Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

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

#51

Post by CamperBob2 »

sjwright wrote: post #39
madeofpalk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm I'm not convinced. If the iPhones home screen was so obvious why didn't others do it before? Those examples you listed are fairly different from iPhone at the time in a way that the Samsung phone wasn't.

Why is that comment being voted down? It's exactly on point.

The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it.

Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not.

As a result, Apple was (properly) rewarded by the marketplace for their insight. There was never any need to grant them an artificial monopoly on trivial and/or obvious design elements.

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

#52

Post by mortehu »

zik wrote: post #4

They 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...…

Now compare the those grid and device designs to those of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S:

https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD

And remember that these are design patents. Here are the relevant ones:

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en

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

#53

Post by JustSomeNobody »

mortehu wrote: post #52
zik wrote: post #4

They 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...…

Now compare the those grid and device designs to those of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S: https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD And remember that these are design patents. Here are the relevant ones: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en

Both, to me, appear to be an evolution of this:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&ua...

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

#54

Post by threeseed »

iamgopal wrote: post #43
threeseed wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how design patents work. It's akin to those ignorant fools running around talking about Apple patenting round corners. What Apple patented was their design for a grid of icons. You could have created your own just like Google and many others did. What you couldn't do was blatantly rip off their design which Samsung did.

What are you trying to say ?

You know a Coke bottle, right ? That has a design patent.

Other drink makers are not allowed to make the exact same bottle shape. But you can still make a bottle. And you can still make a bottle that is very similar to the Coke design. But it can't be nearly identical. Translate that to Apple's home screen and that's what we are talking about.

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

#55

Post by zumu »

threeseed wrote: post #37
zumu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a decade or so of PDA's with grid of icon interfaces that predate the iPhone.

And do those PDAs have the same style and layout of icons as the iPhone ? No. Because I still own a Treo 650 and it looks completely different. This is a design patent remember.

Your anecdote is valid, but there are A LOT of PDA's out there. Many of them have a grid of icons layout. For instance, consider the Sharp PDA's GUI -- it's a grid of rectangular icons broken up into pages (albeit with named tabs).

That being said, there may be something unique to Apple's patent, but on its face, "grid of icons" as a UI pattern predates the iPhone considerably.

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

#56

Post by kodablah »

Hrmm. Many Americans see something like the GDPR as protectionist often because we can't understand the culture behind such legislation. I wonder if that's what someone in Korea or elsewhere would think here. An American, echoing similar arguments, might say that the patents apply to everyone equally, but that doesn't change the fact that it appears from the outside like a legal absurdity. Just something that crossed my mind in today's context.

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #53
mortehu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now compare the those grid and device designs to those of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S: https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD And remember that these are design patents. Here are the relevant ones: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en

Both, to me, appear to be an evolution of this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&ua...

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by yani »

threeseed wrote: post #54
iamgopal wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to say ?

You know a Coke bottle, right ? That has a design patent. Other drink makers are not allowed to make the exact same bottle shape. But you can still make a bottle. And you can still make a bottle that is very similar to the Coke design. But it can't be nearly identical. Translate that to Apple's home screen and that's what we are talking about.

It is not nearly identical as did the Supreme court find. These patents are 10 steps back in the direction of inmovation and fair market competition; 10 steps forward in the direction of market monopoly. Let others to copy, educate the consumer, but leave the consumer to make the decision what to buy not some judge in California.

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

#59

Post by threeseed »

zumu wrote: post #55
threeseed wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do those PDAs have the same style and layout of icons as the iPhone ? No. Because I still own a Treo 650 and it looks completely different. This is a design patent remember.

Your anecdote is valid, but there are A LOT of PDA's out there. Many of them have a grid of icons layout. For instance, consider the Sharp PDA's GUI -- it's a grid of rectangular icons broken up into pages (albeit with named tabs). That being said, there may be something unique to Apple's patent, but on its face, "grid of icons" as a UI pattern predates the iPhone considerably.

You know we are talking about design patents. In which case Apple's patent is completely legitimate since the home screen remains unique to this very day.

And Apple never patented a grid of icons.

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

#60

Post by threeseed »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #53
mortehu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now compare the those grid and device designs to those of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S: https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD And remember that these are design patents. Here are the relevant ones: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en

Both, to me, appear to be an evolution of this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&ua...

This is a design patent.

Does that look like an iPhone home screen ?

Post reply on HN