backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Dec 14 at 9:01 AM

Judge calls out Apple on its ubiquitous design claims

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has fallen behind top Android smartphone manufacturer Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) in global sales.  Analysts say it could face a similar fate in the tablet market by 2014 or 2015.  Apple insists that Android is only beating it in sales because it "stole" its intellectual property.  

Unable to stop the Android juggernaut on the market, it has taken the top Android smartphone manufacturers to court [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] [9][10][11], trying to prove they infringed on its often ubiquitous patents, which included claims of inventing multi-touch and the swipe unlock.  The Android manufacturers have fought back: Samsung and Apple have over 80 smartphone-related suits and counter-suits to date in courts around the world, since the start of the war.

I. Samsung Can Continue to Sell its Products

Late Friday in the U.S., a judge in Northern District Californian federal courtJudge Lucy H. Koh, dealt a major setback to Apple's international campaign against Samsung.  Following earlier statements where she said she would "likely" deny Apple's request for preliminary injunction, she made it final -- no injunction for Apple.

An injunction could have allowed Apple to ban the sale of all Samsung smartphones in the U.S., as well as imports, without Apple having to work through the full standard due process procedure.   Instead, the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets and other popular models like the Infuse 4G and Droid Charge will continue to be available to holiday shoppers.

Samsung spokersperson Jason Kim told Reuters in an email, "This ruling confirms our long-held view that Apple's arguments lack merit."

Apple's spokesperson Kristin Huguet disappointedly parrotted her company's previous statement: "[Samsung] blatant copying (Apple) is wrong."

The full PDF of the ruling is available here.

II. Samsung Likely Infringes Apple's Technology, But Not Its Design

While Judge Koh didn't necessarily dismiss the merits of Apple's lone technology patent in the case -- U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which covers a menu bounce animation -- she raised serious concerns about what she viewed as Apple's attempts to position itself as the lone manufacture of functional tablets and smartphones.

She comments that "a size that can be handheld, a screen that encompasses a large portion of the front face of the smartphone, and a speaker on the upper portion of the front face of the product" are functional characteristics, not aesthetic ones and thus should not be protected by Apple's design patents.

Apple asserts that it owns the exclusive rights internationally to produce "minimalist" (that term being the summary of Apple's more verbose claim by a judge in Germany) tablets -- thin, rectangular touch-screen driven tablets with few face buttons.  Thus far Germany has been the only nation to buy such a claim.

Judge Koh's comments call into question whether Apple will be able to successfully prove that Samsung is infringing its design patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677D593,087, and D504,889 -- given the compelling differences that exist between Samsung and Apple's product lines once you look past basic form factor.

As for the technology claim, Judge Koh ruled that the menu animation wasn't enough to cause "irreparable harm" to Apple, necessitating a sales ban.  She comments, "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed."

She did however indicate that Samsung likely infringed on the patent by including a similar animation in its distribution of the Android operatings system.  She wrote, "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial."

Apple must now wait until July 30, 2012 to wrap up that case, though.

III. Legal Situation Grows Dire For Apple

Things are looking bad internationally for Apple's legal campaign against Android.  So far its only victories have been relatively inconsequential ones, with one exception.

A victory in Australian court, in which a single judge granted a preliminary injunction banning Samsung tablet sales was overturned by a three judge panel earlier this week.  While an appeal from Apple puts Samsung's sales down under on ice until Dec. 9, it seems unlikely that Apple will be able to sway the three judge panel, given how critical they were of the idea of a preliminary injunction.  Assuming Samsung's triumph is preserved, it will be able hit the market just in time for the final leg of holiday sales.

Elsewhere, in the Netherlands Samsung has escaped a sales ban by modifying its phones' Android distribution to remove the aforementioned "bounce" animation.  It looks likely that a similar loss, modification, and market reinstatement will occur for Samsung in the U.S.  Such a process does little to help Apple as it offers virtually no sales delay for Samsung and no serious damage to the quality of Samsung's product.

The lone sign of hope for Apple comes in Germany, Europe's third largest tablet market.  A German court ruled in a lawsuit solely dealing with Samsung's tablets that all of Samsung's tablets violated the design (not technology) patents held by Apple in the European Union.  This rulign was the polar opposite of the decision by a Netherlands court, which ruled, like the U.S. court, that Apple's design claims were too broad.

Samsung yielded to the German Judge's ruling, redesigning its product to have a different frame and repositioning its elements such as the speaker and buttons.  Apple however has filed a second suit against the new design, which should soon go on sale.  It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern tablet (primarily touch driven, thin, rectangular), regardless of whether the modern tablet looks different from the iPad.  The German justice system has not yet decided whether or not to authorize Apple's request for a new preliminary injunction.

If Apple continues to lose or post inconsequential wins in the majority of its court cases the company may be forced to decide between financial success and continuing its personal legal vendetta against Android.  Late company co-founder and CEO Steve P. Jobs, described his final plan for his beloved company remarking, "I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product." 

His successors could be forced to make the tough decision of whether to follow that plan -- whether to exhaust all of the company's fortune on trying to "out-sue" its Android rivals.

Sources: Ruling via The Verge, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Makes me laugh
By honkj on 12/4/2011 12:10:30 AM , Rating: -1
Apple has based many things on other people's work, AND PAID THEM FOR IT..... like when they used Xerox ideas, by giving them stock in Apple....

there is a big difference between STEALING someone's work, as Samsung has done... and paying for someone's work as Apple has done....

by the way, you wouldn't even know what a modern multi-touch smartphone is, without Apple CREATING THE CATEGORY.... nor would you know what a modern Tablet is, without Apple CREATING the category.... nor would you know what a PC is... without Apple CREATING the category... nor would you know what downloadable Music legally was, without Apple CREATING the category.....

what is particularly laughable... is that you would never see a Tablet from Samsung in that form factor, or use of multi-touch... if the iPad had never existed... yet you just assumed Samsung came out with it on their own... that is what is particularly laughable...

(by the way, the Judge herself has said that Samsung has infringed on Apple patents and design, (just that they have to prove in court that the patents will stand up in court) Samsung is going to lose the actual trial... and Apple has about 100 new patents that they just got on the iPhone and iPad to leverage against Samsung... this is not even going to be even close)


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/14/2011 8:49:13 AM , Rating: 1
Yea, to bad it's not accurate...


RE: Makes me laugh
By harshbarj on 12/4/2011 10:06:01 AM , Rating: 5
Great revisionist history! Apple did not pay stock to use ideas from xerox, but to simply visit and look at them. From Wikipedia "Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options". Note it says SEE and not BUY.

Also if Apple had paid Xerox for the right is use this technology as you claim, why did they later sue apple for using this technology.

From the NY times...
"Xerox sued Apple in December, seeking more than $150 million in damages. It asserted that the screen display of Apple's Macintosh computer unlawfully used copyrighted technology that Xerox had developed and incorporated in a computer called the Star, which was introduced in 1981, three years before the Macintosh."

Now yes, a judge later dismissed the lawsuit, but it's clear xerox did not OK apple to use this technology, technology that no one can argue Xerox came up with first.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Motoman on 12/4/2011 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 5
...not to mention Jobs' famous exclamations about how they were going to be "shameless" about stealing.

Shameless. Which is the same way they approach everything else...no shame at all.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By its tom hanks on 12/4/2011 1:04:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...that is silly

quote:
...with is silly


trolling multiple websites to blindly defend apple (and at the same time make apple users around the world look retarded) is a bit silly as well, wouldn't one as bright as yourself agree?


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By nikon133 on 12/4/2011 6:23:35 PM , Rating: 5
Projecting a little bit, are we? I've never-ever-EVER seen such paranoia around here like the one so common at Apple Insider. Every article related to (and by default heavily biased against) MS and Google starts with same parade of hatred, rage, poor attempts of being smug and "elitist", all laced with rich underlying layer of inferiority complex; it seems too many Apple users still remember where Apple was not so many years ago, and fear it might go back there again.

That being said. Apple addressed courts around the globe to protect what they perceived as their patented IP. So far, majority of those claims were turned down... so, is it about time to quit saying everyone is ripping off Apple's ideas? Or shall we keep on hanging onto immortal SJ's words of "Courts are doing it wrong"?


RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 10:01:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I've never-ever-EVER seen such paranoia around here like the one so common at Apple Insider. Every article related to (and by default heavily biased against) MS and Google starts with same parade of hatred, rage, poor attempts of being smug and "elitist", all laced with rich underlying layer of inferiority complex;


Indeed. The site features so little apple news. It basically is run by Daniel Dilger, aka by pseudonyms Prince McLean and Slash Lane, which he uses to sockpuppet. One only has to view their forums of all of them fapping to the news of their competitors.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 8:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
What's funny is that Tony and Takin based a large portion of their arguments on the court rulings in Germany and Australia. A "look, see we were right!" approach.

Now that those courts and the U.S court (the one that actually matters) have gone the other way, they're reversing their earlier positions of appealing to a higher authority. Now court rulings suddenly do not matter, and Android is still a "stolen" product.

I guess they think they can have it both ways and eat their Apple pie too lol.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 10:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
Who cares what you think anymore? Have another -1 on the house bud.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 10:39:14 PM , Rating: 1
Can't say I really care what the deluded and irrelevant hivemind here thinks. :)


RE: Makes me laugh
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 10:49:35 PM , Rating: 1
Nice hypocrisy lol

quote:
You clearly do. It is adorable that you took the time to address my posts, so mad. I'd be mad too if I bought trash.


Clearly YOU care or you wouldn't come here and post your bullcrap knowing you'll be smacked down for it day after day. There's nothing more pathetic than someone who refuses to accept he's not wanted. Why would you want to be another Tony? Who want's to be THAT guy lol.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 11:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
I just post facts, especially when someone is clearly wrong. I can't help it how people react if they're so blinded by their fanboyism.

And believe me, if I didn't see DailyDerp on the Anandtech sidebar I wouldn't be here. I hate that this clownshow is only a click a way.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 11:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I address the subject, you actually call out people in subthreads where they aren't even participating. I don't do that, so no hypocrisy here.

It's so cute that you have a crush, can't stop thinking about me.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 10:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly do. It is adorable that you took the time to address my posts, so mad. I'd be mad too if I bought trash.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/6/2011 8:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
Garbage to you , and fortunately, your opinion is just that, an opinion.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/14/2011 8:51:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
You, troll.


RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 2:40:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Or one can just wait for someone else to do all the hard work, of assembling the good, and sometimes great, ideas, the designing of the product, the intense polishing of that design, and then just copy it. That's certainly a viable business model and one that many companies in the tech arena pursue. Watch what is a success and slavishly, but often poorly, copy it.


So you are perfectly ok then with Apple taking Android's notifications, but not when others take ideas from apple?

quote:
('hey this iPad thing is selling like hotcakes, let's make something that looks exactly like it right down to the packaging and sell it'). One is, I think, acceptable and one is not. One is good for the development of technology products and one is not.


Did anyone steal the source code to iOS? No. Everyone spent money and time to develop their own products. And apple's designs are all based on Braun's design philosophies, and he doesn't have a design patent war with anyone.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 8:00:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I am perfectly Ok with Apple copying the notification method because it was not patented or copyrighted and it was a good idea inserted in a great product which was not itself copied.


Oh, so copying that was OK because it wasn't patented, even though patents don't cover ideas in the first place and apple is about to find that out thankfully in court?

quote:
Blatant copying of products and the innovations of other with the addition of no originality is a bit like obscenity really - hard to define but one knows when one encounters it. You and I both know that Apple has been the unpaid unofficial R&D department of the whole tech sector for a long time. What pisses you off is that Apple isn't a loser anymore - that's it's playing to win.


So define "blatent", because last time I checked, apple didn't invent the cell phone, didn't invent the touch screen, didn't invent the capacitive style touch screen, didn't invent the orientation sensor routine, didn't invent the proximity sensor, and so on. Which means, wait for it, apple took what already was invented and simply made it better, just like everyone else does.

quote:
When one says Samsung 'developed' it's tablets in what sense do mean that? The OS came from Google which in turn had cloned iOS and the form factor and industrial design was copied wholesale from Apple.


Spare us the bullsht. "Cloned" means they illegally copied source code or simply took everything verbatim, while in actuality, Honeycomb had a multi-tasking solution in place since day one, still features a different home screen, still has a different dock or springboard, while the ipad was still half baked with missing features upon launch.

quote:
Are you really arguing that if Apple had not launched the iPad and if it had not been a gigantic success that Samsung would have come up with a tablet that looked just like that completely independently?


Obviously looking at sales numbers of everyone else vs. the ipad, the success of it has more to do with the ecosystem and not the simple fact it is a tablet. Which is why unless Google fixes their issues with apps and other stupid crap, they aren't going to win anytime soon.

If any other reason exists why the ipad is a success, it is because it sheds so much crap from the experience that normal PCs, aka, reinstalling the OS, installing programs, stupid issues with Windows, the Vista debacle, XP pre SP2, POS computers that break in 2 years from emachines, etc.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Cerin218 on 12/5/2011 1:40:02 AM , Rating: 1
So what you are really saying is that all patents do is prevent your ideas from being improved upon by others, which may lead to even better ideas..


RE: Makes me laugh
By bntran02 on 12/6/2011 3:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
YES if you are suing someone for using widely accepted ideas and models (Rectangular shape, minimalist design, black face etc...).


RE: Makes me laugh
By Paj on 12/5/2011 7:03:15 AM , Rating: 4
http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digi...

Samsung Digital picture frame. Can you guess the year?

Hint: it's before the iphone, and way before the ipad.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Dorkyman on 12/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me laugh
By retrospooty on 12/4/2011 10:40:01 AM , Rating: 5
"by the way, you wouldn't even know what a modern multi-touch smartphone is, without Apple CREATING THE CATEGORY.... nor would you know what a modern Tablet is, without Apple CREATING the category.... nor would you know what a PC is... without Apple CREATING the category... nor would you know what downloadable Music legally was, without Apple CREATING the category.....

what is particularly laughable... is that you would never see a Tablet from Samsung in that form factor, or use of multi-touch... if the iPad had never existed... yet you just assumed Samsung came out with it on their own... that is what is particularly laughable..."


What is laughable is your blindly agreeing with everything Apple without really knowing anything. It just makes you look blind.

1. Apple didnt invent the personal computer
2. Music was downloadable before Apple got into the game.
3. You would never have seen an iPhone if not for Apple copying the whole concept from Palm/Handspring.

The entire industry builds off ideas of others. It always has, as all industries always has. Its as if to say, Toyota, GM, BMW and Honda shouldnt be allowed to make cars because they all copy Ford. pfapf.

Apple suing for these vague concepts is just hypocritical and small. All they were is first to market with a multitouch UI. Now, that was a great thing, now let the competition begin. They "borrowed" the whole mobile phone idea, as well as putting and OS and apps on a phone. So why is that not frowned upon, but borrowing far more vague software concepts is? Because you arent here to actually debate the realities of the situation, you are here to defend Apple at all costs arent you?


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 8:08:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Except before Apple PCs were sht


Right, and MacOS up to 10.1 wasn't.

quote:
mp3 players were sht


Why? And didn't it take 3 revisions of the lousy ipod just to make it even accessible to the rest of the world with usb ports and windows?

quote:
so called smart phones and PDAs were sht


Only if you live in a hole and didn't know what the rest of the world enjoyed. And judging by the Prada which was one step away from a multi-touch UI, it was just a short matter of time before someone else came up with it.


RE: Makes me laugh
By DeluxeTea on 12/4/2011 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except before Apple PCs were shit, mp3 players were shit and so called smart phones and PDAs were shit.


And Apple started selling overpriced, underpowered yet polished shit. Still shit though.


RE: Makes me laugh
By retrospooty on 12/4/2011 9:51:24 PM , Rating: 5
I fail to see what your post has to do with
anything. it's 100 percent opinion. and in my opinion false. anyhow the subject matter was 1 company copying another. a subject in which apple is as guilty if not even more guilty than most other companies.


RE: Makes me laugh
By powerwerds on 12/4/2011 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
by the way, you wouldn't even know what a modern multi-touch smartphone is, without Apple CREATING THE CATEGORY.... nor would you know what a modern Tablet is, without Apple CREATING the category.... nor would you know what a PC is... without Apple CREATING the category... nor would you know what downloadable Music legally was, without Apple CREATING the category.....


By the way...

I happen to think you are displaying some pretty serious issues in logic, the likes of which can usually be found co-existent with another type of illness called fanboyism . In your particular case, your blind love of Apple's particular iterations of consumer electronics has retrogressively allowed you to now believe that Apple as a company happens to be the lone progenator of those entire "categories".

See, phone is a category. A "modern multi-touch smartphone" is a type of phone. A type, also, that imho Apple did not create.

I would say computer is a category, and "modern Tablet" and "PC" are types of computers. Both of which, I would also have to humbly allege, in my own opinion, that Apple didn't create those types.

Lastly, with music as a category, and "downloadable Music legally" as a type, I will have to most assuredly state that Apple did not create legally downloadable music.

In review, did Apple create great products for all the different types mentioned? Yes, this can possibly be argued. Did Apple create all of the types such that without Apples inventiveness those types would not now exist? No, not at all, that is simply not true, and its here that your fanboyism fails you. With the ecstatic nature of your assertions it almost comes across as if you quite believe the Apple invented the phone, the computer, and music too.

Anyway, just sayin, you are what I find "particularly laughable".


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki