Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

[afv011]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. In the short term, this may restrict consumer choice, but in the long term it's almost certainly good for the consumer, since it will mean that manufacturers will have to devise innovative devices, not simply copy what other companies have already done.

Really Harry? Are you insinuating that Samsung didn't innovate anything and simply blatantly copied the iphone? Have you used a Samsung phone recently? There are tons of features that are missing on iphones - things are not black and white, all companies innovate, and all companies get inspiration (or copy, if you prefer) from others. Apple is not innocent of the copying, and they have so much as said it clearly - Jobs was open about stealing ideas.

[Apache]

Apple won the copyright lawsuit against Samsung.
Apache

[HarryT]

This case had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright; it was about patent infringement.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Graham

The bit I find odd is that this jury ruled that Samsung's patents were valid, but that Apple didn't infringe them. Isn't the argument in the other jurisdictions to do with whether they were FRAND and what the fair licensing amount should be?

In other words, isn't it accepted by Apple elsewhere that they're using the technology?

Graham

The antitrust violation found by the jury seems to be saying that Samsung did not play by the rules when the standard was being defined and in their approach to licensing the tech. Usual legal caveats here, but it seems to me that that finding is going to haunt Samsung big time.

[HarryT]

Given that Apple are one of Samsung's biggest customers, Samsung still make money even if Apple do take market share from them.

[fjtorres]

NBCNEWS analysis:
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/...out-looks?lite

Intellectual property experts said the decision will push push smartphone and tablet manufacturers to come up with new ideas — and patent them all.

"Every single technology company in the world will be filing every single design patent known to man," said Kevin G. Rivette, managing partner at 3LP Advisors.
While the decision will almost certainly be appealed, it also sets a precedent. It is a shot across the bow that other device manufacturers can’t afford to ignore.

As the plaintiff, it was in Apple’s best interest to make its message easy to digest. For a company that built its brand on making technology simple and pleasant to interact with, this was a natural. Samsung had the burden of wading into more complex territory and hoping jurors would follow along.

That Apple carried the day indicates that its streamlined message resonated more strongly, because patent experts say that design patent infringement, for which Apple was seeking the largest damages, is hard to prove. These patents focus on form over function: how something looks as opposed to what it does.

Apple took the bold and risky tack of arguing that the way its devices look and feel is an integral part of how people use them.

Other smartphone and tablet makers now have to find ways to create devices that don’t resemble the iPhone — no easy feat, given that Apple more or less created the idea in people’s minds of what a smartphone should look like when it debuted the iPhone five years ago.

"It will force innovation," Rivette said, a circumstance that might cause some heartburn for smartphone and tablet manufacturers but will ultimately benefit consumers.

Aside from Apple, the jury's decision creates a few other unlikely winners, including Microsoft, for one. Analysts have said for months that Microsoft must convince consumers that Windows 8 offers a relevant alternative to iOS and Android. The sudden interest in devices that don’t behave like iPhones and iPads coincides almost perfectly with the platform’s debut.

Rivette said the verdict will invigorate technology patent wars, which means companies like Google — which has been in Apple’s crosshairs before and almost certainly will be again — will be scrambling for ammunition. Former tech heavyweights Research in Motion and Eastman Kodak both have vast patent portfolios that suddenly look like a good investment in light of the $1 billion award for damages.

[howyoudoin]

Looks like Samsung walked away with the last laugh.

[Ekaros]

It's crazy. Still I think we should try to do without FRAND I mean company like Apple would have only room to win with it ;D

I don't really believe that forced innovation is a good thing. Just think if this could be expanded to other areas...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ekaros

Just think if this could be expanded to other areas...

Hmm, let me see...

Forced innovation? Actually, I *like* it!
(And I'm not particularly fond of Apple.)

But I thoroughly despise freeloaders of all kinds.
I'd rather see people *earn* their money honestly.

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Hmm, let me see...

Forced innovation? Actually, I *like* it!
(And I'm not particularly fond of Apple.)

But I thoroughly despise freeloaders of all kinds.
I'd rather see people *earn* their money honestly.

On other hand if someone comes up with something which saves thousands of man years it's their, doesn't help anyone else... It's a good thing we aren't inventing cars now, just think how complicated those would be...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The antitrust violation found by the jury...

The jury did not find an antitrust violation.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The jury did not find an antitrust violation.

Ah. The CNET live blog was wrong there.

Corrected at 6:35 p.m. PT: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated one jury finding. Samsung did not violate antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to its UMTS standard, the jury found.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ekaros

On other hand if someone comes up with something which saves thousands of man years it's their, doesn't help anyone else... It's a good thing we aren't inventing cars now, just think how complicated those would be...

First, why should somebody give away the fruit of their labor and creativity?

Second, we *are* inventing cars now:

Have you heard of TESLA MOTORS? Elon Musk is inventing commercially viable electric cars using the internet-derived software-development methodologies of silicon valley. And he's licensed his technologies to TOYOTA (For the 2013 electric RAV4) and DAIMLER-BENZ. Nothing complicated involved.

http://www.windingroad.com/articles/...tesla-model-s/

A bit closer to you, FISKER is building a super-luxury hybrid-electric automobile unlike anything that came before.
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/...-fisker-karma/

Patents and copyrights don't get in the way of honest R&D or original developers, they only get in the way of freeloaders, ripoff artists, and plagiarists. None of which are adding meaningful to the sum total of human existence.

Specific patents can and should be challenged but valid patents need to be honored no matter how they might "inconvenience" those incapable of original work. In this case, the jury found the patents valid; until the appeals court says otherwise, they need to be respected.

[Ekaros]

Problems is that things like steering wheel couldn't be used by anyone else if developed now if I understood right. What is after joystick, buttons, switches, what after those? What about other ideas like indicators, gears and so on. Just the interface... When the most obvious and best ways are exhausted, we are left with clunky user interfaces...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Hmmm... American trial, American jury, American company vs foreign company. Verdict? American company wins. No shocker there.

Oddly enough, Nokia had no problem winning when they sued Apple.