Discussion on:

Apple whines, court caves, Samsung stops sales

I'm sorry, but I'm totally dumbfounded by this ruling. Ornamental design? Really?

in this case the cartoonist wants to prevent anyone else from doing a cartoon in three frames with a line around each. How reasonable is this. Going after ridiculous things like that is how people (and companies) loose credibility but as you and I have already stated : no one cares about that.

one/two side(s) and rolled up onto a spool. Oh, wait, they did that. And called it Scotch tape.

I can kind of see Apple's point of view here. You can ask someone for some Scotch tape, but what are the chances that you'll get some 3M Scotch brand tape?

Five years down the road I can see someone asking to borrow my iPad for a few minutes, even though I may have an Android or Windows based tablet

3M patented the adhesive, method for making the tape and may have been able to patent the dispenser. 3M even trademarked the Scotch® brand. But what 3M didn't (and couldn't) patent was the idea of dispensing something from a roll. That's what Apple, by patenting the shape of the iPad, has essentially done.

If I was Mead, I'd be taking the results of this case and suing Apple for infringement because the iPad is essentially the same size and shape as a composition notebook.

Are you sure they (3M) didn't patent the method of dispensing? I really don't know. But, Scotch tape does not truly mean 3M brand Scotch tape today.

If people start using a brand name as a general noun for something, then the brand name is watered out. In the end it can mean that a brand name ceases to be protected. Back in the day there was a company called Primus, they made camping cookers... now a primus is a name for a camping cooker in many places.
I think the judges will find that thin rectangle with touchscreen form has already been watered down. It is simply what a tablet is. And Apple didn't start tablets, did they?

There have been occasions when Apple was an innovator. This isn't one of them.

Apple wasn't the first to produce a flat panel display, or the first to produce a portable computer in tablet form-factor (check out the TRS-80). Touchscreen? No. OLEDs? No. Mice and related pointing devices? No (Xerox). Putting all these things together was just an obvious refinement and extension of technology.

Apple must have a very short memory to have forgotten what happened to the last time they tried a look-and-feel suit. The US Supreme Court ruled against them. By forcing this to trial, Apple runs a very big risk of shooting itself in the foot, because unlike the Apple vs Microsoft case, where the parties were the actual producers of the "products", and Microsoft was relying heavily on its OS success, the only part of the Apple tablet produced by Apple is the software, and Samsung is a major electronic component and product manufacturer that can easily withstand the delay of one product line to one market.

What Apple is IS doing, is to create the same kind of situation that IBM did when tried to control the PC add-in market by using a daughtercard connector that required an IBM license to use. The infant-PC industry revolted, came up with an functional replacement alternative, and eventually forced IBM _completely_ out of the PC business.

"Thin" isn't a patentable concept, and it won't take the higher courts 4 years like it did with Apple vs Microsoft to overturn the lower court and make Apple look foolish to its shareholders.

At least one company (not Apple) is pushing to a totally non-touch keyboardless tablet replacement that will displace the entire category, and Apple doesn't hold the basic patents on _any_ of the critical technology.

Apple is in the fashion business. What they do is market proprietary, non-upgradable, closed systems to people who are looking for social acceptance through the ownership of un-needed, over-priced, gadgets whose functionality has become predictable and whose appeal is ephemeral. They're the electronics industry's equivalent of Jimmy Choo or Prada, and like those companies, Apple is going to find out that fashion tweaks of an existing idea isn't sufficient for maintaining an enforceable patent.

The only benefit that I can see posibly coming from this suit, is a re-organization of the USPO, a clearer definition of what things are and are not patent worthy, and a non-judicial oversight process for reviewing challenged patent claims.

>> Apple is in the fashion business. What they do is market proprietary, non-upgradable, closed systems to people who are looking for social acceptance through the ownership of un-needed, over-priced, gadgets whose functionality has become predictable and whose appeal is ephemeral. They're the electronics industry's equivalent of Jimmy Choo or Prada...

This stuff gets really old. I own and use a few Apple products. Not one of those was purchased because I give two craps what some guy on the bus thinks about my choice in hardware. I even have one computer running OS X because, for its intended purpose, that was the best OS available.

I'm sure there are just as many fans of Droid, or a particular Samsung whatever, because they're "non-conformists". Whatever. Stupid reason to spend money.

That said, the patent trolling is getting re-damn-diculous. Enough already. It's all been done before. Get over it and compete on the basis of merit like everyone else.

nt

They patented the design of the dispenser (shape, cutting edge, plastic roller, etc.), but could not patent the manner of dispensing (from a roll) because it was prior art and had been for centuries. This, of course, was back in the day when the USPTO had the time and expertise to do its job properly.

Couldn't tell them apart? The Galaxy Tab is LONGER, duh. He must have been blind, and stupid. Stupid because just one look to figure out which was which before standing in front of the judge would have saved him the embarrassment of not knowing in court.

Fool an average user? Sheesh! That is contorted logic if ever I heard (or read) it. The Galaxy Tab is LONGER, SLIMMER, and WIDER.

Patents on a rectangle are IDIOTIC! Patents on cartoons (though idiotic) are apples to oranges. A cartoon has a specific look NOT RELATED to a triangle. Unless your cartoon was a rectangle, then the comparison does not apply.

Apple is using the courts of law to market their products instead of the court of public opinion. That is going to backfire. Just look at their association with Foxconn. Countless people injured, crippled, extorted, abused... for your iPad. Rest easy knowing that for each iPad made someone has been crippled. Apple says they care about their workers, but Foxconn's workers making the iPad are those treated the best in Apple's supply chain. So if Foxconn's workers are abused, what happens to the others?

That must by why Foxconn had to install suicide nets around their building to catch people trying to jump off! Apple must have been watching and told them to.
That was some time ago, but the tradition carries on. (www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/foxconn-labour-record-better-than-other-apple-suppliers-report/article4376178/)

But of the average consumer, how many do you think are sitting in the Apple store saying, "I am not gonna buy this iWhatever because they dont care about their suppliers" This is the society we live in. And my only point is that this article stating Apple would take a plunge cause of it is laughable. People willalways find a reason to hate Apple. No matter what. And those of us who like Apple will always be referred to as "fanboi's" by know-it-all's who proll havent even used one long enough to have an opinion. If you don't like the company or their policies and you decide to boycott...more power to you. But if you think Apple missed your 2k...im gonna go with not.

try to avoid purchasing products from companies i don't like. If there is an alternative, i'll take it.
I don't like the fact that Apple has used the courts to compete in the marketplace.
The argument that Apple seems to make in this case might be that they hold a patent on rectangles, therefore all other makers must come up with a different shape.
*Who's ready for the new ellipsoidal tablets?*
Oops, that might be owned by a pharmaceutical company!

If, as you say, the average device user can barely turn on their device, then Apple hasn't advanced the PC as a truly usable device in any fundamental manner since it introduced the Lisa.

I wouldn't go that far, but the lame basis of this decision, that customer who can tell the difference between two displays that vary by a few percent in resolution and color depth - can't tell two physical device apart by size is ludicrous.

...isn't the Apple logo clearly visible on the Apple tablet?
And does the "Knockoff" not clearly display the bold SAMSUNG name?
Nothing makes any sense at all as a patent infringement case. This decision is beyond stupid and should be very quickly reversed.

you find out how much Apple have put up for the judge's next political campaign.

Federal Circuit Court Judges are appointed by the White House.
This explains the level of utter incompetence found in some of those courts.

and not as a judge. But, mind you, the article doesn't say the judge was a federal judge - however, I don't know what court this is in at the moment - but do know it would have been tossed out in the first five minutes down here.

What does the appointment process for federal circuit judges have to do with their competence?

guy was bought off.

and his comment on the competence of federal judges.

nt

Your cartoon analogy is terrible. There is something called Copyright which protects artistic works such as a cartoon. Why on earth should Apple, or any one for that matter, be given the right to be the only one allowed to produce something that is a rectangle with rounded corners. That isn't an invention, it isn't an innovation, it isn't anything that deserves a patent. What you are suggesting is that an interior designer should be able to patent a room with a window and off-white walls, and that everyone who has a room that has one window and off-white walls should either be open to litigation or should have to pay some licensing fee should they want to sell their house.

It wasnt the best analogy, although I did state it was for illustration purposes. But I see your logic and in that regard placing a patent on a room design would be rediculous. All I was trying to point out was that if you created something (a design or whatever) would you not be upset if someone basically took that changed a few things cosmetically and put their logo on it? Or is everyone on here the nicest human beings on Earth? lol

Otherwise, Apple has no moral or ethical fiber to stand on.

*did* INVENT the shape in question. For unless they invented the rectangle w/ rounded, slightly beveled corners (and FYI: they didn't---by a long shot), how COULD they be upset to find they weren't the only ones in the rectangle business?! You're beyond 'fanboi'; you're deluding yourself, and trying to excuse the bizzarre antics of a company suddenly afraid of the ol' Level Playing Field. Wake up.....

If rounding corners were sufficient to give legal control of a product category to one manufacturer in the US, how many automobile companies do you think would exist today in the US?

Further, any engineer could easy demonstrate that it's impossible to manufacture a product with a mathematically rectangular shape. If you could, such a device would cut a holders fingers. The sharpest product "edge" is rounded, by design and intent.

their "compensation/acknowledgement" for the device (just like everyone else). As you're suggesting that what makes *theirs* desireable is NOT the shape, but the functionality of what's inside it, you should be able to see the ridiculous nature of their position---the rectangle's functional guts ARE already patented. If the judge had acted responsibly, Apple would've been fined appropriately for having brought such a laughably frivolous suit to court.

a few names for the basic deign style you mention, like any cell phone company such as Motorola and Nokia, or how about all the companies making e-book readers for the last several years.

nt

can patent it.

After all, to them, any tablet they buy will be an "ipad", whether it looks similar to one, or not.

iWon't iWon't iWon't

?

Some guy I knew kept losing BICs, I couldn't help him, because all I could find were disposable no-name ball point pens

I call them a Biro. A Bic to me is a ladies razor! Although I am in Aus, so perhaps we do things a little differently down here.

IMO, Apple is far more monopolistic that MS of the 90's!

I don't understand why Apple goes after these design patents and why they are even given consideration by the patent office. Apple's approach to ornamental design is simple, streamlined, and elegant. The problem with this is that, while it's a great approach and has broad appeal, it isn't the least bit distinctive on its own. The products may seem distinctive while other companies aren't taking the simple and elegant approach, but there is nothing inherently distinctive about the designs. You can't patent simple, streamlined, and elegant. Well, anyone with half a brain should realize that you shouldn't be able to, anyway.

To put it another way, Apple's approach to ornamentation is to make their devices plain. Plain is basically the opposite of distinctive. Plain works very well, but you can't protect it.

Edit: fixed a couple of typing errors.

Completely agree. Please, keep us advised RE: patent fiasco. There must be a better way to protect products than our system.

Where can I sign up for the patent on "pretty"..............

Makes me wonder what else their R&D money is going for.............?????

Joe six pack does not care about Apple's behavior just like he never cared about Microsoft's. If he likes the product he will buy it, no questions asked.

While this may seem trivial, if you know the history of Android and how they 'learned' all the Apple elements, you too would want to stop them by any means.

I'm all for open source, but I'm not for theft. The timeliness of Eric Schmidts departure from Apple's board, and the amazing release of Android OS, are far too coincidental, particularily when Android had features that only an insider at Apple would know about and took years to develop. We can dither about one feature versus another, but theft is theft.

So, is Apple focusing on the small stuff? Yes. Should Google invest in their own R&D versus stealing? Yes. Is Samsung in the middle? Yes.

If you research the history of IBM, you'll find a lot of these small elements that IBM took companies to court over, right down to the red on/off switch of a PC. Look up the 101 keyboard, the case of a PC, the mouse developed by DKD, now IDEO, the mouse pad, etc. etc. etc. Amazon sued over 'one-click' check out. Really, isn't everything one-click no matter what? Ford and BMW over Chrysler's grill layout. Ben and Jerry's over a font. Body-Shop over a clothing shop using the name Body-Shop (Essex Jct. VT), despite the clothing store being in existence for 10 years before Body-Shop was even in existence. And on and on.

So, no, I don't belittle Apple for defending their intellectual assets. We don't want to turn into another China where the wild west of theft is the norm. Do we?

How is "ornamental design" an intellectual asset? Apple is and always has been a money sucking bully who wants to keep their captive market of "i-sheep" by any means. I don't like Samsung either, but this ruling is ridiculous.

Apple learned a great deal from PARC. To sum it up in his words...

"Picasso had a saying: good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas..."

Hmm. Comparing a computer design to artistic design, especially Picasso?

There is no comparison between a Picasso and an Apple. I've seen many, many beautifully designed pieces of tech, but not one compares to a Picasso.

are copies of the Mona Lisa, huh

If Picasso were Steve Jobs, the answer would be yes. All paintings that use rectangular shapes are ripoffs of Apple paintings.

They did the same with the iMac and the iPod and all the other iJunk : They took an existing device type, made one with off-the-shelf components but put a "snazzy" look on it. How is that innovation? It's marketing, is what it is.

I went out and bought a Tab 10.1 as soon as I heard about Apple's bull****.

I have always bought Apple products because they've been innovative, simple to learn, and reliable. I'm no longer going to support their business strategy of profit through lawsuit. I will not purchase another iDevice.

Apple created a slate. These have existed for some time and while Apple made a really nice slate - it's light, it's thin - it's still a slate...

And this from a company with a history of having blatantly ripped off ideas from the Xerox PARC.

I think they are getting a little paniky looking into the cupboard for bright new things. It reminds me a bit of the Sony Walkman. Ultracool, but now just a memory. Hopefully someone will look at enough old SCI-Fi movies to find all the prior art.

I agree. When the bully starts to loose, or fears competition, they take their ball and stop the game. Apple is using lawsuits to compete against the inevitable. And now that their cash cow is gone, along with his creative theft of ideas, they are panicking.

Like you mentioned Jack, Android tablets are starting to get notice by the public. Apple is scared. It's ok to be scared because scared will make a company work harder on their product...oh wait...Apple didn't take that route? What? They're whining to a court? They're trying to kill the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the court? Good move Apple. Good move. Whiners.

I understand that Apple is supposed to be the "hip" thing now. But honestly the question that I have is why do people love the things they put out. Tablet wise I own an Acer Iconia Tab. If I want to, I can plug a usb drive into my tablet. I can plug a card adapter in and read any card I want. I can plug it into my computer and not have to use that god-awful program called iTunes. There is nothing I can do with an iPad that I can't do with my Iconia. But there are plenty that I can do with mt Iconia that I can't do with the iPad. Apple is going to be in 10 years where Microsoft is now: irrelevant.

Monopolies are not illegal in the USA. A monopoly using its position as a monopoly to directly and unfairly prevent anyone else from entering or competing in the same market is.

That being said...

Bad Apple! Yet another reason I will continue to not buy your devices.

Apple was fighting against big blue just like you mentioned earlier. The battle was never really fought because Microsoft and the clone army knocked big blue down. However check out this youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

OH the sick irony!

Those who rise to the top fear only one thing...Being knocked off the hill.

I avoid apple like the sick plague that they are. I'ved tried Ipads and I've tried android tablets, Android kicks Apples butt all over the field and then into the trash bin. Corporate irresponsibilty on Apples part only cements my opinion.

was created by IBM when they allowed all those other companies to manufacture using the ISA technology IBM created for a simple fee of only $1 per device they made. IBM has ALWAYS made a profit from their PC computing division due to the royalties from the clones, they just couldn't do well with their own home built PC. And don't forget it was IBM who licensed PC-DOS from Bill gates and gave him the money to get Microsoft really rolling.

Microsoft licensing and porting Office to apple back in the mid 90's. Apple was basically dead back then, no office suite means certain death. Microsoft was the author of their own demise. I still don't know what motivated them to make office for macs. It's possible Apple would have died off without MS office.

At this point I'm not a fan of any of the proprietary, patent troll hungry, companies. Google included. You can no longer point to the main culprit, once one company started patenting everything the law suites started rolling. Now you have to follow suite. It's like patent armageddon except I don't think anyone can win. There is a very old saying "there is nothing new under the sun". Now probably it's getting so bad that creating the simplist code likely violates someones patent.

After writing this post I found this article, it's a long read but interesting history.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html

support as Apple was the only other major commercial player in the US operating system market then and Microsoft was still very worried about the possible restrictions the US Department of Justice would have slammed them with as the ONLY monopolistic commercial entity in the market. It was well covered in the media and forums at the time.

The monopoly concerns were NOT about the existing court case, but the potential for the DoJ to use it's regulatory powers to insert management controls into Microsoft if Apple went under at that time. The commercial and political climate has changed a lot since then, but those were real concerns at the time, and the amount of support from Microsoft may seem big to us it was only minor pocket change to Microsoft and Bill Gates.

Because... Microsoft is affected by Apple in which ways?
Apple has sales in some consumer fashion product niches... how is that a "demise" for MS?

Tarnish the image of Apple?? Your kidding me right? The horrific conditions of the Apple factory in Shenzhen China didnt make a dent in sales, just a little bit of bad publicity, which is all but forgotten. People dont care, what they care about is thier iPhones and mobile devices and getting them as cheap as possible. People have a hard time connecting to what they dont actually see or expereince. I really doubt this will affect Apple as well.
Marc

If a company employe a lawyer they are going to create work for themselves. Once you let them through the door they will be drilling you dry and take all the money for themselves. Get rid of them, and stay competitive by releasing products that people want.

You know, I'm getting sick of Apple whining, about everything that another company introduces. Get over it apple, your not the only kid on the block!
Here's something else, when we couldn't get the iPhone we got a Samsung galxys2, Wow what a great surprise, this runs circles around the iPhone!

They know the judge. lets put a jury in front of the discussion and see where it goes. If you want to win, all you have to do is pay enough...economics 101 ...

It seems like Desilu Productions, Paramount Studios, and the estate of Gene Roddenberry should have some stake in shiny rectangular electronic tablets used since the original Star Trek series aired in the 1960s. Not to mention the touch interface portrayed in Minority Report (2002).

I suspect to the average Joe or Mary, they won't care about the patent wars. If they are tried and true Apple users, they always will buy Apple regardless of what is being done in the courtroom.

As soon as the perception fad dissipates, most consumers will realize Apple products are actually vastly inferior to the competition's offerings.

Our society as we know it has to dissipate, at which point Apple and its competitors would also be dissipated.

Some pay big bucks just to be able to say "look what I can afford"!!

and Beemer boys!

Why are we surprised? Competition in the present world economy is a four letter word. One has but to look at the present state of Wall Street, today's banking system and political parties to realize that business does not want competition. They just want our money so they can buy a politician, a political party, to curb innovation and competition. Greed will destroy us all.

You nailed it Jack! How petty can Apple be? Pretty petty obviously. I'm glad to announce that I don't own ONE Apple product and stunts like this make me doubt I ever will. Never had an ipod, i-whatever... I'm surprised they haven't tried to PATENT THE LETTER "i". Maybe that's next??? And weren't they taught that the first letter in a Pronoun should be capitalized??? Maybe I'll start an ANTI "i" blog??? I'll forever buy the alternate instead of paying their INFLATED prices!!!! Anti Apple Forever!!! AAF!!! You heard it here first.

Sincerely, Ken S. on an IBM compatible!!!

Their behaviour sharpens the almost black and white divide between Apple and Non-Apple users.

I aviod all Apple products.
Hate monopolistic products, love the open, democratic Android.

Soon we'll hear how Apple owns the patent to the word "cloud."

Never had an apple, never wanted one. Had a couple G4s under my desk at work about 10 years ago, attempting to integrate them into our network as an experiment in platform-agnosticism (if there is such a word.) Couldn't keep the damn things running, crashed every time one looked at them sideways. Couldn't understand why the fans raved about Apple's "simplicity" - the entire interface seemed way too needlessly complicated for my taste.
Also witnessed a transaction at a local computer repair shop that looked into replacing a CD drive in a customer's (I think it was called iMac) and found that the part alone would cost approx. $600 - they advised the customer to forget about it and use a USB drive instead for about $59 - this was about 7 years ago or so.
This latest tomfoolery has ensured that nothing Apple will ever sully my fingers. In fact, I think I'll scout around and see if I can pick up one of those Samsung tablets before they all disappear, so I can enjoy their "infringing design" whilst Apple rots.