Apple and Samsung Seek to Extend Infringement Claims in Second U.S. Patent Lawsuit

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by macfacts

More like people don't like that Apple somehow got a government monopoly on rectangles or page turn animations.

This is an extremely biased statement. Apple didn't get a "monopoly" on rectangles. Furthermore, you heard Samsung's false statement and processed it as fact and failed to actually research exactly what patents Samsung was convicted of infringing upon.

The D504,889 patent is for the iPad's edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel (which I assume you were referring to). This patent was NOT found by the courts to be infringed upon by Samsung. The patents that were found to be infringed upon were: 7,844,915 for single-finger scrolling and two-finger zooming, while number 7,864,163 claims tap-to-zoom technology. As for the design patents, D618,677 claims the iPhone's edge-to-edge glass, speaker slot and display border and D604,305 claims the grid-style icon layout in iOS.

The only exterior design patent infringed upon was the '677 patent. Which didn't even patent rectangular design, but rather - edge to edge glass, speaker slot and display border. Design elements which were blatantly copied by Samsung without gaining licensing and are not necessary to produce a mobile phone. They also awarded Trade Dress Claims for the iPhone - feeling that a number of Samsung mobile phone devices were similar enough to dilute Apple's brand. Again - not related to rectangles or rounded corners, but mainly on grid UI design, look and feel of UI, as well as edge to edge glass, speaker slot among other distinct Apple design features.

The main thing to realize here is not just that the jury felt they were similar enough to award, its that they found the infringement to be WILLFUL. Meaning they found evidence (in Samsung executive email exchanges) that pretty much compared their smartphones to the iPhone and pointed out where Samsung could improve. Many resolutions were simply, "iPhone has xx and looks much better. We must adopt this design/strategy, etc". I believe that without such clear cut evidence, Apple would not have won the '677 patent or Trade Dress Claims.

[RobHague]

Samsung should win. They are the huge innovators these days! They added a Stylus and 5" screen to a phone.

Mind. Is. Blown.

/s

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by jctevere

This is an extremely biased statement. Apple didn't get a "monopoly" on rectangles. Furthermore, you took Samsung's false statement and failed to actually research exactly what patents Samsung was convicted of infringing upon.

The D504,889 patent is for the iPad's edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel (which I assume you were referring to). This patent was NOT found by the courts to be infringed upon by Samsung. The patents that were found to be infringed upon were: 7,844,915 for single-finger scrolling and two-finger zooming, while number 7,864,163 claims tap-to-zoom technology. As for the design patents, D618,677 claims the iPhone's edge-to-edge glass, speaker slot and display border and D604,305 claims the grid-style icon layout in iOS.

The only exterior design patent infringed upon was the '677 patent. Which didn't even patent rectangular design, but rather - edge to edge glass, speaker slot and display border. Design elements which were blatantly copied by Samsung without gaining licensing and are not necessary to produce a mobile phone. They also awarded Trade Dress Claims for the iPhone - feeling that a number of Samsung mobile phone devices were similar enough to dilute Apple's brand. Again - not related to rectangles or rounded corners, but mainly on grid UI design, look and feel of UI, as well as edge to edge glass, speaker slot among other distinct Apple design features.

The main thing to realize here is not just that the jury felt they were similar enough to award, its that they found the infringement to be WILLFUL. Meaning they found evidence (in Samsung executive email exchanges) that pretty much compared their smartphones to the iPhone and pointed out where Samsung could improve. Many resolutions were simply, "iPhone has xx and looks much better. We must adopt this design/strategy, etc". I believe that without such clear cut evidence, Apple would not have won the '677 patent or Trade Dress Claims.

But it's so much easier to claim Apple was awarded $1B for rounded rectangles.

[runmachine]

Apple fans: Apple got to it first, the iPhone and iPad are outstanding products. In my book, Apple should keep on suing and force the competition to actually innovate and/or provide a better product....not just a CLONE or semi-clone with more processor speed.

Non Apple fans: think about if the Television was in this patent arena. Instead of a smart TV, we would probably have holographic displays by now, or HELL, 3D displays sans the glasses...
Looking for a TV, the only thing you're paying for is how thin and how high the refresh rate is.

Samsung/Google fans: incorporate the Google Glasses in a phone and I'm sold!!!!!!!!!! until then, innovate or pay up!

MS fans (don't be shy): my Hats off to W8. not what a lot of folks want, but at least they tried to make something different.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by jctevere

The D504,889 patent is for the iPad's edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel ...

A common misunderstanding.

The D504,889 patent is NOT for the iPad. It is a 2004 ornamental design patent for an unnamed "electronic device". (In the EU, it's a registered Community Design for an "electronic display".)

There are later design patents from 2010 onward for the actual iPads.

This patent was NOT found by the courts to be infringed upon by Samsung.

That is correct. Mostly because it's NOT an iPad design patent. It is something thicker and differently shaped (as the UK court pointed out).

Perhaps it was for Ive's old Mac tablet concept that was revealed at the trial (picture on right):

[dBeats]

The worst part about these stories being posted on MacRumors (which honestly, does anyone really care anymore?) is the amount of trolls that crawl out of the woodwork to comment about something they know very little about. I'd bet everyone on this forum, including myself, have very little knowledge about patent law and what is the reason Samsung and Apple cannot come to terms on licensing. But trolls read something on the interweb that sounds pretty ligit that isn't based on any more fact that any other statement about the patent cases, and then spit back a slightly less informed version of it, until it becomes a viral spat of sound bites and name calling. What's the difference between this and some news site where people are arguing politics using 3rd grade language? Nothing...

Or as a young man once sang with passion:

"This is not a black and white world
To be alive
I say that the colours must swirl
And I believe
That maybe today
We will all get to appreciate

The Beauty of Grey"

[spyguy10709]

Originally Posted by thekev

You're repeating the same nonsense again. If someone wants the look and feel of the iphone, they buy the iphone. Apple has subsidized options in many countries down to $0. Unsubsidized purchases where some options may be hundreds cheaper most likely wouldn't have turned into iphone sales anyway. You need to at least say something with substance rather than an incredibly dated use of slang.

You should probably deal with some of those anger issues. In many cases registered designs just protect ornamental design elements. They don't specifically protect look and feel. You're confused because this is likely the only situation you've ever reviewed on the topic (not really my forte either).

They hold a number of the patents that make these things possible. Typically patents claim elements which describe how something would be made or achieved. It only becomes really confusing if you look at some of the "rectangle with rounded corners" types that don't really describe a complete device.

Listen, there's no point in debating here, we have very different opinions.
Look and feel, in my opinion, is made from those design elements - you can't just put a blanket patent on the "greatest phone ever" (lol) so they have to patent specific things about the phone.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Listen, there's no point in debating here, we have very different opinions.
Look and feel, in my opinion, is made from those design elements - you can't just put a blanket patent on the "greatest phone ever" (lol) so they have to patent specific things about the phone.

And it's those specific things that sometimes can get murky when it comes to infringement.

There's no denying you can't claim a blanket "Samsung copied the iPhone" when both are so different and behave differently in their internals, UIs and functional aspects.

[Sue De Nimes]

Originally Posted by RobHague

Samsung should win. They are the huge innovators these days! They added a Stylus and 5" screen to a phone.

Mind. Is. Blown.

/s

Not a patch on the Apple rectangle.

[EmpireITtech]

*Whistle* Personal foul, Apple, unsportsmanlike behavior.
Personal foul, Samsung, late hit.

Penalties offset, replay the down.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

But it's so much easier to claim Apple was awarded $1B for rounded rectangles.

Well, it doesn't help that Apple itself emphasizes rounded rectangles as a core part of their design claims.

From the original lawsuit document filed by Apple:





Then they go further and claim that rounded corners are ornamental, not functional, a claim that several judges around the world have dismissed on the grounds that being rounded is clearly a comfort feature.



So while it's incorrect to say that Apple "owns" rounded rectangles (without adding in the flat front and borders), it's also incorrect to pretend that Apple does not claim rounded rectangles as a primary design point.

Recall also when Apple brought up that Samsung could avoid infringement by using a square shape and sharp corners instead.

[RobHague]

They also mention a flat rectangular shape and silver edges. So you saying they claim to own those too? That they think those are key design points?

It's all of those elements together... they are only design points when they are used in combination. A rounded rectangle does not make an iPhone.

The 'patent on rectangles' is a perpetuated myth (one created by Samsung at that) and spread by its zealot fans as a rebuttal for anything. Much like the 'Apple copied Xerox PARC' defense.

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

I would eventually like to be a UI guy, and while I think Apple should attempt a settlement out of court, I will not stand for UI's being stolen like samsung has done.

Nonsense. There are similarities, but one could say that Samsung and Apple stole that design from Nokia.

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Putting multitouch in a phone?

HAHAHA! Samsung __stole__ the idea of using multitouch in a phone?? Are you kidding me? In that case Apple stole the idea of making a touchscreen phone from LG!

Have you ever heard about the progression of technology? Multitouch screens as opposed to single-touch screens became easier to manufacture around 2006-2007, and Apple happened to be the first company to use them in a phone. They did not invent that technology, and since touch phones were already available, a multitouch phone could be produced by another company.

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

The homescreen grid and icon design?

Don't be ridiculous. There were many very similar designs that were used by other manufacturers before the iPhone.

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Need I bring this picture back?
Image

Ah, this manipulated image again. Fantastic.

I can do the same:


OMG APPLE STOLE FROM LG!!!!111!ONE

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by RobHague

It's all of those elements together... they are only design points when they are used in combination. A rounded rectangle does not make an iPhone.

The 'patent on rectangles' is a perpetuated myth (one created by Samsung at that) and spread by its zealot fans as a rebuttal for anything. Much like the 'Apple copied Xerox PARC' defense.

Show me where in the iPhone Trade Dress document Apple is talking about the collection of those elements?

And tell me how did Samsung infringe on that collection?

The 'patent on rectangles' (not in it's literal sense) is not a myth. The 'collection of things Apple put together' is.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

Don't be ridiculous. There were many very similar designs that were used by other manufacturers before the iPhone.

That and the fact that Samsung's homescreen doesn't have an icon grid design. His image shows the Application drawer, not the homescreen on the Samsung phone. Samsung's homescreen is like any other Android phone, it's a customizable set of widgets.

But Apple purposefully shows their application drawer in comparison to the iPhone's homescreen, in a smokescreen attempt to make you think the phones use the same UIs.

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

That and the fact that Samsung's homescreen doesn't have an icon grid design. His image shows the Application drawer, not the homescreen on the Samsung phone. Samsung's homescreen is like any other Android phone, it's a customizable set of widgets.

This is exactly why I called that image manipulated.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

This is exactly why I called that image manipulated.

Speaking of that, how long until Samsung sues for trademark infringement over Apple's "new employee" :

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Putting multitouch in a phone?

Many people mistakenly believe that Apple alone came up with that idea, however all-touch and multi-touch were common concept and working prototype phone features by 2006:



This culiminated in the November announcement of a Linux project phone with capacitive multi-touch, fingertip scrolling and pinch-zoom... months before the iPhone was revealed.



Interestingly, at that point in time the iPhone prototype still did not have Google Maps in it, but was about to embark on a last-minute effort to add them before Jobs showed off the iPhone in January 2007.

Some blogs even later wondered if Apple had copied the Linux phone's idea of maps and pinch-zoom, but it seems more like one of those ideas whose time had come.



Note the icon grid, rounded icon highlight, and action dock.

[samcraig]

Now we'll wait and see who posts the typical "but releasing a phone is different than having one in the pipeline" or "But if Apple hadn't released the iPhone and made multitouch popular - no other phone manufacturer would have succeeded" or something of the like...

Originally Posted by kdarling

Many people mistakenly believe that Apple alone came up with that idea, however all-touch and multi-touch were common concept and working prototype phone features by 2006:

Attachment 380144

This culiminated in the November announcement of a Linux project phone with capacitive multi-touch, fingertip scrolling and pinch-zoom... months before the iPhone was revealed.

Attachment 380148

Interestingly, at that point in time the iPhone prototype still did not have Google Maps in it, but was about to embark on a last-minute effort to add them before Jobs showed off the iPhone in January 2007.

Some journalists even later wondered if Apple had copied the Linux phone's idea of maps and pinch-zoom, but it seems more like one of those ideas whose time had come.

[spyguy10709]

Originally Posted by kdarling

Many people mistakenly believe that Apple alone came up with that idea, however all-touch and multi-touch were common concept and working prototype phone features by 2006:

This culiminated in the November announcement of a Linux project phone with capacitive multi-touch, fingertip scrolling and pinch-zoom... months before the iPhone was revealed.

Interestingly, at that point in time the iPhone prototype still did not have Google Maps in it, but was about to embark on a last-minute effort to add them before Jobs showed off the iPhone in January 2007.

Some blogs even later wondered if Apple had copied the Linux phone's idea of maps and pinch-zoom, but it seems more like one of those ideas whose time had come.

Note the icon grid, rounded icon highlight, and action dock.

Innovators ship.

----------

Originally Posted by Bezetos

Nonsense. There are similarities, but one could say that Samsung and Apple stole that design from Nokia.
HAHAHA! Samsung __stole__ the idea of using multitouch in a phone?? Are you kidding me? In that case Apple stole the idea of making a touchscreen phone from LG!
Have you ever heard about the progression of technology? Multitouch screens as opposed to single-touch screens became easier to manufacture around 2006-2007, and Apple happened to be the first company to use them in a phone. They did not invent that technology, and since touch phones were already available, a multitouch phone could be produced by another company.
Don't be ridiculous. There were many very similar designs that were used by other manufacturers before the iPhone.
Ah, this manipulated image again. Fantastic.
I can do the same:
Image
OMG APPLE STOLE FROM LG!!!!111!ONE

Manipulated? Manipulated? Please explain...
Could have - COULD HAVE. But didn't. Innovators ship, buddy.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Innovators ship.[COLOR="#808080"]

Yap, when my argument is wrong I change goals

[iang1234]

Originally Posted by kdarling

This culiminated in the November announcement of a Linux project phone with capacitive multi-touch, fingertip scrolling and pinch-zoom... months before the iPhone was revealed.

from this page http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/IPhone it's said that OpenMoko has 285 ppi screen!

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by iang1234

from this page http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/IPhone it's said that OpenMoko has 285 ppi screen!

Even more awesome was the Toshiba Protege G900 that shipped at the same time as the original iPhone in June 2007, it had a 800x480 3" screen.

http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&i...a_portege_g900

That's pretty much the same PPI as Apple's "Retina display".

----------

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

Innovators ship.

Innovators innovate. Shippers ship.

OpenMoko did ship though and what they did was pretty innovative. Just admit to having been wrong in your line of thought and move on. Don't move goalposts.

[AppleFan1984]

Originally Posted by jctevere

The patents that were found to be infringed upon were: 7,844,915 for single-finger scrolling and two-finger zooming, while number 7,864,163 claims tap-to-zoom technology.

Multitouch gestures, including specifically pinch-to-zoom, have been around for a very long time:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

It would seem Apple knows this, since much of their strategy in the US courts focused on getting prior art disallowed.

That case was also aided by a jury who skipped prior art because "it was bogging us down", a direct violation of their jury instructions and likely grounds for appeal if not mistrial:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20828225612963

[spyguy10709]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Even more awesome was the Toshiba Protege G900 that shipped at the same time as the original iPhone in June 2007, it had a 800x480 3" screen.

http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&i...a_portege_g900

That's pretty much the same PPI as Apple's "Retina display".

----------



Innovators innovate. Shippers ship.

OpenMoko did ship though and what they did was pretty innovative. Just admit to having been wrong in your line of thought and move on. Don't move goalposts.

Wrong in my line of thought?
No one has heard of the OpenMoko because it wasn't a good product - the reviews were HORRIBLE.

Apple was first in getting it RIGHT. And the fact that Samsung and others have been BLATANTLY copying is what pisses me off. They can emulate - I have no problem, look at what Sony is doing. They shouldn't be allowed to copy without paying a fee - HTC just paid up, Samsung should too. A ban would suck, because the Samsung phones are innovative too I guess - but if Samsung doesn't want to play fair... then --- 'f them.

----------

Originally Posted by AppleFan1984

Multitouch gestures, including specifically pinch-to-zoom, have been around for a very long time:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

It would seem Apple knows this, since much of their strategy in the US courts focused on getting prior art disallowed.

That case was also aided by a jury who skipped prior art because "it was bogging us down", a direct violation of their jury instructions and likely grounds for appeal if not mistrial:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20828225612963

prior art = concepts. Not actual products.