UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

[LordVic]

Further, I can just about guarantee that HP's patent (if they applied for a design patent on this convertible tablet/laptop) would not just be the screen, but rather the entire piece. A framed screen is common on just about all laptops, including having rounded corners. But what Apple created WAS and IS different. Why can't people give Apple credit where it's due? I just don't understand that. Who else created this format of a tablet computer before Apple? Not a convertible, but a touch screen, thin form factor, stylus-free tablet?

The problme that we harp on is that Apple did not invent the tablet. The concept of a tablet. They were absolutely part of the evolution of it, and I would say they were the pioneers of putting a tablet in the hands of millions. credit where credit is due

But invent the tablet? no. Invent the concept of a touchscreen device that is mostly screen? no. A simple thin form factor tablets existed well prior to apple.

I'm purposely ignoring the "stylus free" comment because most prior tablets could operate without a stylus. However for some reason it was believed at the time everyone wanted stylus'.

 

[KnightWRX]

Look, Apple applied for and got the patent.

Patents can be invalidated. Same for this community design registration it seems.

I have no problems against Apple or anyone else getting patents. I have problems when they start asking for injunctions before infringement rulings are made based on trial/discovery evidence and these injunctions get granted before anyone can object to them.

I'll just ignore all the stuff you said I said. Putting words into my mouth doesn't make for a very strong argument on your part. Nice job building a strawman there.

 

[samcraig]

The problme that we harp on is that Apple did not invent the tablet. The concept of a tablet. They were absolutely part of the evolution of it, and I would say they were the pioneers of putting a tablet in the hands of millions. credit where credit is due

But invent the tablet? no. Invent the concept of a touchscreen device that is mostly screen? no. A simple thin form factor tablets existed well prior to apple.

I'm purposely ignoring the "stylus free" comment because most prior tablets could operate without a stylus. However for some reason it was believed at the time everyone wanted stylus'.

Exactly. What apple did was evolutionary. And what I give credit to is iOS. Not that I didn't love and enjoy my tablet back in 1993 when I had it. It was great despite what some people want to negate. But iOS is slick. Coupled with the hardware and it's just a nice device to use.

They didn't invent the tablet. They brought the tablet "up to date" with all the best of the new technology available and provided a well designed (argue away of course) UI and OS.

 

[Limboistik]

What Apple did was not just Evolutionary.

I don't think a lot of you folks understand the full scope of design processes ( software, engineering, and industrial).

To the typical user, it may not seem like much, but the process it took Apple to arrive at the final form factor, aesthetics, engineering, internals, and software, is massively complicated.

Those who are in the field of design will understand this.

 

[jmgregory1]

The problme that we harp on is that Apple did not invent the tablet. The concept of a tablet. They were absolutely part of the evolution of it, and I would say they were the pioneers of putting a tablet in the hands of millions. credit where credit is due

But invent the tablet? no. Invent the concept of a touchscreen device that is mostly screen? no. A simple thin form factor tablets existed well prior to apple.

I'm purposely ignoring the "stylus free" comment because most prior tablets could operate without a stylus. However for some reason it was believed at the time everyone wanted stylus'.

I'm not saying Apple created the tablet - but they did create what we now recognize and know as a tablet. And yes, it was and is as much about the software and ecosystem as it is the hardware. And as I noted before - they were issued a design patent - something you can complain about all you want - that it wasn't right, but it was done.

I just see no reason to be complaining about other tablet like devices that were created or on the market first - Apple got the design patent on the iPad and that is what this and all the lawsuits are about - their defending their design patent (or design directive or whatever the EU calls it).

 

[KnightWRX]

What Apple did was not just Evolutionary.

I don't think a lot of you folks understand the full scope of design processes ( software, engineering, and industrial).

To the typical user, it may not seem like much, but the process it took Apple to arrive at the final form factor, aesthetics, engineering, internals, and software, is massively complicated.

Those who are in the field of design will understand this.

Yep, and those in the field of design also understand what a huge undertaking it was for Samsung and for Google.

 

[jmgregory1]

Patents can be invalidated. Same for this community design registration it seems.

I have no problems against Apple or anyone else getting patents. I have problems when they start asking for injunctions before infringement rulings are made based on trial/discovery evidence and these injunctions get granted before anyone can object to them.

I'll just ignore all the stuff you said I said. Putting words into my mouth doesn't make for a very strong argument on your part. Nice job building a strawman there.

To quote what you said - and it's the reason I responded the way I did - "It's what is called a deterrent. That's what most patents are used as, deterrent to prevent other competitors from suing you over trivial matters. It's a MAD scenario (Mutually Assured Destruction)."

So your comment about patents being a deterrent to prevent other competitors from suing you over trivial matters isn't essentially poking a hole in the whole of patent laws?

"Also, your patent is worth what you're willing to license it for. Sometimes, if you're not too greedy and ask for a reasonable rate, some people might just find it cheaper to just license it instead of fighting it in court."

And you're suggesting Apple is greedy - do you know how the conversations went between Apple and Samsung prior to going to court? I don't.

"But this isn't how it's playing out now is it ? Samsung have been found to not have infringed Apple's particular Design Registration '607 (which is not a patent btw, so why you keep harping on about patents is something I don't understand)."

Again, if you're going to defend your [design] patent (or design registration in EU terms), which is your right to do, then it's going to either be settled out of court or in court. And yes, you may win and you may lose.

For me personally, I could care less whether any Samsung phone or tablet is on the market and I seriously doubt Apple really cares either, but I am a staunch proponent of defending your rights granted by patents (or design registrations).

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm not saying Apple created the tablet - but they did create what we now recognize and know as a tablet.

Obviously, the UK judge disagrees with that statement and provides insight in his ruling why : Prior art.

And as I noted before - they were issued a design patent - something you can complain about all you want - that it wasn't right, but it was done.

One that again : Can be invalidated due to 2 factors :

- Obviousness
- Prior art

I just see no reason to be complaining about other tablet like devices that were created or on the market first.

Prior art invalidates patents/design registration. That's one of the criteria. Just because the examiner who granted the design to Apple didn't know about prior art doesn't mean it isn't out there and can't be used to invalidate Apple's claims.

This is exactly what happened in the UK btw. Prior art was the cause of Apple's loss to Samsung.

 

[samcraig]

What Apple did was not just Evolutionary.

I don't think a lot of you folks understand the full scope of design processes ( software, engineering, and industrial).

To the typical user, it may not seem like much, but the process it took Apple to arrive at the final form factor, aesthetics, engineering, internals, and software, is massively complicated.

Those who are in the field of design will understand this.

If you are referring to my post - you'll have to note that I never said that what Apple did was JUST evolutionary. That was your phrasing.

Apple's iPad is evolutionary. If you want to add the word "not just" - go right ahead.

Your post comes off as condescending towards people that actually do have such knowledge of the industry who might not agree with your opinions in their entirety.

But now this thread is so far off on a tangent it's quite silly. At the end of the day, a UK judge made a judgement. Something that both Apple and Samsung were seeking. You can agree with the ruling or not - but that's what happened and that is what will be considered the legal/final say until there's an appeal.

As I mentioned before - the thing I find most funny about some of the posters here is that the same ones that praised the judge for "slamming" samsung and saying their device wasn't as "cool" as an iPad are now saying the judge is an idiot. That's very telling.

 

[KnightWRX]

To quote what you said - and it's the reason I responded the way I did - "It's what is called a deterrent. That's what most patents are used as, deterrent to prevent other competitors from suing you over trivial matters. It's a MAD scenario (Mutually Assured Destruction)."
So your comment about patents being a deterrent to prevent other competitors from suing you over trivial matters isn't essentially poking a hole in the whole of patent laws?

Yes, that is how most patents and patent pools are used. As defensive weapons. Most patent claims are usually thrown into countersuits just to "thicken the complaint" and force a settlement by the opposing party.

What does it have to do with patent law though ? Patent law precisely permits this. I made no comments about the actual law, the USPTO (irrelevant in a UK discussion) or patent examiners and their failures to address issues such as obviousness and prior art correctly due to the many requests they get.

"Also, your patent is worth what you're willing to license it for. Sometimes, if you're not too greedy and ask for a reasonable rate, some people might just find it cheaper to just license it instead of fighting it in court."

And you're suggesting Apple is greedy - do you know how the conversations went between Apple and Samsung prior to going to court? I don't.

Apple doesn't license out their UI/design patents. This is a well known fact. They don't like cross-licensing agreements either according to their very own court documents in cases for FRAND patent infringement (like the suit against Nokia).

"But this isn't how it's playing out now is it ? Samsung have been found to not have infringed Apple's particular Design Registration '607 (which is not a patent btw, so why you keep harping on about patents is something I don't understand)."

Again, if you're going to defend your [design] patent (or design registration in EU terms), which is your right to do, then it's going to either be settled out of court or in court. And yes, you may win and you may lose.

The problem comes when you're trying a bunch of stuff out there to see what sticks, not in any kind of effort to defend your IP, but in an effort to slow down the competition from reaching the market. Throw out a bunch of patents and ask for an injunction.

If Apple were serious about defending their IP, then they don't need the injunctions. They simply need to go to court. Their sales are phenominal, Samsung isn't hurting them by being in the market and any infringement they are found guilty of will be settled by damages and permanent injunctions after they have been found guilty of infringement.

It's the route and method Apple are using, not what they are doing.

 

[samcraig]

Their sales are phenominal, Samsung isn't hurting them by being in the market and any infringement they are found guilty of will be settled by damages and permanent injunctions after they have been found guilty of infringement.

It's the route and method Apple are using, not what they are doing.

I agree with almost everything except this last bit. Apple is going after Samsung hard because Samsung is their biggest competition. They have a phone now that is selling very well and their tablets do respectable too. They have a very lucrative TV division (which Apple is reportedly going after soon enough)

Are they doing as well as Apple. Maybe not. For now. But they are a threat that exists because they are adapting their product lines to be more focused.

 

[jmgregory1]

Yep, and those in the field of design also understand what a huge undertaking it was for Samsung and for Google.

And Samsung and Google and HTC and Moto and Sony and Nokia, have the same right to apply for patent protections - design or otherwise. It may be a flawed system (it is a flawed system), but it's the only thing we have now.

I have a great story on how wrong the patent system is. My company produces a product that no other company in the world can make (for now and hopefully for a long time). It's a paper-thin wood that can be used for all sorts of things, from packaging and labels to gift cards, hotel key cards, wallpaper, iPhone wraps, etc. Years ago, a large US retailer (not Wal-Mart) had a designer that had the idea of putting wood (although they didn't specify whether it was real wood or just a print of woodgrain) on a gift card. We develop our product and now produce an all-wood sheet that can be used to make gift cards, credit cards, hotel key cards, membership cards, etc. Guess what, this retailer can now use it's design patent (as vague as it is with no description of how they would produce a real wood gift card) to threaten other retailers who want to buy our wood sheets for use as gift/membership cards.

And the only way we can fight for our rights, given we've created something distinctly different than what their patent shows, is to go to court over it. It's not much different than many of the technology patents that were created by someone with an idea and no means of making the actual technology, suing those companies that actually do figure out how to do something similar.

 

[KnightWRX]

And Samsung and Google and HTC and Moto and Sony and Nokia, have the same right to apply for patent protections - design or otherwise. It may be a flawed system (it is a flawed system), but it's the only thing we have now.

You keep coming back with this as if someone had opposed the whole of the patent system and the fact that companies apply for patents... Why ?

In fact, Samsung is 2nd in the world for patents granted per year, behind only IBM. Apple applies and gets much less patent grants than Samsung, they placed 39th in 2011 for patents granted.

 

[xraydoc]

Apple needs to run this picture with the following copy:

Per the ruling of Judge Birss, Galaxy tablets do not infringe on Apple's design and "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." He also states that "they are not as cool."

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple needs to run this picture with the following copy:

Image

Why that picture though ? Why not this one :

Is there a particular reason your picture is more valid than the actual truth ? The ruling used 50 examples of prior art to invalidate Apple's claims, why use a picture where none of them appears ?

Oh right, we need to lie to make it seem Apple invented the concept of a tablet... Gotcha.

 

[jmgregory1]

You keep coming back with this as if someone had opposed the whole of the patent system and the fact that companies apply for patents... Why ?

In fact, Samsung is 2nd in the world for patents granted per year, behind only IBM. Apple applies and gets much less patent grants than Samsung, they placed 39th in 2011 for patents granted.

Because you keep addressing this issue in regards to Apple and the patents they've been granted.

Are you trying to say that the system is fine, but it's really just Apple that is the problem (specifically the design patent they got for the iPad or not specifically for the iPad design patent, but for all things Apple)?

My point has nothing to do with Apple being some "leader" in patents, nor am I discounting Samsung or anyone else's patent accomplishments for that matter. But Apple has the right, granted to them, to defend their patents, just like Samsung or IBM or Nokia, etc. does. You can disagree that any patent should be granted, but complaining that Apple shouldn't be defending their patents makes no sense (to me, at least).

 

[KnightWRX]

Because you keep addressing this issue in regards to Apple and the patents they've been granted.

Nope, I never did that. You misinterpret my posts.

 

[7709876]

I am amazed at how many people think Apple showed ANY originality in the design of the iPad.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2386...a_space_odyssey_invalidates_apple_patent.html

 

[kdarling]

I am amazed at how many people think Apple showed ANY originality in the design of the iPad.

Plus my favorite SciFi example from 1973 below. It not only had the same look as the iPad with flat black front and rounded metal edges, but someone here also noted that it even foretold how Jobs would dress in a turtleneck! ~ cue Twilight Zone theme ~

 

[KnightWRX]

Plus my favorite SciFi example from 1973 below. It not only had the same look as the iPad with flat black front and rounded metal edges, but someone here also noted that it even foretold how Jobs would dress in a turtleneck! ~ cue Twilight Zone theme ~

View attachment 348886

Or maybe Steve Jobs was just a fan of the show and emulated the look ?

 

[Lennholm]

Really? I'm just not sure how you can be looking at the same things to make comments like this. It may be true that Samsung's icons are less well designed, but they are certainly direct copies of what Apple created. The messaging icons are both callouts - is that not apparent? The notes icons just both happen to look like pads of lined yellow paper, contacts are both a bound book form with bust on them, settings are geared wheels, photos are both yellow flowers (or zoomed in petals of a yellow flower).

And the phone itself - what don't you see that is a complete copy of the iPhone?

I suppose you're one to argue the sky is actually a tree and the ocean is actually a turtle.

All those icons depict objects that are very common for their respective function. They were common even before Apple used them. Do you seriously believe no one used gearwheels for a settings app and speech bubbles for a messaging app before Apple did it?

Sorry but I don't need my glasses to tell me if a large object looks similar to another large object. Obviously I'm not speaking for everyone but the majority of non-geek, normal, every day people like myself do see it as a blatant copy.

Of course they look similar, they're the same kind of device. "Looking similar" is very far from "blatant copy".

That's what I always say, but someone brings up a picture of Picard holding his PAD. They seem to keep forgetting that Star Trek: The Next Generation is near the end of the 3rd millennium.

Having trouble with the difference between fantasy and reality? *sigh* TNG is not from the future, it was a television show produced in the 80's and everything you see in it was designed by people in the 80's, i.e. prior (as in prior art) to Apple's designing of the iPad.

actually it wasn't the first thing that popped up on google. It not sure why it matters. Especially when if any iPhone could be claimed to have copied the Prada design it's the iPhone 4. Usually when the Prada gets thrown out there and Apple is accused of copying it (it had a capacitive screen and was released before the iPhone, but we'll just ignore the crappy flash based OS that came with it) its in reference to the original iPhone. But when it's pointed out that the Prada and the original iPhone don't really look that much alike then people say oh it's really the iPhone 4 that ripped off the Prada design.

So we're really supposed to believe when Apple was working on the iPhone 4 design Steve and Jony said hey let's make it look like the LG Prada ffrom 2006? Really?

Of course no one thinks Apple actually copied the Prada, but it's used as a counterargument to the argument that everyone copied Apple. If it's recognized that Apple likely didn't copy the Prada because of the time scale, then by the same logic it's likely that Samsung didn't copy the iPhone.

Ok maybe I'm blind, but I fail to see how one would mistake the iPhone and Prada OS UI. Outside of the 4 icons docked at the bottom they really look nothing alike. And the icons don't really resemble each other either.

Image

Image

Now I'm not arguing this to defend Apple and all their lawsuits - I do think the Galaxy Tab one was especially bogus - I just think the LG Prada copycat claim is bogus as well. One, no way could Apple redesign their phone between the time the Prada won an IF design award and the iPhone was released (which is what
LG claimed). And two, no way do I believe the iPhone 4 was intentionally ripping off the original Prada released in 2006. Unless the claim is they unintentionally ripped it off, which I find hard to believe.

Same response as above, if it's recognized that the similarities between Prada and iPhone aren't sufficient to be copying, then the similarities between iPhone/iPad and Samsung phones/tabs aren't sufficient to be copying either.

What Apple did was not just Evolutionary.

I don't think a lot of you folks understand the full scope of design processes ( software, engineering, and industrial).

To the typical user, it may not seem like much, but the process it took Apple to arrive at the final form factor, aesthetics, engineering, internals, and software, is massively complicated.

Those who are in the field of design will understand this.

You say this but at the same time seem eager to dismiss the R&D work of other companies.

I'm not saying Apple created the tablet - but they did create what we now recognize and know as a tablet. And yes, it was and is as much about the software and ecosystem as it is the hardware. And as I noted before - they were issued a design patent - something you can complain about all you want - that it wasn't right, but it was done.

I just see no reason to be complaining about other tablet like devices that were created or on the market first - Apple got the design patent on the iPad and that is what this and all the lawsuits are about - their defending their design patent (or design directive or whatever the EU calls it).

No, what I recognize as a tablet was exactly the same before the iPad as it is now; a flat, rectangular, mobile computer with some form of large touch display. Apple didn't create nor change that. They refined it and made it a better experience, but that's not innovation.

 

[chris200x9]

Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image

Seriously I'm so sick of this picture "hey I can cherry pick tablet based on designs that prove my point!"

Here's one released about a week before the ipad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo

I responded to this same exact idiotic picture over a year ago and cited many more but I'm too lazy to look up more examples.

It seems apple and it's fanbois have never heard of convergent evolution, sorry to break it to you no one copied anyone bro.

 

[JohnDoe98]

It seems apple and it's fanbois have never heard of convergent evolution, sorry to break it to you no one copied anyone bro.

And it seems some people don't understand the difference between artifacts and natural objects. Also, are you suggesting tech labs are cocooned from the outside world and are not mutually influenced?

 

[entatlrg]

I agree with almost everything except this last bit. Apple is going after Samsung hard because Samsung is their biggest competition. They have a phone now that is selling very well and their tablets do respectable too. They have a very lucrative TV division (which Apple is reportedly going after soon enough)

Are they doing as well as Apple. Maybe not. For now. But they are a threat that exists because they are adapting their product lines to be more focused.

And Samsung got there by riding Apple's back.

Many companies wait and wonder to see what Apple will do. Then if Apple is successful they race to catch up without regard to patents or anything else.

An in 'screw Apple, we'll copy their design, accessories, packaging as much as we can, if Apple doesn't like it sue us' ... And Apple did just that.

Samsung crossed the line too much in too many areas ... enough is enough, yes, if I was Apple I'd sue the absolute hell out of them to. Steve Jobs had the same feeling with Google about Android, good for him.

 

[KnightWRX]

I responded to this same exact idiotic picture over a year ago and cited many more but I'm too lazy to look up more examples.

Don't worry, the judge in the UK case cited 50 examples of prior art.