It says it right here in the article: 'Specifically, Apple's design patents cover "the rounded corners of its phones"'
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Samsung's Long-Running Design Lawsuit Heading to Supreme Court This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said, don't care what people say. They've already lost tens of billions with all this exploding Note7 fiasco.
The purpose of the patent system is to protect inventions. A mere style choice is not an invention by any stretch of imagination.
Again, the thought that anyone can patent rounded corners on a consumer device fills me with dread. The US patent system seems no longer fit for purpose, if companies can patent ideas and trivial things such as "slide to unlock". I think it's great that Apple cannot pull this kind of crap where I live.
...which is simplifying a patent that involves a lot more components. Not only the hardware, but how the software interacts with it. Icon spacing. Rubber banding. I could go on.
This is one of the problems when people just tend to read headlines. Things are condensed and some don't stop to think: "Hmm, maybe I should read up on that. That does sound a little odd."
I'll get you started: https://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
What? Where are you getting this? Afaik, there have only been wildly varying estimates of loss thrown around by different pundits. You either have some great insider information or just emphatically believe your assertion to be true based on an in-depth analysis of tea leaves, Ouija boards, or fortune cookies. 10's of billions.
Samsung defence lawyer: "Your honour we can't possibly have copied Apple, none of their phones are exploding. If the device has no flames you must acquit!"
(I know this dates back 6 years - but hey - it's topical)
Perfect - just change that last line to "If the device is not alit you must acquit!"
You can't patent "the look and feel" of a device, according to Samsung.
Well, they tried their damnedest to get the look. Shame they couldn't get the same user experience.
I have never confused an iPhone for any Android phone, until the iPhone 6.
The first time I saw the iPhone 6, I thought I was looking at an Android.
But, before that I thought every iPhone looked unique to the competition, and the 4, 4s being the most unique and beautiful design out of any phone, iPhone or other.
I don't think that icon spacing or rubber banding should be patentable either. For the same reason, anything that merely mimics on a computer screen something that already exists in the real world (like rubber banding) doesn't qualify as an invention. Or anything that's an algorithm, which is just an idea. There's a good reason why software patents aren't generally accepted in Europe.
As I said, the US patent office is unfit for purpose. The whole IP protection thing in the US has gone beyond lunacy in general (see Mickey Mouse), it's just rent seeking at its worst, with consumers being ripped off as a result.
I don't care about Samsung in the slightest. I think in my entire life I bought one thing from them. It's not Samsung that loses, if Apple's ridiculous patents are upheld. It's people like us.
This story just keeps on giving . When page views are low and ads inventory needs to be pushed , Samsung v Apple is always a winner. Getting popcorn
samsungrumors.com
It's kinda a big company
the note 7 recall cost them way more than this..... this is like taking Apple out for a dinner, they have no trouble affording it.
I don't think anyone will take you seriously with all that spam. LG didn't sue apple over the Prada it might have looked similar but that is a trade dress/design issue. Apple is suing over patents, it makes a competing product and is not a troll. If you owned a company that came up with a novel idea you would defend it too. Samsung has demonstrated it's strategy is to copy rather than do R&D or come up with design language in isolation. It doesn't take much thought to consider samsung copied patented features from that historical evidence. Samsung can copy all they like and it's worked for them but this is a totally separate issue from the one you are trying to demonstrate ...badly.
Yes, there's wars in the world. Lets stop defending our inventions
So you think Samsung should owe half a billion dollars for copying the rounded corners?
I don't believe I said that. Since we're putting words in each others mouths do you think copying, just straight up copying, the innovation of others is a-ok and should be given a pass?
Put it in context here. In 2016 there's most definitely "inspiration" flowing in both directions and Samsung have managed to somewhat find their own identity but in 2010/2011 Samsung were just point by point photocopying. Anyone who read this at the time and is full possession of their marble collection could hardly deny it (though I have a feeling you will anyway)
http://allthingsd.com/20120807/sams...uld-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone
You know how it is, they both sue each other for infringement.
If Apple starts having a bunch of iPhones catch fire, they will be sued.
You think it'll only cost £1 billion? That's funny. Look how much they've dropped in market value since.What? Where are you getting this? Afaik, there have only been wildly varying estimates of loss thrown around by different pundits. You either have some great insider information or just emphatically believe your assertion to be true based on an in-depth analysis of tea leaves, Ouija boards, or fortune cookies. 10's of billions.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/13/samsung-loses-26-billion-market-value/
A. It doesn't matter if you were never confused. What it's about is seeing two phones in the wireless provider's salesroom, and they look the same.
B. This may be a cold winter for Samsung, if they lose this and the Note 7 they had so many hopes on that they rushed to market to beat Apple to market. Whoops.
B. This may be a cold winter for Samsung, if they lose this and the Note 7 they had so many hopes on that they rushed to market to beat Apple to market. Whoops.
The only place where I thought it would only cost $1B is in your head.
Couple of problems with your evidence. 1. It doesn't support your assertion at all. Read past the headline. Their market share lost 6.9% but within days recovered the the vast majority of that loss. 2. Your info is horribly dated for stock info. It's from last month. The stock is trading at near the highs at the introduction of the Note 7. Past 3 months. 3. Samsung the company losing money on a product isn't the same thing as Samsung the stock losing money through market share. You can't conflate the two and based on the current market, the Note debacle (and make no mistake, I definitely think it's a debacle) is no more than a blip on the radar... marketwise. As with most things in our tech focused forum life, we're the only ones who care. The rest of the world... not so much. So again, your 10's of billions seems overly optimistic.
Who by, Zippo?
The dispute over the "slide to unlock" patent is especially ironic right now as Apple just stopped using it in iOS.
Apple pulled slide to unlock from iOS 10 since it was stolen from Neonode.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html?m=1
For those readers who are intelligent lifeforms, and actually want to know what this appeal is about:
The primary part of this appeal is not about whether Samsung was found to infringe or not.
TL;DR - This is about the calculation of the award for design patents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, one or two design patents pretty much covered an entire product, and normal patent awards were considered sufficient. Then in 1887, in response to a carpet maker getting a tiny award from a copied rug design patent, Congress passed a law that gave design patents a special bonus over utility patents:
The BIG question that everyone wants SCOTUS to address, which is whether or not the "entire profits" rule applies to the whole product, or just the parts that infringe.
You see, this is not like a hundred years ago, with simple products. Today's highly integrated devices such as smartphones contain literally thousands of patented items.
Allowing the award to encompass an entire product means that even if, say, Apple used a single patented design element somewhere deep in a control panel, the patent holder could demand ALL of Apple's profits for the entire device.
Worse, it means that EVERY SINGLE design patent holder, large or small, could EACH DEMAND ALL THE PROFITS.
Good God. Taken to extremes, such awards could wipe out Apple and Samsung entirely. Not to mention everyone from the local grocer, to someone making a tiny product with their home savings.
Thus, virtually nobody (except designers, naturally) thinks that this is fair or the true intent of that law. If you think much more complicated utility patent trolls are bad now, then letting someone with a simple patented drawing demand an entire device's profits will bring out trolls like nothing ever seen before... while also putting both large and small companies at huge risk.
Even Apple is now backing off (as many here predicted) their original claim that it should apply to an entire device. They know that they themselves will be in grave danger if that concept stands. Instead, they're falling back on legal nitpicking to claim that SCOTUS should only look at what Samsung presented in that particular trial as proof of what percentage of their products infringed. But nobody wants just that. They want SCOTUS to make a stand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed explanation of the appeals questions is in one of my previous posts here.
TL;DR #2 - if you're one of those who thinks VirnetX shouldn't get a half billion dollars from Apple for a few fairly important utility patents, then you'd sure better start backing Samsung's side. Because that's nothing compared to the billions that someone with a tiny design patent could demand and get.
The primary part of this appeal is not about whether Samsung was found to infringe or not.
TL;DR - This is about the calculation of the award for design patents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, one or two design patents pretty much covered an entire product, and normal patent awards were considered sufficient. Then in 1887, in response to a carpet maker getting a tiny award from a copied rug design patent, Congress passed a law that gave design patents a special bonus over utility patents:
- The ability to award all of an infringer's profits to the design patent holder.
The BIG question that everyone wants SCOTUS to address, which is whether or not the "entire profits" rule applies to the whole product, or just the parts that infringe.
You see, this is not like a hundred years ago, with simple products. Today's highly integrated devices such as smartphones contain literally thousands of patented items.
Allowing the award to encompass an entire product means that even if, say, Apple used a single patented design element somewhere deep in a control panel, the patent holder could demand ALL of Apple's profits for the entire device.
Worse, it means that EVERY SINGLE design patent holder, large or small, could EACH DEMAND ALL THE PROFITS.
Good God. Taken to extremes, such awards could wipe out Apple and Samsung entirely. Not to mention everyone from the local grocer, to someone making a tiny product with their home savings.
Thus, virtually nobody (except designers, naturally) thinks that this is fair or the true intent of that law. If you think much more complicated utility patent trolls are bad now, then letting someone with a simple patented drawing demand an entire device's profits will bring out trolls like nothing ever seen before... while also putting both large and small companies at huge risk.
Even Apple is now backing off (as many here predicted) their original claim that it should apply to an entire device. They know that they themselves will be in grave danger if that concept stands. Instead, they're falling back on legal nitpicking to claim that SCOTUS should only look at what Samsung presented in that particular trial as proof of what percentage of their products infringed. But nobody wants just that. They want SCOTUS to make a stand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed explanation of the appeals questions is in one of my previous posts here.
TL;DR #2 - if you're one of those who thinks VirnetX shouldn't get a half billion dollars from Apple for a few fairly important utility patents, then you'd sure better start backing Samsung's side. Because that's nothing compared to the billions that someone with a tiny design patent could demand and get.
Last edited:
