Apple Sues Samsung Over Galaxy Phones and Tablets

mystikkman writes "In the latest patent suit to hit the smartphone industry, Apple is suing Samsung, alleging the Galaxy line of phones and tablets infringe on a number of Apple's patents. 'Samsung's Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,' Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung's tablet, like Apple's, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons. Apple previously sued HTC over Android. If Samsung is found to be infringing on the software, all the Android OEMs could be vulnerable."

Comments

Again?

[wsxyz]

Didn't Windows copy the Lisa & Mac "trade dress"? How did that turn out Apple?

Re:Again?

[SpryGuy]

Apple claimed they did, but I never thought so. There are significant differences in the UIs, and always have been. And the concept of 'over-lapping windows' is so generic it really can't be claimed as a patent, imho.

To claim that a tablet can't be rectangular with rounded corners and a border? Dear lord, that's just ridiculous.

Re:Again?

[Haedrian]

"“Samsung’s Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,” Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung’s tablet, like Apple’s, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons."

Paragraph 8

Re:Again?

[demonbug]

That may be, but to ensure my tablet is not subject to a rounded corners suit, I'll design it with razor edges.
-nB

You'll just be opening yourself up to a lawsuit from Motorola.

Re:Again?

[517714]

Apple has demonstrated that a border other than black is difficult to implement. The white border required significant investment from Apple to bring to market. As a result, Samsung is on solid ground with their color choice.

As for the icons, if, as Apple claims, it is an intuitive interface then it is not patentable since intuitive means perceived independently of reasoning which makes it obvious or trivial.

Re:Again?

[mjwx]

To claim that a tablet can't be rectangular with rounded corners and a border? Dear lord, that's just ridiculous.

IF ableToCompete==False
THEN sue=nearestCompetitor

This little nugget's been part of Apple's MO since the 80's.

Re:Again?

[hairyfeet]

I'd say this doesn't look good for Apple in the short OR the long, but not for the reasons listed so far. It is because without Jobs they are already losing their way and I have a feeling it will get a LOT worse.

Look at the "look & feel" suit, was it under Jobs? Nope Pepsi guy. Jobs knows that the key is to stay on brand, and keep it elite and THAT is how Apple stays Apple. Is there REALLY enough of a difference to justify the costs between an Apple Mac and any $1000 Intel laptop? not really it is the elitism of the Apple brand same as there are plenty of ricers that can hit Porsche and Ferrari speeds but they will NEVER have the "cool factor" that those brands have.

Now am I saying Apple is all bullshit and hype? Nope, I gave the man credit for putting design first, hell most Apple devices look more like artworks than consumer products. But it was Jobs that built the hype, that built the "cool factor", that turned Apple from just an expensive also ran into THE boutique brand.

For the fans of Apple, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it will most likely get a LOT worse. Say what you will about Gates but he was ten times the leader the sweaty monkey is, and he wasn't NEARLY an integral part as Jobs. Lets be honest folks, the man's time is almost up. He has lived longer than most with that form of cancer, and all the money in the world can't hold back the reaper forever. Unfortunately unlike Gates Jobs never had a REAL exit strategy set up, and in the end that will hurt the company, probably badly. Maybe he meant it that way, so that when he is gone and the company falls he will be looked upon as this mythic figure that the company could live without.

After all without the Apple mystique and cool factor, what will make their brand any better than say a well built Android or even WebOS device? the megacorps like Google and HP can probably get economies of scale even Apple can't touch, especially HP who has enough contacts with suppliers they can probably get anything they want.

And with so many working on Android even an old Windows guy like me will be the first to admit that short of flooding the channel with CCC (Cheapo Chinese Crap) which from the looks of it Google is gonna try to kill off with more rules around Android, that the Droid OS is gonna get better and better AND better. No I fear without Steve Apple will go into a slow downward spiral. Will they be able to straight up and pull another rebound afterward? Who knows, but if history is any guide Without Steve it quickly becomes the house that middle management built, with feature creep and PHBs and all the mess. only they won't have Steve to come in and kick some asses anymore, and that doesn't bode well IMHO.

Re:Again?

[Capsaicin]

As for the icons, if, as Apple claims, it is an intuitive interface then it is not patentable since intuitive means perceived independently of reasoning which makes it obvious or trivial.

The interface, it is claimed, is intuitive to use. Designing (or inventing) an "intuitive interface," on the other hand, is anything but trivial.

And I might add, you have a bit of case law to read the help you get up to speed with what a court would consider to be "obvious" for the purposes of patent law. In any case, with this kind of suit, winning or losing isn't everything ...

Re:Again?

[fredmosby]

I don't support this lawsuit. I oppose any legal action that might deprive me of choice. That said, it's not reasonable to argue that intuitive interfaces are necessarily obvious. Just because it's easy to use an intuitive interface doesn't mean it's easy to invent one.

You're basically saying "the iPhone is easy to use, therefore it must have been easy to design". If that were true the first smart phones would have been as easy to use as an iPhone.

Re:Again?

[gizmod]

Really?
FTA: Apple’s lengthy court filing, seen by Mobilized, is filled with what Apple claims are examples of the copy-catting, ranging from core technology to screen icons to **hardware shape**. In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons.

But then again maybe when you put a lot of these design elements together and not just the basics but actual placement of buttons, speakers, texture and a whole bunch of other stuff it might actually start resembling product xyz or abc. IANAL but I agree that individual elements should not be patentable (rounded corners, borders etc), but a lot of these things together constitutes a "design". Either way I think Apple are being royal arseholes. iPhones are great. Galaxy S (I have one) is great, Galaxy Tab is great and so is the iPAD. Company politics bickering suing, litigation, court battle BS is a load of shit.

Re:Again?

[Siener]

I own a Samsung Galaxy S and it's NOTHING like an iPhone
1. It has expandable storage via microSD
2. Its battery is replaceable
3. It it can connect to any computer through a standard (and cheap) micro USB cable
4. I can copy music to AND FROM my phone with any software that supports USB storage or MTP
5. When I switched it on for the first time I didn't need a computer or special software and I wasn't forced to sign up for an iTunes store account
6. Within 5 minutes my phone had all my gmail, Facebook and twitter contacts on it, again without needing a computer
7. I can copy and paste just about everywhere
8. It runs Flash
9. Out of the box it supports tethering via USB or Bluetooth and it can even act like a Wi-Fi hotspot
10. I can decide what software I run on it rather than having a dictator with arbitrary rules telling me what I'm allowed to do
11. I can (and did) download SDK's and development tools for free to write my own software for it
12. It can send an receive MMS's (like every phone I've had for the last 6+ years)

I can go on, but I'm sure you get the idea

Are these people insane?

[Haedrian]

"uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border"

What is wrong with these people?

Re:Are these people insane?

[NoobixCube]

Samsung should sue Apple for the visual siilarity between the Apple TV and Samsung's DVRs and set top boxes.

Re:Are these people insane?

[Nethemas the Great]

Who says they won't?

Re:Are these people insane?

[teg]

How did tablets look before the iPad? While iPad was the first tablet most people/businesses cared about - the genius of the iPad is that was not a laptop in a different form factor - there were tablets before. Did they look similar? Or is it just after the iPad that the design looks obvious?

Re:Are these people insane?

[Nethemas the Great]

The educated minority is forced to compromise with the uneducated majority. It's called democracy, best get used to it.

Re:Are these people insane?

[Culture20]

My laptop is a thin mobile computing device.

Re:Are these people insane?

[Anubis IV]

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only similarity, as opposed to a choice quote pulled by the summary from an article which pulled it from a court document which it failed to link. Clearly, most of the phones these days were independently conceived, which is why Apple entered a market that was already filled with innovative designs when the iPhone debuted in 2007, of which it is merely one among many now.

Oh, wait.

Now that I've paid my dues as an Apple fanboy, let me step back for a sec and be more reasonable, because as much as I like Apple, I love comprehensively well designed products better, regardless of where they come from or whose logo is on them. Here's what I really think about it all:
1) There should be protections for inventions and new ideas, allowing the originators to profit from them for a time.
2) Apple came up with something new and disruptive when the iPhone debuted, and again when the iPad debuted.
3) While Apple does deserve to make a profit, they don't deserve a free ride. There still needs to be competition when you have technologies that so thoroughly disrupt an industry, otherwise you run the risk of them dominating and stagnating, which is bad for everyone.
4) Allowing blatant rip offs defeats the purpose of #1 and isn't conducive to encouraging innovation. It discourages it by sending the wrong message.

So, basically...I dunno. The summary doesn't link to any primary sources, such as the court documents where your quote was pulled from, so I can't make any judgment calls about the merit of the case as a whole, nor should anyone else. If their case rests on arguments that flimsy however, then it's just another frivolous lawsuit in a long list of frivolous lawsuits from the companies involved in all of this fracas. If they have a stronger case than that, then I might be willing to support it, but I find it doubtful.

Still though, you can't help but feel a twinge when you see where phones were in 2006 and 2007, see where they are now, see when the change happened and what form it took, and know that the group responsible for the change is supposed to take it well or else get lambasted by people the world over as bullying. I know I'd be angry if I came up with a design that impacted an industry as much as the iPhone did, only to have every product in the industry look like what I had come up with just a year or two later. And since people are so prone to forget, you'll hear them saying, "Well, duh. That's obvious. How else would it be?" when talking about innovation after it happens, completely forgetting that a mere 3-4 years prior there was no product that resembled what every product looks like today.

Re:Are these people insane?

[ubergamer1337]

Oh like a palm Lifedrive?

Re:Are these people insane?

[yeshuawatso]

I'll bite. This is a trademark infringemnet case that leverages a "famous" mark that has been attained by teaching the consumer about Apple phone and tablet products look and feel against a junior mark that may not be famous. Even though the trademark isn't registered, that doesn't make it invalid (although it should technically limit it to the state in which Apple primarily engages in commerce, but there are ways of getting around that, legally) and may be enough to take a trademark dilution by blurring claim (where two different marks are so similar as to likely cause customer confusion but not similar enough to be infringement or a counterfeit).

The questions a jury will have to answer are:

1.) What is the degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?
2.) What is the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark?
3.) To what extent is the owner of the famous mark engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark?
4.) What is the degree of recognition of the famous mark?
5.) Is the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark?
6.) Is there any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?

The first question is a given. The Galaxy lines of phones were targeted directly at iPhone users. Samsung went as far as to give the phone to frustrated iPhone users. I own the Vibrant version, which looks identical to the UK version, and the OS was designed to be like a mixture of iOS and Android. You can even uninstall apps using a "minus" button very similarly to iOS's "X" to delete apps.

Number two is harder to prove since the design Apple is employing has been around for a while. Not that's it's not impossible to prove, just harder. This has already been mentioned by other /. post above and below this reply.

Number three is easy as Apple has been consistent with this design since its inception.

Number four is a tough one too. I'll give an example. Today, while registering my child for kindergarten school for the fall, I took my iPad to let the child play with to keep quite while filling out paperwork. About half of the 4th grade school population went passed us on their way to lunch, almost all talking about this device. Some children knew what the device was, some thought they knew what the device was, and some had no idea what it was (a few said it was a TV). While not directly calling 4th graders the equivalent of the adult American public that will sit in a jurors seat, their will likely be similarities in terms of identifying Apple's products. We tech enthusiast know the difference, but does your grandmother? What about your automobile mechanic? This is where jury selection becomes important. Samsung would want tech enthusiast who can clearly see the difference between the products, while Apple is going to want everyday people who will simply call the mark that came to market first as the "famous" mark and anything else is a knockoff.

Number five is a tough call too. At one angle, Samsung is engaging iOS users that their Android smartphone has a similar experience to iOS to warrant a switch, while the other end you could just as easily argue that Blackberry and Android users are Samsung's ultimate target, especially since Android options are so vast. Samsung could easily argue that in order to differentiate themselves from other Android devices, they used a design unique to the Android smartphone market.

Number six is where we will see Apple claim that Samsung used the association of being the manufacture of the iPhone 4's chips to their Galaxy lines having equivalent chips. This claim is a long shot, but still possible if Apple can get a layman's head around what the hell a chip is in the first place.

Since Apple is the one bringing suit, Samsung could easily attack the rounded corn

Re:Are these people insane?

[Gadget_Guy]

Still though, you can't help but feel a twinge when you see where phones were in 2006 and 2007, see where they are now, see when the change happened and what form it took, and know that the group responsible for the change is supposed to take it well or else get lambasted by people the world over as bullying.

And yet when the iPhone was announced, there were rumours abound that LG would sue Apple due to the similarities of the iPhone with the LG Prada. (Ooh, look! Rectangular with rounded corners!)

I don't think that Apple did steal LG's design, it is just that both the products were natural evolutions of the technology of the time. The iPhone was not the completely radical, unprecendented game-changer that a lot of people like to suggest.

Re:Are these people insane?

[flimflammer]

Surely you jest.

You actually think everyone who owns Apple products are all highly educated? What on earth gave you that idea?

Re:Are these people insane?

[BitZtream]

The iPhone was not the completely radical, unprecendented game-changer that a lot of people like to suggest.

Really? Than what do YOU attribute to the fact for the fact that the smart phone world is drastically different than it was pre-iPhone and that it changed pretty much on the day the iPhone was available (arguably, the change started when the TV commercials did)

No one particular component of the hardware my be a game changer, but its really retarded to suggest that it didn't flip the industry on its head when it came out.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

any Apple fanboy want to support this lawsuit?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Please, anyone at all? How on earth is this reasonable?

Re:any Apple fanboy want to support this lawsuit?

[chemosh6969]

There was a comment in the cloud article that Apple doesn't do this sort of thing. I found it amusing reading that comment and then this article in the same day.

Re:any Apple fanboy want to support this lawsuit?

[UnknowingFool]

What Apple is complaining about in detailed legalese is that the Samsung Galaxy i9000 looks too much like the iPhone. In some specifics, Samsung appears to have copied the same icons that Apple uses. Do a google image search on the Samsung Galaxy i9000. At first glance, you would think it is an iPhone. Unlike the summary suggests, Apple cannot sue other Android manufacturers for the same thing as they did not seemingly copy the iPhone look. Motorola, HTC, LG, etc all appear to differentiate themselves by making their screens distinctly different than the iPhone (and each other). If you look at any of those Android phones compared to an iPhone, it is apparent right away which one is the iPhone and which one is not.

This is not the first time that Apple has sued another company for copying their look and feel. They were not successful with MS, but they were successful with eMachines. Back when Apple released their first iMacs, eMachines soon after released an all-in-one PC eOne that looked remarkably similar to the iMac copying even the translucent blue.

Re:any Apple fanboy want to support this lawsuit?

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Pretty simple. Yeah. Look at it. Seriously, look at it.

ASOP, Sense, and Blur don't have the grid/dock layout that Samsung uses.

The G1, the Droid 1/2, and N1 hardware all look significantly different from the iPhone: like keyboards, trackballs, sharper edges on some, rounder edges on others.

The Droid X is thinner plus a bump to support that allows them to house a better camera than the iPod Touch.

Seriously, if it wern't for the lack of gloss on the icons, and the subtle extra buttons on the front, the Samsung really does look like an iPhone clone.

Speaking of which, the Samsung Nexus S looks like a clone of the HTC Magic, except the NS has crappier buttons.

Re:any Apple fanboy want to support this lawsuit?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I was facepalming over this until I saw some side by sides linked from Daring Fireball.

Sauce 1

Sauce 2.

I didn't give a shit until I saw the dock ripoff on the Samsung devices. that's just fuggin' blatant.

Re:any Apple fanboy want to support this lawsuit?

[narcc]

When Apple was smartphone king, just a couple of short years ago

It's funny how even people with access to the data still believe this. Apple has never been "king" of the smartphone market -- they've always been behind RIM. Sure, they get all the press and have undoubtedly been responsible for the explosive growth in the smartphone market, but they've never managed to reach the #1 spot.

Inexcusable!

[Renaissance 2K]

An iPad is the only device on the planet allowed to have a rectangular shape and rounded corners!

Re:Inexcusable!

[Haedrian]

Yeah, all other tablets should have a parallelepiped shape.

I can't think of any other natural shape for a tablet to be honest...

Fuck apple.

[unity100]

Yeah. fuck them. its as elaborately as can be put. "Hey, you cannot use our moving-your-hand-to-right-to-move-a-page-right" 'innovation'. because, well, millions of fanbois have pumped up our control freakness by obliging with everything we did to them, and we think everyone will do the same.

The Rosetta Stone!

[Nemyst]

It's got rounded corners, it's black, it's rectangular, and it's a tablet.

Beat that, Apple.

Re:The Rosetta Stone!

[Sponge Bath]

Jobs is suing God for the ten commandments (on rectangular tablets) and burning bushes (a method of using shiny things to mesmerize the impressionable).

I called it when I saw it

[neosar82]

When my boss bought a galaxy tab I was curious to check it out. I spent about 5 minutes playing with it, handed it back to him, and said, "They're gonna wind up in court over this thing". I'm indifferent when it comes to android vs. ios. I have both a Droid X and an iPhone 4, and I use both every day. I find things about both platforms that are unique and that I prefer to the other. However, when you look at what Samsung did with their UI... It's pretty pathetic to be honest. They literally copied entire app UIs wholesale (even icons). There is no question that you can argue that all mail apps look similar, but this was almost pixel for pixel. They went so far as to make their own UI widgets (instead of the stock android ones) that looked JUST like the Apple ones. I'm not a huge fan of software patents, but there's a difference between similarities in programs that do the same function and literally just ripping off EXACTLY what another company does.

Re:I called it when I saw it

[The13thSin]

Yeah, 'cos a grid of app icons was Apple's innovation... Just like a rounded rectangular shaped phone...

Besides, you can't patent or copyright an idea, just your implementation. Apple is just as guilty (if not more so) of copying other people's ideas as any one else.

Re:I called it when I saw it

[neosar82]

I didn't mean the shape and arrangement. I meant the icons themselves. As in the artwork.

Re:I called it when I saw it

[DdJ]

There's multiple kinds of patents. In this specific case, I do not believe we're actually talking about "software patents", but about "design patents", which are the same sorts of things that protect the design of fonts or the design of Coca Cola's bottle. A design patent is kinda this thing that falls between copyright and patent in some respects -- it's all about "the ornamental design of a functional item".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Or in other words: it's certainly the case that the appearance of an icon can be protected by patent, if we're talking about design patents.

Re:I called it when I saw it

[kangsterizer]

I have a Galaxy tab (the 7") a Galaxy S I-9000, an iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4.
While they do have similarities (3G/3GS,SGS all are rectangular + rounded corners for example, but thats very vague design and most phones are like that by necessity) the UI is quite different - no artwork is reused and while some things are remotely similar, thats FAR from pixel for pixel reproduction.
In fact, Apple does not even have a similar product to the 7" tab...
Sure, both use rows of icons.. and that's mostly what's similar.

The TouchWizz widgets, which are the Samsung UI on both of these devices are native Android widgets and uhm, I don't have those on any iPhone in fact, mostly because it's not supported on iPhone, in case you didn't know ;-)
The TW launcher difference with regular android is that you can pan from left to right on screen that are persistent (*like the iPhone*) in the apps and the icons are auto squarred... that's.. it

Also the Droid X is Motorola.

Re:I called it when I saw it

[uglyduckling]

It think a grip of app icons was Apple's innovation, at least in this specific arrangement. Look for a similar phone UI prior to the iPhone, and look at phone UIs after the iPhone. Look at tablets prior to the iPad, and look at them afterwards (hint: this is the kind of "tablet" we've had for the past 5 years at work). We can argue over whether look/feel/arrangement should be protected for some period of time, but it's ridiculous to claim Apple did nothing innovative.

Tablets remind me of something...

[darien.train]

I just can't put my finger on it. http://fortclatsopbookstore.com/shop/images/143_1.jpg

That's an iPhone copy!

[Talennor]

I've seen fake iPhones that look less like iPhones than that Galazy i9000 in the picture. I was ready to jump on the Slashdot bandwagon and complain about patents and trade dress. But that looks like an iPhone knock off. And seeing that there are competing phones that don't look like an iPhone, I think Apple has a case here.

2001 Called

[maroberts]

from 1968 -.they want their Monolith with rounded corners back

Re:Has been mistaken before.

[mywhitewolf]

Xerox, Kleenex, Sharpie, etc. Doesn't surprise me that some would call the Samsung Galaxy S an iPhone, some call their cannon photocopier a "Xerox machine" this case should get thrown out, the SGS has completely different hardware to a 3gs. the OS is android so that's hardly Samsungs fault, and the only things that are really similar are overall shape, but when you look closer you can see lots of subtle differences in design. this is like ford building a car and then suing everyone who makes a car that follows the same design layout (steering wheel in front, 4 tires & 4 doors)

Samsung is also a supplier

[Stuntmonkey]

This is interesting, given that Apple buys a lot of its flash and other important components from Samsung, by one estimate over $7B annually. Neither can afford to not do business with the other. Maybe this is the opening move in a components negotiation?

As a lawsuit this seems ineffective as a way of preventing competition. By the time this plods its way through the court, Samsung will be four product generations down the road. Maybe this is all just PR, a way for Apple to accuse Samsung of being "non-innovative" and spread general FUD about Android. But I don't think history has shown that to be a viable strategy. Moreover I have to say that as owner of both the iPhone and Galaxy S, the similarities between them are pretty superficial.

summary starts out well, then goes downhill

[sribe]

Samsung's Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress

So I've been seeing this all over the web today, and this is the first article I've seen that lets us know that it's trade dress or a "design patent" that is (allegedly) being infringed, rather than a software patent.

If Samsung is found to be infringing on the software, all the Android OEMs could be vulnerable.

Oh well, it's /. so the exaggeration at the end is to be expected. But no, if Apple is found to be infringing, the only other Android OEMs to be threatened would be the ones who tried to copy the iPhone's look as closely as possible, in other words, none as far as I know.

here's one

[bill_mcgonigle]

I can't think of any other natural shape for a tablet to be honest...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30580398@N03/4768040515/

Re:Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonig

[Belial6]

No kidding. I'm still trying to figure out how MS missed the obviously intuitive UI element of using the trash can for eject.

The Patent/Suing System is flawed

[Haedrian]

Wouldn't you rather have apple try to outdo Samsung by creating some awesome new features in their next phone/tablet? Instead of tryign to push Samsung backwards?

Technology is kinda like a race. You can either win by having the better technology/features/whatever, or you can win by pushing everyone else back.

I would rather everyone focuses their efforts on pushing technology forward instead. The consumers are the ones who end up winning in the end.

Re:The Patent/Suing System is flawed

[0123456]

Yet, remarkably, the human race managed to progress from the primeval slime to the industrial revolution without being able to patent putting rounded corners on a rectangular object.

Similar layout?

[Fjandr]

I was watching the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie today, and noticed that Lex Luthor's monitors appear strikingly similar to current Apple products. I think someone should sue them for appropriating the trade dress of whoever produced those 1970s props.

The Scourge that is apple.

[unity100]

Really - you know, the scourge of 'closing in the customers, locking them, controlling them, deciding what they can do' ? its Apple's doing.

10 years ago it wasnt like that. Openness was the order of the day. proliferation of ibm pc had had created an environment that had the theme 'you can do whatever you want with your device'. this also prevailed in software. despite there was so much need for standardization and access controls for pc based software, all software was made thinking that people would do anything they want with it.

but then came apple's success with all those fanbois. and all the buzz talk, hype-tech talk that went on in the media. their fanaticism, waiting a week in lines, their dedication to buy things by paying heaps more, and apple profiting on and on and on, made good news. despite google was shattering a lot of barriers for example, more talk was done on apple, its hype, success etc.

what do you expect other companies would to then ? they saw apple, their good profit margins, their control over their customer base, they saw they not only got away with locking their customers in and milking them, but they made profit, and noone sued or prosecuted apple for that, including government. on and on.

You let this thing happen for half a decade, and it was inevitable all would jump in. and voila. everyone is now trying to lock in their customers. everyone became control freaks.

Now it is at the point of claiming ownership of very basic things, like word apple, (the lawsuit in australia), the word 'app' (despite it has been used before that), and now simple moves and motions.

you reap what you saw. its as simple as that. we have apple fanbois' unconsciousness to thank this era of closed-in computing for. well done. now all our devices' cases will be shiny and cool, but they wont open. (remember apple services' screwdriver bastardry)

What patent does Apple want?

[Midnight Thunder]

I wonder whether Apple us suing Samsung because they want royalty free access to a patent that Samsung owns?

Big companies like this often like to sue to get a better deal on something a competitor holds. They probably really dont care otherwise that Samsung is vaguely copying the trade dress - anyhow I am surprised that trade dress is even a patentable concept.

Re:Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonig

[MikeBabcock]

Every time I see a Mac user drag a removable device to trash, I picture the device being formatted.

Summary is deceptive

[goombah99]

Instead of reading the summary, which provokes the thought you deride (rounded corners?) . Have a look at the photos.

The photos show the samsung is a slavish copy. they also show that the features it copies so slavishly are exactly the ones captured in the apple design illustrations they patented.

I agree that just saying rounded corners and black borders makes this seem idiotic. Compare the photos and you will see this phone is a lot closer to the iphone in outward appearance than the HTC or Nexus phones.

Samsung can easily make other phone designs but chose to make a carbon copy. They asked for it.

Re:Summary is deceptive

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

...apple design illustrations they patented.

and theres the first fucking problem with the entire IT industry. Patents shouldn't exist. Design patents, software patents.... they're all bs, and they're all used, in the main, for big companies to crush little companies - and its been this way since the days of yore... copyright can get fucked too...
 
to be honest, I don't have the energy any more to articulate this issue - the system is so blatantly broken, and has been that way for so long, that the fact that it still exists indicates the vested interests are too strong for the system to be changed in any meaningful way

Hopeless

[joh]

While I totally agree that Samsung tried very, very hard to have the Galaxy phone and its UI look as much as an iPhone as possible, it's totally hopeless to sue them.

I mean, they're black rectangles with rounded corners and colorful icons in a grid on the screen. Still, others managed to give their phone a design that doesn't cry "iPhone!" to everyone, asking or not. What Samsung did was totally uncreative and somewhat shameless, but not illegal.

Anyway: This is in no way subtle or random chance.

Speaker companies should sue each other

[Hamsterdan]

I mean. most of them are rectangular boxes with 2 or 3 drivers. Heck, with the grille on, they all look the same.

This is completely ridiculous....

How the heck do they expect Samsung to build a tablet? round and angled at 90 degrees at the middle?

trollish but...

[kangsterizer]

... that's why I don't buy Apple. Vote with your wallet they say. So yeah, there.

Re:Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonig

[jittles]

You could of course also just right click on it

What is this right click that you speak of? The lack of a right mouse button on the track pad is the main reason I would never buy a mac laptop (although my mac mini is nice, with my logitech mouse).

Re:Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonig

[brian_tanner]

Surprise, click with two fingers executes a right click, and it feels *way* more intuitive than having a separate button.

I don't know that it is that

[Sycraft-fu]

I think Apple is getting worried. Their massive rise to success has been as a consumer electronics company. While they were doing fine as a computer company after the iMac and so on, they were still a small fry. MS could have bought them no problem with plenty of cash to spare. Their massive rise has all been on their consumer electronics line.

I mean look at the iPod. It wasn't the first MP3 player, not by a long shot. What it was is the first MP3 player that made MP3 players a fashion accessory. You had to have one to be cool, right down to the white earbuds that proclaimed your ownership (high end headphone companies started making white earbuds after that, had never been a demand for them before).

Well while that market certainly hasn't gone away, it has leveled off a whole lot. The new growth has been iOS. Smartphones and tablets, "computer like" toys if you like. Again, not the first smartphone, just one that really struck a chord with consumers. Blackberry was (and is) very enterprise focused and does very well there, but the iPhone was a toy that consumers wanted.

However newer Android phones are becoming a big threat. They are high power, have all the latest gadgets, and they are getting slick. HTC's Sense UI is a real nice one, and Apple sued them last year over it. Not to say default Android is bad, but it polishes things, makes them very pretty and friendly.

I think Apple is getting worried. While nobody has been very successful in competing with the iPod, Android seems to be making a real run on the iPhone, and now with tablets maybe on the iPad. It's growth has been astounding.

So I think Apple is trying to stomp on the more successful companies, the ones who are trying to make it real user friendly. My experience is with Sense since I got a Thunderbolt from work not long ago and I'm impressed. Compared to the Android phones I saw just a couple of years ago it is slick, pretty, and easy to use. You could give it to a non-technical user and I doubt they'd have any trouble.

I don't think this is a "We want a patent," thing, I think it is a "Shit these guys are going to screw over our new market, we have to try and stop it!" thing.

Re:Aren't they Samsung's customer?

[mjwx]

Didn't they just buy a metric shit-ton of screens for their new iPhone from Samsung?

Samsung should just tell them to go fuck themselves.

Samsung simply cant tell Apple to go "fuck" themselves.

Apple and Samsung have a contract, Apple must pay the contract and Samsung must provide goods.

However due to rapidly changing technologies, Apple may very well find it has trouble negotiating good rates with Samsung when the next new thing(TM) is invented.

This doesn't make sense from a traditional business standpoint, but when has Apple acted like traditional business? Hubris almost killed them in the 90's.

They all have had right buttons for years

[SuperKendall]

The lack of a right mouse button on the track pad is the main reason I would never buy a mac laptop

That's a pretty stupid reason, because you've always had either a right button or been able to treat part of the trackpad as a right button OR use Control+click as right button (which I think is actually a lot easier to use than a right button) OR use a hold-click kind of gesture to get to a right button alt click.

In fact the Mac has more ways to get to the alt menu than any other computer I can think of. To claim it does not have a right button is absurd.

Re:Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonig

[kevinmenzel]

Now click both buttons at the same time. How'd that work out for you.