If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(All Things D)   Google said it like it is. "We weren't patenting things as aggressively as we should have been. We didn't really believe rounded corners were patentable." Neither did we, Google. Neither did we   (allthingsd.com) divider line 90
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

3666 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Sep 2012 at 8:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 03:18:04 AM
And the whole lawyer profession is laughing, also laughing all the way to the bank.
 
2012-09-12 04:16:49 AM
Looks like Google is trying to win their case in the media instead of the courtroom. That worked out really well for Samsung, right?
 
2012-09-12 04:34:51 AM
Idiots proliferating Internet lore. Maybe they should have Googled it before opening their pie-holes.

Fact:

"As for the design patents, it's a mistake to think that Apple won a patent for "rounded corners." What they showed wasn't a single infringement, but that Samsung had slavishly copied the physical design, icon design, home page design, and packaging design of the iPhone - and then left behind an email trail showing what they'd done. That's why Samsung lost, not because their phones have rounded corners."



http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/final-apple-vs-samsung-po s t-theres-no-patent-pinch-zoom
 
2012-09-12 06:37:18 AM
This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-12 08:30:08 AM

bingethinker: Looks like Google is trying to win their case in the media instead of the courtroom. That worked out really well for Samsung, right?


Kind of? Their phones are moving huge numbers and Apple is becoming a bit of a pariah. No matter how you choose to cite the law, people still think it's absurd.

Plus, Samsung will get their appeal.
 
2012-09-12 08:34:15 AM
I wish kubricks family would sue over the looks of the ipad...
 
2012-09-12 08:38:33 AM

acanuck: Idiots proliferating Internet lore. Maybe they should have Googled it before opening their pie-holes.


So really the people who lost out here were the Props department of Star Trek the Next Generation
 
2012-09-12 08:44:58 AM
Apple took Samsung to court because they knew a jury would lean favorably to an American company over a South Korean company. It's really always been about the Android software that has Apple's panties in a bunch. But Apple really does not want to directly go after another popular American company, that being Google. So they go after a phone manufacturer in proxy.
 
2012-09-12 08:45:47 AM
Today Apple will announce their new line of iLawyer products. An iLawyer is very portable and can sue for anything at a moment's notice.
 
2012-09-12 08:52:42 AM

acanuck: Idiots proliferating Internet lore. Maybe they should have Googled it before opening their pie-holes.

Fact:

"As for the design patents, it's a mistake to think that Apple won a patent for "rounded corners." What they showed wasn't a single infringement, but that Samsung had slavishly copied the physical design, icon design, home page design, and packaging design of the iPhone - and then left behind an email trail showing what they'd done. That's why Samsung lost, not because their phones have rounded corners."

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/final-apple-vs-samsung-po s t-theres-no-patent-pinch-zoom


Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

Apple will lose this on appeal, mainly because everyone will pour money into helping them shut down apple's bullshiat.

BullBearMS: This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]


That explains all those cola bottle wars!
 
2012-09-12 09:02:46 AM

steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.


i.i.com.com

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.
 
2012-09-12 09:05:44 AM

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


I don't get it, are you being sarcastic? That actually looks NOTHING like an iPhone.
 
2012-09-12 09:13:20 AM
Mind you, Google has a design patent on their home page. Brilliant one, too.
 
2012-09-12 09:18:38 AM

PadreScout: JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

I don't get it, are you being sarcastic? That actually looks NOTHING like an iPhone.


We get it ... you don't like Apple. But there's no need to be willfully ignorant about the evidence.
 
2012-09-12 09:19:59 AM
I say we just give our a 'patent bailout' and let them start over, and all patent disputes should be handled by tossing the CEOs in a cage match.

/seriously. it just might work
 
2012-09-12 09:26:27 AM

PadreScout: JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

I don't get it, are you being sarcastic? That actually looks NOTHING like an iPhone.


Well to them and other iphone morons that looks exactly like them and they could never get the idea on their own so they must have ripped them off!!!!!!

In all honesty I should have said the ATT LTE SII which is the skyrocket, which is on the jury list as well and nobody would mistake that for an iphone unless you were a complete moron.

Apple is trying to stifle competition since they want it to only work with their devices and programs where I can just send videos to any TV I want on my network, its even easier with my samsung tv which will detect my phone automatically so I can play through it.

Apple is pissing people off but nobody wants to admit it.
 
2012-09-12 09:31:38 AM

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


There are two seperate patents. One is for the iPhone design (D'667), one is for the iPhone home screen design (D'305).

The Galaxy SII was found to infringe on the first (shape and colour) but not on the second (the actual GUI). From the picture in your post, that makes no sense. Even as a SII owner, from that picture it could be argued that the GUI is identical, but the overall phone diesign is not at all,.
 
2012-09-12 09:33:56 AM

PadreScout: JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

I don't get it, are you being sarcastic? That actually looks NOTHING like an iPhone.


Yeah, but see, it's a bunch of icons laid out in a grid, which is clearly what is in use on an iPhone. Therefore, copy. QED
 
2012-09-12 09:38:17 AM

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


The only thing similar about that to the iPhone is that the icons are in a grid. The actual icons themselves are different from Apple's squares with rounded corners icons. If you're claiming that the iPhone invented the grid of icons, I would direct you to any desktop or operating system of the last 20 years.
 
2012-09-12 09:47:40 AM

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


If you can't tell that apart from an iphone, there's something wrong with you.
 
2012-09-12 09:52:27 AM

JosephFinn:
Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


community.us.playstation.com

You're saying that an icon to make a phone call shouldn't use a silhouette of a phone if you're not Apple? Nor a music note for music?
 
2012-09-12 09:52:29 AM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Prior art for rounded corners on hand held small touch screen interface devices.

Apple owes Gene Roddenberry royalties. Rod Roddenberry, call in the lawyers! I bet the settlement could bankroll a third generation series.

/Enterprise needs to be excluded from canon.
 
2012-09-12 10:00:46 AM
1992 PDA. I had one.

www.pocket-lint.com
 
2012-09-12 10:02:54 AM

I think I felt teeth: Apple took Samsung to court because they knew a jury would lean favorably to an American company over a South Korean company. It's really always been about the Android software that has Apple's panties in a bunch. But Apple really does not want to directly go after another popular American company, that being Google. So they go after a phone manufacturer in proxy.


The history of business litigation in the US court system does not agree with your comment.
 
2012-09-12 10:06:28 AM

acanuck: Idiots proliferating Internet lore. Maybe they should have Googled it before opening their pie-holes.

Fact:

"As for the design patents, it's a mistake to think that Apple won a patent for "rounded corners." What they showed wasn't a single infringement, but that Samsung had slavishly copied the physical design, icon design, home page design, and packaging design of the iPhone - and then left behind an email trail showing what they'd done. That's why Samsung lost, not because their phones have rounded corners."



http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/final-apple-vs-samsung-po s t-theres-no-patent-pinch-zoom


FTW!
 
2012-09-12 10:22:43 AM

acanuck: Fact:


Fact: Due to numerous juror improprieties, including consideration of punitive damages in direct violation of instructions and awarding damages for points found to be non-infringing, on top of the widely-supported assertion that a group of laypeople could in no way have faithfully addressed all of the points in the verdict questionnaire given the time they took... it is completely unimaginable that an appeal would result in anything other than a new trial.

Apple won by obfuscating the facts and relying on jury disinterest. Their case was flimsy, at best, and the ruling will absolutely be thrown out.

But you go right on perpetuating the "Internet lore" that suggests this was an open-and-shut case. The only people who believe that sport shirts and caps with Apple logos, so it's no great loss.
 
2012-09-12 10:27:33 AM

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


JosephFinn in action below:
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-12 10:36:05 AM

wmoonfox: acanuck: Fact:

Fact: Due to numerous juror improprieties, including consideration of punitive damages in direct violation of instructions and awarding damages for points found to be non-infringing, on top of the widely-supported assertion that a group of laypeople could in no way have faithfully addressed all of the points in the verdict questionnaire given the time they took... it is completely unimaginable that an appeal would result in anything other than a new trial.


To overturn the jury findings, the appeals court has to hold that no reasonable jury could have found the way they did. The punitive damages part is a reasonable argument, but the typo in the response was corrected so that's moot, and the idea that the jury didn't take long enough deliberating doesn't actually address whether a reasonable jury could have found the same thing. They did spend three days, after all, so it's not a clear cut "one-hour in and out" issue. I mean, they're within an order of magnitude of what even the naysayers would have expected, so how is the appeals court supposed to reverse that? "You spent 3 days rather than 5, so therefore you didn't consider everything"? I don't see it.

More likely, the appeals court could overturn the damages award based on the punitive comments, and remand for a new trial, but just on damages.
 
2012-09-12 10:40:30 AM

KarmicDisaster: 1992 PDA. I had one.


15 years ago in meetings people either wrote notes on paper or jotted them down on their pdas. Sometimes these notes involved sketching, because we were talking about technical designs. Now at least half have farking ipads and they just forego the sketching part and type their notes with their eyes glued to the screen so they don't misspell anything. I'll get emails where the design is described completely in text because no one sketched anything.

Invariably, for the last 7 years people see my tabletpc running onenote, I let them try it, they say it's awesome, then they never get one because too expensive, even though it's not their own money they're spending.

Please nobody say "you can write on an ipad". A magic marker on a
 
2012-09-12 10:41:14 AM
Whoops, htmled myself.

A magic marker on less than 10" screen is idiotic.
 
2012-09-12 10:51:11 AM

acanuck: Idiots proliferating Internet lore. Maybe they should have Googled it before opening their pie-holes.

Fact:

"As for the design patents, it's a mistake to think that Apple won a patent for "rounded corners." What they showed wasn't a single infringement, but that Samsung had slavishly copied the physical design, icon design, home page design, and packaging design of the iPhone - and then left behind an email trail showing what they'd done. That's why Samsung lost, not because their phones have rounded corners."


Oh, well that makes everything OK, then. The patent office is back to shiatting out puppies and roses.

/the USPTO is worth about a pound of piss in a windstorm
 
2012-09-12 11:00:03 AM
I'm just gonna sit this one out and watch the sh*tstorm, for a change.
 
2012-09-12 11:08:21 AM

BullBearMS: This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]

And what shape do you propose others use then if not rectangles with rounded corners?

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


How many different ways can you make a tiny little icon for a phone you farking MacTard. Some things just shouldn't be patentable simply by their nature. You can't patent common words so you shouldn't be able to patent common shapes we're talking about elementary school logic here, it's not theoretical physics or anything it's simple reason and logic.
 
2012-09-12 11:18:48 AM

DieAchtung: BullBearMS: This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]
And what shape do you propose others use then if not rectangles with rounded corners?


cdn3.digitaltrends.com

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

How many different ways can you make a tiny little icon for a phone you farking MacTard.


i.istockimg.com

Some things just shouldn't be patentable simply by their nature. You can't patent common words so you shouldn't be able to patent common shapes we're talking about elementary school logic here, it's not theoretical physics or anything it's simple reason and logic.

Agreed. Patentable:
www.leadformix.com

Not patentable:
www.enfoportals.com
 
2012-09-12 11:33:48 AM

bingethinker: Looks like Google is trying to win their case in the media instead of the courtroom. That worked out really well for Samsung, right?


Yeah, actually it did. Samsung sales shot up after the verdict. Apparently people like the idea of a product that is easily mistakable for Apple but isn't Apple. Go figure how that comparison wound up backfiring.
 
2012-09-12 11:36:01 AM

KarmicDisaster: 1992 PDA. I had one.

[www.pocket-lint.com image 635x739]


We have one in our conference room next to an Atari, old IBM, and Comodore. I'm tempted to put batteries back in it and play with it during meetings.
 
2012-09-12 11:44:15 AM

WitchyWoman: KarmicDisaster: 1992 PDA. I had one.

[www.pocket-lint.com image 635x739]

We have one in our conference room next to an Atari, old IBM, and Comodore. I'm tempted to put batteries back in it and play with it during meetings.


Tell everyone it it an Apple prototype and you will be cool again. ;)
 
2012-09-12 11:46:01 AM

Bacontastesgood: 15 years ago in meetings people either wrote notes on paper or jotted them down on their pdas. Sometimes these notes involved sketching, because we were talking about technical designs. Now at least half have farking ipads and they just forego the sketching part and type their notes with their eyes glued to the screen so they don't misspell anything. I'll get emails where the design is described completely in text because no one sketched anything.

Invariably, for the last 7 years people see my tabletpc running onenote, I let them try it, they say it's awesome, then they never get one because too expensive, even though it's not their own money they're spending.


I watched a guy putting together a presentation on his iPad. So, not only text but graphs and images. There was one moment where he was trying to get an image in the right place and resize it which was as easy as if a drunk Michael J Fox was using mittens on a PC. I don't care if it's more intuitive than a mouse. Walking is more intuitive than driving, but people would think you were nuts if you walked 50 miles instead of getting in a car.

I'm mostly still using paper. I take the meeting notes back to the office and scan them in, then use Visio or whatever to create proper versions of these that get sent off. But if the client queries something, I've got the sketches to go back to.
 
2012-09-12 11:53:38 AM

thewulf: I say we just give our a 'patent bailout' and let them start over, and all patent disputes should be handled by tossing the CEOs in a cage match.

/seriously. it just might work


Yeah, and professional wrestlers suddenly have jobs as CEO's
 
2012-09-12 11:57:28 AM

JosephFinn: Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


The phone looks like the old corded phone 90% of people grew up with and the music icon is a sheet music note. Is that really novel enough to be patentable? It's that sort of bullshiat that drives most people crazy.
 
2012-09-12 11:59:43 AM

LeftOfLiberal: Yeah, and professional wrestlers suddenly have jobs as CEO's


If you can be a governor, you can be a CEO.
 
2012-09-12 12:08:59 PM

you have pee hands: JosephFinn: Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

The phone looks like the old corded phone 90% of people grew up with and the music icon is a sheet music note. Is that really novel enough to be patentable? It's that sort of bullshiat that drives most people crazy.


Yes, because you're asking the wrong question... Unless the icon looks exactly like something that already exists - meaning that same something is also an icon - then it's novel, by definition. There's no "novel enough," it's either new or not new.
The question you want is whether it's non-obvious enough. And there, the test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer would identify any substantial differences between the claimed design and the prior art. It's a 2D icon with a phone, so an ordinary observer would identify it as different from a 3D actual phone. Or it's a 2D icon with two eighth notes enclosed in a rounded border on a particular color background, so an ordinary observer would identify it as different from musical notes on a page. So, yeah, it's not obvious based on just those. You'd have to find other icons.
 
2012-09-12 12:12:02 PM

BullBearMS: This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]


Except that design patents, by law, can not be functional. Rounded corners are functional, they help distribute the force of impact if the phone is dropped on its corner. Black bezeling is functional. It helps the image to stand out on the screen. Just look at any television or computer monitor from the last fifteen years.
 
2012-09-12 12:17:20 PM

rugman11: BullBearMS: This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]

Except that design patents, by law, can not be functional. Rounded corners are functional, they help distribute the force of impact if the phone is dropped on its corner.


But at what radius of curvature? Are all radii considered equal?

Black bezeling is functional. It helps the image to stand out on the screen. Just look at any television or computer monitor from the last fifteen years.

But with what width, and how should the bezelling be arranged and shaped?

There are functional aspects to these features, but there are also ornamental aspects to them. The design patents only covers the ornamental aspects. Contrary to popular belief, Apple has not patented rounded rectangles or bezels, and other companies are free to use them.
 
2012-09-12 12:18:43 PM

rugman11: Just look at any television or computer monitor from the last fifteen years.


Oh, and:
www.monitorgalaxy.com
The color of the bezel is an aesthetic choice, not a functional one.
 
2012-09-12 12:20:44 PM

Theaetetus: wmoonfox: acanuck: Fact:

Fact: Due to numerous juror improprieties, including consideration of punitive damages in direct violation of instructions and awarding damages for points found to be non-infringing, on top of the widely-supported assertion that a group of laypeople could in no way have faithfully addressed all of the points in the verdict questionnaire given the time they took... it is completely unimaginable that an appeal would result in anything other than a new trial.

To overturn the jury findings, the appeals court has to hold that no reasonable jury could have found the way they did. The punitive damages part is a reasonable argument, but the typo in the response was corrected so that's moot, and the idea that the jury didn't take long enough deliberating doesn't actually address whether a reasonable jury could have found the same thing. They did spend three days, after all, so it's not a clear cut "one-hour in and out" issue. I mean, they're within an order of magnitude of what even the naysayers would have expected, so how is the appeals court supposed to reverse that? "You spent 3 days rather than 5, so therefore you didn't consider everything"? I don't see it.

More likely, the appeals court could overturn the damages award based on the punitive comments, and remand for a new trial, but just on damages.


to be fair to Samsung, this exact same lawsuit was thrown out by a judge in Japan for being complete crap. They had to go the united states to get a jury to convict. They had to go to court that was within a block or two of the apple headquarters to find a jury that would convict. If the appellate courts were truly non-bias they would at least demand a retrial be done in a location that isn't so influenced by one of the parties involved. There is a specific reason why this applies to online phones in the united states and not the rest of the world.
 
2012-09-12 12:25:53 PM

RealDisagreer: Theaetetus: wmoonfox: acanuck: Fact:

Fact: Due to numerous juror improprieties, including consideration of punitive damages in direct violation of instructions and awarding damages for points found to be non-infringing, on top of the widely-supported assertion that a group of laypeople could in no way have faithfully addressed all of the points in the verdict questionnaire given the time they took... it is completely unimaginable that an appeal would result in anything other than a new trial.

To overturn the jury findings, the appeals court has to hold that no reasonable jury could have found the way they did. The punitive damages part is a reasonable argument, but the typo in the response was corrected so that's moot, and the idea that the jury didn't take long enough deliberating doesn't actually address whether a reasonable jury could have found the same thing. They did spend three days, after all, so it's not a clear cut "one-hour in and out" issue. I mean, they're within an order of magnitude of what even the naysayers would have expected, so how is the appeals court supposed to reverse that? "You spent 3 days rather than 5, so therefore you didn't consider everything"? I don't see it.

More likely, the appeals court could overturn the damages award based on the punitive comments, and remand for a new trial, but just on damages.

to be fair to Samsung, this exact same lawsuit was thrown out by a judge in Japan for being complete crap. They had to go the united states to get a jury to convict.


But, to be fair to Apple, this exact same lawsuit was won by Apple in Germany, and appears to be going well for them in Australia.

Your claims of bias may just be projection.

/also, San Francisco isn't within a block or two of Cupertino.
 
2012-09-12 12:26:13 PM

Theaetetus: DieAchtung: BullBearMS: This just in from a hundred years ago: Design patents cover the shape of products.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]
And what shape do you propose others use then if not rectangles with rounded corners?

[cdn3.digitaltrends.com image 450x314]

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

How many different ways can you make a tiny little icon for a phone you farking MacTard.

[i.istockimg.com image 348x380]

Some things just shouldn't be patentable simply by their nature. You can't patent common words so you shouldn't be able to patent common shapes we're talking about elementary school logic here, it's not theoretical physics or anything it's simple reason and logic.

Agreed. Patentable:
[www.leadformix.com image 430x528]

Not patentable:
[www.enfoportals.com image 471x332]


That looks like a Rio PMP300 in the "Agreed. Patentable" image. I was working for Diamond Multimedia when those things came out.
 
2012-09-12 12:47:12 PM

Theaetetus: The question you want is whether it's non-obvious enough. And there, the test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer would identify any substantial differences between the claimed design and the prior art. It's a 2D icon with a phone, so an ordinary observer would identify it as different from a 3D actual phone. Or it's a 2D icon with two eighth notes enclosed in a rounded border on a particular color background, so an ordinary observer would identify it as different from musical notes on a page. So, yeah, it's not obvious based on just those. You'd have to find other icons.


No, if that's an actual proper justifiable legal ruling what you have to do is scrap the system entirely and rebuild from scratch something that makes sense. Both of those examples are obvious to a third grader. Include in this list email icons that look like paper envelopes, charging icons that look like plugs, calendar icons that look like a paper calendar, etc. Good interface design is predicated on making functionality obvious since no one reads manuals (nor should they have to read a manual to determine which icon on their phone stands for "phone call") so naturally everyone will trend towards the same pictures of recognizable objects. It's like patenting the idea that the letter on a keyboard corresponds to the letter that appears on your screen when the key is pressed, it's horseshiat.

My comment doesn't really apply to the Samsung case specifically though, since it looks like they went out of their way to copy a lot more than just a couple icons.
 
2012-09-12 12:49:52 PM

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


Bigger Screen, different dimensions and menu, return and home buttons. Not all that much like the iPhone. Also, you are showing the application screen, not the home screen. For that matter, icons in a grid were available on computers long before the iPhone (see.. every windows product).
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report