Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will not be long before the lawyers make more money out of this case than apple gets out of Samsung.

----------

Prison is an apt punishment for theft.

Wonder how many people on here being righteous, also download via torrent. Just a thought, given you brought up theft :)
 
Prison is an apt punishment for theft.

What did they steal? Did they start putting Galaxy Tabs I'm iPad boxes? Did they load iPads with Android? No? They made similar products and packed them in similar boxes? It'd be like if you said Marvel should be thrown in jail for "stealing Deathstroke" when they made Deadpool. >_>;
 
I don't think there are any colors that aren't eligible per se. Surely though there's an argument to be made that people don't associate white boxes with Apple, and hence there is no special meaning that Apple has created for a white box. Not like Tiffany, what has created a very specific and particular meaning for their aqua-blue-whatever boxes and bags.

It was more then just the color white. When you have a white box with a picture of the product AND similar.... USB charger...earbuds...same orientation of headphone jack/speaker grill/USB...glass front/back/aluminum...similar white external antenna wires...finger print sensor setup screen ( List goes on forever ) Any one by themselves might not be, but put them all together its blatantly obvious.

Samsung returned the favor by showing Apple that size matters.

Size is not indicative to any one company. A design change by Apple is a well thought out process. A big size phone that can still be used by one hand is much harder to do. A software solution fixed that problem before it was implemented.
 
Last edited:
The punishment should fit the wealth of the company, like it does in some countries.

Apple loses patent lawsuits fairly often. Are you saying that they should also be fined according to their wealth?

So they violated design patents but not trade dress? What's the difference?

That's a good question. The answer is, the claimed trade dress was neither patented nor trademarked. Apple claimed the following unregistered trade dress as being theirs alone:

  • a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
  • a flat, clear surface covering the front of the product;
  • a display screen under the clear surface;
  • substantial black borders above and below the display screen and narrower black borders on either side of the screen;
  • when the device is on, a row of small dots on the display screen, a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners within the display screen, and an unchanging bottom dock of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners set off from the display’s other icons.

Right away, anyone can figure out that most of that is also functional, and thus not protectable. Rounded corners for easier handling, a flat surface for easy touch, and borders for holding the device and internal components.

As for the rows of icons and a dock, Apple did not invent those. And the dots served a functional purpose.

It also didn't help that Apple never promoted these elements in advertisements, which I pointed out during the trial as usually being a requirement for claiming trade dress.

(Prestone lost a case when a small company started selling anti-freeze in similar shaped yellow bottles. Turns out that Prestone ads had never said anything like "Look for our yellow jug." Instead, they only promoted their brandname. Likewise, Apple promoted their apps and brandname, not the shape of the iPhone nor its icons.)
 
The ruling is not going to stop Apple from absolutely dominating the whole smartphone industry’s super majority of profits.

Samesung can continue as a copycat as always be but Chinese will be more happy.
 
The ruling is not going to stop Apple from absolutely dominating the whole smartphone industry’s super majority of profits.

That's likely one reason why Cook decided to drop most of the lawsuits.

Apple's stashing away billions of dollars no matter what others do. All that the lawsuits did was make Samsung the underdog, and devalue or even invalidate some Apple patents.

So much for Jobs' declaration of thermonuclear war. "Sometimes the only winning move, is not to play."
 
Last edited:
What is the purpose of a patent? If Samsung is required to pay 0.00000001% of their net worth, is that really damaging? Was it really damaging for them to infringe on Apple's patents if this was the final outcome? It's all very silly, really.

What company wouldn't infringe on patents, if this was the end result? Samsung is now a mobile phone game-changer and arguably the only challenger thus far to the iPhone's loyal user base.

All from willingly infringing on existing patents. Troubling.

What's silly is that things like shapes and such are actually something that can be patented. And, sillier is that Apple and probably other companies try to patent things that make zero sense and simply hurt consumers by shutting out other players for all the wrong reasons.

Ultimately, the consumers suffer so don't go playing the poor old Apple card. Their eleventy trillion dollars in cash hidden in some offshore account makes it all better. :rolleyes:
 
What's ironic is iPhones look more like Samsung Galaxies these days. iPhones have long been tiny screen with squared off sides like sardine cans. More ironic will be the day a future iPhone comes with OLED display, split screen multitasking, precision pen, etc. like the 2011 Galaxy Note.
 
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.

There's no crime involved (except perhaps in your mind). There's no fine. This is a civil suit. The penalty is for remediation, not punishment. That's why it's called "damages."
 
No but the white box with an image of the device covering the entirety of the top of the box seemed to be enough of a violation of the trade dress for Samsung to be found in infringement.

Has Samsung been found to be infringing due to the packaging of the Galaxy tab box?

I know in the TV world, many different TV brands are sold in a white or brown box with a big picture of the TV on the box. The same goes with many other products, and in some case the packaging is in a clear so you can see the actually product.

If Samsung sold a device with a picture of an actual apple product, I would agree that be an infringement.
 
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
...
This is no longer a priority as the mentioned OS is doing fine fragmenting itself into oblivion.

Ahuh, Android is fragmenting itself into oblivion alright:

chart-ww-smartphone-os-market-share.png


:rolleyes:
 
You mean, the way that Apple switched their packaging to look like LG's, so the iPhone would be at the top?

View attachment 553360

Or the way that Apple uses Samsung blue for their Apple Store shirts instead of Apple colors.

View attachment 553361

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:

View attachment 553362

View attachment 553363

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.

Thanks for posting this. I distinctly remember Samsung showing those images right after the iPhone came out as they actually were working on very similar devices previously and concurrently.
 
Has Samsung been found to be infringing due to the packaging of the Galaxy tab box?

Not that I know of.

Packaging is pretty much the most meaningless argument around, especially for expensive smartphones, which are NOT commonly sold from shelves full of boxes that anybody can pick from.

In other words, people are not deceived by similar smartphone packaging. On the contrary, you pick out the phone model by name first, then a salesperson goes and gets a new box from hidden storage.

Ditto times infinity for how the box interior is laid out, or what a charger or cable looks like. None of these things are usually seen by consumers ahead of time, nor are used to decide what device to buy.

I know in the TV world, many different TV brands are sold in a white or brown box with a big picture of the TV on the box.

Exactly. When I walk into Best Buy or Walmart or Microcenter to buy a big screen TV, I'm looking for brand, specs, price, not which box it's in.

More importantly, trade dress laws are meant to protect people from outright deliberate deception (like a fake Gucci bag), not from being lazy. One big example was when the makers of Excedrin PM sued Tylenol PM for using a similar name, shape and colors:

excedrin-tylenol.jpg

Looks like an open-and-shut case, but Excedrin lost, because 1) they never advertised the packaging, just the merits of their brand... and 2) the brand names themselves are famous enough (like Apple and Samsung) that the judges decided a diligent consumer who was specifically looking for Excedrin PM would look specifically for that name, not the packaging.

(I believe this is why Samsung usually puts their name fairly prominently on their devices. Courts around the world have ruled that this is more than enough to alert the consumer as to the maker. Nobody can claim they bought a smartphone with "Samsung" on the front but thought it was made by Apple. The law does not protect outright stupidity.)

The cost of an item is a factor as well. Someone spending hundreds of dollars on an item like a smartphone is legally expected to take much more care than someone spending a few dollars on pills. And no court will help you if your wife sends you out to buy a Mercedes, but you come home with a Hyundai because "they looked similar" :D
 
Last edited:
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.

This is one of the most sensible posts I’ve seen in a long time
 
What's silly is that things like shapes and such are actually something that can be patented. And, sillier is that Apple and probably other companies try to patent things that make zero sense and simply hurt consumers by shutting out other players for all the wrong reasons.

Ultimately, the consumers suffer so don't go playing the poor old Apple card. Their eleventy trillion dollars in cash hidden in some offshore account makes it all better. :rolleyes:

Well I wasn't referring to just Apple. Companies do this all the time and pay such small damages ALL THE TIME. That's why they keep doing it. Just makes no sense to me. Raise the damages amounts and maybe they'd start taking themselves seriously.

For reference, it's similar to a law enforcement officer writing us $10 speeding tickets, over and over. Would you stop? Isn't it worth the $10 to get to where you were going faster? It's worth the millions to Samsung as well.
 
Trademarking the packaging of a product....... I don't know what disgusts me the most; Apple filing for such patents, or the patent office actually allowing it.
 
Samesung can continue as a copycat as always be but Chinese will be more happy.

This gave me a headache.

I guess its important to note that Samsung is Korean.

Who built and designed the components inside the iPhone?

Oh yeah, Samsung.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.