Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

[Top100EbooksRank]

It is related to e-reader.

If look and feel can be patented, expect the patent war to come to e-reader.

The result of this trial will determine the fate of e-reader and other reading devices like tablets and phones.

This basically sum up this whole trial.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...be-patented#p1
Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

Apple’s Challenge

As complicated as the case may be, Apple will try to convince jurors of one essential idea: Its Korean rival is a copycat. Samsung will contend that none of Apple’s design flourishes are totally novel, and that offering patent protection to the rectangular shape and flat front surface of its products would unfairly limit competition.

“Samsung is on trial because it made a deliberate decision to copy Apple’s iPhone and iPad,” Apple said in the opening line of its key pretrial filing with the court. “Try as it might,” Apple said, “Samsung cannot deflect attention from its own copying by the patents it has asserted against Apple.”

In its filing, Samsung answered that a lot of competing products appear similar.

“In this lawsuit,” the company said, “Apple seeks to stifle legitimate competition and limit consumer choice to maintain its historically exorbitant profits.”

[afv011]

Unfortunately the USPTO is a laughing stock and you can patent about anything, whether there is prior art or whether it is a simple shape like a rounded rectangle, hence the mess.

[heySkippy]

I thought the case was about both patents and trade dress.

IMO Apple has a very strong case on the trade dress part. The patents, perhaps not so much.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

IMO Apple has a very strong case on the trade dress part.

I wouldn't call it 'very strong'. It's about evens in the key trials so far. Apple's claim was upheld in Germany, Samsung ducked out of it in Australia, and Apple's claim was thrown out in Netherlands and the UK.

Even in Germany, Samsung got round it with a visually trivial redesign of the tablet rim.

Graham

[murraypaul]

Samsung don't seem to be off to a very good start with this Judge, as after she refused to admit some of Samsung's evidence, they leaked it to the media, and apparently admit that they did so in order that the jury could see it, even after the judge ruled against it, having released this statement:

The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-fin...ence-01241304/

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afv011

Unfortunately the USPTO is a laughing stock and you can patent about anything, whether there is prior art or whether it is a simple shape like a rounded rectangle, hence the mess.

I don't understand why Apple hasn't patented or copyrighted "blogging" and "surfing." Surely it is obvious that those things also tend to be "magical" and therefore belong to Apple.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by frahse

I don't understand why Apple hasn't patented or copyrighted "blogging" and "surfing." Surely it is obvious that those things also tend to be "magical" and therefore belong to Apple.

Don't tell them about the Harry Potter series, or they're gonna sue J.K Rowling.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by frahse

I don't understand why Apple hasn't patented or copyrighted "blogging" and "surfing." Surely it is obvious that those things also tend to be "magical" and therefore belong to Apple.

Just let 'em try. They'll have a fight on their hands.

Spoiler:

[afv011]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Samsung don't seem to be off to a very good start with this Judge, as after she refused to admit some of Samsung's evidence, they leaked it to the media, and apparently admit that they did so in order that the jury could see it, even after the judge ruled against it, having released this statement:


http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-fin...ence-01241304/

IANAL, but from my point of view, it seems biased that the judge allows Apple to offer evidence that Samsung copied Apple, and then Samsung is not allowed a rebuttal. What is most puzzling is that Apple showed in their slides the Sammy F700 as an infringing device (even though it was designed before the iPhone came out), and Samsung is then not allowed to rebut this. How is this a fair trial?

[5thWiggle]

[QUOTE=afv011;2172238] What is most puzzling is that Apple showed in their slides the Sammy F700 as an infringing device (even though it was designed before the iPhone came out)[QUOTE]

Apple's Design patent was filed for in 2004, and granted in 2005. So unless Samsung has something pior to 2005...

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6Bs...page&q&f=false

[afv011]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

What is most puzzling is that Apple showed in their slides the Sammy F700 as an infringing device (even though it was designed before the iPhone came out)

Apple's Design patent was filed for in 2004, and granted in 2005. So unless Samsung has something pior to 2005...

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6Bs...page&q&f=false

That has nothing to do with the F700, it's a phone, not a tablet.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

That has nothing to do with the F700, it's a phone, not a tablet.

F700 was a dumb phone and a slider.

In many ways, the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose to drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz.

what brand does the average consumer associate with certain design elements, phrases, and words? That relationship is incredibly valuable, especially to a company like Apple. Ironically, if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit -- Apple's cases against Motorola, HTC, and Nokia are all based on technical system-level utility patents, not trade dress, trademark, or design patents.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/t...-samsung-f700/

[ScotiaBurrell]

You’ve probably never heard of trade dress before, but you encounter it every day: it’s the elements of a product design that indicate it came from a certain brand or company. The classic example is the Coke bottle: the distinctive shape of the bottle is just as recognizable as the trademarked word "Coke" itself.

With trade dress, Apple can focus more on the general characteristics of the iPhone and iPad's appearance and whether a meaningful number of consumers are confused by Samsung's products before and after they’re sold. And some evidence offered so far suggests that consumers are indeed confused.

Samsung says bottle is obvious shape, Apple says no.

Samsung will almost certainly try to force Apple into getting bogged down in technical nuances and product details to kill momentum and dilute Cupertino’s otherwise simple narrative. Again, this may be exacerbated by the 25-hour testimony limitation imposed on both sides.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/31...ide/in/2971889

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

F700 was a dumb phone and a slider.







http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/t...-samsung-f700/

That's not relevant. Apple claim Samsung copied the iPhone, but if Samsung were allowed to enter the evidence that the F700 was designed before the iPhone came out, then the claim would be moot. You can't deny the similarities between the F700 and the iPhone.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

That's not relevant....You can't deny the similarities between the F700 and the iPhone.

Read link.

Samsung chose to drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz....if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit