backtop


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

RE: Apple copies, gets caught, then pays up.
By Shadowself on 10/12/2012 6:07:07 PM , Rating: 0
Apple's App image is not "100% similar" (by that I'd guess you mean that they are exactly the same).

Apple's design has slightly narrower hands and longer back sections to those hands.
Apple's design has no prominent outer silver casing/band.
Apple's design is 2D not 3D.
Apple's design does not have the prominent logo in the bottom half of the face.
Apple's design has narrower minute marks (marks between the hour marks).
Apple's design has a very noticeable red circle over the attachment point not on the Swiss clock.

HOWEVER...
Apple admitted it looks "similar enough" to cough up a fee to license the design.

Sounds like Apple is willing to admit that some things are similar enough to require licensing even if they are the ones who have to pay.

Should Apple have gotten a license BEFORE they started shipping the product. Absolutely, yes. At least they have corrected that now.


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.

Please.


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.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














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