Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Sep 2012 21:40 UTC
Legal "The International Trade Commission voted yesterday to investigate Apple for patent infringement allegations launched by the Google-owned Motorola Mobility. As expected, Motorola is asking for import bans on just about every iOS device, including iPhones, iPods, and iPads. What might be surprising is that Motorola is also asking for a ban on every type of Mac OS X computer, claiming Apple's iMessage technology infringes a Motorola patent." Let's hope all those products get banned. And that all Motorola phones get banned. Let's hope everything gets banned from the US. And yes, I changed Motorola into Google for the headline.
Thread beginning with comment 535817
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Iconic design
by Tony Swash on Thu 20th Sep 2012 10:06 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:


by Watts Martin. I couldn't haver said this any better.

You don’t need to see the name plate on a Ford Mustang or a Corvette or a Porsche 911 to recognize one. Or a Coke bottle. Or, once you’ve seen one, a Tivoli Audio tabletop radio. Or a McIntosh amp.

These products have a design language that’s become part of their brand identity. That language is not only important to the companies, it’s important to their customers. When you go to a Mustang show—and think about the fact that there are Mustang shows—you’ll see few if any cars from the 1980s, when Ford abandoned the Mustang design language and made cars that, well, didn’t look like Mustangs.

That’s what Apple wants, too: products that look like Apple. They’ve nailed it. You can look at a computer or a tablet or a phone being used in a coffee shop and you can immediately tell Apple or not Apple even if you can’t see the logo. And this is virtually unique in their industry: you’ll usually need the logo to know exactly what the not Apple product is.

This is why trade dress battles are so important to Apple. Try introducing a soda in a container that’s easily mistaken for a Coke bottle and see how far “har har har, you can’t patent curved glass!” gets you as a defense.

If somebody makes a product that can be easily mistaken for an Apple device, then Apple is going to do whatever they can to get that product either off the market or changed. And this is why Josh Topolsky is wrong when he says it doesn’t matter if a reviewer fails to mention when a competitor makes a product which is clearly following Apple’s design language. This isn’t about individual features and who did what first. If a company consciously attempts to make you think is that the new Apple thing? when you look at their new thing, and you know that’s what they’re doing, it’s noteworthy. It’s noteworthy because it’s a little sleazy.

All the attempts to portray Google's actions as defensive fail because it depends on portraying Apple's actions as offensive when in fact they are defensive. This whole saga did not start because Apple chose to start a legal war, it started because some companies decided to try to make their products looks as much like Apple's products as possible.

Reply Score: -4

RE: Iconic design
by JAlexoid on Thu 20th Sep 2012 10:18 in reply to "Iconic design"
JAlexoid Member since:

That is the most fecking of offtopic thing an Apple fanboy could have ever posted.

The issue at hand are Apple's utility patents. Apple has only brought up design issues with Samsung and Moto XOOM. Everything else is utility patents. Things like bounceback, the thing that Apple claims to be unique to iOS(but really is not).

PS: Jobs thought that Nexus One was "a stolen product". If you're as deluded enough to think that as well, then there is no nope for you.

PPS: If you're such an Apple fanboi, then you might want to read through the whole story at patentlyapple.(All of the legal analysis and history of the case between Motorola and Apple is there for your education)

Edited 2012-09-20 10:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Iconic design
by Janvl on Thu 20th Sep 2012 10:31 in reply to "Iconic design"
Janvl Member since:

When I look at an apple product I always have to think of Braun, how come . . .

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[2]: Iconic design
by Tony Swash on Thu 20th Sep 2012 11:14 in reply to "RE: Iconic design"
RE: Iconic design
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Sep 2012 10:38 in reply to "Iconic design"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

That article was idiotic when Gruber posted, it, and it is even more idiotic now, one day later.

Apple's lawyers found zero evidence that anyone ever has ever bought a Samsung phone while thinking it was an iPhone. As such, the premise of the entire article is flawed and doesn't transcend ridiculous Apple fan-fiction.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Iconic design
by r_a_trip on Fri 21st Sep 2012 12:16 in reply to "Iconic design"
r_a_trip Member since:

@Tony Swash

I'll give you the iconic design thing Apple has going. A glimpse is enough to know it came from Cupertino.

Ironically enough, if Samsung was trying to woo me with iPhone like looks in the Galaxy S2, that certainly wasn't the reason I bought this mildly ugly phone. What won me over was the mix of deliciously powerful hardware in that boxy, meh casing. (My first looks were aimed at the Galaxy Nexus, but I wasn't ready at that time to let go of a micro-sd slot).

Reply Parent Score: 2