Strange they didn't use Star Trek - the devices are even called "PADD"
Samsung should simply use Star Trek images to point out Jobs could have just been an avid Trekker wanting his own real PADD when he asked to build one....
Apple's attempt to score an easy win over Samsung in their smartphone patent trial, thus punishing its rival for leaking court evidence, has been branded "extreme" by the South Korean giant. Samsung had prepared slides to defend itself against allegations that it copied the iPhone design for its own products, but the court …
but it looks like a rectangle with rounded to me. It is also described "Consisting of a large touchscreen display and minimalistic manual interface or control panel (generally only one or two buttons)"
Sounds like a pretty good description for a tablet (wether iOS or Android) to me.
"PADDs were used by such space-faring organizations as Starfleet, Andorian Imperial Guard, Bajoran Militia, Cardassian Union, Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and Vulcan High Command. They were common to cultures even as distant as the Delta Quadrant. "
Ah but the concept of a screen contained in a sheel of usually the same shape has been used throudhout the universe.
I call prior art and demand that Apple have to proove beyond doubt that their patent is for a unique look and feel and tha the UI parts have never been used anywhere else either, otherwise their patents must be thrown out.
We can then do the same for all the others and set up a new system that is purely earth based.
We would then see prices drop like mad with some great tech freely available.
"Makes their customers look rather foolish?
What, like all customers of the bank RBS look foolish because their choice of bank had an IT problem?
Like customers of all banks look foolish as the banks instigated the global financial meltdown?"
How can the two be compared?
RBS = Inexperienced staff.
Apple = Spitting the dummy.
Samsung is the one being the most idiotic here. Arguing about some evidence that the judge has repeatedly said can't be used. Then Samsung leaks it to the press to hopefully influence the court case, that's contempt of court.
Sorry, but if you messed up your evidence submission then that's too bad. You can always appeal and then submit it. It's not like anyone is going to be locked up if they are found guilty.
"Arguing about some evidence that the judge has repeatedly said can't be used. Then Samsung leaks it to the press to hopefully influence the court case, that's contempt of court."
But... Jurors aren't supposed to be investigating the case, they are supposed to make their mind up on what they hear in court.
As for the leaks to the press, Apple have been spouting 'Samsung copied Apple' to the press for the past couple of years, surely the jury could have heard that before.
Anyway, whatever happens, it sure is an interesting read on Groklaw anyway who seems to be a little less biased that the articles on El Reg.
While I wholeheartedly agree about lawyers being paid to do a better job, I feel the company they represent (and by extension the result of the trial which results in legal precedents) will be punished for something that they should not be punished for.
Imagine you are sentenced to death penalty because you lawyer messed up by something like this and tell me if you still find it correct.
"Samsung is the one being the most idiotic here. Arguing about some evidence that the judge has repeatedly said can't be used. Then Samsung leaks it to the press to hopefully influence the court case, that's contempt of court.
Sorry, but if you messed up your evidence submission then that's too bad. You can always appeal and then submit it. It's not like anyone is going to be locked up if they are found guilty."
Apple admit that real tablet PCs existed before the iPad, never mind fake props in TV and movies. They are not claiming ownership of the concept of tablet PCs, they are claiming ownership of a specific case design and certain UI features. If Samsung want to change the Galaxy Pad to look like the props from 2001 then I'm sure Apple will be delighted.
Which is fair given that decent design costs money to do. Ripping off and changing is much cheaper.
Asian firms are well known for copying. Look at the BMW 1 series compared to the Hyundai i30.
Don't see it personally, the problem is that Apple's case design is so basic and their design patent so broad that you would have to actively go out of your way to try and avoid it. This isn't so much a case of say VW patenting the VW Golf design, but also patenting the compact car hatchback shape, and them suing Peugot, Renault, Citroen, Honda, Kia and others for their compact hatchbacks because from a distance they are difficult to tell apart. Not only that, they also all decided to place the various car instrument displays behind the steering wheel and install a gear stick and AV system in the centre console area, which if VW followed Apple's logic would also be banned.
What he said: "design patent so broad that you would have to actively go out of your way to try and avoid it"
Samsung applied their existing design patterns and came up with the Galaxy Tab. It was different to the ipad and other earlier tablets but the basics were similar to the ipad so they were forced to actively go out of their way to avoid infringing.
How is that not exactly as broad as he thinks? You post illogical, uninformed, outright wrong Apple fanatic nonsense many times a day here and get owned and downvoted constantly. You need to get a clue.
And claiming that you'd have to think about how not to infringe a design patent isn't an excuse.
Design is hard. It look Apple years and over 30 prototypes to come up with their design. You're saying that Samsung shouldn't have to use a little effort to come up with something that doesn't infringe?
Faindroids refusing to consider that Apple may have a point for some of their claims and down voting anything that contradicts that view is no reason to stop posting. All I have written is consistent with the way that the courts view these things, not how you'd like the world to be. Samsung may have a point with some or all of their patent claims. So far some of the details look like bullshit to me (the 2007 patent for background MP3 playback on a phone in particular) but I don't yet know enough detail to be definitive. Fandroids are convinced that Samsung is all sunshine and light, which I know isn't true (and neither are Apple BTW)
Never mind what the court allows us to think, just look at all the evidence. It's not that Android users think Samsung is god, it's just they they accept that design is hard and Samsung went through many prototypes before coming up with a design which they were later forced to change. You're saying that Samsung should be told that their independent designs are copies of what Apple designers developed from Sony principles and then be banned from using their own hard work?
If you think that the court prevents people from examining all the facts then you're wrong. Those you dismiss as Fandroids are consistent with reality, whereas you are consistent only with how a failed legal system would like the world to be. That's why every post of yours is a fail.
as proof that the courts are biased and poor little Samsung is being put upon?
Did you bother to check how much of Apple's evidence got excluded also (quite a lot actually, for the same sort of reasons as Samsung). You think that the F700, if you look at it from the front only, without deploying the keyboard, and ignore much of the fine detail, shows that Samsung had designed the Galaxy S case in December 2006. That's a particularly poor grasp on reality you have there.
Or are you saying that Apple having investigated the question of what they thought that a Sony designed iPhone would look like shows that Apple stole the design from Sony (even though they didn't use that design, and earlier designs have more in common with the final iPhone case).
They're claiming ownership of a generic case design, which incorporates features that have been used before. Apple and Samsung both created designs which use those features and Apple wants to ban Samsung from using Samsung's (and Knight-Ridder's etc) design features.
If they want to claim a specific design then let them. Samsung's products are specifically a different design, but are generally the same.
What do you mean? A rectangle with rounded corners, icons and a touch sensitive screen. How about it having a black bevel? That must be original, or using standard human gestures to control things on a touch screen. Bloody hell how innovative is that...
I wish someone would setup a technology shop right next to every apple store called Everthing But Apple and fill with all the stolen tech that Google, Samsung, etal have robbed Apple with...
The engineering technology involved in Apple's case patent is on the level of a six year old kid. Why aren't patent laws changed so that at least some engineering expertise has to be demonstrated.
do I have to bang this in? DESIGN Patents aren't about engineering technology, they are about cosmetic appearance. If you could carve the shape out of butter with a spoon you'd still be infringing the design.
The engineering required to build the case isn't trivial (I'd love to see your 6 year old trying to mill out the case back from a block of aluminium) but the hard work is designing the hardware and software to fit inside of it. All the buyer sees though is the case, and if two designs look near enough the same and the salesman says "hey, this one is the same but cheaper" then Apple have unfairly lost a sale.
@Steve Todd Aren't the majority of Apple devices sold(in hand) at Apple stores? If so it would be a big leap to make the comparison between devices based on physical appearance.
In my experience though, people who own Apple phones generally are trendy types who only buy the iPhone as it is the "best phone". I don't think a similar looking phone that is cheaper would appeal to the Apple crowd, hence damaged are arguably negligible. A large part of the anger from fandroids is due to the design patent being essentially a rectangle screen with a border that is anything but ground breaking.... Apple finally has a challenge to its monopoly and now using its money to block competition. Android is easier to use than iOS and the design patent is a load of crap as Samsung already had used similar designs.... Apple are going to lose in the long run and they know it. Watch that share price plummet :-)
Hello, Steve "fapple" Todd. Have you looked at some of those designs? Consider their most recent one for a patent application; it looks very much like an Asus Transformer (and several other devices currently on the market).
Now did you look at a Galaxy Tab and iPad side by side? Bloody hell, they look different. Sure, there are some similarities, but that is the same for every phone and tablet. Laptops, cameras, etc. The list could go on.
People decide to buy a cheaper (or better) alternative all of the time; that's not an "unfair" loss of sale, but competition.
Get off Apple's nipple for a moment and open your eyes.
I'm pretty sure a design patent would include such things a geometry, proportions, look, texture and overall impression. Please correct me if I have miss-understood.
The geometry and proportions are nothing new as per the discussions above. The look is similar, but IMHO also pre-existing. The texture is noticeably different - Sorry Samsung, your phones feel cheaper. And the overall impression is different as decide in UK court that the galaxy tab appears "an almost insubstantial member of the same family" and does not have the same "understated design"
What all the legal wrangling comes down to is the worry that a potential apple customer might buy a samsung by mistake, and that is what any damages will be based on.
With your understanding of design patents (and the fact that your commenting here suggests your are reasonably tech-savvy) do you honestly think this is a significant risk.
Even my dear old mum who can no work the video recorder and puts a full stop after every word in text messages because she can't find the space button, said of my Galaxy S2 "It's not as shiny as that iphone but it looks much easier to hold" - Thus proving difference in look, feel and overall impression.
Even if Apple win this, and any subsequent appeal - Samsung will be able to go after Apple through court in a different territory (probably UK or mainland Europe) and win the money back.
The sad thing is the only winners are the lawyers, and on both side they have made some glaring errors and shouldn't command such ridiculous fees.
I never understood this obsession with "shininess" - if I wanted shiny, I'd buy a mirror. My Nokia 5800 has a higher specular reflection coefficient than my Galaxy Nexus I think, but I wouldn't judge them by that - they both have decent looks each in their own way. And I'd rate both looks above that of the Iphone 4S. I don't see better reflection as better - in fact, I think it just makes the Apple logo look tacky and stuck on.
PS - as another example, my Galaxy is distinctly more shiny now that I've added a case, but I think overall it detracts from the look.
Also consider screens - "shiny" reflective screens are Glossy, as opposed to Matte, which get no reflections. Superficially might think the shiny glossy screens are nicer, but matte is much better to work with, especially outside, as reflections are the last thing you want on a screen, particularly under light. I love the matte screen on my Samsung netbook, and never understood why no phone seems to have them (anyone know?) Also thought it surprising that Macs all seem to have glossy, given that they are sold as being better for graphics artists, and given Apple's obsession with wonderful "retina" display - what good is that when you've got "shiny" reflections across the screen. (Disclaimer - I have glossy on my Clevo. Glossy is fine for indoor use, but I would never say it's better than matte, I just got the cheaper option as I had no use for matte, as I'm not a graphics artist, and not using it outdoors.)
A cheap knock-off made of chromed plastic is still an infringement of a metal device. The design patent is ONLY about how the device appears, nothing else. It also doesn't have to be a 100% match, just close enough for the judge to decide that it has substantially the same appearance.
READ the article - it is up to the JURY to decide! Even if the judge has already made up her mind (as it appears rom some news items) - at least she is honest enough to go through with the entire process to the letter of the law if not the spirit.
As many have said, everyone though of this before, just only 1 or 2 companies had the money to make them. I've even got designs of an almost identical tablet touch screen phone from 2003 that I drew while learning 3D software. I mean, who did not try that design?
"I wish someone would setup a technology shop right next to every apple store called Everthing But Apple and fill with all the stolen tech that Google, Samsung, etal have robbed Apple with..."
They have. It's called PC World and it's going out of business because it's shit.
[QUOTE]The electronics monster had cited the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey and the old TV show Tomorrow People in its attempt to stop a preliminary injunction on sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1, saying that tablet computers were depicted yonks ago in the fictional works, so Apple's fondleslab wasn't all that new.
Unfortunately, according to Judge Koh's ruling that Samsung couldn't use clips from the film and the telly programme in court, the company only cited them for "general discussion" and didn't make it clear that it would use the clips in arguments against invalidity or non-infringement.
The basic theory of evidence and discovery is that both sides have to show each other everything they've got and how they'll use it, allowing the other side to prepare arguments or explanations. Not telling Apple it would use the clips as prior art references to prove that Apple's tablets weren't revolutionary (and instead a natural progression), means the fruity firm couldn't figure out what it would say back.[/QUOTE]
ah can't the poor ikkle Apple legal minds come up with a quick rebutal to the idea of science fiction. Or are they worried they will be tared with the same brush ?
Surely between them Apple and their legal team can look at any evidence and be able to reply very quickly or ask for a resonable time period to study it, after all its a few pictures not a million lines of code they need to look at.
"Surely between them Apple and their legal team can look at any evidence and be able to reply very quickly or ask for a resonable time period to study it, after all its a few pictures not a million lines of code they need to look at."
Well, yes, but the point of the submission rules in the discovery process is to prevent proceedings becoming stupidly drawn out because one (or both) parties keep bringing "new" pieces of "evidence" that the other one needs to spend time looking at which just ends up wasting the court's time.
Please use your own confirmation bias to decide if I am implicitly supporting Apple or Samsung in pointing this out and vote accordingly.
BTW, you're wrong.
Here's the thing - tablets were around, and mainstream, years before Apple. The most obvious example being smartphones (a smartphone is still a type of tablet - especially if all we're talking about are the physical design/look, rather than whether it has one particular feature). But also non-phone tablets, which were more commonly known as media players or Internet tablets in the past, e.g., Archos tablets in 2009, Nokia Maemo tablets before that, or even Apple's own Ipod Touch - and many other handheld computing devices years before that (e.g., touchscreen PDAs in the early 2000s).
The Ipad was only different to these in that it was 10", rather than smaller. But if you're going to claim that that makes a significant difference, then you've lost the argument - as by the same logic, surely Samsung's smartphones today (4.8") are different to any Iphone produced by Apple (a piddly 3.5").
Furthermore, if rumours about Apple releasing a 4" Iphone, or a 5-6" Ipad "mini" are true, then surely again by this reasoning, Samsung should be able to sue Apple for being first with designs of that size (the Galaxy S, and Galaxy Note)? You can't have it both ways. Will we see Apple forced to pay royalties to Samsung for these products, or else have them banned?
A giant model of an iPhone is still covered by the iPhone design patent.
Start stretching or compressing some of the proportions and you start to differentiate it from the Apple design. Make enough changes and you're safe (see the Galaxy Pad 10.1N, changed enough not to infringe).
Things aren't as simple as you keep trying to make out.
"Things aren't as simple as you keep trying to make out."
Reductio ad absurdum is the fandroids principle tool. Most seem to think that, as self proclaimed 'power users' they are far more expert in all matters, especially the law and design, than the experts. I've given up reminding them that the world isn't zero-sum.
And a Samsung or HTC phone with that design that predates it is still prior art, even if they have other differences like slide out keyboard.
Not to mention that the idea of patenting designs is ludicrous, whoever thought of it first. The only concern should be trademarks, which adequately covers the issue of customers being confused (hint, if they only get confused when you start covering up logos, they're not confused).
Ignoring for a moment that the F700 is a HTC TyTN rip-off, factors both gross and minor (the sliding keyboard to start with, the way that the sides slope outwards from the screen and the location and size of the speaker and mike grills as additional examples) make it different enough to be considered a separate design from the iPhone.
If Samsung had stuck to making phones that looked like the F700 (complete with keyboard) then they wouldn't have infringed Apple's design. As it was they moved their design close enough to that of the iPhone that the US judge considers it to be infringing. It's not a valid excuse to say that you modified a different design to get where you are if that modification was done after the infringed design was filed. Apple couldn't make their next phone look like a Galaxy SIII for the same reason.
As to the idea of patenting designs, argue with the US congress about that. You can move on to the EU commission, the UK Parliament, the Korean government (don't forget that Samsung filed their F700 design there), plus most of the rest of the civilised world when you're done (they call them by different names but they all amount to the same thing). Just because you don't see the value of protecting designs doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't also.
i completely agree, does anyone realistically go into a phone store looking for an i-phone and then pick up and buy a samsung by mistake? this who case is a farce.
If only it was being heard in a UK court both sides arguments would have been thrown out and the case dismissed a long time ago.
You'll no doubt read tomorrow that the Judge did not allow Apple's "Recommendation". This is one of the most succint comments I've read about that:
"Actually, I felt whilst reading Samsung's filing that there was a continuing, albeit unstated, thread running through it: that their side of the story of the F700 design would have been a slam-dunk against Apple's case; that her refusal to let it be admitted would definitely be coming up at any appeal; and that if she didn't want the embarrassment of being reversed she'd better find a way to save face and let it in. But that's perhaps just me."
It came from Groklaw, btw.
"When Samsung decided to pass the information to news reporters, Judge Koh was livid, but approving Apple's motion is likely to just move the whole case into the appeals court."
Presumably the Appeals Court will not be presided over by Judge Koh, nor will she have any direct influence over the final decision... I predict that Apple's motion will not, in the end, be approved.
That's a third party product never authorized by Samsung!
So what? Both products come in a white box with the products picture, name and manufacturer on the box, seems reasonable.
Same as the previous picture, and in both cases the products look similar at best not even close to being identical.
So what? Samsung adopted the PDMI (Portable Digital Media Interface) interconnection standard for their tab.
It seems to me that Samsung provide better headphones?!?! Other than that I can't judge the similarities based on that perspective alone.
Do people really make purchasing decisions based on the design of the BOTTOM of a device, which might well have technical reasons to have a circular fan opening???
You are either an idiot, or another Samsung shill.
Isn't all that spittle bad for your keyboard?
("Fitz" indeed. Perhaps your doctor should adjust your medication.)
Not suspicious at all!
So you don't know how to use the HTML A element when posting links, and you're a paranoid nutjob. Yes, I'd say you're qualified to engage in the debate here.
If anything, I hope that the US patent system is updated a bit after this case is settled, regardless who wins..but especially if Samsung wins which they should by a landslide given the suit. I think both apple and android devices are very good..but the approach apple decided to take with their mountains of money is shameful. They clearly aren't losing money in the market.. so why they are trying to thwart every competitor while they continue to make massive profits is ridiculous. Stop spending billions on lawsuits and put that money into more products. Apple has done us a great service by bringing some very innovative tech to the market and waking up the tech giants before it. Now that we have some really kick ass technology in our hands and around us, keep on bringing cool gadgets and stuff to the market. I am betting on Apple to bring forth Thunderbolt and NFC to the masses.. since it seems they tend to really get the masses to accept what they endorse on their products. Just wish all this crap of rounded designs and the way someone swipes their finger being protected and nobody else can use it would stop already and lets see new innovations!
All the present economic incentives appear to be on the side of maintaining the patent system as-is. It's clearly good for lawyers. It's good for companies with deep pockets, who wield proportionally greater influence on government. It's good for demagogues who want to rouse protectionist sentiment.
I don't see how a high-profile case like this one could provide any ammunition for promoting patent-system change, except among the small minority that 1) pay attention to it and 2) feel it illustrates deficiencies in the present system. And since those deficiencies are mostly characterized either as "foolishness" (an intangible cost difficult to quantify) or economic inefficiency which adversely affects small players more than large ones, the moneyed parties don't particularly care.
Props in 2001 or Star Trek have no bearing on this case. Nor does the LG Prada or Samsung F700. The legal definition of what constitutes infringement on the design patent requires WAY more than a rectangle with rounded corners, despite the whining of the drooling fandroids posting here. Yes, being a rectangle with rounded corners was one of the claims in the patent. ONE CLAIM. Taking a single claim out of context in a patent with dozens of claims (ALL of which must be satisified for infringement to have happened) is no better than politicians cherry picking a few words out of a long statement their opponent makes and twisting those words to claim they said something they did not. Yes, I compared you idiots to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Probably the worst flame I've ever done on the Internet.
Apple has not patented a rectangle with rounded corners, they patented a very specific look for device, in which the fact that it is a rectangle with rounded corners in only one claim out of many. Check out the link below for an image of the two Samsung tablets - the 10.1N is on top, the 10.1 on the bottom. Judges in multiple jurisdictions have ruled that the 10.1N is NOT infringing but the 10.1 is (and, to be fair, judges in multiple other jurisdictions have ruled neither is infringing) The two differ very little, which demonstrates that the similarity between the iPad and 10.1 that has caused some (but not all) judges to rule the 10.1 hit EVERY claim in Apple's design patent was either deliberately done or quite the unlikely coincidence.
Whether this is worth $2.5 billion to Apple is a totally different matter, I think Samsung is the most successful Android vendor not because they've been copying the look of Apple's products the best, but because they've copied Apple's business model the best. That is, designing products targeted at the high end that aren't built cheap, aren't priced cheap, with extensive customization (Samsung designs their own SoCs like Apple does, and customizes their version of Android more than the other guys do) that differentiate it that allowed them to avoid being commoditized like the rest of the Android herd.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019