But, once upon a time, a tablet was, by definition, a hobbled laptop with a touch screen. Sometimes with elaborate rotating screen or stowable keyboard, almost always with a stylus. I know – I used them for years.
Then the iPad happened.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo...
And then, like fucking magic or something, all the other tablets started looking... like an iPad. Even the stylus disappeared.
It's really, really, weird how minimalism and tablets became so suddenly conjoined when a company with a reputation for a minimalist design aesthetic sold a shitload of units.
Yeah. Today. But, once upon a time, a tablet was, by definition, a hobbled laptop with a touch screen. Sometimes with elaborate rotating screen or stowable keyboard, almost always with a stylus. I know – I used them for years.
Then the iPad happened.
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo...
And then, like fucking magic or something, all the other tablets started looking... like an iPad. Even the stylus disappeared.
It's really, really, weird how minimalism and tablets became so suddenly conjoined when a company with a reputation for a minimalist design aesthetic sold a shitload of units.
Of course you won't see devices like the Crunchpad[1] or the Touchbook[2] on those kinds of lists. Just like how other devices similar to later Apple products, like the Sony Vaio X505[3], Neonode N1[4] or Palm Tx[5], seems to become convienently forgotten in similar lists. But when they are actually remembered someone will come along and redefine the argument in Apples favor anyway, so what does it matter really...
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot... [2] http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [3] http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/ultraportables/2004/09/02/son... [4] http://www.gsmarena.com/neonode_n1-391.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ru2GjBTHRY [5] http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=8140
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-protot... [2] http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [3] http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/ultraportables/2004/09/02/son... [4] http://www.gsmarena.com/neonode_n1-391.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ru2GjBTHRY [5] http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=8140
great, apple deserves much credit for proving this minimalistic approach.
but it doesn't deserve a monopoly of any duration on minimalism.
if design has merit beyond branding, then it should be valid for anyone to choose a proven design. it won't necessarily be innovative, but that's besides the point.
but it doesn't deserve a monopoly of any duration on minimalism.
if design has merit beyond branding, then it should be valid for anyone to choose a proven design. it won't necessarily be innovative, but that's besides the point.
Design variations are possible. Apple changed their design when they went from the iPad 1 to the iPad 2 (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/ipad-2-vs-original-ipad-w...) - The design is different enough for anyone to immediately tell whether the tablet is the iPad 1 or the iPad 2. I'm sure Apple will redesign this in the future and it will be immediately obvious that it's not the iPad 2.
Just as it's possible to tell the difference between a BMW and a Toyota Corolla, it is possible to make the design different enough while working within the constraints of a tablet (flat screen, bezel etc)
Just as it's possible to tell the difference between a BMW and a Toyota Corolla, it is possible to make the design different enough while working within the constraints of a tablet (flat screen, bezel etc)
That's silly.
There are many ways Samsung could make the galaxy tablet more differentiated from the ipad, but it's far easier to tell the samsung apart from either of the ipads than they from each other. The ipad2 is definitely more refined than the original, but clearly a redesign of that magnitude would not be anywhere close enough to satisfy Apple.
There are many ways Samsung could make the galaxy tablet more differentiated from the ipad, but it's far easier to tell the samsung apart from either of the ipads than they from each other. The ipad2 is definitely more refined than the original, but clearly a redesign of that magnitude would not be anywhere close enough to satisfy Apple.
I understand that people on Hacker News detest courtroom bickering and would rather talk about innovation, including design innovation; I think I fall under the same category, however:
a. Samsung's designs are really similar to Apple's designs. Yes, all cars have to have round wheels, but as Nokia has shown (N9?), it is absolutely possible to design a phone with the same level (or more) minimalism without copying the design DNA.
b. Look at an HTC phone. There's no way one can mistakenly think that it's an iPhone. Same with tablets; a Xoom (esp. Xoom2), an Iconia, or a Touchpad will never be confused with an iPad.
In fact, this STEALING (couldn't mince words here) goes much deeper. This was on the internets a few days back: http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a
Doesn't this seem like Samsung crossing the line?
a. Samsung's designs are really similar to Apple's designs. Yes, all cars have to have round wheels, but as Nokia has shown (N9?), it is absolutely possible to design a phone with the same level (or more) minimalism without copying the design DNA.
b. Look at an HTC phone. There's no way one can mistakenly think that it's an iPhone. Same with tablets; a Xoom (esp. Xoom2), an Iconia, or a Touchpad will never be confused with an iPad.
In fact, this STEALING (couldn't mince words here) goes much deeper. This was on the internets a few days back: http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a
Doesn't this seem like Samsung crossing the line?
>Look at an HTC phone. There's no way one can mistakenly think that it's an iPhone.
True. If you mistook my G2 for an iPhone I'd say you need needed your eyes checked. Nevertheless, looking at the list from The Verge, I think there's an argument that it violates all but one of them:
- Rectangular with rounded corners (check)
- Centered screen with lateral borders (check)
- Horizontal speaker slot (check)
- Front surface with limited adornment. Well, beyond the elements an iPhone has (speaker slot and trackpad/home button) it has a T-Mobile logo and the 4 lite-up capacative Android buttons. IIRC, this is just like a US Galaxy S2 (the international version, which my wife has, drops the search button). Without the example of the SGS2, I'd say HTC was in the clear here, but...
The only "suggestion" HTC has clearly followed with the G2 is that between the metal bezel and the gray bumper below it, the front surface isn't entirely black.
In other words, the design rights Apple is asserting are astonishingly broad.
True. If you mistook my G2 for an iPhone I'd say you need needed your eyes checked. Nevertheless, looking at the list from The Verge, I think there's an argument that it violates all but one of them:
- Rectangular with rounded corners (check)
- Centered screen with lateral borders (check)
- Horizontal speaker slot (check)
- Front surface with limited adornment. Well, beyond the elements an iPhone has (speaker slot and trackpad/home button) it has a T-Mobile logo and the 4 lite-up capacative Android buttons. IIRC, this is just like a US Galaxy S2 (the international version, which my wife has, drops the search button). Without the example of the SGS2, I'd say HTC was in the clear here, but...
The only "suggestion" HTC has clearly followed with the G2 is that between the metal bezel and the gray bumper below it, the front surface isn't entirely black.
In other words, the design rights Apple is asserting are astonishingly broad.
devil's advocate: if design has practical merits beyond branding then why shouldn't everyone copy verbatim the design elements of successful products? this can still be iteratively innovative.
Certain protections of design/research aid the consumer/society.
If all hard work is copied with no limitation, then this severely limits the amount of money you can spend on r&d to remain profitable.
Take medication for example, the r&d lead time is many years long and a huge culmination of factors, but duplicating a known-formula can be trivial.
How this applies to business: as society relies on competing bodies to spur innovation, there is a direct consequence if we remove the ability to compete:
If unfettered duplication of a product is legal, and this duplication can occur in a shorter timeline than the time required to acquire profit from the product(i.e when taking away the costs of development) then there is no business reason to ever develop the product to begin with.
If all hard work is copied with no limitation, then this severely limits the amount of money you can spend on r&d to remain profitable.
Take medication for example, the r&d lead time is many years long and a huge culmination of factors, but duplicating a known-formula can be trivial.
How this applies to business: as society relies on competing bodies to spur innovation, there is a direct consequence if we remove the ability to compete:
If unfettered duplication of a product is legal, and this duplication can occur in a shorter timeline than the time required to acquire profit from the product(i.e when taking away the costs of development) then there is no business reason to ever develop the product to begin with.
Your use of a car analogy here couldn't be any better placed. The reason why Germany has such strict laws pertaining to copyright, patents and design is due to the flamboyant duplication of their own motoring industry.
It seems your analogy however is far off, this would be more like copying a vehicle verbatim, but changing the colour and hood ornament.
It was unsurprising that Germany (and various other courts outside of the USA + South Korea) have seen in Apple's favour, See: http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg (In fact it seems that the USA lawsuit is one of the lesser successful cases for Apple.)
So when you're copying even the docking mechanism, it's clear that intentions went from "flattery" to "duplicate", and perhaps even a little bit of "make it the same so we can cut into their sales", which is just a nice way of saying, "confuse dumb consumers into buying ours."
The foundation of most of these laws revolves around the idea of what an average consumer could reasonably be confused by or mislead to believe. So when not even Samsung's own legal team are able to make a absolute distinction between the two devices you can bet that consumers will be having a similar difficulty. See: http://blog.gsmarena.com/judge-asks-samsung-lawyers-to-tell-...
Also, a casual review of past samsung products also reveal that their design ethos has never approached this look and feel, while the iPad fits along the lines of many of their previous products, both in form but also material choices.
It seems your analogy however is far off, this would be more like copying a vehicle verbatim, but changing the colour and hood ornament.
It was unsurprising that Germany (and various other courts outside of the USA + South Korea) have seen in Apple's favour, See: http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg (In fact it seems that the USA lawsuit is one of the lesser successful cases for Apple.)
So when you're copying even the docking mechanism, it's clear that intentions went from "flattery" to "duplicate", and perhaps even a little bit of "make it the same so we can cut into their sales", which is just a nice way of saying, "confuse dumb consumers into buying ours."
The foundation of most of these laws revolves around the idea of what an average consumer could reasonably be confused by or mislead to believe. So when not even Samsung's own legal team are able to make a absolute distinction between the two devices you can bet that consumers will be having a similar difficulty. See: http://blog.gsmarena.com/judge-asks-samsung-lawyers-to-tell-...
Also, a casual review of past samsung products also reveal that their design ethos has never approached this look and feel, while the iPad fits along the lines of many of their previous products, both in form but also material choices.
Remember folks, Apple are not patent trolls, they just want justice and to be given credit for their innovations, like the rectangle and the rounded corner.
Is this sarcastic?
Clearly.
Yeah. But also misguide: Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are a lot of tablets out there with different designs which they don't challenge at all.
Samsung choose to copy almost everything of Apple's design. Hell, a representative for the company couldn't even tell between an iPad and one of their devices when they were shown to him in court.
Samsung choose to copy almost everything of Apple's design. Hell, a representative for the company couldn't even tell between an iPad and one of their devices when they were shown to him in court.
Actually, Apple has challenged a number of other tablets.
They're suing Motorola over the Xoom somewhere in Europe (from what I understand, this trial has fewer fireworks because the Xoom was already being sold, so a preliminary injuction is both less likely and less important).
Apple also tried to push criminal charges against a tablet vendor in Spain (over a technical, but unimportant infraction related to an import ban, IIRC). Fortunately, the charges were dismissed.
I suspect Apple is focusing their legal energy on Samsung because they think they are the strongest cases and because they view Samsung as the most threatening competitor, but there is plenty of evidence that they're planning to head down their list of competitors if they have legal success.
They're suing Motorola over the Xoom somewhere in Europe (from what I understand, this trial has fewer fireworks because the Xoom was already being sold, so a preliminary injuction is both less likely and less important).
Apple also tried to push criminal charges against a tablet vendor in Spain (over a technical, but unimportant infraction related to an import ban, IIRC). Fortunately, the charges were dismissed.
I suspect Apple is focusing their legal energy on Samsung because they think they are the strongest cases and because they view Samsung as the most threatening competitor, but there is plenty of evidence that they're planning to head down their list of competitors if they have legal success.
"""Actually, Apple has challenged a number of other tablets."""
I fail to see how this contradicts my statement though, which was:
"""Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are a lot of tablets out there with different designs which they don't challenge at all."""
I didn't say the don't challenge any other tablet --just that they challenge for good reasons. The Xoom was also bloody similar.
(Mind you, there are also patents related to the UI etc, not to the external design).
I fail to see how this contradicts my statement though, which was:
"""Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are a lot of tablets out there with different designs which they don't challenge at all."""
I didn't say the don't challenge any other tablet --just that they challenge for good reasons. The Xoom was also bloody similar.
(Mind you, there are also patents related to the UI etc, not to the external design).
>The Xoom was also bloody similar.
First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent (the details came up in the Samsung lawsuit): http://www.macworld.com/article/161675/2011/08/apple_motorol...
Second, here's a photo gallery of the iPad 2 vs the Xoom: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-2-vs-motorola-xoo...
It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every comparison shot. Since you disagree, it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners.
First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent (the details came up in the Samsung lawsuit): http://www.macworld.com/article/161675/2011/08/apple_motorol...
Second, here's a photo gallery of the iPad 2 vs the Xoom: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-2-vs-motorola-xoo...
It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every comparison shot. Since you disagree, it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners.
"""First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent"""
Gee, maybe that's why I fn wrote "Xoom was also bloody similar", and added the technical patent issue on a separate* line where I'm NOT talking about Xoom.
"""It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every comparison shot. """
You really believe that the litmus test of an original not derived design is that you are able to tell which is which?
There are tons of Rolex clones that you can easily tell from the original, but that doesn't mean the haven't copied it.
"""it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners."""
And it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually defend companies not even trying to come up with something different.
Gee, maybe that's why I fn wrote "Xoom was also bloody similar", and added the technical patent issue on a separate* line where I'm NOT talking about Xoom.
"""It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every comparison shot. """
You really believe that the litmus test of an original not derived design is that you are able to tell which is which?
There are tons of Rolex clones that you can easily tell from the original, but that doesn't mean the haven't copied it.
"""it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners."""
And it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually defend companies not even trying to come up with something different.
There's a difference between design patents and utility patents.
Design patents are what stop you from making and selling your own counterfeit Mercedes or BMW, for instance.
Neither company pretends to own a patent on the wheel, and Apple isn't claiming ownership of rectangles or rounded corners.
Design patents are what stop you from making and selling your own counterfeit Mercedes or BMW, for instance.
Neither company pretends to own a patent on the wheel, and Apple isn't claiming ownership of rectangles or rounded corners.
No, trademark laws are what stop you from selling a counterfeit Mercedes or BMW. A design patent would stop you from selling a car that looked vaguely like an existing Mercedes or BMW.
That depends on the counterfeit.
In the case of a counterfeit that looks like a BMW and is badged with the BMW logo, sure.
Otherwise, it becomes a matter of trade dress, which is equally important – and equally valid. Which, for this example, could be a "BBW," perhaps, with green and black circular emblem and a design resembling a Z4.
The test, as I understand it, is whether or not the manufacturer selected a given design specifically to piggyback on the existing goodwill of another brand.
In the case of a counterfeit that looks like a BMW and is badged with the BMW logo, sure.
Otherwise, it becomes a matter of trade dress, which is equally important – and equally valid. Which, for this example, could be a "BBW," perhaps, with green and black circular emblem and a design resembling a Z4.
The test, as I understand it, is whether or not the manufacturer selected a given design specifically to piggyback on the existing goodwill of another brand.
Which, for this example, could be a "BBW..."
A very interesting episode of "Pimp My Ride."
A very interesting episode of "Pimp My Ride."
What bothers me about Apple's claims, and I assure you, I have no understanding of how design patents work, is what seems to be good clear prior art, or prior use of these elements in Samsung's own digital photo frames or in the movie 2001, and how little that seems to have been addressed by the courts.
Apple's workarounds seem to indicate that Apple wants some exclusive right to rectangular shapes, rounded corners, thin frames, flat surfaces, thin computers, uncluttered appearances.
Take the last one, Apple wants a design patent (monopoly) on uncluttered appearances.
Apple's workarounds seem to indicate that Apple wants some exclusive right to rectangular shapes, rounded corners, thin frames, flat surfaces, thin computers, uncluttered appearances.
Take the last one, Apple wants a design patent (monopoly) on uncluttered appearances.
Even if Apple's industrial design is a revival and not original, by the timing it is clear that Samsung is copying Apple and not 2001. Whether this should matter legally is a matter of debate.
And here I thought the word "prior" was pretty unambiguous. Perhaps there's some legal definition that clarifies it as some point no more than 2-53 years in the past?
For regular patents you are correct about prior art. But for design patents it is different, a design patents is closer to a trademark, where what matter is how it is currently being used to identify a product not who first thought of the idea.
Part of the problem here is that the * appearance* of a tablet or smartphone has become a much bigger part of the product. 20 or even 10 years ago people didn't buy a computer based on how it looks, and all computers looked pretty different from one another. The way the bulged, how the vents were positioned, or the color, made it obvious who made the computer (or even which model). Dell is an excellent example of making a recognizable design despite that design being ugly and making the USB slots hard to reach.
Now because the look of a tablet or smart phone is so important, perhaps even subject to fads, it's more like clothing industry which has very little IP protection.
Part of the problem here is that the * appearance* of a tablet or smartphone has become a much bigger part of the product. 20 or even 10 years ago people didn't buy a computer based on how it looks, and all computers looked pretty different from one another. The way the bulged, how the vents were positioned, or the color, made it obvious who made the computer (or even which model). Dell is an excellent example of making a recognizable design despite that design being ugly and making the USB slots hard to reach.
Now because the look of a tablet or smart phone is so important, perhaps even subject to fads, it's more like clothing industry which has very little IP protection.
Why are people stuck in this mindset that Apple invented the tablet?
They didn't. I had a Honeywell tablet way back when, there is a company called hammerhead that makes tablets (http://www.yenra.com/rugged-tablet-pc/rugged-tablet-pc.jpg), panasonic has had the toughbook, etc. etc.
All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied their standard solid-colored plastic design to it.
("GUYS! I have an idea! Instead of /white/ plastic lets...wait for this. Are you sitting down? Guys! Instead of WHITE plastic...what if we used....black plasitc?!?")
Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke". In fact, I think it only had one button on it.
At this point a tablet is as generic a shape as a laptop is. It's rectangular, about the size of a textook, and about a centimeter thick.
Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us. Take more scrollbars off of things or something.
They didn't. I had a Honeywell tablet way back when, there is a company called hammerhead that makes tablets (http://www.yenra.com/rugged-tablet-pc/rugged-tablet-pc.jpg), panasonic has had the toughbook, etc. etc.
All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied their standard solid-colored plastic design to it.
("GUYS! I have an idea! Instead of /white/ plastic lets...wait for this. Are you sitting down? Guys! Instead of WHITE plastic...what if we used....black plasitc?!?")
Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke". In fact, I think it only had one button on it.
At this point a tablet is as generic a shape as a laptop is. It's rectangular, about the size of a textook, and about a centimeter thick.
Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us. Take more scrollbars off of things or something.
> If you're so /innovative/ then show us.
Will this suffice?
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo...
Will this suffice?
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uplo...
What is that photo supposed to show? All I see is that the iPad's physical design is as much a derivative of all those that came before as the rest are derivative of the iPad's.
Do you really not see the flaw in your argument or are you just being willfully dissonant?
Do you really not see the flaw in your argument or are you just being willfully dissonant?
"""All I see is that the iPad's physical design is as much a derivative of all those that came before as the rest are derivative of the iPad's."""
The only thing in common the devices previous to the iPad have with it is that they all have a rectangular screen. I'll give you that. Apart from that though, they are totally different.
And that's from the external design aspect.
From a UI aspect it's night and day.
The devices after the iPad, now, copied both from it.
The only thing in common the devices previous to the iPad have with it is that they all have a rectangular screen. I'll give you that. Apart from that though, they are totally different.
And that's from the external design aspect.
From a UI aspect it's night and day.
The devices after the iPad, now, copied both from it.
> All I see is that the iPad's physical design is as much a derivative of all those that came before as the rest are derivative of the iPad's.
I thought comedic posting was frowned upon around here. That's a pretty good one, though.
edit: Oh, come on! He gets to make funnies but not me? Well, fine, the absurdist humor is generally funnier than irony, that's true.
I thought comedic posting was frowned upon around here. That's a pretty good one, though.
edit: Oh, come on! He gets to make funnies but not me? Well, fine, the absurdist humor is generally funnier than irony, that's true.
Samsung showed a scene from "2001 A Space Odyssee" with a better looking tablet. You can always select some ugly tablets for such a picture.
An argument which would have held water were Samsung producing such tablets prior to the iPad selling millions of units. People know the iPad industrial design as the iPad, not "that thing that looked like the thing from 2001."
The issue was strictly about looks, and Samsung showed prior art. It is not required to have created said art yourself.
As for the picture with the pre-iPad tablets, I bet some of them are made for special use cases, like rough environments.
As for the picture with the pre-iPad tablets, I bet some of them are made for special use cases, like rough environments.
I'd have loved to see prior art on the USB connector. That's the most shameless part of all.
It's completely needless – the dock connector only makes sense in light of Apple's larger ecosystem. Why not use micro or mini USB, like everything else on earth?
http://www.oled-display.net/files/u3/samsung-galaxy-tab-usb-...
It's completely needless – the dock connector only makes sense in light of Apple's larger ecosystem. Why not use micro or mini USB, like everything else on earth?
http://www.oled-display.net/files/u3/samsung-galaxy-tab-usb-...
"""Why are people stuck in this mindset that Apple invented the tablet?"""
No, people believe something different. That Apple invented the first tablet that ever sold in numbers, worked well and millions of people actually wanted to buy (and did so).
"""All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied their standard solid-colored plastic design to it."""
Yeah, that must be it. That's how one of the most, if not the most, decorated and awarded industrial designer in the world (Jonathan Ives) works. You're taking armchair criticism to a whole other level.
"""Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke". In fact, I think it only had one button on it."""
Yeah. And a stylus. And a totally different UI.
And for some mysterious reason, all the smartphones available on 2006 from other vendors were totally different that those made after the iPhone's introduction.
"""Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us."""
Yeah Apple, show us. You think just
(a) putting a UNIX OS, with a terminal, bash et al, in the desktops of tens of millions of people,
(b) changing the mp3 player industry
(c) creating the top music store in the US and ruling digital music sales
(d) entering a totally unknown market to you, capturing 70% of smartphone profits, changing the smartphone industry, and changing the basic design and UI of smartphones afterwards
(e) making a huge tablet market from a tiny niche it was, with competitors after 3 years still selling 1/10 of the devices you do
(f) creating a huge marketplace for 300,000+ extremely powerful online smartphone apps, and being again copied by Google, MS and Nokia in that too, while also getting like 2 billion app sales...
will convince anyone that you are innovating? Come on...
No, people believe something different. That Apple invented the first tablet that ever sold in numbers, worked well and millions of people actually wanted to buy (and did so).
"""All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied their standard solid-colored plastic design to it."""
Yeah, that must be it. That's how one of the most, if not the most, decorated and awarded industrial designer in the world (Jonathan Ives) works. You're taking armchair criticism to a whole other level.
"""Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke". In fact, I think it only had one button on it."""
Yeah. And a stylus. And a totally different UI.
And for some mysterious reason, all the smartphones available on 2006 from other vendors were totally different that those made after the iPhone's introduction.
"""Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us."""
Yeah Apple, show us. You think just
(a) putting a UNIX OS, with a terminal, bash et al, in the desktops of tens of millions of people,
(b) changing the mp3 player industry
(c) creating the top music store in the US and ruling digital music sales
(d) entering a totally unknown market to you, capturing 70% of smartphone profits, changing the smartphone industry, and changing the basic design and UI of smartphones afterwards
(e) making a huge tablet market from a tiny niche it was, with competitors after 3 years still selling 1/10 of the devices you do
(f) creating a huge marketplace for 300,000+ extremely powerful online smartphone apps, and being again copied by Google, MS and Nokia in that too, while also getting like 2 billion app sales...
will convince anyone that you are innovating? Come on...
> At this point a tablet is as generic a shape as a laptop is.
Yes it is. Yet countless laptops models throughout the year have shown quite a possibility of variation. Countless touch smartphones from the advent of the iPhone have shown the same for phones too. An Xperia Arc, a Nexus S or a Lumia 800 are very distinct from an iPhone. Even in the tablet space, look at the Xoom, or the Sony S, or the Asus EeePad and EeeSlate, they all are looking significantly different from the iPad. They have an identity of their own. Now you can't honestly tell me that the two tablets shot in the article are not looking strikingly similar (barring for the aspect ratio and the home button position). Even a (theoretically thinned) HP Slate whose exterior design is very close to an iPad has at least rounded corners with a markedly different radius and a slightly wider metal band circling around from full-front, giving it a more robust appearance and a distinct identity.
I concur, there are indeed some constraints that impose a number of choices to the design of a tablet, but there is still some variability available.
Yes it is. Yet countless laptops models throughout the year have shown quite a possibility of variation. Countless touch smartphones from the advent of the iPhone have shown the same for phones too. An Xperia Arc, a Nexus S or a Lumia 800 are very distinct from an iPhone. Even in the tablet space, look at the Xoom, or the Sony S, or the Asus EeePad and EeeSlate, they all are looking significantly different from the iPad. They have an identity of their own. Now you can't honestly tell me that the two tablets shot in the article are not looking strikingly similar (barring for the aspect ratio and the home button position). Even a (theoretically thinned) HP Slate whose exterior design is very close to an iPad has at least rounded corners with a markedly different radius and a slightly wider metal band circling around from full-front, giving it a more robust appearance and a distinct identity.
I concur, there are indeed some constraints that impose a number of choices to the design of a tablet, but there is still some variability available.
The absurdity of this is breath-taking. Apple tablets look exactly like miniature flat screen TVs. I don't know how they have the gall to claim that the form factor of their tablets is in anyway original or protectable. The Apple design here is the obvious one. There will be aliens on distant worlds designing tablets they they will be thin, flat, have narrow rounded borders and have an uncluttered appearance. I can't believe Samsung could even dream of capitulating.
Ever since Apple revolutionized the black rectangle, everyone wants to capitalize on it. It's pathetic really, can't these companies come up with their own shapes?
[deleted]
Can't wait for the star-shaped tablet.
In other words, they just want to claim a general trademark on "it looks good". Apple fanboys will disagree, but I think it is ridiculous and is part of what makes me dislike Apple with a passion.
I think the Nexus S and Nokia N9/Lumia show that you can create something that looks good without looking exactly like an iPhone.
I think you'll find that the Nexus S is actually one of the phones that Apple have been suing Samsung over; it really is a case of them trying to kill anything that looks good and could compete with them.
I have just the sneaking-est suspicion that maybe you'd find plenty to dislike with passion even absent their protection of very expensive industrial design effort.
Just like they were litigious dicks when this happened, right?
http://en.akihabaranews.com/20416/legacy-unused/pc/retro-wor...
Just like they were litigious dicks when this happened, right?
http://en.akihabaranews.com/20416/legacy-unused/pc/retro-wor...
The original wording[1] doesn't sound that bad as The Verge writeup. iPhone:
> For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speakers openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screens; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile.
iPad:
> For the D'889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D'889 or that have a cluttered appearance.
They've also provided some sample phone models that are not covered within this design patent[2], from a quick scan-through they mentioned LG Prada, LG Chocolate and Sharp 825SH.
> Among other differences, the LG Prada has thicker borders to the left and right of the display screen that are noticeably different from the "big screen" look of the D'677 design.
I found this part somewhat interesting:
> in instances where visual elements of a design patent are "purely functional," such visual elements should not be considered a part of the patented design
[1]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74556601/Expert-declaration
[2]: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_...
> For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speakers openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screens; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile.
iPad:
> For the D'889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D'889 or that have a cluttered appearance.
They've also provided some sample phone models that are not covered within this design patent[2], from a quick scan-through they mentioned LG Prada, LG Chocolate and Sharp 825SH.
> Among other differences, the LG Prada has thicker borders to the left and right of the display screen that are noticeably different from the "big screen" look of the D'677 design.
I found this part somewhat interesting:
> in instances where visual elements of a design patent are "purely functional," such visual elements should not be considered a part of the patented design
[1]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74556601/Expert-declaration
[2]: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_...
It still is almost comical - my best comment on that is an old computer joke from the 1980s (it would be a joke if not so true).
You know, I live in a house that has a door, windows and a roof and one thing is certain - one day Apple is going to sue me for the windows...
You know, I live in a house that has a door, windows and a roof and one thing is certain - one day Apple is going to sue me for the windows...
As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung:
Overall shape that isn't rectangular...
Kubrick's 2001 cited as prior art: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0/
Kubrick's 2001 cited as prior art: http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0/
Every time this kind of thing comes up I remember what incredible dipshits HN users can be. I forget it sometimes, but it all comes back with a Proustian rush when I see you stumbling over each other to drown any chance of discussion or insight in tediously histrionic recitations of your opinion.
This is all basically a form factor lawsuit, with Apple making a big arrow pointing to their chief competitor, the one they think can beat them in the marketplace.
It's like Apple suing over all-in-one PCs with handles on top, or laptops with a foldup screen.
It's like Apple suing over all-in-one PCs with handles on top, or laptops with a foldup screen.
I'd have some sympathy for Apple if their design was distinctive in itself, but its only real claim to "distinctiveness" is its minimalist lack of any distinctive features. If we allow a lack of design features and utter minimalism to be considered trade dress then we are in for all sorts of trouble because any generic shape or design becomes infringing and this precedent will ripple through everything.
Thus I think the whole argument about "Samsung could have made theirs more distinctive" is missing the point. Apple can easily make their tablets more distinctive too, and thus gain the protection of trademarks or trade dress.
Thus I think the whole argument about "Samsung could have made theirs more distinctive" is missing the point. Apple can easily make their tablets more distinctive too, and thus gain the protection of trademarks or trade dress.
Please, please, can an artist mock up a "Presenting the new Samsung Galaxy X" graphic post haste? Just the mental picture of the proposed redesign was snort-out-loud funny. Sharp corners, front surfaces with substantial adornment, and an off-center, cluttered appearance with wide edges, hoo boy.
Next week: tvs that are square, have sharp corners, and the latest trend: really thick bezels!
"Cluttered appearance:" priceless.
Anyone else think the title is misleading? It's a really loose definition of "suggestions", kind'o like "suggesting" someone go jump off a bridge... So, in the spirit of "suggestion", Samsung could have just gotten rid of the touch screen thing all together and added a fold out keyboard and cd-rom just to be sure not to infringe on Apple's patent. How about circular or triangular screens?
I'd also like to just drop this off here: http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-f...
Exactly who is aping who? Make the bezel thinner and take off the logo and it's a completely different design, your honor!
Exactly who is aping who? Make the bezel thinner and take off the logo and it's a completely different design, your honor!
[deleted]
What would be something if the court on reading Apples ridiculous suggestions took a second look at the very idea of having such broad design patents in the first place.
Why don't they patent the rectangle, the color black and emptiness itself.
The fact is Samsung is obviously mirroring the industrial design success of Apple to cause market confusion. To root for a company like this to succeed is disgusting.
And the Prada phone. And Jil Sander's clothing. And those stoves with entirely flat surfaces rather than pop out heating elements. And anything made by Dieter Rams for Braun.
Perhaps Samsung is following modern design techniques, many of which pre-date Apple, despite being popularized in the computing world by Apple.
Perhaps Samsung is following modern design techniques, many of which pre-date Apple, despite being popularized in the computing world by Apple.
Prada Phone vs iPhone: They have different buttons. They have different bevel. They use different materials. They have completely different UI. They have completely different feature-sets (expansion/connections/cameras/tech stacks). And no copying was possible because they were announced 30 days apart.
Samsung tablets vs iPad: Same buttons. Same bevel. Same material. Mirrored UI. A clear an blatant copy to confuse consumers.
Samsung tablets vs iPad: Same buttons. Same bevel. Same material. Mirrored UI. A clear an blatant copy to confuse consumers.
A little too late to reply but: CrunchPad was 2 years before iPad.
I'm not sure how you can read that article and decide Apple is the reasonable party.
Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners. Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface. Front surface that isn't entirely flat. Profiles that aren't thin. Cluttered appearance.
If Apple were a car maker, they would be "suggesting" that their competitors should design cars with non-circular wheels, thick body metal and a non-aerodynamic appearance.