Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

[wyndslash]

hasn't "copying" been around for ages? they were probably considered "as inspired by" back then

the patents themselves seem silly. it's more like a race as to who patents what first.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If it stops other manufacturers attempting the same thing? Probably. The money isn't the point, for either company.

Which also does not mitigate the PR issue of Apple being a "patent bully", it's like saying "We can't compete without our lawyers creating ridiculous restrictions for our competitors."

Rectangular, with rounded corners and glass covering the front, are you really sure there is not prior art? Sounds an awful lot like the windows on my car to me!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by wodin

Which also does not mitigate the PR issue of Apple being a "patent bully", it's like saying "We can't compete without our lawyers creating ridiculous restrictions for our competitors."

Unless the iPhone 5 that will soon come out is a radical new design --- isn't that exactly what Apple should be saying? If we get more of the same old like last time, restrictions on the competition are the only way they can try to slow down the loss of market share. So scaring the competition and threatening to sue anyone who has a decent design that even remotely looks like an iProduct seems like a good way forward.

After this win, maybe their lawyers will convince them to go after those dirty jailbreakers after all? I see more growth here.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by wodin

Which also does not mitigate the PR issue of Apple being a "patent bully", it's like saying "We can't compete without our lawyers creating ridiculous restrictions for our competitors."

I don't think that the kind of regular people who buy phones are going to consider Apple a "patent bully." That's ridiculous: first of all, most people won't even remember the case; and second, to the extent that people do remember the case, they'll remember it being about Samsung copying Apple. None of that will hurt Apple at all.

Rectangular, with rounded corners and glass covering the front, are you really sure there is not prior art? Sounds an awful lot like the windows on my car to me!

It's obvious you don't understand the case

[obsessed2]

The Wall Street Journal sums up what this is pretty much all about: Apple could find it easier to defend its market position and LOFTY profit margins, while consumers may see a bit LESS choice and HIGHER prices—as fewer competitors court buyers with me-too models and pass along costs of damage awards in price their products.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...658082898.html

Compare the iPhone and the Galaxy S III. The iPhone looks and feels clunky compared to the Galaxy S III. I don't own either phone.


One of the patent infringements was on-screen icons? This is insane. Absolutely insane.

[elcreative]

Well it seems the courts have some agreement with Apple and have just awarded them a modest $1 billion against Samsung having upheld some of Apple's claims and dismissed Samsung's... now we wait for appeal time... meanwhile the S Korean courts have upheld some claims by both Samsung and Apple, awarding damages to both (only in the tens of thousands though) and considering banning some products of both... must be good being a lawyer...

[tubemonkey]

Well, old school is still readily available. A netbook can easily replace tablets. As to smartphones, I've never used them; so I really don't care about these lawsuits.

To me, touch devices are toys and not really needed in my world. A netbook, a flip phone, a Clip Zip, a Kindle 4, and a 7" DVD player can satisfy my needs.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

One of the patent infringements was on-screen icons? This is insane. Absolutely insane.

Indeed. Prepare for pattent-geddon.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by afv011

Indeed. Prepare for pattent-geddon.

I could've sworn Apple had already lost an "icons on the screen" case to Xerox already.

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

Apple could find it easier to defend its market position and LOFTY profit margins, while consumers may see a bit LESS choice and HIGHER prices—as fewer competitors court buyers with me-too models and pass along costs of damage awards in price their products.

The whole point of patents is to reduce competition and push up prices. So they're working as intended.

If all these patents had existed fifty years ago we'd be typing these messages on terminals connected to IBM mainframes.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The money isn't the point, for either company.

This.

Samsung and the others are done copying Apple. Current and future products.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

loss of market share

Only because market is growing. No one has yet caused them negative growth.

It's like the PC market -- smaller marketshare, all the profits. Ditto with the phones.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

The iPhone looks and feels clunky compared to the Galaxy S III.

No. But opinons vary.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Of all Android phones, Galaxy line is the most like the iPhone. It's also the only profitable line. Not a coincidence, me thinks.

I'll repeat for emphasis: the most successful Android phones are the ones now ruled to infringe on the iPhone. That's not a coincidence.

https://twitter.com/jkendrick/status/239180310393257985
https://twitter.com/jkendrick/status/239170883711823872

[Salgueiros]

Another reason to never buy Apple...