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."
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.
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.
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.
Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
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!
...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.
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.
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.
Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.
You didn't read the article, or you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. Any manufacturer is allowed to use any single detail of the design used in the iPhone or iPad. It is the sum of all those details that is the problem. Apple has a design patent for A + B + C + D + E. You claim "A is not allowed according to Apple". False. A is allowed. B is allowed. A + B is allowed. A + B + C + D + E is what is not allowed, and A + B + D + E might get you into trouble.
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
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.
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
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.
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...
Samsung have market share, that's why. Samsung has problems because Apple want to give Samsung problems.
They're design elements so generic that no one, prior to Apple, combined them into a single product design? And so generic that nobody, except for Samsung, seems to have a problem coming up with a distinct design?
Design patents aren't lists of individual things that are protected. They're a single list of design elements which are protected as a particular *combination*.
Samsung saw Apple's product, and proceeded to produce a design so similar that their own lawyers couldn't tell it apart from 10 feet away. In court, with the judge holding one up for them to look at. No one else has had that issue, just Samsung.
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.
I had a Motorola e1000 way before the iphone came out. It shared many of the design elements of modern smartphones, but didn't have the available technology to make it work.
Nonetheless, Motorola can't sue Apple for that because, dum de dum, the design elements are generic and can't be patented.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
If it's so completely outlandish how is it that everybody but Samsung seems to have no problems whatsoever
Samsung isn't the only company Apple has sued. They just happen to be the first ones to counter-sue, hence why all the news is about them.
As I recall, Apple has also sued HTC, Motorola, and Amazon.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Because consumers and even Samsung's own lawyers are unable to tell the difference between a Galaxy S phone and an iPhone when presented side-by-side in front of a judge. Makes it really hard to say Samsung didn't clone the look of the iPhone.
Design Patents are absolutely about how things look.
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
erm, from 10 feet away they both look like black rectangles, is that the bit they patented?
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Worth mentioning all those companies also have suits against Apple, or in Amazon's case licensed patents like 1-click to them which are hardly different from Apple's patents. This graphic should be well known by now and shows nobody is exactly blameless in this patent war. (People will argue about defensive vs offensive which is about as useful here as it would be in a nuclear holocaust.)
What I was getting at is that AFAIK, only Samsung has been taken to task over the much ridiculed "rectangle LOL"-patents. All the others were over obscure technical patents which were the proverbial "stick to beat a dog."
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
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
So, not Acer: http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/acer-tablet1.jpg
or Motorola: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2011/4/27/1303887422785/Motorola-Xoom-tablet-005.jpg
or the HP Touchpad: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41I6VtL6D%2BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
or the Advent Vega: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_Vega
or the Sony Tablet S: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Sony_Tablet_S.jpg/300px-Sony_Tablet_S.jpg
or the Viewsonic G: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/ViewSonic_G_Tablet.JPG/220px-ViewSonic_G_Tablet.JPG
no, none of these look remotely like an iPad. Except the Xoom, cause Apple have tried to sue Motorola for them. The rest haven't been sued because they're not black, with rounded edges and a single button with a rectangular screen.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Apple & Nokia reached an agreement over their patent disputes resulting in Apple paying Nokia.
what about that bit of the article that lists Apples complaints?
Looks to me like it's mostly LOLRectangle followed by a few LOLSquareIcons and LOLDesktop
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
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
The problem dude is this everything apple is "claiming" is generic so to use a /. car analogy it would be like me saying 'I don't own the patents on the car or am trying to stifle production. you can still make cars as long as they don't have a roof AND wheels AND a motor AND seats, because that's MY design". Horseshit Apple, pure and complete horseshit.
There isn't a geek here that can't cram the living shit out of any posting with prior art for any of the individual points they have listed and simply putting generic prior art together doesn't suddenly give you the right to negate all that prior art. Just off the top of my head the old WinTablets had flat screens and black fronts as claimed by Apple, Palm had icon menus in a grid layout, hell its too easy as every single thing they are "claiming" is as old as dirt and just as common. This is the whole "look and feel" lawsuit all over again and we remember how well that turned out for the Pepsi guy.
Personally i think its a sign that what I've been thinking is true, that without Jobs Apple turns to caca. Just as before they'll be able to coast for a good while based on the work the man has already done, but without Jobs to steer the ship things start going south. Cook seems like a hell of a smart guy but seems more like a highly focused nuts and bolts kinda guy, not the "big vision" type like Jobs was. Like him or hate him Jobs pretty much had a single vision of how he wanted things built and done and although he refined it as tech got better he pretty much stuck to that vision his whole life.
Frankly while Apple might be hot now i could easily see them in 5 or 6 years being like they were in 93, running out of gas as new tech passes Steve's older ideas and without new ideas in the pipe Apple just stagnates. After all that is what happened last time without the big guy behind the helm, like it or not Apple will always be "the house that Steve built".
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Yet, somehow, all other manufacturers have managed to make a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad rip-off.
Biggest threat? None of them are a threat to Apple at the moment.
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
Sometimes "a more nuanced opinion" is really "idiots who can't accept reality". The issue is that the Samsung phone looks too much like the iPhone according to Apple. It's not a strawman argument to repeat what Apple has actually claimed. Yes, there's some additional parts to, but it's basically it's black, rectangular with square corners. Every other part of the claim is equally stupid. The reason the Samsung phone looks too much like the iPhone is that they're both constrained by the same design limitations and there are a limited number of ways to solve the problems. Smart phones with touch screens are going to be rectangular, with few buttons and most of the space dedicated to the screen or they're going to be terrible.
In this case the "more nuanced opinion" is an apologist trying to invent a rational where it isn't Apple trying to establish a legal monopoly on smart phones. The alternatives suggested by Apple are ridiculous at best.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
So how about I show you five different laptops from five different brands and ask you to say which one is an HP. And if you can't tell the difference from 10 feet, does that mean the other four brands clone the look of HP laptops?
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.
THIS ISN'T A PATENT. IT'S A DESIGN PATENT. These are separate things. People spouting bullshit up and down this thread on both sides. You're all fucking morons.
I'm confused, isn't a Design Patent......by definition, a kind of patent?
... 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 that why Apple falsified evidence to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad in legal documents? (They significantly altered an image of the Tab to change the aspect ratio, since it's actually quite different from the iPad.) They obviously know that their whole case is without merit when they resort to forging evidence to invent problems that don't exist.
I'd say C+D+G+X+Q would get you in trouble, too, since Apple falsified evidence in legal documents submitted to the court, altering the significantly different aspect ratio of the Tab to appear more like the iPad. It's like they know they don't have a case, because they have to invent problems that don't exist.
They didn't falsify anything at all. But a lot of rabid Android fans have been spinning facts, that's for sure.
Sorry, guy, the legal document as submitted is widely available, and shows the doctored photo as presented. The linked BBC article shows how it appears in the document along with how it should appear. I've got copies of both, too, and I and a lot of other people will make sure this doesn't get swept under the rug like most things critical of Apple do. They presented something that they had made "false"; that is the very definition of "falsify". If you don't believe that's what happened, why don't you tell me what did?
Nah, Samsung ripped it off, even where they aren't constrained they did the same thing.
Green phone icons when they had literally millions of colours available?
And using icons in the exact the same way as Apple.
Even Microsoft tried to be different with Metro and they've made BILLIONS from copying everything from everybody.
Apple is using design patents for a crime called "passing off" here: essentially Samsung are pretending to be Apple to confuse customers.
Do a search on Google for "Phone Icons", the majority of phone icons are either blue or green. That means there's a close to 50% chance that Samsung's icon would be the same color as Apples. Samsung's device isn't even the same dimensions as a iPhone, you may have seen images that seem to indicate otherwise, but they were doctored to look that way by Apple. In my book if you think it's a good idea to use Photoshop to manufacture your primary evidence, you've already lost the case.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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."
Green phone icons? If i am right, MANY cellphones have used green in some form or another to signify a "answer" or "phone" function.
As for on Screen icons.. lets look at the Sony Ericsson T68, one of the first colour phones. That had a green icon for the phone icon.. back in 2002.
http://admiralzing.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sony-ericsson-t68i.jpg
Apple themselves used Green because it was commonly used...
Have a nice day!