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 Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Vista was "fixed" by virtue of hardware catching up and making the initial "Vista capable" ordeal moot. After a few years, every PC could run Aero. The debacle was still there and those "Vista capable" PCs sold initially still couldn't though, so in that sense, Vista was never fixed.
It was purely a marketing and image issue.
No, he didn't say that Apple invented the first PDA-like device. He said "Apple invented what we considered a modern PDA." He then qualified that statement with what he did not consider a modern PDA (text-based input). Just because you disagree with his classification of a modern PDA does not makes him wrong. It's a subjective line.
I hope not. What's your point?
The difference between a 2D concept and and an actual working machine is HUGE...to try to compare the two just makes you look like you're grasping for straws, because at the end of the day (even though I view Mark Zuckerberg as a concept thief) If Samsung, Google, HTC et. al had invented the functional tablet computer/ tablet phone they would have actually invented the iPad/iPhone and Apple wouldn't have..
In the iPad court case being discussed, Apple was using their Design Patent of a concept drawing of a "portable display device" case, not a patent on any actual working machine.
It wasn't even about the much later Design Patent for the actual iPad, which Samsung would not have infringed on due to design details such as the Home button, rounded back and connectors:
The court case was about a 2004 Design Patent for a generic display case for a never-seen device without connectors or Home button, which is why there's more prior art being brought up:
Last edited:
Tell that to UK and Dutch judges, the one grasping at straws is you
----------
Exactly, a lot of people thinks that those trials are against the iPad and they are against a very general design patent
I'm sorry .... but I can speak with first hand that many phones prior to Apple iPhone Original had auto correct.
BlackBerry 7290/8800/8820/8830/ .. Pearl 7100/8100
Ericsson T39m/T36m,
HP iPaq 6300 series
SE P800/P900/P910 UIQ phones.
SE K700/750/W810i
Motorola Q9m (GSM model)
So many other smartphones/feature phones that have had auto correct.
The key thing with iPhone is once a name is saved and used for future auto-correction options, you CANNOT remove it.
I guess you missed the part where I suggested you read the patent.
Concept LEAKAGE...
Apple did invent the first PDA...The Apple Newton. HP, Palm and to a lesser extent Blackberry copied the Newton. There's no way around the fact that ONLY a computer company that could engineer the BOTH the hardware and OS with a "Push-Pull" flexibility in the development process of changing both if or when necessary is necessary to create an electronic device in a vacuum where nothing else like it exists in the world.
On to the issue of leakage. I'm curious how many people that feel that Samsung and others haven't just copied the iPhone would deny that the number of component leak pictures and rumors about Apple products haven't tripled or quadrupled since Apple started making the iPhone? If you think that these pictures/parts only made their way to Mac rumor sites and not Samsung, Google, HTC etc. either you're foolish or you think others are.
Apple did invent the first PDA...The Apple Newton. HP, Palm and to a lesser extent Blackberry copied the Newton. There's no way around the fact that ONLY a computer company that could engineer the BOTH the hardware and OS with a "Push-Pull" flexibility in the development process of changing both if or when necessary is necessary to create an electronic device in a vacuum where nothing else like it exists in the world.
On to the issue of leakage. I'm curious how many people that feel that Samsung and others haven't just copied the iPhone would deny that the number of component leak pictures and rumors about Apple products haven't tripled or quadrupled since Apple started making the iPhone? If you think that these pictures/parts only made their way to Mac rumor sites and not Samsung, Google, HTC etc. either you're foolish or you think others are.
Judge Koh disallowed the 2001 and Tomorrow People references because Samsung did not explictly say beforehand that they were going to be used to help try to invalidate Apple's generic design patent... even though Samsung had shown them both in a presentation describing tablet design history.
----------
Blackberry copied the Psion, which came before the Newton.
Ironicially, the Newton was so much larger than the PIMs (later called PDAs) of the time, that nowadays people would probably categorize it as a 5-7" tablet instead.
I'm an attorney (not a patent attorney, though) and Apple's complaints don't seem to pass the "non-obviousness" test. Like.. slide to unlock (to me) seems like patenting the concept of a doorknob.
Unified search also, is probably an obvious step to take for developers (I'm not one). The actual tech/code to make it work is likely to be protected, but the idea itself not necessarily (this comes to the idea/expression dichotomy, more a part of Copyright law than patent law).
Don't remember what the other complaints were, but control on "obvious" obvious is tenuous and this is probably a stalling game to reduce competition when the new iPhone drops in the next couple of months because Samsung makes by far the best Android phones (imo).
Not a bad business decision and it's a ton of billable hours for Apple's IP litigators, though kind of toolish (everyone does it, though).
But basically every phone is going to have basically the same functionality, like how pretty much any computer OS can do all of the same things w/ varying levels of proficiency based on overall architecture/third party support.
Unified search also, is probably an obvious step to take for developers (I'm not one). The actual tech/code to make it work is likely to be protected, but the idea itself not necessarily (this comes to the idea/expression dichotomy, more a part of Copyright law than patent law).
Don't remember what the other complaints were, but control on "obvious" obvious is tenuous and this is probably a stalling game to reduce competition when the new iPhone drops in the next couple of months because Samsung makes by far the best Android phones (imo).
Not a bad business decision and it's a ton of billable hours for Apple's IP litigators, though kind of toolish (everyone does it, though).
But basically every phone is going to have basically the same functionality, like how pretty much any computer OS can do all of the same things w/ varying levels of proficiency based on overall architecture/third party support.
As an attorney, you should know that concepts are not patentable. Patents are granted on implementations.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm saying I don't understand what the patent was granted for because what's being described doesn't seem patentable but I don't have the direct nor contextual knowledge about these cases.
Design patents cover exactly that - the design. It simply means that somebody else can't build a product with the same design. Samsung did. That's why they are in trouble but HP, Motorola, ASUS, Google, Sony, Amazon, and others aren't.
Last edited:
The others might be next if Apple prevails with Samsung, as three of the four Design Patents in question are fairly generic:
1. The tablet shape. Not even the actual iPad design patent with Home button etc., but the more generic rounded rectangle patent for a device never sold:
2. The bezel shape (remember, dotted lines aren't usually part of design patents):
3. The black front glass:
4. The only one that's detailed. The UI and icon arrangement:
I don't think so. Design patents cover the "ornamental appearance" of a product. That means that if a normal person thinks they look alike, it's a problem. It's not about the shape, size, aspect ratio, or flatness. It's about all of the little design details that make a product. For example, the iPhone's silver band around the bezel is a design element, not a functional element. Smasung copies that element. That together with all of the other small details that make an iPhone distinct are probably going to land Samsung in hot water. The other manufacturer's products don't have the same degree of "iPhone-ness" or "iPad-ness" and should be fine.
Read the patents in question, you'll see there's nothing in there about "Silver bezels". It's what kdarling posted. I also made a lenghty post about the patents in Apple's own complaint. They are very broad and generic.
Here is a good reference post with links to the patents in question, images of their contents (ie, barely anything) and a link to Apple's complaint :
All good reading before you post your "opinion" in these lawsuit threads. You should familiarize yourself with the material in question before even thinking of forming an opinion on the subject.
Last edited:
I really really want Apple v. Samsung to go before SCOTUS so I can actually hear the Samsung attorneys tell Chief Justice Roberts "Well this one time in a Stanley Kubrick Movie..."
And for anyone that has actually bothered to watch 2001...there are some profound differences...
And for anyone that has actually bothered to watch 2001...there are some profound differences...
I thought the test these days for design patents has been changed to:
“whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking that the accused design was the same as the patented design.”
The observer knowing "prior art" takes the place of a test for "novelty" in the older methods.
Exactly. Design patents can only cover ornamental pieces... not functional.
As a judge in the Netherlands put it before denying Apple an injunction based on the exact same EU design registration, (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "rounded rectangles seem functional for comfort, and the all-flat front seems functional to keep dust out of bezel grooves."
Again, Apple is NOT claiming Samsung infringed the iPad design, for which they have a separate, more detailed and much newer (2010) design patent. The Home button, back style and connectors would show any jury that they had not infringed.
Instead, Apple is using their very generic 2004 design patent with no or very little ornamentation. (The D'889 patent. See posts above for picture.)
That sounds more like the trade dress part of their complaint... the "look and feel" of the whole package. There I agree in part; I think that it's clear that some Samsung phones did try to give a similar impression... but without directly copying the details or trying to fool the buyer into thinking it was an iPhone.
OTOH, Apple perhaps has a case for trademark dilution, which can occur "regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion".
No one has ever said that Apple copied the 2001 tablet design. A blow up of the scene shows that:
It was only being included as minor proof that the idea of a tablet was not created by Apple. In other words, it was never a big part of Samsung's defense. Its inclusion was blown out of proportion by the usual blogger echo chamber looking for clickbait headlines.
IMO, The Tomorrow People's tablet would've been far more important to design invalidation, but it was not allowed due to timing either.
OTOH, one important piece that was allowed is the 1994 Fidler tablet design (video here):
Last edited:
Wrong again...the Psion that was released before the Newton looked and operated essentially like an old school calculator. The larger screen model that came later and emulated the Newton the same way the HP/ Palm PDAs did but looked like a "Fliptop/Sidekick" phone.
----------
In other words...the legally acceptable way of communicating (after hearing the ridiculous story the first time.) "This is total rubbish!"
Not even close.
The previous explanation seemed clear enough, but let's try again, this time quoting Judge Koh as to why she did not allow them as prior art:
So the simple fact is that they were not included because they weren't specifically listed as prior art evidence in time.
If you still have trouble understanding what transpired, please ask for further clarification.