Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple iPhones Found to Have Violated Chinese Rival's Patent (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the pot-calling-the-kettle-black? dept.

Beijing's intellectual property regulator has ordered Apple to stop sales of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus in the city, after it found that the design of Apple's iconic smartphone is too similar to a Chinese phone. The aforementioned handsets infringe on a Chinese patent for exterior design held by a company called Shenzhen Baili for its 100C smartphone. From a Bloomberg report: While the decision covers only Beijing, future lawsuits against Apple could take the case as a precedent, potentially influencing the outcomes of litigation elsewhere in China. Baili is one of scores of smartphone brands trying to cash in on the country's mobile boom. [...] "If the position by the Beijing IP office is upheld and Apple doesn't appeal further, then in theory they wouldn't be able to sell the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus," IP specialist Ted Chwu said. The iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus were launched in 2014. What took them so long?

130 comments

  1. Interesting by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't know that China understood the concept of design protection.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    1. Re:Interesting by Winckle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They feel differently when it's a Western company "violating" a Chinese company's patent.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure they understand it: If the Chinese designed it, it deserves protection. :P

    3. Re:Interesting by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2

      The iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus were launched in 2014. What took them so long?

      The wheel of (in)justice turns slowly... unless someone grease the wheel.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    4. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How does that differ from US design protection? Each country protects the patent they have issued. Rounded edges... as if that's such a huge design accomplishment.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds exactly like the kind of bullshit US courts pull.
      This is yet another case of "what goes around, come around".
      The US was immune to it while they were the only big kid and all smaller nations just had to suck it up. China doesn't need to.

    6. Re:Interesting by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Isn't a more interesting question, "How far has Apple fallen that they now have to copy Chinese designs?"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Interesting by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      There is not enough information is TFA. When did the Chinese company file for a patent?

      It used to be that one (inventor or applicant) must prove where the invention idea came from when files for a patent. It was changed a while back and now it is "first to file" which is stupid. One conspiracy theory is that the Chinese company stole the design idea from Apple (using the loop hole in patent filing). An enforcible patent must be filed in the country it is enforced (or covered) in order for claims to be valid. My guess is that Apple did not file for a patent in China (but may have it in the U.S.) when they sent (outsource) their manufacturing to China. The Chinese company filed for a patent in China for what Apple asked them to do. Because the part is manufacturing there (China), the violation is valid. Just my guess...

    8. Re:Interesting by slack_justyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They feel differently when it's a Western company "violating" a Chinese company's patent.

      Exactly this, calling the Chinese Judicial system an actual Judicial system is playing extremely loose with what those words mean. I mean, there is justice, but about as much justice that could be meted out with weighted dice in place for actual judges, if the dice are weighted against you, you might as well hang it up and find out how to get your own set of weighted dice. More than likely Apple will pay whatever "operating cost" they need to pay and move on with their lives. More so, this is exactly how business as usual runs in China. There are certain "operating costs" that have to be paid before you sell something/build something/enslave someone there and failure to do so has you running afoul with the Judicial system.

      This isn't Apple's first rodeo in the Chinese legal system and they're well aware of what needs to be done. Doing business in China is a balance of how much are you willing to pay off people and how much you stand to profit. The more you want to profit, the more of that profit you need to "invest" in the Chinese legal system. The Chinese don't see it so much as bribery as the do what they tend to call it "investments". People who sell products in China, need to be vested in the unique interest of China in order to sell their wares there. Or at least that's how the logic works that I've been explained. But I must say that it sounds like it would be dreadful to do business in that country.

    9. Re:Interesting by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Chinese model wasn't invented until this year. Duh!

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    10. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they do understand.
      The original ruling wasn't from a court, but rather a regional patent tribunal.
      The tribunal's ruling has been stayed by a court.
      http://www.macrumors.com/2016/06/17/apple-halt-iphone-6-beijing/

      From Apple:
      " We appealed an administrative order from a regional patent tribunal in Beijing last month and as a result the order has been stayed pending review by the Beijing IP Court," Apple told CNBC in a statement.

    11. Re:Interesting by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that China understood the concept of design protection.

      Only when it serves a suppressive country's interest in controlling communication.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    12. Re:Interesting by kheldan · · Score: 2

      I didn't know that China understood the concept of design protection.

      They do when it benefits them to do so.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    13. Re:Interesting by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus were launched in 2014. What took them so long?

      The wheel of (in)justice turns slowly... unless someone grease the wheel.

      I've heard that only matters to the people on the rim.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case we the US ought to take whatever fine that China unjustly imposes on Apple right out of US debt held by China. A couple of rounds of that and China will either learn to stop it or or not place themselves in such a vulnerable position.

    15. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Apple can claim prior art - circa 2007.

    16. Re:Interesting by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Actually, rounded corners not withstanding, that looks an awful lot like the 2007 iphone. And, iphones were already in manufacturing in June, 2014, so the design came earlier. It's much more likely that Shenzhen lifted the design from the specs sent to Apple's manufacturers.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    17. Re:Interesting by magarity · · Score: 1

      They feel differently when it's a Western company "violating" a Chinese company's patent.

      Especially when the President of that Western company's country just had a meeting with a political enemty of the Chinese goverment. It's all about petty revenge.

    18. Re:Interesting by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      They feel differently when it's a Western company "violating" a Chinese company's patent.

      Apple feels differently when it is on the receiving end of a design patent suit?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    19. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because I'm sure that Chinese judges aren't doing any home cooking, if you know what I mean. Not like this is the first time that Chinese government finds in favor of Chinese company over western capitalist running dogs.

    20. Re:Interesting by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

      You have misquoted Emo Phillips. The correct quote is: "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

    21. Re:Interesting by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Isn't a more interesting question, "How far has Apple fallen that they now have to copy Chinese designs?"

      That's sarcasm, I assume.

    22. Re:Interesting by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt the deliberately copied it, they just created an environment where companies feel that rounded corners are worthy of protection and litigation. Karma is a bitch, huh Apple?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Interesting by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Doing business in China is a balance of how much are you willing to pay off people and how much you stand to profit. The more you want to profit, the more of that profit you need to "invest" in the Chinese legal system. The Chinese don't see it so much as bribery as the do what they tend to call it "investments". People who sell products in China, need to be vested in the unique interest of China in order to sell their wares there. Or at least that's how the logic works that I've been explained

      It's actually the same reasoning used to tax corporations in all countries, except "us" and "them" have been reversed so most people now find the concept foreign (no pun intended). The corporation is able to conduct business in the country due to its social and legal system, so it needs to "invest" in the interests of that country by paying taxes.

      It sounds like fairness when it's a corporation you don't care about (them) paying those taxes and you're the beneficiary (us). But when it's "your" corporation being forced to pay and someone you don't care about and whose legal system you have no say in (the Chinese) is the beneficiary, the same thing sounds unfair.

    24. Re:Interesting by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So it's basically like the US, where patent holders always sue in this one corrupt court that never seems to favour their foreign rivals, like Samsung. Got it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple does not have a patent on rounded edges. They have a design patent where rounded edges is one of 20+ other distinctions.

    26. Re:Interesting by mwvdlee · · Score: 0

      By that same logic, I hereby declare that the US now owes me $5 million.

      Go and vote a trump, you dipshit.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    27. Re:Interesting by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Not quite as far as Samsung.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    28. Re:Interesting by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's sarcasm, I assume.

      No, Mr Cook, I'm being serious. Ever since the iWristwatch, Apple has had the stink of desperation on it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple didn't intentionally copy, they just look alike and the Chinese company was the first, hence they have protection. In the US case against Samsung, there were internal communications within Samsung indicating they intentionally copied (patented) design elements of the iPhone to make them look similar. This was done mainly because Samsung didn't have a design team that could come up with signature products and they wanted to capitalize on the success of Apple in the mobile space.

    30. Re:Interesting by macs4all · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's sarcasm, I assume.

      No, Mr Cook, I'm being serious. Ever since the iWristwatch, Apple has had the stink of desperation on it.

      I think Apple did the Apple Watch because everyone EXPECTED them to do it; not because they thought it was the greatest new thing ever.

      The issue is not "Desparation", so much as "Having most, if not all, of the "boxes" checked already."

      Honestly, can you think of another new CLASS of product that would fall logically into Apple's wheelhouse (or any company making similar products?) that anyone has come up with in the past 5 years or so? The Smartwatch is pretty much "it".

      Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality is just now becoming sorta interesting. Rumor has it that Apple has been snapping-up talent in that area for about the past year or so.

      But computer improvements in general (hardware-wise) have been slowing down across the board; same with mobile. It happens.

      For example, when was the last big improvement in home entertainment systems? Product classifications and industries (and consumer tastes) change and mature over time. High-tech stuff is no different.

      If Apple is desparate, it is because the entire industry is desparate.

      If you can find me another company in a similar product-space as Apple that is truly burning-up the press with stuff that is more than just incremental improvements to existing products, that truly changes the way all similar products look and act, like the iPhone did for cellphones, or are truly a new CLASS of product, I'm all eyes.

    31. Re:Interesting by Tharkkun · · Score: 2

      That's sarcasm, I assume.

      No, Mr Cook, I'm being serious. Ever since the iWristwatch, Apple has had the stink of desperation on it.

      Clearly you missed that Apple's phone was released almost 2 years before the Chinese manufactured phone. China copied it and waited until they had a product on the market and then banned the Apple version. That's how China works. They copy, copy, copy and keep copying and when their shit copies aren't being purchased they outlaw the foreign competition by banning or suing them.

    32. Re:Interesting by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      Actually, rounded corners not withstanding, that looks an awful lot like the 2007 iphone. And, iphones were already in manufacturing in June, 2014, so the design came earlier. It's much more likely that Shenzhen lifted the design from the specs sent to Apple's manufacturers.

      It doesn't matter in Chinese court. When you are a foreigner you won't win. That's why most corporations set up a shell company inside China who acts like a partner to sell your products.

    33. Re:Interesting by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

      You have misquoted Emo Phillips. The correct quote is: "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

      That's entirely possible. However, it is also possible that he is misquoting me, since I have been using that tagline since the days of logging into BBSs using Telix on a 286 in the late 80s. I am sure that I copied it accurately from the guy I swiped it from, because my tagline management program was really good at that.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    34. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Apple didn't need the president of united states to protect them against evil foreigners.

      http://www.slashgear.com/obama-overturns-apple-ipad-and-iphone-sales-ban-03292696/

    35. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't Apple's first rodeo in the Chinese legal system

      > implying the US legal system isn't a rodeo.

      Remember when Samsung was able to get a US court to levy an injunction against Apple over a patent dispute, but Obama vetoed the injunction? Protip: Whenever you point your finger elsewhere remember there are three aiming right back at you.

      No, I don't remember when the head of the Executive branch used a veto against an injunction placed by the Judicial branch (over which he has no veto authority), considering that veto power is used against bills passed by the Legislative branch (who cannot place injunctions).

      Posts like this one is why Slashdot needs some mechanism to prevent children from posting.

    36. Re:Interesting by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

      You have misquoted Emo Phillips. The correct quote is: "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

      That's entirely possible. However, it is also possible that he is misquoting me, since I have been using that tagline since the days of logging into BBSs using Telix on a 286 in the late 80s. I am sure that I copied it accurately from the guy I swiped it from, because my tagline management program was really good at that.

      Oh, so HE misquoted Emo. ;-)

      I just noticed because I've used that line off and on since I first heard it around 1990 or so (I think).

    37. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

    38. Re:Interesting by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I would have modded you up if you weren't maxed already.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    39. Re:Interesting by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Kind of like if a new TV manufacturer were to make TVs they would make a square panel on a stand with a bevel around the edge and a screen, to enjoy success in the TV market.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    40. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they still do not understand design. Apple is the one that designed it first, and then the Chinese company grabbed the design based on stealing it.
      Clever. These days, the chinese gov is BLEEDING western companies that were foolish/greedy enough to go after Chinese manufacturing.

    41. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why?
      Perhaps if the Chinese gov does this a few more times, Western businesses will FINALLY realize that the Chinese gov is in a cold war with the west.

    42. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if Apple is creating a product not because they believe in it, but because it is expected of them, then yes, they have become desperate.

    43. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I should not have been so smart-alecky and explained what I meant.
      The Samsung ruling was issued by the USITC (United States International Trade Commission).
      USITC is not a court, it is a federal agency. The Obama administration did not "veto" a court ruling, it overturned the USITC's ruling.

      Although many articles used the word "veto", that is using a very loose definition of the word in a way that isn't appropriate when talking about the Executive branch's powers.

      From a non-paywalled article:
      http://articles.latimes.com/20...

      "Froman emphasized in his letter that he was not making a decision about the merits of Samsung's case, or its right to seek compensation. Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy."

      In other words, Samsung was free to seek redress in the courts for money or an injunction, but the Obama administration was not going to let Samsung use a Federal agency to do an end-run around the Judicial system.

    44. Re:Interesting by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Only if by "kinda" you mean not like that at all, you stupid fuck.

    45. Re: Interesting by BundyGil · · Score: 1

      Cold war? I would say a rather hot war

    46. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A country should go to the war with China for Apple's inability to send phones in one city in China? I think you should vote for Hillary, as she's going to declare wars for less. Say, for watching "dictators" die or because it's Sunday.

  2. What took them so long? Simple by Shoten · · Score: 5, Informative

    It took them that long to file the patent...once the iPhone 6 was released.

    Let's face it: "Chinese Intellectual Property Law" is an oxymoron.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  3. Pics or GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, really, I want date-stamped images of the two brands.

    My instinctive statistical guesswork is 80% chance this is just a Chinese money-grab, 20% chance that this is just a case of more than one person on earth having had the idea of "white rectangle with rounded corners." A proper photograph timeline would help identify which of the two is more likely.

    1. Re:Pics or GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure you get the design prototypes from apple's servers, and the records of that data as it was exfiltrated to PRC. Or, if you don't have that (probably not) just the timestamps on those design files from the Chinese company, preferably at each edit. Compare how they were designed.

      I think you'll find it took a lot longer to design the first one. Which, I think you'll find, was the Apple one.

    2. Re: Pics or GTFO by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Embrace, exploit, excommunicate. Why bother with prior art when your government is so corrupt? Just imitate, register, and sue, like with the handbag company that won the right to rip off the iPhone name. They didn't come up with it, but because foreign companies will apparently always be treated like garbage in the Chinese IP framework, they now have control. This process will probably continue until Apple gives up and starts avoiding China altogether, or, like the software companies that can't get licensed because of protectionism, greed, and probably racism, license everything to a Chinese company at a massive loss. There's no way the Baili 100C was designed in ignorance of past iPhones.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re: Pics or GTFO by james_gnz · · Score: 1

      Aren't iPhones made in China though? That would make it kind of hard for Apple to avoid China.

    4. Re: Pics or GTFO by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      At the moment, this is just about sales, but it doesn't seem that infeasible that it could blow up into Apple needing to move some production. Cynically, manufacturing puts money into the local economy rather than removing it, so the proverbial corrupt regulator probably has a very different outlook on it.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:Pics or GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you don't really need date-stamp because they don't actually look alike any more than a IPhone 6 looks like a 5S. Or rather as different as each other, or well, heck, you get the idea.

      here's a crappy pic:

      http://9to5mac.com/2016/06/17/iphone-copies-chinese-phone-beijing/

  4. Missing Steve by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    If Jobs were still alive and at the helm, he would tell the Chinese to go pound sand.

    1. Re:Missing Steve by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      And they'd reply

      "Good artists copy; greate artists steal".

      Besides, Apple's stance towards patents on appearances is well-known (see the rounded corners debate). If some legitimate court finds that the specific iPhone appears too similar to the 100c, what's Apple going to do? Complain that patents on appearances are bullshit?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Missing Steve by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      If Jobs were still alive and at the helm, he would tell the Chinese to go pound sand.

      Are talking about the same company that brought lawsuits over a rectangle with rounded corners?

      Apple's chickens may be coming home to roost.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: Missing Steve by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Prior art. If there is any shred of normalcy in the Chinese patent system, this will fall apart fairly quickly. ... Of course, we can easily spend all day speculatively fearmongering about corruption on the part of the people who let this case happen in the first place, which may not be insubstantial.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re: Missing Steve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely. There's a lot of fearmongering over a case because of an abnormal result. Perhaps Apple didn't even really try to defend this case because they thought it was crazy, however they are definitely appealing.

      The fact of the matter is China DOES follow laws, and in reality most foreigners who are screwed over, are people who didn't understand the Chinese legal system, thinking that China's legal system is exactly the same as the US, a common law country, despite the fact that China is a civil law country, based on German law.

      All Apple has to show is that they were using its design before the design patent was even filed.

      Already the court order has already been stayed, pending review by court.

  5. First Copy by jblues · · Score: 1

    The first iPhone I ever bought was a cheap Chinese copy that I got at the dirt market in Malaysia. It came in perfect Apple packaging and included a certificate of authenticity, but when I opened the box up and switched it on, I thought, "Hey, I remember being so impressed with my buddy's one, but I don't recall it having a radio like this".

    --
    If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    1. Re:First Copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also tried to sell that model to me in the streets here. It was turned on. The box and the exterior was perfect, the icons did not match; even the iconic wifi icon was not vaguely similar to the Apple one. It was clearly a Windows CE, with a very botched job of a "iOS" skin. Hence, I am thinking you must be an idiot.

  6. Meh... by drew_92123 · · Score: 2

    Apple will simply assert that they were copied, do their best to prove it... and if they lose they just appeal after having a back room meeting with somebody that matters advising China that they are more than happy to take their production elsewhere if somebody doesn't step in and make this little problem go away.

    1. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, then the foxconn will produce millions of clones with some name like Fox two+
      And where will the apple go? Someplace where they need to build a new factory? Multiple years will that take ...

  7. live by the lawyers IP pen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    die by the pen.

  8. Trump's master plan by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    Chinese company sues,
    Apple onshores factories.

    1. Re:Trump's master plan by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Darn. If only he hadn't build an impenetrable wall.

    2. Re:Trump's master plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone seems to have forgotten that there are videos of Clinton from 2006 saying precisely the same stuff Trump has said about building a wall.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezaw-g6TIQI

  9. iFrone 6 by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    When I was in Beijing my favorite thing was seeing all the people wandering around with their "Nikee" or "Hilfinger" branded clothing. It might even have come out of the same sweatshop. So if someone can find a "iFrone 6" that's a clone of the iPhone 6, I'd happily pay $50 for it.

    1. Re:iFrone 6 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When I was in Beijing my favorite thing was seeing all the people wandering around with their "Nikee" or "Hilfinger" branded clothing. It might even have come out of the same sweatshop.

      My lady bought me a "FUB" shirt at the local Grocery Outlet in Lakeport, CA. I think it was actually the only one that was wrong, maybe that's when the sweatshop closed down or something, right before embroidering the last "U" on the front of my shirt. It wasn't much crappier than a real FUBU shirt and it was fairly hilarious so I wore it. It's not easy finding shirts in my size, since I'm a double-tall, and most shirts aren't even single-tall.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:iFrone 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the SQMY brand batteries and game controllers?

    3. Re:iFrone 6 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's not easy finding shirts in my size, since I'm a double-tall, and most shirts aren't even single-tall.

      I have the same problem with condoms.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:iFrone 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are having trouble finding your size, you might try putting normal sized ones in the oven for ten minutes or so. You know, like the old Shrinky Dinks.

    5. Re:iFrone 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not easy finding ...my size...I have the same problem with condoms.

      Well, stop shopping in the big man stores.

  10. What took them so long? by Jack_of_Shadow · · Score: 1

    Easy, they had to back date their patents and then bribe all the public officials to sign off on those backdated documents. That is why they 'waited' two years to file. Ever been to China? that's how it works there.

    --
    My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
  11. Live by injustice, die by injustice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously I have to take Apple's side in this stupid case, but I also take pleasure in that the totally unwarranted action is happening to the same fucking company that perpetrated the same kind of unwarranted attack against Samsung.

    This is like a rabidly anti-civil-rights senator getting outed as gay or black. "I hate, I hate, I think the government should do something about those fucking ni-- oh shit, not me! Not mee!!!!!"

    1. Re:Live by injustice, die by injustice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Samsung is full of it though. They have a home market where they are one of only two major brands that have their toes in everything. The foreign market they are lucky if they grab 10% of it an any country. So a patent claim by Samsung against anyone acts to shut the competitor out of their home country and does little in foreign countries since it takes a stupid amount of money, time and lawyers to fight essentially the same patent in every country that has different patent filing times and rules.

      China and Chinese companies on the other hand just rip off western companies by "partnering" with them, and then 5 years or so into partnering, all the counterfeits of their products push them out of the market. Ask how well all other Smartphone brands are doing in China, the answer is Apple is the only one that is even selling among all the cheap poorly built chinese phones. Samsung and LG are considered too expensive and aren't luxury products, so they've experienced drops of 39% and LG doesn't have any significant presence. The #1 Phone brand in China is Xaiomi, with Huawei and Apple tied for second. Huawei you might recognize as the "free" cell phone that carriers in the US and Canada hawk because it's super-profitable to sell disposable phones.

      Nobody else can produce an "Apple iPhone" because the software ecosystem is effectively closed, and the app store ensures that counterfeits can't be loaded with legitimate software. Apple can actually survive in China's market by making sure the OS doesn't make it onto counterfeit devices and producing their own CPU/GPU parts.

      This is why Open Source isn't always the best thing. Open Source when dealing with countries like China just results in "Steal me faster", If Android wasn't open source at all, the chinese smartphones wouldn't even have a chance. Tizen is the most popular smartphone OS in India and if Android wasn't such garbage, probably would be the OS of choice worldwide.

      Android effectively replaced Symbian, and drowned all the other Mobile OS's in the bathtub except iOS which had the first mover advantage. Which is to say Microsoft originally had the first mover advantage and then fell down the stairs and broke it's neck.

  12. I for one Don't welcome... by freedom_surfer · · Score: 1

    I for one DON'T welcome our new Chinese overlords...color me surprised as well....I normally welcome our new overlords, wherever they come from....

    1. Re:I for one Don't welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one DON'T welcome our new Chinese overlords...color me surprised as well....I normally welcome our new overlords, wherever they come from....

      Somehow I get from your tone that you are not a person of "color"...

    2. Re:I for one Don't welcome... by freedom_surfer · · Score: 1

      It's just an expression. :) Re-reading what I posted, I can see how it can misconstrued though. Even though we are discussing the 'Chinese' as a nation where the legal dispute took place, some subconsciously read the 'Chinese' as all people who share a genetic link with the region. So to clarify, I distinctly mean the nation. It does have me thinking though, if I replaced Chinese with American, would it be misconstrued in the same way? I'm guessing not. Funny how that works.

      Also, I may be back to welcoming our new overlords again. I hear they are some mighty fine island builders. (and by 'they' I again mean the nation...don't want you to confused my 'tone' again)

  13. Re:What took them so long? Simple by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    It took them that long to file the patent...once the iPhone 6 was released.

    Let's face it: "Chinese Intellectual Property Law" is an oxymoron.

    Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  14. pics of the 100c phone by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

    http://www.macrumors.com/2016/...

    Personally, the iPhone 6 doesn't appear to look anything like the 100c, except perhaps the ring around the back camera.

    1. Re:pics of the 100c phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're both flat, and have rounded corners.

  15. What took them so long? by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 1

    Probably the same tactic as all patent infringement cases: wait until the product gets huge, then sue for the damages (i.e., the profits made by the infringing party). There's no value enforcing patent protection *before* the product gets big, since the realized damages are so small. Only after a few years (sometimes many, many years), once those realized damages grow, does it make sense to throw money at lawyers to get back what you, as a patent holder, think you're entitled to.

  16. The Real Issue by brwski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real issue is probably something utterly unrelated. Beijing is simply using this as leverage to get something else out of Apple that they want (which is probably an end-around when it comes to encryption). It's all about the long game.

    --

    brwski
    "Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''

    1. Re:The Real Issue by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't know, those pictures show very rounded corners on both devices.

  17. Live by the patent, die by the patent by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    It might just be all about money. Apple has it. They want some.

    Patent trolling works both ways? Who knew!

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  18. Seems Fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US companies like Apple and Microsoft have been using bullshit patents to prevent foreign companies from entering the US market. What we see here is the Chinese doing the same. Apple can't really have any complaints at having their own tactics used against them.

  19. What took them so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ethics; careful investigation of the issues before acting, as opposed to the American-style mindless head-on assault, relying only on the size of the company and the protectionism and backing of their government.

    It's good to see American companies, and Apple in particular, a bonafide patent troll, get a taste of their own stupid medicine.

  20. hahahahaha fuck china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck china

  21. Re:What took them so long? Simple by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

    Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

    Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  22. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what probably happened is apple did what they usually do, work with foxconn to develop the next models. someone at foxconn took early drawings and gave them to another company who actually got a barely-similar model out to market before apple's fairly predictable development cycle could.

    and a patent ruling that only affects ONE CITY? wtf is what? that itself sounds like a sham. imagine imagine if all the rulings in east texas only applied in east texas district....

  23. Oh yeah? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Well here's our 'rounded corners' patent back at ya!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    Uh huh? And you don't think they had some inside information about upcoming iPhone designs, which are also manufactured in China? Gosh, they'd never resort to wholesale industrial espionage, would they?

    Sorry China, but you don't get to play this both ways. Well, you DO, since it's your country, but we'll at least call bullshit on it. And in fact, we can't look too smug, since our own system is fucked up enough as it is, just not quite as fucked up as theirs.

    This will probably result in Apple having to brib... er, pay some hefty fine, and then continue business as usual.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  25. Its first to file, not discover or ship by perpenso · · Score: 1

    I think the patent system in China and in the US (now) is First to File. Discovering first or shipping first does not matter. So all that matters is the dates of the patent applications.

  26. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They look about as much alike as the models in the Apple v Samsung design lawsuit, which eventually resulted in Samsung owing Apple $400M+.

  27. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

    Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

    They both look like an iPhone 4 to me. or maybe an iPod touch.

    On second thought, they really do look like a Palm PDA without the buttons.
    Yep. I'm going with they're both copies of the Palm.

  28. Matthew 26:52 by hey! · · Score: 1

    "... for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Matthew 26:52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matthew 25:31

      "...When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"

      Be watchful now the world is about to change very soon.

    2. Re:Matthew 26:52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for those that don't.

  29. Re:What took them so long? Simple by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

    Nope, but then it does have round corners so by legal precedence they are identical.

  30. Re:What took them so long? Simple by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Hmm, both of them look a lot like my Samsung phone. Maybe Samsung should sue them both.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  31. Re:What took them so long? Simple by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

    Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

    More to the point is just how different can the exterior of smartphones actually be - especially from a practical standpoint? The devices are only so big, intended to be held in identically-shaped hands and used in the same way. Many internal components, like batteries, are very much alike and limited in shape and size, so components can only be arranged in certain configurations. Buttons, cameras and microphones (etc) are limited in their locations due to usage needs. From a practical standpoint, it would seem that these devices must be more alike than different.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  32. Re:What took them so long? Simple by dunkindave · · Score: 1

    Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

    Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

    Screen, speaker and mic in front - check.
    Front-facing camera and rear-facing camera with flash - check.
    Rounded edges - check.
    Uses an operating system that allows the installation of apps - check.

    Got to admit it, the iPhone 6 does share those innovative and unique features. /s

  33. Re:What took them so long? Simple by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    From a practical standpoint, it would seem that these devices must be more alike than different.

    Imagine if car manufacturers sued each other for similar design attributes.

    You have four wheels. The steering wheel is on the left side. You have a key to start your vehicle. I'm suing you because your design is so similar to mine.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  34. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    It took them that long to file the patent...once the iPhone 6 was released.

    Let's face it: "Chinese Intellectual Property Law" is an oxymoron.

    The verdict against Samsung copying Apple came 3-4 years after the infringement. What took Apple so long?

    To paraphrase you: I guess Apple needed time to copy Samsungs original design?

    Either that or court cases take time.

  35. Chinese Copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Chinese make a living by stealing from others, even stealing from their own Chinese companies.
    They even copy the brand names, because they are so unoriginal.
    And they swap out the expensive parts for cheapest crap on Earth.
    Do you think anyone gives a damn about Chinese copyrights?

  36. Karma by SmaryJerry · · Score: 2

    The shape of the iphone 6? Insane. You mean a rectangle with rounded corners? This sounds like karma for apple suing others for using icons with rounded corners.

  37. Re:What took them so long? Simple by macs4all · · Score: 1

    Their phone was released 6 months before the iPhone. Unless you think that they invented time-travel, the odds are that their design was completed long before the iPhone in question was released.

    Yeah, it probably was, but can you say that these two designs really resemble each other?

    Six months? How long before release do you think Foxconn was making iPhone 6 prototypes for Apple?

    People around here have absolutely no concept of how long product design cycles are.

    I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if Foxconn was making iPhone 8 prototypes right now.

  38. Re:What took them so long? Simple by macs4all · · Score: 2

    what probably happened is apple did what they usually do, work with foxconn to develop the next models. someone at foxconn took early drawings and gave them to another company who actually got a barely-similar model out to market before apple's fairly predictable development cycle could.

    and a patent ruling that only affects ONE CITY? wtf is what? that itself sounds like a sham. imagine imagine if all the rulings in east texas only applied in east texas district....

    That is EXACTLY what happened. I would bet anything on that, knowing how Chinese "product development" works.

  39. Re:What took them so long? Simple by macs4all · · Score: 1

    From a practical standpoint, it would seem that these devices must be more alike than different. Imagine if car manufacturers sued each other for similar design attributes. You have four wheels. The steering wheel is on the left side. You have a key to start your vehicle. I'm suing you because your design is so similar to mine.

    Precisely.

  40. interrupted! by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see our Chinese friends could take some time out of their commercial sabotage to bicker about being commercially sabotaged ...

  41. Apple and China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm

  42. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever heard of corporate espionage? The iPhone is MADE IN CHINA. $50 says that company had a few spies at the Foxconn factory, had them smuggle out either early designs required to build tooling or actual pre production phones and then scurried to crank out cheap shit copies that looked similar. Once no one was buying their cheap shit knock offs, they tried this lawsuit stunt... There are exactly zero morals in China and the concept of fair play does not exist, which is why any company that moves manufacturing to China is just foolish and they will have their designs, their manufacturing techniques stolen, along with any other knowledge of value.

  43. Re:What took them so long? Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's face it: Intellectual Properly Law" is an oxymoron.

  44. Looks like patent troll... by seven+of+five · · Score: 3, Informative

    Affected company apparently has no website, phone, or email.

  45. typical communist bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese government is fucking ridiculous.

  46. In first to file, anything published is "filed" by tepples · · Score: 1

    I know nothing about Chinese patent law, other than that WTO membership requires China to have one. But in the United States, the switch to "first to file" did not abridge the novelty requirement. Anything published, even other than as a patent application, before a given patent application is filed is considered prior art and therefore "filed".

    1. Re:In first to file, anything published is "filed" by perpenso · · Score: 1

      I know nothing about Chinese patent law, other than that WTO membership requires China to have one. But in the United States, the switch to "first to file" did not abridge the novelty requirement. Anything published, even other than as a patent application, before a given patent application is filed is considered prior art and therefore "filed".

      No one said prior art no longer exists. The point is that Baili shipping first is not necessarily meaningful. If Apple filed before Baili shipped, and or course before Baili filed, then Apple "wins". Apple shipping second is not necessarily a problem as long as Apple filed early enough.

    2. Re:In first to file, anything published is "filed" by tepples · · Score: 1

      True, if Apple filed before Baili filed, shipped, or otherwise published its own design, Apple wins. But since the America Invents Act was announced, a lot of other Slashdot readers have posted comments under the mistaken impression that the replacement of interference proceedings with first-to-file somehow abridges novelty by allowing only patent applications to be prior art. For example, had Baili published a photo of its design before Apple filed, Baili might win.

    3. Re:In first to file, anything published is "filed" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the point of first to file is to avoid me saying "I invented it first, ask my buddies, we were down the pub last Christmas, honest. And this notebook, look, it has dates written in it with a different pen and everything" after you file. If it ain't externally verifiable it doesn't count.

      It's simply easier to administer. Sucks if two guys are working on it independently at the same time in their sheds, but them's the breaks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  47. If Apple hadn't sued over round cornered rect... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I'd feel a bit sorrier for Apple is they hadn't sued over round cornered rectangles...and won against a foreign company in a US court.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  48. Re:What took them so long? Simple by samwichse · · Score: 1

    Adblocking bullshit popover warning on that link.

    Recommend you just don't click it at all.

  49. Re:What took them so long? Simple by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Apple's choice to use a company they had no control over.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  50. Claims Violated by PPH · · Score: 2

    1. A portable communications device: Where said device is manufactured by child and prison labor.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  51. China generates its own patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Between hacking every large American company; placing domestic business spies, and outright lying to Western companies about IP protection you'd think the Chinese wouldn't have to invent anything. China is a huge country with lots of smart people;it's too bad that the psychopaths among them run the country. China NEVER tells the truth. I feel sorry for the Chinese people.

  52. Company specialising in monetizing valuable IP by golodh · · Score: 1
    @seven of five

    Allow me to correct you, because the term "patent troll" is unknown in business circles, largely dated, prejudicial, defamatory, and may open you up to legal action.

    What you really meant to say is that the Chinese company affected is one that specialises in monetising Valuable Intellectual Property, by which means it spurs Innovation, while not necessarily being a practising entity.

    There, fixed that for you.

  53. This is the definition of irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and it smells like another shakedown.