Slashdot Mirror

Those aren't the patents of concern. The problematic ones are those held by companies like Apple, that aren't essential but are rather pathetic and used as weapons against competitors. Let alone the hazards of patent trolls armed by companies like Microsoft, Apple, and IV.

most of these patent articles are just FUD and click bait

Which patent trolling firm do you work for?

So if the technology is 'pathetic' and 'non-essential', who cares? Just don't use it.

Apple is using all means necessary to stop KIRFs. Some of what Samsung has done is flat out pathetic, and if you do your research they deserve all punishment received.

http://dcurt.is/chromebox-samsung
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html

It is a matter of counting the similarities. See here:
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

It's the combination of elements that Apple has (design)patented. See here:

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

I didn't say only the mouse would be banned. Besides, if you ever used a laptop, trackballs and trackpads are god-awful compared to a mouse. Mini-joystick? What, you have a C64 nostalgia? There's a reason that thing died out.

Oh, so now you are asserting an imaginary patent on every conceivable pointing device, far more broad than any pointing device patent (and there have been quite a few) claimed by anybody? By the way Sony used a mini-joystick embedded in the keyboard on their laptops, and I know people who preferred it. I also know people who prefer a trackball (an early Apple laptop had one, as a matter of fact). And of course, any such patent would have expired many years ago. The mouse was patented, in fact--but its patent expired before it was used for any major computer system.

You can live without right clicking in windows too - everything is usually available from the regular menus. It's just MAJORLY inconvient, which is the point. To handle context menus like that, right click is the intuitive way, and pretty much the only one at that.

And yet Apple's current laptops completely lack a right-click button. But to the uncreative, the way they are accustomed to can seem like the One True Way.

Those phones never got even close to where I live, but as far as I saw in pictures and videos, WebOS was also guilty of every single charge that is levelled at Android.

Blatantly false. As the jury clearly recognized, many of Samsung's devices were cosmetically similar to the iPhone in a way the Palm phones never were.

just HOW is WebOS not "another cheap iOS copy" if android is?

Another straw man. Nowhere in the trial was it claimed that Android itself is a cheap iOS copy. In fact, Android was originally planned to support a phone design that didn't resemble the iPhone at all (although Blackberry might have had something to say about it). To its credit, Android is a very versatile OS, which made it possible to "skin" it to support an iPhone-like interface.

If you don't mind a phone and OS which is stuck in 2008

I take it you haven't used recent Blackberry models, which have evolved quite a bit since 2008. I still know quite a few people who prefer the Blackberry over the iPhone. Do you really think that it will be a good thing for the consumer if Blackberry is driven out of business and replaced by iClones?

Seriously, physical keyboards?

Yet prior to the release of the iPhone, it was conventional wisdom that it was impossible to create a virtual keyboard that would be popular with consumers. Yet now, some of the same people are dismissing Apple's use of virtual keyboards as "obvious." But there actually still are quite a few people who prefer the kind of well-crafted physical keyboard that the Blackberry devices offer. Do you really think it will be a good thing for the consumer if this sort of device becomes unavailable to consumers because everybody is playing follow-the-leader with Apple?

Know any PCs that don't make you type via keyboard (virtual or physical) to get characters into the machine?

This is kind of ridiculous don't you think, considering that any conceivable keyboard patent would have expired long before the computer age. And there are so many ways to implement and organize a keyboard (some of which are arguably superior to QWERTY) that it would be next to impossible to create a patent broad enough to cover all of them (you might want to look into Dvorak, or chording keyboards, or the various ergonomic keyboard designs).

Know any GUI that doesn't use a grid layout for it's icons?

Another "duh" moment. To this day, Macs do n

You have to consider the whole, and on the whole, it doesn't look good.

This is a simplistic and incorrect view.

Yours is also a simplistic view.

Apple's case is not based on "We own the idea of phones with big touchscreens, Samsung made a phone with a big touchscreen, therefore Samsung infringed upon our idea, case closed."

The claims are far more specific than just "phone with touchscreen" or "phone with rounded corners."

But, of course, a twelve-point comparison makes for a lousy sound bite, so we keep harping on ALL YOUR TOUCHSCREEN WITH ROUND CORNERS ARE BELONG TO APPLE!!!1

The fun thing is those who oppose vehemently to "rounded rectangle" can't give coherent answer what it is about, then, and proceed with "it's about copying the combination of design features" handwave maneuver without ever saying any concrete detail about what else this suit is about.

Last time I asked one of those to be more specific, I was given a link which really drives the point home. iPad claims, for example:

The mark consists of the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.[2]The color(s) gray, silver and black is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the configuration of a handheld mobile digital electronic device. The color gray appears as a rectangle at the front, center of the device. [the screen]The color black appears on the front of the deviceabove and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device. The color silver appears as the outer border and sides of the device. [3]

IOW, it's not only about rounded rectangle with flat front and screen, it's also about "color(s) gray, silver and black" and "16 icons arranged in 4 by 4 grid".

Hell, here's from actual complaint (it's page 13):

a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
                    as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and
below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the
screen having roughly equal width;
                    as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in
width;
                    a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
                    a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
                    a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and
that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Scroll on to page 24 to have a good laugh at "Samsung copied numerous trademarked icons" showing pixel perfect copies next to each other, like messages icon or photo album icon.

So yeah, those who take "rounded rectangles" as literal are dumb, but those who don't see the figurative sense of "rounded corners" (it's also about "a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners", y'all) are dumb as well.

you look at a SGS and the F700 they are almost identical.

Here is a good comparison of the F700, SGS, and iphone 3G that proves your statement false

http://www.peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.jpg

I find myself more supportive of trade dress (since copying is meant to confuse the public) and far less so of software patents.

While the success of the iPhone and iPad has lent a sense of hindsight inevitability to Apple's design choices, Apple's design documents highlight that there are lots of ways of designing a device that satisfy the original vague concept of a device that "fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out.’" Indeed, Apple's own prototype designs resemble the final product considerably less than Samsung's products resemble Apple's.

A quick glance around Google will find a completely different set of cherry picked "before iPad/iPhone" and "after iPad/iPhone" images that show that, hey, their design isn't actually all that original

Cue the usual search for earlier unsuccessful attempts at touch devices--unsuccessful precisely because they did not come close to implementing the full set of features that made Apple's products a hit (and that Google is now arguing is essential for a usable touch-based tablet or phone)--which may happen to resemble Apple's products in one or two superficial respects, but do not even come close to reproducing the combination of many physical, interface, and even packaging details that are covered by Apple's design patent.

And then you have things like the LG Prada that you conveniently forget.

Actually, I think the LG Prada is a good example of my point, that there is a lot more to an iPhone (and Samsung and other makers of iPhone knockoffs have copied a lot more) than just the shape and the concept of a touch phone.

Similarly, did you know that Android has always been designed to run on a full touchscreen? Here's a bit of history [osnews.com] to cure your ignorance. Added bonus is the bit about Google voluntarily withholding the pinch-zoom gesture at Apple's behest.

I notice you don't cite the same author's follow-up article in which he admits that the article you cite was inaccurate, and that the pre-iPhone Android did in fact resemble the Blackberry

Apple is actually just trying to protect some kind of style that cannot be rigorously defined.

Actually, in order to file such a patent, Apple was required to rigorously define the specific features that constitute its style, with respect to general appearance, interface icons, and even packaging. Apple's complaint is not based upon mere chance overlap of features; indeed, they show that Samsung had already developed their own style of touch phone and tablet design which had few points of overlap with Apple's designs--and that Samsung abandoned it in order to imitate the look and feel of Apple's products.

Apple is actually just trying to protect some kind of style that cannot be rigorously defined.

Actually, in order to file such a patent, Apple was required to rigorously define the specific features that constitute its style, with respect to general appearance, interface icons, and even packaging. Apple's complaint is not based upon mere chance overlap of features; indeed, they show that Samsung had already developed their own style of touch phone and tablet design which had few points of overlap with Apple's designs--and that Samsung abandoned it in order to imitate the look and feel of Apple's products.

Apple is actually just trying to protect some kind of style that cannot be rigorously defined.

Actually, in order to file such a patent, Apple was required to rigorously define the specific features that constitute its style, with respect to general appearance, interface icons, and even packaging. Apple's complaint is not based upon mere chance overlap of features; indeed, they show that Samsung had already developed their own style of touch phone and tablet design which had few points of overlap with Apple's designs--and that Samsung abandoned it in order to imitate the look and feel of Apple's products.

Did you consider that "There will be at most a small market for a phone of this design." is exactly the thing to stop development in this direction, meaning that this design could have been considered and thrown away?

Apple was bold enough to try and succeed, that's good on them, but you immediately infer "No one ever thought of it!"

No, I infer that nobody else had the courage or vision to make the investment and take the risk to enter the market with a phone of that design. And I believe that it would be a good thing if the patent system rewarded companies with courage and vision to take risks that ultimately advance design and benefit consumers.

And "No one have thought of that design for a touchscreen device! See, here's Samsung design before iPhone! It's totally unlike iPhone! (Except it is just like minified version of Galaxy S, minus color icons)"

And even Apple agrees that the pre-iPhone Samsung touch phone is different enough from an iPhone that it does not infringe Apple's design patents. Yet Samsung did not continue to make phones like that--instead, once they saw they iPhone, they switched to designs that imitate Apple's design in numerous ways, right down to the design of the icons, and even the packaging. Perhaps you don't think those details are important, but clearly Apple does...and apparently, Samsung does too.

Did you consider that "There will be at most a small market for a phone of this design." is exactly the thing to stop development in this direction, meaning that this design could have been considered and thrown away?

Apple was bold enough to try and succeed, that's good on them, but you immediately infer "No one ever thought of it!"

No, I infer that nobody else had the courage or vision to make the investment and take the risk to enter the market with a phone of that design. And I believe that it would be a good thing if the patent system rewarded companies with courage and vision to take risks that ultimately advance design and benefit consumers.

And "No one have thought of that design for a touchscreen device! See, here's Samsung design before iPhone! It's totally unlike iPhone! (Except it is just like minified version of Galaxy S, minus color icons)"

And even Apple agrees that the pre-iPhone Samsung touch phone is different enough from an iPhone that it does not infringe Apple's design patents. Yet Samsung did not continue to make phones like that--instead, once they saw they iPhone, they switched to designs that imitate Apple's design in numerous ways, right down to the design of the icons, and even the packaging. Perhaps you don't think those details are important, but clearly Apple does...and apparently, Samsung does too.

Even if you imagine that it's remotely plausible that everybody was poised to take the "obvious" (by today's 20/20 hindsight) next step in phone design (down to the design and arrangement of the icons), but that Apple by it's superior (but nonetheless somehow non-patent worthy) engineering (compared to experienced phone designers like Samsung and HTC) was somehow able to beat everybody to market, the evidence from court filings shows that it is not true. Here is Google's original concept design for an android phone. Here is Samsung's design for a touch-based phone before the saw the iPhone. Moreover, if you read the reviews and comments from other phone manufacturers at the time of iPhone announcement, nobody was saying, "Apple managed to be the first to market with the kind of phone we are all working on." Rather, the nearly-universal wisdom was, "There will be at most a small market for a phone of this design."

Even if you imagine that it's remotely plausible that everybody was poised to take the "obvious" (by today's 20/20 hindsight) next step in phone design (down to the design and arrangement of the icons), but that Apple by it's superior (but nonetheless somehow non-patent worthy) engineering (compared to experienced phone designers like Samsung and HTC) was somehow able to beat everybody to market, the evidence from court filings shows that it is not true. Here is Google's original concept design for an android phone. Here is Samsung's design for a touch-based phone before the saw the iPhone. Moreover, if you read the reviews and comments from other phone manufacturers at the time of iPhone announcement, nobody was saying, "Apple managed to be the first to market with the kind of phone we are all working on." Rather, the nearly-universal wisdom was, "There will be at most a small market for a phone of this design."

As I pointed out, a design patent is not simply on a single feature, such as an overall shape, but on multiple features of a particular type of product. So pointing to a completely different product, with a different function, that happens to look superficially similar is missing the point by a very wide margin.

As noted previously, Apple's design patent covered not merely the form factor of the product, but on the combination of its features, including the arrangement and design of the icons, and even the style of the package that it comes in.

As I pointed out, a design patent is not simply on a single feature, such as an overall shape, but on multiple features of a particular type of product. So pointing to a completely different product, with a different function, that happens to look superficially similar is missing the point by a very wide margin.

As noted previously, Apple's design patent covered not merely the form factor of the product, but on the combination of its features, including the arrangement and design of the icons, and even the style of the package that it comes in.

As I pointed out, a design patent is not simply on a single feature, such as an overall shape, but on multiple features of a particular type of product. So pointing to a completely different product, with a different function, that happens to look superficially similar is missing the point by a very wide margin.

As noted previously, Apple's design patent covered not merely the form factor of the product, but on the combination of its features, including the arrangement and design of the icons, and even the style of the package that it comes in.

A design patent does not claim ownership of the individual elements of the design, but rather rights over the specific combination of those multiple elements. So it is more accurate to say that Apple has claimed rights over devices that resemble an iPad in multiple ways, overall shape and proportions being only one of those.

It is quite clear that Apple created something. It is instructive to look at tablet design before and after iPad. Prior to the iPad, the overwhelming industry opinion was that pad devices were niche products with no large consumer market, and that consumers far preferred netbooks. That opinion was not without basis. Multiple attempts by multiple companies to develop a pad device had failed.

The iPhone similarly challenged conventional wisdom and completely transformed cell phone design. Yet now, multiple manufacturers are simply insisting that it is impossible to think of a phone design that would appeal to consumers that did not look pretty much like Apple's design. Of course, before the iPhone, they thought exactly the same thing about Blackberry's design.

Apple's history of transforming consumer electronics extends back to their introduction of window-based GUIs for consumer computers. Any one device could be luck, but Apple has done it repeatedly. No single feature of any of those devices--the Mac, the Macbook Air, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, can be reasonably said to be responsible for their success; rather, it is the particular combination. So the objections to Apple's design patents are much like insisting that a famous chef should not be renowned for his signature dish because he didn't invent beef, or garlic, or pepper.

Does patent or copyright law protect Apple's particular brand of creativity, which has repeatedly transformed the user experience of consumer electronics? Perhaps the law offers no real protection for this kind of creativity; I don't know. But there is certainly a reasonable argument that the law should encourage companies like Apple that genuinely innovate in the area of design, and that are willing to take huge financial risks in introducing designs that challenge the conventional wisdom.

That's the point, it didn't add anything to the discussion. It's also that kind of simplification that everybody has to wade through to educate people about the actual legal claims. Stop repeating shit.

Here and don't say rectangles again: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/2011/05/03/apple-vs-samsung-a-visual-guide-to-apples-ip-claims-hardware-icons-packaging/

What bothers me is if a bunch of ignorant anti-Apple zealots want to insist that the entire Apple/Samsung lawsuit simply revolves around rounded corners and click to unlock.

There is a difference between designing your product to look and function similarly to your competitors and simply ripping off every single design element, from the look and shape of the packaging, power adapter, the color and shape of the icons, the design of the built-in apps, and yes, the appearance of your product.

This is a visual guide to the IP that Apple claims Samsung infringed upon. Read through it and then come back here and claim, with a straight face, that the lawsuit is just about rounded corners:
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/2011/05/03/apple-vs-samsung-a-visual-guide-to-apples-ip-claims-hardware-icons-packaging/

You realise there are three pages to that list, right? And you realise that the Galaxy Tab has the same problems with mysteriously cloned icon styles and colours as the Galaxy S? And you did get to the packaging bit on the third page, right? Right?

For the hard of thinking: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html

Yet your nonsense gets scored 2, while I'm modded to zero, troll. Apparently it isn't Apple with the reality distortion field, it's Slashdot. Once again, moral issues aside the fact is that a court of law found in Apple's favour and ruled in favour again on appeal. Only the 10.1N - the redesigned version - has not been blocked, when Apple were asshats and tried to block that too.

This tired old rounded corners whine again?

It's about much, much more than that: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

It's an interesting link; I've seen similar before but not thought about it much. When you look at it it really looks like Samsung is copying Apple. Very interesting is the change in the unboxing experience. It looks completely convincing.

Then you remember your first Nokia N95; a product released before the iPhone was available. Look at the Nokia unboxing experience which happens to be captured on the internet. Suddenly the audacity of Apple in claiming this as their own takes your breath.

Nothing under the sun is original; this is outrageous.

This tired old rounded corners whine again?

It's about much, much more than that: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

It's an interesting link; I've seen similar before but not thought about it much. When you look at it it really looks like Samsung is copying Apple. Very interesting is the change in the unboxing experience. It looks completely convincing.

Then you remember your first Nokia N95; a product released before the iPhone was available. Look at the Nokia unboxing experience which happens to be captured on the internet. Suddenly the audacity of Apple in claiming this as their own takes your breath.

Nothing under the sun is original; this is outrageous.

This tired old rounded corners whine again?

It's about much, much more than that: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

What is a tablet supposed to look like?

According to Samsung, it didn't look like an iPad before the introduction of the iPad: http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

But they have the same shape. If you've been paying attention to lawsuits, you'd know that shape is pretty much the only real factor in phones.

If you're talking about the Apple vs Samsung spat then it's more than just about shape. It's about hardware design, interface icons and package design.

Plenty of other manufacturers manage to not slavishly copy Apple. Hell, Samsung even managed to use an iPhone screenshot on their own website.

But they have the same shape. If you've been paying attention to lawsuits, you'd know that shape is pretty much the only real factor in phones.

If you're talking about the Apple vs Samsung spat then it's more than just about shape. It's about hardware design, interface icons and package design.

Plenty of other manufacturers manage to not slavishly copy Apple. Hell, Samsung even managed to use an iPhone screenshot on their own website.

But they have the same shape. If you've been paying attention to lawsuits, you'd know that shape is pretty much the only real factor in phones.

If you're talking about the Apple vs Samsung spat then it's more than just about shape. It's about hardware design, interface icons and package design.

Plenty of other manufacturers manage to not slavishly copy Apple. Hell, Samsung even managed to use an iPhone screenshot on their own website.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

Who needs a development group when you can just wait for Apple to design it for you?

My favorite is the packaging that's supposed to be a direct, slavish copy: ... How the fuck is that copying or misleading?

Here is a good reference for Samsung products before and after Apple's products. Go forward to packaging. Notice how it used to be the standard cluttered packaging, now a lot like Apple's.

Hell, the judge held up a Galaxy Tab and an iPad in court and Samsung's own lawyers couldn't easily tell the difference. That's kinda proof right there.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/2011/05/03/apple-vs-samsung-a-visual-guide-to-apples-ip-claims-hardware-icons-packaging/

The point where it's no longer an infringement is the point where someone walking by can take a casual glance and see that you are or are not using an Apple iPad. Your GPS unit is probably much smaller than an iPad, and likely would be used mounted in a car. A casual observer would not look at it and say "Oh, is that an iPad?", so it's not damaging to Apple's brand recognition.

Apple didn't patent a rectangle. They patented a particular appearance, and Samsung has copied most of the details of that appearance (and note that the 10.1 tab is even worse than what's in that comparison, being the same size and having the logo less obvious). Samsung could have differentiated by adding a few more buttons, or putting a pattern on the bezel, or any number of other things. They didn't.

Interesting comparisons. Just from the first link (hardware design), it looks like there's a better case that Samsung is copying Apple on phones than it is on tablets. (Incidentally, the iPad trademark matches the earlier Samsung picture frame on every single point,

Ohh? Let's check every single point (and not just the front) mkay?

As previously stated, it's not a patent on round-rects:

From the link you provided, the only relevant difference between the Samsung Q1 UMPC (released 3 years before the iPad) and the Galaxy Tab (released 7 months later) is the rounding of the corners. (See your first link, at the bottom right: there are two green ticks next to the Galaxy Tab which correspond to yellow dashes next to the Q1 UMPC, and both of them refer to the curved corners.)

So yes, this is about a patent on rounded rectangles: or at least, that's what the evidence you quoted implies.

Interesting comparisons. Just from the first link (hardware design), it looks like there's a better case that Samsung is copying Apple on phones than it is on tablets. (Incidentally, the iPad trademark matches the earlier Samsung picture frame on every single point, which is even closer than the match between the iPhone and the Galaxy S.)

As far as interface icons are concerned, I'm not sure what the law says, but from a practical point of view I think it's best to encourage companies to imitate each others' interfaces whenever possible: it makes it easier for consumers to switch from using one to another.

OK, I like copying. Copying means you get to stand on the shoulders of giants, or whatever other platitude you might like to sum up progression of ideas.

Copy the iPad and improve its design? Oh by all means, please; that gives us better products and also drags Apple forwards too. Everybody wins!

What Samsung has done (and I say this as an ex 2007 iPhone used and current Samsung owner) isn't take what Apple did and make a better version of it, by using the best and adding their own brilliance.

They just made something that looks the same

If you want a better example of pre and post iPad tablet design, see Are android tablets ripping off iPad?

... (unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition) ...

As previously stated, it's not a patent on round-rects:

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

-Ster

... (unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition) ...

As previously stated, it's not a patent on round-rects:

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

-Ster

... (unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition) ...

As previously stated, it's not a patent on round-rects:

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

-Ster

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

The Samsung Galaxy S as pictured here is NOT in its home screen mode, but in "App Drawer" mode. That it is not the home screen can be easily understood by noting the bottom right icon, labeled Home, which means, if you press it, it will take you home.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-2-Interface-Icons.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html

Apple's "design patent" is not about any single property (like the famous "rounded rectangle") but about the combination of all of these.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-2-Interface-Icons.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html

Apple's "design patent" is not about any single property (like the famous "rounded rectangle") but about the combination of all of these.

http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-2-Interface-Icons.html
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-3-Package-Design.html

Apple's "design patent" is not about any single property (like the famous "rounded rectangle") but about the combination of all of these.

It's a fucking tablet, it can hardly have a screen without it dominating the front surface,

A rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded
AND
As to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width
AND
As to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width
AND
A metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface
AND
A display of a grid of colourful square icons with uniformly rounded corners
AND
A bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
AND
A rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box
AND
A two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece and use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box

Are you just stupid did you suffer brain damage. EVERYTHING combined makes it infringing and rightfully banned.

I would tell you to read this but you are clearly to stupid to understand written words.

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

-Ster

I came across this yesterday and found it interesting (comparisons of what Samsung's tablets looked like before and after the iPad came out):

• Hardware Design
• Interface Icons
• Package Design

It seems like it's not quite as silly as it's usually been presented. (Don't get me wrong, I do think it's silly.)

-Ster