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

Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

thisismynext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 34 posts

Re: Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

#2

Post by kenjackson »

Here's the LG Prada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LG_prada_phone_private_pic...

http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable...

Announced Dec 2006. I'm not saying Samsung copied this phone, but if I was LG, I'd start to wonder.

BTW, best article on the issue to date.

Re: Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

#3

Post by ChuckMcM »

I really enjoyed the discussion about "Trade Dress" as protected IP, that was something I had vague notions about and now have less vague notions about (the story about how the Coke bottle shape is protected was new to me)

I also find it somewhat amusing to compare the 'Apple in the dead pool' under Scully vs the current Apple. Few companies have made such epic reversals in their fortunes.

Re: Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

#4

Post by ddlatham »

You’re probably familiar with patents, copyrights, and trademarks, the three main types of intellectual property. Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. (That’s a vastly simplified explanation, but it’s good enough for our purposes.) Trademarks and trade dress are all about protecting consumers from being deceived in the marketplace — the idea is to clearly indicate the source of a product or service.

It's very interesting that in trademark and trade dress the issue is whether a product confuses consumers, rather than whether ideas were copied. Does this mean, with respect to these claims, that it's fine to copy product ideas and designs, so long as the product is clearly from a different source and consumers would not confuse it with the original source?

(For patents and copyright claims, it's more clear that it's about the duplication rather than the confusion it may cause.)

Re: Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

#6

Post by protomyth »

hesdeadjim wrote: post #5

This has to make things a little awkward considering Samsung has been fabbing Apple's mobile chips.

I get the feeling that the division doing the fabbing doesn't really care about the phone division beyond how many chips they are ordering.

Re: Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

#7

Post by brudgers »

">In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power"

Neither was $172 billion company with a history of manufacturing handheld touchscreen devices dating back to 1989 and a huge portfolio of touch screen devices since then. [see image of early Gridpad here: http://ashishtiwari.posterous.com/guifx-touchscreens-that-ch... ]

Re: Apple sues Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis

#9

Post by roc »

ddlatham wrote: post #4

You’re probably familiar with patents, copyrights, and trademarks, the three main types of intellectual property. Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. (That’s a vastly simplified explanation, but it’s good enough for our purposes.) Trademarks and trade dress are al…

Only utility patents protect ideas. No other intellectual property does. It's unfortunate that there aren't stronger penalties for rights-holders who make claims wildly beyond the scope of the licenses they're granted. They cause a lot of confusion and unnecessary animosity toward what are very pro-consumer concepts [1].

[1] Conceptually and originally at least.

Post reply on HN