Samsung v. Apple

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

So - having looked at the whole picture, what is the overwhelming conclusion that any normal person ought to draw?

Any rational being would think that this whole line of thinking is trivial in the extreme, and that the courts have much better things to do than quibble about the size, shape and placement of icons on a screen.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

...

So - having looked at the whole picture, what is the overwhelming conclusion that any normal person ought to draw?

Come on - be sensible

That design should not be patentable.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That design should not be patentable.

Agreed, imagine how we would be if someone had decided the wide screen tv was a patentable design.

Virtually all devices that just have a touch screen look the same, if you blank the screen,hide the logo and scale the images to the same size you will have a hell of time telling most phones / tablets apart (Frankly only the sony tablet looks different and even then not from the front).

@jjallenupthehill
Leave the placement of the speaker out of it, it's a phone, the speaker goes at the top front (hint - it's where your ear is).

Yes the galaxy looks pretty similar to the iPhone (which itself copied stuff from everywhere else), who was it who quoted 5 or 6 years ago “Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”?

Lucky Gene Roddenberry didn't patent ideas - flip phones, video conferencing, tablets, green chicks, removable computer media, intuitive voice activated computers, wrist phones (no loss there actually), I think touch screens were in use before TNG but 25 years ago no one else was using them as much.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

So - having looked at the whole picture, what is the overwhelming conclusion that any normal person ought to draw?

Come on - be sensible

That's the thing...the whole picture. While some Samsung products have been similar to competitors, most current ones are not. I've never even seen that phone you linked to in person. They make a very wide range of products. You cannot effectively argue, for example, that the SIII infringes on iPhone design.

You pick and choose things here and there and then claim that's proof of copying. The size, shape, and arrangement of icons is simply logical with a capacitive touch device that size. I had an iPhone theme on my Palm for awhile, in my opinion the diffferences are not as great as you claim, and certainly those icons are not the great invention you imply them to be.

I am not going to sit here and claim that Samsung never copies anything. However I will stand by my statement that Apple has been just as bad if not worse throughout much of their history. Take a look at their notification bar for example. Look at the pending lawsuits agains them for technology infringement.

I feel I am being perfectly rational as I will not deny Samsung used Apple for inspiration on many design aspects. However there is a difference between inspiration and design infringement. Where I feel you are not being rational is that you refuse to admit it goes both ways.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

Actually, it didn't. Please don't feel insulted if I say that your point about the appearance and rounded corners is visually ignorant. This comment is in the sense of relating to a level of visual subtlety that people who haven't designed anything don't appreciate, which means most people.

Are you saying that Apple redesigned the rounded corners in a way most people wouldn't notice the difference?

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

The radius isn't the same and the appearance isn't the same. It's similar, and I think it could be fair to say that it was likely to have been a source of inspiration.

The same can said about the iPhone and the Galaxy. They don't have exactly the same corner radius, they don't have exactly the same size for the device, they don't have exactly the same size for the speaker.

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

In reality, we know it isn't a rip-off because we have all seen the prototypes Apple made when considering the shape. Lots of the prototypes were similar to other phones around at the time, or around now.

By this logic Samsung didn't rip-off Apple because they have other models.

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

If it was a rip-off, the iPhone would have the same proportions and detail design features of the F700. It doesn't. The point is that there is far less similarity between Apple's iPhone and the F700, than there is between the Galaxy and Samsung's own F700! It's also a golden rule of design that you don't copy something unless you can improve it. In terms of the phone appearance (the hardware is a separate debate) it's not an improvement, and it's not even an advance.

Some people consider the extra buttons on the bottom and the bigger screen an improvement (Galaxy vs iPhone).

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

If I asked you to design a phone with curved edges and sides, and a flush bezel, it simply wouldn't look much like the iPhone. How come all the other Android phone manufacturers' devices aren't rip-offs? They were influenced by the iPhone, but aren't direct copies.

Not all of Apple's prototypes had rounded corners. Why didn't they go with this corner design?

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

I keep coming back to the point about being a designer, because it's germane to the argument. When you design something, you don't just start with a shape, produce a single version, and then build it. You start with your concept, and look at all the details. For example the radius, the bezel width, the flush fit, the positioning of the audio output and volume buttons, the curvature of the edges, the positioning of the speaker ('the slot' - not a card slot) the shape and size of it. All these things arise by design, not by accident. One or two things could be coincidental, all of them can't be. Why didn't they even introduce different colours? With the plastic back it was easy. That at least would have been an innovation, and arguably an improvement. The Samsung designers clearly copied Apple, because they chose not to copy their own design.

I didn't say that they are chosen by accident. But the different design elements serve a function. Like placing the speaker centered at the top. If you choose to ignore the function of the speaker this might seem strange, but try to remember that it's supposed to be a phone. And why would they introduce different colors? Most consumers use covers anyway, so what could possibly be the reason to market different colors, other that enforcing the idea that Apple should have a monopoly on black and white devices?

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

And your point about the logo is stupid. Sorry but you can't slap a logo on a rip off product, point at the logo and say, "See, it's different, look at that".

My point was that you were lying when you said that there are no details on the phone. Also in terms of design, placing the logo pushes the speaker at a higher position on the phone, adding to the differences between the models.

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

Look, just accept that you would have to be blind or prove that the Galaxy design existed in that form before the iPhone existed to disprove the claim that it's a complete rip-off. We know that Samsung can't prove that, and we know that Samsung looked at the iPhone's UI design. We definitely know that Samsung looked very hard indeed at Apple's charger and packaging.

I didn't say that the galaxy design existed in that form before the iphone design existed. My argument was that you can't complain about Samsung's use of rounded corners after the iphone went on the market when they were making phones with rounded corners before, just like you can't complain that placing the speaker at the top is a way of ripping-off Apple's design.

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

So - having looked at the whole picture, what is the overwhelming conclusion that any normal person ought to draw?

Come on - be sensible

The conclusion is that you simply refuse to use the same arguments for both Apple and Samsung. As a designer, are you telling me that you didn't notice the differences between the two chargers?

I'm not a designer, so I'm sure that I can't spot as many as you can, but from what I can see: 1. only the samsung has a logo, 2. they have a different color scheme, 3. they have a slightly different overall size, 4. they have a different radius for the corners, 5. they have a different shape at the USB end, 6. the USB side is made from different materials that make the samsung charger have a shinier surface than the apple charger, 7. the USB slot is bigger in the Samsung, 8. the slightly different shape would make the samsung charger easier to grip to unplug, making the difference an improvement, 9. the slightly bigger USB slot with rounded edges would make the USB cable easier to insert, making the difference an improvement.

According to your previous comments, if the situation were reversed, you would be arguing that this would be a case of using the other charger's design as inspiration, and not to directly rip-off.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by pl001

That's the thing...the whole picture. While some Samsung products have been similar to competitors, most current ones are not. I've never even seen that phone you linked to in person. They make a very wide range of products. You cannot effectively argue, for example, that the SIII infringes on iPhone design.

Which is a result of the lawsuit. Samsung are going out of their way to have distinctive designs so as not to get sued again.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05...ly-by-lawyers/

[afv011]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which is a result of the lawsuit. Samsung are going out of their way to have distinctive designs so as not to get sued again.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05...ly-by-lawyers/

Yet that didn't prevent apple from adding the S3 to the list of "infringing" devices.

Source

I guess Samsung will have to start making star-shaped phones soon, before some fruity company patents that too.

[murraypaul]

That suit is based on utility patents, not design ones, so has nothing to do with the shape or style of the phone.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

That suit is based on utility patents, not design ones, so has nothing to do with the shape or style of the phone.

So why do you imply Samsung changed the phone design as a result of the lawsuit?

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which is a result of the lawsuit. Samsung are going out of their way to have distinctive designs so as not to get sued again.

[sabredog]

Is the US patent system that broken?

http://www.watoday.com.au/digital-li...109-2923f.html

[afv011]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Is the US patent system that broken?

http://www.watoday.com.au/digital-li...109-2923f.html

Yes, it's definitively broken. But such a broad patent can't be enforced.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by afv011

Yes, it's definitively broken. But such a broad patent can't be enforced.

Perhaps so, but it should never have been granted in the first place. The ramifications to innovation are horrendous.

Before the iPad was revealed to the world, there were dozens of devices that were "rectangular with rounded corners".

[afv011]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Perhaps so, but it should never have been granted in the first place. The ramifications to innovation are horrendous.

I completely agree, it's ludicrous that such a patent can be granted.

Originally Posted by sabredog

Before the iPad was revealed to the world, there were dozens of devices that were "rectangular with rounded corners".

Well, some would want you to believe that this is not the case.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by afv011

So why do you imply Samsung changed the phone design as a result of the lawsuit?

To (successfully) avoid being sued for violating design patents.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Perhaps so, but it should never have been granted in the first place. The ramifications to innovation are horrendous.

Before the iPad was revealed to the world, there were dozens of devices that were "rectangular with rounded corners".

I like the way the UK court ruled on the design. Court of Appeal’s judgment that Apple linked to as part of the apology:

33. I turn to the front first. For it is obviously the most important feature of all, that which strikes the eye and would strike the eye of the informed user as most important. Its features are verbalised by the first four features identified by Apple:

(i) A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners;
(ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim;
(iii) A very thin rim of constant width, surrounding and flush with the front transparent surface;
(iv) A rectangular display screen surrounded by a plain border of generally constant width centred beneath the transparent surface.

I would add one other feature, that the edges of the front as shown on the representations are sharp. The sides are at 90o to the plane of the front face. So the thin rim has only its side visible on a front view.

34. I propose to consider design restraint first. The Judge held that:

[104] The rectangular display screen is totally banal and determined solely by function. Apart from that there are some other design constraints applicable to this feature but they do not account for the identity between the Samsung tablets and the Apple design. These devices do not need to have biaxial symmetry nor be strictly rectangular. Nevertheless the significance of this identity is reduced by the fact that there are other designs in the design corpus which are very similar too.

35. So you could have a front face of somewhat different shape, but the general shape (rectangular with rounded edges) is not that significant. I do not see how that assessment can be criticised.

36. As to item (ii) (transparent and flat over the entire face with no ornamentation), the Judge found that flatness was common and transparency essential. He held that there was a certain amount of design freedom (you could have a bezel or raised frame). Touch screen technology meant you did not need a raised frame to protect the screen. The degree of ornamentation of the front was a matter of designer choice.

37. As to the thin rim:

[119] As before, this aspect of the design is the product of trade offs by the designer which include functional considerations but also include aesthetics. The designer can choose to have a flush rim or a bezel, can choose the rim thickness and whether it is constant around the device. Within a general overall constraint, the designer has significant aesthetic design freedom.

38. And as to the border within the frame:

[126] I find that there is a degree of design constraint applicable here. The devices need some kind of border. The border need not be as described in feature (iv) but there are limits on design freedom.

The Judge added this:

[127] Irrespective of the matter of design freedom, to my eye, feature (iv) would strike the informed user as a rather common feature.

39. All of this appears to be a proper assessment of the degree of design freedom. In overall terms for a hand-held tablet (1) you need a flat transparent screen, (2) rounded corners are unremarkable (and have some obvious functional value in a hand-held device), and (3) you need a border of some sort for functional reasons. There is some design freedom as regards ornamentation, the rim, the overall shape (rectangular or with some curved sides) but not a lot. And the main thing, the screen itself was something with which the informed user would be familiar as indeed Mr Silverleaf acknowledged when arguing the "dotted line" point.

It continues with examples of patents from 2003 and 2004 that are close to Apple's registered design for the front of the device.