Apple can keep it. Id rather have the ability to move icons where I like. If it so happens that I like them all upwardly justified then fine iOS works brilliantly.
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
Apple can keep it. Id rather have the ability to move icons where I like. If it so happens that I like them all upwardly justified then fine iOS works brilliantly.
No. Someone would probably be in violation of trade dress if used they used arches similar to McDonalds in any restaurant or fast-food type of business. If they also painted the arches yellow, that would just add more evidence proving infringement. The arches themselves are a pretty recognizable mark though.
Trademarks are about brand association and avoiding consumer confusion. Most reasonable people, if they see those arches in front of a shoe store, probably wouldn't think that McDonalds has entered the shoe retail business, so there wouldn't be any consumer confusion over where those shoes come from. However, if reasonable people see those arches in front of a burger restaurant, it would be reasonable for them to assume that restaurant is at least somehow related to McDonalds; and if its not actually related to McDonalds then there is consumer confusion.
However, it gets murky in between. What if those arches were in front of a bakery? McDonalds makes deserts, so its not unreasonable to think they expanded into the bakery business; but on the flip side fast food and bakeries are totally different. What if those arches were in front of a daycare? McDonalds frequently has playgrounds and ball pits inside, and they have happy meals that cater to children, so maybe someone might be confused into thinking McDonalds is associated with that day care; but on the flip side child care and food service is completely different and how could those two be associated at all?
We need to make sure that Apple havent copied or ripped anything off to be able to say that were serving real justice.
From the ruling here http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1335.Opinion.5-14-2015.1.PDF
So no, the ruling doesn't give any green light to copy cats
Well what I meant was the minimal style of packaging that seems to be the the part of the scope of argument. It's usually an all white box with the lower half tucked in. When you open the box the phone is the first thing you see. Hiding beneath it is the collection of essentials (instruction booklet, charger, etc.).
I see this type of packaging pretty much on all of the OEM's products. It's not just Samsung doing it..just saying.
Yeah everyone is doing it. Packaging nowadays is heavily influenced by Apple.
Both sides have been appealing (multiple points of the ruling), and that takes time.
Don't blame the lawyers -- Apple and Samsung are paying them to do what they're doing; trying to gain as much advantage as they can, via appeals.
None of these suits are about Samsung. They were about slowing down the growth of the worlds most poor designed Mobile OS from Mountain View. Through it's largest delivery system.
This is no longer a priority as the mentioned OS is doing fine fragmenting itself into oblivion. Samsung phones don't sell like they used to. The G6 actually performs more poorly than the G5. Comments about Sammy's next gen 14nm chip don't cut it either. The A10 may use their 14nm process, but as all A chips, it is designed in Orlando, FL by Apple's Chip Design Team, and they are DAM Good at what they do (yes, even the S1 is impressive for a Gadget Chip.)
So forget appearance. It's never "really" been about that. Also, keep your eye on the WIN10 phone. iOS may have some competition around the corner big time.
I have to side with Samsung on the merit that the look and feel of a smartphone will fundamentally look similar. I'm sorry but lots of TVs look the same, use the same material, same as the fridge, car etc..
How else is Samsung to make a touch screen smartphone? they will look alike, have similar material etc. Seriously, should the original maker the the notebook sue everyone for stealing the design of the laptop? they all look the same to me, keyboard and screen.
There is no doubt a few features like the software features that were protected but that's about it. Apple has no right to monopolize the look of the smartphone. This is competition, one company builds a product and the competitor looks to do it better and cheaper.
How else is Samsung to make a touch screen smartphone? they will look alike, have similar material etc. Seriously, should the original maker the the notebook sue everyone for stealing the design of the laptop? they all look the same to me, keyboard and screen.
There is no doubt a few features like the software features that were protected but that's about it. Apple has no right to monopolize the look of the smartphone. This is competition, one company builds a product and the competitor looks to do it better and cheaper.
If you look at both of those boxes, pick up the Galaxy Tab (the one with the words on it) and then think you picked up an iPad... that's on you.
You mean, the way that Apple switched their packaging to look like LG's, so the iPhone would be at the top?
Or the way that Apple uses Samsung blue for their Apple Store shirts instead of Apple colors.
Those are shape and color choices, not unique inventions.
Part of it might be that the appeals court judges know more than even the juries. For example, they have access to all the prior art evidence that Apple got banned from the trial. Such as:
Such evidence caused Apple to lose trade dress and design trials in other countries where it was allowed. (It also later helped this same group of appellate judges deny a post-trial Apple request to ban Samsung's phones.) No wonder Apple didn't want a jury to see any of it.
But more importantly in this case, it was the fact that Apple could not prove that their claimed trade dress wasn't functional.
A utility patent is for a functional method or implementation. E.g. a new way to connect an outboard motor engine to its propeller. Or a way to recognize a finger versus a cheek on a touchscreen.
A design patent is given for artistic attributes that are ornamental instead of functional. E.g. the exact shape of the outboard motor engine casing, or the exact shape of a phone bezel. Any part that's functional is NOT patentable on its own. E.g. rounded corners cannot be patented, because they also serve a function of preventing injury or making a device more pocketable.
Usually, trade dress infringement would require Apple to prove that a normal consumer, spending on average a couple of hundred dollars, was fooled into thinking that Samsung's products were made by or approved by Apple.
In this case, the judges decided that much of Apple's designs had functional elements (something that Australian judges had already done a few years ago, btw), and thus didn't even rise to the point of being trade dress at all.
Last edited:
The punishment should fit the wealth of the company, like it does in some countries. The important thing is that it has a material impact on Samsung.
A $1 billion fine will mean nothing, and is therefore not worth giving. A fine of $20 billion will encourage Samsung not to commit another crime, as would public flagellation.
None of these suits are about Samsung. They were about slowing down the growth of the worlds most poor designed Mobile OS from Mountain View. Through it's largest delivery system.
This is no longer a priority as the mentioned OS is doing fine fragmenting itself into oblivion. Samsung phones don't sell like they used to. The G6 actually performs more poorly than the G5. Comments about Sammy's next gen 14nm chip don't cut it either. The A10 may use their 14nm process, but as all A chips, it is designed in Orlando, FL by Apple's Chip Design Team, and they are DAM Good at what they do (yes, even the S1 is impressive for a Gadget Chip.)
So forget appearance. It's never "really" been about that. Also, keep your eye on the WIN10 phone. iOS may have some competition around the corner big time.
"world's most poorly designed OS"? I take it you haven't actually used Android as of 5.1.
*reads rest of post*
Nope, it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. The S5 runs better than the S6? In what universe?
----------
No, the punishment should fit the CRIME. :|
So, how much must pay Apple when they are found guilty of infringing patents? $100 billion?
Who is the one that must be flagelled? Ive, Cook?
----------
None of these suits are about Samsung. They were about slowing down the growth of the worlds most poor designed Mobile OS from Mountain View. Through it's largest delivery system.
This is no longer a priority as the mentioned OS is doing fine fragmenting itself into oblivion. Samsung phones don't sell like they used to. The G6 actually performs more poorly than the G5. Comments about Sammy's next gen 14nm chip don't cut it either. The A10 may use their 14nm process, but as all A chips, it is designed in Orlando, FL by Apple's Chip Design Team, and they are DAM Good at what they do (yes, even the S1 is impressive for a Gadget Chip.)
So forget appearance. It's never "really" been about that. Also, keep your eye on the WIN10 phone. iOS may have some competition around the corner big time.
Yap, taking into account that none of the patents had anything to do with AOSP it says a lot about the rest of your message. The funniest part the one talking about "doing fine fragmenting itself into oblivion".
I always wonder if those thing are really believed.
No, that doesn't fit the crime. It's copying a couple designs, not murder or assault. Apple's still making more money than they can spend. Don't worry, they're doing just fine.