Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:05 UTC
Legal Yes, I'm hearing you guys - time to tone down a bit on the patent news. Hence, a summary here of recent developments concerning the various legal cases between Samsung and Apple. Today in The Netherlands, the judge ruled [Dutch] that Samsung will not be able to block the iPhone/iPad from the Dutch market. In the meantime, the Australian courts upheld the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, while the American courts ruled that while the Tab indeed infringes upon Apple's design patents, Apple has not yet convinced the judge that that actually matters. Tying this all together with earlier rulings we already covered - it seems like judges across the world are really, really willy-nilly. Update: DailyTech has some detailed visual comparisons between Samsung's and Apple's devices, as well with the various design patents. Huh. You don't say.
Thread beginning with comment 493074
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The real loser...
by Jennimc on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:26 UTC in reply to "The real loser..."
Jennimc
Member since:
2011-06-22

Those two companies aren't the victims; we are. Rather than cheer for one side or the other, as many seem prone to do, we should be sending a strong message that they need to stop acting like whiny children and get back to doing something productive.


Agreed. They should be making great products and not copying other's designs so that these legal matters don't have to proceed.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[2]: The real loser...
by Neolander on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:40 in reply to "RE: The real loser..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Agreed. They should be making great products and not copying other's designs so that these legal matters don't have to proceed.

You miss the point. It is impossible, today, to build a product without reproducing someone else's design somewhere*. Even if it was, it would be incredibly counter-productive, due to the huge amount of work duplication involved. Strong innovation can only exist when people are building their stuff on top of each other's work.

It seems to me that you like Apple's stuff, so answer me : should Apple have kept their ridiculous modal notification system in iOS 5, instead of copying Android's superior non-obtrusive notification system ?

And, for the mandatory car analogy : if a car manufacturer patented round wheels, should all other cars do with polygonal ones to avoid IP infringement ?

* If you believe you have counter-examples, please expose them now.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: The real loser...
by Hiev on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:45 in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, is not that they don't want anybody else to use their desings, is just that they want to be compesated for it.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: The real loser...
by Jennimc on Sat 15th Oct 2011 00:55 in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

You miss the point. It is impossible, today, to build a product without reproducing someone else's design somewhere*.


Then you have an issue with a need to reform patent laws. You ought not take issue with the litigating company. It's not as if Apple's iPad was an unknown entity. With that said, any company who goes to the effort of creating a product to the degree that Samsung did they ought to also become familiar with the laws that may restrict them. When you consider that Samsung specifically used Apple's product as the model to duplicate their risk was known beforehand.



Strong innovation can only exist when people are building their stuff on top of each other's work.


Agreed yet Samsung didn't need to mimic so exactly their competitor.


should Apple have kept their ridiculous modal notification system in iOS 5, instead of copying Android's superior non-obtrusive notification system ?


That question assume that copying an end-goal is the same as duplicating a product or service. Apple created a service that results in the same task achieved as that which google provides. They didn't infringe on software patents or interface concepts etc.



And, for the mandatory car analogy : if a car manufacturer patented round wheels, should all other cars do with polygonal ones to avoid IP infringement ?


Your analogy is far off the deep end in an effort to make my position look far off the deep end but yes they should create a different shape of wheel is a circular one is patented. Unlike wheels, tablets can be built in SEVERAL ways to differentiate themselves. The wheel's circular shape is the optimal design however the design of Apple's tablet isn't necessarily optimal. Why couldn't it's shape or color be optimized beyond that which APple created?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: The real loser...
by fran on Sat 15th Oct 2011 02:31 in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Neoloander dont waiste your breath. Not even a Dr.Phil intervention would work here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: The real loser...
by MacTO on Fri 14th Oct 2011 22:01 in reply to "RE: The real loser..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

The problem is that Apple's current designs tend to be a case that hugs the internal components. And it interacts with the human hand. There is very little that can be changed in the design unless: (a) they artificially bulk up their devices, (b) places elements that the user interacts with in awkward to manage locations, and (c) uses colours/designs that do not fit with current (fashion) trends. All of this would place companies like Samsung at a disadvantage simply because it involves things that consumers don't want. (Note: I'm not saying that they want Apple clones, I'm just saying that the minimalist mentality has pretty much made it impossible for anyone to make a competing product without cloning the product.)

We aren't talking about something like a G3 or G4 iMac, where there is plenty of room to design something similar that doesn't, well, look similar.

Reply Parent Score: 5