Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

That's apple premise, that they lost gazillions of dollars due to people buying the wrong phone because they were confused.

just one of many crusader. its not the only complaint.

[ScotiaBurrell]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ur-own-phones/

[ScotiaBurrell]

If you go back to the mid-1990s, there was their famous "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple's case there was eerily similar to the one they're running today: "we innovated in creating the graphical user interface; Microsoft copied us; if our competitors simply copy us, it's impossible for us to keep innovating." Apple ended up losing the case.

But it's what happened next that's really fascinating.

Apple didn't stop innovating at all. Instead: they came out with the iMac. Then OS X ("Redmond, start your photocopiers"). Then the iPod. Then the iPhone. And now, most recently, the iPad. Given the underlying reason that Apple has been bringing these cases to court was to enable them to continue to innovate, it's hard not to ask: if copying stops innovation, why didn't Apple stop innovating last time they were copied? Being copied didn't stop or slow their ability to innovate at all.

Let's have these companies solely focused on duking it out in the marketplace — where consumers, not courtrooms, make the decisions about innovation. In such a world, the best defense against copying isn't lawsuits, but rather, to innovate at such a rate that your competition can't copy you fast enough.

l

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/08/who_...copied_ap.html

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

You might want to read about PDMI before shilling for Apple.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The first mass-production device from a major manufacturer to incorporate PDMI is the Dell Streak, a 5 in (130 mm) tablet device running the Android operating system version 1.6 through 2.2

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

You might want to read about PDMI before shilling for Apple.

many different ways to design the connecter. Cosmetics NOT in the standard.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

You might want to read about PDMI before shilling for Apple.

Actually, neither Samsung nor Apple are using PDMI though they are using similar connectors. Both are proprietary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

http://pinouts.ru/PortableDevices/ipod_pinout.shtml

http://pinoutsguide.com/PDA/samsung_...b_pinout.shtml

ETA: Ipod with dock connector came out in 2003? whereas PDMI was adopted in 2007

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

many different ways to design the connecter. Cosmetics NOT in the standard.

You mean like that flare out at the end of the connector? Or what appears to be a more rectangular fillet, for lack of a better description, going from plane 1 to 2?

A thin rectangle is easy to hold, it shows up everywhere. Like on most USB sticks. So it's not long from front to back, that's in keeping with the sleekness that is needed for small devices. You don't want a clunky wall wart hanging off of your phone, do you?

And let's just forget that one is black, and says Samsung in big letters. Seems a pretty clear differentiation to me.

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

Actually, neither Samsung nor Apple are using PDMI though they are using similar connectors. Both are proprietary.

Thanks, I was unaware. Goes to show that it's not a simple design copy

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

many different ways to design the connecter. Cosmetics NOT in the standard.

Oh no? Seems that's the biggest part of Apple's infringement claim.

Design should NOT be patentable.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Design should NOT be patentable.

Design takes skill, effort and talent. What's wrong with giving protection to the work that goes into design?

Of course, 'obvious' patents should not be granted, whether design or otherwise.

But that is surely a separate issue.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Design takes skill, effort and talent. What's wrong with giving protection to the work that goes into design?

Of course, 'obvious' patents should not be granted, whether design or otherwise.

But that is surely a separate issue.

Right on all three counts.
They're in court because they don't agree on the value of the patents but neither side is saying patents should be abolished.

Creativity of all types *should* be rewarded.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Ok. Place bets on outcome.

I say, like look and feel case before, Apple largely loses this one and in 5 years no one remembers anyway.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Ok. Place bets on outcome.

I say, like look and feel case before, Apple largely loses this one and in 5 years no one remembers anyway.

Apple lost the Microsoft look & feel case because they were judged to have licenced the look and feel to Microsoft.


I think Apple will win this case, although not with the full damages they're asking for.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ur-own-phones/

That Apple cable is a poorly made piece of junk. The edges of the plastic are very sharp and the point of connection between the cable and plastic separates too easily exposing bare wires.

Other than that, it's well worth $19

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

it's well worth $19

or $1.99 online.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Design takes skill, effort and talent. What's wrong with giving protection to the work that goes into design?

Of course, 'obvious' patents should not be granted, whether design or otherwise.

But that is surely a separate issue.

That's not what I said.

Designs should not be patentable, that's not what patent law was designed to protect. There are other mechanisms to protect design just as there are for writings, art, preformance.