Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents

Posted by Unknown on from the bogus-patents-for-all dept.

New submitter Rideak writes with this excerpt from CNet about an ITC ruling against Motorola in their case against Apple for violating a few of their proximity sensor patents: "The U.S. International Trade Commission today ended Motorola's case against Apple, which accused the iPhone and Mac maker of patent infringement. In a ruling (PDF), the ITC said that Apple was not violating Motorola's U.S. patent covering proximity sensors, which the commission called 'obvious.' It was the last of six patents Motorola aimed at Apple as part of an October 2010 complaint."

121 comments

  1. Tech can be obvious by linatux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but round corners can't?

    1. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Design and utility are separate things. Karma whoring with a tired meme eventually has to stop.

      Rounded corners are not a technical invention; they're part of a distinctive design. No one is prohibited from using rounded corners.

    2. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well of course round corners aren't patentable. That's why Apple didn't try to patent them. You apparently need some education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent).

    3. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bullshit, rounded corners are not "distinctive". Apple never, ever should get any protection whatsoever from using them.

    4. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      but round corners can't?

      Look, if Apple used pointy corners on their stuff then we'd hurt our hands when we held it wrong.

    5. Re:Tech can be obvious by crutchy · · Score: 1

      apple should sue the person who invented the wheel

    6. Re:Tech can be obvious by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      but round corners can't?

      Bevelling is pretty advanced stuff for the Patent Office. Didn't really exist until, you know, about 2000 BC. Proximity sensors, on the other hand, has been around since we grew eyeballs. So I guess the takeaway here is, the Patent Office is in the stone age.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Tech can be obvious by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      what part of "part of" do you not understand?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      Way to knee-jerk react without actually reading what he said.

      He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand. Design patents work by specifying a number of claims for a particular design, which are taken as a whole when determining if infringement occurred. There is no design patent just for rounded corners. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. What you'll find is that rounded corners are always just one claim among many in the design patents in which they're mentioned, and so they are never considered in a vacuum when determining whether a product infringes on the design patent.

      To put it a bit differently, Coca-Cola has a design patent covering their iconic bottle shape, yet no one is suggesting that Coca-Cola has a patent on all curved bottles just because their design patent includes curves as one of its claims. To infringe, you'd have to include not just curves in your bottle design, but curves that matched the other claims and diagrams presented in their design patent before you'd be infringing on their patent.

      Similarly, Apple's infamous iPhone patent that included rounded corners as one of its claims also included a number of other claims as well (I believe it also included a flat glass front, a thin aluminum bezel, a round button near the bottom, specified that the rounded corners had to be uniform in shape, and had a few more items as well). For infringement to take place, ALL of those claims would be considered together, rather than just the uniform rounded corners claim.

    9. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Design patents operate under different principles from regular patents, and something that a lot of folks here seem to be ignoring is that the claims made in design patents are considered in whole, rather than one at a time in a vacuum. Put differently, while Apple does have a few design patents that mention rounded corners in them, they're mentioned as one claim among many in those design patents. A competing product would be measured up against all of the claims, rather than just the rounded corner one, in order to determine if infringement was occurring. So if you had a phone with uniform rounded corners that didn't match any of the other claims in the patent, you'd be perfectly fine since the rounded corners, by themselves, are not in any way distinctive.

      But hey, it's fun to repeat a meme that makes you look ignorant on the subject, because Apple.

    10. Re:Tech can be obvious by Grieviant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By asserting that the 'rounded corners' critique is invalidated simply by pointing to multiple claims in a design patent, you might be the one repeating an ignorant meme here. If NONE of the claimed attributes are unique on their own (rounded corners, beveling, device face comprised mostly of screen, small number of buttons, rectangular grid of icons, etc.) and various combinations of them have been widely used in other electronic devices over the past 50 years, how does one magically end up with a truly unique design? Piling up on dozens of commonplace look-and-feel features does not increase uniqueness. It seems more like an attempt to limit competition by monopolizing a basic design that the industry is already converging on.

    11. Re:Tech can be obvious by whoever57 · · Score: 1, Troll

      He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand. Design patents work by specifying a number of claims for a particular design, which are taken as a whole when determining if infringement occurred. There is no design patent just for rounded corners. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. What you'll find is that rounded corners are always just one claim among many in the design patents in which they're mentioned, and so they are never considered in a vacuum when determining whether a product infringes on the design patent.

      Challenge accepted: . Design Patent 504,889 -- which lists Steve Jobs and Apple design guru Jonathan Ive, among others, as the "inventors" -- is a claim for a rectangular electronic device with rounded corners. Thatâ(TM)s right, Apple is claiming control over rectangles. The full claim is only 2 lines long, and amazingly broad -- Apple is claiming all devices with the basic shape shown here.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    12. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anubis+IV · · Score: 0

      Did you actually look at the patent you're referencing? Because I did before I made my last post. And what you'll see is that they made a claim for the ornamental design depicted in the series of diagrams they made. I.e. Something that looks just like those diagrams. So, while rounded corners are indeed an aspect of the claim, the design patent also includes the flat back and front, the curved surface that ties the front to the back, and the fact that the corners are all uniform in shape and circular rather than oval shaped.

    13. Re:Tech can be obvious by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand.

      I think he understands perfectly: Here's the 5 page filing for the patent. The only thing that separates it in terms of appearance is that it has rounded corners. But I mean, seriously, if what you've done is glued a computer to a touchscreen panel, how many design options are there? Round corners. Square corners. It's still a fucking rectangle, because that's how every touchscreen in mass-production today is shaped. There's only a select few form-factors that make sense when the primary (indeed, only) human interface is a touch-screen display.

      So no, he's not knee-jerking: It was widely panned by popular media as being a patent for rounded edges. That was the substantive issue in the German lawsuit with Samsung v. Apple, where their Galaxy looked "too similar" to the Apple device. What you're defending, sir, is not an innovation in techology, but a company with the largest market capitalization on the planet attempting to remove all the other players from the market by patenting the only practical form-factor for this type of device. There is no innovation. It's totally business. As to the reason you're defending it, I suspect religious beliefs, caused in large part by marketing and having no actual basis in reality.

      To put it a bit differently, Coca-Cola has a design patent covering their iconic bottle shape, yet no one is suggesting that Coca-Cola has a patent on all curved bottles just because their design patent includes curves as one of its claims.

      Umm, you're kidding, right? You've just cited the quintessential example of design patents. I mean, of all the ones you could have chosen, you've chosen the single most cited-example found in graphics design. You couldn't have derped your argument in a more epic fashion if you'd done it while screaming naked in the street.

      To infringe, you'd have to include not just curves in your bottle design, but curves that matched the other claims and diagrams presented in their design patent before you'd be infringing on their patent.

      See above. The curves in the bottle design was the sole thing patented.

      Similarly, Apple's infamous iPhone patent that included rounded corners as one of its claims also included a number of other claims as well ...

      Except it didn't, see above.

      For infringement to take place, ALL of those claims would be considered together, rather than just the uniform rounded corners claim.

      ALL [emphasis yours] actually equals ONE [emphasis mine] in this case. No really. It is totally just that. I'm sorry if you weren't paying attention, but I mean, who can when you're so busy fanboying that you fail at your argument so spectacularly we should build a monument to your derp.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    14. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rounded corners have been around damn near forever. My desk has rounded corners so if someone accidentally walks into it, you don't slice your leg open. Likewise, I have radios and communication equipment, where there are (physical) buttons, set in a physical keypad, where both the buttons and the keypad have rounded corners. If you yelp about 'distinctive design', I will yelp about prior art! I also have GUI software from 1985 that has rounded corners (more prior art). I have also seen Motorola telephones with keypad buttons and keypads both with rounded corners (more prior art). Apple should have got nothing, and deserves nothing. Clearly the judge was either intoxicated or bribed (or both).

    15. Re:Tech can be obvious by Wovel · · Score: 1

      You are arguing against the nature of design patents While that may be a valid argument, all Apple can do is follow the laws that exist today. Not the laws as you wish them to be.

    16. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      I do agree you should not have been modded down. Contrary to what some might think (you included, apparently) since I defended Apple here, I actually prefer it when people correct errors that I make in my statements, or offer some well-considered dissension.

      That said, I do disagree with you. You seem to be under the incorrect belief that the design patent you've cited is the relevant one when it comes to the rounded corners meme. It isn't. That one's for the iPad mini and was issued late last year. The iPhone design patents are what started the rounded corners meme and are what was being referenced. Regardless, the reason you're not correct about that patent is because the details of those diagrams constitute claims that are legally binding. As such, for a competing product to be infringing, it would need to be infringing on the circular corners, flat face and back, the shape of the tapered edge that leads to the rear case, etc., etc., etc.. So, yes, that design patent does contain quite a bit more than just rounded corners. I do consider myself an Apple fanboy, but I do my best to be fair.

      Regarding Coca-Cola. your ad hominem paragraph doesn't seem to contain any specific, factual claims that contradict anything I said. In fact, I have no idea what precisely you're disagreeing with, since you resorted to attacking me instead of citing something in particular that you disagreed with. The fact is, I chose it specifically because it's the most famous example and I wanted to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about. I'm glad you're aware that it's famous as well, but I'm disappointed that you missed my point.

      The Coca-Cola bottle design patent includes a diagram of the specific curves that are claimed, so while "curves" were indeed claimed in the design patent, it wasn't just "curves": it was THOSE curves, and as such, other bottlers were fully capable of making bottles with curved sides, so long as they were distinct from Coca-Cola's bottles. That was my point, since the same is true with Apple's design patents (though I'll readily agree that some of them are rather vague/broad, including the one you've cited). Other companies would not only need to be infringing on the curves that Apple chose, but also on the other features (e.g. in the iPad mini design patent you cited, they'd also have to have the flat front and back and the curved sides that taper into the back, among other traits). Microsoft made a big deal about their 22-degree chamfered edges on the Surface line, which elegantly gets around all of Apple's design patents, even if the other traits are the same. Other companies only need to change one trait significantly in order to circumvent those design patents.

      As for the claim that Apple's patent didn't contain anything else, I've already addressed that point, and if you look through some of the various iPhone design patents, you can see that the same arguments I've made already would apply to them as well. Here are some of them:
      http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087
      http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
      http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D672769.pdf

      Long story short, you seem to have accused me of derping on one point and automatically being wrong, then dismissed everything after that as being wrong as well, even though you never said why I was wrong in the first place. I'd actually be very eager to hear why you thought I was wrong about Coke.

    17. Re:Tech can be obvious by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      That was my point, since the same is true with Apple's design patents (though I'll readily agree that some of them are rather vague/broad, including the one you've cited).

      I won't disagree with any of the other statements you've made, because frankly, it's a defensible position. It's not the best one, in my opinion, but a reasonable person can lay claim to it. But this statement you've made right here goes to the very heart of the matter: If it's vague and overly broad, then the patent shouldn't have been granted. And the patent Apple was granted was vague, and it was overly broad, and as a result it's been dragged through our court system (and that of many other countries), costing you, me, and every other taxpayer in many different countries.

      Which just underscores that this isn't a clear-cut issue; You can't say Apple's in the clear, anymore than you can say Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened. We wouldn't be having this conversation. We wouldn't have to disagree, because it would have been the optimal case.

      I've already addressed that point, and if you look through some of the various iPhone design patents, you can see that the same arguments I've made already would apply to them as well.

      Which is fine, but irrelevant. We're talking about the so-called "rounded edges" patent/design. The argument you're making may very well be valid in those cases, but that's not the case we're talking about.

      Long story short, you seem to have accused me of derping on one point and automatically being wrong, then dismissed everything after that as being wrong as well, even though you never said why I was wrong in the first place. I'd actually be very eager to hear why you thought I was wrong about Coke.

      At the time Coca-Cola applied for the patent, bottles just didn't look like that; The bottle in the patent is nothing like the coke bottles used today, which still have curves, but subdued considerably from the original design. That made the design unique, and it wasn't directly connected to its function, which was the storage and transport of a beverage. As such, the design wasn't purely functional. In the Apple case, the very design itself is functional -- it's a giant LCD panel with a rear plate, and in between is the computer. It's about the only form factor that makes any sense for a device that is designed to be (a) portable and (b) interacted with only by touch screen. Apple didn't take more than maybe a half-step away from the "purely functional" aspect of the device; Anyone who designed something similar would arrive at a device that looked more or less like the one Apple did. There's nothing unique, special, or distinctive, about Apple's design. Which is why it is very different from the quintessential example of the coke bottle.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    18. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but that's simply not how design patents work. They don't work on the principle of uniqueness, but rather on that of distinctiveness. If some combination of elements is distinctive enough, a design patent can be issued. And when you go back and look at, say, the original iPhone design patents, that design was extremely distinctive at the time it was filed, even though very few, if any, of its traits were truly unique. In contrast, the more recent iPad mini design patent that was issued is rather vague and indistinct, if I have to be honest.

      Anyway, perhaps in an ideal world they might function in the way you've described, but in the meantime I don't see how it's ignorant for me to explain the way that a system functions in the real world.

    19. Re:Tech can be obvious by PPH · · Score: 2

      Start with a square wheel and round the corners.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    20. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I'll definitely agree with you in regards to the iPad mini design patent not being distinctive enough (and distinctiveness is the important measure to consider) and Apple not being entirely in the clear. That said, it's worth pointing out that design patents aren't subject to the "is it obvious" tests and the like that typical patents are subject to, which is somewhat unfortunate. I do believe, however, that the original iPhone design patents were rather distinctive in nature at the time they were filed.

      As for the relevancy of the arguments I was making, I was pointing out that the rounded edges design patent idea actually started with those iPhone design patents. The iPad mini design patent you cited came years later and didn't get picked up by the press until three months after the Samsung case was "concluded", hence why I was trying to go back to the rounded edges design patents that started it all.

      Anyway, thanks for replying. I definitely understand what you were getting at a lot better now, and I can agree with quite a bit of it to varying degrees.

    21. Re:Tech can be obvious by Eirenarch · · Score: 1

      This recursion thing is hard!

    22. Re:Tech can be obvious by crutchy · · Score: 1

      trees are obviously in violation... who will represent them in court?

    23. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On of the problem with including rounded corners in the design patent is that rounded corners is a function you implement to solve a problem, not something you add to create a distinctive look.
      If I buy a perfectly rectangular empty black plastic box it will have rounded corners, it will be easier to handle in manufacturing, feels better when you hold it and won't scratch any surfaces.
      The round corner attribute should not have been allowed to be part of the design patent, it forces competitors to create worse designs, not better, to be able to compete.

    24. Re: Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting tired of this US propensity to use 'sir' when telling someone off. It's like a thin veneer of sugar on a turd. If you want to disagree politely, do so. Throwing in the occasional 'sir' doesn't do it and makes me feel like I'm watching a Jack Ryan film.

    25. Re:Tech can be obvious by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 0

      "If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened"

      But that is precisely what is happening. I don't see Apple suing Nokia over the Lumia 520, yet that phone has all of the same features being discussed - rounded corners, smoothed back, etc.

      No one could claim with a straight face that anyone would ever confuse a Lumia for an iPhone. Could you make the same claim for the original Galaxy S?

      It seems to me that everyone that's actually involved in the case has no problem understanding what "distinctive" means, and conversely, when there is the suspicion of design infringement. The only comprehension issues appear to be here in the peanut galleries. Yet the accusations of known-nothingness are always pointed in the opposite direction.

    26. Re:Tech can be obvious by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Umm, you're kidding, right? You've just cited the quintessential example of design patents [wikipedia.org]. I mean, of all the ones you could have chosen, you've chosen the single most cited-example found in graphics design. You couldn't have derped your argument in a more epic fashion if you'd done it while screaming naked in the street.

      Do what? You're criticising someone for quoting the classic case of design patents? Are you stupid?

    27. Re:Tech can be obvious by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      then the patent shouldn't have been granted...
      the patent Apple was granted was vague...
      If the patent had been more narrowly-defined...
      We're talking about the so-called "rounded edges" patent/design....
      At the time Coca-Cola applied for the patent, bottles just didn't look like that

      Time and time again, you confuse "patents" with "design patents". Pretty much as all the people do that talk about Apple patenting rectangles. A "design patent" is not at all the same thing as a patent.

    28. Re: Tech can be obvious by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are wrong.

      It's an English affectation rather than belonging to our American cousins over the pond.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    29. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone sue for a device with such miniscule marketshare and so far out of the public consciousness?

      Only reason why Samsung was sued is due to popularity.

    30. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like an Etch-A-Sketch without knobs. Thinner chassis, smaller bevel, and different radius of corner rounding do not add up to a unique design.

    31. Re:Tech can be obvious by jbengt · · Score: 1

      oops, mis-moderated

    32. Re:Tech can be obvious by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      a good post, but a point that seems to be missed here: the design patents are intended to allow broad coverage of appearance in a bid to create a revenue stream from the filings.

      In a distinctly related topic is the established companies use of patents (supposedly FRAND, but refused to Apple) to try and prevent APple from ever releasing the iPhone. Apple figured they had the law on their side and proceded and the lawsuit proceded and... we end up with stupid, obvious patents being used on both sides. I say "stupid and obvious" because in most cases that is exactly what patents are. (Large) companies encourage employees to file patents (assigned to the company of course). Microsoft was asleep for a long time on this subject, but finally woke up.

      Ridiculous patents is not an Apple, or Microsoft, or IBM or Intel or AMD or Samsung or Motorola thing -- it is all of them. Patents are used to suppress competition by raising a barrier for entry into a market. Intel and AMD cross license patents -- great, and bully for them. A significant reason *why* is because no one else can get into the game of making desktop CPUs -- you literally can't afford their patents.

      When the EU decided to make money by creating "design patents" companies like Apple and Samsung are faced with a choice: file a patent on your product (and pay the fee to do so) or be sued for infringement if there is a turf war. Apple chose to file design patents in the EU, Samsung did not. In the end, Apple lost that IIRC but it might be interesting to see if Samsung now pays the EU protection money by filing design patents there.

      While Apple's "rounded corners" design patent was obnoxious they are far from the only company to file for design patents in the EU, and they are certainly not the only company to use "stupid and obvious" patents when fighting against another company. In the topic at hand, Morotorola's patent was ruled as "obvious".

      In sum: patents serve two purposes:

      1) a revenue stream for the government issuing them

      2) reduce competition by raising a barrier to entry in a market

      But people are distracted by the claimed purpose "to promote invention/protect inventor's rights" and argue about merit rather than realizing they have been duped.

    33. Re:Tech can be obvious by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      What part of what part of part of do you not understand?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re:Tech can be obvious by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      "the design patent also includes the flat back and front, the curved surface that ties the front to the back, and the fact that the corners are all uniform in shape and circular rather than oval shaped"

      When you get right down to it, the iphone design is butt ugly when you put something like a Nexus 4 or Galaxy S4 next to it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    35. Re:Tech can be obvious by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In design parlance, it's called a "fillet", arguably the most common design element after a straight line. Because it's easy to calculate.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    36. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In sum: patents serve two purposes: 1) a revenue stream for the government issuing them 2) reduce competition by raising a barrier to entry in a market. But people are distracted by the claimed purpose "to promote invention/protect inventor's rights" and argue about merit rather than realizing they have been duped.

      Its purpose is in fact to encourage people to invent and create by eliminating competetion for a limited time. Invent something, get a patent, and you have no competetion for twenty years.

      The actualy mandate is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

    37. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you change the radius of the fillet to be distinct from the iPhone the design patent no longer applies to your design. You can have any of the same elements, so long as your design AS A WHOLE does not look like the design as specified in the patent. Design patents are specifically intended to prevent people from copying your "look and feel", NOT to prevent others from using a single design element of your design. This is why the judge in the Apple v. Samsung case asked the Samsung lawyers to identify which tablet was which from a distance. I have yet to hear of a case where design patents were upheld for a different reason. Please seek knowledge and a full understanding of a situation before spouting off about it.

    38. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a moron.

      You claim, the 5 page patent is entirely about rounded corners?

      Have you looked at it?
      Yeah, there's rounded corners, there's a bezel, there's a rounded back with a certain curvature. There's roundrect holes on the bottom right side. There's a circular (not roundrect) button. There's a center port hole.

      It is not simply rounded corners. You trying to us me a circle has rounded corners?

    39. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uniqueness is irrelevant, as is the fact that each individual element has been used in the past.

      Design patents are not about innovation in design or a unique configuration. They're about a distinctive form, protected so as to prevent confusion and ensure that copycat riffs do not trade on the popularity of another product.

      Of course combining dozens of commonplace elements can create a distinctive design. That's the only way it happens. There is no 'monopolozing' a 'basic design' at issue. There are plenty of ways to make a distinctive tablet using many other commonplace "look and feel" features.

      The fact that so many people can't recognize basic claim construction is troubling at best. It is not true either that "rounded corners" are the sole claim or that the criticism is founded in anything more nuanced than "lolz apple didn't invent corner radius". "Tiffany Blue" is a famously protected color. They're not the first to use that color and they're not the only ones allowed to use that color. What they do have is a particular legal protection to the use of that color in certain circumstances. Tiffany's color rights being valid does not have any bearing on whether they are successful on some metallurgical patent infringement suit they might have.

      The same is true here. The fact that Apple has a protected industrial design consisting of, among other elements, rounded corners has absolutely no bearing on whether it infringed on a utility patent for functional proximity sensors. The level of ignorance required to link the two as some form of nerd rage is staggering.

    40. Re:Tech can be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

      Plainly false, because you still don't get what the issue is. The patent is narrowly defined representing a distinctive and easily recognizable design. There's no real legal issue with any of that. A design patent is extremely clear to anyone skilled in the art. They always have one broad claim: the design itself IS the claim. You seem to be expecting something more out of your unfamiliarity with the subject, while speaking loudly as though you have knowledge.

      What's unclear is the extent to which the features can be replicated, which is simply a function of industrial design litigation in general. It's not as though Apple failed to state its claims out of some nefarious purpose. This is what design patents are.

      In the Apple case, the very design itself is functional -- it's a giant LCD panel with a rear plate, and in between is the computer. It's about the only form factor that makes any sense for a device that is designed to be (a) portable and (b) interacted with only by touch screen.

      No, it isn't, because you are being overbroad in your interpretations. A flat surface with rounded edges is not the issue. All tablet computers are some form of flat surface with non-90 degree corners dominated by a display. That's not the issue.

      Nor is the issue that there may be some functional benefit to particular design choices.

      here's nothing unique, special, or distinctive, about Apple's design. Which is why it is very different from the quintessential example of the coke bottle.

      You've not demonstrated that in the slightest. The iPad is very much a distinctive product both on its own and related to Apple's other design language in various products. There were no tablets in 2010 that looked like the iPad and even today, most tablets utilize a distinguishable design. You continue to rail against what you perceive as a general form, ignoring specifics entirely.

      There are plenty of curved soda bottles in use today, and the curves of those bottles do lend themselves to functional improvements in grip and balance. That is no different to what you're claiming the situation is with the iPad, and yet you seem to think that there is some special distinction that you will not articulate. The Coke bottle is a very particular design that other beverage bottlers are careful to design around.

      Samsung as a corporation has a history of scooping and bulldozing with an even greater frequency and severity than Apple, and yet it is given a pass by those who loudly complain about Apple's behavior and dismiss criticism as "fanboys". Look in the mirror. That conversation is of no consequence. Neither company is an innocent lamb suffering at the hands of a demonic tormentor. It's just business.

  2. Agatinst against ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many "against" should be used

    1. Re:Agatinst against ?? by oodaloop · · Score: 0

      Clearly that's a type in the title. It should read, "Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Antagonist Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents".

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Agatinst against ?? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly that's a typo in the first senteance. It should read Clearly that's a typo in the first sentence.

    3. Re:Agatinst against ?? by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      I'm not the only one with a typo in the first sentence.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Agatinst against ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're the only one without a sense of humor, observational skills, and a working sarcasm detector.

    5. Re:Agatinst against ?? by flaming+error · · Score: 1
      What typo, "senteance"?

      senteance, n.
      1) Grammatical structure composed by cognizant individual.
      2) Punishment wherein the punished is confined to a dim candle-lit room inhabited by disembodied souls.

    6. Re:Agatinst against ?? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Ignoring your funny blunder, you also apparently don't understand any of the facts in the story.

    7. Re:Agatinst against ?? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Getting sued for patent infringement makes you an antagonist. Thanks, Slashdot logic!

  3. Typo In Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Against Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents

    Can you find it? I can.

    1. Re:Typo In Headline by Rideak · · Score: 2

      Oops my bad. Been on slashdot for more than 13 years you'd think i'd be more careful with my first submission haha.

    2. Re:Typo In Headline by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 4, Funny

      I cannot find find it :/

      --
      William George
    3. Re:Typo In Headline by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You'd also think that the site had editors.

    4. Re:Typo In Headline by Demize · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not if you've been here for 13 years...

    5. Re:Typo In Headline by Rideak · · Score: 2

      Actually I'm pretty sure I copy/pasted the headline from the article, which means it was probably the editor who inserted the typo in the first place haha.

    6. Re:Typo In Headline by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      Try against ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    7. Re:Typo In Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it was added as a public service, so we could have a nice refreshing bash of the useless editing, instead of arguing with ignorant chumps who think Apple has patented round corners.

    8. Re:Typo In Headline by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      So now that Dice owns Slashdot, when are they going to outsource all the editing jobs to India?

      At least then we could have some editors who speak English...

    9. Re:Typo In Headline by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Not if you've been here for 13 years...

      Yeah. The editors used to be a pair of 7 line perl scripts, but now that Slashdot is under new management, they've had to cut back... now it's just one 7 line perl script.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Strategy by Pirulo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Without reading the whole article. I believe that with all the muscle that Google (Motorola) could put behind this claim, the case has more to do with strategy. It's a case to better loose and then later refer to. As the first poster said, -"Tech can be obvious but round corners can't?"

    1. Re:Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A better strategy is to keep your patents tight, instead of loose.

    2. Re:Strategy by Pirulo · · Score: 1

      Yep, I had that wtf moment after I clicked the submit button.

    3. Re:Strategy by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a brilliant strategy -- spend 12 billion on a has-been phone manufacturer and then lose all the patent lawsuits you file.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Strategy by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Damn. That says it all.

    5. Re:Strategy by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      As the first poster said, -"Tech can be obvious but round corners can't?"

      Worth noting that the practise of putting a proximity sensor in a touch screen phone to turn the screen off when you make a call was so obvious, not a single Windows Mobile phone launched by HTC, Samsung or Motorola in Europe prior to June 2007 had one.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    6. Re:Strategy by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Well, that's definitely a unique strategy - buy a washed up radio and phone manufacturer that most consumers won't buy a product from again, as practically everyone has been burned by a slip-shod Motorola product in the past, for a shload of money in order to gain a patent portfolio that can be used to strike back at your chief rival; and then proceed lose on every single count and have those patents invalidated as obvious after paying for 2.5 years of lawyer lawyer retainers and court costs.

      They'll never see that one coming!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. Good by sking · · Score: 1

    Maybe things are changing.

    --
    The AntiJoey
    1. Re:Good by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      No. Not really. It's just that Apple is a little too big to be picking on with this stupid shit. Motorola should have used Microsoft's strategy of suing smaller companies first to build up to suing bigger ones. They jumped straight at Apple and got slapped down. You notice that Microsoft didn't jump straight at Google over Android but instead is attacking their manufacturing partners who are happy to pay protection money to get them to go away. If they had sued Google then Google would have whistled up their lawyers and slapped Microsoft down.

    2. Re:Good by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

      Motorola should have used Microsoft's strategy of suing smaller companies first to build up to suing bigger ones

      So who was Google/Motorola going to sue? Other Android manufacturers?

    3. Re:Good by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Just to point out - Apple sued first & these claims were part of the counter suit.

  6. Who should Google buy now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm wondering who Google should buy now since the Motorola card failed? RIMM? Sony? They need to get patents some how because they don't create anything to patent? Only way they will get patents is to buy someone for their patents like they did Motorola!

    1. Re:Who should Google buy now? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I haven't noticed lack of creating a product stopping anyone from patenting something. Lots of companies patent things and never create anything at all.

    2. Re:Who should Google buy now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia? A patent portofolio like no other (ok, maybe qualcomm) when it comes to mobile phones.

      They would also get really good tech. Nokia phones are only lacking on the software side, hardware is still the best on market.

  7. ...obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WAIT a minute...

    This is a Large Corporation with a Patent.
    OMG ! The Patent was called 'obvious' ?!?! ...it's a Large Corporation ... Patent ...the Patent was called ... 'obvious' ?

    In What MAD UNIVERSE do I find myself?
    Such un-natural Eldrich Horror! Cthulhu save-us-all... AHHRGH....

      strange.. my AC CAPCHA is "witches"
     

    1. Re:...obvious by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      They sued another very large corporation. Apple has lots of bad ass lawyers too unlike the little people these assholes usually beat up on.

  8. Error! by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Against Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents

    Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check failed while parsing headline.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Error! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I dunno, your check seems a bit off: It had plenty of redundancy to me, try another cycle?

    2. Re:Error! by pherthyl · · Score: 1

      Huh? Makes perfect sense to me. Maybe the reading comprehension test failed.

  9. Apple is better than Motorola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, Apple is better than every other cell phone manufacturer. They produce products that EVERYONE loves and wants to have. America knows this. Apple knows this. And the ITC knows this.

    That is why the ITC squashed Motorola's attempt to defame the Apple name.

    Apple probably also slipped a few strategic personnel a couple $10,000 bills. I don't know about you guys, but I can be easily corrupted by money, drugs, and loose women (or men, depending on my mood). I doubt that anyone else in the world is like me, though.

    1. Re:Apple is better than Motorola by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I bet instead of money they gave them their own exclusive iPhone 6's. That would do it.

    2. Re:Apple is better than Motorola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because it's clear that the only way Apple could have won this thing is through bribery.

      Are you high?

    3. Re:Apple is better than Motorola by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Not yet, I'm at work.

  10. Administrative ruling by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    While I am always happy to see obvious patent ruled as invalid, I wonder if it is the job of an administrative commission to do that job.

    1. Re:Administrative ruling by frinkster · · Score: 1

      While I am always happy to see obvious patent ruled as invalid, I wonder if it is the job of an administrative commission to do that job.

      It's only invalid in the sense that the ITC won't do anything about it.

      But the real issue is that an administrative commission is proving to be completely gutless when it comes to two American companies fighting each other. They have gone in circles for around 3 years now trying to figure out how to not do anything at all (while the lawyers on both sides have collected many millions of dollars in fees). The sole remedy available when you file an ITC case is a ban on importation and the ITC is simply unwilling to ban importation of popular products because they don't want to create any political backlash.

      If there ever was any proof that giving federal judges a lifetime appointment to protect them from politics as much as possible, this is it

  11. NOT A TROLL, YOU IDIOT MODERATORS. by girlintraining · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is not a troll. These are factual statements. You do not get to moderate -1 "disagree". Suck it up, cupcakes, and deal with the fact that Apple is a business, not a religion.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:NOT A TROLL, YOU IDIOT MODERATORS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure your ad hominem attack is very "factual." Maybe they aren't so much disagreeing with you as thinking you're a raving loon.

    2. Re:NOT A TROLL, YOU IDIOT MODERATORS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you wouldn't get negative moderation if you refrained from personal attacks?

    3. Re:NOT A TROLL, YOU IDIOT MODERATORS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck it up, cupcakes, and deal with the fact that Apple is a business, not a religion.

      BLASPHEMY!!! How dare this witch sully the name of the great and omnipotent Jobs! Burn her! Tie her to the stake and BURN HER!!

      -iDiot

    4. Re:NOT A TROLL, YOU IDIOT MODERATORS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you listen to that guy for a second. I love your posts. Slashdot needs more snarky bitches. ROCK ON.

    5. Re:NOT A TROLL, YOU IDIOT MODERATORS. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

      "He" pushed the button.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  12. Not a troll, seconded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He lays out a clear argument as to why the Apple claim *is* essentially about rounded corners, why GGP was completely wrong about coke's design patent and it's not an ad-hominen attack as a commenter below tries to mislead you into believing.

    I think Apple Fanbois want to suppress his comment, and some have mod points.

    1. Re:Not a troll, seconded by Anubis+IV · · Score: 0

      Since you appear to have understood his argument, could you explain why I "was completely wrong about [C]oke's design patent"? Because as far as I can tell, he didn't actually point out anything specific at all. He just accused me of not realizing I was citing something famous (he was wrong; I chose it because it's famous) and then said I derped, without citing anything to contradict me at all.

      I'm genuinely interested in being corrected, particularly on that point.

      And his post is ad hominem (he accuses me of derping severely enough that we should build a monument and you don't think he's attacking me personally?), but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed out-of-hand. For instance, his claim that the design patent he cited was only about rounded corners was an interesting one that was worth discussing, though I believe he was incorrect regarding it, since he failed to consider the other claims that were clearly presented in the diagrams.

      I do agree that he was unfairly down-modded, however, and rather quickly at that. Even though he and I disagree, I think that's one of the best parts about Slashdot. I just wish he could present his case more factually so that I might actually learn something and end my fanboying ways. ;)

    2. Re:Not a troll, seconded by Hunter+Shoptaw · · Score: 1

      A bit off topic, but I find it interesting that you seem to think the commenter named "girlintrainging" is automatically a guy, when I see very little evidence of it.

    3. Re:Not a troll, seconded by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I merely chose to use the same pronoun that the previous commenter used, so as to avoid confusion.

    4. Re:Not a troll, seconded by Hunter+Shoptaw · · Score: 1

      The notice wasn't directed at you so much as at the conversation, you just happened to be the bottom on the line. My apologies for the confusion.

  13. Patents by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 1

    I can understand the thought behind the ruling, but I have to say I'm really against against against against against against.

  14. Should not obvious patents be removed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple probably also slipped a few strategic personnel a couple $10,000 bills.

    If it were Apple's patents that were struck down you'd be cheering for joy at the obvious patents having fallen.

    Instead we find you arguing that an obvious patent should have been allowed to stand and only bribery brought it to ruin. Why? FUCKING APPLE is why.

    Sure, that makes so much sense!

    Apple Haters would be slightly tolerable as human beings if they did not end up to a man being the most obnoxious hypocritical assholes to walk the earth.

    1. Re:Should not obvious patents be removed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple Haters and Lovers both would be slightly tolerable as human beings if they did not end up to a man being the most obnoxious hypocritical assholes to walk the earth.

      FTFY.

  15. The Show Must Must Must Go On! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    This is Max Headroom, live on Net-Net-Net-Network 23, because what I want to know is, who's gonna stop this kind of wholesale artic--killing-ing-ing-ing. Killing. It's time that Slashdot took a stand - a stand - a *stand* on this kind of headline murder. Murder. Murder. Preferably against it.

  16. It is just rounded corners by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    By asserting that the 'rounded corners' critique is invalidated simply by pointing to multiple claims in a design patent, you might be the one repeating an ignorant meme here

    Except its not even remotely true these are the design patents https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/USD627777.pdf and https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/USD670286.pdf for your information the dotted lines are just there to add context so ignore them.

    Link to an article for those who don't have firefox http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/08/apple_rectangle_rounded_corners/

    Show me where it discusses the other generic things you randomly add. In fact specifically most of those "beveling, device face comprised mostly of screen, small number of buttons" are deliberately *NOT* part of the patent (they are only there for context). and icons!! on a phone unheard of on an electronics device in 2009!!!

    Your post is a lie.

    1. Re:It is just rounded corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact specifically most of those "beveling, device face comprised mostly of screen, small number of buttons" are deliberately *NOT* part of the patent (they are only there for context)

      Incorrect. The bevels and contours ARE part of the claimed design--solid lines and large dashes are part of the design. The small dashed lines, of which there are relatively few--mainly speaker grilles, buttons, and connectors, are not claimed.

      Telling people to ignore all the dotted lines is how you idiots got into this mess in the first place.

    2. Re:It is just rounded corners by Grieviant · · Score: 1

      Yea, I actually gave Apple too much credit by implying that these attributes were rolled into a single design patent. They were all distinct but asserted simultaneously against Samsung during the trial as a combination of design and utility patents.

      Let me ask though, do you think that strengthens or weakens the validity of design patents? I mean, did you even look at the ornamental tablet design patent you're linking to above? Completely devoid of any specific or unique characteristics whatsoever .... just a drawing of a thin rectangular device with a screen, no buttons even.

      Your post is the ejaculation of a frothing fanboy.

  17. Nokia not looking too pretty by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Nokia phones are only lacking on the software side, hardware is still the best on market.

    Unfortunately Nokia sold all its factories, and moved production to China. In an attempt to copy Apples business model. In that move the quality of hardware has took a dive. Nokia is not a well company, and unfortunately it looks terminal.

  18. The Insanity of "Obviousness" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this was thrown out as being obvious and non-inovative according to the foss article.

    I really dont understand this.. its only obvious and non-inovating because MOTOROLA has had this operation in the wild for many years.. And yes, it was patented.
    This is an example of a patent with no prior art being thrown out of court because its been around a while.. Im sorry, but this is nonsense.

    The previous apple lawsuits about multitouch, slide to unlock, and design "rounded corners" and everything ALL have examples of prior art which existed PRIOR to the patent being filed. These apple patents ARE invalid, but have not been ruled as such. So what I dont understand is... what the hell is going on here? Why is the legal system so obviously biassed towards apple? am I missing something?

    1. Re:The Insanity of "Obviousness" by texas+neuron · · Score: 1

      Yes you are missing something. A proximity sensor itself is not obvious but was already covered by another Motorola patent (http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/motorola-patent-defeats-another-in.html). The extension from the prior patent to the new patent is what is obvious. Motorola could sue based upon the prior patent if they had not let it expire.

    2. Re:The Insanity of "Obviousness" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using proximity sensors to sense proximity and make a decision based on it is very obvious. That's what you're missing, as that's exactly what proximity sensors are meant to do.

      Patenting the use of one on a mobile phone is the hardware equivalent of a software patent that is universally derided around here because some dick just added "on the Internet" to the end of an existing patent.

  19. Re:STILL NOT A TROLL, SLASHMOD RETARDS. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    It is a troll. They are incorrect statements. You don't seem to understand that design patents are valid.

  20. None of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, at least one patent application (and the only patent number I've every seen for this "design") the only substantive description of the thing patented was a diagram of rounded corners on a book-like device.

  21. Yes, but you obviously DID NOT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, now, the claims are the claims IN that document, not references outside it, OK. And dotted lines are not part of the description.

    Now, given that, what else is there other than rounded corners?

    NOTHING.

    Unless you're going to say "It has straight lines connecting those rounded corners".

  22. Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.

    1. Re:Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Paul.

      p.s. What do you make of this?

    2. Re:Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forty Two Tenfold has Jeremiah Cornelius = "friend" in his account on /. = obvious he's a sockpuppet account you, Jeremiah Cornelius, use. Yes we know it's you Jeremiah Cornelius that I am replying to now, you off topic troll. Jeremiah Cornelius, you blew it with your 100's of anonymous coward trollings by accidentally submitting one of them by your registered username here Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 and you, Jeremiah Cornelius failed badly giving yourself away troll. Doing sock puppets along with that? No big trick to the likes of you, clearly caught in the act in that link above..