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.
Decision in Apple v. Samsung Appeal Lowers Apple's Damages Award
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are very similar. A somewhat controversial business strategy these days is to get a design patent on a non-functional feature of a product, and then use that limited time monopoly to build a consumer association between that non-functional feature and the company, and then be protected under trade dress when the design patent expired. Essentially, use a design patent to build trade dress. Many say it's unfair; others say its how the law was intended to work and works well.
Yes, many companies often try to rip off Tiffany's. They usually do it for a short amount of time, or get really close but not cross the line, in order to avoid any legal action.
Don't most phone makers nowadays use the minimal packaging philosophy of the iPhone? Why aren't they targeted by Apple?
I don't think packaging was even at issue in this case. This ruling found that the aesthetic design of the iPhone itself, as well as the the arrangement of the icons on the iPhone home screen, are functional -- and therefore not protectable trade dress elements.
How many ways can you box a tablet? Maybe they should just keep them in ziplock bags.
I suppose the reason why Coke cans have a very specific coloring and design and Pepsi can't just copy them with a different spelling is hard to understand?
As an interesting sidenote (for those who care about such things) --
Apple owns a Federal registration (3,470,983) covering the general layout of the iPhone home screen -- filed in Oct. 2007 (with an "acquired distinctiveness" claim), and registered in July 2008.
Apple's registration and pending application covering the physical iPhone design(s) Reg. No. (3,457,218 and Appln. No. 85/299,118) are both being contested by other parties (Microsoft is attempting to cancel the registration; and Microsoft and Samsung are both opposing the application). I haven't read through the docs, but I assume Apple's competitors are arguing that those basic designs are functional, and so not deserving of trademark protection. I imagine this ruling will support that argument.
Apple owns a Federal registration (3,470,983) covering the general layout of the iPhone home screen -- filed in Oct. 2007 (with an "acquired distinctiveness" claim), and registered in July 2008.
Apple's registration and pending application covering the physical iPhone design(s) Reg. No. (3,457,218 and Appln. No. 85/299,118) are both being contested by other parties (Microsoft is attempting to cancel the registration; and Microsoft and Samsung are both opposing the application). I haven't read through the docs, but I assume Apple's competitors are arguing that those basic designs are functional, and so not deserving of trademark protection. I imagine this ruling will support that argument.
One unfortunate factor in this is how long it has taken to come to a ruling on this. Five years ago would've been an entirely different outcome because Apple did hold the crown for a unique design. These days, the market is awash with iPhone lookalikes, so I can understand why the court would rule against Apple now.
Samsung don't have a trillion dollars, and it would not be a fitting punishment. $10 billion or perhaps $20 billion would be.
Yes, we must all remember that Samsung is not "one thing". Their mobile division is guilty of copying the iPhone. Their electronics division is a key ingredient behind the success of the iPhone.
I believe that these lawsuits are simply meant to keep Samsung at bay, to slow them down in the progress of their mobile devices, to put some restraints on them, and some fear in their minds that they can't do whatever the hell that they want.
At the end of the day, Apple won't benefit at all from whatever award they would receive, no matter how big it is. And Samsung won't be damaged. This is all just a game.
Because $10 or $20 billion is a fitting punishment for infringing a few patents.
Every patent infringement must have that kind of fitting punishment? Every company?
Still an entirely different font thank Coke's, plus Pepsi never ran that font in white, on an all red can. But I'm assuming you know that already, and are being pedantic.
Font was not mentioned, but they are similar, I assume you read that?
"Coke cans have a very specific coloring and design and Pepsi can't just copy them with a different spelling is hard to understand?"
I'm assuming someone could design an arch similar to McDonalds but they'd be in violation of trade dress if they painted them yellow?
I think Microsoft, in the cancellation case, needs to argue that the original iPhone design wasn't eligible for registration at the time it was granted (2008) -- i.e., that Apple's claim of acquired distinctiveness should not have been accepted in the first place. So subsequent phone designs (post-2008) may not necessarily be relevant there.
----------
No, McDonald's surely has the arch design registered as a trademark, and can enforce it in the restaurant category (and probably very broadly beyond that, on grounds of its fame) regardless of the color used.
EDIT: I'll try to think of an example of unregistered trade dress, to use as an example of that...
OK, here's an article on some recent cases which may be useful: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/converse-borrows-strategy-christian-louboutin
Last edited:
It's a white box. Plus the placement of the product doesn't give many options. You won't put the tablet under the charger and handbook.
A Legal Right To Copy?
According to The Verge the court said that a business should have "a fundamental right to compete through imitation of a competitors product."
That's just bizzare statement for the court to make - they're basically green lighting out and out copycatting. Surely it's ass backwards, a company should have the fundemental right to protect immitation of their product.
According to The Verge the court said that a business should have "a fundamental right to compete through imitation of a competitors product."
That's just bizzare statement for the court to make - they're basically green lighting out and out copycatting. Surely it's ass backwards, a company should have the fundemental right to protect immitation of their product.
I Am Designer™;21308494 said:
I would definitely suggest reading the entire ruling (or at least the relevant chunk in context), and not relying on the Verge's summary or paraphrase... [P.S. I have not yet read the ruling myself]