Dieter Rams and Over 100 Top Designers Support Apple in Longstanding Samsung Lawsuit

[Rogifan]

Now go read the patent and see it in context.
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1="20160223992".PGNR.&OS=DN/20160223992&RS=DN/20160223992

The images are used to describe prior art and list some of the many different scenarios and design needs for attaching a wearable device. (perfectly legal)
This is done all the time. It's used to give the examiner some frame of reference.

They are not listed in the claims, therefore they are not making any claim to the design.

Digging deeper into the claims, it looks like they're describing a "smart" strap or strap with some built in functionality.

Where do they reference this prior art belongs to Apple? Those are drawings from an Apple patent filing. It's common practice for companies to use other companies drawings in their patent filings with no mention of that company at all?

 

[leroypants]

Did Sony or any of the dozen or so TV makers whose Tv's all look the same, rectangular shape with black borders sign on to this?

 

[Sandybox]

Not going to stop them...because you can't. It's plain as day, quite easy to understand. This is what complete denial looks like.
[doublepost=1470342919][/doublepost]

Funny, the Apple Newton had a stylus. The Cray 1 was about as similar to a Mac Pro as a Hoover is to a Dyson. Making the argument for smaller or bigger is just ridiculous. Sony wasn't the first to make a slim executive laptop, and it didn't take a genius to figure out that 5 lbs brick in your bag is a lot less convenient than a lighter one. Sure, the subnotebook category already existed...but it was Apple's entry that led the rest of the industry away from cheap plastic and off the shelf parts.
[doublepost=1470343281][/doublepost]

It is called trade dress, and it is absolutely something that can be illegal. The only thing Samsung left out of their copying of the iPhone's trade dress was putting a fruit on the back, and ruining the design with text on the front.

Lots of "PDAs" had pens in the Newton days and carbon fibre was hardly "cheap plastic" when it first appeared. Your argument seems to be Sony were doing the obvious and yet somehow Apple were innovative - tosh I'm afraid, there were many ultralightweights way back when.

I think you are missing my point that design is nearly always a combination of previous ideas used in new or improved ways. There is nothing wrong with that but I fail to see why all the fanboys think Apple have been in some sense wronged - look hard enough and Apple will be guilty of " borrowing" ideas. Form follows functionality of the underlying tech and a iphone-like form factor for everyone was inevitable.

 

[samcraig]

Well, I'm sorry, but I've seen the stuff you posted before - none of which can prove this was the direction Samsung was going. Especially when it still took almost 3 years for them to adopt the glass, capacitive touch, and more AFTER the first iPhone launched. If they were on that path, they'd have definitely responded more quickly than the Omnia II.

Also, http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...design-figures-in-a-recent-patent-filing.html

This company copies, it's their MO.

Evidence? That I worked for an OEM and projects were well into the works? Sorry - you're not going to get that from me. That type of evidence was marked confidential and proprietary - and would be buried so deep on one of any backup I had I wouldn't even know where to look. But that's besides the point. I was speaking holistically. Did you miss that? I wasn't talking about any one vendor or about Samsung. I was talking about the technology landscape.

 

[kdarling]

Again, this dispute isn't about rounded corners and screens.

Actually...

This SCOTUS appeal is indeed about the jury awards on those design patents for rounded corners on a flat face, a shiny bezel, and an icon grid. (The rounded corner patent has since been invalidated by the USPTO, btw.)

As a very few informed people have noted in this thread, the part of the appeal in question is not about whether there was infringement, or whether there should be an award to Apple. There was, and there should be.

The appeal is instead about the size of the award. In particular, whether or not a design patent should count as more than a utility patent. Naturally, designers think so, which is why they submitted this brief in support of high awards. No surprise there.

Practically everyone else, including the DOJ, thinks that a design patent award should be calculated the same way as a utility patent award. That is, pro-rated based on the contribution of that patent to the whole device and its sale.

-- THE DANGER OF AN APPLE WIN, EVEN TO APPLE ITSELF:

For example, let's say that someone discovered that Apple had used their clock design in the iPhone. (Similar to what has actually happened.) Using the same instructions given to the Koh jury, another jury would be allowed to award Apple's full profits to the clock design patent holder... even if that clock image is hidden deep in a page that few will ever see.

People with common sense don't think that's a fair interpretation of the law's intent, which was originally written by Congress a hundred years ago to help out a rug designer where a single design patent was involved. They had no concept of a future with devices potentially using thousands.

--

This is the huge potential troll danger that is being cited. It's one thing for utility patent trolls to claim that Apple infringed on say, a video patent and thus get awarded a few cents per device, because (as Apple itself constantly argues in court) that patent's contribution is small compared to the tens of thousands of other patents involved in a modern smartphone.

It's quite another thing if EVERY SINGLE DESIGN PATENT HOLDER CAN SUE A COMPANY AND CLAIM ITS ENTIRE PROFITS, which is what these designers are advocating.

It means that if a hundred icon design patent holders won infringement cases against Apple, Apple could in theory have to pay out the amount of its profits 100 times... instead of giving each icon designer a portion according to their contribution. Only a designer would promote the idea that each and every individual design piece used is worth the full value of the product it's part of.

This is not Apple v. Samsung any more. This is about common sense and the legal jeopardy of highly complicated devices. Should every holder of a design patent used in a product... even if there are thousands... be able to hold a company hostage over its entire profits on that product? That is the question before the Supreme Court.

 

[rjohnstone]

Where do they reference this prior art belongs to Apple? Those are drawings from an Apple patent filing. It's common practice for companies to use other companies drawings in their patent filings with no mention of that company at all?

They don't have to reference the company by name... just the prior patent number.

Yes, it is common.
The only requirement is listing the associated patent number for the prior art.
Pull the image viewer up and read the whole application for yourself.

 

[Klyster]

Where's the UI? Some of those have physical keyboards?

Which is basically saying some don't. These examples were disallowed in court, I wonder why?

 

[macintoshi]

http://allthingsd.com/20120726/apples-iphone-has-sony-style-says-samsung/ say hi to sony

 

[kdarling]

Which is basically saying some don't. These examples were disallowed in court, I wonder why?

Good question. The answer is that they were disallowed through a legal timing mistake that Apple's lawyers took advantage of, in order to hide as much prior art from the jury's view as possible.

For instance, can you imagine how differently the California trial might've turned out if the jury had seen Samsung's 2006 "Ireen" concept UI?

Or knowing that Samsung had actually sold an all-touch phone a year before the iPhone was sold?

For obvious reasons related to rounded corners and frontal design, Apple's lawyers also made sure that the 2005 Korean Pidion touchscreen Windows CE smartphone design was withheld:

Note what Unwired magazine said about the Korean design back in 2005, btw. Ironic prediction.

Hiding such prior art is not the action of someone who is sure of their design claims. However, it was certainly a smart move on Apple's part in the USA... because when such prior art was allowed in other countries, Apple lost their case each time.

Likewise, because even the suppressed evidence was visible to US Appellate Court judges, it helped convince them to reject attempts to impose import bans on Samsung phones.

 

[Radon87000]

I'm actually waiting for Apple to fully copy the Galaxy Note. iPhone 6S Plus and iOS 10 are closer but it needs pen.

Apple is gonna copy the water resistance from Sammy
Apple is gonna copy the OLEDs from Sammy
Apple is gonna copy the screen sizes from Sammy
Apple is gonna copy the Edge display from Sammy

 

[Jsameds]

No, everyone copies everyone like everyone have done for many decades already is obvious to anyone with a brain. DEAL WITH IT.

Of course but Samsung sure have an unhealthy obsession with Apple. They copy more Apple stuff than the rest of the industry combined.

 

[keithtae]

Oh wait!!!!

Wasn't 4 inch the "perfect" smartphone screen size?

And fingers are the best stylus and we need no any pen..... cil!

 

[Radon87000]

Of course but Samsung sure have an unhealthy obsession with Apple. They copy more Apple stuff than the rest of the industry combined.

And what did they copy?

What I remember is a certain someone mocking Samsung and saying anything beyond 4 inches is not something customers want and later on copying the company in question

What I also remember is a certain someone saying Samsung OLEDs are crap and then copying the company in question

 

[D-Dave]

Again, this dispute isn't about rounded corners and screens. That's what the Samsung lawyers unprofessionally huffed and everybody believed it.

Samsung didn't have a full touchscreen phone -- meaning, a phone that is fully operated by touch -- anywhere in the pipeline. It's not just the look. It's the feel. It's how it works.

They copied everything. Everything. The facts are there. Why ignore them?

Thankfully that painful "rounded corner / all screen fron" case was just a funny hickup in a european court and is not strictly connected to this one.

I still think it's funny how worked up people get when it's about multiple (multi billion dollar) companys batteling each other for a bigger profit...
To me it seems obviously clear that pretty much everyone was working on smartphones with touchscreens during the time the iPhone was released. When the original iPhone was released, I did not think it would have such a huge impact as I was using a HTC Touc Diamond with a custom ROM (ah, those were the days) that could do pretty much everything the iPhone did, looked almost the same and had full access to exchange servers (thanks to the underlying windows mobile).
To be honest, the whole icon centered homescreen looked way to much like vanilla windows mobile to me to seriously consider it at the time.
What I am trying to say...as with most current advances in mobile technology, all that is praised about the iphone or android phones could probably first be spotted on some odd geeky forum or today within some overlooked app.
To me the big players in the mobile business no longer drive innovation but search and find innovative ideas to buy and implement into the own products (like voice operated assistants, fingerprint sensors, LED flash [plus the subsequent use as a flashlight]). This is not a bad thing, but it makes it hard for me to understand why so many people get all hostile about who put what on the market first and who makes more money from it... just my overlong 2 cents...

EDIT: come to think of it, this turned out to be much more of a general statement then a direct reply to you, keysofanxiety, sorry for that.

 

[Jsameds]

And what did they copy?

What I remember is a certain someone mocking Samsung and saying anything beyond 4 inches is not something customers want and later on copying the company in question

What I also remember is a certain someone saying Samsung OLEDs are crap and then copying the company in question

Standard response. You can't copy a screen size or a screen type. What did they copy? Here's three pages of it for you.



http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com/

 

[TechGeek76]

Standard response. You can't copy a screen size or a screen type. What did they copy? Here's three pages of it for you.



http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com/

 

[leroypants]

Of course but Samsung sure have an unhealthy obsession with Apple. They copy more Apple stuff than the rest of the industry combined.

All that Kool aid you're drinking will give you diabetes sooner than later.

 

[Jsameds]

All that Kool aid you're drinking will give you diabetes sooner than later.

It's true though. Sorry if you can't see it, but it's blindingly obvious.

 

[kdarling]

You can't copy a screen size or a screen type.

Really?

So if, as you claim, Apple's display choice reversals are not about copying Samsung's phone and tablet market appeal, then Samsung's making a phone with a large capacitive type touchscreen must not have been about copying Apple's iPhone market appeal.



In real life, companies adopt features which give their competitor a huge market advantage. Samsung does it, and so does Apple, by adding notifications, multitasking, larger and smaller tablets, larger phones, HTC style metal body antennas, pen support and a host of other desirable features that helped their competitors sell devices.

What did they copy? Here's three pages of it for you.

Suggestion: it'd be a better list if you removed debunked examples such as that Euronics store wall with both Android and iOS app icons behind an separate and unrelated Samsung booth.

Even ultra fansite AI, which rarely corrects its own misinformation, posted an update noting that it was not of Samsung's doing.

 

[dec.]

That business tactics rather sounds like Apple than anybody else in the industry. Apple only claims to be the mother of all invention, but they usually just rip off smaller companies that do not have the money to defend themselves. "Being sherlocked" is the expression for that in the Apple ecosystem. Read up on it.

"At Apple, we've always been shameless about stealing." -- Steve Jobs

Yeah - by the delusional freaks that cannot distinguish a floor speaker from a desktop monitor. You're better off at Wacken, hailing to Manowar (are they playing, or is it another generic band like Iced Earth, Blind Guardian or Sonata Arctica? :-D )