Galaxy Tab 10.1 Launch in Australia Delayed Again as Apple Objects to Design

[vrDrew]

Especially since Apple settled with Nokia before the '381 patent could be tested in Delaware court.

Thanks for any real info!

The info is found in Apple's claim against Samsung in California (pg 17):

On April 28, 2010, Nokia requested ex parte re examination of all twenty claims of the ’381 patent based on four prior art references, three of which were not cited in the original prosecution. (Zhang Decl., Ex. 40.) Nokia relied on the same prior art for its invalidity contentions in supplemental interrogatory responses that it provided six months later, in effect conceding that it had not been able to find any better prior art, despite a year of litigation. ( Id.,Ex. 41.) The Patent Office subsequently found Nokia’s arguments unpersuasive and confirmed the patentability of all twenty claims

Emphasis mine.

Nokia, which has considerable resources and expertise in IP law, had a year to come up with something to break this patent - and was unable to do so.

Its worth noting that this re-examination of the '381 Patent was part of the litigation Apple found itself in with Nokia - a case Apple ultimately ended up settling with Nokia, agreeing to pay a licensing fee.

I don't think anyone felt that Nokia was being "uncompetitive" or "evil" by pressing its Patents claims against Apple. (As more than one commentator has noted, there probably isn't a cellphone or smartphone made that dosn't infringe on one or more patents.) Which is why I find the reaction to Apple's legal action against Samsung somewhat puzzling.

 

[kdarling]

The info is found in Apple's claim against Samsung in California (pg 17):

Thanks! I also just found it in this Daily Reexamination Report. The patent's claims were confirmed on Apr. 26, 2011.

I don't think anyone felt that Nokia was being "uncompetitive" or "evil" by pressing its Patents claims against Apple. (As more than one commentator has noted, there probably isn't a cellphone or smartphone made that dosn't infringe on one or more patents.) Which is why I find the reaction to Apple's legal action against Samsung somewhat puzzling.

First, I think we have to separate out which actions people (and some courts) think are without merit.

For instance, no one seriously thought that Nokia's GSM patents were without merit. It's widelyl known that they invested millions if not billions in early cell phone design.

OTOH, a lot of people question the idea of the EU's design registration process where anyone can register anything without any examination at all (unlike US design patents)... especially when it's for a rather generic drawing versus a detailed one for a particular product (as the US one is).

Secondly, a lot of people question vague software patents in general, and at least for myself -- someone who's been doing touch for decades -- dislike touch gesture vocabulary patents in particular. It's like patenting chords.

 

[KnightWRX]

OTOH, a lot of people question the idea of the EU's design registration process where anyone can register anything without any examination at all (unlike US design patents)... especially when it's for a rather generic drawing versus a detailed one for a particular product (as the US one is).

Secondly, a lot of people question vague software patents in general, and at least for myself -- someone who's been doing touch for decades -- dislike touch gesture vocabulary patents in particular. It's like patenting chords.

As always, the more balanced observers in the forum "just get it". In Apple vs Nokia, even Apple admitted they needed to license the patents. The dispute was over "how much should it cost".

Here, people are questioning the genericity of the claim is making over Samsung in the German and Dutch courts, especially following the Dutch decision of non-infrigement for the very design elements that people here claims are "blatant copies". If they were such blatant copies, why did a judge rule them non-infringing ?

 

[divinox]

Don't worry. You're fine here.

Samsung can sue for a rectangle button but Apple cannot sue samsung for copying the entire design, top to bottom. Just what I expected.

Not what i said at all. What i said was that Apple would have a hard time accusing Samsung of making their devices look to much like Apples, if Apple - knowingly - have made changes to their design which drastically increase similarity.

Learn to read before trying to look smart.

Thanks.

 

[vrDrew]

OTOH, a lot of people question the idea of the EU's design registration process where anyone can register anything without any examination at all (unlike US design patents)... especially when it's for a rather generic drawing versus a detailed one for a particular product (as the US one is)..

I think we're venturing into "Some Animals are More Equal than Others" territory here.

I think that very few people would dispute the way that Apple's products look, and the way in which the software responds to gestures and motions, plays a significant role in their success in the marketplace. Conversely, few, if any, buyers of an iPhone care one way or another about some of the more obscure technical patents Nokia asserted (regardless of how important they may have been to the actual working of the phone.)

And to that extent, I think Apple is absolutely right to a) take advantage of whatever legal protections various Jurisdictions give to those elements and b) vigorously defend those rights.

Whoever thought up that "Bounce and Scroll Back" was a real genius. Its very easy to say, after the fact, that it was "obvious." But somebody had to come up with the idea and, more importantly, make it work.

 

[divinox]

Apple and Microsoft have extensive cross-licensing of each others mobile phone patents.

Its not stealing if you ask first and pay for it.

I realize that distinctions like this are probably beyond the typical Android Drone's limited comprehension. But I thought I'd toss it out there anyway.

Got more specifics on this agreement? I knew they had one in place in the late 90's, but given the two players dominance, and the on going legal battles, such an agreement (if exclusive) seems a wee bit anti-competitive - giving weight to Googles claims about being "ganged up on".

disclaimer: i dont care much for Google or Android, just saying.

----------

You mean like how Apple asked first and paid for the iPhone trademark license from Cisco in 2007 ?



Who are you referring to here ? I don't see any Android drones as you put it.

Guess one could almost add the ipad 'swell.

 

[divinox]

Divinox: Sorry, I'm at work on my phone but if you do a bit of Googling you can find the image comparing the TouchWiz app drawer to iOS' comparable home screen and see the very obvious similarities. Please don't bother with the icon grid argument as no one is trying to say that is an issue.

Then do it when you have time. If i understood your complaint there would be no need to google it; its not like i havent seen it already.

So, make your case. Im can wait.

 

[JAT]

Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best. That is not how it went down :

http://www.pcworld.com/article/128499/whats_in_the_iphone_name_cisco_sues_apple.html

You're talking of when Apple vs Cisco trademarks part 2 came about, IE, over iOS, not iPhone.

Are you aware your link proves most of his point directly? For example:

History

Apple and Cisco have been in negotiations for about two years over Apple's desire to license the iPhone trademark, according to Cisco spokesman John Noh.

 

[kdarling]

I think we're venturing into "Some Animals are More Equal than Others" territory here.

That's because some are

I don't see how anyone could dispute that a examiner-reviewed US Design Patent is superior to an EU Design Registration that anyone can submit. The patent examiner is going to check prior art, for instance.

Note that a design patent has to be about ornamental features only. It cannot protect anything that is also utilitarian. In other words, if a design piece also makes the object better to use or cheaper to make, it cannot be part of a design patent.

E.g. if rounded borders make something easier to hold, and a flat screen makes it easier to swipe from the edges, then those things are likely to not have explicit design patent protection. To protect those features, you would need a utility patent instead, where it would be a lot harder (impossible?) to prove that those were unique innovations.

 

[marksman]

It's not that they're not innovating. Their lawyers have to keep busy too. It's not like they can put their lawyers to work designing the next awesome gadget. They're good at lawsuits and copyright so that's what they do.

Image

Thanks for posting a relevant picture on the issue. I could not handle Divinox's irrelevant picture spam on tablets again.

----------

That's a cute picture but if you take into account that the definition of "tablet" changed, then you'll see that the "before" pictures look pretty much the same too: variations on a ruggedized computer with a stylus operated touch screen.

It changed because APPLE changed it.

Just like they changed what a smartphone was.

----------

My 2001 Toshiba Pocket PC looks an awful lot like an iPod Touch/iPhone. It's got a similar shape, metal back, home button and volume toggle switch are in the same place.

Can Toshiba jump into a super manly tank and trample all over Apple?

Image

And what about http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=crunchpad&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1480&bih=861?

This level of nonsense is pushing me away from buying Apple devices.

That is part of the issue here.. Seems a lot of people here are blind and think things that do not like alike do look alike, and oddly vice versa as well.

 

[rjohnstone]

Thanks for posting a relevant picture on the issue. I could not handle Divinox's irrelevant picture spam on tablets again.

----------

It changed because APPLE changed it.

Just like they changed what a smartphone was.

----------

Hardly... the "design" used by the iPad existed prior to the iPad.
The lame post only showing only ruggedized versions of tablets is cherry picking at it's finest.

That is part of the issue here.. Seems a lot of people here are blind and think things that do not like alike do look alike, and oddly vice versa as well.

More cherry picking.
I agree some are really reaching to make a comparison, but from a design aspect, Apple hasn't made anything "significantly" different in appearance than stuff released a few years prior.
Smoothed out some rough edges, but seriously, nothing worth the credit some are giving them.

 

[marksman]

I guess my question is, how much different can competitors make their designs? They can't make a triangle or a circle.....

All tablets before the iPad did not not look like an iPad. So the answer is a lot.

This is the silliest argument of all of them.

 

[marksman]

Microsoft was never even remotely as bad as Apple is right now (go ahead fanboys down rate this even though we both know it's true).

Bad at out inventing everyone in the tech world? I agree Microsoft was never close to as "bad" as Apple is at that now.

----------

Sure. Lets not talk about 'before iPad' here.

Lets talk about 'before Apple filed the design patent for iPad-like tablet devices'. Would love you to show me some of that.

He doesn't know what an iPad looks like, so all his examples are ridiculous.

----------

And yet this was announced before the iPad. There was even a prototype in 2009. Stop Cherry-Picking images of Tablets that dont look like the iPad.

Image
Plus





(Awaiting the inevitable Tsunami of thumbs down)

Wow.. HP made a giant iPhone tablet.. Shocker.. Very original of them. LOL.

 

[KnightWRX]

Are you aware your link proves most of his point directly? For example:

Except the part where he said Apple went ahead and used the name after gaining rights to it. Apple basically forced Cisco's hand in all of this.

 

[marksman]

Perhaps an Electrovaya Scribbler SC-1230 from 2003 like this
Image

Do you understand what an iPad is?

 

[rjohnstone]

Do you understand what an iPad is?

Do you?
Apparently not.
It's a tablet shaped computing device. A portable "PC" if you will.

It's not magical, it's simply well packaged... an iPhone on steroids if you will.
There's nothing revolutionary or unique about it's design which is the crux of the whole argument here.

 

[divinox]

All tablets before the iPad did not not look like an iPad. So the answer is a lot.

This is the silliest argument of all of them.

Nor do all tablets after the iPad look like the iPad. However, before and after the iPad there were iPad-looking tablets. Or rather, the iPad is looking rather pre-iPad all things considering.

----------

Do you?
Apparently not.
It's a tablet shaped computing device. A portable "PC" if you will.

It's not magical, it's simply well packaged... an iPhone on steroids if you will.
There's nothing revolutionary or unique about it's design which is the crux of the whole argument here.

He doesnt get it. RDF is strong within him. Jobs could present a brick on the next keynote and he would find it revolutionizing, and unlike anything before. Then he'll post cherry-picked pictures of "before iBrick and after iBrick" until he wins by ad nauseam.

 

[sennekuyl]

Yes, it looks awfully familiar... looks like another Samsung model that was released before it :

What else did you have in mind ?

Samsung has been copying the HTC Desire?!

 

[Oletros]

Do you understand what an iPad is?

I think that is you who doesn't understand.

 

[dethmaShine]

Do you?
Apparently not.
It's a tablet shaped computing device. A portable "PC" if you will.

It's not magical, it's simply well packaged... an iPhone on steroids if you will.
There's nothing revolutionary or unique about it's design which is the crux of the whole argument here.

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet ?

OR this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer ?

There is no shape such as a 'tablet' or no device is 'tablet shaped'. Tablets are just portable computers often recognised having a touch-based operation.

What iPad did was to give this tablet-department a new form factor which would solve design problems in the years to come.

 

[Oletros]

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet ?

OR this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_computer ?

There is no shape such as a 'tablet' or no device is 'tablet shaped'. Tablets are just portable computers often recognised having a touch-based operation.

Or perhaps he refers to:

a flat piece of stone that has words written on it, especially one that has been fixed to a wall in memory of an important person or event

What iPad did was to give this tablet-department a new form factor which would solve design problems in the years to come.

It didn't as stated by dutch judges

 

[dethmaShine]

Or perhaps he refers to:






It didn't as stated by dutch judges

Ah you! I thought it was best to leave the conversation and all the links you provided either didn't work OR links in those articles never worked.

OR well:

'a flat piece of stone that has words written on it, especially one that has been fixed to a wall in memory of an important person or event'

So were many other back in the day. Nobody remembers those.

'It didn't as stated by dutch judges'

I do pay respect to judges, and they have all right to share their opinion. But as far as people have pointed out in all these threads, there wasn't a single tablet preceding the iPad with an iPad like form factor.

I have filed a number of patents in the recent 5-6 years; not necessarily to claim royalties but to save my work from people who don't respect Intellectual Property and Effort. According to me, the Galaxy Tab does pretend to be an iPad but that is all right with me(as I stated in the other thread); but maybe not to Apple.

And well, the store is different with the shameless copying of design and trademarked IP in case of Samsung Galaxy mobile devices.

 

[Oletros]

I do pay respect to judges, and they have all right to share their opinion. But as far as people have pointed out in all these threads, there wasn't a single tablet preceding the iPad with an iPad like form factor except the examples that I don't want to acept saying the links doesnt work or not wanting to open the links.

Corrected

And yes, the links I providerd worked in every browser I tried and in every computer I tried. Say another thing if you don't want to accept reality, but please, don't lie.

And well, the store is different with the shameless copying of design and trademarked IP in case of Samsung Galaxy mobile devices.

Any source for that? Or as the pre iPad form factors is only denying reality?

 

[KnightWRX]

Here's why Apple is harassing Samsung :

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Event...July_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share

Notice the OEM market shares. Samsung is top dog in the US in the mobile market (yes, I know this isn't just smartphones. Yes I know Apple only makes 2 models of phones. Blah Blah Blah... excuses... excuses...).

Notice the platform shares. Android just further leaving Apple's iOS in the dust.

Apple is getting nervous, hence these lawsuits IMO. There's no reason for it though, they can't expect to be market leaders in the mobile space, not with a niche product strategy (vertical integration from a single vendor).

 

[dethmaShine]

Corrected

And yes, the links I providerd worked in every browser I tried and in every computer I tried. Say another thing if you don't want to accept reality, but please, don't lie.

Wow. The link DID NOT WORK FOR ME. I am not lying. Lol; why would I lie?

I have attached two screenshots of the same link. I feel sorry if you think I'm lying. Huh!

Any source for that? Or as the pre iPad form factors is only denying reality?

Good lord. It's not the pre-iPad form factors anymore.

It's the pre-iPad-like-form-factor-design-patent form factors that are to be found out.
If there is any prior art to that, then I'm all for it.
(Lets not discuss that this thing should be patentable or not. Microsoft still patents buttons and UI design elements and what not.)

As far as the prior art being shown in this thread, all the products were hybrid laptops with removable keyboard with a depth of more than 4inches. It was totally different design philosophy then. And I ain't baiting you mate.