Apple's helpful guidelines for competitors to avoid patent infringement

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by no.guru

Never been a fan of Microsoft's business practices, either, but at least when they went after Linux for patent violations they did so under the table through a third company.

So they didn't even have the guts to be upfront about their actions, they have to be sneaky about it... great example...

[rdfry]

This fits right in with Steve Job's reality distortion field personality disorder.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I really rather like a number of Apple's products, but I've never even considered buying one and I never will. There's just no way I'm prepared to support this kind of malevolent business practice.

So your dumping your Sony products and will never use Microsoft products or Samsung... or HTC... or Nokia... or...

Gotta love all the two-faced comments around here... and I use a Galaxy IIS so don't accuse me of being an Apple-lover, fanboi or whatever other rubbish you want to dig up... I just love the fact that Apple get so much dumped on them as though they were the only ones who operate these business practices... get real, all companies do these things, they aren't altruists...

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by rhadin

It just confirms for me that I have been making smart buying decisions all these years by avoiding Apple products altogether. I'd hate to think that I was contributing to Jobs' increasing insanity; now I have a clear conscience.

Seconded!

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by elcreative

So they didn't even have the guts to be upfront about their actions, they have to be sneaky about it... great example...

As I said, I'm no fan of their business practices, but at least Microsoft had the integrity to be ashamed of what they were doing.

Apple doesn't have guts. It's called hubris.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Yes, and nobody else is suing anyone over ridiculous patents... it's all that nasty Apple's fault, those sweet people at Microsoft, Google, HTC, Samsung, Sun etc etc wouldn't think of doing such things...

When Microsoft releases a guide to making a 'non-infringing' operating system (which very well could happen), I'll agree with you. All of these companies do these bad things; it is a symptom of the disease that is the patent system (which is in turn a symptom of the malady called capitalism). But very few would have the chutzpah to issue a document like this. I am not entirely sure it is a bad thing, actually. I think it serves as a reductio ad absurdum of the entire situation in the tech world vis-a-vis patents.

[Sil_liS]

I thought about showing outrage for each of the elements on that list, but I think that this is easier.
This phone:

has the following elements from the list (in blue):

1. Front surfaces that are not black or clear
2. Front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners
3. Display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all
4. Display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders
5. Speaker openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screen
6. Front surfaces that contain substantial adornment
7. Phones without bezels at all or very different-looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile

What would a phone need to look like to be free from infringing on Apple's design?

Edit: I'm not sure about points 6 and 7, since the adornment is on the bezel, not the front surface, and that bezel could be considered as thin. So it could be completely mistaken for an iPhone.

[afa]

Originally Posted by kartu

The worst part of it is, that this "you gotta be kidding me" statement is in line with Dusseldorf court ruling discussed here and as you can see it doesn't affect only Samsung.

You know, I don't always find you to be the most objective when it comes to Apple news, and have said so in the past.

I have to admit - this is just ridiculous. A square-shaped screen with a cluttered appearance? Right...

Thanks for highlighting that. Karma your way...

[Namekuseijin]

Patents and copyright law won't survive for long. They seemingly don't even exist in the 2 most populous countries in the world. It is just a smallish elite from a few countries that subject its citizens to such dumbness.

How about patenting stone bricks by the sharpness of their edges?

[kartu]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Yes, and nobody else is suing anyone over ridiculous patents... it's all that nasty Apple's fault, those sweet people at Microsoft, Google, HTC, Samsung, Sun etc etc wouldn't think of doing such things...

Microsoft, ok. As we recently found out, thanks to B&N. (note that it didn't ban"anyone from using their "innovations", merely asking for payment; note they didn't want press to know, what it was about)

But, uhm, care to name ridiculous lawsuits by HTC, Samsung, Google, Sun?
I mean they do sue (or counter-sue). But what is ridiculous about a patent on core wireless technology?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by no.guru

As I said, I'm no fan of their business practices, but at least Microsoft had the integrity to be ashamed of what they were doing.

Apple doesn't have guts. It's called hubris.

Hardly integrity... if you're really ashamed then you don't do it!

[RainingLemur]

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by kartu

Microsoft, ok. As we recently found out, thanks to B&N. (note that it didn't ban"anyone from using their "innovations", merely asking for payment; note they didn't want press to know, what it was about)

But, uhm, care to name ridiculous lawsuits by HTC, Samsung, Google, Sun?
I mean they do sue (or counter-sue). But what is ridiculous about a patent on core wireless technology?

If these patents were so wonderful then why didn't everybody take action immediately they were "infringed" rather than wait until vast numbers of products were in the marketplace... the ridiculousness of the patents claimed by all of these companies relates to the way they are handled. Your core wireless tech patent hasn't suddenly become key to anything, it was actionable from the moment it was granted but nobody took action at that time... frankly any patent that isn't defended from Day One (when infringement is known) should be deemed to have lapsed... that'd really upset the applecart...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Not good enough:

Originally Posted by kartu

1. Overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners
2. Front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment
3. Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface
4. Profiles that are not thin
5. A cluttered appearance

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Patents and copyright law won't survive for long. They seemingly don't even exist in the 2 most populous countries in the world. It is just a smallish elite from a few countries that subject its citizens to such dumbness.

How about patenting stone bricks by the sharpness of their edges?

Actually China already starts seeing how the lack of these two are hampering the development of local industries. And if you infringe a well connected CHINESE company's patent then you are in big trouble. It is just the foreign patent holders that have problems. You need connections.

They would also like changes on copyright for music, and have started by clamping down on the most popular download websites. Again, China has realized that due to the lack of real patent- and copyright protection creativity is almost non-existent. Of course, for political reasons China doesn't care about having strong copyrights for books and encouraging authors, they want to keep total control.

The economy can't depend on low-cost factories producing OEM products (and adding little value in the process) or knock-offs anymore.

And as the people have more money to spend, they are increasingly getting exasperated with having no protection against paying good money for fake goods.