Slashdot Mirror
How To Avoid Infringing On Apple's Patents
bdking writes "In a public legal brief (PDF), Apple offers numerous design alternatives that Samsung could have used for its smartphones and tablets to avoid infringing on Apple's patents. Basically, as long as competitors' smartphones and tablets bear no resemblance to smartphones and tablets, everything's cool."
But if competitors want to make products which resemble dumb phones and tablets, that's perfectly okay.
Translation: a completely impractical eyesore that nobody would buy is something we will accept you selling.
Simple, don't make anything electronic, or that uses touch as a method of operation.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
From Hell
Just see my sig for proof.
Apple now has one year to patent those ideas, great job!
does this mean that if I ever create a somewhat rectangular, thin, or black/silver colour patterned electrical device, Apple will come after me? man, since when was it possible to copyright basic shapes, thicknesses, and colours?
Did apple patent gestures? Because i'm giving apple one right now.
Create outside the universe
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
LOL. I don't get why people in the tech community still like apple.
I have to wonder if this does more harm than good for Apple's case. It points out the absolute absurdity of how far they are reaching. Not have a flat front? Not be rectangular? Not use black?
I know that any of these would have significantly distinguished these products from Apple''s, but so too does the "Samsung" emblazoned on the device. Looking at the front with the screen off, sure, my iPod touch might look a bit like a Samsung device. From 10 feet, it also looks like my wallet. This isn't quite as forehead slapping as Samsung's crack legal team not being able to tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and an iPad, but it's pretty close.
That, or these attorneys have an amazing sense of humor.
USPTO drops any apple patent that implements obvious designs with established prior art.
How many other accounts do you have?
So pathetic to think of someone so lame as to sit around with multiple accounts modding themselves up in the desperate hope that somehow the rest of the computing world will somehow give Apple a pass for being the worst patent trolls in the industry.
That's not how to avoid infringement, that's how to avoid litigation. And in this game, that's not the way business is done. There's "what's illegal" and there's "what you'll get called on". Somewhere in between there lies "what I can get away with". And that's generally what many shoot for. Staying in your comfort zone will just get you buried in the harsh world of business.
So really, getting a suit brought for infringement at this level really isn't big news. Losing said fight is bad, for whoever loses. It either gives someone a free pass to continue without (as much) further harassment, or tosses a large bucket of water in your foundry. It's a gamble for both sides.
Apple has a pisspile of ("good" and "bad") patents and prior art on tablet design and touch interfaces, and if you try to compete in their market with something they think they can shove you out with, you can absolutely bet on them trying. It's just good business. And in this case Apple has a strong upper hand because of their early successes in these markets. Don't blame Apple. Whoever made it to the top of the hill first is naturally going to work hard to push the others off as they approach, that's just how the game is played. Doesn't matter if it was Samsung, Google, Nokia, Microsoft, whoever. They'd be doing exactly the same thing if they were in Apple's position right now, fighting to stay on top.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
How about some ideas that may reduce iphone'ish look while increasing the appear/functionality of a phone
* A bit more of a raised "lip" on the phone. Possibly some pinstriping, or even a physical pinstripe around the edge. Something similar to a built-in bumper, which actually helps protect against screen damage. How about slightly raised outer edges (not the screen part, just the bezel)
* Bring back more slide/spring-out keyboards. On-screen keyboards SUCK!
* Bring back physical call/disconnect/vibrate/unlock. They don't have to be large but pocket/holder-fumbling a phone while trying to hit "answer" or unlock is a PITA
* A patterned front/back-surface, similar to how many laptops like HP's have. Tons of people by patterned cases anyhow, so it's not as if it's not popular already
* * Woodgrain (or even a real wood case). Again some laptops have a "bamboo" style etc now which actually looks pretty decent
I don't agree that iPhone's patents should be able to block Samsung's sales, but I also believe that phone companies should grow some b*lls when it comes to original elegant design. Certainly the suggestions about speakers and rounded corners are pretty much retarded.
What's notable about this list is that nearly all items are either industry-wide practices (rectangular phones with flat surfaces) or obvious design choices (a thin rim around the front maximize screen area compared with a thick rim). In particular Apple opted for choices anyone facing the design problem would make, but is now trying to prevent others from making the choices.
Even worse is that the remaining items reflect aesthetic choices on the part of Apple (no adornment, for example). Such choices should indeed be protected, but they are not inventions which deserve patent protection. Instead they are identifying marks which should be protected under trademark law.
You can't deny that Samsung basically lifted *all* their design cues from Apple. It's ridiculous.
Take a look at the Asus Transformer for an example of how to make an attractive tablet that doesn't blatantly scream "Hey! I want to be an iPad!"
Really, this is not the first time and will not be the last. Parents are forcing all companies in the same direction. I've been in the business long enough, and never forgot what I learnt all those years ago at HP. One night I was working late on some server monitoring software that never saw release. My boss was a pretty old guy but he knew his stuff. We were talking about patents when he invited me to join him for a coffee and a chat. He explained how he saw the globalization and increased competition from overseas leading to American companies being forced to increasingly restrictive and paranoid levels of protection for "IP". I suppose I didn't understand the whole idea of IP and us repeated explanations didn't make it any clearer to me. He shoved me roughly to the floor, and snapped the leg from a chair. Before I could protest he handed it to Lord Elrond who jammed it in to my ass. I called for parlay, remembering my pirate code, but Spock would have none of it. While Kirk sniggered, Spock gingerly pounded my prostate until I came to understand IP.
I was fortunate to learn about the industry from such experienced old hands. Captain Picard went on to found Oracle, Elrond went on to found something called Google. My boss quit, had a sex change and did enough poppers until she was suitably brain damaged enough to return to become HP's CEO. I founded the RIAA, and believe by sodomizing so many music lovers I've played my part in passing on the wisdom given to me by the old curmudgeon at HP.
The Office has figured out how to circumvent Apple's design patents: The Pyramid Tablet
Dunder Mifflin recently introduced The Pyramid.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I guess that means don't even bother innovating or building anything. I hate the patent system - it has become so broken as to be sorry. I thought patents should protect truly innovative ideas not commonly thought up things such as shapes. What next, someone will try and patent the tri-angle (hyphenated on purpose.)
How about a sponge-like smart phone, that you have to reach inside and work like a sock puppet? The display will be a round thing on the end. C'mon Samsung BE CREATIVE!
http://www.geek.com/review-rim-blackberry-957/
Grid of app icons
Status bar on the top - time, signal,etc.
Email,Calendar,etc.
Games
...is set to join the War on Terror and the War on Drugs as the biggest joke of this decade.
I can't find the blog or news site where I originally saw this, but they gave a perfect example of a design that Samsung could have used that wouldn't violate any of Apple's design patents:
http://www.amazon.com/LeapFrog-LeapPad-Explorer-Learning-Tablet/dp/B004Z7H07K
How come most phones released before looked so different? Just look at RAZR designs before Droid or even luxury phones like Aura. Why the sudden change to black rounded rectangles? What is wrong with moving home button to the side and having a much bigger screen with dedicated space for keyboard?
We can argue if it should be permissible to copy design, but bottom line is Samsung tried to profit by selling Apple knock offs. The point of lawsuits may be moot anyway because consumers seem to prefer the original.
...become a carpenter.
I was expecting something like, "It has to be made out of wood and communicate in more's code". I'm impressed they allowed so many alternative possibilities.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Obviously Apple is holding it wrong...
Front surfaces that are not black or clear
The screen on the Galaxy tab is on the back.
-- Terry
... display screens that are more square than rectangular ...
http://www.mathopenref.com/square.html
A square can be thought of as a special case of other quadrilaterals, for example:
oh Apple
If there was no iPad, if there was no iPhone, would the Samsung's tablets and phones still look the same?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Basically, as long as competitors' smartphones and tablets bear no resemblance to smartphones and tablets, everything's cool.
But that's just recognition that Apple has completely defined 2 new categories. It's worth noting, of course, that Palm had smartphones well before Apple, but those look -nothing like- today's Smartphones, a category basically taken over by the introduction of the iPhone.
I'm looking forward to someone/some company doing something truly original. I don't think the iPhone is the last word in "smartphones" (I hope not, although I'm on my second iPhone there are things I really don't like about it.) But so far I've seen very little that is new or truly innovative.
Even if Samsung did deliberately rip off Apple, it seems hard to prove.
This would appear to be the problem with minimalist design. If someone else does a minimalist design, it's likely to look similar. Something that largely resembles a picture frame.
It's not rectangular, rather it is a diamond but you're holding it wrong.
A direct copy of an iPhone is a lot like porn. You know it when you see it. Samsung, et. al. flat out copied the iPhone, and then the iPad. Nothing that came before it looked anything like it. Now everything looks just like it. The entire industry copied the crap out of Apple's new devices. The purpose of a patent system is to allow someone who creates something entirely "new" to profit fully from their ingenuity. That is it's full and complete purpose. If the system is very flawed, don't bash Apple for trying to use it as best they can to accomplish the goals of the patent system. Bash the very flawed patent system. If, on the other hand, you disagree with the purpose of a patent system, then you should move to a communist country where nobody benefits from their own ingenuity.
My understanding is that you can patent a function but not a style, logo, look..etc. Works of "art" are protected by copyrights not patents.
In either case Apple sucks for using legal systems to try and keep others from competing with them for reasons that are clearly bullshit.
The bad news: *I've* patented living under a rock.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Apple finally joins Microsoft at the bottom of the ethical barrel.
A company whose design aesthetic (famously) is minimalism should not go around accusing others of copying them.
Minimalism is about getting down to the bare nature of things. Every other design would be an additive change, so they potentially have the ability to sue everyone else regardless of how different the design is if they can get away with this lawsuit.
So according to Apple, if a competitor emulates the look and feel of its own products then they should be banned from the market? And they've just shat on Samsung with smartphones and tablets for this reason, yet are now planning to enter a different market Samsung has led for decades? I'm really looking forward to seeing what contraptions Apple come up with which aren't large, thin, black rectangular devices controlled with a remote for showing TV pictures on.
Much as with some of the more extreme factions of the enviro movement, you have to subscribe to the BANANA principle.
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
The iphone seems to have been announced in January 2007, and released in June. That phone was announced in February 2007, and released in December. It could be argued that that phone was rushed to market to compete with the iphone. It is more likely a result of the "flat rectangle, thin as possible, as small as possible bezel with rounded corners because sharp corners would be just plain DUMB" design for a phone being obvious, and 2007 is when technology finally made the design possible.
Apple was first because they burnt millions to make it happen.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
According to the fanboi's on the first day jobs created light
Apple burnt millions placing large orders of screens and touch panels to get manufacturers to implement what were fairly cutting edge inventions. The iphone was not really possible before 2007, and Apple used money to make it happen first for them.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
And in other news, this Linux and BSD using nerd is eagerly awaiting his free phone upgrade in January in order to get an Android device, since he's fed up using his wife's Windows PC to update the music on his fucking iPhone.
If I want to write for Apple, I will. For Android, same thing. For Java? Homesfree! Screw what they want. I saw an article earlier that was dissing non-Apple programmers. Let them suck on this: we're going to be here, we're going to code, and we're going to watch you delve yourself an early grave. Don't piss off those that port your stuff.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
My Nokia E7 is about as similar to the iPhone as the Galaxy S2 is. It's black, rectangular, has a flat screen, rounded corners, a single button at the bottom, a speaker at the top in the middle, Sure it has the flip out qwerty but the N8 doesn't. It's exactly the same visually and A LOT of devices are similar looking.. If these criteria are enough the only way not to infringe patents is not to make anything at all. A strange game and all that.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Dilbert said it best:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-10-18/
I cannot wait till Apple is dead and buried like its founder. I'm giving it till the very end of 2015.
Don't invent anything that apple might want to monopolise in the future; after all, you'd only be copying a product they haven't 'invented' yet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pwpaxbXDecg
There's a pretty good comparison of how the orginal ipod copied a samsung mp3 player. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, either, they extended what palm was doing. Even MAC OS was copied from work Xerox was doing at Xerox parc. It's just that you couldn't patent software back then and now you can. I'm not sure when copyrights came into play.
In fact, copying others has always been Apples strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
"Good artists copy, great artists steal" ... "we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas" -- Steve Jobs
For all the examples of redaction fail we've seen over the years (and no doubt will continue to see) the linked-to PDF has been redacted properly.
It's easy to do, the tools are built into Acrobat Professional (it's probably easier to do it right, than to do it the wrong way if you know how to do it)
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Here is the "community design" we are talking about:
http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001
Essencially:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6268/00018160700011source.jpg
Here is Motorola Xoom, tell me it doesn't "infridge":
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2168/xoomtabletinterfacescre.jpg
Here is Asus Transformer Prime (it's notable, because first Asus Transformer is mentioned in the shocking Dusseldorf judgjement as an example of "not infridging") tell me it doesn't infrindge:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5830/asustransformerprimetf2.jpg
Heck, here is Samsung Photo Frame, tell me it doesn't "infringe":
http://1.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-ipad-photo-frame.jpg
Uhm, no, they come up with exactly the same design, shown in Kubrik's "Odissey":
Motorola Xoom:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2168/xoomtabletinterfacescre.jpg
Asus Prime:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5830/asustransformerprimetf2.jpg
Kindle Fire:
http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/Tablets/amazon/Kindle%20Fire%20(home%20angle%201)s-420-90.jpg
Oh, and, interestingly, Samsung's on Photo Frame, that came before ipads:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg
"Community design" that caused Samsung's ban in Germany depicts generic tablet:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6268/00018160700011source.jpg
I give you... The Magic 8 Ball!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball
http://www.indra.com/cgi-bin/spikes-8-ball
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
There was no technological reason why touch based phones of this design could not have been produced before the iPhone. Yet none achieved any appreciable market success prior to Apple. Are you seriously suggesting that it was mere coincidence that Apple was first to market with the iPhone? And the iPad? Incidentally, the fact that Apple was working on a touch phone was widely rumored prior to introduction, so it is hardly surprising that some phone manufacturers began working on similar designs in expectation of jumping upon Apple's coattails just in case Apple's approach was successful. Of course, no other company went "all in," betting their future on a single design. And note that it is not merely the physical features of the iPhone and iPad that the clones imitate; their software also is heavily imitative of Apple's iOS. It is quite clear that it is possible to produce a touch phone that is not grossly imitative of the iPhone. Palm did it. Microsoft has done it. But that requires a company with the courage to create rather than copy. The sort of courage that the patent system is designed to reward and foster.
Which brings me back to my original point: if the courts ultimately conclude that the patent system does not protect what Apple achieved with the iPhone and iPad, then patent protection is too weak, not too strong.
... just don't make them "Thin or Rectangular". Give them other shapes, such as spherical, or banana shaped or... apple shaped!!!
Of course, they might be a little tricker to use... though I'm sure it's nothing that a little maketing can't overcome.
Waddayathink? =)
It's a shame that companies like Samsung are trolling through Apple's patents and stealing the ideas from them, but once you publish how your innovation works, what can you do if the government fails to uphold the monopoly that you're supposed to get in exchange for that publishing?
If the courts don't uphold the monopoly, then I think Apple should take its ball and go home. They should keep their designs a trade secret instead of patenting them. That means that should Apple ever die, the secret for how they made their tablets rectangular will die with them, but that would be an important lesson to looters in the future.
We as a society must provide some kind of incentive to Apple for revealing the secret of their designs in the patent documents. Without this incentive, Apple has nothing other than hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware sales and iStore gateway fees.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Is Apple so afraid their products won't stand up in an open market that they must attempt to sue any competition out of business rather than try to honestly compete via features and price? You can't patent a shape that has been around for thousands of years anymore than you can copyright the letter "i". Oh, I forgot, they tried that too.
A sharp corner concentrates the force of an impact over a smaller area. That's why nails are pointed at one end.
That's a design trade-off. You wouldn't want it thicker just to satisfy some legal judgment, would you?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."