Samsung, Apple... and YOU

[DannibusX]

Bounceback - This is not obvious tech and one could argue that it is infringing.
Pinch and zoom - Here i'm not sure. It's genius, and probably patentable. You can do it other ways, but probably not as good.
Tap and zoom - Same here. Not obvius.
Design contour - Yes and no. You can only make phones in so many ways, but some Samsungs are very much like iPhones, that is pretty hard to ignore. Also note that today it's pretty easy to spot an iPhone, showing that it's quite possible not make phones similiar.
Graphical Interface - It is similiar. Compare to the pictures below for something that isn't.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/alternative-designs-640x399.png

Willfull infringement - Well.. At some point Samsung did change directions, that too is hard to argue agains.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsung-iphone-2-640x407.png

And then below:

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsung-iphone-3-640x405.png

Yeah something happened. It was good of them to do it, and sales increased afaik and so on, but an entire lineup that is quite different from what they did before and quite similiar to an already existing phone? I'm calling it willfull.

All in all, I kinda agree with the Apple laywer who said "make your own phones". It is quite possible to do so, but Samsung didn't. I also believe the verdict in the end is bad for customers.

Do those phones look similar to the iPhone? Yes, but there are enough differences to set them apart.

 

[entropy13]

I find it quite weird though that the Holy Apple insists that they are being copied, and brings up all these lawsuits.

But true enlightenment cannot be copied! The magic of iProducts can never be duplicated by heretics! All Hail the Holy Apple! Glory be to the Sacred Company!

 

[the54thvoid]

All phones were pretty much rounded rectangles prior to apples entry to the phone market. Apple simply took the existing designs and made them cleaner.

The fault here entirely lies with a patents system that is completely inept and quite possibly corrupt. Oh, and Lucy Koh.

Apple has lost a patent trial in the UK with the judge famously saying the ipad is essentially cool and the galaxy tabs are not.

Likewise there is a senior American patents judge that has ruled against Apple quite recently (threw the case out). He's a federal circuit judge too so if an appeal comes his way, I think Samsung will win the appeal.

It should not be permissible to patent a design that is logical to the evolution of the device. Rounded edges prevent user discomfort, the same way automobiles have rounded designs for aerodynamics.

A rectangular display device cannot be patented (it already exists). Having rounded edges and few buttons on a touchscreen device are all logical steps in the evolution of the tablet.

Apple have been allowed, quite unbelievably, to patent anything they want.

We know they also recently received a patent for a wedge shape laptop device - which is insane as Sony had one out first (one of their early Viao's).

Apple use and buy other peoples technology and sue on design basis as that is what they are good at but designs are always fluid and evolutionary (not revolutionary). Apple's patent stand is backed up by a law which is simply broken.

And for those that say Samsung could just stop making the internals for the 'i'devices, that is probably a long legal tie in and also a massive earner for Samsung.

I have a feeling however that Apple will not win in the long term. LG, Samsung and other firms are creating new technology for use in mobile devices. What they will be learning from all of this is to patent it all early on. I think Apple will be left out in the cold in the future.

 

[Frederik S]

Where?

And I'm still not sure about the "generic look". There are many phones out there that somehow manage to not look like iPhones.

That is correct but look at the amount of phones prior to the iPhone that look seemingly similar, all Apple did was to remove a few buttons which does not make them entitled to a patent on the shape which carries their features like fewer buttons, big screen etc..

 

[Frick]

Do those phones look similar to the iPhone? Yes, but there are enough differences to set them apart.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsung-before-iphone-640x452.png

It's interesting how they didn't make that kind of phone until after Apple did.

@ the shape again. Look at the HTC One X.

Rounded and smooth and it doesn't look like an iPhone.

Oh, and Lucy Koh.

Apple has lost a patent trial in the UK with the judge famously saying the ipad is essentially cool and the galaxy tabs are not.

Likewise there is a senior American patents judge that has ruled against Apple quite recently (threw the case out). He's a federal circuit judge too so if an appeal comes his way, I think Samsung will win the appeal.

What was that about?

I have a feeling however that Apple will not win in the long term. LG, Samsung and other firms are creating new technology for use in mobile devices. What they will be learning from all of this is to patent it all early on. I think Apple will be left out in the cold in the future.

On short term I think creativity and design will get a boost, as manufacturers will fear the Apple look and there might be designs that will look original (look at Samsung phones up to 2010 for instance). In the long run it'll be bad as companies will patent everything.

 

[CJCerny]

I must admit that I don't understand all the Apple hate going on in this thread. If you went through the time and expense that it takes to be granted a patent on an idea and you felt that someone else went and infringed on your patent, you would sue them too. That's why patents exist--to safeguard your intellectual property. There isn't any corruption with the jury or the judge--an 8 year old could see that the patents were clearly infringed upon and all the judge did was keep the case all orderly. I'm not saying that Apple should have been granted the somewhat vague patents that they were granted in this case, but they are just doing what anyone else would do if they felt that they patents were stepped on. It isn't the end of the world or the start of a monopoly--it is just the beginning of Samsung (and everyone else too) having to work a little harder at their cell phone design because Apple has a few patents that are now at the core (pun intended) of what we now consider to be defacto smartphone design.

 

[the54thvoid]

What was that about?

It was Judge Richard Posner. He actually threw out the entire Motorola & Apple case:

Judge Richard Posner previously canceled a jury trial in Chicago in the case, and then castigated both Apple and Motorola while calling the entire US patent system "chaos."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/

 

[Frederik S]

I must admit that I don't understand all the Apple hate going on in this thread. If you went through the time and expense that it takes to be granted a patent on an idea and you felt that someone else went and infringed on your patent, you would sue them too. That's why patents exist--to safeguard your intellectual property. There isn't any corruption with the jury or the judge--an 8 year old could see that the patents were clearly infringed upon and all the judge did was keep the case all orderly. I'm not saying that Apple should have been granted the somewhat vague patents that they were granted in this case, but they are just doing what anyone else would do if they felt that they patents were stepped on. It isn't the end of the world or the start of a monopoly--it is just the beginning of Samsung (and everyone else too) having to work a little harder at their cell phone design because Apple has a few patents that are now at the core (pun intended) of what we now consider to be defacto smartphone design.

The issue at hand is that Apple has been granted patents to something that is very generic and where there are superseeding designs that are very close to it. These cases just prove that it does not matter who had the original idea, but who has the patents. It is not Apple who is at fault here it is the patent system in the US.

 

[Aquinus]

It is not Apple who is at fault here it is the patent system in the US.

I'm not going to dispute this, however it is Apple who has been using these generic patents to attack other companies. Apple is taking full advantage of it, and that is believe is what is pissing people off. I'm not going to lie though, Apple can sue others for patent infringement but when someone goes to sue Apple the judge throws it out? WTF? If it is such chaos, why don't cases where Apple is suing get thrown out as well. Hardly seems fair or balanced.

 

[pantherx12]

Ugn , I am disappoint.

+ 1 to the US Patent system being a joke.

 

[Frick]

I'm not going to dispute this, however it is Apple who has been using these generic patents to attack other companies. Apple is taking full advantage of it, and that is believe is what is pissing people off.

Update: A presentation made public Friday evening revealed that Apple offered to license some of its portfolio of patents to Samsung in October 2010 for $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet. When Samsung refused and made its own license-free devices, Apple gave Samsung a presentation, noting that "ecause Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing license for this category of device."

Apple also offered a 20 percent discount on the royalties if Samsung would cross-license its patents with Apple.

From here.

It's not much of that here, but some people around the web seem to think that Apple just jumped on them, but they didn't. They talked to them first when the phones arrived. Samsung knew what they were heading for.

 

[KainXS]

yeah, we kinda know that already, that was announced pretty much from the start of this

 

[GSquadron]

Apple accuses samsung for the design???
All tablets and cell phones are nearly equal how comes samsung has stolen the design?

 

[pantherx12]

I wonder if anyone has patents on generic designs like " silver box with dials and a glass screen with mesh inlay" Apple could patent loads of things that already exist! ( that's a microwave by the way folks!)

 

[Durvelle27]

Good Job Apple

 

[techtard]

Was there honestly any doubt that Apple would win? 2 days of 'deliberation'. Corruption at its finest.

 

[phanbuey]

I think this is good, not because apple deserves a billion dollars, but because samsung is a phenomenal tech company, and they could do better than iPhone clones, as they have proven with the galaxy S3.

Hopefully this is the kick in the ass they need to get out of their iBox, because they DID copy apple's design, and start coming out with better phone designs than the rectangle with a screen on it. We might see some pretty neat products come out of this.

 

[_JP_]

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.
We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth.

Innovation by seizing a monopoly...yeah, that's the way to do it... :shadedshu
Not to mention their crap is worth 2x less (at least) when it comes out of Foxconn's lines.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Samsung statement:

"Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer."

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Win for walled garden, loss for Sammy, loss of personal choice?
Im still waiting for you People, come one, get out, light up your torches, get your hayforks

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's interesting how they didn't make that kind of phone until after Apple did.

@ the shape again. Look at the HTC One X.

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/htc-one-x-ICS-phandroid-550x415.jpg

Rounded and smooth and it doesn't look like an iPhone.

Hey, look! The IBM Simon has "rounded and smooth" corners and buttons laid out in a square grid too. It came out in 1992:

Compaq iPAQ H3100...if this doesn't look like Apple stole most of its design cues, I don't know what to tell you:

There's also the HTC Wallaby that came out in 2002:

There was a whole generation of "smartphones" that existed before the iPhone called the "Pocket PC." Apple cloned them, made a few tweaks so it was palletable to Steve Jobs, then sold them as "the world's first smartphone" (inventing new words that mean nothing).

Apple doesn't invent anything. They outsource ideas to companies that do, patent the hell out of it, and sue anyone that tries to compete.

 

[mandis]

Hey, look! The IBM Simon has "rounded and smooth" corners and buttons laid out in a square grid too. It came out in 1992:
http://www.trendingaddict.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ibm-simon_w5002.jpg

Compaq iPAQ H3100...if this doesn't look like Apple stole most of its design cues, I don't know what to tell you:
http://vlib.eitan.ac.il/pda/devices/images/ipaq3100d.jpg

There's also the HTC Wallaby that came out in 2002:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d9/HTC_Wallaby.jpg/292px-HTC_Wallaby.jpg


There was a whole generation of "smartphones" that existed before the iPhone called the "Pocket PC." Apple cloned them, made a few tweaks so it was palletable to Steve Jobs, then sold them as "the world's first smartphone" (inventing new words that mean nothing).

Apple doesn't invent anything. They outsource ideas to companies that do, patent the hell out of it, and sue anyone that tries to compete.

The pocket pc was a BLATANT copy of the Palm. The Palm stems from the Apple Newton which was introduced a decade earlier. All these systems run on ARM, the CPU Apple created in order make the Newton. The Newton was not a phone but it supported FAX and Email capabilities back in 1993...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

IBM Simon was to market first (1992). MessagePad came out in 1993. Palm/PDA doesn't have phone.

Motorola designed all the hardware for it.


Pocket PC was the evolution of the PDA which was an evolution of the cellphone.

 

[pantherx12]

The pocket pc was a BLATANT copy of the Palm. The Palm stems from the Apple Newton which was introduced a decade earlier. All these systems run on ARM, the CPU Apple created in order make the Newton. The Newton was not a phone but it supported FAX and Email capabilities back in 1993...

http://www8.pcmag.com/media/images/266029-apple-newton.jpg

The Arm CPU was created by Acorn Computers.

An English company ... (Nothing to do with Apple is what I'm saying)

As far as I'm aware Apple have never produced their own processors, they've always been produced by other companies, sure they had some tweaked versions of CPUS but ultimately the designs were produced by others.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Samsung to fight court ruling in Apple patent dispute