Linked by nej_simon on Sat 11th Aug 2012 12:10 UTC
Legal "[...] tonight Apple entered into evidence in its trial with Samsung a document showing that it offered the South Korean company a licensing deal on some of its key technologies. Specifically, Apple offered to license the portfolio of patents if Samsung would pay $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet." $30-40 per device is a lot of money for some trivial features (rounded corners, slide-to-unlock etc). No wonder Samsung declined.
Thread beginning with comment 530694
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Tactical blunder?
by Tony Swash on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tactical blunder?"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Rounded corners? Slide to unlock?

As a 'style', these either should be bound by FRAND, or better yet, not patentable.

For example, rounded corners are just a sensible bit of design - sharp corners are uncomfortable and/or dangerous. Having rounded corners is not innovative, and preventing anyone else from having them is unfairly anti-competitive.

Now, if Apple have a particular manufacturing technique, where other means to create rounded corners are available, than that technique is patentable.

But there are an awful lot of patents out there that are not genuinely protecting R&D investment, but are just being used to restrict competition.


The big danger in all this, especially for these whose vision is impaired by Apple hatred, is to not see the wood for trees. If you copy another product's look and feel and packaging to such an extent that it might be considered illegal then by it's nature such copying will be made up of lots of small design features which if removed from context and presented in isolation can be made to seem silly or trivial.

But the fact of the matter is that what is at stake is the deliberate cloning of the design of entire products, and when you look at the entire product you can see that Samsung tried to copy Apple's product design. Their conscious aim to copy Apple's designs is clearly and explicitly revealed in their internal documents released as part of this court action.

The fact that Samsung set out to copy Apple products is not in dispute anymore. Neither is it disputed that Samsung released several products that looked uncannily like Apple's products. Nor is it impossible to avoid creating a product that looks like an Apple product because others have done just that.

The only issue here is do you or do you not think it was wrong for Samsung to clone Apple's products?

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[4]: Tactical blunder?
by bnolsen on Sun 12th Aug 2012 03:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Tactical blunder?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

uhhh....tablets are tablets. you are almost defacto saying that only apple is allowed to sell tablets. Really stupid. There's not much you can do with a slab and touchscreen wth connectors. the ONLY THING Apple should be possibly allowed to patent is probably their lame proprietary connection, if there's anything mechanically revolutionary about the connector that is.

Apple under steve jobs always has been anti competitive. It's just a shame the lame legal system built around maximizing law firm profits is involved in this.

Reply Parent Score: 6