Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Apr 2011 21:29 UTC
Permalink for comment 470774
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-25
I have to say I do not agree with that at all. I have all the same issues with them as with any other patent when applied to software. Design patents for physical/ tangible objects make some sense, but not for software.
The problem with that is I don't believe any person with that level of naivety exists. Even if they did, any one can easily point out their error by flipping over the device and pointing at the Samsung logo... Sure, the GUI for the software "looks" very similar to iOS in many respects, but is that because they are trying to make it look the same to confuse users?
Maybe what they are trying to do is leverage the fact that many users will already be familiar with the interface paradigms that iOS uses, and feel that making their interface look and act nearly the same is a benefit because it make the device instantly familiar to their users who came from iOS. Everyone does with with UIs, even Microsoft and Apple themselves - it is a process of refinement and it should not be allowed to be co-opted by a single company. Virtually every desktop GUI in existence is still based on the very same interface paradigms that Xerox Star used over 30 years ago, even iOS in some respects.
Regardless, icon spacing and placement and whatnot should not be considered "branding". Trademark law covers branding (covers it too broadly in fact) - you don't need design patents to protect branding. And if it isn't branding you are protecting then what is the point?
And I would be just as pissed about it if they did. In fact more so, because frankly there is literally nothing about Google's search layout that is even remotely connected to branding outside of their logo. Really, I do not see how anyone could reasonably see a legal problem with making a site that looks exactly the same as Google's, as long as the logo is not used. The entire notion is stupid on its face. Its a search box and a list of results! Really, back before 1996 (pre-Google), you had Alta Vista, Infoseek, Yahoo, WebCrawler, etc. Virtually all of them presented result pages 15+ years ago that looked nearly identical to what Google uses today, minus the logos...
Same exact problem if you ask me, but to each there own...
Edited 2011-04-21 17:26 UTC