That's where I am confused. What do we disagree on in this thread? You seem to have made up my position in your head, but I just asked a question.
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's Opening Court Statement Focuses on Samsung's Radical Shift in Phone Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's where I am confused. What do we disagree on in this thread? You seem to have made up my position in your head, but I just asked a question.
But there wasn't any disagreement! Lol. Baldimac asked you a question, and did not offer up any opinion of his/her own. I'm a little confused too tbh.
Bingo.
If I buy parts from company X, and company X is selling licensed tech from company Y, I don't have to re-license from company Y as well.
Considering Apple sources from many companies, good luck trying to extort money for FRAND patents from Apple directly. Already paid for...
Doesn't work that way. Why do people here keep repeating this lie over and over again ?
Just because it doesn't work that way in every single instance doesn't make it a lie. It DOES in fact work that way in many instances.
The Case isn't that Apple invented the smartphone, it is that Apple believes Samsung violated their trade dress patent.
Also, as I said on other pictures of these "pre-iPhone-type-phones," the phone you have pictured was designed to use a stylus to properly operate and was not considered a touch screen phone which uses finger gestures and swipes to operate.
Last edited:
But not in the instance we're discussing, ie : Samsung's, Motorola's and Nokia's 3G patents.
So why even bring it up ? It doesn't apply here. Apple needs to pay for use of the 3G patents under FRAND terms. FRAND doesn't mean free. Apple instead chose to argue the terms offered to them weren't FRAND. It's now up to the courts to decide if the terms were indeed FRAND or not.
In the meanwhile, Apple doesn't have a proper license to those patents, it didn't get one from just buying the chips alone.
Exactly. Not ever single time or instance will it be done this way. There are exceptions.
This came in during my quote:
Correct, if they didn't pay for it they need to pay.
Last edited:
Their what ? Dress Trade Patents ?
Trade Dress is one thing.
Trademark another.
Design patents yet another.
Apple is claiming Samsung infringed on 3 types of their IP in this case. And yes, prior art and other models does come into play in showing whether Apple's patents are valid, patents are based on concepts that are novel (no prior art) and non-obvious (if a couple of entities came up with the same design at the same time, then it's pretty obvious).
Why do people refuse to inform themselves before posting and trying to "correct" others.
----------
And it doesn't apply in this case. This is not an exception. Why even bring it up ? It has no bearing on the discussion and it makes it seem like Apple already owns licenses to the Samsung/Motorola/Nokia 3G patents (well they do for Nokia now that they've settled that lawsuit).
That is what is lie, saying just buying the hardware gives you the license has people have claimed :
The truth is "it depends". And in this case it's "no, buying the hardware didn't grant Apple a license".
----------
That has no bearing on the design portions of Apple's claim. Apple's design patents make no mention of types of screens or lack/use of stylus/fingers.
Their what ? Dress Trade Patents ?
Trade Dress is one thing.
Trademark another.
Design patents yet another.
Apple is claiming Samsung infringed on 3 types of their IP in this case. And yes, prior art and other models does come into play in showing whether Apple's patents are valid, patents are based on concepts that are novel (no prior art) and non-obvious (if a couple of entities came up with the same design at the same time, then it's pretty obvious).
Why do people refuse to inform themselves before posting and trying to "correct" others.
----------
And it doesn't apply in this case. This is not an exception. Why even bring it up ? It has no bearing on the discussion and it makes it seem like Apple already owns licenses to the Samsung/Motorola/Nokia 3G patents (well they do for Nokia now that they've settled that lawsuit).
That is what is lie, saying just buying the hardware gives you the license has people have claimed :
The truth is "it depends". And in this case it's "no, buying the hardware didn't grant Apple a license".
----------
That has no bearing on the design portions of Apple's claim. Apple's design patents make no mention of types of screens or lack/use of stylus/fingers.
See my update.... I think we were posting at the same time. I updated my post to include your second quote.
I agree. If they did not pay and it is something they need to pay than pay it. Pretty straight forward.
Just wanted to point out that what I was calling a lie was the "broad generalization" that simply buying the silicon comes with the license. To say that always applies is a lie. The truth is you need to read the fine print of what you're buying (which again I'm sure Apple does. Apple knows full well what it needs to pay or not). There's a reason Apple's motions in the 3G patents disputes have been to question the FRAND licensing terms offered to them (arguing per chip royalties rather than per device in their latest briefs).
All the poster showed was a phone with no explanation and the phone they posted looked nothing like the iPhone or the phone apple is suing Samsung over. Since there was lack to what the poster was trying to prove with their picture, I took what I could only assume as they were pointing out a smartphone that predated the iPhone and I was simply stating the debate isn't that Apple invented the smartphone. I was also pointing out there is a huge difference between touch and swipe gesture technology than that of stylus interface technology.
Also, Soo sorry I typing fast and typed dress trade instead of trade dress. I edited my post, but you were already working on attacking before the edit took place.
What is the point of that, seriously? It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a smart alec. You knew exactly what the poster meant.
The poster was obviously showing that the form factor Apple popularized and that often called "Apple's invention" wasn't Apple's original design. Neither was the icon grid UI We've had these "icon grid UIs" (which predate Apple's claims in patent D790 patent) and the "full touch screen" device (which could be use to claim obviousness in Apple's D677 patent).
I have linked these 2 patents earlier and explained the claims Apple is making. I suggest going back a few pages and reading my post on the subject, it was a reply to Rogifan.
----------
The poster lumped 3 different kinds of IP and claims, which are all based on different types of infringement and requirements together. I was pointing out that they aren't all the same thing, probably also giving the poster quite a few search terms in order to educate themselves on the issue (if only reading the wikipedia page for those 3 types of IP protections).
http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/
From this, it looks like Samsung changed there mind when it came to Apple. And late at that.
I do agree that FRAND isn't free, and that there may very well be different terms for different vendors etc (moto and nokia). But, in a case such as this, this part right there where Samsung changed there mind to extend there license to Qualcomm and not sue either them nor there customers. Looks like Samsung tried to have there cake and eat it too. Again, this may not be the case with Moto and Nokia.
Sounds to me like they didn't. Just that they didn't appreciate getting sued by one of Qualcomm's customers. Like indicated in your article, a "truce" is not a license.
What is Apple going to argue here, legally ?
Just throwing something out there for discussion... maybe that Samsung's idea of "fair and reasonable" seemed to change. I don't know if that's a reasonable argument or not.
What has happened in the past was that people posted photos of a 3GS next to a Galaxy S that had been scaled down with the app drawer open. That's the comparison that deserves censoring.
However, if someone compares the 3GS to the Galaxy Ace, they're much closer in size, although not as close in bezel color, size or back as the larger Galaxy S.
I agree. If anyone goes into a store wanting an iPhone, but leaves with anther brand, it seems very likely that it was not from confusing the two, but instead because they were deliberately swayed away from an iPhone by a salesperson.
(Btw, anyone else see the recent claims that AT&T has ordered its salespeople to steer buyers away from the iPhone?)
It sounds like Samsung had the same kind of covenant with Qualcomm that Motorola had: one that promised not to sue Qualcomm customers normally, but which included a defensive clause that allowed them to drop out of the covenant if one of those customers sued them.
Why does it deserve censoring? You are coming in at the end of the discussion. The original question was whether or not the difference in size/aspect ratio is enough to invalidate the trade dress/patent claim. Simply scaling the phones to illustrate specific similarities isn't unreasonable. And certainly not deserving of censoring!
(And why does it matter if it's the app drawer or the homescreen that's similar?)
Sorry, I was in a rush and couldn't think of the right word. I meant it should be pointed out as false.
So yes, I do think that scaling and screen cherry-picking is a deliberate misrepresentation meant to fool the viewer and incite a different opinion.
The normal shape and look is what is used in trade dress cases to determine if there is a deliberate attempt to fool the buyer.
For example, if someone tried to sell you a Samsung Note as an iPhone, would you believe them? Why not? Could size have something to do with it?
Btw, in some cases, as in Germany where Apple was roundly criticized for manipulating tablet images to look similar in size and aspect ratio, the court didn't even have the disputed models to look at. Apple brought in pictures of a Tab model from a review.
It could matter a lot in a trade dress case. Homescreens are what most buyers would see.
Moreover, consider if you compared phones that were both running Angry Birds or USAToday or other common apps for their particular OS. Holy smokes, the phones are almost identical copies !!
But they're not. It's just that particular screen.
Depends on how it is presented. As I said, there is nothing wrong with scaling the pictures to illustrate the similarities. However, using that picture to claim that they are exactly the same size is a misrepresentation.
Okay. That's as far as we got before. Can you provide any evidence that Apple's trade dress and design patent claims are reliant on size/aspect ratio?
Common sense would seem to indicate that any sort of design protection would not be legally bypassed by adding an a few centimeters in one direction and a few millimeters in the other. But I am ignorant of the legal standards.
Except Samsung used the open app drawer in their advertising. Including the big picture on the front of the box!
http://www.fonearena.com/blog/19963/samsung-galaxy-s-unboxing-pictures.html
It's really hard to argue that Samsung didn't design the app drawer specifically to look like the iPhone home screen. It looked more like the iPhone homescreen than it looked like any other Android app drawer. Not much of a leap to get to why.
Moreover, consider if you compared phones that were both running Angry Birds or USAToday or other common apps for their particular OS. Holy smokes, the phones are almost identical copies !!
That's completely off topic. The design of a third-party app has nothing to do with any of the claims.
I know that, but their use of it in a portable media device was a first, as was their popularisation of it.
Very random question: what sort of proof does either company have to provide of the prototypes they've submitted? What stops them from creating up the pictures and documents today and saying it's of a 2005 device?
An actual human being has to authenticate it. Both sides bring engineers and executives to testify in court and provide context to the drawings/prototypes. Otherwise the document has no validity. You don't just drop it on the other side's lap and say "case closed."