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."

32 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 Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:ok so... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:ok so... by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    9. Re:ok so... by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:ok so... by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:ok so... by kiwirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:ok so... by khipu · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    13. 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...

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

      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.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  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.
    1. Re:Easy by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also, don't grow apples

  3. What about gestures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Does this help? by chaboud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Alternative solution by pesho · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  7. 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

    2. Re:obvious choices by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  8. Obviously Apple is holding it wrong... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  9. Now we have 2 tech giants to hate! by kawabago · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by Canazza · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  15. Re:That's right, Apple has a monopoly on smart by Canazza · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.