Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Vs. Apple Tit-For-Tat Down Under
New submitter GumphMaster writes "In the latest edition of the Apple vs. Samsung patent fight, the ABC is reporting that Samsung has filed in Australian and Japanese courts seeking an injunction to halt sales of the iPhone 4S for alleged 3G patent violations. It remains to be seen whether Samsung has any better luck with the retaliatory strike in Australian and Japanese courts than it did with courts in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, I expect that Samsung will fail partly because of overseas precedent, but mostly because their patents are sane, technical and narrow in scope (unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition). If this stupidity ever stops, then millions of dollars, euro, or Won that are being spent on lawyers might actually go into the innovation that patents are meant to promote. Who knows where that might lead?"
(unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition)
Ah, Slashdot... as professional as ever!
Apple's patent doesn't cover just a "rectangle". Apple has design patents and trademarks covering the overall look of the device, including the rounded corners, glossy panel, and size of the bezel. As a trademark, people should be able to look at an iPad and say "Oh, that's an iPad!" without seeing the logo. Upon a cursory review, Samsung's product looks very similar to an iPad, to the point of diminishing the uniqueness of the trademarked design. Samsung certainly appears to be aiming to cash in on the elitist market by offering a similar-looking product at a lower price. It's the computer equivalent of a Canal Street counterfeit Rolex watch. A non-infringing product would be one with a screen extending all the way to the edge of the device, or one with more decoration on the front, or any of myriad other alterations to the basic "rectangle" pattern.
Samsung's patents are technical in nature because they're for technology, not design.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I keep hearing people claim that Apple didn't steal their desktop style design from Xerox and that they paid for it, but it never happened. Apple paid to take a look at what Xerox was doing, and was ultimately sued for stealing the look and feel from Xerox. That isn't exactly the sort of thing you'd expect if Apple had really licensed the look and feel. It did turn out to be a moot point when all was said and done because you can't copyright it, but still.
Aha.. the typical apple asshole who assumes anybody who hates apple is automatically a google/android fan. Sorry to burst your bubble, I hate Apple V2.0 way before Android was even thought of. Why don't you go back to sucking Jobs' dick? Oh wait!