Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How To Avoid Infringing On Apple's Patents

Posted by Soulskill on from the easy-as-pie dept.

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."

14 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. ok so... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "[A]lternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D’889 or that have a cluttered appearance."

    Translation: a completely impractical eyesore that nobody would buy is something we will accept you selling.

    1. Re:ok so... by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ridiculous part is, HP tablet PCs from 10 years ago would completely "violate" Apple's design patents. The only difference between them visually was that Apple's iPad had a black bezel and a glossy screen.

      Functionally, the iPad is thinner, lighter, and has a capacitive touch screen whereas the HP tablet PCs had a resisitive touch screen and a keyboard underneath the screen that added to the weight and thickness of the overall machine.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:ok so... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Its not that everyone else "managed" to avoid getting sued, they just "managed" to avoid possibly giving Apple a run for thier money.

      Samsung is the only developer thats close to being even or taking over Apple in the market, hence why Apple is on them like a fat man on a ham sandwich and letting the others slide down in >10% of the marketshare land

    3. Re:ok so... by Telvin_3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, if the decade old HP tablet was released today it would not have 'violated' anything. These are design patents. It's more like copyright. It's the same kind of thing that stops anyone but Coke from selling cola in those specifically shaped bottles. And it's not about any one of the claimed similarities. It's about all of them at once.

      If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case. Square buttons or a different colour or differently shaped speakers. Anything and the case would never have even been filed.

      Every time this comes up on Slashdot the threads of filled with people treating these like a regular patent case. Running around for prior art and latching on to singe points of data. It got old months ago and has really killed any sort of actual discussion about the lawsuits.

    4. Re:ok so... by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Running around for prior art and latching on to singe points of data. It got old months ago and has really killed any sort of actual discussion about the lawsuits.

      So did all the defending of Apple.

      Smaller, thinner, neater are logical progressive steps in refining a design that is basically rectangular and has buttons. Apple might be inside the law when it says it "owns" this design for a tablet, but at the same time, this court case may well be the one that settles it once and for all.

      To me, this case is the same as if IBM in its early days would have gone after anyone (including Apple) selling some sort of computational device consisting of a box to house everything in, some sort of rectangual screen and an input device consisting of letters and numbers - and tried to maintain a no competition policy using the courts to back its business plan.

      Having said this, I don't mind Apple products, some are quite nice (though I am not a fan of bloaty iTunes at all), but trying to stop anyone making a neat black tablet with rounded corners? Give me a break already...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:ok so... by Zagadka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case. Square buttons or a different colour or differently shaped speakers. Anything and the case would never have even been filed.

      The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has no face buttons at all. The earlier (7") Galaxy Tab had four face buttons (not one), and none of them looked anything at all like home buttons on iOS devices. Sure looks like Samsung changed (at least) "a single thing"...

    6. Re:ok so... by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, because Apple can photoshop the exhibits to correct the aspect ratio of the Samsung device, remove the logo, etc...

  2. Easy by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Simple, don't make anything electronic, or that uses touch as a method of operation.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  3. obvious choices by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:obvious choices by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Palm would like a word with you

  4. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep. And it's still crazy. They're all logical improvements. Thin bezel? Remember old TVs and how they were 90% bezel? Rectangular? Wtf? Lack of buttons? You've got a touchscreen, why do you need extra buttons? A non-flat screen? On a tablet? And so forth. The simple combination of these things shouldn't be protected.

  5. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with your claim is that everything listed in TFA is generic design elements, and none of them are remotely patentable, either individually OR together. No rounded corners? Seriously? Nothing rectangular? No clear or black screen? I mean really, WTF. Honestly, what would you be saying if the first LCD screen manufacturer had included such outrageous things as part of their patented design?

    Patents have never been about how something looks. They're about how something works.

    Any respect I had left for Apple is completely eradicated after reading that article.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  6. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Samsung have market share, that's why. Samsung has problems because Apple want to give Samsung problems.

  7. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple just hasn't gotten around to suing the other companies yet. Samsung is the biggest threat, so they're trying to cut the head off the snake. It's not like Apple steals liberally from Android, either... biggest bunch of hypocrites. They do good design, but they take liberal inspiration from other products and then somehow convince their faithful that they're unique. They execute well, but they don't design in a complete vacuum.

    --
    My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.