71–80 of 212 posts
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What you are saying is tantamount to asserting that this work should have little to no protection, and be freely copyable once a design is made public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It tends to bring this pointless debate to a quick end.
Edit: found them.
Before: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsu...
After: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?
Well, the courts believed so.
Only in a courtroom in Silicon Valley. And with a jury headed by a jury foreman with very questionable opinions and patents himself. He had to be told to shut up after the verdict because he was going around interviewing saying things that tainted the verdict not so greatly.
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...…
That is a component of the design patents Apple claims are being violated. They are much more specific than you appear to believe. If it were truly as simple to show prior art as you think it is, this case would have been thrown out a decade ago.
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...…
That is a component of the design patents Apple claims are being violated. They are much more specific than you appear to believe. If it were truly as simple to show prior art as you think it is, this case would have been thrown out a decade ago.
The only difference is that Apple's hometown judge Koh and magistrate judge Grewal didn't allow prior arts in the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a design patent. Does that look like an iPhone home screen ?
I wrote they both appear to be an evolution of the visor's design. Which makes me wonder why something like the iPhone's home screen could be patented in the first place. Where's the novelty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Parent is referring to the fact that the phone was a full screen and had a grid of icons (reminiscent of Palm) on it like the iPhone did: https://i.imgur.com/Fdk0566.jpg Parent post didn't say the phones looked the same. The iPhone refined a lot of existing functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
