Apple demands are these:
- Shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners.
- Front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment.
- Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
- Profiles that are not thin relative to [Apple patent D'889] or that have a cluttered appearance.
Apple is right to point out that the design and packaging of Samsung’s Galaxy tablet is a clone of the iPad. It’s not exactly the same, but it’s clearly made to look like the iPad. But Apple’s demands are just plain stupid.
Instead, they should just asked Samsung to design a tablet that nobody could mistake for an iPad in a reasonable way. This could have been really easy. You only have to look at the Playbook or the Kindle Fire or any other tablet out there except for Samsung’s. They are well designed and nobody can’t mistake them. Samsung could have done this:
Pretty simple. Nobody would mistake that for an iPad but it would retain optimal usability. In fact, using that dark grey — like colour professionals use for colour proofing — would make this tablet better for colour perception and give it its own distinctive look.
Incidentally, except for the change of hue from black to neutral grey, that’s actually the tablet that Samsung has made to avoid more legal trouble. Apple is suing them again for this because they think it’s not enough. I bet that if they changed the colour no judge in the world would rule against them.
OtherOlly
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 10:09 AMHmm… the rendering of the underside looks like something you might transport some vegetables or fruit in. Oh no! it’s an apple crate! Watch out for the lawsuit, Giz!
Epicaricacy
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 12:08 PMgold on that last comment!
n
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 1:50 PMLawsuit? Apple’s gonna come and take away all of your computers and search your houses too.
Shaharin Yussof
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 10:40 AMI’m glad that Samsung has won the case, at least here in Australia. Not because I’m a fan of Samsung or detractor of Apple, but because as far as I’m concerned, the lawsuit was stupid. It’s like Toyota being sued by Ford because they also make an enclosed passenger vehicle, made of metal, supported by four inflated round things, and driven by an internal combustion engine. Oh, and with head and tail-lights too.
adrian
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 7:33 PMThat car comment is the best way of explaining how stupid these lawsuits are. How can two things that are for the same purpose not look at least similar?
Mmmmm
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 3:07 PMOne of the interesting things with automotive products was when Harley-Davidson was on their knees they noted the Japanes manufacturers where starting to make cruiser style motorcycles. This ment they were making the right product. Then the whole Harley bubble shot off. Willie G Davidson did not bother to sue the arses off Honda, Yamaha or the others or to deride the Japanese cruisers. He went about marketing HD and made one of the best brand resurections of recent times.
Nate
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 11:18 AMI agree, all these ridiculous lawsuits does is hold back progress and hurt the consumer. Without strong competition all we’d get would be minor updates in a slightly different package. oh wait that’s what apple already does
Roger Ramshit
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 1:26 PMwhat you are missing is that western countries can never compete on cheap labour so unless you want to see all manufacturing to be in China then you should support patents….and IP on general.
Remember that patents have a limited life and the early cars may have had some patents on them…..especially the internal combustible engine.
Cheshire Cat
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 8:14 PMAu yes and the internal combustion engine had essentially no development while it was under patent (7 years I think it was) after that it exploded… More powerful, smaller etc etc. patent on product sure…. For a short time that’s ok. Patent on form..give me a break. How many tvs are large rectangles with a black edge?
Ozoneocean
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 2:40 PMWe’re not talking about technology patents in this instance, we’re talking about simple external appearance.
In the car analogy, the engine isn’t being copied, it’s the fact that all that tech is put into a similarly shaped car.
tonybaby
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 11:41 AMStandard design practice is standard design practice.
Standard IT practice is standard IT practice. (Eg, as with having individual specific apps associated with user’s different details, which is the basis of Apple’s litigation against HTC)
These practices cannot (or at least should not) be patented at all.
Apple has just got away with it and made it pay because they invested in an effective legals area to bluff incompetent patents and courts systems.
Wish the system would wake up to their frivolous try-ons.
Ozoneocean
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 2:42 PMThis is the most perceptive comment.
SteveR
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 12:12 PMApple should be fined for vexation litigation. I believe the law suits are part of their marketing strategy to cement share of the market so it has a safety zone to compensate for the erosion that is certainly to come.
j
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 12:45 PMOh man why is everyone so worked up? Don’t you like the retro baby vomit tablet? it doubles as a club for beating screaming children with too!
Steve
Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 4:36 PMI had no idea Apple literally tried to patent rectangles.
“Shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners”
Are they out of their minds? So in their ideal world, they’ve just called dibs on black rectangles and want Samsung to make the Homer Car of tablets.
Dougal
Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 8:10 PMYep, and under apple’s effing logic, if the ipad was round they’d be suing the last caveman for inventing the wheel!
It is interesting that Motorola sued apple in Europe and won over a real patent issue – a tech infringement on wifi. It looks like the worm is turning to have a go at the ol’ apple!
morgs
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 3:33 AMi want a windows 8 tablet.
i couldnt care less about this stupid 5 year old school yard argument.
“miss, miss, he copied my drawing!” *throws tantrum*
grow up apple.
TSH
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 3:20 PMASUS Transformer Prime + Win8. Probably my next machine.
Evil Stan
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 10:42 AMThe one I really like is the You cant make it Thin requirement.
Kroo
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 2:47 PMFunny how the whole multitouch gesture IP infringement by samsung gets forgotten with this childish rubbish. The look and feel was only one part of the law suit. The unlicensed use of multitouch gestures was the real reason they took them to court. So if you came up with the idea of multitouch gestures on a touch screen, developed it, manufactured it, then samsung takes it lock stock and barrel and conveniently adds it to its tablets, that’s fine and dandy? Their ad campaign and packaging was a complete clone of Apples. They made no effort at all to make their tablets look any different to the iPad, thats for sure.
And the old car argument, really??? Car design was never patented originally. Henry Ford did license the production line process to mass produce the Model T. But you try making a Ferrari knock off and see how far you get.
Cheshire Cat
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 3:55 PMYou mean like the fakerarri body kits? Yes that right that EXACT THING exists that you used for your example.
Even if it was all about the multi touch why do they keep harping on about form? And not like they invented the idea. Minority report for a start. Also at what point do you then determine someone has created an idea that others must utilize to achieve the same function like a rectangle and something they should exclusively own. Staying on the car thread should the person who invented electric window control be the only one allowed to do that? Of course not.
I’m typing this on an iPad but I still think apples litigation is complete BS.
Scott
Sunday, January 8, 2012 at 6:54 PMThink outside the Apple. Look up “Multi Touch” on wikipedia. Despite claims of invention it’s been around for years. I get the feeling certain companies could invent the wheel and patent it and sue anyone that uses it. IBM began the first touch screens in the 1960′s (interestingly google has just bought a lot of patents from IBM). Bent Stumpe from CERN in 1972 developed it, the technology begain in 1982 and well, look up the knight ridder tablet or even Star Trek TNG.
Cheshire Cat
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 3:56 PMJust to be clear did Samsung steal apples actual code for multitouch or did they just develop their own. Because in one instance apple would have a case in the other they have no case at all.
Ozoneocean
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 2:46 PMIt’s important to cover this “rubbish” because it’s the only thing that actually refers to Samsung. Multitouch is more of a general android thing… And, no Apple didn’t come up with it, that tech was already out there.
sam
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 5:28 PMHey, my Samsung monitor looks a bit like an Ipad
light487
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 8:46 AMMade me laugh.. would be funny if someone actually made a tablet like that :)
olearymo
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 9:20 AMdamn, I just realised, my lcd monitor violates apple trademarks. also, my watch. and my credit card. and my fridge magnets.
AND THIS COMMENT BOX!
BenDTU
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 9:44 AMThat thing looks awesome.
Rob
Monday, December 12, 2011 at 11:01 AM2 years in the future…
Samsung has made the applecrate tablet, sells millions of them and takes their place as the leader of tablet sales… Apple Sues, and says they designed the Samsung applecrate tablet.
carmykal
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 2:24 AM*begins a 40 hour laughing fit*