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?

[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 ...

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?

[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?

[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.

Inexcusable!

[Renaissance 2K]

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

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.

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

[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.

Tablets remind me of something...

[darien.train]

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

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.

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.

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?

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.