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."

Comments

ok so...

[Moheeheeko]

"[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.

Re:ok so...

[steelfood]

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.

Re:ok so...

[Trolan]

Which also happen to generally be items associated with how tablets looked like prior to the iPad.

Funny enough, those also line up with a bunch of other tablets, which sell rather well, and for companies Apple isn't suing. Like: The Nook, the Kindle, the Kindle Fire, etc., etc.

Re:ok so...

[Moheeheeko]

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

Re:ok so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Squares are rectangular.

Re:ok so...

[Telvin_3d]

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.

Re:ok so...

[Fluffeh]

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...

Re:ok so...

[msauve]

"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."

Because, of course, this looks so much like this. If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.

Re:ok so...

[Zagadka]

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"...

Re:ok so...

[Fluffeh]

If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.

So just because you are the first in a field, you agree that no-one else can make anything in that field?

Just to /. this up a bit, how come there are so many brands of cars out there? Would you support Ford if they took anyone making a "engine powered vehicle, with room for two or more persons moving under it's own volition and comprising of four or more wheels, a steering device, optional room for belongings (referred to henceforth as a boot or trunk) and with interior seats for the persons travelling" to court claiming that they had patents for it?

Patents are supposed to be there to protect the inventor of a new idea, to allow them to market and make money off their new invention. Making an existing idea/product neater, giving it a pleasing case/housing and rounded corners should not be a patentable market distinction.

I am not totally blaming Apple for this however (though I do think this whole saga just reeks of nerd rage with a dash of angry Cartman tantrum voice thrown in). Apple seems to be playing inside the sandpit that the patent system has created - though it certainly appears that it is trying to push the limits of the sandpit as far as it can get away with. It isn't playing nice, but it (depending on the outcome of this case) may be playing within the rules of the game.

At the end of the day, big business is big business - it is there to make money, not friends. However, when I see companies behaving as poorly as this, I do tend to find it repugnant. I was an early adopter of the iPhone, now I am happily talking on my Samsung Galaxy S II.

Re:ok so...

[serviscope_minor]

Samsung were deliberately cloning Apple

What kind of idiotic mods modded this post up to +4? This is the kind of person who would probably claim that the F700 was a clone of the iPhone since it's a black monolith with a single button. Never mind that it was released before the iPhone and that most of the samsung phones look much more like the F700 than the iPhone.

And apparently they copied the charger? This is beyond vapid. It's a cuboid with two pins on the end, just like the charger I had for my Zaurus SL-C3000 in 2004.

Re:ok so...

[tqk]

Can't hate them entirely though, Apple made my life easier, I know who to ignore when outside and when dealing with people in general.

Ah. A user. Idiot! Some/many people want it to JFW, which it does.

Apple made my life easier too, by being instantly useful by family members and so far resisting f***ing up fairly well. Besides, it does actually work quite well, right down to recognizing that users are going to plug in PC keyboards on a Mac. Apple anticipated that they'd want to redefine an Alt key to be a Command key, so enabling that is a thirty second job which works instantly (no reboot necessary). Beats futzing around with xmodmap.

I own no Apple hardware, nor do I want any, but I appreciate their thorough attention to detail. Considering what they charge for iBaubles, that's at least something.

Re:ok so...

[interval1066]

Apple has become IBM (see pirates of silicon valley), that's about the best way to spin this whole thing.

Re:ok so...

[RenderSeven]

If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.

Bullshit. Samsung changed quite a few things, but Apple conveniently ignores all the differences. If Samsung changed one of these "single things" then Apple would have ignored that single thing and still sued on the rest. And that is the point here... that Apple's laundry list of similarities, both individually and in sum, are self-servingly arbitrary. Samsung was going to get sued no matter what they came out with, not because of their similarity but because of their success in the market, and Jobs' obsession with killing Android.

Re:ok so...

[mrchaotica]

The goal in making any tablet is to make the screen as large as possible, and the rest of it as small as possible. Something that looks like an iPad is the natural consequence of those goals. It shouldn't be patentable.

Re:ok so...

[chrb]

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.

Sorry but this is just plain wrong. Changing one lone design feature does not magically make a product non-infringing. Design patent: "An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar."

Re:ok so...

[mug funky]

THAT's how samsung can get out of this - by having no case.

we can carry around a screen, battery and circuit boards connected by wires!

Re:ok so...

[gnasher719]

You have to copy pretty much everything to get into trouble. And that Samsung did. They could have used a rectangular case with rounded corners, a dark black bezel with two silver or tastefully grey lines running through the bezel and put the speakers on the side - they would have been fine.

People should really take time to read this disposition. Firstly, the advice that Apple gives how to make a design that is not covered by Apple's design patent is in each case accompanied by exhibits - so there are in each case one or several actual products that do exactly what Apple asks Samsung to do.

Second, Samsung seems to have come up with a list of items that they claim are prior art. And the expert witness then says "this is not prior art because it is different in this respect. This is not prior art because it is different in that respect. etc. etc.". In other words, each of the designs that Samsung claimed as prior art wouldn't be infringing on Apple's design patent because they are different.

To be in trouble, a design must match Apple's design patent in every single aspect. One difference, and Samsung would have been safe.

Re:ok so...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean if the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 had something like a different aspect ratio? say a widescreen format perhaps, then it wouldn't be infringing?

Re:ok so...

[kiwirob]

Patents are supposed to be there to protect the inventor of a new idea, to allow them to market and make money off their new invention. Making an existing idea/product neater, giving it a pleasing case/housing and rounded corners should not be a patentable market distinction.

You are mistaking "Design Patents" vs good old regular patents. Design Patents are more like copyright but for industrial design so one company can not simply go out and exactly copy their competitors product and create customer confusion in the market. Should it be ok for a Korean or Chinese company to make an 99% copy of a Corvette car and then flood the USA market with it confusing customers if it's a real Corvette or a imported "copy". A Design Patent protects things like the styling of a particular make of car and it's distinctive qualities, like a Corvette looks very distinctive. It doesn't have anything to do with the internal suspension, ABS, traction control or other technical elements of the car that may be covered by other unrelated patents.

During the Australian Apple vs Samsung lawsuit the Judge held up an Samsung Galaxy Tab and an iPad in each hand and asked Samsung's head lawyer which one was made by his client. For a few yards away the Samsung lawyer was unable to correctly identify the Galaxy Tab. That is because Samsung intentionally designed their product to look as close as possible to Apples and create confusion in the market place. Motorola, HTC, Dell, HP, and Research in Motion can make tablets that don't create the same level of confusion amongst customers. Samsung can too make unique and distinctive products if they wanted. But instead they are trying to copy Apples to give them a competitive advantage over the other Andriod manufactures.

Re:ok so...

[khipu]

The LG Prada was announced and described about a month before the first iPhone. It has all the design elements that Apple is claiming. In fact, LG K850 still looks like a very nice and elegant phone next to the iPhone 4S.

Re:ok so...

[um... Lucas]

As said before in this thread, everyone taking Apple to task over this is painting an overly broad picture due to their anti-apple mindset. To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer. That's the case here. Other tablets are fine, just as other cars are. But Apple is seeking to disallow tablets designed to so closely resemble their product.

Perhaps design patents aren't the proper venue for this. Asi do agree with your reasoning about the existence of patents. However, another forum should turn out the same result. I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights.. :)

End point is, if you look at the tablet market, many companies have managed to come up with their own tablets with unique and identifiable designs that don't clearly leach every design aspect from the iPad. That samsung couldn't or didn't do that is their own fault, and to my mind, it's certainly understandable that a company that spent countless hours refining their products design should be able to prevent other players from passively sitting back and doing nothing but waiting for their competitors final design to emerge and then simply utilizing that design just about in its entirety.

Re:ok so...

[siddesu]

The purpose is to stop customer confusion and "knock off" products.

This is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as "stifling competition to the detriment of the consumer". It is very hard for me to see the benefits for the consumer from stopping "knock off" products.

I've lived in Asia for many years - knock offs are sold openly in many countries, yet I know very few consumers who would not be able to tell the difference between a real leather Louis Vuitton bag and a cheap PU leather knock off. When a consumer actually chooses a knock-off, it is always a rational decision by them, which benefits them at least in their own eyes. The phrase "customer confusion" is only a cover word for anti-competitive practices by the companies who can afford to lobby for brand protection. In real life, consumers are very rarely confused. The rare cases where customer confusion may ensue or be detrimental are usually covered by PL and safety laws better anyway.

Also, anti-competitive legislation isn't even really necessary for a company that innovates to make good profits. Apple demonstrated this very well in the past decade. When they were innovative with the ipods, the music store, the first-gen iphones, even if it was mostly a case of "innovation" of looks and S&M techniques (as in sales and marketing), they were the unquestioned leader even without legal support, and commanded the highest margins in the industry.

Now that they have lost steam (as Ford model T has demonstrated, you can't really lead forever with one product) and are falling back to the trap of limiting consumer choice instead of innovating, they'll see more problems and less consumer goodwill.

Re:ok so...

[viperidaenz]

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

Re:ok so...

[VGPowerlord]

If Samsung had changed a single thing on their products there would be no case.

The dimensions are different and doesn't Samsung's tablet have more than one button.

No, because the tablet being sued over is the 10.1, which has no face buttons.

Which is itself different from the iPad, which has one face button.

Re:ok so...

[Fluffeh]

To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer.

This comparison of five tablets (Samsung Galaxy, and Galaxy 2, the Xoom, Playbook and iPad2) really shows in my opinion that there are certain things that every tablet will have:
1) Minimal design - something neat, something clean where the touch screen is the focal point.
2) Some sort of border around the screen - which is due to engineering constraints.
3) Will probably have rounded corners. (My monitor has rounded corners, so does my laptop, so did the ruler that I had in primary school.

To say that the Galaxy Tab 2 from every angle viewed, would pass for a [iPad2] to a casual observer is a stretch. To a casual observer any of those devices could be mistaken for any other. To a casual observer, a HP laptop could be mistaken as a Dell and vice-versa.

I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights.. :)

You can't trademark something that in itself is so broad - that's the whole point of most of the people that you seem to think are attacking Apple here. No company should be allowed to make a tablet (and have a design trademarked) that says "Screen, small border, rounded corners, one button" and stop anyone else making a tablet that had a screen, small border, rounded corners and a single button. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Would I support Apple if Samsung was putting an Apple logo on their tablet? Absolutely. They aren't. Apple generally uses a minimalist approach to presenting their products visually. That's fine, a lot of people like a clean, simple, minimalist approach. However, they cannot stop others using a minimalist approach.

Lastly, when Apple pulls this sort of shit it really makes it hard for someone like me to try to be understanding towards them in this case.

Easy

[masternerdguy]

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

Re:Easy

[NonUniqueNickname]

Also, don't grow apples

What about gestures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did apple patent gestures? Because i'm giving apple one right now.

Does this help?

[chaboud]

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.

Re:Does this help?

[itsdapead]

Not have a flat front? Not be rectangular? Not use black?

Remember - those are ANDs not ORs... or, at least, you need a 'critical mass' of those attributes to infringe.

I've had 4 cellphones (not a great cellphone person!).

Only one of them was black.

Only two of them were rectangular (i.e. 4 straight edges) and while they had rounded-off corners they were much less pronounced than on an iDevice.

None of them had a flat front (and definitely not flat in the iPhone "single sheet of glass" sense), two had soapbar-style bevelled edges and one of them has the "chin" which featured on the first few generations of Android phone.

The Kindle 3 doesn't break Apple's rules (its a rectangle with rounded corners, but the bezel is gently curved and its grey, not black), the ASUS transformer doesn't (front has bevelled edges - not flat, bezel isn't uniform) and plenty of other manufacturers past an present have managed to make phones, ereaders and tablets that don't look like iDevices.

Alternative solution

[pesho]

USPTO drops any apple patent that implements obvious designs with established prior art.

not really

[v1]

as long as competitors' smartphones and tablets bear no resemblance to smartphones and tablets

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.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[mwvdlee]

Even dumb phones have rectangular screens, and according to Apple those are not allowed.

obvious choices

[l2718]

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.

Re:obvious choices

[Moheeheeko]

Palm would like a word with you

Re:obvious choices

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, the "rectangular" one caught my eye.

So, the other day, I'm watching a football game when this ad comes up. Oddly enough, a quick Google didn't find it. But it's for NFL Network. Essentially, we see this person go through his week keeping up with the latest doings in the NFL on various devices (PCs, Television, Laptop, Phone, and Tablet). The tablet looked like an iPad--except that it was longer (the iPad is more square than this was.)

So I immediately said, "Hm. Must be a Samsung tablet."

It was pretty easy for me to spot that this wasn't an iPad because the shape was different than the iPad.

So ....

[DaMattster]

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.)

Obviously Apple is holding it wrong...

[tlambert]

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

One simple question:

[larry bagina]

If there was no iPad, if there was no iPhone, would the Samsung's tablets and phones still look the same?

Now we have 2 tech giants to hate!

[kawabago]

Apple finally joins Microsoft at the bottom of the ethical barrel.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[Endo13]

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.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[PitaBred]

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.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[VGPowerlord]

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.

Who copied whom?

[dave87656]

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

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[Canazza]

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.

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[Canazza]

what about that bit of the article that lists Apples complaints?

Hardware and software trade dress claims

        a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
        the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
        as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
        as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
        a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
        a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
        a bottom row of square icons (the "Springboard") set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Packaging trade dress claims

        a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
        a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
        use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.

Looks to me like it's mostly LOLRectangle followed by a few LOLSquareIcons and LOLDesktop

Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart

[tbannist]

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.