Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

[afv011]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Another day, another doozy:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491406-37/2010-apple-license-offer-to-samsung-$30-per-smartphone-$40-per-tablet/

Apple wanted $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet from Samsung.

And people gripe about Microsoft licensing their function patent portfolio for $14 per device.

Clearly form is way more valuable than function.

Stay tuned.

I was pretty shocked when I saw the figures. That's outrageous. No wonder Sammy refused.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Was that the end of negotiations bid...or the opening negotiations bid?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Was that the end of negotiations bid...or the opening negotiations bid?

Depending on your point of view,
a) it was a high opening bid in the expectation that Samsung would come to the table and negotiate a reasonable rate, or
b) it was an obviously unacceptable rate because Apple had no intention actually entering into a licence agreement, they just wanted to have made an offer so they would look like the good guys.

[Top100EbooksRank]

What's old is new again in the case between Apple and Samsung. Samsung points to two early 2000s gesture technologies to discredit the patents Apple is using to wage war on its rival.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...apple-patents/

Samsung brought out a pair of "fact witnesses" -- i.e. not experts -- involved in technology that predates some of the patented features found in Apple's devices. That includes something seemingly simple like photos and lists bouncing back into place, as well as the "pinch-to-zoom" gesture -- both things Apple says Samsung is infringing with its devices.
First up was Benjamin Bederson, a computer-science professor from the University of Maryland and the co-creator of LaunchTile. This zoomable network of smartphone apps was a mid-2000s invention, and one Samsung hopes will bust one of Apple's patents.

The primary gesture feature, called FractalZoom was one touch for scrolling, and two fingers to pinch and zoom, technology that Bogue said he actually demoed to Apple in a private meeting in late 2003. The technology was shown off to what Bogue said was "maybe half a dozen" Apple hardware engineers. The meeting didn't go anywhere, though Bogue kept an e-mail thread between him and the company, which Samsung submitted as evidence.
DiamondTouch also had developed a follow-up technology called TableCloth, which Samsung showed off to once again take aim at Apple's bounce-back patent. TableCloth, which Bogue explained had been developed for Adobe's Flash platform, would bounce back images when they're pulled off screen.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

What's old is new again in the case between Apple and Samsung. Samsung points to two early 2000s gesture technologies to discredit the patents Apple is using to wage war on its rival.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...apple-patents/

I just read that on The Verge (link). Looks like Samsung's strategy is to nullify the patents based on prior art.

[murraypaul]

In other news, it seems that Apple did licence some of the patents in question in the Samsung trial to Microsoft, with an "anti-cloning agreement".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87C0SC20120813

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In other news, it seems that Apple did licence some of the patents in question in the Samsung trial to Microsoft, with an "anti-cloning agreement".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87C0SC20120813

Awfully civilized of the two.
Basically they agreed that individual elements could be used but not all in the same product.
The benefits of Mutually-Assured-Destruction.

[kennyc]

I suppose they are going to blame this on Samsung as well:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...zed?source=rss

or is it just an attempt at distracting the judge?

[Graham]

Sorry to back the thread up, I've been away for 5 days, but:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Umm... no. Those documents didn't show that. They showed one of Apple's design team's ideas about how Sony might design the iPhone. No actual Sony products were used or referenced.

My later post clarified what I meant which was exactly what you're referring to: they were mulling how Apple might design a phone like Sony would. And it is key.

The point isn't that the iPhone ripped off an existing Sony phone, it's that the document proves that these ideas of sleek simplicity that Apple are defending already existed in the zeitgeist from before the iPhone. They were not Apple's alone, and Samsung have every right to draw from the same well.

Graham

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry to back the thread up, I've been away for 5 days, but:



My later post clarified what I meant which was exactly what you're referring to: they were mulling how Apple might design a phone like Sony would. And it is key.

The point isn't that the iPhone ripped off an existing Sony phone, it's that the document proves that these ideas of sleek simplicity that Apple are defending already existed in the zeitgeist from before the iPhone. They were not Apple's alone, and Samsung have every right to draw from the same well.

Graham

There's a difference between drawing from the same well, and stealing the water that someone else has just drawn up.

[Top100EbooksRank]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...against-apple/
Samsung keeps prior art parade marching against Apple

Making that case for Samsung was Itay Sherman, chief executive of the multi-touch company DoubleTouch and an inventor with 20 patents to his name. Sherman brought out the same trio of smartphone design patents Samsung used earlier in the case, two of which are Japanese and another that's Korean. In short, Sherman said that features like big screens, rounded corners, and "lozenge" speaker holes in these designs predated what Apple brought out with the iPhone.

When it came to tablets, Sherman suggested that HP's tablet had many of the same features named in Apple's design patent though it was released as a commercial product in 2002, two years before Apple would apply for its tablet design patent, and nearly eight years before the first-generation iPad went public.

Compaq Tablet from 2002



The Fidler tablet, a prototype device Samsung is pointing to as pre-dating the iPad.



IS THAT A ROUNDED CORNER?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

There's a difference between drawing from the same well, and stealing the water that someone else has just drawn up.

And there is a difference between physical objects and ideas.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tompe

And there is a difference between physical objects and ideas.

I was not equating physical objects and ideas. I was replying to someone's comment using their own analogy.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

IS THAT A ROUNDED CORNER?

Yes, but is missing silver band and grid of icons. Need all to match what apple suing over.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Samsung’s apps are festooned with bizarre icons. None of them have identifying text labels, and their logos are frequently so unhelpful they may as well be random Cyrillic letters. Would you guess, for example, that to turn on handwriting recognition, you tap an icon that shows a circle in front of a mountain?

Some of the icons in S Note actually display a different menu every other time you tap them. I’m not making this up.

punchline: "So I guess they’ve stopped copying Apple’s icons."

http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...e-samsung-note