Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
bloomberg.com
Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
1–10 of 212 posts
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#2> covering the rounded corners of its phones, the rim that surrounds the front face, and the grid of icons that users view -- and two utility patents, which protect the way something works and is used.
Does anyone know the details of this? On the face, it seems disgustingly trivial. Rounded corners are patentable, really? But the devil is often in the details.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#3To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#4They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention that it'd already been done that way many times before and was the standard thing on smartphones by that point. So both obvious and massive prior art.
For instance here's a Nokia phone from 2005:
https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-sh...
And a Cingular branded HTC Windows phone from 2006:
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#5To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.
It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#6[deleted]
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#7They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention that it'd already been done that way many times before and was the standard thing on smartphones by that point. So both obvious and massive prior art. For instance here's a Nokia phone from 2005: https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-sh...…
Grid-of-icons dates back to the earliest icons in UIs too.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#8Steve Jobs' friend Bill Gates cloned the Macintosh with Windows and his other friend Eric Schmidt cloned the iPhone with Android.
I'm sure that felt bad but his primary feeling should have been pity. He created a company so much better than his competitors that their biggest successes are poor clones of his next-generation products. He showed Gates the future of PCs and he showed Schmidt the future of smartphones.
But he was unable to get over the feeling of betrayal and he felt the need to use the terrible patent system against them. It's petty behavior that was always beneath him and Apple. These lawsuits against Samsung are part of that petty behavior.
He could have been magnanimous and taken their pitiful cloning as a form of flattery. He knew that he could keep beating them indefinitely by creating superior products.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#9To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.
It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.
I mean sure, you could have a world where everything was free and unpatentable.
Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial
#10Does any one please know a curated list of all lawsuits between Apple and Samsung?
I've checked the Wikipedia page, but it's missing some trials and lawsuits.