EU Court Adviser Says Software Ideas Can't Be Copyrighted

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by kartu

I didn't check iFanboi interpretation of reality for that fact, I confess.

Ooh, iFanboi. Original.

Community design No. 000181607-0001 is quite clear what it is about, though.

And so is the court's opinion. The infringement came from using *six* non-necessary design elements *at the same time.* Not because it was a rounded rectangle.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And so is the court's opinion.

Be so kind to cite it.

[murraypaul]

My opinion, FWIW, is that I think it is pretty obvious that Samsung did copy a lot of design elements from Apple. They weren't even subtle about, have you seen the comparison picture of the two dock connectors?
However, I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as it doesn't reach the level that consumers are genuinely confused about which product is which (which could be the case with some of the far east knockoffs, but not with a device with a big Samsung logo on the front), I don't see a legal issue.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it shows Samsung must think Apple got a lot of things right.

Edit: Here is the picture


They even sell a 'USB Connection Kit', which is two adapters plugging into the 'dock connector', one for SD cards and one for USB leads. Hmm, I think I've heard of that before

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Take 6,891,551 --- the function is "changing size of selected text area". The way the function is being executed in this case is by dragging handles. That is protected, so they must either pay license fees or find a different way to do it. What is not protected is "changing the size of selected text area". That is what I meant.

The thing is though, its more of a visual design concept than a function, and thats why software isn't always patentable. The patent's verbiage describe how it looks, and how it is used, but no details as to how it works. Typically patents are for the method in which it works.

One of the problems facing copyrights and patents right now, is the regulating agencies, such as the USPTO, are being barraged and do not have the resources to effectively research each submission. Due to that, patents are being pushed through that ordinarily would not be allowed, and the burden then falls on the court system. Once a patent is granted, can be invalidated by the courts, but only if it is brought forth to them in an attempt to enforce the patent. As with most lawsuits, they end up being settled out of court, so the courts don't get a chance to rule on it. End results, companies profiting off what should be bunk claims.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

My opinion, FWIW, is that I think it is pretty obvious that Samsung did copy a lot of design elements from Apple. They weren't even subtle about, have you seen the comparison picture of the two dock connectors?

Edit: Here is the picture

*shrug* Apple must've copied Nokia, then. My old Nokia cellphone from '06 also has a long, rectangular dock connector. In fact, most devices with dock connectors have long, rectangular connectors. (though, of course, most have moved to USB connections nowadays)

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

My opinion, FWIW, is that I think it is pretty obvious that Samsung did copy a lot of design elements from Apple. They weren't even subtle about, have you seen the comparison picture of the two dock connectors?
However, I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as it doesn't reach the level that consumers are genuinely confused about which product is which (which could be the case with some of the far east knockoffs, but not with a device with a big Samsung logo on the front), I don't see a legal issue.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it shows Samsung must think Apple got a lot of things right.

Edit: Here is the picture


They even sell a 'USB Connection Kit', which is two adapters plugging into the 'dock connector', one for SD cards and one for USB leads. Hmm, I think I've heard of that before

Actually Samsung is using the new industry standard PDMI. That was agreed upon by many different companies and while it looks similar to Apple's the connections are totally different. My Dell phone also has a PDMI connector (though I wish they would have used mini or microUSB, it would be much easier to buy replacement cables.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by kartu

Be so kind to cite it.

Here's the relevant judgment:

Landgericht Düsseldorf


Urteil

…

Die einstweilige Verfügung vom 09.08.2011 wird abgeändert und wie folgt neu gefasst:

I.
Den Verfügungsbeklagten wird bei Meidung eines vom Gericht für jeden Einzelfall der Zuwiderhandlung festzusetzenden Ordnungsgeldes bis zu 250.000,00 EUR und für den Fall, dass dieses nicht beigetrieben werden kann, Ordnungshaft, oder Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten, im Falle der Wiederholung bis zu zwei Jahren, letztere zu vollziehen an den jeweiligen gesetzlichen Vertretern der Verfügungsbeklagten, untersagt,

der Verfügungsbeklagten zu 1) im geschäftlichen Verkehr in der Europäischen Union,

der Verfügungsbeklagten zu 2) im geschäftlichen Verkehr in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Computerprodukte mit folgenden Merkmalen

(i) eine insgesamt rechteckige Form mit vier gleichmäßig abgerundeten Ecken,

(ii) eine flache, klare Oberfläche, welche die Vorderseite des Gerätes abdeckt, ohne jede Musterung,

(iii) unter der klaren Oberfläche befindet sich eine rechteckige Begrenzung mit den gleichen Abständen zu allen Seiten,

(iv) eine dünne Einfassung, welche die Vorderseite umgibt,

(v) eine Rückseite, welche an den Ecken abgerundet und an den Kanten nach oben gebogen ist, und

(vi) ein dünnes Profil,

gemäß nachstehender Abbildungen

There's more: here's the link http://www.damm-legal.de/lg-duesseld...ng-im-volltext

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Here's the relevant judgment:


There's more: here's the link http://www.damm-legal.de/lg-duesseld...ng-im-volltext

Well, for those of you that don't speak German, these are really very general.

Take the first one:
"Rectangular shape with four equally rounded edges"

and the second one:
"A flat, clear surface which covers the whole device, without any markings."

All the others are really standard for every device, the only thing somewhat unique would be number four "a thin bracket which covers the front"

So the whole thing sounds even more fishy now than before, since I hadn't looked up the details.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by JoeD

In fact, if you ask many developers who's livelihoods are dependant on the protection of their software, they'll argue that patents would only stifle their business rather than protect them. That's certainly echo'd in my thoughts, my sole income is software related.

And a short sighted opinion it is...even if you DO work in the trade.

To wit: Lotus spent millions creating and selling the spreadsheet software 1-2-3 as did Ashton Tate with the database dBase.

Other companies copied their products so closely (Quatro Pro, Foxbase) that they could be used as exact drop in replacements. Worked on the same files, looked almost exactly the same, took no extra training to used the copy-cat products which were sold for less money.

Now, these companies did not copy the exact source code. They just reverse engineered the commercial products. They used the existing products as the goal, and then worked to create products that could be exact stand in replacements.

It's no different than when a Chineese company makes knock-off Gucci purses or Rolex watches.

That's not innovation -- that's "I can take your ideas, your marketing, your success and make money off it".

Just because it's very difficult to define "what's an original idea or expression" doesn't mean it's not worth trying. If we don't protect the work and investment it takes to create software, we won't end up with more innovation.

Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually Samsung is using the new industry standard PDMI. That was agreed upon by many different companies and while it looks similar to Apple's the connections are totally different. My Dell phone also has a PDMI connector (though I wish they would have used mini or microUSB, it would be much easier to buy replacement cables.

Oh please. I bought my wife a Samsung Galaxy II. The extent they went to copy even Apple's box and packaging is ASTOUNDING. This is not "the only logical way" things can be done. It's copying.

Lee

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by leebase

Oh please. I bought my wife a Samsung Galaxy II. The extent they went to copy even Apple's box and packaging is ASTOUNDING. This is not "the only logical way" things can be done. It's copying.

Lee

I haven't seen the Galaxy's packaging, so I can't comment. I was referring to what was mentioned above.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by leebase

Oh please. I bought my wife a Samsung Galaxy II. The extent they went to copy even Apple's box and packaging is ASTOUNDING. This is not "the only logical way" things can be done. It's copying.

Lee

What is so special about Apple's box?

[din155]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What is so special about Apple's box?

It has got white Apple logo on it. Isn't it enough?

din

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by leebase

To wit: Lotus spent millions creating and selling the spreadsheet software 1-2-3

FWIW, the inventor of spreadsheets was Dan Bricklin with VisiCalc. 1-2-3 copied that.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by leebase

And a short sighted opinion it is...even if you DO work in the trade.

Perhaps the entire industry is short sighted then... Developers and software companies have been actively fighting to keep software patents out of the EU. Copyright covers the biggest issues.

Not to mention the patent trolls that are causing controversy at the moment.

Here's a blog post that sums up the pro/cons to patents, imo the cons outweigh the pros and that's also the opinion of many in the software industry who are trying to keep software patents out of Europe.

Quote from http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2011/05/pa...-industry.html

The arguments in favour of software patents are the same as arguments in favour of patents generally:

* Patents promote development (especially the increasingly large R&D that expensive new software requires)
* Patents mean that the public will eventually obtain public disclosure and free use of the invention (after the 20 year monopoly has finished)
* Patents represent a great deal of hard work, which deserves protection
* Patents are always subject to legal challenge if the patent holder has gone too far
Copyright doesn't go far enough to protect inventions – patent protection is therefore needed

However, opponents of software patents have their own arguments too:

* Software patents are a minefield in the modern software industry, where you can very easily but unknowingly infringe someone's software patent, or at least open yourself to a speculative lawsuit. Or, to put it another way, how are you supposed to know you have infringed a software patent and what are you supposed to do if you have infringed one?
* Software patents are useless #1: no software innovation will ever retain its value for the 20 years of a patent's life.
* Software patents are useless #2: a decent software developer could probably engineer a way around the patent anyway, so why bother having them?
* Software patent protection actually stifles innovation by shutting up new inventions and preventing open and free innovation (especially in the Internet age where we are used to free/fast information exchange)
* Permitting software patents just encourages patent trolls to take legal action against legitimate software developers for a quick return
* Other branches of IP law, like copyright or trade mark law, already provide sufficient protection

There's also this page and this one that includes a mention from Bill Gates with his thoughts as he was setting up Microsoft. His worries are coming true in many ways now with small startups at a much greater risk than established businesses.

There's also an interesting radio segment where David Braben gave his thoughts on software patents, sadly I can't find a link to it or a transcript. I don't see him as been short sighted and he's got a business to protect.

It's no different than when a Chineese company makes knock-off Gucci purses or Rolex watches.

Trademark and copyright laws cover those cases.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not against Patents in all cases, just as they apply to software. Although in general the patent system needs reforming to cut down on the number of obvious patents that are used for trolling purposes.