Apple Awarded Major Patent Protection For Smart Phones And Tablets

[AvalonXQ]

And what is the new innovation there? Putting it in "a portable multifunction device"?

Possibly nothing. It wouldn't surprise me if the claims don't hold up to obviousness objections.
But acting like the application destroys the ability of smartphone providers to innovate, or patents some ridiculously broad overarching concept in computing, is symptomatic of not having actually read the claims.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you really think there's consumers out there who would buy a Samsung phone thinking they had bought an iPhone?

1) I haven't seen the Samsung phone, so I don't know.

2) That's not the only inquiry. A knock-off can still violate trademark laws despite the fact that the person who buys it knows it's fake, if other consumers will see the product in use and judge it as the trademarked good.

"Hey, man, gonna buy an iPhone?"
"Nah, Steve was using one of those the other day and it was crappy."

 

[dtugg]

Apple's lawsuit against Samsung is ridiculous. Does anybody really think that this phone (Epic 4G, which I own) looks enough like an iPhone that anyone would confuse the two?

Please. It has a significantly bigger screen. It is thicker as it has a slide out keyboard. It says "Samsung" at the bottom and "Sprint" at the top. It has four buttons on the bottom. Its UI consists of much more than icon grids. I guess its rounded icons are kinda similar to the iPhone's but that is about it.


Apple is just butt hurt that Samsung makes better phones than them. Actually, Apple doesn't even make phones. They just design them; they buy components from companies like Samsung and outsource the manufacturing to companies in China.

 

[bubbabupkis]

I don't think Apple has a case under Trade Dress. This is what they're claiming Samsung has copied in an effort to "confuse" consumers into thinking they're getting an iPhone:

Hardware and software trade dress claims

* a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
* the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
* as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
* as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
* a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
* a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
* a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Packaging trade dress claims

* a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
* a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
* use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.

These features are so negligible and can apply to so many products.

Yes, there are plenty of people choosing this Samsung phone expressly because it functions so similarly to an iPhone (including my own parents), but they're clearly not being duped into thinking it's an iPhone. Quite the opposite really.

 

[Darat]

And why wouldn't that be patentable if you were the first person to figure out how to implement doing it that way?

A lot can depend on the scope and when the patent was granted.

Courts can decide that it is against the public interest to enforce a patent that is too broad. This usually occurs when it would effectively create a monopoly which of course we tend as societies to judge is not a good thing.

(Remember I am only talking about if the patent is as broad as some people claim - personally I don't think a court would agree with the broad interpretations I've read.)

 

[Darat]

So you really think there's consumers out there who would buy a Samsung phone thinking they had bought an iPhone?

That's not what these cases are about. The argument stripped of the fancy legal-gubbins is something along the lines of "We've spent a fortune designing a product and even more marketing a product; people associate our design with quality/value for money/making them look sexy Product Y by looking so similar is trying to be associated with our product and thus leaching from our design and marketing work."

 

[This is The End]

Do you think the programming required to get gestures to work as intended "is obvious"?

If you are referring to programming the code so that it knows how many fingers are touching the screen, and which way they are moving, then yes it is obvious. As far as touch screen programming goes, that's pretty easy.

 

[WildCat]

That's not what these cases are about. The argument stripped of the fancy legal-gubbins is something along the lines of "We've spent a fortune designing a product and even more marketing a product; people associate our design with quality/value for money/making them look sexy Product Y by looking so similar is trying to be associated with our product and thus leaching from our design and marketing work."

I still find the argument ridiculous. Black has been the default color for electronics for many years, from cameras to portable music players. Rounded corners are also standard for portable devices, who wants sharp edges? The shape is dictated by the screen size, which is industry standard and certainly not pioneered by Apple. Blackberrys had a similar shape years before the iPhone.

Loolk how many automobiles are of a similar shape, yet you don't see Toyota suing Ford over it.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... yes it is obvious.

Part of the difficulty with the non-obviousness requirement of patents in the United States is hindsight bias. Things have a tendency to look a lot more obvious after one knows about them than beforehand.

 

[This is The End]

Part of the difficulty with the non-obviousness requirement of patents in the United States is hindsight bias. Things have a tendency to look a lot more obvious after one knows about them than beforehand.

Let's not forget that we're talking about touching a touch screen here. The word touch is in the very name of the product! So touching the screen would be obvious, but touching it with two fingers at once would be non-obvious?

 

[WildCat]

So touching the screen would be obvious, but touching it with two fingers at once would be non-obvious?

Not if you're an iDiot...





Sorry, I couldn't resist

 

[not daSkeptic]

So touching the screen would be obvious, but touching it with two fingers at once would be non-obvious?

I would think so. What reason would somebody have to know that two fingers cause a different result than one, or that a pinching gesture causes a different response than sweeping?

 

[This is The End]

I would think so. What reason would somebody have to know that two fingers cause a different result than one, or that a pinching gesture causes a different response than sweeping?

You are asking me why touching a touchscreen different ways would have different responses? It's obvious to me that would be how a touchscreen operates. I am questioning why it wouldn't be obvious to others.

 

[not daSkeptic]

It's obvious to me that would be how a touchscreen operates.

You say that now, but we have only your word that you thought that way before being exposed to current multitouch technology.

 

[Darat]

You say that now, but we have only your word that you thought that way before being exposed to current multitouch technology.

(Still with the caveat about breadth as above.)

Multitouch greatly preceded the likes of the iPhone, I remember playing with some multi-touch interfaces in about 2002. Of course that doesn't mean folk can't patent some particular way of doing something but I still think the patent may have a weakness in regards to prior art. I think a court would be looking to see if the patent is at the right point of balance between breadth and limited application (if it is ever challenged in a court).

 

[not daSkeptic]

Multitouch greatly preceded the likes of the iPhone, I remember playing with some multi-touch interfaces in about 2002.

The technology goes back to the early 80's if I recall correctly.

Of course that doesn't mean folk can't patent some particular way of doing something but I still think the patent may have a weakness in regards to prior art.

The patent involves the application of multitouch to portable devices. It's my understanding that Apple pretty much pioneered this, so I'm not sure how much prior art there really is.

 

[WildCat]

The patent involves the application of multitouch to portable devices. It's my understanding that Apple pretty much pioneered this, so I'm not sure how much prior art there really is.

How is putting existing technology on a different device patentable though?

As I said before, this would be like if an early automobile maker patented wheels on automobiles, since no one had put them on self-propelled carriages before.

 

[not daSkeptic]

How is putting existing technology on a different device patentable though?

Very easily. Many patents are, in one way or another, little more than collections and/or applications of existing technologies. So long as those collections meet the various legal requirements, they're valid.

... this would be like if an early automobile maker patented wheels on automobiles, since no one had put them on self-propelled carriages before.

If that met the requirements, it would be valid. The thing is, it wouldn't be just for the wheels. It would be for the combination of a self-propelled carriage and wheels. Likewise, Apple's patent isn't just for multitouch. It's for the combination of a portable device, multitouch, and a particular GUI.

 

[WildCat]

Very easily. Many patents are, in one way or another, little more than collections and/or applications of existing technologies. So long as those collections meet the various legal requirements, they're valid.



If that met the requirements, it would be valid. The thing is, it wouldn't be just for the wheels. It would be for the combination of a self-propelled carriage and wheels. Likewise, Apple's patent isn't just for multitouch. It's for the combination of a portable device, multitouch, and a particular GUI.

Sorry, still not buying it. Apple is not doing anything non-obvious with existing technology.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sorry, still not buying it. Apple is not doing anything non-obvious with existing technology.

Can you point to precisely what technology and industry-wide know-how was available in 2006 (one year prior to the filing date of the Apple patent) that would make the method that Apple claims obvious?