Print 49 comment(s) - last by masamasa.. on Oct 17 at 10:40 PM

The companies haven't disclosed how much Apple is paying

Apple has decided to pay up for an allegedly stolen clock design in its latest iOS 6 mobile operating system.

IOS 6, which was released last month only days ahead of the iPhone 5, featured a new clock design for the iPad that seemed pretty basic. Just a white face with black, rectangular notches representing the numbers, black hour/minute hands and a red seconds hand. No big deal, right?

Wrong. The iOS 6 clock was nearly identical to a clock design developed by a railway company in Switzerland called Swiss Federal Railways (SBB). SBB said its company created that clock design back in 1944.

SBB's clock [left] and Apple's iOS 6 clock design (right)
[Image Source: IBN Live]

When SBB became aware of the stolen design, it immediately contacted Apple in hopes of some sort of licensing agreement.

"We are proud that this icon of clock design is being used by a globally successful company," said Reto Kormann, SBB spokesperson. "We've approached Apple and told them that the rights for this clock belong to us."

Now, Apple has agreed on licensing terms for the clock design with SBB. However, the companies haven't disclosed how much Apple is paying.

It's interesting to see Apple on the losing end of a copyright infringement claim; especially after the hell it has put Samsung through over mobile patent lawsuits. After a lengthy battle with Samsung around the globe, a U.S. jury found Samsung guilty of copying the iPhone/iPad for its Galaxy line. Not only was Samsung ordered to pay $1.05 billion USD in damages, but a court date on December 6 may lead to more product bans for the South Korean electronics maker. Apple is also looking to boost that $1.05 billion fine to $3 billion.

Source: The Verge

Comments     Threshold

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

Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By michael2k on 10/12/2012 1:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Should we not hold Samsung to the same standard?

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By sprockkets on 10/12/2012 1:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Only if the "copy" is 100% similar, not "we"ll it looks similar!"

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Shadowself on 10/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By sprockkets on 10/12/2012 6:51:11 PM , Rating: 3
And that's because one is a computer image and one is a real clock.


RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Shadowself on 10/14/2012 11:21:42 AM , Rating: 1
Apple gets stupidly fanatical about its images. Hell, they even put leather and lacing imagery on their calendar!

If Apple wanted to make the clock exactly like the Swiss clock they could have done so. Being a computer imager versus a real clock is 100% irrelevant.

Apple did realize -- belatedly and only after the Swiss rubbed their nose in it -- that their design was "close enough" to warrant a license. Thus they coughed up money for one.

So your next point is?

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By MaulBall789 on 10/15/2012 9:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
What makes it fairly blatant is the ball at the end of the second counter. Had Apple left off that little design quirk this would never have been an issue.

By theapparition on 10/15/2012 10:19:46 AM , Rating: 3
And the red second hand. Most notably is the fact that the Swiss Railways clock is iconic. Apple settled because it was a direct copy.

As to the Apple vs. Samsung patent litigation, where some here are comparing the two as Apple paying up and Samsung refusing to license, the situation is far more complex.

There is disagreement as to whether there ever was any infringement. A jury agreed there was, an appeal will either uphold or overturn that lower ruling. But the crux of the matter was that there was a disagreement that there was any infringement to begin with.

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By oab on 10/12/2012 1:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
And thus is the difference between copyright and patent.

By michael2k on 10/12/2012 8:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
The suit was about trademark, design patent, and utility patent.

Design patent and trademark have very similar terms to copyright (only the owner of the IP is allowed to make copies) while being significantly more broad (only the owner of the IP is allowed to make similar items).

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By TakinYourPoints on 10/12/2012 8:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it. Apple infringes, they pay up. Samsung infringes, they refuse to pay licensing fees and go to court. Microsoft and many other companies pay licensing fees to Apple and vice versa, why isn't a company as massive as Samsung doing the same?

By Solandri on 10/14/2012 6:31:54 AM , Rating: 5
That's because Apple's requested licensing fees were completely unreasonable - $30 per smartphone, $40 per tablet. With royalties like that, Apple would've been making more profit off of Samsung's phones and tablets than Samsung. Their requested fees wasn't a bona fide attempt to be compensated for rights to their IP. It was an attempt to eliminate competitors from the market.

A typical license fee for a good technology patent is around 1%. For minor and FRAND patents and mass-produced items, it's closer to 0.1% or less. Whatever Apple is paying Swiss Railway to license the clock design, I guarantee you it is not 5%-10% the cost of an iPhone. Don't even try to pretend the situations are in any way similar.

Look, whether you're on Apple's side or Samsung's side, realize what's really going on. This has nothing to do with inventions and protecting innovation. This is all about exploiting the current IP system to screw over your competitor(s) by getting their products banned from the market for a minor infringement. Once you have them over a barrel and they're cut off from their revenue stream, then you can force them to agree to completely unrealistic licensing fees they would've scoffed at before.

It's what happened to RIM - over 2/3rds of a billion dollars for the "innovative" idea of sending email over cellular wireless networks instead of 802.11bgn wireless networks. Even Apple has been victim to this. They're on the current patent trolling tear because they've been screwed over in the past by patent trolls requiring them to pay licensing fees for nonsensical patents. They've just chosen to fight fire with fire, rather than the mutually assured destruction detente other companies chose by amassing huge patent portfolios.

By Strunf on 10/15/2012 7:33:46 AM , Rating: 3
The Key point is FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms) thing that Apple only cares about when it's them violating someone else patent...

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2012 8:34:01 PM , Rating: 1
Right because I'm so sure they tried to get BILLIONS from Apple for this clock dispute like Apple tried to extort from Samsung.

Also I don't hear about them trying to get bans on all Apple products either.

Nice try, but when you apply common sense, your post ends up being nothing by hyperbole.

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By michael2k on 10/13/2012 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
Common sense says this is analogous to Apple approaching Samsung in 2010 to discuss licensing.

To further the analogy, Apple had already gotten Microsoft to license the self same patents (like the Mondaine example in SBB).

Even more so, Samsung decided to pay up; no, wait, that's where the analogy ends, and Apple files an injunction and lawsuit and goes to trial and wins.

So, no, you're wrong. This situation would be as you posit only if Apple refused to license from SBB. Since they licensed, they are already one step ahead of Samsung.

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2012 11:46:55 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't Apple now the largest most profitable tech company? I'm playing the worlds smallest violin for them and how big meanie Samsung doesn't want to give them even MORE money for ambiguous bullshit.

You guys are just too funny, honestly.

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By michael2k on 10/13/2012 10:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Why is that relevant? Success means Apple has no rights anymore?

By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2012 11:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
Now it is time for the resident Tea Partier, reclaimer, to flip on his hypocrisy switch

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2012 12:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and let's dispel this notion that Microsoft entered a cross licensing deal with Apple because of some sort of sense of morality or whatever you're shoveling. They did so because they had virtually no patents that would allow them to compete with Samsung, Apple, and others when it came to mobile devices.

Samsung and Motorola essentially developed the lions share of the underlying technologies that make these mobile devices even possible. Microsoft and Apple are just standing on the shoulders of giants and building off that, nothing more.

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By michael2k on 10/13/2012 11:03:19 PM , Rating: 1
What does morality have to do with anything?

This is business.

You act as if Apple is an upstart or welterweight. They've been making computers now for several decades. They literally funded the ARM company's inception, the first browser was developed on NeXTStep HW, invented the term PDA and even developed one of the first alongside the Psion.

They have quite a pedigree.

By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2012 11:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, but you see, it's Apple...

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Strunf on 10/15/2012 8:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
"They literally funded the ARM company's inception"
ARM has been around long time before the iToys, to your information even Intel was using there technology on their CPUs... PDAs and what not were already using ARM long before the iPhone.

"the first browser was developed on NeXTStep HW"
By someone totally unrelated to Apple, how many things were developed on MS-DOS or windows? are we also giving credit to MS for that?...

"invented the term PDA and even developed one of the first alongside the Psion."
Alongside? more like 9 years later than Psion, besides the PDA development were mostly done by companies like Palm and so on, Apple did enter the PDA market but were kicked out very fast from it. And BTW it was Nokia that released the first PDA with phone capabilities now called SMARTPHONES.

Seriously what I dislike the most on iTards is there ability to give Apple credit for just about anything while ignoring someone else input completely.

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By michael2k on 10/15/2012 10:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
This is from ARM's website:
Twelve engineers, with some technology from Acorn and
seed funding from Apple, started to look for applications that needed a low-cost, low-power embedded processor.

Apple's use of ARM in the Newton, 1993, was directly related to their funding the creation of the modern ARM processor in 1990.

You also seem to discount the Newton, despite the fact that it was in fact 1) One of the first PDAs, 2) The Psion 3, a real PDA, was only released in 1991 a scant two years before the Newton, 3) The Newton formfactor was in fact the archetype for the Palm Pilot, iPhone, and all modern slate style devices.

By Strunf on 10/16/2012 8:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
Apple was ONE of the investors not the only investor, also you're stretching quite a bit to imply that ARM is anywhere it is today cause of Apple, as I said before ARM has been doing business without Apple for a long time, if ARM was counting on Apple alone they would be long gone, their success is entirely due to their own expertise and have little to do with Apple, sure Apple put some money in and used their core logic but so did others.

Scant 2 years? even if it was 1, it still makes the Psion 3 the first PDA and by a good margin, aren't you iTards bragging about the iPhone

The Newton formfactor was in fact the archetype for the Palm Pilot, iPhone, and all modern slate style devices.

Key word SLATE, and they have been around from long before Apple, without joking you could see slate like devices on SciFi movies before 1993 and even books described such device... maybe Apple didn't invent anything after all and just copied the form factor from a movie.

By masamasa on 10/17/2012 10:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
More crapple supporters....

yes but
By GulWestfale on 10/12/2012 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 3

The US Court of Appeals has overturned a ban on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone, in a blow to Apple in the ongoing battle between the two rivals.

the war isn't over.

RE: yes but
By sprockkets on 10/12/2012 12:18:15 PM , Rating: 5
You mean the sanity of the ruling that says you can't ban a product because of one stupid little feature that barely anyone cares about?

Suck it apple. Suck it Tony Swashes of the world.

And a big F U for germany's ruling of patent cases.

RE: yes but
By Spuke on 10/12/2012 12:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Let the fire stoking begin!!!

RE: yes but
By Spuke on 10/12/2012 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
RE: yes but
By Tony Swash on 10/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: yes but
By Tony Swash on 10/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: yes but
By retrospooty on 10/12/2012 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Here we are on your endless campaign to make Apple appear in a better light. Good job Tony.

Your agenda is well served today.

RE: yes but
By momorere on 10/12/2012 2:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
meanwhile... in the non-crApple utopia

and ... this one is 1,000,000% right up your alley, although it has already been the case for awhile now

I have many many more articles about your beloved crApple. These should suffice for now.

RE: yes but
By Kefner on 10/12/2012 5:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
RE: yes but
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/12/2012 1:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
I live in the real world

RE: yes but
By Spuke on 10/12/2012 1:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's why I am so much happier and generally more relaxed than some of you iPhobes, I live in the real world and in that one Apple is doing pretty well.
I'm doing pretty good myself also and am looking forward to taking the motorhome out on a trip in a couple of weeks.

RE: yes but
By schmandel on 10/12/2012 1:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Tony, you silly little man, only you take the choice of Apple or another vendor to the point of some kind of choice driven by extreme sentiments. It's not.

Apple products are a poor value proposition for many people such as myself. It's really that simple, Apple offers nothing that I can't obtain at lower cost and with fewer operating restrictions. It's nothing to get worked up about, I suppose if I were much more helpless with tech I might find the Apple pitch more appealing.

Apple's success as a company is another matter. I have made a boatload of money selling Apple puts this year. Thus the net flow of cash is from Apple to me, which is as it should be.

RE: yes but
By ReloadAO on 10/12/2012 4:56:45 PM , Rating: 1
Tony... more web traffic was expected ^_^

It turns out that while some of you have been watching videos, playing a game, whatever, on what you thought was a Wi-Fi network, you were actually running up your giant 3G data bill. Apple hasn't commented on this, but on September 30th, Apple quietly released a bug fix for the problem for its Verizon customers.

RE: yes but
By Gio6518 on 10/13/2012 12:57:57 PM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile in the real world................

crApples reliving the 90's and continues to lose market share........

already been destroyed in the smartphone market

After Just 18 Days, iPhone 5 Already Accounts For More Web Traffic Than Galaxy S III

LOL thats just funny all in itself.........just proves thats its little kids that have nothing better to do

Glad the clock thing got sorted though - that was the one thing that could have brought Apple crashing down :)

Just proves how crApple just steals everyones IP

RE: yes but
By ikeke1 on 10/15/2012 6:53:10 AM , Rating: 1

Well...this would explain how iPhone5 beats SGS3 in network traffic (it's always on)

RE: yes but
By Marmadoc on 10/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: yes but
By Uncle on 10/12/2012 1:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
OH YA. I'm sure our beloved apple would have won the case if it had gone to court in the beloved USA. apple knew better then to fight in a country known for being FAIR in a court of law. No time for them to do any bribing or, not sure if the Swiss know of such a thing as a Lobbyist(Influence Peddler).

Not a patent claim
By oab on 10/12/2012 1:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting to see Apple on the losing end of a patent infringement claim; ...

First off, this is not a patent claim. Patents only last 20 years (in the US), therefore the patent would have expired in the 1960s.

This is clearly a case of copyright. Apple copied the design, violating the copyright and paid for the license to use it.

RE: Not a patent claim
By BZDTemp on 10/12/2012 6:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly and we all know copyright law aka LexDisney sets the expiration time to the age of one Mickey Mouse + a little buffer.

I find it insane that any sort of copyright outlasts patents. I mean we are talking mostly entertainment and the like that took little effort vs. inventions that can take work in a totally different scale.

No way
By wiz220 on 10/12/2012 2:03:49 PM , Rating: 4
The railway should be seeking an injunction to ban all infringing Apple products. Haven't they heard that seeking a reasonable licensing agreement is simply not acceptable these days? The only sane thing to do in this day in age is seek an immediate and complete ban. God forbid sanity might return to the patent/trademark world.

RE: No way
By michael2k on 10/13/12, Rating: 0
What part of the design is copied?
By ProZach on 10/12/2012 4:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
Almost every shape within the clock face is a rectangle, and we know who owns that.

Apple just hasn't exercised its right to owning the rectangle having symmetrically rounded corners on all sides (aka circle).

RE: What part of the design is copied?
By xti on 10/12/2012 5:46:30 PM , Rating: 1
E for effort...

By Kepler on 10/13/2012 12:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. I wouldn't be surprised if they orchestrated this with the train company.

They needed some stupid little design that could be recognized, have someone bring it up, and then try to look like the good guys for licensing it. Costs Apple virtually nothing, but big rewards. They set a precedence -- "see, we pay fees for stuff that we "inadvertently" copy."

This all happens in the middle of a design patent war.

/end conspiracy

By momorere on 10/14/2012 7:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki