Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#21

Post by trimbo » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #16

asdfologist wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.

It's not just "rounded corners." The patent addresses a very specific design, with rounded corners, a border, etc. It is basically only infringed if you try to make your product look like an iPhone, in order to free-ride on the iPhone brand, which is exactly what Samsung did.

I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs?

Anyway, shouldn't this be copyright law and not patent law?

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#22

Post by monochromatic » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #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.

Design patents are different from utility patents.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#23

Post by denzil_correa » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

trimbo wrote: post #21

rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just "rounded corners." The patent addresses a very specific design, with rounded corners, a border, etc. It is basically only infringed if you try to make your product look like an iPhone, in order to free-ride on the iPhone brand, which is exactly what Samsung did.

I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Anyway, shouldn't this be copyright law and not patent law?

> I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs?

Did reasonable amount of people confuse a Braun Pocket radio with the Apple iPod?

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#24

Post by prepend » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #12

mi100hael wrote: post #3

To 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.

I had an early smartphone, the Sony Ericsson P800, and it was a full screen and the home page was a grid of app icons. The iPhone design was extremely well done in comparison but hardly some radical unknown thing. The real design innovation was the capacitive touch screen

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how you think the p800 looked anything like the iPhone, https://goo.gl/images/t3XvMA

Yes, they are both rectangles. But there were massive differences aside from the capacitive touch.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#25

Post by asdfologist » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

ShabbosGoy wrote: post #9

asdfologist wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Textbook strawman.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#26

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:27 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #16

asdfologist wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.

It's not just "rounded corners." The patent addresses a very specific design, with rounded corners, a border, etc. It is basically only infringed if you try to make your product look like an iPhone, in order to free-ride on the iPhone brand, which is exactly what Samsung did.

Exactly this. I see lots of other comments bringing up "Hey, rounded corners are obvious" or "A grid of icons is obvious", and then bringing up phones like the Sony Ericsson P800 to show how grid of icons already existed.

This is what I call "losing the forest for the trees", and for some reason I think is extremely common among engineering folks. It's not just rounded corners, or a grid of icons, but rounded corners and a grid of icons that looked and felt extremely similar to the iPhone.

I think it's still a very valid debate to say whether or not these kinds of things should be patentable, but lets not pretend that Samsung just happened along to a similar design. They were clearly copying the overall gestalt of the iPhone.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#27

Post by GeekyBear » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

denzil_correa wrote: post #14

mi100hael wrote: post #3

To 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.

There's a book which explains this phenomena : "Everything is Obvious ... Once you know the answer" http://everythingisobvious.com/the-book/

One of the Android engineers (back when Android was going to be a Blackberry knockoff) made a similar comment about his reaction to the iPhone unveiling.

>“As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”

What we had suddenly looked just so . . . nineties,” DeSalvo said. “It’s just one of those things that are obvious when you see it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-d...

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#28

Post by stickfigure » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #26

rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just "rounded corners." The patent addresses a very specific design, with rounded corners, a border, etc. It is basically only infringed if you try to make your product look like an iPhone, in order to free-ride on the iPhone brand, which is exactly what Samsung did.

Exactly this. I see lots of other comments bringing up "Hey, rounded corners are obvious" or "A grid of icons is obvious", and then bringing up phones like the Sony Ericsson P800 to show how grid of icons already existed. This is what I call "losing the forest for the trees", and for some reason I think is extremely common among engineering folks. It's not just rounded corners, or a grid of icons, but rounded corners…

I've never heard an engineer claim that, well, anything from Samsung was novel or original. Nobody is making that argument. We're trying to have that very valid debate you're referring to right now.

This stuff should not be patentable, not even in aggregate. Full stop.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#29

Post by stickfigure » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

denzil_correa wrote: post #23

trimbo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Anyway, shouldn't this be copyright law and not patent law?

> I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Did reasonable amount of people confuse a Braun Pocket radio with the Apple iPod?

Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#30

Post by kumarm » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

mi100hael wrote: post #3

To 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.

As someone who developed for Mobile Phones pre iPhone era, I can say they are people who never worked on software for Mobile before iPhone :).

There were number of Phone that existed with several of those styles.

How many people know Verizon Had a decent app store (Apps developed with Brew) in US before iPhone? This included similar testing that you see for AppStore TODAY.