Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Soon, only the lawyers involved in the litigation will be able to afford these devices.
would never have been considered for a patent in most other developed countries and the cases would have been thrown out of court with orders to cancel the patent if one had been given in the first place.
Hell, most of what Apple won on against Samsung they stole directly from the Star Trek franchise as they had thin rectangular data transfer devices that worked by touch and finger slide all through the next gen and voyager series. Predating Apple by a few decades.
Hell, most of what Apple won on against Samsung they stole directly from the Star Trek franchise as they had thin rectangular data transfer devices that worked by touch and finger slide all through the next gen and voyager series. Predating Apple by a few decades.
not allowed in the UK. Also, the Korean court went contrary to the USA court too.
I don't know if it's true, but I did hear that one of the jurors for the US court had said that they voted against Samsung to protect a US business from a foreign one simply because they didn't understand the technical aspects. If that quote can be proven, then I say Samsung have good grounds for a mistrial.
I wonder how Apple will go if Samsung load their payout into the sale price of all the parts they sell Apple, thus forcing up the price of Apple products!
I don't know if it's true, but I did hear that one of the jurors for the US court had said that they voted against Samsung to protect a US business from a foreign one simply because they didn't understand the technical aspects. If that quote can be proven, then I say Samsung have good grounds for a mistrial.
I wonder how Apple will go if Samsung load their payout into the sale price of all the parts they sell Apple, thus forcing up the price of Apple products!
We have the Competition Commission here in the UK, and they would never allow a company to monopolise on any category product!
Quote:
The Competition Commission (CC) is an independent public body which helps to ensure healthy competition between companies in the UK for the ultimate benefit of consumers and the economy. It conducts in-depth investigations into mergers and markets and also has certain functions with regard to the major regulated industries.
Quote:
The Competition Commission (CC) is an independent public body which helps to ensure healthy competition between companies in the UK for the ultimate benefit of consumers and the economy. It conducts in-depth investigations into mergers and markets and also has certain functions with regard to the major regulated industries.
This is typical of the trash that so many journalists are spouting about patents. It's wrong. Not because I'm an Apple fan but because they are wrong on the facts. When companies do the hard work to innovate, which undeniably Apple did with the iPhone, they should be able to recoup their investment without knock-offs stealing their market. Clearly Samsung had the technology to create the their current product line before Apple created the iPhone; they didn't. The fact that Samsung makes many of the technical components that make up the iPhone has no relevance to the fact that Apple combined those components in a unique and useful way to make the iPhone. The fact that Samsung then took those same components to rip off the iPhone design makes them even more despicable because they have violated the trust that OEM companies must have in their suppliers. There is nothing worse, in any industry, than a supplier that decides to bypass the OEM and go to market directly. Often, and certainly in this case, the supplier uses the design and market information that they learned from the OEM to undercut the very OEM that was buying the components. The only reason that Samsung is still a supplier to Apple is that their components are necessary for the iPhone, and many of them are protected by Samsung's own patents. If I had the time I would address each of the writer's arguments individually, but unfortunately I'm not a journalist and I have a real job to get back to.
And the key patent was the one which Samsung refers to, a very vague patent that never could have existed prior to the recent low bar set by USPTO. Prior art seems to have been lost on them.
If the case had hinged on trademark, copyright or US commercial code, Apple may have still won, it would have been a far different ruling for Samsung.
Never mind the broken nature of a lot of those topics.
If the case had hinged on trademark, copyright or US commercial code, Apple may have still won, it would have been a far different ruling for Samsung.
Never mind the broken nature of a lot of those topics.
Trademark, or copyright or US commercial code, not patent. I am curious if the price of the retina displays went up after Apple won the patent claim.
It seems kind of counter productive to sue one of your major suppliers especially when they produce the most marketed feature of your current product.
Bill
Edited to add second paragraph.
It seems kind of counter productive to sue one of your major suppliers especially when they produce the most marketed feature of your current product.
Bill
Edited to add second paragraph.
Samsung will have a contractual obligation to continue providing parts to Apple. Now, once those contracts end, Apple may be screwed on negotiating the new contract terms. On the other hand, can Samsung afford to give up the profits generated by Apple's parts orders.
surely the contract allows for increased production costs? And having to pay a huge settlement does have a major impact on production costs.
typical contracts allow for actual production cost increases, while settlement costs would be an overhead cost. Depending on the exact language of the contract, this would likely not be a reason to increase the price to Apple.
in future contracts, especially by just cutting back on the discounts they give them.
it would make your rather long post more credible if you actually did address at least a couple of the writer's errors. At the moment without doing so you do sound like a fan boy. I would be very interested to learn more on this issue, can you at least list the errors?
Rectangle with rounded corners - this is a DESIGN patent issue, which is quite different than other patents. You can patent any design as long it has not been done exactly the same before. So yes, a cell phone that is a rectangle with rounded corners, a centered screen, a speaker at one end and a single button at the other end is definitely patentable, as long as no one has done it before. A design patent is only concerned about the physical appearance. Yes, rounded rectangles existed prior to the iPhone, but they didn't patent rounded rectangles no matter what the press says. Tune in again tomorrow and I may indulge you with more of my clear thinking.
Or more correctly the way to make it in Commercial Amounts.
So the inventors had the unenvious position of having to pay Royalties to a company who they freely gave the idea to under the impression it was for the Betterment of Mankind.
Shows just how broken the Patent System actually is where something released in the Public Domain for the benefit of all can be so abused.
Col
So the inventors had the unenvious position of having to pay Royalties to a company who they freely gave the idea to under the impression it was for the Betterment of Mankind.
Shows just how broken the Patent System actually is where something released in the Public Domain for the benefit of all can be so abused.
Col
you steal from others with government support.
NOT invent the concept of a rectangle with rounded edges, which is a major cornerstone of the case. The same is true of over half the items in the patents. They got away with shotgun patents, which should never have been accepted.
Actually quite the opposite of shotgun patents, the Apple patent on the rectangle with rounded edges is quite narrow. Samsung could do a rectangle with rounded edges, IF they didn't also copy all of the other associated features, like a single home button in the middle on the bottom, edge to edge glass, etc. OF COURSE they didn't invent a rectangle with rounded corners, but they did invent a phone that used a rectangle with rounded corners as one of the major design elements along with a number of other design features which were ALL copied by Samsung.
of that style, it's been used in movies and books for many decades and the motorolla had one that fits that description over a decade ago, just not as thin.
unless you can point me to a photo. And before you waste my time, it not only needs to be a rectangle with rounded corners but also have a single home button at the bottom, a speaker slot in the middle of the top and other visual elements as shown in the patent.
Star Trek the Next Generation or Star trek Voyager, even some of the original Star trek episodes have a communicator that fits the description by Apple. Also take time out to read any of the books by Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Poul Anderson, or any of the other great scifi authors who worked with Campbell.
Then you may want to look at some of the older Motorolla phones and communications devices and some of the early Nokia ones too.
Then you may want to look at some of the older Motorolla phones and communications devices and some of the early Nokia ones too.
Then why don't you Google up an image prior to the iPhone's introduction that looks like it? Just post the link to the image here. As to the validity of a design patent, a description in a book is not considered prior art, I don't believe. Props from TV shows might be, although I'm not certain since they aren't really a functioning product. Apples patent covers phones, music players, etc. and not props. Even so, I've seen the communicators and they typically look more like a flip phone than an iPhone. Again, link to an image that you think looks like an iPhone.
belonging to another, feel free. It's not something I do or promote - use another's copyright that is. But you're free to hire any of the Star Trek series shows O mentioned on DVD and watch closely what they walk around with, hand about, and use.
I always thought a rectangle was a stupid design for a phone. You can't balance it on your shoulder and my wife's cheek keeps hanging up on anyone she's talking to (I still use a flip-phone). I don't think these things mentioned should be patentable, afterall, who won the patent for the miniskirt? I'm sure Steve Jobs was proud of his product, and he had every right to be. But for the iPhone to be the prototype for all smartphones, and winning a patent dispute over the color of the bezel? C'mon!
It's a design patent, that's what they do, protect the appearance against copies. The real question is why did Samsung copy this design if it has so many obvious shortcomings?
There is exact, close, not so close, in the area, in the neighborhood, nothing alike, etc.... Where does the "patent" line lie?
Apple's behavior leans toward "in the area". Personally I think that is too broad.
Apple's behavior leans toward "in the area". Personally I think that is too broad.
"Design" patents should not exist unless the design is integral to a function. I was watching an episode of some show where people get help filing patents and one of the people on that show was seeking a design patent on engraving a certain portion of glassware as that had a function, ie. it affected the release of the bouquet in brandy or wine(I forget exactly). That would be a worthy design patent in my book as the design itself has a function. At best, the round-cornered rectangle of smartphone design is nothing more than a convenient package shape for containing components and considering every smartphone has followed that paradigm since before the first iPhone... Heck even non-smartphones have been using that design paradigm for years.
If it is not integral to a function then it should be relegated to trademark which is meant to protect images and such.
If it is not integral to a function then it should be relegated to trademark which is meant to protect images and such.
Every Note Book and for that matter every TV is a Rectangle shape with Rounded Corners so does this mean that They should be paying Royalties to Apple?
The entire thing is as stupid as Patenting Animal Shaped Buildings which is another thing that the US Patent Office allowed.
Col
The entire thing is as stupid as Patenting Animal Shaped Buildings which is another thing that the US Patent Office allowed.
Col
The design patent is for a PHONE. As such it doesn't cover TVs, notebooks, etc. I know the press has really pushed the idea that Apple patented a shape, but that simply is not true.
Star Trek Original Series it's OK?
I looked at a Old Brick from Motorola today and guess what it's a Rectangle with Rounded Corners and it's a Phone. Not really sure how else you make them and keep them small enough to be what they are.
edited to add I should also mention if you where a business and attempted to introduce a Rectangular device without rounded corners in anything that your staff used OHS and the Workers Compensation Lawyers would have a field day preventing you and suing you for injury.
The entire concept is silly as just about every device we use today be it a Cell Phone or Calculator is a rectangle with rounded corners. Have a look on your desk right now and see how many straight rectangles you have there without rounded corners. I can answer that very easily NONE.
Col
I looked at a Old Brick from Motorola today and guess what it's a Rectangle with Rounded Corners and it's a Phone. Not really sure how else you make them and keep them small enough to be what they are.
edited to add I should also mention if you where a business and attempted to introduce a Rectangular device without rounded corners in anything that your staff used OHS and the Workers Compensation Lawyers would have a field day preventing you and suing you for injury.
The entire concept is silly as just about every device we use today be it a Cell Phone or Calculator is a rectangle with rounded corners. Have a look on your desk right now and see how many straight rectangles you have there without rounded corners. I can answer that very easily NONE.
Col
You may not realize it but you hit the nail on the head. A design patent is nearly the same as a trademark BUT for physical objects. I suppose they could have extended trademarks to encompass design patents, but they didn't, they instead created design patents.
Does anyone remember a few years ago the case against RIM which granted a US company over half a billion dollars in damages plus royalties. The same (or closely similar) here with Samsung. I think the court's ruling in favor of Apple is that it is an American company. I doubt any thing will be against Apple and in favor of Samsung even if the latter has the necessary patents. IMO, if Google (another US company) goes against Apple, we might see something against Apple at last.
Just like its home country is the bully boy of world trade and politics. Microsoft was once in a similar category, but at least on the surface seems to now have a more benign image. I am hoping that the connectivity and power of open source will ultimately defeat the evil apple empire.
I'm not saying that Apple won't lose it's current place atop the heap, I'm sure it will, just as IBM, DEC, Microsoft, and many other companies have risen and fallen. One thing is nearly certain and that for all the good points of open source, it will not supplant corporations. It's just not capable.
Can't recall anything ever being invented or improved by a bunch of lawyers.
This litigation game will end up costing everyone in the end.
Interesting times indeed.
This litigation game will end up costing everyone in the end.
Interesting times indeed.
are the lawyers. The consumer is not a winner, the cost of making the lawyers rich is the next iteration of the product.
because Apple has a reason to invest in the development of a phone that changes the world. Samsung has a reason to develop a better one rather than just copy Apple. If Apple didn't think they could protect their market after developing the iPhone then we would likely all still be using versions of the Blackberry, or flip phones. I don't understand how providing an incentive for companies to develop innovative products is a bad thing.
This should be fought out in the market - allowing the users to get the benefit. We need new Intellectual Property laws and much better Patent laws to enhance innovation - not the opposite as they allow now. The courts should not allow companies to use patents to limit competition either.
Samsung - Get some nerve and stop supplying Apple with the display and many key components in the iPhone if they won't cooperate.
Apple (and ALL) - stop trying to lock up basic functionality and things like a rectangular shape. And Samsung (and ALL) - use a little more imagination to enhance designs you find useful. We still need MUCH better UIs and functionality (esp pointed at productivity in mobile devices)..
Samsung - Get some nerve and stop supplying Apple with the display and many key components in the iPhone if they won't cooperate.
Apple (and ALL) - stop trying to lock up basic functionality and things like a rectangular shape. And Samsung (and ALL) - use a little more imagination to enhance designs you find useful. We still need MUCH better UIs and functionality (esp pointed at productivity in mobile devices)..
You can't enhance innovation by allowing copying. If Samsung can freely copy Apple, how is that innovation? Let them innovate by creating a better smart phone. Before the iPhone everyone would have argued that the Blackberry was the pinnacle of smart phone design, and it was not possible to create a phone with a different layout of keyboard and screen that would work. That Apple was able to turn that 180 in such a short time is a truly remarkable. Look at Samsung's product line before and after the iPhone. It changes from a bunch of Blackberry rip offs to a bunch of iPhone rip offs. They didn't innovate anything before or after the iPhone. How is that enhancing innovation?
Every time those twits at Apple lodge another frivolous claim .... fine them a billion.
The fact of the matter is that most parts or design ideas in the iAnything have been stolen from someone else - much like a lot of the original Apple computer .... hell, the name and the logo were direct rip-offs from Apple records as far as I can see.
The fact of the matter is that most parts or design ideas in the iAnything have been stolen from someone else - much like a lot of the original Apple computer .... hell, the name and the logo were direct rip-offs from Apple records as far as I can see.
The real problem is why the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allow to patent a rectangular form device and other simple stuffs?
-for overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the display of 16 colorful icons.
-for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.
Ask to the real great inventors like T.A. Edison (of course you can not ask him as he is dead, but you got my point) how to patent a good idea or a bad one.
Soon someone will patent the boiling water and sue all the world. Bugger all.
-for overall design of the product, including the rectangular shape, the rounded corners, the silver edges, the black face, and the display of 16 colorful icons.
-for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with rounded corners.
Ask to the real great inventors like T.A. Edison (of course you can not ask him as he is dead, but you got my point) how to patent a good idea or a bad one.
Soon someone will patent the boiling water and sue all the world. Bugger all.
Look it up, they are different from a regular patent. You cannot copy a design and it is the same for the iPhone as it is for the shape of a fork or spoon, or car, or chair, or anything else. You could also patent a round phone if you want, and that design is probably still available.
I could understand Apple's concerns if they had developed processes that Google developers had injected into Android without successfully reverse engineering. But patenting aspects of a look and feel aren't really much. It would be like Sony suing every other TV manufacturer for copying them using a metallic grey casing for TVs. If it can be achieved without even needing to reverse engineer...
As a consumer, it does disturb me when the legal system is being used as a market strategy. There's no victory for the consumer in this - if nothing else we have to worry about legal fees as part of the overall cost - as now we have to be concerned about any product we buy being at the whims of whoever won the race to the patent office and has the legal muscle to enforce it. And Apple's uncompromising stance to take products off the market instead of taking royalty fees is downright anti-competitive - they already have the biggest market share with their product and damn good marketing strategies, what other competitive edge do they need?
As a consumer, it does disturb me when the legal system is being used as a market strategy. There's no victory for the consumer in this - if nothing else we have to worry about legal fees as part of the overall cost - as now we have to be concerned about any product we buy being at the whims of whoever won the race to the patent office and has the legal muscle to enforce it. And Apple's uncompromising stance to take products off the market instead of taking royalty fees is downright anti-competitive - they already have the biggest market share with their product and damn good marketing strategies, what other competitive edge do they need?
Is another thing that Apple wants royalties for.
Just imagine it a Sex Tax from Apple.
Col
Just imagine it a Sex Tax from Apple.
Col
Richard. This is one of the best articles I have read on this topic. Just wanted to give you props for a job well done!
What happens when this type of behavior starts spreading to other manufacturing area's? Are we going to see patents for cars with 4 wheels? Or patents for clocks with round shapes? Where will it end?
What happens when this type of behavior starts spreading to other manufacturing area's? Are we going to see patents for cars with 4 wheels? Or patents for clocks with round shapes? Where will it end?
Can a tech tribunal of tech experts not be set up to meditate on clashes. Against an agreed system 1. who owns what patents 2. what are the rules for shared tech.... etc etc
A way to protect design innovation yet not stop advance of technology.
A way to protect design innovation yet not stop advance of technology.
Apple patented a design, just like Coco Channel did with ******** (with the interlocking C's) Channel didn't say no one can make a handbag, nor did they invent the concept, they just patented their design.
Likewise Apple patented their design. For all you trolls out there that don't want to think, Apple protected their design - which yes, included rounded corners on a rectangle, but also included a button at the bottom, a speaker at the top, and glass wall to wall.
Simple... don't copy, get your own
Likewise Apple patented their design. For all you trolls out there that don't want to think, Apple protected their design - which yes, included rounded corners on a rectangle, but also included a button at the bottom, a speaker at the top, and glass wall to wall.
Simple... don't copy, get your own
also a basic design of nature. Next you'll say it's OK for companies to patent standard genetic material that already exists.
Face it, Apple has used a fault in the USPTO system that allows people to get patents for BS and natural items. It just shows what thieving bullies Apple are and how stupid the US patent system is.
Face it, Apple has used a fault in the USPTO system that allows people to get patents for BS and natural items. It just shows what thieving bullies Apple are and how stupid the US patent system is.
That's why Samsung was not able to prove a pre-existing design that invalidates Apple's patent. It is not JUST a rectangle with rounded corners, it also includes a single button at the bottom, a speaker at the top and glass wall to wall. What phone existed prior to the iPhone with a single button on the face?
Then why don't you Google up an image of a cell phone prior to the iPhone's introduction that looks like it? Just post the link to the image here.
I interviewed a professor at China Europe Business School who feels that in this court case Apple sent clear warning shots at competitors which may change the pattern and pace of innovation. http://www.businessbecause.com/news/mba-faculty/1725/apple-samsung-ceibs
Do you think this will slow down innovation, if companies have to worry about coming up with entirely new products rather than building on the existing ones?
Do you think this will slow down innovation, if companies have to worry about coming up with entirely new products rather than building on the existing ones?
The US law Apple used is only relevant if the product is sold in the USA, and the same cases on the same issues in other courts went the other way. Thus a company can avoid this complication of the US laws by simply NOT selling a product they're concerned about in the US markets.
If the 'offending' product is not sold in the US, then a US company can not use the US laws to sue them over it. If a company has concerns, they need only have the product marked for sale on their non USA website as 'not for sale in the USA' and they can't be touched. They should also include a link to a page explaining why it's not for sale in the USA.
Mind you, that won't stop US people from buying them from retailers and having them shipped to them personally.
The real crunch in this system will be with products that are useful to the US business that failure to have could affect their stand in the world markets.
If the 'offending' product is not sold in the US, then a US company can not use the US laws to sue them over it. If a company has concerns, they need only have the product marked for sale on their non USA website as 'not for sale in the USA' and they can't be touched. They should also include a link to a page explaining why it's not for sale in the USA.
Mind you, that won't stop US people from buying them from retailers and having them shipped to them personally.
The real crunch in this system will be with products that are useful to the US business that failure to have could affect their stand in the world markets.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
