Discussion on:

Apple whines, court caves, Samsung stops sales

I'm sorry, but I'm totally dumbfounded by this ruling. Ornamental design? Really?

in this case the cartoonist wants to prevent anyone else from doing a cartoon in three frames with a line around each. How reasonable is this. Going after ridiculous things like that is how people (and companies) loose credibility but as you and I have already stated : no one cares about that.

one/two side(s) and rolled up onto a spool. Oh, wait, they did that. And called it Scotch tape.

I can kind of see Apple's point of view here. You can ask someone for some Scotch tape, but what are the chances that you'll get some 3M Scotch brand tape?

Five years down the road I can see someone asking to borrow my iPad for a few minutes, even though I may have an Android or Windows based tablet

3M patented the adhesive, method for making the tape and may have been able to patent the dispenser. 3M even trademarked the Scotch® brand. But what 3M didn't (and couldn't) patent was the idea of dispensing something from a roll. That's what Apple, by patenting the shape of the iPad, has essentially done.

If I was Mead, I'd be taking the results of this case and suing Apple for infringement because the iPad is essentially the same size and shape as a composition notebook.

Are you sure they (3M) didn't patent the method of dispensing? I really don't know. But, Scotch tape does not truly mean 3M brand Scotch tape today.

If people start using a brand name as a general noun for something, then the brand name is watered out. In the end it can mean that a brand name ceases to be protected. Back in the day there was a company called Primus, they made camping cookers... now a primus is a name for a camping cooker in many places.
I think the judges will find that thin rectangle with touchscreen form has already been watered down. It is simply what a tablet is. And Apple didn't start tablets, did they?

There have been occasions when Apple was an innovator. This isn't one of them.

Apple wasn't the first to produce a flat panel display, or the first to produce a portable computer in tablet form-factor (check out the TRS-80). Touchscreen? No. OLEDs? No. Mice and related pointing devices? No (Xerox). Putting all these things together was just an obvious refinement and extension of technology.

Apple must have a very short memory to have forgotten what happened to the last time they tried a look-and-feel suit. The US Supreme Court ruled against them. By forcing this to trial, Apple runs a very big risk of shooting itself in the foot, because unlike the Apple vs Microsoft case, where the parties were the actual producers of the "products", and Microsoft was relying heavily on its OS success, the only part of the Apple tablet produced by Apple is the software, and Samsung is a major electronic component and product manufacturer that can easily withstand the delay of one product line to one market.

What Apple is IS doing, is to create the same kind of situation that IBM did when tried to control the PC add-in market by using a daughtercard connector that required an IBM license to use. The infant-PC industry revolted, came up with an functional replacement alternative, and eventually forced IBM _completely_ out of the PC business.

"Thin" isn't a patentable concept, and it won't take the higher courts 4 years like it did with Apple vs Microsoft to overturn the lower court and make Apple look foolish to its shareholders.

At least one company (not Apple) is pushing to a totally non-touch keyboardless tablet replacement that will displace the entire category, and Apple doesn't hold the basic patents on _any_ of the critical technology.

Apple is in the fashion business. What they do is market proprietary, non-upgradable, closed systems to people who are looking for social acceptance through the ownership of un-needed, over-priced, gadgets whose functionality has become predictable and whose appeal is ephemeral. They're the electronics industry's equivalent of Jimmy Choo or Prada, and like those companies, Apple is going to find out that fashion tweaks of an existing idea isn't sufficient for maintaining an enforceable patent.

The only benefit that I can see posibly coming from this suit, is a re-organization of the USPO, a clearer definition of what things are and are not patent worthy, and a non-judicial oversight process for reviewing challenged patent claims.

They patented the design of the dispenser (shape, cutting edge, plastic roller, etc.), but could not patent the manner of dispensing (from a roll) because it was prior art and had been for centuries. This, of course, was back in the day when the USPTO had the time and expertise to do its job properly.

Couldn't tell them apart? The Galaxy Tab is LONGER, duh. He must have been blind, and stupid. Stupid because just one look to figure out which was which before standing in front of the judge would have saved him the embarrassment of not knowing in court.

Fool an average user? Sheesh! That is contorted logic if ever I heard (or read) it. The Galaxy Tab is LONGER, SLIMMER, and WIDER.

Patents on a rectangle are IDIOTIC! Patents on cartoons (though idiotic) are apples to oranges. A cartoon has a specific look NOT RELATED to a triangle. Unless your cartoon was a rectangle, then the comparison does not apply.

Apple is using the courts of law to market their products instead of the court of public opinion. That is going to backfire. Just look at their association with Foxconn. Countless people injured, crippled, extorted, abused... for your iPad. Rest easy knowing that for each iPad made someone has been crippled. Apple says they care about their workers, but Foxconn's workers making the iPad are those treated the best in Apple's supply chain. So if Foxconn's workers are abused, what happens to the others?

That must by why Foxconn had to install suicide nets around their building to catch people trying to jump off! Apple must have been watching and told them to.
That was some time ago, but the tradition carries on. (www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/foxconn-labour-record-better-than-other-apple-suppliers-report/article4376178/)

But of the average consumer, how many do you think are sitting in the Apple store saying, "I am not gonna buy this iWhatever because they dont care about their suppliers" This is the society we live in. And my only point is that this article stating Apple would take a plunge cause of it is laughable. People willalways find a reason to hate Apple. No matter what. And those of us who like Apple will always be referred to as "fanboi's" by know-it-all's who proll havent even used one long enough to have an opinion. If you don't like the company or their policies and you decide to boycott...more power to you. But if you think Apple missed your 2k...im gonna go with not.

If, as you say, the average device user can barely turn on their device, then Apple hasn't advanced the PC as a truly usable device in any fundamental manner since it introduced the Lisa.

I wouldn't go that far, but the lame basis of this decision, that customer who can tell the difference between two displays that vary by a few percent in resolution and color depth - can't tell two physical device apart by size is ludicrous.

Your cartoon analogy is terrible. There is something called Copyright which protects artistic works such as a cartoon. Why on earth should Apple, or any one for that matter, be given the right to be the only one allowed to produce something that is a rectangle with rounded corners. That isn't an invention, it isn't an innovation, it isn't anything that deserves a patent. What you are suggesting is that an interior designer should be able to patent a room with a window and off-white walls, and that everyone who has a room that has one window and off-white walls should either be open to litigation or should have to pay some licensing fee should they want to sell their house.

It wasnt the best analogy, although I did state it was for illustration purposes. But I see your logic and in that regard placing a patent on a room design would be rediculous. All I was trying to point out was that if you created something (a design or whatever) would you not be upset if someone basically took that changed a few things cosmetically and put their logo on it? Or is everyone on here the nicest human beings on Earth? lol

Otherwise, Apple has no moral or ethical fiber to stand on.

*did* INVENT the shape in question. For unless they invented the rectangle w/ rounded, slightly beveled corners (and FYI: they didn't---by a long shot), how COULD they be upset to find they weren't the only ones in the rectangle business?! You're beyond 'fanboi'; you're deluding yourself, and trying to excuse the bizzarre antics of a company suddenly afraid of the ol' Level Playing Field. Wake up.....

They (Apple) took a rectangle, with rounded corners, and created a very desirable device that functions very well for many people.

Shouldn't they receive compensation/acknowledgement for that? Who did it before Apple?

If rounding corners were sufficient to give legal control of a product category to one manufacturer in the US, how many automobile companies do you think would exist today in the US?

Further, any engineer could easy demonstrate that it's impossible to manufacture a product with a mathematically rectangular shape. If you could, such a device would cut a holders fingers. The sharpest product "edge" is rounded, by design and intent.

their "compensation/acknowledgement" for the device (just like everyone else). As you're suggesting that what makes *theirs* desireable is NOT the shape, but the functionality of what's inside it, you should be able to see the ridiculous nature of their position---the rectangle's functional guts ARE already patented. If the judge had acted responsibly, Apple would've been fined appropriately for having brought such a laughably frivolous suit to court.

After all, to them, any tablet they buy will be an "ipad", whether it looks similar to one, or not.

iWon't iWon't iWon't

?

IMO, Apple is far more monopolistic that MS of the 90's!

I don't understand why Apple goes after these design patents and why they are even given consideration by the patent office. Apple's approach to ornamental design is simple, streamlined, and elegant. The problem with this is, that while it's a great approach and has broad appeal, it isn't the least bit distinctive on its own. The products may seem distinctive while other companies aren't taking the simple and elegant approach, but there is nothing inherently distinctive about the designs. You can't patent simple, streamlined, and elegant. Well, anyone with half a brain should realize that you shouldn't be able to, anyway.

To put it another way. Apple's approach to ornamentation is to make their devices plain. Plain is basically the opposite of distinctive. Plain works very well, but you can't protect it.

Completely agree. Please, keep us advised RE: patent fiasco. There must be a better way to protect products than our system.

Where can I sign up for the patent on "pretty"..............

Makes me wonder what else their R&D; money is going for.............?????

Joe six pack does not care about Apple's behavior just like he never cared about Microsoft's. If he likes the product he will buy it, no questions asked.

How is "ornamental design" an intellectual asset? Apple is and always has been a money sucking bully who wants to keep their captive market of "i-sheep" by any means. I don't like Samsung either, but this ruling is ridiculous.

Apple learned a great deal from PARC. To sum it up in his words...

"Picasso had a saying: good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas..."

Hmm. Comparing a computer design to artistic design, especially Picasso?

There is no comparison between a Picasso and an Apple. I've seen many, many beautifully designed pieces of tech, but not one compares to a Picasso.

I went out and bought a Tab 10.1 as soon as I heard about Apple's bull****.

I have always bought Apple products because they've been innovative, simple to learn, and reliable. I'm no longer going to support their business strategy of profit through lawsuit. I will not purchase another iDevice.

Apple created a slate. These have existed for some time and while Apple made a really nice slate - it's light, it's thin - it's still a slate...

And this from a company with a history of having blatantly ripped off ideas from the Xerox PARC.

I think they are getting a little paniky looking into the cupboard for bright new things. It reminds me a bit of the Sony Walkman. Ultracool, but now just a memory. Hopefully someone will look at enough old SCI-Fi movies to find all the prior art.

Like you mentioned Jack, Android tablets are starting to get notice by the public. Apple is scared. It's ok to be scared because scared will make a company work harder on their product...oh wait...Apple didn't take that route? What? They're whining to a court? They're trying to kill the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the court? Good move Apple. Good move. Whiners.

I understand that Apple is supposed to be the "hip" thing now. But honestly the question that I have is why do people love the things they put out. Tablet wise I own an Acer Iconia Tab. If I want to, I can plug a usb drive into my tablet. I can plug a card adapter in and read any card I want. I can plug it into my computer and not have to use that god-awful program called iTunes. There is nothing I can do with an iPad that I can't do with my Iconia. But there are plenty that I can do with mt Iconia that I can't do with the iPad. Apple is going to be in 10 years where Microsoft is now: irrelevant.

Monopolies are not illegal in the USA. A monopoly using its position as a monopoly to directly and unfairly prevent anyone else from entering or competing in the same market is.

That being said...

Bad Apple! Yet another reason I will continue to not buy your devices.

Apple was fighting against big blue just like you mentioned earlier. The battle was never really fought because Microsoft and the clone army knocked big blue down. However check out this youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

OH the sick irony!

Those who rise to the top fear only one thing...Being knocked off the hill.

I avoid apple like the sick plague that they are. I'ved tried Ipads and I've tried android tablets, Android kicks Apples butt all over the field and then into the trash bin. Corporate irresponsibilty on Apples part only cements my opinion.

Tarnish the image of Apple?? Your kidding me right? The horrific conditions of the Apple factory in Shenzhen China didnt make a dent in sales, just a little bit of bad publicity, which is all but forgotten. People dont care, what they care about is thier iPhones and mobile devices and getting them as cheap as possible. People have a hard time connecting to what they dont actually see or expereince. I really doubt this will affect Apple as well.
Marc

If a company employe a lawyer they are going to create work for themselves. Once you let them through the door they will be drilling you dry and take all the money for themselves. Get rid of them, and stay competitive by releasing products that people want.

You know, I'm getting sick of Apple whining, about everything that another company introduces. Get over it apple, your not the only kid on the block!
Here's something else, when we couldn't get the iPhone we got a Samsung galxys2, Wow what a great surprise, this runs circles around the iPhone!