Ban this: Apple lists 8 Samsung devices it wants kept out of the US(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Ban this: Apple lists 8 Samsung devices it wants kept out of the US
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/ban-this-apple-lists-8-samsung-devices-it-wants-kept-out-of-the-us/
10 comments
"Design patent '305: Icon interface and grid layout
Design patent '677: iPhone design, edge-to-edge glass and display borders, front speaker"
Some part of me just wants to scream.
Design patent '677: iPhone design, edge-to-edge glass and display borders, front speaker"
Some part of me just wants to scream.
Please keep in mind the difference between the title of a patent, and the claims of a patent. The title is inconsequential (and in fact, there's some incentive to make it as unhelpful as possible). The claims are the important part of a patent.
While true, I think looking at the quote from the jurors paints a different picture for their criteria:
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel."
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel."
Also, mind the difference between design and utility patents. You can hold a design patent for a certain style of mug, for example. The Coca-Cola company owns a design patent on the style of the iconic Coke bottle, for example, but it wouldn't be able to patent "System and method for containing carbonated beverages."
[deleted]
I get the impression that Samsumg went through three phases in their response to the iPhone.
2007-2008: We need something like this iPhone thing. Let's use Android.
2009-2010: Hmm, Android isn't selling well enough. Let's make our phones look exactly like the iPhone. This is where the S and S2 came from.
2011 onward: Oh shit, Apple is suing us. Let's not be so obvious. Hence the S3.
2007-2008: We need something like this iPhone thing. Let's use Android.
2009-2010: Hmm, Android isn't selling well enough. Let's make our phones look exactly like the iPhone. This is where the S and S2 came from.
2011 onward: Oh shit, Apple is suing us. Let's not be so obvious. Hence the S3.
Your timeline does not reflect the reality of a product development cycle. But to my untrained eye, the first Galaxy S looked most like the iPhone 3GS. The Galaxy S2 adopted a brand new design language (more business-y and kevlar-like, super thin, bump on the back for some models) and I believe it sold the most. I remember reading the specs for the S2 when it first came out and it just impressed me how significantly it outclassed all phones up to that date. It was a no-brainer phone to get at that time all on its own merits not as a cheap copy of something else.
These all seem to be such frivolous things in relation to the function of a computing device.
They have nothing to do with capabilities or performance.
Gimmicks.
Just my personal opinion.
They have nothing to do with capabilities or performance.
Gimmicks.
Just my personal opinion.
Yes, "gimmicks" that make billions upon billions of dollars.
[deleted]
How do you know it's the gimmicks that make the "billions upon billions" of dollars? Are you making some assumptions?
Could marketing play a role in consumer decisions?
Could marketing play a role in consumer decisions?
[deleted]
... and the classy thing for Apple to do now would be to say, "ok our point was made, keep selling your crappy old phones, just make sure any new ones don't infringe on our designs."
Jobs is dead and buried, let's bury his hatchet too, eh? This is all very tiresome. I'd love it if this became a widespread PR negative for Apple and became a pyrrhic victory for them.
Jobs is dead and buried, let's bury his hatchet too, eh? This is all very tiresome. I'd love it if this became a widespread PR negative for Apple and became a pyrrhic victory for them.
The fact that the verdict is based on trivial patents is actually a good thing. Samsung can redesign the phone case and do trivial software changes and come up with 8 brand new phones officially declared to be comparable to the iphone.
Am I the only one who thinks rounded edges are so 1950s ?
Am I the only one who thinks rounded edges are so 1950s ?
No, that will get them a phone that fails to infringe on these trivial patents. Surely Apple has more, and is filing for still more as we speak. As is every other player. The next victim may be Apple itself.
You can't win this game by avoiding infringement. It's never worked that way.
You can't win this game by avoiding infringement. It's never worked that way.
Am I the only one who thinks rounded edges are so 1950s
Absolutely. I never understood the people drooling over the Samsung Galaxy <x> devices, they all look pretty ugly to me. I have an HTC One S which I consider to be marginally better, but the dream is a Nokia Lumia... running Android.
Absolutely. I never understood the people drooling over the Samsung Galaxy <x> devices, they all look pretty ugly to me. I have an HTC One S which I consider to be marginally better, but the dream is a Nokia Lumia... running Android.
Am I the only one who thinks rounded edges are so 1950s ?
No, Dieter Rams probably agrees with you.
No, Dieter Rams probably agrees with you.
My opinion: I don't think Apple really cares about Samsung and just used this trial to slide in these trivial UI patents in order to have leverage against anyone making smart phones. It is to early to really know if anything in this trial is valid and what exactly this means going forward. Good luck trying to find unbiased information about this topic as Apple has already given their users the battle cry ("Samsung steals") which of course dominates all these stupid conversations.
So here is a fun idea (that nobody will probably take up). In the U.S. you can sue for anything and any reason. If this happens, it would be an interesting exercise to sue Apple (large, class-action) for limiting the availability of marketplace options.
They... don't want to ban the S3?
Edit: Oh, I see, that came out since the trial started.
Edit: Oh, I see, that came out since the trial started.
The actual case covered far more phones than this ban list, they seem to only be interested in banning the top selling phones.
Though that'll just drive more sales to the Galaxy S3, I assume.
Though that'll just drive more sales to the Galaxy S3, I assume.
These are all the (now) older and therefore even cheaper models. I think in general, Apple seeks to "decommoditize" the smart phone market.
Doesn't Apple have a patent on multitouch in general? Remember when the first few versions of Android did everything not to step on those patents? When and why did that change?
And whatever happened to MS surface and any patents they held?
Apple would patent "Rectangular input screen" if the legal system would let them. As a proud and happy owner of an Android Galaxy S2 I will do all I can to thwart apple from additional profit from me or anyone I know.
1. Galaxy S 4G (all): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T959HABTMB
2. Galaxy S2 AT&T (677; all utility): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I777ZKAATT
3. Galaxy S2 Skyrocket (677): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I727MSAATT
4. Galaxy S2 T-Mobile (677; 915, 163): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T989ZKBTMB
5. Galaxy S2 Epic 4G (677): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SPH-D710ZKASPR
6. Galaxy Showcase (677, 305): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SCH-I500RKBXAR
7. Droid Charge (305; all utility): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SCH-I510RAAVZW
8. Galaxy Prevail (all utility): http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SPH-M820ZKABST
Regardless of my feelings on the lunacy in these being patents, a few takeaways from myself. Only the design patents are featured when selling a phone, by Samsung or Apple, and I'd argue the utility patents are not a selling point, even for those that try a phone before purchasing. If these features are offensive enough to outright ban and garnish earnings from, why aren't they, at all, a part of the buying process? Try it out; search for "zoom" on any of Apple's or Samsung's product pages. Someone help me out and find who has a patent on having a CD player in a car.
As well, Samsung has been painted as stealing wholesale, but why are they so inconsistent in stealing the farm for every phone? And the S3, which is an even better seller?