U.S. Judge Grants Apple Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab

Bill Dimm writes "Apple scores a win against Samsung over a design patent. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued a ruling granting Apple's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States. She wrote, 'Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products. ... While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court."

Comments

People must be blind..

[intellitech]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Re:People must be blind..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design.

Re:People must be blind..

[pete6677]

This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

Re:People must be blind..

[SvnLyrBrto]

> you should come up with an example that doesn't
> involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a
> competitor's design.

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Re:People must be blind..

[EdIII]

Not a patent case?

On December 2, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Apple’s motion for a preliminaryinjunction. Apple sought an injunction based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’sDesign Patent Nos. D618,677 (“the D’677 Patent”), D593,087 (“the D’087 Patent”), D504,889(“the D’889 Patent”), and based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s U.S. Patent No.7,469,381 (“the ’381 Patent”).

Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.

This is just more evidence of how the system is broken. I can see the difference between an iPad and Tab. It's fucking ridiculous to own "rounded edges" and bullshit like that.

It's so completely obvious that you would want a tablet shaped like that, and to be thin.

You asked for an example of where a company was not "lazily" duplicating designs. Well, I would argue that is not duplicating something tremendously fucking obvious.

That's like somebody being able to say with a straight face that is non obvious to make paper, that you want to write, on, "like all flat and shit".

Yes, your honor. We feel we should be protected and be the only ones to have flat paper. Thank you.

Re:People must be blind..

[ModernGeek]

IANAL, however I believe the significance of this is that it sets a dangerous precedent.

Re:People must be blind..

[ackthpt]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Most people are sheep. They only see what they can buy, not what that seller has prevented them from buying.

Re:People must be blind..

[EdIII]

You're being pedantic.

It's a patent case that is covered by patent law. Just because it is a subsection, species, flavor, or what-the-fuck-ever kind of patent does not make it wrong to refer to it as a patent case, or patent law.

Re:People must be blind..

[Telvin_3d]

Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Design Patents have almost nothing to do with regular patents. They are much more along the lines of Trademarks. They are very, very, very specific and almost impossible to enforce.

The reason you don't know anything about Design Patents? They almost never make it anywhere near a court, let alone a news story. It's almost impossible to violate them on purpose, let alone by accident. That rounded corners thing? That's not an 'OR' operator, it's an 'AND' operator. For a design patent to get to court it has to violate damn near every one of dozens of specific claims, and missing any one can invalidate the entire thing.

Re:People must be blind..

[EdIII]

It stifles innovation because it makes it difficult for companies to release a product due to silly, stupid, and meaningless design restrictions that are so fucking obvious it's painful.

Remember, the whole point of patent law in the first place is not to provide ownership of an idea, but to provide a constant stream of valuable knowledge and ideas into the Public Domain.

Most of Apple's design patents that relate to the aesthetics of a device are just stupid. Anybody could have thought of it, it is incredibly obvious, and would you really want to do it differently?

Rounded edges. Stupid. Duh. Yes, of course we would want rounded edges.

Thin. Well yeah....

Screen being edge to edge. What? No way. I want a huge fucking border around mine.

In 500 years are people really going to be celebrating Apple for some of this shit as if it was really contributing to our wealth of knowledge?

"Ahhh... yes children. Gather around. Do you know why were on this colony now, hundreds of light years away from the home planet? It was because a company called Apple made rounded edges."

Re:People must be blind..

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple already spent 10 years suing Microsoft over "look-and-feel". Now they're IP butt-buddies and share patents and other bodily fluids.

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

Re:People must be blind..

[EdIII]

It doesn't matter. I understand the difference, and what you are saying, but nonetheless, it does not matter.

It is still a patent, and covered under patent law. Making the specific distinction that it is a design patent is not actually pertinent to the conversation at hand.

That poster that was trying to invalidate an argument simply because it did not make that fine distinction that you hold to be so important.

This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

What part of that does not cover both "regular" patents and design patents? That observation equally applies to both.

I disagree with providing legal protections for most elements of design patents because in this case I see quite a number of them to be functional and not purely ornamental.

Even more amazing, with your observation about the or/and operator, is that it could really infringe on all the claims at the same time. I've seen an iPad and a Tab close up at the same time. There is no way to get them confused.

Re:People must be blind..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design.

Well Apple copied black bezel and rounded corners on a tablet computing device from here so that knocks a couple of your precious Apple's 'innovations' off the list.

Re:People must be blind..

[Anonymous Coward]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Galaxy Tab is in what way innovative?

And inwhich way is the iPad [case] innovative if you look at what was before - like the Samsung photo frame? Comparison shot

Re:People must be blind..

[Khyber]

"Apple's not suing Microsoft"

'Duh, you have any idea the patent portfolio they share?' so asketh the shareholder.

Re:People must be blind..

[iamacat]

Are you telling me LG is completely disinterested in getting a small part of 100B Apple has in the bank? I find it more likely that the underlying concepts were not patentable, LG botched the patent process or the patents were in fact duly licensed.

Re:People must be blind..

[zaphod777]

That's because no one wants to buy them.

Re:People must be blind..

[zaphod777]

Don't you know, flat rectangular is an innovative design ... http://www.cleverdonkey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2001-a-space-odyssey-ipad.jpg

Re:People must be blind..

[sharperguy]

> While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court

Won't someone PLEASE think of the consumer?

Re:People must be blind..

[ColdWetDog]

You're being deliberately obtuse. You don't like patents. Fine. They're rather poorly implemented of late. The US patent Office needs to get some cojones and start denying useless patents. However, you're banging around trying to make this a patent case as in 'inventing' something. This is about design. It's SOLE purpose is to prevent somebody from BLATENTLY COPYING a DESIGN so consumers are not misled into buying a fake something.

The Samsung lawyer could not tell the Galaxy from an iPad at 10 paces. The Samsung adverts had IPad icons. The argument is that a consumer could well pick up a Galaxy tablet thinking they were going to walk out with a real iPad. Nothing else. Whether or not they actually manages to copy the entire design (and recall, the appropriate Boolean operator is 'AND') is up to the judge to decide.

FWIW, I don't think it's worth an injunction. But try to wrap your brain around the point of a design patent. It's not about algorithms, operating systems, gizmos or materials. IT'S SOLEY TO PREVENT CONSUMER CONFUSION as to the origin of the product.

Save your bike for a real software patent dispute. And Samsung could just hire a couple of MacAir toting, Latte sipping unemployed designers that certainly must fill the seats of Starbucks everywhere to come up with a friggin DIFFERENT DESIGN. It can't be all that hard. Even Dell can do it.

Re:People must be blind..

[LordLucless]

If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?

They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.

The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Facts need to objective, that is subjective.

suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious

No, no it doesn't. It could also mean they are doing progressive, iterative improvements, that may be better than the competition, but only because they have taken the next logical step in product development. Every time someone brings out a product that is a little faster, smaller, cheaper or shinier doesn't necessarily mean they've suddenly come up with an innovative new concept.

putting in some real work

Wonderful. So's the guy who collects my garbage. He doesn't get a patent on that either, even if he does it really well.

Re:People must be blind..

[EdIII]

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I don't like software patents, patents on living things, and basically, poor patents that are granted by complete idiots.

If a patent is worthy and serves the purpose of providing for the Public Domain, I am satisfied.

The Samsung lawyer could not tell the Galaxy from an iPad at 10 paces.

Whoa. Seriously? That's the litmus test for being able to tell the difference between two products? 10 paces. That's one hell of a strict test.

But try to wrap your brain around the point of a design patent. It's not about algorithms, operating systems, gizmos or materials. IT'S SOLEY TO PREVENT CONSUMER CONFUSION as to the origin of the product.

I perfectly understand the point of a design patent. Rounded edges, thinness, flatness, etc. should be excluded from a design patent because they are not purely ornamental. That would be a regular patent, and you can't patent round edges that way because it so fucking obvious. Same for flatness, thinness, and the majority of what Apple is trying to claim they should own.

I call bullshit. Having seen both products, I am not seeing any confusion, or harm to Apple. It pisses me off to no end that Samsung cannot make their tablet flat, with round edges, thin, etc.

Now as for the icons, I would need to take a 2nd look. That sounds like complete utter shit though. Having configured several iPads, and owning an Android based device, I have a really really hard time seeing that Samsung was ripping off the UI at the same time.

Ironically, I don't think I will be able to make the comparison first hand since Verizon will probably pull the Tab out of the store before I get the chance to pick one up and look at it.

Re:People must be blind..

[srussia]

"Ahhh... yes children. Gather around. Do you know why were on this colony now, hundreds of light years away from the home planet? It was because a company called Apple made rounded edges."

Hey, a rounded edge here, a rounded edge there, and pretty soon you have a wheel!

Re:People must be blind..

[LordLucless]

It's SOLE purpose is to prevent somebody from BLATENTLY COPYING a DESIGN so consumers are not misled into buying a fake something.

No, it's not. If it were, it would be about trademarks or trade dress. This is about a design patent. Design patents aren't to protect customers from consumers; they're to encourage improvements of industrial design by rewarding people who make novel, non-obvious progress in the area of design.

Re:People must be blind..

[xenobyte]

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Apple's patents on the look and overall design of their iPad are basically null and void. There's prior art galore and they're just imitating what scifi tv and movies have been using for decades before the first idea about an iPad lit up the empty space between the ears of the Apple designer that 'invented' it.

Re:People must be blind..

[X.25]

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Well, Apple could have invented a design of their own, instead of copying designs from competitors and movies.

Go figure.

Re:People must be blind..

[phonewebcam]

This Apple you speak of really hates copying. But I'm confused - is it the Beatles record label from the 60's, or the one which came later and innovated their name?

Re:People must be blind..

[phantomfive]

I'll tell you why I think it's different, no matter how it's considered under patent law.

Design patents are easy to work around. I feel confident that I can work around any design patent that comes my way, because they are non-functional. They won't stop you from making anything.
Regular patents are hard to work around. They keep me from doing obvious things I want to do, like one-click purchase. You want to do that? You have to pay Amazon, there's no way around it.

The problem here is that Samsung made some devices that looked a whole lot like Apple's. Plenty of other companies managed to make good devices that looked different, but Samsung failed, so now they are running into trouble. The lesson is obvious: hire designers who know how to make something without copying.

The whole case is pointless anyway now. Samsung learned the lesson, and has come out with some very nice devices that don't look like the iPhone. In fact, I think they look better. That's what can happen when you come up with your own ideas.

Re:People must be blind..

[Surt]

I don't call a change in design innovation unless it's positive. I mean, I could design a cell phone with razor edges that would mutilate you upon use. Innovation!

Re:People must be blind..

[azalin]

I think we are talking about the second. You know the one who told record label they would never get into the music business and it would be no problem if they shared a name.

Re:People must be blind..

[scsirob]

Apple: "Look! I made a rectangle with rounded corners!"
Samsung: "So did I. And millions before you..."
Apple: "But... But... That is MY rectangle!! We spent YEARS coming up with that idea!"

Innovation my rect.....

Re:People must be blind..

[azalin]

Well the would certainly be some use for that in the dark alleys. You just need to make sure you can get a good hold on it, even if it gets slippery during use. Some degree of waterproofing might also be a good idea for cleaning porpoises. I am looking forward seeing a commercial for that one.

Re:People must be blind..

[Richard_at_work]

Why would the existence of a British company, founded in 1968, have any bearing on what an American company should be called in 1978? There is no requirement for your trading name to be globally unique when you pick it. I'm sure Jobs and Woz trawled the names of other companies in order to find one that suited them...

Re:People must be blind..

[JakartaDean]

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Design Patents have almost nothing to do with regular patents. They are much more along the lines of Trademarks. They are very, very, very specific and almost impossible to enforce.

My hazy 25-year-old recollection from "Law for Engineers" suggests that in Canada, and therefore probably in other common law countries, these rights are covered by the name "Industrial Design" and the word patent wasn't used. The types of IP protected were three (excluding trademarks): patents, copyright and industrial design.

Re:People must be blind..

[quantaman]

If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?

They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.

The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Facts need to objective, that is subjective.

suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious

No, no it doesn't. It could also mean they are doing progressive, iterative improvements, that may be better than the competition, but only because they have taken the next logical step in product development. Every time someone brings out a product that is a little faster, smaller, cheaper or shinier doesn't necessarily mean they've suddenly come up with an innovative new concept.

putting in some real work

Wonderful. So's the guy who collects my garbage. He doesn't get a patent on that either, even if he does it really well.

I agreed that they shouldn't be patented, but my beef is that you seem to be denigrating the value and innovativeness of design. Personally I'm not an Apple fan, but I can see they generally have superior design and aesthetics. As for innovation in specific, you refer to "the next logical step", but nearly everyone here, including myself, mocked the iPad when it was first introduced.

I don't believe that design deserves patents, just like a lot of software doesn't, but to dismiss the value and innovation in Apple's design is really ignoring the evidence.

Re:People must be blind..

[LordLucless]

No, I quite appreciate the value of good design. The iDevices show the sort of aesthetic that a lot of tech people have been advocating for ages: simple, minimalistic. I actually have no problem with protecting distinctive designs, but the problem with a simple, minimalistic design is that it's all about removing extraneous detail. A minimalistic design doesn't make a product more distinct, it makes it more generic. And when you start protecting features of a generic design, it begins to impact large swathes of products, because a perfectly minimalistic design is one that only has the essential qualities required, which means those qualities will, of necessity, be duplicated across all other similar products.

So, yes. Design can be innovative. I'd even go so far as to say the iPod's wheel interface might have fit that category. But this lot of designs? No way.

Re:People must be blind..

[gnasher719]

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

Ask Samsung. They knew that Apple had a design patent, they knew they would be sued, and still they didnt' use a different design. Why is that? If there is nothing special about the design, why is Samsung copying it? Are they incapable of any design? Are they incapabable of making any good looking design?

Re:People must be blind..

[TheRaven64]

You realise that Jobs was a Beatles fan and named his company after Apple Corps, right?

Re:People must be blind..

[silentcoder]

>If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?

They did, every single precursor to the ipad both real and fictional had a used multiple (indeed most) of the same design elements - all the way back to the slabs used by the crew of the Enterprise on Star Trek:TNG.
There is a lot of those elements in the original Palm as well (the only real difference is the hand-held form-factor and the scribe-pen).

The original Microsoft Tablet-PC's which predate the ipad by about 6 years had nearly all those elements in common too. They just didn't sell very well.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

Samsung's innovation is substantial... they used to actually have innovation. But looking at their history its obvious that if it wasn't for Apple, they likely wouldn't have changed the designs of their tablets which, prior to the iPad 2010 release, were completely different:

Here is Samsung's early tablet, the 1992 Pen Master
Not too bad for 1992!

Fast forward to 2006... we have the Samsung Q1
Also, not a bad offering at the time... but, again, completely different than iPad, in 14 years Samsung's basic tablet design has not really evolved much, besides the advancement in the underlying technology, they added some buttons to the bezel... a new innovation.

Moving forward to 2011, we have the Samsung Series 7 Convertable.
Just a glance reveals the impact iPad's 2010 release had on Samsung design... even with a keyboard, the new tablet is far more similar to iPad's design than previous Samsung tablet designs, though it still runs a newer version of Windows, the bezel width has decreased and the buttons have disappeared.

As for Samsung's current offering, we have the Samsung Galaxy! The bezel width has expanded from the design of the Series 7, and Windows is replaced with a version of Android that is not all that different from iOS. Here it is with Apple's iPad:
side by side

I'll leave it up to the discriminating slashdotter to decide if Samsung has possibly encroached on any of Apple's design patents, even if a legal expert and the only authority that matters has already conveniently done this for us (but what could they possibly know that slashdotters don't!).

If you're looking for good examples of how one can avoid encroaching on Apple's designs, look at Apple's Mac Mini and its competition. PC manufacturers have offered a multitude of small PCs that perform similarly to the Mac Mini without having to resort to copying it outright. They have innovated a plethera of attractive designs that don't even come close to looking like the Mini while still retaining a small desktop footprint. The point here is that it can be done... the design of the iPad is not the only possible design for a tablet... Samsung themselves have proved that, yet they have aparently abandoned the idea of innovating their tablet design any further.

Re:People must be blind..

[serviscope_minor]

But looking at their history its obvious that if it wasn't for Apple, they likely wouldn't have changed the designs of their tablets which, prior to the iPad 2010 release, were completely different:

Blah blah blah blah. You're completely avoiding the point. Just because Samsung changed their designed (I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read the non-sequiteur links you posted) doesn't make the iPad an innovative shape.

Go read the iPad patent.

They even cite the TC1100 as prior art. How on earth can the iPad be patentable with the TC1100 having existed.

It is a rectangular slab with rounded corners. It has 3 buttons on the front instead of 1 and was the thinnest and had the smallest bezel that was actually practical to make when it came out. Oh and it's grey.

So, the iPad is thinner (due to a bunch of innovations I would note that people other than Apple have petented to do with TFT, backlight battery and fabrication design), a differrent colour and slightly more featureless.

So, where's the innovation?

Re:People must be blind..

[GordonBX]

I've seen an iPad and a Tab close up at the same time. There is no way to get them confused.

Maybe that's the problem. Have you ever considered that people who haven't seen them both close up might confuse them if they don't see them at the same time? Especially if they are not a tech nerd.

Re:People must be blind..

[Solandri]

If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?

They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.

Heck, even Samsung thought of it before the iPad. They just didn't think of patenting it.

(And since Apple fans seem to always point this out, here's what the back looks like. Obviously it's different since it's not a tablet, but it's still very similar. The point isn't that Samsung invented the iPad before the iPad. It's that the design elements Apple is claiming ownership of in tablet-space were all widely used elsewhere before the iPad, and thus shouldn't be worthy of protection in tablet-space.)

Re:People must be blind..

[Joce640k]

Ask your self this: Why did Apple's lawyers have to photoshop the picture of the Samsung tablet so they could hold it up in court as 'evidence' of infringement.

Also, if you see the registered design it's about as vague as you can get. Nowhere does it specify the roundness of the corners, the bezel, the aspect ratio, etc. It's just a very rough pencil sketch.

Here ya go: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

Look at that then look at a picture of an iPad. Check the bezels, etc., they're not even the same as the original 'design'. The actual iPad is probably as far from that sketch as the Samsung is.

Re:People must be blind..

[GordonBX]

Apple's patents on the look and overall design of their iPad are basically null and void.

Says you.

That's what lawsuits are for - if they are really null and void then the lawsuit will sort that out. If the lawsuit comes out in favour of Apple though, then you'll be wrong and you'll need to petition to get the law changed. It's all pretty simple stuff. No need to bash Apple - they are just doing what any sensible company would do if they had the chance.

Re:People must be blind..

[makomk]

Apple's design patents that I've looked at didn't even cover the back of the iPad anyway, just the front face.

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

The thing I find interesting here is that Jonathan Ive (the designer of the iPad) has in the past explicitly stated that his goal is to come up with designs that are non obvious... But once you see them, you actually can no longer think of any other sane way of doing it. My suspicion is that he's been too successful for his, and slashdot's own good. Sure a perfectly flat bit of glass with rounded edges and just enough room to grip it seems obvious now, but who had actually thought of it before?

Re:People must be blind..

[gnasher719]

Heck, even Samsung thought of it before the iPad [engadget.com]. They just didn't think of patenting it.

You are literally only showing one side of the picture. Turn that photo frame by any angle, and you see that it looks nothing like an iPad. And may I suggest that if there was similarity that withstands examination in court (for example, if Apple showed the judge a photo showing it from the side), wouldn't Samsung have brought this up in court? Maybe they missed it, but I'd say that if Samsungs lawyers are more stupid than the average slashdot poster than they deserve to lose.

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

The thing is, there's obvious differences there that there aren't between Apple's and Samsung's design.
1) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs are about the same size –this is larger
2) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs use rounded corners –this doesn't
3) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs use a bezel about 3/4 of an inch wide – this doesn't.
4) Both Apple's and Samsung's design use a aluminium backing of which a tiny bit is visible around the edge of the flat glass panel – this doesn't.
5) Neither Apple's nor Samsung's designs use a row of buttons across the bottom – this does.
6) Both Apple's and Samsung's designs use a grid of icons across the display to select a function –this doesn't.
Taking a quick look at this makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

The difference between a TC1100 and an iPad are far more significant than the differences between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab.

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

From 2009... 2 years after apple had already used the flat glass panel with black bevel design on the iPhone...

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

Blah blah blah blah

Your attempt to use the powerful rhetoric of your people to persuade me or others will not help you.

I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read

Obviously, you must be very well informed. Why did you even bother posting a response? You should try to avoid these kinds of compulsions.

Go read the iPad patent.

Go read the ruling, ... if you are able. It's unfortunate that you lack any awareness by not reading anything, but maybe if you apply yourself you'll be able to gleem some understanding of how the world actually works.

Re:People must be blind..

[Joce640k]

Worse, the iPad isn't even the same as the original registered design.

Here's the design: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

Here's an iPad: http://www.tablettweet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/dimensions_20100127.jpg

The roundness of the corners, the width of the bezels, the thickness of the pad...all completely different.

Apple is arguing over exactly this sort of detail but they don't even follow it themselves. The Samsung is at least as different from the registered design as the iPad is.

Re:People must be blind..

[andydread]

Oh right. So when fans copy from artists its OK oh wait....

Re:People must be blind..

[StripedCow]

This is why I would be ashamed if I were an Apple employee.

Re:People must be blind..

[Joce640k]

Taking a quick look at this makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.

...apart from the way they're being carefully held so they look like they're the same size and aspect ratio and the Samsung logo appears to have been photoshopped out and the border seems to have changed color from black to silver, then, yes, they're quite similar.

A more accurate photo might show them like this

Re:People must be blind..

[optimus2861]

Hell if you didn't know better your first thought on seeing those scrawls would probaby be "Is that an Etch-a-Sketch?" Maybe Apple oughta sue them too...

Re:People must be blind..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure a perfectly flat bit of glass with rounded edges and just enough room to grip it seems obvious now, but who had actually thought of it before?

Knight Ridder Media? The only difference seems to be embossed vs flat screen.

Re:People must be blind..

[oztiks]

Possible loss of sales. The courts should answer to the loss of income for Samsung. I.E the justice system.

How many tablets are there in the market? How does one prove that Apple's sales are directly impacted by the shape of the device? I understand that Apple is leveraging the legal system for it's own gain, but the legal system should answer for this as a crime.

I don't know how it works in the states, but in some countries you can file for damages against the court and I feel samsung should do so.... After they win, if they lose, I mean what a world to live in...

Re:People must be blind..

[oztiks]

No, this is a really bad way to setup your ideals as we need less of this attitude in the world.

Many unfair lawsuits are won, many innocent people in jail. To put it blatantly the ONLY winners in the legal system are the lawyers.

I think the real argument is the patent though.

a) if the patent was approved then why?
b) won't samsung feel like idiots for not slicing/adding a few mm here or there to make their product differ a bit more
c) does its shape really pose as a risk to Apple's market?

Meanwhile, Apple bashing cause I love bashing Apple. R&D figures for Apple last yr was 2bn. Microsofts was 8bn. When are Apple fanboys going to learn. Apple doesn't invent, they integrate.

If Apple's end product is unique then so be it but get this innovation crap out of your heads, they sit on the shoulders of other, greater, companies/minds to get where they are, such a motorola, samsung, intel, which build the actual guts of their products.

All this lawsuit is proves is that there is no substance to Apple because the best they can come up with to cripple their competition is the a patent on the shape, I dont see any patent infringements made like gee i don't know chipset design - which is actually the way patient law should freakin work.

Re:People must be blind..

[yacc143]

Well, guess it's 10.1N for the US too.

Starting from the fact that the iPad is a legacy 4:3 device, while Samsung tablets tend to be 16:9 devices.

Furthermore the whole software stack is more advanced (again, single tasking is so DOS-ish), ...

Re:People must be blind..

[AmiMoJo]

Fast forward to 2006... we have the Samsung Q1

And here we have a Samsung digital photo frame that looks very much like an iPad. The "sleek featureless design with rounded corners" idea predates the iPad and iPhone by a long way.

Take a look at this concept device from 1994, for example. Black, rounded corners, screen nearly to the edge, no front buttons...

Apple's entire design philosophy and many of its products were ripped off from Braun by your logic.

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

That's not a galaxy tab 10.1, it's the smaller cousin... Which is why it looks less similar.

Re:People must be blind..

[GordonBX]

And now you're just bashing me because you think you disagree with me.

the way patient law should freakin work

s/patient/patent

You say you want to change the law - that's great - that's what is supposed to happen. What happens when someone else disagrees with whatever you manage to get it changed to? Does that make them wrong? Not necessarily.

Apple are trying to use the law, as it is currently written to maintain what they see is an advantage. People seem to attach some moral / immoral overtone to this but it's no different morally to exercising any other rights or laws. You may think that the law is silly or wrong - and you may be correct - but that doesn't make Apple immoral or evil. Nor does the fact that Apple spends a lot less on R&D than MS - one could argue that MS is immorally wasting their shareholders' money.

Re:People must be blind..

[Dog-Cow]

...for cleaning porpoises.

I am speechless.

Re:People must be blind..

[Grayhand]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

I'm missing the innovation? They rushed out an iPad clone. They made it close enough that the average person would be fooled into believing it's essentially the same thing. If it was innovative then there wouldn't be an issue. Even the OS looks like the iOS at first glance. I'm all for competition but they are trying to piggyback on Apple's success. It can be harmful to consumers since some are thick enough that they'll buy one then get home and find out they don't connect to iTunes and intergrate with their Macs the way they expect. Trust me it's not ridiculous I've seen it happen and a healthy percentage of the Galaxy sales are from people that either think it's the same or simply think it's an iPad from another maker. That's exactly what Samsung intended. Why not release one in colors unless the intent was to confuse? If the OS looked different and it came in colors I doubt they would have even gone to court. The shady companies used to do this like releasing a product under the name "Samsong" that looks suspiciously like a Samsung product. Now the majors are doing. Knock off products have now gone mainstream that's all that's changed.

Re:People must be blind..

[Pigeon451]

Actually patents still protect the small inventor. A startup has a much better chance of succeeding, and getting funding from VCs or angel investors if it has a patent protecting the invention. But I agree generally that the patents are also stifling research, and it's not the companies fault -- it's the fault of the USPTO (and other patent granting agencies) that are granting patents on some fairly obvious ideas, most of which are incremental improvements to other patents.

Re:People must be blind..

[LordLucless]

Jesus H Christ, the patent isn't just on rounded corners, you simpleton. Rounded corners _are a part_ of the design patent. One piece. There are other parts that _when all used together_ constitutes infringement. Did your dinning room table copy all the design elements of an iPad? Did your TV? No. So of course they don't infringe.

Way to read the post. I didn't suggest my table infringed. I said that it was evidence of rounded corners existing prior to the iPad, and that Apple wasn't especially innovative or distinctive in its design.

Anyone who thinks this is just about "rounded corners" is either stupid or ignorant. It's about _the entire design_ which includes, as one part, rounded corners.

Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?

Now, feel free to mod me troll all you want but it would be nice if everyone who's simplifying this situation to "RAWR!!! Rounded corners!! RAWR!!!" could pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually recognize that a company is blatantly and outright copying the design of a competitor who has a patent protecting that design.

It would be equally nice if the rabid Apple fanboys could pull their heads out of Steve Jobs' decaying sphincter long enough to realize that their idol is patenting the bloody obvious, in an attempt to monopolize the market.

Re:People must be blind..

[Joce640k]

That's not a galaxy tab 10.1, it's the smaller cousin... Which is why it looks less similar.

Ok, here's the Galaxy 10.1 shown with Samsung logo and true aspect ratio: http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/08/did_apple_fake.html

Re:People must be blind..

[Joce640k]

That's hardly more accurate, given that the perspective wildly skews the proportion.

It's every bit as informative as the image posted by the OP.

Re:People must be blind..

[gnasher719]

Won't someone PLEASE think of the consumer?

That's what the court does. Samsung was forced to give up their Galaxy phone design, so the consumer has now the choice between an iPhone and a Galaxy S3, which look quite different from each other. That's better than having the choice between two tablets that both look like an iPad. It is also beneficial for the consumer who wants to buy an iPad to know that a tablet that looks like an iPad is indeed an iPad.

Re:People must be blind..

[MachineShedFred]

Yes.

Re:People must be blind..

[Theaetetus]

Also, if you see the registered design it's about as vague as you can get. Nowhere does it specify the roundness of the corners, the bezel, the aspect ratio, etc. It's just a very rough pencil sketch.

With all due respect, that's what a design patent is - a pencil sketch. It's not allowed to have additional description. Rather, the figures are the description, and so yes, it does specify the roundness of the corners, the bezel, the aspect ratio, etc. You just have to use a ruler and protractor.

Re:People must be blind..

[iamwahoo2]

How would you even know that the patent existed or is enforceable? Do you expect to do a search for "black", "square corners", or "rectangle" and get meaningful results? The problem is not that the device looks similar to Apple's but that Apple chose the most straightforward and minimalist design possible. Had they chosen a unique corner design like the Nook tablet, then I might feel differently, but they chose rounded corners and metallic trim. Look around your desk and at your modern electronics. I have two laptops, two monitors, a keyboard, and a mouse. Every single item is a combination of black and metallic and they all have predominantly rounded corners. If they were squared corners and pink, nobody would buy them. Every element that Apple claims makes the IPAD 2 design unique is part of an overall design trend in all electronics.

Re:People must be blind..

[oztiks]

No and I'm not saying Apple is wrong infact if I was Apple I would do it. I actully think the legal system should be held accountable for this and "they" should pay damages for their wreckless allowance of such absurdity. The upside to Samsung winning is what you say, changing the law, Samsung winning sets legal precedence. See this crap was tried on in Europe and Australia and though (from memory) both instances enforced a short ban on the product but was quite swiftly dismissed.

Moving aside from that you have to look at Apple's margins their asset ownership and their operational costs which is to say, strong assets, high margin, high operating expense, but low R&D. MSFT has less revenue, similar asset size, has more in R&D, and lower operating expense. So your statement about MSFT immorally spending is a bit unfair considering that MSFT's profit by percentage is much higher than Apple's all the meanwhile, they make less but spend more in R&D itself.

Google and MSFT as business (at a glance) look pretty well run, Id say (at a glance) Apple could be run a bit cleaner and id suspect they will, really the way I see it the competition will eventually keep them honest.

Do note I'm goin off Google Finance, Finanals figures, so who's to say how much of that is accurate.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

Apple's patents on the look and overall design of their iPad are basically null and void. There's prior art galore and they're just imitating what scifi tv and movies have been using for decades before the first idea about an iPad lit up the empty space between the ears of the Apple designer that 'invented' it.

I'm not sure you know what design patents are. Never mind, eh?

They're not the same as a patent on a widget that has never been seen before, such as the patents that go into the 3G standard, or the patent on the original triple expansion engine. Design patents have a more general focus and are not necessarily invalidated by previous designs - in actual fact, they exist among other design patents that are very similar.

Consider Chevrolet's Corvette. They have a design patent on the design of the car. If you made a visual copy of the Corvette without their permission they could sue you. Nothing about the Corvette is "innovative" or invalidated by prior art - the car is a mature and well understood product with thousands of variations, but even so, the law protects Chevy if you try to sell a knock-off Corvette.

Apple's design patents on the iPad are not invalidated by the prior existence of tablets, and there are many, many other tablets before and since that are not the subject of lawsuits. What you can't do is make a copy of the iPad (within certain limits - that's what the lawsuit is for) without being sued. This goes right through the product line, from the way it looks to the way it is packaged (the "trade dress", which Samsung also copied uncannily). It is not just about having rounded corners, or the fact that Patrick Stewart used a prop version of a tablet on the TNG set in 1995 means no one can file design patents.

The Corvette is still covered by design patents even though there's plenty of prior art to "invalidate" the "non-innovation" that went into making what is a very common product - a sports car.

Now, if there's a unique innovation on that car (and I picked a bad example - I think the Vette still has a live axle, so even the Amish consider it obsolete technology), but let's say they innovate a new form of suspension. They *can* patent that if no one has done it before, beyond a simple design patent, and sue people who use that patented technology in another car, even if it looks nothing like the Corvette.

TL:DR; there's a difference between a design patent and a method/hardware patent.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

WTF does this have to do with the patent suit? The vast majority of these IP's are technical, not aesthetic.

It has everything to do with the suit - Apple's suit against Samsung, the big one that started it all off, was a design patent suit. If Samsung can successfully argue that even the iPad itself is as far from Apple's design patent filing as the Galaxy is then they might have a case for appeal.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

I thought he named it after an apple simply because that's what he and the other Steve we doing for spare cash around that time, when not working for tech companies they were picking apples in an orchard on a commune.

Jobs especially was a giant hippy back then, or has the origin story changed?

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

Nothing, but it still has design patents, just like all the different models of cars you see. None of them are anything special in terms of innovation, but the shape and design of them is still legally protected. That's what this suit was about.

People are getting confused over what the term "design patent" actually means, and think that you can invalidate it by pointing out that tablets are not new, or that other things have round corners.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

But looking at their history its obvious that if it wasn't for Apple, they likely wouldn't have changed the designs of their tablets which, prior to the iPad 2010 release, were completely different:

Blah blah blah blah. You're completely avoiding the point. Just because Samsung changed their designed (I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read the non-sequiteur links you posted) doesn't make the iPad an innovative shape.

Go read the iPad patent.

They even cite the TC1100 as prior art. How on earth can the iPad be patentable with the TC1100 having existed.

It is a rectangular slab with rounded corners. It has 3 buttons on the front instead of 1 and was the thinnest and had the smallest bezel that was actually practical to make when it came out. Oh and it's grey.

So, the iPad is thinner (due to a bunch of innovations I would note that people other than Apple have petented to do with TFT, backlight battery and fabrication design), a differrent colour and slightly more featureless.

So, where's the innovation?

You don't understand what a design patent is, do you?

We'll wait while you go and find out, and why previous patents can be cited in the new filing. You might then understand why the iPad is patentable, in the same way that a Ford Mustang is patentable, even though it was not the first car.

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

You walk around gripping your photo frames do you?

Re:People must be blind..

[atriusofbricia]

Not quoting the whole thing....

I am going to take significant exception to you ignoring probably the number one reason that Samsung's design changed and that the iPad came out when it did and is designed the way it is...

The availability of hardware to support that design. You can't tell me that people didn't want to produce nearly identical devices for decades prior to the introduction of either. What's more, the shape of both is practically the only logical shape for a device to be used in this role and in this method. The previous shapes made were largely dictated by the limited hardware options at the time. You say the 2010 release of the iPad "impacted" the design of the Series 7 without bothering to acknowledge that just a few short years prior to the release of either device it would have been impossible to make devices like these at a reasonable price point.

So smart guy, you say you can easily come up with a non-infringing device while Apple is essentially laying claim to all rectangular (do they claim squares too?) devices with rounded corners and beveled edges. Lets see what you'd come up with that anyone would actually buy.

Also, as is stated below there is absolutely nothing innovative about the hardware design of the iPad. Its design is almost entirely dictated by its function as a content consumption device intended to be held comfortably by human hands.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

Yes, many things have rounded edges. Well done.

What the OP meant though, is if the specific overall design of the iPad was "so obvious anyone could have done it" then why didn't we see anyone do that before Apple? Surely if it was so obvious there should have been plenty of previous "iPad-a-likes" making money hand over fist in the as-then-dead tablet market.

The lawsuit is not over the fact that Samsung made a tablet with rounded corners. That is just one small aspect of the overall design. Plenty of other tablets have round corners and still manage to be different enough to avoid a lawsuit (and let's say that we're not talking about Apple being nice here, let's say they're actively looking for suits they can win).

You don't have to have an innovative new concept for a design patent, you just need to make it different enough to what other people have done before. The idea of sweeping, aerodynamic curves and a low slung body is not new or innovative, but it does feature as part of the design patent for many sports cars, and when you get down to it, all sports cars share broadly common features. They don't all look identical though.

Re:People must be blind..

[cptgrudge]

Jobs especially was a giant hippy back then, or has the origin story changed?

You can't take the Book of Jobs literally. Think of it more as a parable.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

And here we have a Samsung digital photo frame that looks very much like an iPad. The "sleek featureless design with rounded corners" idea predates the iPad and iPhone by a long way.

Perhaps, but it doesn't predate Apple's design patent for the iPad, filed in 2005. And the Samsung photo frame is not a mobile device as it is anchored to a powercord, is incapable of displaying anything but static photos, so it doesn't do video, and it has no touch interface. It doesn't compete with any product Apple has ever released... which is why Apple didn't sue them over it for infringing on their design patent: it isn't a tablet computer. If it had been a tablet computer... I believe Apple would have sued them. I'm not sure I see the point of bringing up the Samsung photo frame... what about it? Looks like the iPad but its not a tablet? I don't get it.

Re:People must be blind..

[jedidiah]

Your whining doesn't really matter.

Patent is simply not meant to protect that sort of thing.

Calling Samsung a "filthy plagarizing scum" sounds nice but it has no real legal or even ethical basis. Companies copy each other all the time. That's part of what helps technology forward. That's how society and humanity in general moves forward.

Patents are supposed to be for trade secrets that would not otherwise be disclosed, interesting things that can't be easily copied just by looking at something.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

So smart guy

Gee... I really want you to like me... but since you're trolling me I'll simply direct you to the court ruling and tell you to go fuck yourself.

Re:People must be blind..

[jpstanle]

Not to mention appearance and "look and feel" are TRADEMARK issues, and have no business anywhere near the patent system.

Re:People must be blind..

[jedidiah]

So that's why there's an iPad on the Discovery in the movie 2001 made in 1969!

Re:People must be blind..

[phantomfive]

No, it actually is a problem of the device looking similar to Apple's. Which is why all the other devices that are black rectangles didn't meet the same fate.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

Jobs especially was a giant hippy back then, or has the origin story changed?

You can't take the Book of Jobs literally. Think of it more as a parable.

And lo, did the Jobs come down from the apple picking ladder and did proclaim "with mine own eyes I did see a fruit and a small rodent adjacent to one another and it is as if scales have fallen from my vision. The way is so clear now, will will build a computer with a mouse and the people shall rejoice"

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

Apple already spent 10 years suing Microsoft over "look-and-feel".

Right. They really screwed up on that one. Windows is Digital Equipment Corporation's (DEC's) intellectual property. They should have either sued DEC or reported this to the US Attorney General to prosecute Microsoft for corporate espionage, but at the time no one outside Microsoft realized that Dave Cutler and the entire DEC engineering team that designed NT took all DEC's source code with them when they left DEC for Microsoft.

Re:People must be blind..

[wonkavader]

This is actually a brilliant statement. Samsung should drag Ohio Art into the fray. They could REALLY use the free publicity. And yes, Apple CLEARLY is infringing on the etch-a-sketch design, at least int he original patent.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

You forgot to log in.

Also, in that other AC comment (which I assume was you forgetting to log in again, silly you!) you mention that it has "Samsung" written on it that makes it different.

This clearly shows that you are ignorant of the law, since the company logos are specifically excluded during comparison - so two otherwise identical products with "Samsung" and "Apple" written on them are identical in the eyes of the law in cases like this.

Re:People must be blind..

[atriusofbricia]

So smart guy

Gee... I really want you to like me... but since you're trolling me I'll simply direct you to the court ruling and tell you to go fuck yourself.

In the first place, get your tone filter adjusted... :)

And in the second, just because a court said "X is infringing" doesn't mean they got it right. It just means they bought Apple's specious argument. The idea that the sales of the iPad are significantly harmed or that Apple is even noticing the impact beyond their ego is beyond silly. Thus, the logic that the harm to Apple is greater than the harm to Samsung when their harm is being kicked out of the largest market on the planet is laughable.

The idea the judge felt that it was absolutely necessary to prevent Samsung from selling their tablet to prevent this "harm" prior to a trial for final determination is also laughable and makes me wonder about her impartiality.

Re:People must be blind..

[Surt]

I have to admit, that's the first time I've seen that phrase in a context in which it is not provably incorrect.

Re:People must be blind..

[strikethree]

I should have saved some mod points so I could punish you for your original link. I have never given a negative mod but my god you deserve one. You are as bad as Apple with your first link. Very very very bad. :(

Re:People must be blind..

[strikethree]

Why? You like your porpoises to be dirty little sluts? ;)

Re:People must be blind..

[wiedzmin]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Get the new eyePhone from MOM!

Re:People must be blind..

[oztiks]

I can see what you're saying but it's all go hand in hand. When Apple was in its infancy it struggled as a business. Microsoft with their sorted partners at the time IBM, NEC, so on a so fourth created the PC. With the current way patient laws are now and if the aforementioned manufacteres decided to gang up they could of sued Apple into oblivion on the same level of sermantics we have here. They could of said "I made a box with a screen and keyboard and mouse" and Apple copied me, and I know the Apple puresim aside, MS was first and that is that. I know not the best example but just as Apple is suing now with all of Samsungs possible defences of prior art my above concept though frivolous holds similar merit.

Now, what I feel is that Apple didn't "supply" a market with iDevices, they created it. Gates put a computer in every home, Jobs put a computer in everyones pocket.

Samsung created a device AS different to the iPad as the original Mac vs PC (considering the perceptions people at that era would of had). Is this sophistication in law or contradiction? Remember we also host anti trust laws and those laws are in place to ensure that a market is never monopolized, now we have laws that chop the next good thing off at the knees?

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

16 posts already and counting, and I still haven't heard you say anything that you haven't said dozens of times before.

We get it, you love Apple. But you don't seem to understand that they don't give a shit about you or your white knighting.

And what am I meant to say to that? This is discussion board, right?

Am I meant to go after all of your posts and say "you don't seem to understand that they don;t give a shit about your mudslinging, or the fact that you forgot to log in"?

I thought the point of a discussion forum was to have a discussion about the article? I guess not.

Re:People must be blind..

[Oakey]

I know, it's totally crazy. I mean, there we all were with our circular television sets and triangular computer monitors before some sane person came along with square and rectangular shaped displays putting an end to the madness.

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

Are you seriously comparing studio props to functioning products? Really? And the myths about the iPhone copying the older Samsung handset have been crushed ages ago, but feel free to have a religious hate for Apple.

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

It's also covered in Steve Wozniak's biography, but I guess to Apple haters he is also a bad person...

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

You are unaware of what the T in USPTO stands for?

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

Ask yourself this: If that had ANY relevance, why didn't Samsung argue that IN COURT?

In fact, Samsung should fire their expensive trademark layers and hire the highly knowledgeable Slashdot geek-army who are so adept at dismantling Apple's arguments with panache! They would win! But too late now. Did any of you offer your services to Samsung?

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

I'm logged in as UID 666, just like that other guy. I just linked to his comment not to bother with copy-pasting all the links from there.

What this clearly shows is a bunch of differences of "two otherwise identical products", even excluding the logo. Pics in profile show them especially clearly, like this one, though frontal pics with clearly differing shapes also add to that. So, what else should we specifically exclude from comparison - placement of connectors/buttons/camera, aspect ratio, backside profile - to make them otherwise identical? Or, rather, what defining identical characteristics shall we include?

For that you should... look at the law. As I stated originally.

Someone else made the case that Apple's own design differs significantly from their original filed design patent, enough that it's as different to the design patent as Samsung's device is, and thus it gives Samsung a route to appeal.

The definitions and wording of just how different a device needs to be is all laid out. It's then up to a judge to decide. I personally believe Apple has a case (DISCLAIMER: in only this lawsuit covering the design patent) given that the Tab was very similar to the iPad, right down to the trade dress and things like the power supply. Samsung has since changed both of those ancillary things (not in response to the suit), so I think they knew it too.

If you're logged in, you should post under your ID, otherwise you are demonstrating that you can't stand behind your own arguments - it only makes my case stronger, which is probably not what you want to do. It also means that we can't tell exactly what you've posted. I assume you're shilling for CleanPC.com right? (hey, if I can get a constant barrage of accusations over my integrity, then surely the guy posting as AC is fair game).

Re:People must be blind..

[thetoadwarrior]

It's not innovation. They made a copycat product. It's anything but innovative. I'm surprised they didn't put a pear or banana on the back of the thing.

Re:People must be blind..

[jpstanle]

I used the term "patent system" to refer specifically to the administration of patents, distinct from the USPTO. Just because a single office administers both systems does not mean that "patent system," "trademark system," and "USPTO" are interchangeable. Patent law and trademark law are related, but nonetheless distinct concepts.

I should also add that I realize that design patents DO exist in our broken patent system, but my point is that design patents do not address any legitimate issue not already handled by trademarks.

Re:People must be blind..

[chmod a x mojo]

And Apple was sooooo original with their designs right? Oh, wait the iPad looks quite a lot like my Wacom TABLET with a screen in place of the digitizer. And the form factor looks SO much different than my OG nook.... both of which came out long, long before the iPad did.
Hmmmmm come to think of it it doesn't look so much different - other than not being pocket sized - than any of my iPaqs that I have owned ( and nice copy catting of the iPod / iPad name there boys ) that I owned since Y2K or so.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

I apologize for my ugly words... not cool.

It seems obvious to me and anyone that isn't crusading against Apple that within 2 months of the iPhone's release, every smartphone looked just like it, and within months of the iPad's release, the same thing happened. Prior to iPad all tablet computers were tablet versions of Windows PCs, but suddenly after iPad is unveiled all tablets look and work just like iPad, with a Springboard-like interface and physical design features that are so close to iPad many non-techies will have trouble telling the difference, and the non-techies are the market majority... that's where most of the sales will be.

I see the ruling as a victory for IP, not another case of patents stifling innovation. The design of iPad is not obvious, and until very recently, Apple was notorious for getting to market with technology that is usually a year behind cutting edge, and gets a lot of grief for that. What sets Apple apart isn't their technology, it's the effort they put into their industrial design, which is considerable. Samsung was selling tablets for 18 years that looked nothing like iPad, and then suddenly there is no other way a tablet could be designed except just like iPad... it is a tremendously suspicious coincidence.

Perhaps the ban is too punitive, perhaps a more equitable ruling would be that Samsung should be allowed to sell Galaxy, but should compensate Apple for ripping them off, but Samsung took that gamble. Had Samsung won this case it would be effectively legitimizing what is essentially a counterfeit technology product, and that is not the way to go.

Re:People must be blind..

[Adrian Lopez]

Sure a perfectly flat bit of glass with rounded edges and just enough room to grip it seems obvious now, but who had actually thought of it before?

A number of people, I'm sure. It's just that they didn't have the technology to make a non-bulky tablet with a minimal bezel.

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

So, were Samsung's lawyers silent? Why did they not have Slashdot open to get this incessant stream of unbeatable arguments to argue their case? I assume you would not have questioned the impartiality of the judge had the decision fallen the other way...

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

1) Lots of people bought Xooms.
2) Apple did not sue Motoroloa over the Xoom.

Why are you haters blowing this totally out of proportion? You are entering "Google is a branch of the CIA" or "Linux is communism" territory.

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

What do you mean "single-tasking"? Background tasks run fine in iOS 4 and later, but there is none of the frantic "I must find out which app has spawned a thousand threads before my battery runs out" race that Android users suffer, because the multitasking is according to well-defined rules.

Re:People must be blind..

[toriver]

Is that your counter argument? That he is an "Apple lover" because he isn't doing the chic thing and hate a successful American company's victory over a corrupt South Korean mastodon?

Re:People must be blind..

[yacc143]

Well, so I guess having an TCP connection controlled by an app in the background is no problem for iOS? As in being able to communicate in any way without a special server translating it into proprietary push messages? (Basically an IM app, or even an email app that does IMAP IDLE does need that level of socket programming)

And sorry, considering that my Android devices traditionally always have shown the display to be the biggest battery user, I don't think that a less feature-full multitasking implementation would help that. (Actually, arguably, it helps battery usage, as you can multitask while you wait for some thing to download)

In old days, I've always fixed the battery running out issue (which is an issue, but it's less an issue of apps running amok, it's more a question of to intense use) by just switching batteries (and that's been long before Android, I've got old Nokias lying around with 2 or 3 batteries and external chargers for these), but currently, this seems less and less an issue, the only use case being dumb user (that would be me) forgetting to connect the charger overnight.

Re:People must be blind..

[atriusofbricia]

My primary gripe with saying that Apple is so innovative and that everyone else is just copying them stems from two things:

Apple was the first to come out with a tablet of that rough shape and size. I still believe that was driven more by them jumping on the available technology that others wanted to use, but didn't jump on first. To wit: a mere two years before the iPad launch there were no good capacitive touchscreens and displays to use with it. The CPUs were too slow or power hungry. That's why all previous "tablets" looked the way they were. There was no other way to build them at the time. I'll grant that it is a bit of a coincidence and it does look a bit fishy. However, if you look at it from the perspective of "design an object to be used by human hands in manner X, Y and Z with technology set ABC" you get something that looks more or less like an iPad. Whether it is a copy or not depends on fine details and personal perspective. I've had people mistake my Asus Transformer TF101 for an iPad and to me it looks nothing like one. Does that make it a copy because it has four rounded corners and a black front?

Samsung's design does look more similar to the iPad than I believe is wise. It is not how I would have done it. However, when Apple comes back with something similar to "we own rounded corners, black colors and a simple front" it is hard not to respond with "are you nuts?".

In the end, it is hard to look at either of them as "super innovative" if you grew up watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and the shows that followed it.

Re:People must be blind..

[Kielistic]

It's a patent on the design and not the functionality. So yeah; I'd say it's fair to compare to the design of a non-functioning prop.

Re:People must be blind..

[Kielistic]

But yet Ford still isn't suing Chevrolet over the Camaro which clearly took design elements from the Ford Mustang.

Re:People must be blind..

[atriusofbricia]

So, were Samsung's lawyers silent? Why did they not have Slashdot open to get this incessant stream of unbeatable arguments to argue their case? I assume you would not have questioned the impartiality of the judge had the decision fallen the other way...

I suppose that would depend on whether her reasoning was equally questionable.

The facts are these:
1. Apple iPads are selling like hot cakes
2. Samsung has had good success with the Galaxy Tab
3. That success hasn't slowed iPad sales in the least
4. The US is the largest consumer market on the planet, getting banned from it is seriously non-trivial

With those facts in hand this judge decided that the virtual non-impact of this "infringement" is more damaging to Apple than having one of their most important products kicked out of the US supply chain. You really think that sounds logical?

Apple hasn't been harmed in any measurable way beyond their ego. This isn't a trademark case and as such there was no duty to prosecute to this degree or risk loosing protections. I presume based on your multiple replies to me that you think this ruling is completely fair and logical. Is that correct?

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

What you're missing is that Apple really first released the iPad in September of 2007, but in the smaller form of the iPod Touch... because that's all an iPad is, just bigger. 9" LCD screens were available then, and obviously so were the processors, wireless interfaces, batteries and touch capacitive screens. If the iPod Touch hardware worked in 2007, the iPad would have worked, too... and Apple could have released it then because the technology to release something like the iPad was readily available in 2007!! But Apple kept their plans secret and waited until they perfected their interface and design, until there was an ecosystem of developers and software to support their marketing plan for iPad. Two and a half years the competition had the same parts available to them to release anything like iPad yet did not. It is only after iPad appears that there is even any notable market for tablets... prior to iPad, this massive demand hardly existed. I think it is far more likely that once the competition saw that demand, they took liberties in their designs in order to take advantage of the momentum Apple had cultivated, than that they were really independently planning on releasing these new iPad-like tablets anyway. I think this explanation is far simpler than your design-for-humans argument.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

Nor are Apple suing and other tablet makers over "clear" design elements (note, they might be suing for other reasons).

Re:People must be blind..

[johnlcallaway]

That's right ... animated icons are so fresh and distinctive. Only a genius would have thought that animating and making buttons bigger and taking up more room so you can have fewer icons on a screen would be a such a great idea. Who in their right mind would prefer to have several easily accessible icons available that are static and use a notification area for alerts over fewer, larger icons.

I didn't realize making something less useful was fresh. and distinctive. I just thought it was stupid.

Re:People must be blind..

[hey!]

Well, supposing you weren't an engineer. How would you know whether IP is helping or stifling innovation? You'd probably go by what the people you talk to most think.

Now suppose you also happened to be a Congressman. Who do you listen most to?

And if you want to say that businesses are also hurt by stifling innovation, I cite the bird in the hand theory. You can either invent something, design, build, and market products based on it, and hope to make a killing. Or you can protect the products you have that are already successful by filing dubious patents, or even get a slice of other vendors' success by obtaining patents that may apply to their products. If the *only* thing you cared about was money, which way would you go?

Re:People must be blind..

[Shagg]

The lawsuit is not over the fact that Samsung made a tablet with rounded corners. That is just one small aspect of the overall design.

The injunction was made based on the D'889 patent. That patent is a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. What other aspects are you talking about with regards to the D'889 design patent?

Re:People must be blind..

[beelsebob]

And the technology of packing shit together to make it work in an ergonomic and aesthetic way is called... Oh right... design.

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

Well whilst you can point to the similarities there are also a lot of substantial differences and one of the key ones was so clear that Apple's lawyers even photoshopped it to eliminate it.

Re:People must be blind..

[jo_ham]

I think the Vette still has a live axle, so even the Amish consider it obsolete technology

The Corvette has had an independent rear suspension since 1963. I think you watch too much Top Gear.

Is this where I get to call you a 'vette fanboy for rushing to defend it?

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

and think that you can invalidate it by pointing out that tablets are not new, or that other things have round corners.

The reason for that is that Apple is cherry picking similarities and ignoring key differences, like this or this or this, that last one even Apple so obvious that they went to the trouble of photoshopping it to make them the same size and aspect ratio.
I just think it's a waste of time, no one who wants an Apple iPad is going to buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab just because they look similar from a certain angle, if they were infringing on the trademark then that is a different story though.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

I don't know if that's true, since I didn't bother to read

Obviously, you must be very well informed. Why did you even bother posting a response? You should try to avoid these kinds of compulsions.

Just have to chime in on that blatantly obvious disingenuous remark. I mean, you even cut off the end of the other poster's sentence in the quote, changing its meaning. You did, after all, only post the links so that people could look at the pictures and compare. Reading the articles was unnecessary.

As for your original post... I don't really know what to say about that. One important detail you didn't address when pondering why Samsung changed their design since 1992 is changing technology. An important question for you, do you think that Samsung, or any other company, could have made a tablet that looks like a modern tablet back in 1992?

The simple fact is that tablet design reflects what's possible with technology. Electronic tablets are simply getting closer and closer to the design of non-electric tablets.

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

Taking a quick look at this makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.

But then you take a quick look at this or this or this and then you realise just how different they are. Yes it's possible to make them look very similar if you set up the screen just right and look at it from the right angle but obviously you can see why Samsung opposes this litigation.

Re:People must be blind..

[dwater]

I wonder why Samsung don't just say, "We didn't copy Apple's designs, but we did copy the same designs Apple copied."

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)

If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

Ask your self this: Why did Apple's lawyers have to photoshop the picture of the Samsung tablet so they could hold it up in court as 'evidence' of infringement.

Holding up the two devices didn't help Samsung, so don't fucking pretend that the squeezing one of the pictures had any influence in the decision.

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?

I didn't say it stifles innovation, I asked why people believe it's innovative, what is it that is so unique and innovative that makes it so deserving of a design patent?

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

So that's why there's an iPad on the Discovery in the movie 2001 made in 1969!

Oh boy. http://obamapacman.com/2011/08/debunked-samsung-2001-space-odyssey-as-ipad-prior-art-analysis/

Anybody still claiming that has swallowed Samsungs Fool-Aid to the last drop. Especially when they also babble on about "rounded corners".

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

If the design of the iPad isn't innovative, why does it stifle innovation if you can't copy it?

I didn't say it stifles innovation, I asked why people believe it's innovative, what is it that is so unique and innovative that makes it so deserving of a design patent?

And you asked that question in "answer" to a post saying "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."

So either you were actually claiming that "IP regs are stifling innovation", because you disagreed with that posting - or you were mindlessly rambling. Care to make a valid point?

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

And you asked that question in "answer" to a post saying "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."

So either you were actually claiming that "IP regs are stifling innovation", because you disagreed with that posting - or you were mindlessly rambling. Care to make a valid point?

No i just asked a question which falls within the context of the discussion. It's clearly not an 'answer' because no question was even asked.

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?

Let's see: there's the flat, flush surface with the display, the thinness, the sides with rectangular corners (imagine, not rounded) on the top and the curved ones on the bottom.

Ohh, and you may notice that the design is older than Samsung's picture frame.

Re:People must be blind..

[LordLucless]

Let's see: there's the flat, flush surface with the display, the thinness, the sides with rectangular corners (imagine, not rounded) on the top and the curved ones on the bottom.

Surface flush with display, you say? Thin, you say? What genius conceived these ideas? They must immediately be protected with government monopoly powers in order to encourage further acts of such divine design!

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

Well, Apple was the first to put them into a design - and to patent them.

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

No, you answered to a post way on top of the thread to Kharma whore. And it worked, you whore.

Re:People must be blind..

[hendrikboom]

As I heard it, he actually licensed the name from the Beatles, with the agreement he would stay out of the music business. There was a renegotiation a few years ago about that clause, and the matter was fully resolved.

Re:People must be blind..

[TheRaven64]

Nope. He used it as an homage, and was sued. The first settlement prevented Apple Computer from entering the music business. There were several subsequent lawsuits, and the final resolution a couple of years ago was Apple Computers buying the Apple brand outright from Apple Corps and renaming itself Apple.

Re:People must be blind..

[hendrikboom]

Ah. The whole story. Thanks.

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

No, you answered

Lol! i didn't 'answer' anything you moron! Haha!

Re:People must be blind..

[Grudge2012]

Lol! i didn't 'answer' anything you moron! Haha!

So you admit it.

Re:People must be blind..

[exomondo]

yes, there was no question, what i wrote was not an answer.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

The simple fact is that tablet design reflects what's possible with technology.

This is not fact and as explanation it is far more complex than the simple truth. In 2007 when iPhone was released, all the technology was there to create the tablets we know today... the iPad is, after all, merely a large iPod Touch, which is simply an iPhone without a baseband radio. Apple kept their secrets and waited to release the iPad until there was enough of a development community working on iOS to support the device. Samsung and Apple's tablet competition had nearly two and a half years with all the pieces available to them to release anything like iPad... yet conspicuously did not... not until after iPad is released. Arguably, Apple created the entire market for this style of tablet. Again... the technology was there and they had plenty of time to come up with this design you say is obvious from the available tech at the time,.. yet released nothing like it. Thus the idea that it was technology driving the innovation is utter nonsense. The simplest explanation is that once Samsung saw how well iPad was selling, they rushed to market with their copy... and not that it just wasn't possible. Had Apple released iPad in 2007, there is no doubt that others would have released their copycats sooner.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

Seriously? Clearly your ideas about this are pretty fixed and I'm not going to change your opinion with my reply. Nevertheless, I'll persevere.

Tablets/pads have been around for hundreds/thousands of years. I had a chalkboard virtually identical to the design in question as a child. It simply wasn't invented by Apple. The first person to develop a design like the one Apple thinks is infringing is lost in the mists of history. Maybe even pre-history. Advancing technology such as large, thin, low-power multi-touch screens, higher power-density batteries, Micro Electro-Mechanical Sensors, etc. have made modern tablets possible, and the designs are derivative of those advances.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

Sorry... it is overwhelmingly conspicuous that none of these tablet manufacturers released anything like iPad during the period between the release of iPhone and the release of iPad... for two and a half years they just kept plugging along with their old designs --until they saw iPad. I'm not saying Apple invented this... I'm saying everything that looks like an iPad is an intentional copycat... and the timing and the facts support this.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

Copycatting to ride on Apple's coattails to degree is a possibility. It's irrelevant, however. A certain amount of originality needs to be required for any sort of intellectual property protection. Even design patents need to have some originality.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

Copycatting to ride on Apple's coattails to degree is a possibility. It's irrelevant, however. A certain amount of originality needs to be required for any sort of intellectual property protection. Even design patents need to have some originality.

Apparently US Law contradicts your beliefs. There was nothing like iPad prior to its release except iPhone and iPod Touch, that's original enough. Samsung took a gamble with their mimicks and lost in the US market. I'm sure they'll sell well in Asian markets where counterfeit is acceptable.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

But design patents cover a design, not technology. Design patents are the bastard child of patents and trademarks, with a smattering of copyright thrown in. The fact that the same designs existed with slate or whiteboard instead of a touch-screen should invalidate the patent. US Law doesn't contradict my beliefs. US Law states that patents need to actually be original and non-obvious. Such an incredibly derivative design is, in fact, obvious. The USPTO is fundamentally broken and follows a mentality of allowing pretty much everything and letting the courts sort it out. A slippery slope of bad precedents has also broadened and broadened the scope of what is patentable up to our current situation where software and even business methods (which once upon a time were one of the standard examples of what sorts of things were explicitly _not_ patentable). Whether or not any company imitated any other company in the superficial design elements of their tablet computing device should not be legally relevant. Designs should not have any IP protection unless they truly are original.

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

But design patents cover a design, not technology. Design patents are the bastard child of patents and trademarks, with a smattering of copyright thrown in. The fact that the same designs existed with slate or whiteboard instead of a touch-screen should invalidate the patent.

I don't think you're correct. You're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. By what you're saying, a car manufacturer should not be able to patent the design of a car if there was a toy manufacturer that created the same design 2 decades earlier... on a toy. That's ridiculous.

US Law doesn't contradict my beliefs. US Law states that patents need to actually be original and non-obvious.

Did you read the story the you're commenting on? Case law now does indeed contradict your beliefs. Apple won, Samsung lost and lost the appeal. Its over.

Such an incredibly derivative design is, in fact, obvious.

It only seems obvious after Apple releases it. If it was so obvious then, as I said earlier, during the at least TWO AND A HALF YEARS that the technology existed to produce iPad someone would have released it. The reason? None of the other technology manufacturers have the ability to create markets the way Apple can. Apple sells like mad, everyone rushes to mimic their designs to cash in on Apple's work.

The USPTO is fundamentally broken and follows a mentality of allowing pretty much everything and letting the courts sort it out.

This is how the law works. A law isn't even quite The Law until it is questioned and tested in the courts. If it passes muster in the courts, then it becomes true law. This is how it works in America, how the law has always worked here.

A slippery slope of bad precedents has also broadened and broadened the scope of what is patentable up to our current situation where software and even business methods (which once upon a time were one of the standard examples of what sorts of things were explicitly _not_ patentable).

Generalizing without citations isn't helping your argument. No one agrees with you but people who hate Apple. Using them as an example is one thing, but in this case it is evidently clear that Samsung violated their patents.

Whether or not any company imitated any other company in the superficial design elements of their tablet computing device should not be legally relevant.

Samsung intentionally copied the iPad in nearly every way imaginable in order to take advantage of the market that Apple created single-handedly. Apple did all the work, Samsung sought to benefit. The US Court system shot them down. In this case at least, justice was served.

Designs should not have any IP protection unless they truly are original.

In this case, that's all that mattered. The iPad was the first of its kind and is still the best of its class. Samsung should not, and will not be allowed in the US, to jump in and take advantage of Apple's right to the first bite of the market. Samsung can wait until the patent expires and then sell all the iPad knockoffs it wants.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

I don't think you're correct. You're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. By what you're saying, a car manufacturer should not be able to patent the design of a car if there was a toy manufacturer that created the same design 2 decades earlier... on a toy. That's ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? I think it's going to be impossible for us to see eye to eye. We don't even seem to live in the same universe. Design patents are on _designs_, not functional elements, otherwise they would be regular patents. If the design existed on a toy car decades earlier, then it should not be possible to get a new design patent on the existing design.

Did you read the story the you're commenting on? Case law now does indeed contradict your beliefs. Apple won, Samsung lost and lost the appeal. Its over.

The case law here is just part of a long slippery slope to chaos and madness. The current intellectual property regime is having an absolutely stifling effect on the world. I don't understand why people need to be reminded again and again and again why monopolies are pretty much always a bad idea.

It only seems obvious after Apple releases it. If it was so obvious then, as I said earlier, during the at least TWO AND A HALF YEARS that the technology existed to produce iPad someone would have released it. The reason? None of the other technology manufacturers have the ability to create markets the way Apple can. Apple sells like mad, everyone rushes to mimic their designs to cash in on Apple's work.

As people have demonstrated, the design was clearly obvious over a decade ago when a much larger, but virtually identically designed device appeared in a TV spot. It's also been obvious every time it's been used in a flat screen display, or in an actual tablet or notepad over the last few thousand years.

This is how the law works. A law isn't even quite The Law until it is questioned and tested in the courts. If it passes muster in the courts, then it becomes true law. This is how it works in America, how the law has always worked here.

The way your mind works is frankly terrifying. You don't seem to grasp the problem here. The problem is that the patent office works under the fundamental assumption that if they screw up, the courts will sort it out. Meanwhile the courts work under the fundamental assumption that the patent filing process did proper due diligence and that defendants must produce extraordinary evidence to clear themselves. Meanwhile, the courts are even more ignorant of the state of the art than the patent office. The "intellectual property" situation is ridiculous. Neither the patent office or the courts seem to grasp that "intellectual property" is an injunction on everyone granted almost arbitrarily by a rushed civil servant. That sort of thing should require an extremely careful hand. When the patent regime in the US started, for example, all patents were directly approved by the President. Things have changed tremendously over the year.

Generalizing without citations isn't helping your argument. No one agrees with you but people who hate Apple. Using them as an example is one thing, but in this case it is evidently clear that Samsung violated their patents.

You really are obsessed with Apple aren't you? I know that the particular Apple vs. Samsung case is the subject of the fine article, but for me it's just one more sad little episode. Plenty of people agree with me whether they love Apple, hate it, or are indifferent to it. There probably is a tendency for people who are opposed to the ridiculous state of affairs in "intellectual property" to be more likely to dislike companies like Microsoft and Apple who are generally the abusers in these situations. Certainly the cynical hypocrites who have run those companies like Jobs (used to sell blue boxes to exploit phone systems) and Gates (plenty of dumpster diving for code

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

I don't think you're correct. You're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. By what you're saying, a car manufacturer should not be able to patent the design of a car if there was a toy manufacturer that created the same design 2 decades earlier... on a toy. That's ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? I think it's going to be impossible for us to see eye to eye. We don't even seem to live in the same universe. Design patents are on _designs_, not functional elements, otherwise they would be regular patents. If the design existed on a toy car decades earlier, then it should not be possible to get a new design patent on the existing design.

The difference between a car and a toy car is not arbitrary. One is a vehical and one is a toy. Let me make it easier for you to cast off your self-delusion regarding design patents: If you design a HAMBURGER, and patent the design, and 5 years later a car appears that resembles it, according to you the car manufacturer owes you for encroaching on your design patent. The PROBLEM is HAMBURGERS are not CARS. That is why your notion is ridiculous. An etch-a-sketch, or a chalk slate, or a digital picture frame isn't a tablet computer... thus the design of a TABLET can't infringe on the designs of these other products. Simple enough?

Did you read the story the you're commenting on? Case law now does indeed contradict your beliefs. Apple won, Samsung lost and lost the appeal. Its over.

The case law here is just part of a long slippery slope to chaos and madness.

Meaningless dribble. Your responses are just part of a long slippery slope to chaos and madness.

The current intellectual property regime is having an absolutely stifling effect on the world. I don't understand why people need to be reminded again and again and again why monopolies are pretty much always a bad idea.

You're not making any sense. I wish I knew wtf you were talking about, because you are being so vague as to be saying absolutely nothing.

It only seems obvious after Apple releases it. If it was so obvious then, as I said earlier, during the at least TWO AND A HALF YEARS that the technology existed to produce iPad someone would have released it. The reason? None of the other technology manufacturers have the ability to create markets the way Apple can. Apple sells like mad, everyone rushes to mimic their designs to cash in on Apple's work.

As people have demonstrated, the design was clearly obvious over a decade ago when a much larger, but virtually identically designed device appeared in a TV spot. It's also been obvious every time it's been used in a flat screen display, or in an actual tablet or notepad over the last few thousand years.

If you're referring to a picture frame... its not a tablet, not a computer... its a dumb device that merely displays still images. If Apple released a picture frame that resembled it, then they would be encroaching on the design patent... but Apple released something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, a computing tablet.

This is how the law works. A law isn't even quite The Law until it is questioned and tested in the courts. If it passes muster in the courts, then it becomes true law. This is how it works in America, how the law has always worked here.

The way your mind works is frankly terrifying. You don't seem to grasp the problem here. The problem is that the patent office works under the fundamental assumption that if they screw up, the courts will sort it out.

No, the patent office does not work under any such "fundamental assumption." That's just the way it plays out.

Meanwhile the courts work under the fundamental assumption that the patent filing process did proper due diligence and that defendants must produce extraordinary evidence

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

The difference between a car and a toy car is not arbitrary. One is a vehical and one is a toy. Let me make it easier for you to cast off your self-delusion regarding design patents: If you design a HAMBURGER, and patent the design, and 5 years later a car appears that resembles it, according to you the car manufacturer owes you for encroaching on your design patent. The PROBLEM is HAMBURGERS are not CARS. That is why your notion is ridiculous. An etch-a-sketch, or a chalk slate, or a digital picture frame isn't a tablet computer... thus the design of a TABLET can't infringe on the designs of these other products. Simple enough?

Functionality is irrelevant for design patents. They're on ornamental designs, not functionality. They are ridiculous. Like I said, they are the bastard child of trademarks and patents. They're basically trademark protection shoehorned into a patent format but, as patents, they don't cover only specific domains the way trademarks do. For a trademark, you can argue that food products and cars are different domains, but that doesn't actually apply to patents. Of course, the very existence of design patents is part of the slippery slope decline of "intellectual property" rights into utter chaos. I don't think they should be granted in the first place and, when they do, they need to be held to strict standards. Not matching an existing design is one of those standards.

35 U.S.C. 171 Patents for Designs

Whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.

Meaningless dribble. Your responses are just part of a long slippery slope to chaos and madness.

Let me put it another way then. Judges are not always right. Legal decisions are not always productive or sane. In this case, the decision is a travesty. Samsung may have copied Apple, but it doesn't seem that Apple, whose design was copied in the first place, should be entitled to any protection from copying.

Also, you do seem to be aware that the article was only about the judge issuing a preliminary injuction, right? That's not the same thing as an overall victory for Apple. It most certainly is chaos and madness, however. Samsung is a big company and can absorb this. The uncertainty and danger of bringing a product to market that decisions like this create results in a chilling effect on the market. A decision like this against a smaller player could crush them, even if they've done nothing wrong.

The current intellectual property regime is having an absolutely stifling effect on the world. I don't understand why people need to be reminded again and again and again why monopolies are pretty much always a bad idea.

You're not making any sense. I wish I knew wtf you were talking about, because you are being so vague as to be saying absolutely nothing.

I will try to explain a little more carefully. I would think that my meaning would be obvious, but, as I've observed, we seem to be operating in different universes.

I will start with the concept of a monopoly. A monopoly is when one entity has near or absolute control over some good or service. Sometimes they arise naturally. Consider railroads. It's expensive to create a railroad network and, once you have one, you can run a lot of trains on it. Creating a second set of lines to the same destinations is a lot of expense with little extra benefit except competition. The problem is, once you have the first set of railroad tracks in, no-one can even build another set of railroad tracks without cooperation from the owners of the first set. It's a similar situation with telecommunications, roads, etc. Their very nature leads to natural monopolies. Monopolies can arise other ways as we

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

Functionality is irrelevant for design patents. They're on ornamental designs, not functionality.

You keep saying this but it doesn't make it any more true. You have the ability to understand what they are, yet you insist on redefining them into something that is completely meaningless. Functionality is not irrellevant to a design patent. A design patent is really a special kind of utility patent. Design patents don't arbitrarily protect ornamental design, but the ornamental design of a functional item . The functionality of that item is absolutely rellevant to the patent. A real car can't infringe on the design of a toy car because NO ONE WOULD MISTAKE THE TWO. Its the same with Apple's iPad: every example of prior art you've used could not be mistaken for the iPad or visa versa. Samsung's tablet was intended to confuse the ordinary consumer into believing that it actually is an iPad.

Samsung may have copied Apple, but it doesn't seem that Apple, whose design was copied in the first place, should be entitled to any protection from copying.

Show me the tablet computer that Apple copied.

Long winded self-gratifying and Irrellevant treatment of monopolies ignored, Apple has no monopoly. Anyone is free to design a tablet computer that doesn't infringe on designs currently protected by a design patent.

I was actually referring to the tablet from this nearly 20 year old video ....Also, I'll re-iterate again. A design patent covers a design, not functionality.

Also, I'll reiterate again: YOU ARE MISTAKEN. A design patent is granted for the ornamental design on a functional item. The "tablet" in the video was vaporware, NOT A FUNCTIONAL ITEM. No one would mistake something that doesn't exist for something that does exist. It doesn't meet the standard. This is why Samsungs attempt to use a prop from Kubrick's 2001 failed.

There is, in fact, such a fundamental assumption in the court. It's in 35 U.S.C. 282 presumption of validity. First line: "A patent shall be presumed valid."

This is not a "fundamental assumption," of the court, forming some necessary core to how the court works, but an incidental assumption.

You are spewing strawman fallacy after strawman fallacy, confusing concepts, and selectively using definitions that do not apply, and overinflating the importance of what you believe you have uncovered to try to support some underlying argument that may or may not have merit... it is difficult to tell with all your bullshit, and I can only assume that is your intention. You are intellectually dishonest, and your last post proves this. You want to believe something so bad that you are lying about what a design patent protects.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

You keep saying this but it doesn't make it any more true. You have the ability to understand what they are, yet you insist on redefining them into something that is completely meaningless. Functionality is not irrellevant to a design patent. A design patent is really a special kind of utility patent. Design patents don't arbitrarily protect ornamental design, but the ornamental design of a functional item . The functionality of that item is absolutely rellevant to the patent. A real car can't infringe on the design of a toy car because NO ONE WOULD MISTAKE THE TWO. Its the same with Apple's iPad: every example of prior art you've used could not be mistaken for the iPad or visa versa. Samsung's tablet was intended to confuse the ordinary consumer into believing that it actually is an iPad.

You just don't know what you're talking about. Design patents are not utility patents. If a design has functional components, you get a utility patent on the design. You can also get a design patent on the same design if it's ornamental as well as functional. The guidelines on design patents from the patent office do specifically say: "It must be a definite preconceived thing, capable of reproduction, and not merely the chance result of a method or of a combination of functional elements ( 35 U.S.C. 171; 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs)." So to get a design patent, the design can't be purely functional (although this is pretty subjective, obviously) and the design patent doesn't cover the functionality. Design patents only cover the ornamental aspects.

As for a real car infringing on the design of a toy car. You don't seem to grasp that the prior art of the toy car has a bearing on _obviousnous_. The way the rules are set up, it's quite possible that a suit from the toy car manufacturer against the car company would fail. However, a suit by the car manufacturer against another car manufacturer using the same design would probably fail also, if the defendant presented the prior art of the toy car.

As for the Samsung tablet being intended to deceive the "ordinary consumer" into thinking they're buying an ipad, I'm agog. I just can't imagine how stupid you think the average person is. I mean, I thought I'd lost faith in humanity...

Show me the tablet computer that Apple copied.

I already did. Here, again, I present the tablet from 1994. Maybe you'll actually pay attention this time. Both that and Apple's tablet are derivative of so many, many sources that it boggles the mind how anyone could think any of the ideas or design elements are original.

Long winded self-gratifying and Irrellevant treatment of monopolies ignored, Apple has no monopoly. Anyone is free to design a tablet computer that doesn't infringe on designs currently protected by a design patent.

Now you're just being a jerk. That long-winded treatment was far from self-gratifying. That was me expanding greatly on something I'd written in a previous post that you wrote: "You're not making any sense. I wish I knew wtf you were talking about, because you are being so vague as to be saying absolutely nothing" in response to. I removed the vagueness that you objected to by expanding greatly on it and now you're turning around and calling it "self-gratifying". That kind of passive-aggressive deceptive rhetoric doesn't impress me.

Also, I'll reiterate again: YOU ARE MISTAKEN. A design patent is granted for the ornamental design on a functional item. The "tablet" in the video was vaporware, NOT A FUNCTIONAL ITEM. No one would mistake something that doesn't exist for something that does exist. It doesn't meet the standard. This is why Samsungs attempt to use a prop from Kubrick's 2001 failed.

Wait, didn't I just go over this... Well, back into it anyway. The patent office hasn't required a working model to be submitted for what, a century now? "Invent

Re:People must be blind..

[catmistake]

You are ignorant and deceitful, and you are spreading lies, that much is clear. Design patents are not what you say they are... if they were they would be completely worthless, but they are not. Coca-Cola's legitimate design patent for their famous hour glass bottle cannot be infringed upon by an hour glass nor by a rocket made by Goddard, yet by your definition, this is entirely possible. This is, of course, entirely false. Your argument is entirely worthless because your definitions are innaccurate and incomplete. A design patent is only awarded to functional items, thus, the function of these items is entirely relevant to the patent and any claims of infringement. If you'd stop listening to your own bullshit rhetoric and take a look at the actual definition of a design patent, you'd readily find out that a design patent is indeed a type of utility patent. This information is available from countless sources all over the Internet. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish, but I've outed you as someone who is spreading empty and false propaganda regarding design patents and patents in general. If you actually had any true personal interest in design patents, I would shit kittens. You are not an authority, nearly every argument you've made is fallacious, and your ability to generate endless verbal garbage doesn't serve to help you or your strawman arguments. I recommend you get some psychological help.

Re:People must be blind..

[tragedy]

You are ignorant and deceitful, and you are spreading lies, that much is clear.

Hmmm. There's an old saying about never attributing to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. You seem to be generously accusing me of both incompetence and malice. The problem is that if I'm simply ignorant then how can what I say be malicious lies? They're mutually incompatible, but somehow you feel you can accuse me of both. The truth is that I'm neither a liar nor particularly ignorant.

Design patents are not what you say they are... if they were they would be completely worthless, but they are not.

Design patents are what I say they are. In my opinion they are completely worthless. In the opinion of Patent Attorneys and various intellectual property parasites like those "invention protection" companies that advertise on late night TV, they have a definite value. The main value is that they're easy to get and, once you have them, you can fool people (even judges) into treating them like utility patents. The advice I've seen from patent attorney's on this is to go after a design patent because it's cheaper, and will almost never be rejected and then you can throw "patent pending" on your product, which will help you get in the door with investors and customers, allowing you to pitch to them before they find out it's just a design patent. They're valuable to people like that precisely because they're a bastardized hybrid that cause a bit of cognitive dissonance in people trying to judge their status, which is perfect for people whose business plan relies on obstructionism. They are also a (relatively) cheap way to inflate a patent portfolio.

Coca-Cola's legitimate design patent for their famous hour glass bottle cannot be infringed upon by an hour glass nor by a rocket made by Goddard, yet by your definition, this is entirely possible.

You're inverting what I was saying. What I'm saying is that if the Coca-cola bottle design had been shaped similarly to a milk bottle design from the 1800's and someone else came out with their own soda bottle shaped like that milk bottle, without the coca-cola logo imprinted on it, Coca-cola would have no claim against whoever came out with that new copy of the pre-Coca-cola design. Also, I think you would find that, while Coca-cola's design patent was in effect, if anyone had started marketing hourglasses clearly copied from the Coca-cola bottle design, Coca-cola would have gone after them in court, and probably won (unless the hourglass company could find a similar old bottle to present as prior art).

Your argument is entirely worthless because your definitions are innaccurate and incomplete. A design patent is only awarded to functional items, thus, the function of these items is entirely relevant to the patent and any claims of infringement.

But the 1994 tablet was a functional item, even though no-one actually built it. And it had the same design. So it's prior art. As for a design patent only being awarded to functional items, please define "function" in this context? The patent office considers "decorative" to be a legitimate function. So, saying that design patents are only awarded to functional items is meaningless. Do a little research on the web, there are plenty of guides to artists on how to patent their artwork. The design patent on your example, the Coca-cola bottle, only covered the ornamentation of the bottle, it had nothing to do with the function. Bottles are an ancient invention and there was nothing novel in the function of the Coca cola bottle.

If you'd stop listening to your own bullshit rhetoric and take a look at the actual definition of a design patent, you'd readily find out that a design patent is indeed a type of utility patent. This information is available from countless sources all over the Internet.

And, once again, after being the first to cast stones against me f

Meet Apple, the new Microsoft...

[NoGenius]

Internal Memo

Attn: Staff

When the pipeline of innovation dries up, call in lawyers.

Steve Balmer, CEO, Apple, Inc.

Re:Meet Apple, the new Microsoft...

[devleopard]

You're absolutely right. Since the lawsuit was filed in April 2011, Apple has come up with absolutely nothing innovative.

Re:Meet Apple, the new Microsoft...

[sosume]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but it seems you are right. Unless you include putting the retina display in the iPad, creating a tv set-top box and 'disrupting the educational ebook business' as innovations.

Apple scores a win against Samsung

[c0lo]

Well, does somebody keep the scores? How many points so far for both sides?

I.e. who's wining? Because customers are surely on the losing side.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[viperidaenz]

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[girlintraining]

I.e. who's wining? Because customers are surely on the losing side.

No they aren't. Customers benefit from an endless system of appeals, cumbersome and byzantine laws regarding patents, trademarks and copyrights -- it saves them from having to buy a competitor's product, the poor bastards. The free market is dangerous and must be heavily regulated... unless it's labor, in which case we need as little regulation as possible because we have to remain competitive with third world sweat shops.

Everything you buy here is cheaper everywhere else, and it's because you're not working hard enough for your crumbs, Citizen.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[gmhowell]

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

Followed shortly thereafter by "Samsung goes out of business due to massive overcapacity." Followed closely by "Sharp stock up over 100% due to new contracts with Apple."

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[tlhIngan]

What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

And Samsung shareholders will go ballistic, literally that they're turning down sales from their #1 customer (Apple beat Sony in parts purchased from Samsung).

The other effect is a greatly distorted market - with the exception of the A4/A5 processor (though TSMC or Intel is supposed to help out), everything else is multiply-sourced. The NAND flash and RAM, especially. All that would happen is that Toshiba and the like suddenly get the orders and make money while Samsung is stuck with excess stock they have to clearance out. In fact, you'll see arbitrage happening - Toshiba etc. will see that simply relabel Samsung parts and cash in on the difference.

Also, all those multibillion dollar fabs like the one in Austin Tx that Samsung opened? Idled. And when a fab is idled, it's losing tons of money because the equipment is depreciating fast and will turn into a multibillion dollar sinkhole. Running fabs is horribly expensive and if it's not running at basically 100%, it's losing money. If nothing else, few companies can afford a fab - Apple might just pick one up on the cheap because of it.

It's a love-hate relationship that's probably giving Samsung more angst than anything because they're pitting two divisions of Samsung against each other - the semiconductor division which makes tons of money making parts for Apple versus the mobile division, which makes money (but likely less since it's spread out over more phones).

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[devleopard]

When it was rumored that Samsung had lost the Apple contract (note, this was last month, over a year after this lawsuit was filed):

It is claimed that Samsung lost $10 billion of its market value following news that Apple switched suppliers. Wednesday’s decline was the biggest daily fall in nearly four years for Samsung.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3358556

This injunction is only a bargaining chip that will be used in the settlement conference that Samsung and Apple have agreed to. If Samsung thought they were going to lose Apple's business over this lawsuit, the Galaxy Tab would become the next TouchPad.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[Gravis Zero]

Well, does somebody keep the scores? How many points so far for both sides?
I.e. who's wining?

Lawyers: 9310293 -- Humans: 0

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[Anarchduke]

What would really be funny is if Apple stopped selling Samsung parts.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-hints-Apple-may-release-7.85-inch-iPad-in-2012-spend-11-billion-on-Samsung-parts_id28007

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[Anarchduke]

I doubt Samsung will go out of business just because they stopped selling Apple their touch screens.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-ordered-65-70-million-LCD-panels-for-the-new-iPad-Samsung-still-spinning-off-the-pesky-LCD-business_id26867

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[gmhowell]

I doubt Samsung will go out of business just because they stopped selling Apple their touch screens.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-ordered-65-70-million-LCD-panels-for-the-new-iPad-Samsung-still-spinning-off-the-pesky-LCD-business_id26867

I don't disagree, but similarly, I doubt Apple would shut down production if Samsung gets their panties in a bunch.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[el_flynn]

Everything you buy here is cheaper everywhere else

I seriously beg to differ. There are many times when I have to resort to buying stuff online from the US, due to various restrictive taxes and import duties imposed to resellers of those products in my country. Even after the exchange rate, shipping charges etc it is still cheaper. Because the local distributor/reseller has profit margins to keep.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[bdabautcb]

Actually, I would argue that it is more expensive in the countries alligned with us, AU, especially from what I've heard. Easy access does not equal cheap.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[Hognoxious]

who's wining?

Oenophiles, most likely.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[gnasher719]

This injunction is only a bargaining chip that will be used in the settlement conference [macworld.co.uk] that Samsung and Apple have agreed to. If Samsung thought they were going to lose Apple's business over this lawsuit, the Galaxy Tab would become the next TouchPad.

There isn't just one Samsung. If the VP responsible for Galaxy asked the VP responsible for selling electronic parts to stop selling to Apple, the answer would be "fuck off".

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[c0lo]

who's wining?

Oenophiles, most likely.

Nah... they're wineing.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[chrb]

And Samsung shareholders will go ballistic, literally that they're turning down sales from their #1 customer (Apple beat Sony in parts purchased from Samsung).

Samsung's #1 manufacturing customer is Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. They utilise more of their parts in their own products than they sell to their competitors.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[toriver]

I am sure Samsung-the-parts-maker would show the middle finger to at Samsung-the-tablet-maker if the latter demanded the former cancel a major contract like that. I doubt Samsung-the-parent would allow such a breach of their principle of independence and competitiveness between its daughters.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[viperidaenz]

Samsung is the only company in the world that produces screens as good as that in the iPad 3. Wait for the iPad4, its shittier than the last one!

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[viperidaenz]

I didn't think anyone but Samsung had the capability to make the iPad 3 retina display. It's amusing that the biggest selling feature in the latest iPad is a Samsung invention.

Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung

[viperidaenz]

Who would buy a 7.85" iPad if it only had a 1024x600 screen? Every innovative hardware feature of Apple's products are supplied by Samsung.

If you cannot compete...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot compete, you litigate.

"Boohoo, someone else is making money..."

Apple is no longer interesting. The only thing interesting about Apple is the fact that OS X has the *nix goodness under the hood.

The last thing that interested me was BeOS. Ahead of its time and DOA.

I remember having a Be box (commodity hardware with BeOS installed) at work in 2000. It rocked. I hope Haiku becomes a success, but it seems that if things are not mainstream, they die on the vine no matter how good they are.

Re:If you cannot compete...

[viperidaenz]

The lawyers can't figure out the product with the word "SAMSUNG" on the front is not an iPad? Or was the photo-shopped out?

Re:If you cannot compete...

[devleopard]

For every 1000 iPads I see in the wild, I see maybe 2 or 3 Galaxy Tabs. (Phones are of course an entirely different story.)

So while I agree with

If you cannot compete, you litigate.

"Boohoo, someone else is making money..."

as being bad, that "someone" isn't Samsung, and Apple isn't a company that isn't competing. Hell, the only reason why there is a Galaxy Tab exists is due to the iPad's success.

Re:If you cannot compete...

[Kergan]

I had hopes for haiku too when I originally ran into it, wondering if there might be any OSS version of BeOS in the making. But the project looked like it was going nowhere back then. And to be very frank, it stil looks like it.

Plus, the paradigm has shifted tremendously in the past few years. By the time it ships, assuming it ever does, chances are that touch interfaces will have become so mainstream that a new desktop OS will seem irrelevant.

Re:If you cannot compete...

[toriver]

Is that sufficient differentiation? Score, I'll go make a car that looks exactly like a Bugatti Veyron except it has the name Paul instead.

Re:If you cannot compete...

[viperidaenz]

So all these cars are infringing the rights of Ferrari, Lamborghini and Mercedes? Why don't they get sued?

Does it really matter

[alvinrod]

Does it really matter at this point?

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is over a year old at this point and probably not selling in large volume any longer. Other competing Android tablets have already supplanted it in nearly every area and it will probably be replaced by Samsung's next offering in the near future. Unless this ruling also makes it a lot easier for Apple to get an injunction against any of Samsung's future tablet products, I can't see this making a difference at all.

I haven't read the ruling yet, but in several past cases, usually the injunction prevents Samsung from importing additional product. That would mean that inventory already in the US and in the hands of retailers could continue to be sold so long as Apple doesn't pursue legal action against retails, which they won't as many of those retailers also likely sell Apple's products. Given that Samsung will probably have a new tablet out soon, I can't see them even caring if they can't restock supplies of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

I'd be interested in hearing the full implications from this ruling from someone more versed in the relevant laws. Is this victory as hollow as I think it is, or is there actually some value in this for Apple?

Re:Does it really matter

[fustakrakich]

Does it really matter at this point?

Well, yeah. If you're over there on Wall Street doing your little thing, it matters a hell of a lot.

Re:Does it really matter

[ModernGeek]

IANAL, however I believe the significance of this is that it sets a new, dangerous precedent.

Re:Does it really matter

[Solandri]

It matters because future Samsung products will be designed to not look so identical to an iPad that their own lawyers can't even tell them apart (in court they couldn't tell the difference between their own products and an iPad).

Seems the Apple reality distortion field didn't die with Jobs. What really happened is that the lawyers the judge was questioning said he couldn't tell them apart, but when the judge asked if the others could, another quickly supplied the correct answer. In other words, they could tell the difference.

Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

But of course what really happened is rather inconvenient for Apple fans' theory that the Galaxy Tab's design must be a ripoff of the iPad, instead of taking its design cues from another Samsung product. So that last sentence gets cut out from their retelling of the story, thus creating an alternate reality which better fits their predetermined view.

As for the lawyer who couldn't tell them apart, she's in her mid 50s, so probably doesn't have the best eyesight.

Re:Does it really matter

[BetaDays]

Does this injunction really matter? the 10.1N is out that fixed any issues in the EU so can't Samsung just sell the 10.1N?

Re:Does it really matter

[Theaetetus]

Seems the Apple reality distortion field didn't die with Jobs. What really happened is that the lawyers the judge was questioning said he couldn't tell them apart, but when the judge asked if the others could, another quickly supplied the correct answer. In other words, they could tell the difference.

Did the lawyer who guessed correctly guess? It's a 50-50 shot that could save their case, so it would have been reasonable to do so. But maybe he didn't... in which case, why was it just a simple "that one" rather than a description of the distinct features that led to the conclusion?
See, what really matters is that the judge couldn't tell them apart and thought that a reasonable person couldn't tell them apart either. That Samsung's lawyers, who had meticulously poured over details of both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab, couldn't immediately say "yes, your honor, the Tab has features x, y, z that are distinctive from the iPad" was what doomed them.

But of course what really happened is rather inconvenient for Apple fans' theory that the Galaxy Tab's design must be a ripoff of the iPad, instead of taking its design cues from another Samsung product.

Not so much.

Re:Does it really matter

[Xylantiel]

They are different aspect ratios. ANY slashdotter would likely have picked the correct one.

Probably the first lawyer misinterpreted the question to mean could they see the samsung logo from that distance.

Re:Does it really matter

[Theaetetus]

They are different aspect ratios. ANY slashdotter would likely have picked the correct one.

Probably the first lawyer misinterpreted the question to mean could they see the samsung logo from that distance.

Unlikely, since there's no logo on the front.

Re:Does it really matter

[Nemyst]

Yeah, because obviously Samsung's own designers would never ever think of taking the best bits of their past designs and redesigning the parts that didn't fit, right? It's... slightly obvious that a tablet should be thin and easy to hold, meaning it shouldn't have protruding shapes behind it.

But Apple apologists need to keep the bashing going!

Re:Does it really matter

[Xylantiel]

Really? Looks like the samsung logo is there to me.

I'm sure it's clear in the court record, or, as said above, the lawyer in question may not have had very good distance vision. This is incident is not "proof" of anything in a legal sense, though perhaps that was your point.

Re:Does it really matter

[Lisias]

usual apple shrill, "we invented black, and rounded rectangles, suck our dicks"

You know, even by being forced to suck their dicks, you still can bite.

I have this strange feeling that Apple knows when to stop. This just hadn't happened yet.

People must be copying..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's "innovative" about the Galaxy tab 10.1?

Re:People must be copying..

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you missed the ".1", that's a pretty innovative bit at the end there.

Re:People must be copying..

[Joce640k]

What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

Re:People must be copying..

[ozmanjusri]

What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

Nothing, but patent trolling is one of the fastest growth industries in the US. In addition, it prevents newer, more agile companies disrupting established revenue streams with novel products. It's no surprise companies like Apple are joining in.

Patent trolls curb innovation and cost the U.S. $29B in 2011

A new study shows that patent lawsuits are not only costing the country billions of dollars but are also placing the burden on small and medium-size companies, which slows invention.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57461110-93/patent-trolls-curb-innovation-and-cost-the-u.s-$29b-in-2011/

Re:People must be copying..

[Barefoot Monkey]

Nah, they were obviously just copying Mac OS 10.1.

Re:People must be copying..

[Joce640k]

Disclaimer: I think that these patents are ridiculous, and would be happy if they went away completely.

However, are you saying that attractive and distinct product design plays no role in a purchasing decision?

Of course not, but there's only so many shapes a corner can be and 'rounded' is probably the most obvious. Patents are supposed to be for "non-obvious" things.

If Apple had patented spiky, razor-sharp corners then they might have a point if other people started doing the same. Spiky isn't a natural choice for the corners of a consumer product.

Re:People must be copying..

[jo_ham]

What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

Nothing. If the lawsuit had been about rounded corners then it would have been dismissed at the first hurdle. It's not about that, obviously, although the rounded corners of a particular radius are part of the design of the iPad, and thus are part of the suit. Just like the woman who burned herself on McD's super hot coffee through her own clumsiness and ill-advised driving with it between her legs didn't sue McD because they "sold coffee".

It's also no more legal protection than any other company gets. Your accusatory post suggests you think Apple gets preferential treatment in the courts. Reality wouldn't seem to bear that out - they're losing as often as they're winning in these slugfests.

Re:People must be copying..

[AngryDeuce]

ust like the woman who burned herself on McD's super hot coffee through her own clumsiness and ill-advised driving with it between her legs didn't sue McD because they "sold coffee".

People like to trot out that case all the time as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but having actually read the facts of the case, I'm not so quick to dismiss it.

From Wikipedia:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.

Additionally, she only sued for $20,000 initially; $10,500 to cover current her medical expenses, anticipated medical expenses to the tune of $2,500, and an additional $5,000 for loss of income due to the amount of time she was out of work (she had third degree burns to her crotch, after all, how productive would any of us be with 3rd degree burns to our crotch?). It was only when McDonald's offered $800 and refused to budge an inch that she hired an attorney and he filed suit against them for gross negligence related to the temperature the coffee was being served at.

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

I don't know about you guys, but I've ordered coffee at McDonald's and gotten scalded on both my mouth and hands several times, it is served ridiculously hot, much hotter than coffee I have gotten pretty much anywhere else, certainly much hotter than the coffee that comes out of my own coffeepot here at home. Did it really need to be served at such a high temperature? Probably not, becaus

Re:People must be copying..

[jo_ham]

I never said it was frivolous - I happen to agree that McD was partially at fault after repeated warnings for serving its coffee at near 90C. That the woman did a silly thing with a hot beverage was secondary, but it doesn't mean McD gets a pass for something they were told to change.

Re:People must be copying..

[jedidiah]

No. You simply don't understand what was going on.

You don't understand what a 3rd degree burn is and the importance of how McDonald's deviated from industry practice. At the temperatures in question, a few degrees are a lot more significant than "proud ignorance" might lead you to believe.

Plus McDonald's had a habit of suppressing information about the problem.

You want to whine about abuse and injustice in the American legal system. How about you whine about that?

Re:People must be copying..

[oxdas]

This is a design patent. It is more akin to trademark than utility patents.

Re:People must be copying..

[jo_ham]

Where are you getting injustice from?

My assessment of the McD case was that they were culpable for serving near-boiling coffee that caused serious burns, but that the woman was also at fault for not taking precautions when handling a hot liquid. She may still have been burned if the coffee was at the correct temperature, but as it stands her injuries were more serious because McD failed to rectify a problem it had been repeatedly warned about.

As for "not understanding what a 3rd degree burn is".... well. I'm not going to go into medical history but suffice to say I am sitting here laughing hard at your, admittedly understandable, ignorance of my circumstances. For the record I am well aware of what a third degree burn is.

Re:People must be copying..

[AngryDeuce]

Well, you certainly come off like you were critical of the case when you say "her own clumsiness" and "ill-advised driving with it between her legs" (which isn't even factually correct)...

Re:People must be copying..

[jo_ham]

Well, you certainly come off like you were critical of the case when you say "her own clumsiness" and "ill-advised driving with it between her legs" (which isn't even factually correct)...

I apologise for not being clear - my intention was to note that it wasn't entirely McDonald's' (how do you indicate possession on a word that already has possession ending in s? I'm sure double apostrophe is wrong.) fault - the woman was careless with a hot liquid and burned herself. The severity of her burns was not something she would have expected though, given the temperature of the coffee. McD sealed the deal in major culpability since it was something they had been criticised for on numerous occasions before.

Re:People must be copying..

[jo_ham]

Thanks for derailing the conversation with your ignorance, jackass.

You're very welcome, although I'm not sure you understand what the word "ignorance" means. It means that I didn't have a full understanding of that facts, which is not what happened here. The word you are looking for is inarticulate - I failed to convey my side of the discussion accurately, thus I was inarticulate.

You also forgot to log in.

Re:People must be copying..

[toriver]

They sue one out of half a dozen competitors, which happens to be one of the largest electronics companies in the world, and in effect the "power behind the throne" in South Korea.

It's not like they are trying to crush a small mom-n-pop shop here - Samsung will not "go out of existence" over being blocked in one market like this. And every company comes up with "incremental advances" (e.g. Galaxy S II to S III) for their yearly updates - why single out Apple who just happened to lay the grounds for e.g. the (quickly rewritten from a Blackberry clone) Android and new tablet market?

And your ridiculous fantasies about Jobs are not shared by us who find their products good and therefore buy them from their strengths. But I guess ridicule is all you have to show. Do Apple haters actually believe that there is a Church of Jobs out there?

Re:People must be copying..

[jo_ham]

Hi bonch. Nice work steering things away from apple's indefensible business practices.

Not you again. I thought all of this obvious nonsense was settled back when it was readily apparent to anyone that I'm not bonch, given that your criterion for saying that was "likes Apple".

In that case, Steve Jobs was also bonch, and I'm also Steve Jobs. Wait, that means I'm dead. In which case I'm zombie Steve Jobs!

Also, you forgot to log in again. How foolish of you.

Re:People must be copying..

[thetoadwarrior]

Nothing is innovative about rounded corners which is why apple's design patent covers the total design of the ipad and not just rounded corners. After all every tablet has rounded corners and is rectangular. It's just the Samsung one that's nearly a carbon copy of an ipad. I hope you understand now and don't have to keep repeating the stupid rounded corner argument.

Re:People must be copying..

[Adrian Lopez]

What's "innovative" about the Galaxy tab 10.1?

What's original about black rectangles with rounded corners? About grids of icons?

Re:People must be copying..

[Shagg]

Apples design patent is a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. What other "total design" are you referring to?

Re:People must be copying..

[thetoadwarrior]

There are 9 images for the patent in question describe the look of the whole thing and in no where does the patent state it's a patent for a rectangle with round corners not does it even mention rectangle corner or rounded.

A design patent is more like a trademark and it describes the look of the device in detail. That way if Apple were to say go after the Kindle (after all it is rectangular and its corners aren't sharp) then someone can look at that, laugh at them and say it looks nothing like the device in the patent.

Re:People must be copying..

[Shagg]

Yes, 9 images. 4 of them are a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. 4 of them are a side view showing that the top is flat and the bottom is rounded (Wow!). 1 of them is an illustration of a user holding the device.

Of course the patent doesn't state it's a patent for a rectangle with round corners, it doesn't state anything at all. Design patents are drawings, not statements/claims.

Re:People must be copying..

[thetoadwarrior]

Exactly though like a trademarked image. The closer you make something to the Coke logo the more likely you're going to get in trouble over it. But that doesn't stop you from using red / white and wavey lines. That was the point I am trying to get in that it's trying to best describe an ipad and having some of those features isn't an issue. Making something that's a clone of an ipad is.

It's hard not to claim that Samsung is trying to make their device as similar to the ipad as possible given all the evidence in this image. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2011/09/samsung-copying-cjr.jpg

Re:People must be copying..

[Shagg]

Except that the coke logo is relatively specific compared to drawings that are nothing more than a rectangle with rounded corners and a rounded bottom. If all we're basing the comparison on are the elements in the drawings, most of the current tablets I've seen have those same elements. The only thing that differentiates them are the dimension/aspect ratios. However, if that was enough to prevent infringement, then the Samsung wouldn't infringe either since it doesn't have the same aspect ratio as the iPad.

The Kindle Fire, Asus Transformer Prime, Nexus 7 all match those design patent drawings about as closely as the Samsung does, as far as I can tell.

Re:U.S. District Judge

[sribe]

"United States District Court for the Northern District of California" - Wow that's going to have a impact - NOT!!!

That's a federal court. The ban is nationwide. So yes, it will have an impact--to the extent that Samsung is not already transitioning to a new product that doesn't try to look almost exactly like the iPad (10.2? 10.1 with a white border?).

Galaxy Tab 10.1N

[CanEHdian]

Perhaps Samsung should sell the German version, the Galaxy Tab 10.1N which passed the 'think different' test in German courts.

I'm confused

[viperidaenz]

Since when was an injunction based on a design patent not a patent case?

Re:I'm confused

[EdIII]

Really? You're going to try to be that pedantic?

Even though the laws that cover both patents and design patents... are called... wait for it.... patent law?

Or even better, since you read the article, where in the judgement itself does it make this "critical" distinction?

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed onthe merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that thebalance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council
, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the December 2, 2011 Order, this Courtfound that Apple had established that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely infringed upon theD’889 Patent, and that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’sinfringing conduct.
See
December 2 Order at 39-50. However, the Court denied the preliminaryinjunction because the D’889 Patent was likely invalid based on several prior art references.
  Id
. at40-45, 50.The Federal Circuit upheld the Court’s findings of infringement and irreparable harm withrespect to the D’889 Patent, but reversed the Court’s invalidity finding as to that patent

They seem to keep referring to it as a patent....

Re:I'm confused

[flatulus]

R'd the F.A. I don't see anywhere it says that a design patent is not a patent.

OTOH, there is USPTO which disagrees with you when they say:

"A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

There are three types of patents. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. ... Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant."

Note the three types: design, utility, and plant. Design is most assuredly a type of patent.

Re:I'm confused

[exomondo]

Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.

Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front? If you're going to assert that a change like color is what the whole case hangs upon then surely you can quantify the weight of that one element to the case with regard to the others. For example what about if they changed the corner radius? And how much would they have to change it for that element of the design patent to not be considered infringing, and at that point would the lack of consideration of that part of the design patent invalidate the case as you suggest would happen with the color of the device?

Re:I'm confused

[Hognoxious]

I sort of half agree. Patent without qualification usually refers to the ordinary "utility" kind in the same way that "dog" refers to the kind that bark - if you mean the squirrely thing or a sausage you add the word "prarie" or "hot" in front.

Re:I'm confused

[bdabautcb]

and those laws being recently granted (especially the ones about plants... monsanto, anyone) makes them inarguably fact? I think it is my right in this country, at least it used to be, to dispute those. design does not fit into the category of 'patentable right'. sure, some people did it first and better, but is a internable combustion engine a patentable thing? Or a piston? Who knows, according to your definition of utility. the laws are broke, fight to change them rather than apologize on slashdot.

Re:I'm confused

[gnasher719]

Just saying: For design patents, any branding is explicitely excluded. That means, if there are two tablets that are identical except for an "Apple" or a "Samsung" logo, even if it is absolutely impossible to miss for a half blind person, are considered identical by the law.

There are a lot of what-ifs that you have, and it's quite simple: If there is enough difference for the judge to say that the Samsung tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design tablet, then Apple doesn't have a case. On the other hand, people wouldn't think it's an iPad, or like an iPad, which is most likely what Samsung tried to achieve.

And anyway, not everyone knows that iPads are made by Apple and by Apple only. Samsung is a well known name, so seeing a product that looks like an iPad and has "Samsung" written on it, many people might think it is an iPad made by Samsung.

Re:I'm confused

[wolverine2k]

way, not everyone knows that iPads are made by Apple and by Apple only. Samsung is a well known name, so seeing a product that looks like an iPad and has "Samsung" written on it, many people might think it is an iPad made by Samsung.

Geeeee boss... didn't know apple users were so stupid! But then, you only confirm my hypothesis...

Re:I'm confused

[beelsebob]

It's resting on the fact that the general public won't be able to tell the difference between them because they're so similar. This was already proved in court when apple's lawyers asked samsung's lawyers to tell them which of two devices was made by Samsung, and which by Apple... Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the difference.

Re:I'm confused

[beelsebob]

Nothing to do with being stupid –many people for example don't know that "hovers" were once made only by hover ;).

Re:I'm confused

[Threni]

What is a `hover` and who makes them?

Re:I'm confused

[beelsebob]

A "hover" is a colloquial name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, they are made by many many companies. Once upon a time, they weren't, they were simply a brand name for one particular vacuum cleaner manufacturer, but that's not so any more.

Re:I'm confused

[gnasher719]

A "hover" is a colloquial name for a vacuum cleaner in the UK, they are made by many many companies. Once upon a time, they weren't, they were simply a brand name for one particular vacuum cleaner manufacturer, but that's not so any more.

Whoosh... Nobody in the UK has ever called a vacuum cleaner a "hover". There is, however, a company named "Hoover", making vacuum cleaners that are usually green, which is why the Hoover building on the left side of the A40 going from the west into London is lighted green in the night. Looks quite pretty.

Re:I'm confused

[beelsebob]

Whoosh... Nobody in the UK has ever called a vacuum cleaner a "hover".

Score: -1 (Factually Incorrect)

Re:I'm confused

[LS1 Brains]

I feel you're missing the point here. Existing Apple users would very likely know an iPad is made by Apple. They may or may not be aware who makes which competing product. However, people new to tablets, or not as well versed in 'computer' hardware to begin with, more often will know nothing about who makes what. Many people don't even know who Microsoft or Apple are, but they would immediately recognize the Windows desktop as "what my computer at work looks like."

I see this first hand with our sales staff. These are guys and gals interested only in having the tools they need to get their job done, a new one of which is an iPad. I have had MANY folks ask me who makes the iPad, and where they buy one. A couple have called and asked if a non Apple brand tablet would work, because "it looks just like the ones you guys showed us at the sales meeting, but this one is cheaper." Guess which tablet it was? Samsung Galaxy. THAT is what this patent fight is about.

Re:I'm confused

[jo_ham]

Depends where you live. Here in the Midlands we most definitely call any device that cleans a carpet by negative pressure a "hoover". The verb is also "to hoover".

Re:I'm confused

[FirstOne]

"This was already proved in court when apple's lawyers asked samsung's lawyers to tell them which of two devices was made by Samsung, and which by Apple... Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the difference."

At which point, Samsung should fired and then sued their lawyers for malpractice. Failure to prepare for court room appearances, (especially in a trade dress patent case), is gross negligence of the worst kind.

It should have been stupid easy to notice the aspect ratio differences to all but the blind. Clearly, Samsung lawyers were not prepared for the courtroom, that day.

Re:I'm confused

[drinkypoo]

There are a lot of what-ifs that you have, and it's quite simple: If there is enough difference for the judge to say that the Samsung tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design tablet, then Apple doesn't have a case.

That word "simple" does not mean what you think it means. If it's based on the judge's opinion, then the total complexity includes not only the law itself as it is written, but also case law, and the judge itself as a system. That's right, you have to take the total complexity of a person into account. That's not simple.

Re:I'm confused

[exomondo]

There are a lot of what-ifs that you have

Of course there are, because there are a myriad of differences but he has picked one and said that if that one element were changed all would be fine, so is that change the only one that matters? If so then why? And if not then what impact do others have? If you look at it from the side or the back do they look the same to you? What about from the front? (and make sure you look at the devices from the front, not the image that Apple's lawyers created that falsified the dimensions of the samsung tablet to make them the same size and aspect ratio)

and it's quite simple

Obviously not, if it were 'quite simple' we wouldn't have 19 lawsuits in 12 courts in 10 countries over this issue.

Re:I'm confused

[Threni]

Yes. Hoover. Not hover.

Re:I'm confused

[Grudge2012]

Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.

Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Protections

"A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. 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."

That's clear enough. And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?

Re:I'm confused

[exomondo]

That's clear enough.

No, that's just the definition of a design patent.

And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?

What an idiotic strawman comment, i never said or implied anything of the sort.
Are the differences between the 2 devices pictured here not immediately obvious to you? Or here? Or here?

Re:I'm confused

[Grudge2012]

That's clear enough.

No, that's just the definition of a design patent.

Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.Thanks for admitting defeat.

Re:I'm confused

[exomondo]

Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.

The definition is perfectly clear, it doesn't resolve the issue though hence the reason there's 19 lawsuits in 12 courts across 10 countries going on for this design patent issue alone, idiot.

Thanks for admitting defeat.

If that's what you so desperately need to get through the day then you can take it as that.

Re:I'm confused

[Grudge2012]

Yup. And if that definition isn't clear enough for you, you are obviously unfit for this discussion.

The definition is perfectly clear, it doesn't resolve the issue though hence the reason there's 19 lawsuits in 12 courts across 10 countries going on for this design patent issue alone, idiot.

With Apple winning almost all of them, Samsung lawyer. It's neither my nor Apple's fault you are to dumb to understand.

PS: No need to sign your posts.

Re:I'm confused

[exomondo]

I see you actually didn't believe the 'admitting defeat' part of your post, otherwise you wouldn't have responded, but of course you did. Now can you actually answer the questions in the post? or not? I would assume not, if all you can do is point to the definition of a design patent then you clearly don't understand the concept well enough to be able to answer questions regarding it.

Re:I'm confused

[Grudge2012]

So you don't admit you are too dumb to understand, if only because you are too dumb to understand.

Re:I'm confused

[exomondo]

no, obviously you claim to know - or understand - something but are either unwilling or unable to explain it, i'd assume the latter given you've taken so much time to reply to all of my posts, and continue to do so.

Why do you need an example?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a slashdotter, I assume you've read recent articles. If you haven't, here's a link: http://apple.slashdot.org/tag/patents

I counted at least 10 examples on the first page alone.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[Khyber]

"If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."

You're confused because those same 'design ticks' are not unique in any fucking way and are a natural expectation in most things. Would you want an iPhone with corners that stabbed you? No? That's pretty fucking obvious. Certain OS design parts might be infringing, but the PHYSICAL part is total bullshit and you fucking know it, you apologist.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[zaphod777]

Especially when they are going after HTC for things like contextual menus. "Oh that's a phone number would you like to call it?" or I see you have two browsers which would you like to open the link in and would you like it to be your default?". It's not like that shit hasn't been around fir years ... oh wait.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[BanHammor]

It has been on the desktop for ages. The fact that it is now available on the mobile does NOT make it innovative or belonging to Apple.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[TheRaven64]

It may still count as an Apple innovation. I believe the first time data detectors (i.e. things that recognise telephone numbers and so on from text and display contextual actions) appeared was the Newton. That said, the Newton was released 19 years ago, so the patents should be expiring round about now...

Re:Why do you need an example?

[zaphod777]

huh, maybe that is why they are trying to leverage those patents .... they are about to expire ...

Re:Why do you need an example?

[atriusofbricia]

It may still count as an Apple innovation. I believe the first time data detectors (i.e. things that recognise telephone numbers and so on from text and display contextual actions) appeared was the Newton. That said, the Newton was released 19 years ago, so the patents should be expiring round about now...

Patents granted and now expiring aside (presuming this is the case), can we really count what is in effect a regex as "innovation"? Especially when there is nothing unobvious about it?

Re:Why do you need an example?

[jedidiah]

Recognizing a phone number from text? An invention? Really?

That's like a high school programming assignment. It's not even complex enough to rate a University programming assignment.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[jedidiah]

Are you serious?

What are you? 5?

How can you know ANYTHING about cars and come up with nonsense like that? Cars have had highly derivative (or similar) designs for pretty much forever.

Cars are in fact a great example of an industry that would be thrown into total chaos if Apple Fanboy patent standards were applied to it.

Fanboys that make remarks about cars are always funny.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[TheRaven64]

Really? Take a body of text (e.g. an email or web page), and identify which bits are dates, telephone numbers, and addresses, within it, and provide custom actions for those is a high school assignment? Where on earth did you go to school?

Re:Why do you need an example?

[jo_ham]

Are you serious?

What are you? 5?

How can you know ANYTHING about cars and come up with nonsense like that? Cars have had highly derivative (or similar) designs for pretty much forever.

Cars are in fact a great example of an industry that would be thrown into total chaos if Apple Fanboy patent standards were applied to it.

Fanboys that make remarks about cars are always funny.

DING DING DING DING We have a winner!

Finally someone in the Apple hater camp managed to succinctly express the nature of the argument.

That is the entire point of the design patent lawsuit. Samsung was too close to the iPad's design patent and the suit was upheld. All of the many, many, many other tablet designs out there are not being sued over the iPad design patent (there may be other suits involved, such as the ludicrous slide to unlock one) because they don't infringe.

The only reason you think the car industry would be "thrown into total chaos" is because you are so blinded by frothing rage over Apple you can't see that the same legal protections *already* exist in the car industry, and in all other areas where products are made.

This suit is no different to Ford suing someone because they made a car that looked the same as the Mustang. Obviously many cars will look similar, but not exactly like it.There are legal protections in place with set rules and definitions (for example, company logos are excluded, so if you just made a Mustang and put a Nissan badge on it, for example, in the eyes of the law they are indistinguishable), with a judge deciding the case.

Frothing Apple haters who misunderstand design patents are always funny.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[Khyber]

We had those exact classes at Kirby High school back in the 90s.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[Khyber]

Design patents are bullshit too. "Hi, we own the rights to rounded corners."

Idiot 6-digit UIDs without a real clue about the inner workings of the patent system are always funny.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[zmughal]

If high schoolers can compete in the North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad , they can surely teach themselves the concepts behind regular expressions and then whip up a bit of Perl to implement it. I know I could. In fact, another competition, ACSL, has existed for a very long time (late 70s) for high-school students that want to improve their CS theory and it tests regular expression knowledge from time to time.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[jo_ham]

Design patents are bullshit too. "Hi, we own the rights to rounded corners."

Idiot 6-digit UIDs without a real clue about the inner workings of the patent system are always funny.

Bullshit or not, they are part of the law. I'm not sure how I "don't have a real clue" about that. I know you're attempting to make a joke, but it isn't working.

Legal protection for the design of a product is not new or controversial by any means. Only since Apple started exerting its right to sue did it suddenly get noticed by the slashdot masses.

Obviously they "don't own the rights to rounded corners" and the distilling down of the argument to that demonstrates a very child-like understanding of what is going on here. It is demonstrably obvious that this is over more than just a single design element, although it does make for a very pithy soundbite to whip up the frothing Apple hating horde.

Re:Why do you need an example?

[toriver]

Yes, the first time someone does something, it is an innovation or invention. Afterwards, when the 20/20 vision of hindsight hits people, it is "obvious".

Re:Why do you need an example?

[toriver]

If you want "bullshit" to be removed from law, change the laws. Dear 6-digit UID who registered AFTER the person you replied to, if that matters.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a democrat but I'm starting to look forward to Romney.

Wake up and smell the roses.

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep insinuating that people replying to your posts don't know how to read. I would postulate that you don't know how to think.

They're both called patents, and they're both based upon intellectual property.

Re:Wake up and smell the roses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you tell the difference between a man and woman? They both have the word 'man' in their names.

Sounds like you can only tell from bitter experience.

You keep digging yourself deeper.

[intellitech]

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

One, it's still a patent. Two, people are disagreeing with the nature of granting a patent for something incredibly obvious.

Re:You keep digging yourself deeper.

[Telvin_3d]

It's not really a patent. Much closer to a trademark. Design patents are what stops all the other drink companies from selling cola in those distinctive Coke bottles. Doesn't mean that Coke has a patent on glass bottles, or on bottles with rounded bits, although I'm sure variations of both those are part of the design patent. They have a specific design that is protected.

Apple does not have a patent (or even claim to have a patent) on rounded corners. They have a design patent on a specific design that happens to include rounded corners.

Re:You keep digging yourself deeper.

[Patent Lover]

Sorry, their design patent on the bottle shape was granted in 1915 and has long since expired. You just can't copy their trademarked logo.

Re:U.S. District Judge

[blackraven14250]

They launched the Tab 2 line in April, so this injunction is basically a nonissue at this point in and of itself. It's that it may influence any motion to bar the sales of the newer model.

Re:* WHOOSH *

[EdIII]

Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?

Fuck Yes.

There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.

If Apple wants legal protection, they can innovate inside the fucking casing. Better battery life, sharper and higher PPI screens, better touchscreen, faster processors, etc.

Or as part of the casing with stronger glass, lighter materials, etc.

Fuck. With your support of their bullshit the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.

Big surprise!

[Gumbercules!!]

Wow, big surprise!

American judge awards American company an injunction against an overseas competitor. Again. We (the rest of the world) never saw that coming...

And yes, I know to Americans this comment is going to seem trolly but I am willing to risk karma over it because this is precisely how these cases are viewed, outside your borders. For right or wrong, we see it that the US controlled ITC and US court system are used to prop up US companies against competition.

Re:Big surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

I kind of expected the opposite since this American judge is of Korean descent. As long as we're drawing baseless conclusions of bias.

Re:Big surprise!

[Lisias]

The judge can be Korean descent, but the money in his pocket is pure American.

I don't need a tablet

[SpaghettiPattern]

I don't need a tablet ... But I almost feel obliged to buy a Galaxy. Out of sheer spite.

Re:I don't need a tablet

[cheesybagel]

I already did that. Well it was both spite and wanting an Android device to do development on. I don't do development for walled gardens like iOS.

Re:I don't need a tablet

[RivenAleem]

The way I see it is that Apple must have serious concerns about the efficacy of Samsung's product to so aggressively stall any attempt for them to enter their market. Samsung really MUST be doing something right, perhaps Apple fear that the Nexus tablet is a better device?

This behavior by Apple is only reinforcing me to want to at least consider alternative products when buying a tablet.

A form of Streisand Effect I guess.

Re:I don't need a tablet

[Areyoukiddingme]

I definitely feel the obligation. If I had a job, I'd do it, even though I have no idea what I'd use a tablet for either.

Re:I don't need a tablet

[Jumperalex]

DING DING DING ... if only I weren't really jsut waiting on tender hooks for the official Google Tablet announcement!!! Oh to have the money to buy both :(

Re:I don't need a tablet

[bornagainpenguin]

I almost feel obliged to buy a Galaxy. Out of sheer spite.

I do too, but not out of spite, but because of the compelling endorsement seen here.

What could be a better endorsement for an Android tablet than the current market leader crying in court that this device is so much better than theirs they have to litigate rather than attempt to fight it on the merits?

Buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab--because Apple thinks it's better than the iPad. Hell of an endorsement, yeah?

Re:I don't need a tablet

[Grudge2012]

The way I see it is that Apple must have serious concerns about the efficacy of Samsung's product to so aggressively stall any attempt for them to enter their market. Samsung really MUST be doing something right, perhaps Apple fear that the Nexus tablet is a better device?

This behavior by Apple is only reinforcing me to want to at least consider alternative products when buying a tablet.

A form of Streisand Effect I guess.

That is the best explanation yet why Samsung slavishly copies Apple's designs - because it makes you guys actually believe Apple fears their products for their "qualities".

Prior art

[matt_martin]

Looking at some (not all) of these claims, I guess I just have to say "ahem, cough, PALM, cough, cough, cough, PALM, ahem".

Re:* WHOOSH *

[Cryacin]

the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.

No, only eggshell and off-teal. Apple wouldn't use 0xFFFFFF! Don't you know anything about design?!?

Ceci n'est pas une iPad

[jcfandino]

... and this is not a fair market.

Innovation.

[MaWeiTao]

Apple offers such an incredible line of innovative products that they need to rest to lawsuits to maintain their edge. What it all sounds to me like is a company that realizes their edge is slipping, everyone is catching up and they aren't confident in their ability to continue coming up with new ideas.

I'm tired of everyone and their grandmother copying Apple's design. Sure, they've got nice looking products, but they're far from being the pinnacle of industrial design. If anything the Apple look has grown stale. But seeking a patent on design? And worse, actually having it granted? If every company that ever copied someone else's design were to be sued there would be total chaos.

If Apple's management is that concerned about copycats perhaps it's high time they lit a fire under the design department's ass and got them doing something a bit more innovative.

Re:Consider this.

[serbanp]

You should have your eyes checked. If you can't distinguish between an iPad and a G.T., you have pretty shitty vision acuity.

Samsung is ahead anyhow

[phorm]

At this point, I think that Samsung is a lot farther ahead than it was a year ago.

A year ago, I went to Korea. People there are fairly gaga over devices. What did I see, fricking iPhones EVERYWHERE.
Went back this year. What did I see. Galaxy Note has become the device-de-jour

iDevices are still considered "hip" on this side of the ocean, but the competitors are starting to get serious traction as well. Perhaps Samsung won't be able to hit iPhones profit-price-point, but with competitive pricing, they'll still make a killing.

Even my wife was a firm iPhone lover up until this year. Now she's been eyeing up my SG2 and wishes she'd gotten a tab (seems very suited to women as the size is purse-friendly than a regular smartphone or tablet).

With the GS3 coming and many others with tech that ahead of the iPhone, Android doesn't have any *need* to look similar, and will do better for being unique.

p.s. beveled raised edges beat rounded corners anyhow. A screen falling face-down is less likely to crack the screen. Although the newer OLED screens seem pretty resilient anyhow (dropped mine and it bounced screen-side off the corner of a metal filing cabinet, only damage was a bump in the anti-scratch film).

Re:Samsung is ahead anyhow

[azalin]

That reminds me of the video were someone used his Lumia's screen to hammer a nail in (without leaving a scratch). It is good that the average tabs and phones aren't so flimsy anymore.

Re:Consider this.

[Anonymous Coward]

They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad

Yeah it sure does, if you ignore the back, the sides, the lack of button on the front, the big words SAMSUNG, the different size, the different aspect ratio...but holy shit it has a black bezel and rounded corners!
I can't tell them apart.

Then Blame the USPTO

[RotateLeftByte]

for granting these silly patents.
Whilst the system allows for this sort of shite then companies are DUTY bound to protect the interests of their shareholders over what they see as a perfectly LEGAL asset.

Apple, MicroSoft and a gazillion others are all playing the system. If you want to stop this then

Fix the frigging system.

I'd like to abolish the USPTO and start again but I have no influence as I'm not a US Citizen so what I would like to do is an irrelevance.

Sitting 3K miles away, I do get the impression of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns as I watch this M.A.D ness going on accross the pond.

Re:Then Blame the USPTO

[zaphod777]

While companies need to enforce their patents to protect their IP Apple and Microsoft use them to bully others because they can't compete on their products own merits. Software patents need a much shorter expiration date. I would say a patent is invalid after 4 years (even that is too long).

Re:Then Blame the USPTO

[bdabautcb]

mod up

I want an ipad...

[tobiah]

I want an iPad, but shit like this makes me wait.

Re:Consider this.

[Hognoxious]

They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad, because they know people love iPads.

No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.

The things Apple are crying about are practical and part of its functionality. Design patents cover the decorative aspects. Should everyone else have to build heptagonal tablets with bayonets sticking out of the corners?

Why only Samsung?

[SuperDre]

Why are they only targeting Samsung? there are soooo many other tablets that look much MUCH more like the iPad, but only Samsung is targeted. Seems to me Apple want to block Samsung because the gTab is a real contender for the iPad.. To me, the distinction between the shitPad and the gPad is big enough for customers.

Re:Why only Samsung?

[itsdapead]

Why are they only targeting Samsung? there are soooo many other tablets that look much MUCH more like the iPad

Examples? Other than ridiculously cheap no-brand lookalikes-but-not-workalikes, unless you're going to trot out the "black rectangle with rounded corners" strawman (just two of a long list of claimed features - not nearly enough to constitute an infringement). Unlike Samsung, other manufacturers (e.g. Sony and Asus) have managed to design tablets that don't look like iPad clones. Even Microsoft's Surface doesn't look much like an iPad (although I can see them having a spat over the cover) and has a very different-looking UI. Samsung even includes iPad features that get slated (e.g. having a proprietary dock connector and no USB, SD, HDMI connectors).

Incidentally - look at this review, particularly this picture and tell me this tablet wasn't separated from an iPad at birth. Obviously, at some stage, gTabs without "SAMSUNG" in large, friendly letters on the front were in circulation.

Seems to me Apple want to block Samsung because the gTab is a real contender for the iPad.

D'uh! Yes. The whole point of such lawsuits is to stop unfair competition. A $200 no-brand all plastic knockoff with a resistive screen is not actually a credible competitor - the only reason Apple would bother with those is if they infringed trademarks (which have to be defended).

Re:Why only Samsung?

[itsdapead]

I mean, all the modern tablets look so different from the front, especially when turned off.

I suggest that you get your eyes tested, especially if you think the Motorola Xoom looks anything like the white iPad 3. A Xoom versus a black iPad 1 would be close (but Apple and Motorola/Google aren't exactly BFFs at the moment, and I've lost track over whether the Xoom is an issue)

Go look at the Sony tablet, the Asus Transformer (even without the dock) or even the pictures of the Microsoft Surface (without the brightly coloured magnetic colour, which does look like a lawsuit in the making) and you'll see black rectangles with rounded corners that (a) don't look like an iPad and (b) don't have go-faster stripes or roses around the screen. In any case the "rectangle with rounded corners" is only one of the laundry list of similarities that Apple are upset over and wouldn't be an issue on its own.

Re:Why only Samsung?

[SuperDre]

Have you looked at the back? they don't look alike, even the XOOM looks like an iPad if you look at it only from the front (I own a Xoom). In normal shop lighting conditions the iPad and the gTab don't look alike, you can clearly read 'SAMSUNG' on the front of the gTab.. turn them around, and you really must be blind not to see the difference.. to me, they certainly don't look alike..

Innocent till proven guilty?

[Hognoxious]

Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products.

The question of whether they are infringing is as yet undecided.

So let Samsung continue to sell their tablets, and if the case eventually goes Apple's way[1] then increase the damages proportionally to reflect the extra "stolen" sales. I know this is a civil rather than criminal issue but it looks like punishment first, verdict second. If it goes against Apple are they going to compensate Samsung?

[1] I don't think it should, but that's another issue.

Shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please just start shooting people? Beginning with the USPTO employees and Apple's lawyers. After that judges who think design patents are actually valid reasons to block the sale of products.

Please?

Re:Consider this.

[gnasher719]

No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.

"Pretty much the same" isn't the same as "the same". Look at the Samsung Galaxy 3. It looks totally different from the iPhone 4. Nobody would ever think you have an iPhone when you have a Galaxy 3.

Re:Consider this.

[beelsebob]

No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.

The problem with this is that Jonathan Ive is on record as saying that he regards his job as to come up with designs that aren't immediately obvious... But that once you see them, you can't think of any other reasonable way to do the job... He seems to have succeeded here. There were millions of different designs of tablets before, most involving chunks of cheap plastic and big arrays of buttons next to the screen. Ive produces a design... and suddenly Samsung (and you) think it's the only possible way to design a tablet.

Free rider problem

[sjbe]

People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

Probably true but slavishly copying someone else's innovations does not advance society either. I don't pretend to know if Apple has a valid case here or not. However, a court of competent jurisdiction has looked at the facts and concluded that Samsung is being a free rider which is exactly the problem that patents were created to solve. There is far less incentive to create new and innovative works if other can simply copy your efforts at much lower cost. In this case the court has ruled that the cost *to society* as well as Apple are sufficiently harmful to this incentive to create. Maybe the court is full of $*** in this case but the basis of the problem they are ruling on is very important.

Now I very much agree that many of the current regulations as written are creating a huge number of problems. I think patents on certain types of innovations need to be either shortened or eliminated altogether. 20 years is an eternity in information technology so even if we allow patents for that, they need to be much shorter in duration. I also see no point in utilizing patents to protect innovation where copyright will suffice - most software is adequately protected by copyright IMO. There are of course other problems besides...

This game is easy to play

[chrb]

1993 Apple early tablet

2006 Samsung digital photo frame

2010 Apple iPad

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[ozmanjusri]

I'm really tire of tweedle dee vs tweedle dum choices for presidential elections.

You're lucky.

Over in Australia, our elections are normally between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[coinreturn]

Lucy H. Koh is an Obama appointee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh

She became a US District Judge after been recommended by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein

So fucking what? Why are you politicizing this?

Re:* WHOOSH *

[Targon]

Except that Apple doesn't make and did not invent the items inside the case, they just license for early control of the manufacturing rights of parts invented by others. Samsung should just pay the money to do an early termination of parts for Apple, and watch Apple burn.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[krinderlin]

So fucking what? Why are you politicizing this?

The tendency has been for appointees to keep a very open ear to the person that did the appointing. There is definitely a donation trail from Apple to Obama, and it is extremely likely some of those donations purchased Obama "mentioning" his preferred ruling to Mrs. Koh.

This is, of course, purely conspiracy theorizing and unlikely. Personally, I've found myself repeating the phrase, "incompetency is far too easily mistaken for malice," in conversations about this topic around the water cooler.

I guess I'm just saying that while unlikely, it's probably more of a 70 percent probability unlikely. It's much more possible this election cycle considering how much money is being sunk into the elections due to the Citizens United decision. There's so much money in this election anything is possible. Hence, everything is suspect where politicians are involved.

A lot of people arguing for the wrong things

[fzammett]

A lot of the comments here seem to be variations on the theme "this isn't about patents" and/or "they shouldn't be able to patent rounded corners".

But I think both those things aren't the big problem here.

The big problem is that consumers have less choice today than they did yesterday because of the injunction. We can debate the patent system and we can debate design patents versus other types of patents or whatever but it seems to me it's unarguable that consumers having less choice is a Very Bad Thing(tm).

Re:A lot of people arguing for the wrong things

[shilly]

That's simply not true. The purpose of trade patents is to *increase* consumer choice over the long term, by ensuring that companies who invest in bringing distinctive new products to market can make a return without free-riders ripping them off. If the protection didn't exist, then the originator companies would stop investing in bringing new products and the flow of innovation into the market would reduce over time. That's the theory, and if you want to take issue with the implementation you're welcome to. But be careful what you wish for: blatant copying is rarely good -- think crappy fake Rolexes etc.

Re:Consider this.

[Targon]

There is the added complexity when it comes to "obviousness" here as well. Thinner, or smaller for example can't be patented, because they are OBVIOUS improvements based on the laptop design getting smaller and thinner. The "home" button at the bottom might be something that could be a part of this(which Palm had beaten by the gesture area below the screen on the phones). The big thing is that unless you come up with something really really distinctive, these sorts of design patents should not be considered valid. The operation of a device should be seen as what makes a device different these days, and lets face it, Apple has iOS, which almost no other company would WANT to use. Modifications or even minor changes can make iOS unstable, which doesn't make iOS a great OS, and also explains why Apple is so strict about locking it down.

Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[Sloppy]

Why are you politicizing this?

Maybe he (we) should, since it is, without a doubt, a political issue. The Republicrat party advocates, enacts, broadly interprets, and enforces some pretty weird IP policies, many of which are contrary to what a lot of people say they want. Wouldn't you vote for people running on the Broad Patents Are Bullshit party ticket?

Do you think there's any chance of the situation getting better, if people don't politicize it? I'd actually like politicians making IP reform one of their talking points, and for people who didn't try to repeal the current laws to have very visible mud on them.

Re:Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[coinreturn]

Why are you politicizing this?

Maybe he (we) should, since it is, without a doubt, a political issue. The Republicrat party advocates, enacts, broadly interprets, and enforces some pretty weird IP policies, many of which are contrary to what a lot of people say they want. Wouldn't you vote for people running on the Broad Patents Are Bullshit party ticket?

Do you think there's any chance of the situation getting better, if people don't politicize it? I'd actually like politicians making IP reform one of their talking points, and for people who didn't try to repeal the current laws to have very visible mud on them.

My objection was that the OP's pointing out that the judge was an Obama appointee was a blatant attempt to blame the outcome on Obama (especially when posting anon). The chance that Obama had ANYTHING to do with decision is infinitesimally small. In regard to a party of "Broad Patents Are Bullshit," I'd have to know how they stand on so many more MUCH more important issues before I'd vote for them. In regard to the useless "Republicrat" term - I'm sick of it. The parties are further and further apart every day. They may both be beholden to money, but their ideologies are polar opposite. Just because you're fed up with both doesn't make them equivalent.

Re:Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[Sloppy]

In regard to the useless "Republicrat" term - I'm sick of it. The parties are further and further apart every day. They may both be beholden to money, but their ideologies are polar opposite.

The do have some different ideologies, but there are still a great many [at least] two -sided issues where those two parties combine on one side while we the people are on the other. It is a particularly apropos term when discussing IP policy. Republicans and Democrats have moved as One on this. Corrupt IP law is currently part of the Republicrat behavior. Even if you hate the word, you gotta admit the previous sentence is highly accurate.

The chance that Obama had ANYTHING to do with decision is infinitesimally small.

I know that, but you can say the same about a majority of important political issues; presidents aren't involved in most policy making. They do get some big important ones (e.g. "should we start a war today?") but they're mostly on the sidelines. The way to get reform is to make them have something to do with such decisions, even if indirectly (e.g. have them appoint decent cabinet secretaries, judges, etc). Holding top administrators (especially elected ones) accountable for their underlings' actions is a good idea.

When you do that, you give politicians a way to distinguish themselves from their rivals. And when you don't do that, you make it so that your opinion can be safely ignored. Seriously, have you heard Obama or Romney or Johnson say anything substantial about patents? Why would they, if you are not willing to frame it as the divisive political issue that it actually is?

I want Romney to hear people talking about 15 year old legislation as "Obama's DMCA" so that maybe he'll spend a few million dollars of his warchest buying advertisements for DMCA is a Democrat conspiracy to put socialism in your DVD player. (He's gotta spend the money on something, why not something half-sane?) I want Obama to characterize patent case law radicalization as a Bush legacy, and maybe spend a few million dollars of his warchest advertising that Yes We Can persuade Congress to overrule those decisions, but only if we re-elect him instead of electing someone who would veto reform. I want Johnson to characterize the status quo as the unprincipled corruption that it is, and spend .. um .. twenty dollars on a month of hosting, for a podcast explaining that an actually ideological approach to law would be superior to highest-bidder policy making.

Therefore I declare that it's Obama's fault, until he comes out against it and makes it be Boener's fault (and by association, Romney's fault).

Re:Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[coinreturn]

In regard to the useless "Republicrat" term - I'm sick of it. The parties are further and further apart every day. They may both be beholden to money, but their ideologies are polar opposite.

The do have some different ideologies, but there are still a great many [at least] two -sided issues where those two parties combine on one side while we the people are on the other. It is a particularly apropos term when discussing IP policy. Republicans and Democrats have moved as One on this. Corrupt IP law is currently part of the Republicrat behavior. Even if you hate the word, you gotta admit the previous sentence is highly accurate.

SOME ideologies? I'd characterize it as much more than some. And combining the party names into one is an oversimplification, at best.

The chance that Obama had ANYTHING to do with decision is infinitesimally small.

I know that, but you can say the same about a majority of important political issues; presidents aren't involved in most policy making. They do get some big important ones (e.g. "should we start a war today?") but they're mostly on the sidelines. The way to get reform is to make them have something to do with such decisions, even if indirectly (e.g. have them appoint decent cabinet secretaries, judges, etc). Holding top administrators (especially elected ones) accountable for their underlings' actions is a good idea.

Strongly disagree. A judge should NOT be an underling to the president. He is to strictly interpret the law regardless of what the pres wants.

When you do that, you give politicians a way to distinguish themselves from their rivals. And when you don't do that, you make it so that your opinion can be safely ignored. Seriously, have you heard Obama or Romney or Johnson say anything substantial about patents? Why would they, if you are not willing to frame it as the divisive political issue that it actually is?

I think there are so many more important issues that IP law is pretty far down on the list for 99% of the people, including me.

I want Romney to hear people talking about 15 year old legislation as "Obama's DMCA" so that maybe he'll spend a few million dollars of his warchest buying advertisements for DMCA is a Democrat conspiracy to put socialism in your DVD player. (He's gotta spend the money on something, why not something half-sane?) I want Obama to characterize patent case law radicalization as a Bush legacy, and maybe spend a few million dollars of his warchest advertising that Yes We Can persuade Congress to overrule those decisions, but only if we re-elect him instead of electing someone who would veto reform. I want Johnson to characterize the status quo as the unprincipled corruption that it is, and spend .. um .. twenty dollars on a month of hosting, for a podcast explaining that an actually ideological approach to law would be superior to highest-bidder policy making.

Therefore I declare that it's Obama's fault, until he comes out against it and makes it be Boener's fault (and by association, Romney's fault).

And I declare that ridiculous.

Re:Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[Sloppy]

SOME ideologies? I'd characterize it as much more than some.

But is patent policy one of them?

And combining the party names into one is an oversimplification, at best

Everything is an oversimplification. Calling them Democrats or Republicans is an oversimplification too. The reason we associate politicians with their parties is that it helps us generalize and say things that aren't precisely true.

And I declare that ridiculous.

D'oh! You dodged the issue by calling what I said ridiculous, instead of calling the law ridiculous and putting politicians into the hot seat to defend or condemn the current partisan policies. That's just the kind of thing that .. [roll dice] *clatter* .. Obama would do!

Re:Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[coinreturn]

And I declare that ridiculous.

D'oh! You dodged the issue by calling what I said ridiculous, instead of calling the law ridiculous and putting politicians into the hot seat to defend or condemn the current partisan policies. That's just the kind of thing that .. [roll dice] *clatter* .. Obama would do!

No, what I call ridiculous is blaming the president for what a judge decided. The pres should not be held responsible for what the judge decided, unless it is OBVIOUS pandering to his OVERT policy. A judge should not be held to what the pres wants.

Re:Politicizing it is the only way to fix it

[Sloppy]

The pres should not be held responsible for what the judge decided, unless it is OBVIOUS pandering to his OVERT policy.

Unless the judge screwed up, then somebody elected should be held responsible. Otherwise we'd be de-politicizing a political act. If you want to frame this as a Boener issue ("Why didn't you introduce legislation into the House, to end this madness?") that's cool, but I think Obama is weaker and has more cameras on him. Congress in invicible right now. They know everyone hates them and they don't care. The presidential candidates care, though.

Did Apple have to patent them? NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody else bothered patenting "black rectangle with rounded corners".

So "Oh, they have to protect themselves" is bollocks.

They're attacking Samsung for it, so "Oh, they have to protect themselves" is bollocks.

They didn't have to patent it, so "Oh, blame the USPTO" is bollocks to the intent you want: we can BLAME BOTH. So trying to shift blame OFF apple to USPTO is bollocks.

Re:It *is* an iPad rippoff. End of discussion.

[itsdapead]

Remember, Apple did not invent square icons & calendars

MacDonald's didn't invent the colours red and yellow, the letter "m", curvy writing, the prefix "Mac", clowns or, for that matter, the hamburger, and if they went after people "infringing" on just one or two of those features (not entirely unprecedented) they would be completely out of order.

However, if you open a burger restaurant called MacCartney's with red-and-yellow signs featuring curvy letter-Ms and a clown mascot then you pretty much deserve what you get.

Samsung don't just have a black rectangle with rounded corners. There's a whole list of other similarities between their tablets and phones and iDevices, from the design of the bezel and the glass front to the single dock connector, several icon similarities, (originally) the lock screen and some of the packaging (all q.v. ad nauseum elsewhere).

Its perfectly true that Steve Jobs didn't wake up one morning in 2006 and invent tablets, touch screens, multitouch, slide-to-unlock, glass, rectangles and rounded corners. However, Apple did pull together a distinctive mixture of old and new ideas and combine them into a product that put a rocket up the backside of the mobile phone industry and, later, the tablet computer industry. Unless you think that devices like the Galaxy Tab came about because someone at Samsung who had never heard of the iPad was watching 2001 on a LCD TV with a shiny bezel and thought "eureka!"...

Disappoint

[ProzacPatient]

This is disappointing. Aside from the fact that this just goes to show how broken the patent system is, it's also a terrible loss to the consumer because the original Galaxy Tab is a great product (unfortunately can't say so much for the GT2).

This game is tough to win, though

[Theaetetus]

1993 Apple early tablet

2006 Samsung digital photo frame

2010 Apple iPad

2006 Samsung digital photo frame viewed from other angles.

Re:This game is tough to win, though

[chrb]

2006 Samsung digital photo frame viewed from other angles

So it is agreed that the design of the iPad from a frontal perspective is basically identical to Samsung's digital photo frame. And since the side by side comparison posted above only shows frontal views, then it is also agreed that the frontal perspective is the most important one.

If a differing rear design is supposed to be a valid differentiator, then see: iPad vs Galaxy Tab from another angle The iPad and Galaxy Tab appear very different when viewed from the rear; obviously not the same device.

Re:This game is tough to win, though

[catmistake]

I believe that the reason Apple hasn't sued Samsung over their 2006 photo frame, even though it appears strikingly similar from the front and the filing for Apple's design patent was filed a year before Samsung's photo frame was released, is because the photo frame would not and could not compete with the unreleased iPad because it isn't a mobile tablet computer... its a powercorded non-video capable static display without a touch interface for digital photo's and nothing more. I don't understand what the point is in making comparisons... these are different devices for different purposes. The iPad and the Galaxy, however, are competing products, and thus in the case of the Galaxy it makes sense for Apple to protect their intellectual property.

Re:This game is tough to win, though

[Adrian Lopez]

A digital photo frame with a flat surface wouldn't be very useful, would it? That the photo frame looks so different from other angles is therefore far less significant than the similarities observed when the various products are viewed from the front.

Re:This game is tough to win, though

[chrb]

The iPad does however look a lot like the Galaxy Tab 10.1 [anandtech.com], which was the product in question.

That photo does show some similarities, but also differences - the shape is different, the Tab has a circular feature at the top (camera?), the logos are different, one has "Samsung" text whilst the other has "iPad", and the iPad has a distinctive black strip along the top edge. But that is just my personal opinion.

An honest, good faith poster would acknowledge that point and concede that they had inadvertently compared the iPad to a product that wasn't in the lawsuit and is not subject to an injunction

It is true that this particular lawsuit was about the Galaxy Tab 10.1, however, Apple has previously sued and made the same claims regarding the original Galaxy Tab. If the debate were limited only to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and this lawsuit, then I would concede that the comparison to the original Galaxy Tab was not relevant - however, Apple did include the original Galaxy Tab in the debate, and as far as I know they still consider the original Galaxy Tab to be infringing, which makes the comparison still relevant.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[jo_ham]

The other, utterly incomprehensible option, is Occam's Razor - that the judge made a correct interpretation of the law?

Nah! Can't be! It didn't go the way you wanted it to! Of course, any such similar lawsuit that goes *against* Apple is all totally above board and "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tagged. Mmm.

Honestly, the lawsuit culture surrounding technology in the current era is very stifling for all concerned. The design patent suit against Samsung was the only one I actually thought had any merit. All of the other nonsense is just noise - slide to unlock, email lists 'but on a phone!', music playlists on a phone, one-click buying, use of copyright to go after code copied into memory etc.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[krinderlin]

The other, utterly incomprehensible option, is Occam's Razor - that the judge made a correct interpretation of the law?

I would've thought the part where I indicated that I'm on the side of "incompetency is far too easily mistaken for malice" would be synonymous with your use of Occam's Razor. :-)

We're on the same side here, I was just pointing out that I can understand why someone would "politicize" this sort of decision.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[jo_ham]

The other, utterly incomprehensible option, is Occam's Razor - that the judge made a correct interpretation of the law?

I would've thought the part where I indicated that I'm on the side of "incompetency is far too easily mistaken for malice" would be synonymous with your use of Occam's Razor. :-)

We're on the same side here, I was just pointing out that I can understand why someone would "politicize" this sort of decision.

I didn't read it that way - I read that as "the judge didn't get told what to decide, but she made the wrong call anyway". I'm not sure personally what the right call is, but the prevailing "wisdom" on slashdot is that when Apple or Microsoft win one, the judge is incompetent (or paid off) and when anyone relating to Android wins one it's "common sense finally" from the bench. If only the world was that simple.

Free country

[mar.kolya]

In the most free (as in freedom) country (i.e. US) consumers are made to buy stuff large US corporations decide they should buy. That's the freedom! That's the democracy! That's the thing US should be spreading into all 'non democratic' countries. Yeah, right.

Star Trek: The Next Generation

[amoeba1911]

Here's Captain Picard holding an iPad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVqHoGKQXLI

Going further back, there is more prior art in Stanley Kubrik's "2001: A Space Odyssey". Sick of Apple already.

Re:Star Trek: The Next Generation

[toriver]

Studio props (without electronics of any sort) do not count as "prior art". After all, tablet computers existed for ten years prior to the iPad, expensive slabs running Windows Pen Edition. What the iPad did was redefine the product category so it wasn't as expensive and big, and used an OS that wasn't a mouse-and-keyboard desktop UI twisted into a non-keyboard-or-mouse configuration. What makes you sick? Repeating stale and rotten "arguments" that have been posted 100 times before?

Revving up to jump the shark

[sl4shd0rk]

Maybe Apple is finding it difficult to hold it's place in the tablet market and the only way it can stay competitive is to litigate.

Re:Revving up to jump the shark

[toriver]

Or maybe not? They are selling iPads as fast as they can make them, there are only one or two actual challengers, one of them being the non-infringing successor to the Tab.

Not much of a win

[Andy Dodd]

They won an injunction against an obsolete item that has been in the process of being pulled out of retail channels for a month or so.

"The Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, which Samsung uncrated last month, is not affected."

Way to waste your money asshats. Congratulations, you were a total douche and won nothing of value. (Of course, your lawyers made out by bandits.)

Re:Rounded Corners

[Andy Dodd]

Let's not forget the fact that the only pictures where the items DO look the same were doctored by Apple. (The comparison photos were not to scale, which hides the fact that the aspect ratios and dimensions of the two devices are completely different, and also I think Apple may even have done some stretching to make the aspect ratios look the same!)

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[krinderlin]

I can see where you would get that. :-)

Where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is concerned, I'm on Apple's side, at least in technical interpretation of the law. The way the case law for design patents and the "tests" a court applies work, a lot of what most people call common sense is thrown out the window, legally. It's less about if Joe Blow Customer can differentiate the two and more about if I throw these two items into a market are people going to buy the cheaper one because they're "about the same thing anyway".

Everyone knows an iPad form a Galaxy Tab. The issue is, are people going to buy the Tab because it's cheaper and pretty much has the same design points that made them want an iPad to begin with. Thus, you throw out logos, branding, and other things that people say "make a difference".

Apple has played this case underhanded in other courts. I honestly think that they should lose based on the modification of evidence and unusual leveraging in other cases, but that's just wishful thinking. The fact is, despite Apple's idiotic attempt to stack the deck, they should get this anyway. The Galaxy Tab, especially the way they "skinned" the Android installation, is fairly obviously on the wrong side. I suspect even if the casing were neon lime green, they could be considered infringing. This is a lot more than "rectangles with rounded corners." That design element is merely a single straw on the camel's back. In my opinion, the 10.1 N should've never passed muster in Germany.

I hate Apple, own a Galaxy Nexus, will probably buy a Nexus 7 (or whatever they call it today), and run Arch Linux at home on 2 desktops and a laptop. I do hobby development for Android. I still have to hand this one to Apple.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[krinderlin]

Blarg, hit reply too soon. :-)

However, I think an injunction is a bit on the incompetent side. While you may lose some "otherwise cheap" customers, I don't think it validates blocking the Tab for import. Besides, at this point, the Tab is too old to really matter and will likely be replaced very soon. The judge should've merely awarded damages and moved on.

The whole thing is noise at this point. Damage has been done, an injunction doesn't change anything, and it's over. All that remains is recompense for past transgressions. Hence, I feel the judge is suffering a pretty extreme loss of perspective.

Then again, IANAL and case law is always dangerous territory where you must always think of how a decision will set a precedence. Regardless, it's felt more like she was extremely wishy-washy during the case and finally flipped a coin and just so happened to get the right answer.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[wonkavader]

Either way we're screwed. It's Kang vs. Kodos.

This year I'm voting for a third party. ("Go ahead, throw your vote away! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!")

Re:Rounded Corners

[jpstanle]

When Samsung's own lawyers can't tell the difference between the two products, how can you reasonably expect the average consumer to be able to tell the difference? That confusion is what a design patent protects against - consumers mistakenly thinking one product is actually another because the design is so similar.

No, that confusion is what trademark law protects against. The patent system is design to foster TECHNICAL innovation, and the very concept of a design patent is utter horseshit.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[rtb61]

Well ain't that a bunch of deceitful malarky. Those trademarks are about confusing products ie people buying the Samsung product when they thought they were buying the Apple product. No one can claim that. These choice is not hardware but a choice about operating systems and online sales resources. The Android operating system and the Google store versus iOS and the Apple store, no confusion there, Apple's who premise is a lie. People buy the Galaxy Tab specifically because they do not want Apple operating system or the Apple store, no confusion, they are avoiding Apple and the Judge stole their choice, the judge eliminated competition, the judge handed sown an extremely questionable verdict one that stinks of corruption.

Knight-Ridder Tablet

[Compaqt]

>...

So long as we're talking about old tablets, let's pull out the good-old Knight-Ridder Tablet. Were you unaware of it, or did you post about all the others and not this one?

Same form factor? Check
Black bezel? Check
Simple, uncluttered design? Check
Oh, and rounded corners-Check (what else are they supposed to be? Razor sharp?)

Pictures

The Knight-Ridder was cited in a sane ruling by Judge Koh.

By the way, can anyone what brand of phone the current ruling's judge uses? Likely Apple.

Re:Knight-Ridder Tablet

[Grudge2012]

>...

So long as we're talking about old tablets, let's pull out the good-old Knight-Ridder Tablet.

There is one tiny problem here - apart from the fact that the Knight-Ridder Tablet wasn't a product, nor a working design prototype. It also misses several of the design characteristics of the iPad, like the flush surface, the curved back - you know, all the stuff that Samsung felt the need to copy and Apple sued over.

The Knight-Ridder was cited in a sane ruling by Judge Koh [businessweek.com].

You are aware that this "insane" ruling is by the same judge?

Re:Rounded Corners

[whisper_jeff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

There is more than one type of patent and this case is about a DESIGN patent.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[ganjadude]

wait, this isnt the rounded corners lawsuit is it???

It isn't about rounded corners

[Brannon]

It's a design patent--which is akin to trademark infringement. It's the reason someone can't make a curvy bottle that looks exactly like a Coke bottle with a wavey script red label that says "Cola Cola". Maybe Samsung should try to make tablets that can be distinguished from an iPad from ten feet away by a layman--because Samsung's lawyers couldn't make that distinction (in court) and that's why they lost (in the Euro case, at least).

Re:It isn't about rounded corners

[madmark1]

I love how they trot out the "their own lawyers couldn't do it!" argument. What they could not do was tell which one was which, nothing was said about telling them APART. They do not have the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement. Telling them apart is easy. Telling which is which may not be.

Re:It isn't about rounded corners

[Joce640k]

One more time: The point is that the coca-cola bottle isn't an obvious shape. The iPad is.

Patents should only be granted for non-obvious things. It's part of the rules when you apply for a patent.

Re:It isn't about rounded corners

[Grudge2012]

I love how they trot out the "their own lawyers couldn't do it!" argument. What they could not do was tell which one was which, nothing was said about telling them APART. They do not have the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement. Telling them apart is easy. Telling which is which may not be.

If they didn't have " the same shape, aspect ratio, or button arrangement", why they hell couldn't they tell which was which? "Your honor, the right one has a 16:9 aspect ratio, the other is 4.3, but I can't for the hell of it tell which is ours, despite arguing for the whole trial that nobody could confuse the two because they have different aspect ratios." Great argument, there.

Re:Rounded Corners

[jpstanle]

Yeah, I acknowledged the existence of design patents. The fact they exist doesn't stop them from being stupid. I had two points, one of which is the design patent shouldn't exist in the first place as it is not relevant to the philosophical basis for a patent system (fostering technical innovation). The second point was that your suggestion that the patent protects against consumer confusion is flat out wrong. That is the intent of trademark protections; design patents instead protect the design full-stop, regardless of the utility of the item. If Apple's rounded rectangle design patent is valid, then they could sue the makers of the Etch-a-Sketch or those little rounded-corner chalkboards we had as kids (prior art much?). Trademark protections address a legitimate issue (consumer confusion), design patents do no such thing while also providing far more wide-reaching implications in their enforcement. This is why I said "the very concept of a design patent is utter horseshit."

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[amiga3D]

Yeah I hear that crap about throwing your vote away every time I vote for someone other than the two officially sponsored candidates. The way I look at it, many times voting for either of them is throwing a vote away. This is why people write in Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. They are so fed up with the two party lock down giving us awful choices that really aren't choices at all.

Re:It *is* an iPad rippoff. End of discussion.

[TheRichmondContingen]

"Samsung don't just have a black rectangle with rounded corners. There's a whole list of other similarities between their tablets and phones and iDevices, from the design of the bezel and the glass front to the single dock connector, several icon similarities, (originally) the lock screen and some of the packaging (all q.v. ad nauseum elsewhere)."

Yes, you're 100% correct, and thank you for filling the gap that represents right-minded people like us. That's why I won't settle for any model that DOESN'T have a tinfoil display and a minimum of 4 dock connectors.

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[Gilmoure]

Which candidate is supported by the banking industry?

Re:Consider this.

[toriver]

No, and there are plenty of tablets with "rounded corners" and rectangular shape that Apple does NOT feel violate their design. Samsung, apparently, failed to make its device different enough. Or failed to send good enough lawyers to court to defend themselves. What is more likely?

Re:Rounded Corners

[toriver]

If they were doctored by Apple (as the early claims after the pictures appeared on a blog said) I am sure the Samsung lawyers would have a field day and have that proof thrown out. If it actually had been presented to the court.

But of course, the blogger had no access to court documents, and had just faked something. But Apple haters seem hell bent on ignoring that it was not Apple who had "doctored" the image.

Re:Rounded Corners

[Andy Dodd]

Samsung's lawyers did have a field day - http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/19/samsung-claims-apple-doctored-galaxy-phone-images-in-netherlands-court/

Also, that's not the first time doctored evidence had been found in court filings - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image-to-sink-galaxy-tab-101-in-europe-update/14246

Re:That judge is an Obama appointee

[amiga3D]

According to Open Secrets website Goldman Sachs has contributed over 500K to Mitt Romney and over 1 Million dollars to President Obama. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has give 467K to Romney and over 800K to President Obama. Citigroup has given Romney 312K and President Obama received 736K. Yep, the banks are doing what they always do, buying out both candidates. It looks like some of them might prefer the incumbent. So, to answer your question, BOTH.

Re:Consider this.

[Hognoxious]

The problem with this is that Jonathan Ive is on record as saying that he regards his job as to come up with designs that aren't immediately obvious... But that once you see them, you can't think of any other reasonable way to do the job...

He, of course, is 100% impartial. And unbecomingly modest, if I may say so.

There were millions of different designs of tablets before, most involving chunks of cheap plastic and big arrays of buttons next to the screen.

They had to have buttons because touchscreens were a bit shite until recently. Now they don't have to have buttons, because touchscreens a more capable - with multitouch and the like [1].

OCA: At one time most cars looked like a Ford Model T. Now they mostly don't. But that's down to available technology, it doesn't imply that all cars that don't look like a Model T are copies of ... whatever the first car that didn't look like a Model T was.

[1] For the record, I actually think buttons have some advantages in some cases. Manufacturers don't like them; extra parts = extra cost.

Yes, everything about the iPad is soooo obvious.

[Brannon]

Which is why there are several examples of prior tablet designs selling tens of millions of units. What are those again?

Re:* WHOOSH *

[Grudge2012]

Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?

Fuck Yes.

There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.

Too bad for your "argument" that fully functional tablets exist that have several, even all those "incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental" elements missing.

Re:Consider this.

[Grudge2012]

They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad, because they know people love iPads.

No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.

The things Apple are crying about are practical and part of its functionality. Design patents cover the decorative aspects. Should everyone else have to build heptagonal tablets with bayonets sticking out of the corners?

Let's for a second pretend you are right - then what you are saying is nothing less than that Apple has build the very first functional tablet. Talk about "not innovating".