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.
Tim Cook and Samsung CEO to Discuss Patent Dispute One Last Time Today Ahead of Jury Deliberations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's an app, er, law for that.
Right . . . . There's actually law (gasp!) that explains how the allegedly infringing designs are to be analyzed.
Read http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf and see what the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said about one of Judge Lucy Koh's prior ruling on this case. Focus on Pages 28 through 32.
On pages 30-31, the Court of Appeals sums up why Samsung is wrong in arguing that Apple is trying to protect a broad design concept (such as "an object with four sided object"):
Right . . . . There's actually law (gasp!) that explains how the allegedly infringing designs are to be analyzed.
Read http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf and see what the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said about one of Judge Lucy Koh's prior ruling on this case. Focus on Pages 28 through 32.
On pages 30-31, the Court of Appeals sums up why Samsung is wrong in arguing that Apple is trying to protect a broad design concept (such as "an object with four sided object"):
"Samsung contends that the district court properly focused on overall visual appearance rather than on the 'design concepts' highlighted by Apple.
In our assessment, however, the . . . error was to view the various designs from too high a level of abstraction.
Fidler [the Fiddler Tablet, which goes back to 1994 and allegedly predated the iPad] does not qualify as a primary reference simply by disclosing a rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners and a flat back. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 104 ('The error in the district courts approach is that it construed [the] claimed design too broadly.').
Rather than looking to the 'general concept' of a tablet, the district court should have focused on the distinctive 'visual appearances' of the reference and the claimed design. Id. [In fact, the Court of Appeals spends a lot of time in Pages 28-30 comparing the detailed differences between iPad and the Fiddler Tablet -- Details matter!!!]
When those visual impressions are compared, it becomes apparent that the Fidler reference, with or without the TC1000, cannot serve to render the D889 patent [i.e., Apple's iPad design patent] invalid for obviousness.
In the alternative, Samsung urges us to consider several other tablet and tablet-like designs as suitable primary references. All of those references consist of rectangular designs with rounded corners dominated by a display area.
But those designs all suffer from the same problems as the Fidler reference, because all of them show either a thick surrounding frame in which a display is embedded or contain extensive ornamentation on the front of the tablet. [Again, details matter!!!]
The offered designs do not create the same visual impression as Apples claimed design and thus do not qualify as primary references."
In our assessment, however, the . . . error was to view the various designs from too high a level of abstraction.
Fidler [the Fiddler Tablet, which goes back to 1994 and allegedly predated the iPad] does not qualify as a primary reference simply by disclosing a rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners and a flat back. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 104 ('The error in the district courts approach is that it construed [the] claimed design too broadly.').
Rather than looking to the 'general concept' of a tablet, the district court should have focused on the distinctive 'visual appearances' of the reference and the claimed design. Id. [In fact, the Court of Appeals spends a lot of time in Pages 28-30 comparing the detailed differences between iPad and the Fiddler Tablet -- Details matter!!!]
When those visual impressions are compared, it becomes apparent that the Fidler reference, with or without the TC1000, cannot serve to render the D889 patent [i.e., Apple's iPad design patent] invalid for obviousness.
In the alternative, Samsung urges us to consider several other tablet and tablet-like designs as suitable primary references. All of those references consist of rectangular designs with rounded corners dominated by a display area.
But those designs all suffer from the same problems as the Fidler reference, because all of them show either a thick surrounding frame in which a display is embedded or contain extensive ornamentation on the front of the tablet. [Again, details matter!!!]
The offered designs do not create the same visual impression as Apples claimed design and thus do not qualify as primary references."
Uh ?
Box :
Homescreen:
,,
Uh?
http://www.fonearena.com/blog/19963/samsung-galaxy-s-unboxing-pictures.html
Did you think I wasn't talking about the oem box?
By the way, in your example, check out 1:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfa1z3iuyf4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Funny that they need to advertise the app drawer, huh? Uh? Indeed.
Last edited:
And I'd like to mention the prequel to Episode IV. Episode 3: The LG Prada. I remember what devices we're like before and after.
Apple versus Samsung
I can understand the original concerns, however as both companies are well known and both having niche markets, it is time for Apple to appreciate that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.
The UK judge who ruled that the Apple device was "better" or more cool said it all. It is now time for Tim Cook to realise that whether it be cars, washing machines, mp3 players the market is huge and it has been the norm for a long time for better aspects of a particular product to be imitated. This has gone on since the end of the WW2 when the Japanese showed a penchant for making better copies than the original. Like it or not this is a fact of life and it is nigh time that these two companies stepped out of their fantasy world of feeding lawyers and get on and produce better products in the knowledge that somebody later will try and copy whatever.
Apple need to be ahead of the game and stop messing around and grow up..., and so does Samsung - as the only constant in the Universe is change....
Nothing is permanent.
I can understand the original concerns, however as both companies are well known and both having niche markets, it is time for Apple to appreciate that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.
The UK judge who ruled that the Apple device was "better" or more cool said it all. It is now time for Tim Cook to realise that whether it be cars, washing machines, mp3 players the market is huge and it has been the norm for a long time for better aspects of a particular product to be imitated. This has gone on since the end of the WW2 when the Japanese showed a penchant for making better copies than the original. Like it or not this is a fact of life and it is nigh time that these two companies stepped out of their fantasy world of feeding lawyers and get on and produce better products in the knowledge that somebody later will try and copy whatever.
Apple need to be ahead of the game and stop messing around and grow up..., and so does Samsung - as the only constant in the Universe is change....
Nothing is permanent.
What the hell is this?
----------
Uh?
http://www.fonearena.com/blog/19963/samsung-galaxy-s-unboxing-pictures.html
Did you think I wasn't talking about the oem box?
By the way, in your example, check out 1:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfa1z3iuyf4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Funny that they need to advertise the app drawer, huh? Uh? Indeed.
I belive that is the international version....which has been thrown out. We're talking US here.
Uh?
http://www.fonearena.com/blog/19963/samsung-galaxy-s-unboxing-pictures.html
Did you think I wasn't talking about the oem box?
By the way, in your example, check out 1:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfa1z3iuyf4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Funny that they need to advertise the app drawer, huh? Uh? Indeed.
Check out 2:50. Oh why homescreen! And the box in the video is the one I showed. Not to mention the box I showed would be included in this trial under the trade dress claims for boxing, the fonearena.com box (is that site the only one that even got that box ?) wouldn't since it's quite different (overly huge and all) from Apple's boxing.
Again, you missed the point completely however in your haste to bash. The point was there isn't a "THE" box and that the App Drawer is not the homescreen, no matter what. And this lawsuit isn't about advertisement, it's about design patents... do we have to repeat this stuff again ? Again, you seem to have missed 2 years worth of discussion on this lawsuits, no matter your claims of lurking.
Rinse and repeat, over and over, that's all we do around here.
You thinking it is "trivial" is what makes Apple one of the world's best design companies on the planet. This is THE design holygrail. Something you actually think it isn't designed at all. What you see in front of you isn't trivial at all. If it was trivial, someone would have done it before. The corners, the color gradient, everything you see in front of you takes months (and thousands of iterations). I know this because I design myself. So I know how hard it is to come up with something simple, something that looks as you say "trivial".
Simple is hard. And if it was trivial, Samsung icons would have looked like this. long long long time ago. Samsung icons would have the same gradients, same glyps, same gloss, same shading. But they didn't. They only started to look like this AFTER the iPhone came out.
My point was that it was not a like for like comparison as the S2 was not showing its homepage, but rather the quick list of installed applications screen.
This is the default S2 homescreen. If you manage to confuse it with iOS might I suggest a career as an Apple expert witness
http://www.galaxys2x.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/galaxy-s2-752.jpg
(if the link doesn't work then this page shows it: http://www.galaxys2x.com/samsung-galaxy-s2--tips-tricks-and-secret-codes/ )
This is the bottom of the Mac Mini compared to Samsung's. I rest my case.
Bold prediction: Nothing will come of this meeting.
Stakes are too high. Neither party will settle. Jury will be flummoxed. Someone will appeal. Rinse. Repeat.
What case would that be ?
You know people are grasping at straws when they start comparing hidden details...
We've already established that you have advanced intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Macrumors after your years of learning the forum culture, knight. No need to rinse and repeat that,
Now that your ego boost for the day is done, let's get back on topic.
i like how your moving goalposts now and saying that fonearena is "the only one that got that box" as if that somehow invalidates the fact that they show the app drawer and not the home screen in their own pictures of the phone both on their box and their user manual.
my original post which you "uh?d" to, stated that they have the app drawer on their box. I proved that they do. it was in response to a poster who said they used the app drawer in their promotion...and they did.
For someone who knows the forum culture you sure have difficulty following the progression of a discussion...
It would be a different thing if you were always a straight shooter, never stray from the topic guy. You're not, so it's ridiculous when you try to tell others what's relevant and what's not. I think you need to learn the forum culture some more.
We've already established that you have advanced intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Macrumors after your years of learning the forum culture, knight. No need to rinse and repeat that,
Like we've established that for a claimed lurker, you sure don't seem to have read much on the topic. Why not just admit you're new to the forum instead of trying the lurking masquerade ?
I did not move goalposts or say that fonearena is the only one that got that box, I asked a question. Notice the question mark in my post ? All the other unboxings and references I can find have the black box with no drawings.
So... answer the question please instead of denigrating it as if it was posted as a statement of fact. It wasn't. Don't misrepresent my posts, that's just plain bad faith and shows quite the lack of character on your part.
Yes, and I uh'ed it because they don't have the app drawer on their box, they might have it on 1 box showed by fonearena as far as I can see, the black box everyone else has doesn't have the app drawer nor even the device itself.
You stated the phone drawer was used on the box. That statement is misrepresentative by the fact there's more than 1 box and even more than that, the black box seems more widespread in general. That was my point, which you've now missed twice.
Are you doing this on purpose ? (this is a question, I'm not saying you are, I'm asking if you are, like the fonearena box, I'm asking where that box comes from and who else got it... not to mention that box is not even relevent as it's not in the trade dress claims since it doesn't match Apple's boxing).
I bolded some parts because you seem to read diagnoly and read whatever you want to read instead of what I actually write. Not the first time. I don't want to outright dismiss you as a poster around here.
You are correct, knight. I discovered macrumors last month. I never lurked here. I'm brand new. You have years of experience. Your dad can beat up mine. Arn and you go wayyy back. Is the pissing contest over now? Seriously, how old are you? Very immature behavior.
I don't know if fonearena is the only one that got that box. There i answered your question. Now answer mine. Why does it matter? If fonearena is the only one that received that box, does that mean the fact that the appscreen was used on the box is invalid? Or do you believe that samsung created a special box just got fonearena?
Semantics (the usual trump card). Ok they have it on "a" box. Again, so?
Semantics (the usual trump card...wait didn't i just say that). If the black box is more widespread does that invalidate the existence of the other one?
I never said the box was relevant. You're misrepresenting my post and saying i made claims that i never did. Poor faith and lack of character on your part. If you're confused by my posts, which it appears you are, please clarify with me. (see, i can play ridiculous semantics games too and act as if I'm clueless).
You know what else is not relevant? Your pissing contest.
Thanks. I will not be bolding my questions for you because you're well versed in forum culture. I answered your questions, now do me a favor and answer mine. Hint: they have question marks at the end of them.
I'm going to go continue my masquerade now, there's just no fooling you!
Btw, are you doing this on purpose? You seem to have a problem with everything i say. What's the beef? Please learn the forum culture before you go attacking users and being condescending.
It's not immature (you want it to be, but really, try to understanding where I'm coming from and adressing the argument rather than resorting to ad hominems). I'm just pointing out to you that you probably don't know what has been discussed around here and you know what, to admit that would be a great show of character on your part. But then, you'd also have to admit that you need to take time to research what has been posted to not re-post things. That's all I'm saying. You appeared here out of nowhere and started shooting down every poster that has been debunking FUD and myths for years around here, by rehashing stuff that has been discussed to death as if it were new.
That shows 1 of either 2 things : - you're new here. Excusable, fixable with a little education (you can do so on your own by re-reading past threads or lurking for a bit and keeping your posts lower profile) OR - you have been lurking and are just doing it on purpose, knowing full well what the result will be (multi page arguments).
I'm just hoping it's the first one and that you're just too embarassed to admit it. I'm simply pointing out that you don't seem aware at all of what has been discussed about this topic, you keep saying you are yet it doesn't show in your post. Sorry if my questionning your knowledge of forum discussions is "immature" to you.
Rest of your post is your usual attacks on the arguer, not the argument. Sorry if I stop here with you, I made my point which was only to point out your misrepresentation of Samsung's apparent "App drawer usage on 1 box". You can't even admit that much. You probably didn't know about the boxes Samsung uses, that's fine. Now that you do, fix your speech about them.
All that and not a single answer to a single question i asked. It's quite clear that you don't know the forum culture and that I've been here longer then you. I hate to do this, because when you're not being condescending you and kdarling are two of the most knowledgeable ones here, but i have to put you on ignore.
I simply cannot argue with someone who resorts to immature "I'm better then you" arguments. It's childish and I'm not a child so I'm not having fun arguing like a child with you.
i am certain I've been here longer then you, just by the way you act. You can reply, because it seems getting the last word is something you desperately need, but rest assured i will not see it. Good day, sir.
Talks didn't go anyway between CEOs - no surprise there.
Not sure if this was posted - but interesting nonetheless. The Jury has its work cut out for it.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ng_jury_to_face_700_questions_on_verdict_form
and the (tentative) survey...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/412486-8-20-2012-tentative-verdict-form.html
Not sure if this was posted - but interesting nonetheless. The Jury has its work cut out for it.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ng_jury_to_face_700_questions_on_verdict_form
and the (tentative) survey...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/412486-8-20-2012-tentative-verdict-form.html
You mean phones before the iphone? Like my windows mobile phone? That had:
3rd party apps
3g
Mms
Cut and paste
Hd camera
Long battery life
Built in gps?
The first iphone had none of these.
Oh yeah, like the iphone, my windows mobile phone had a touchscreen
Some good points. However, the Android interface has had some years in which to mature and, under increasing pressure, has tried to differentiate itself away from iOS with good reason. I believe the Galaxy III design, when compared to the previous Samsung Android phone form factors and the iPhone's form factor, was influenced by the threat of litigation. As you imply, Touch Wiz really presses the envelope (ex. Siri and "S Voice").
Again, I'm not against competition. I don't want Apple to get lazy. At the same time, I look at Android and don't see anything 'new' except a different business model, one in which a company makes its money by getting in bed with carriers and advertisers (and I am befuddled as to how exactly that is good for the consumer).
LOL! +1. I'm surprised someone has not countered the Newton reference with the image from 2001 in which someone used a tablet as "prior art" argument.
+10
I can't agree more about wanting all of this rancor to end and technology companies to get back to completely focusing on creating great products.
My point was that it was not a like for like comparison as the S2 was not showing its homepage, but rather the quick list of installed applications screen.
This is the default S2 homescreen. If you manage to confuse it with iOS might I suggest a career as an Apple expert witness
http://www.galaxys2x.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/galaxy-s2-752.jpg
(if the link doesn't work then this page shows it: http://www.galaxys2x.com/samsung-galaxy-s2--tips-tricks-and-secret-codes/ )
Touché. However, it appears I also might make a good attorney for Samsung.
Establishing prior art is going to be a bitch. Tablets did not look enough like the iPad to matter. The patent should be invalidated because it is so geometrically simple.