#AppleCool will no doubt be trending today as blogs jump on these two sentences in an important High Court verdict in the UK. The real thing however is not the ´coolness´ but the blow to Apple that its design patents are shoved aside as just variations on prior art and that Samsung and Apple tablets are part of an old family of tablet like devices.
Most importantly, this could well be the end of Apple´s business model: monopolizing a market, not through technical innovation, but by patenting design. Steve Jobs wouldn´t be happy but he gambled on a strategy which is now backfiring
The battle over the design patents between Apple and Samsung is finally getting some real verdicts. Not temporary measures blocking sales nor quarrels over technical patents, but the real deal. Steve Jobs gambled the whole company on one idea: that he could use commodity hardware produced in China from known components and still have a monopoly on these products.
Design patents were key to his strategy. He had a holy belief in them while others wondered if they would keep up in real courts. It´s easy to get a design patent, but a lot harder to enforce it.
After temporary rulings in Germany and the Netherlands this is the first case where a European design patent is judged. This will no doubt be the one case which will be appealed, but it´s outcome will be leading throughout Europe.
Q: But what about ´cool´
A: The judge tried to describe the differences between an Apple tablet and a Samsung one and noted the minimalism in the Apple design and called it ´cool´ versus the way Samsung had deliberately tried to make a variation on the iPads by visibly detailing the backside of the tablets. The only part where you could really make a difference and where the judge expected the consumer to look to see differences between tablets on offer.
Q: What prior art: was the iPad not the first in its class?
The judge did my job nicely so we´ll just quote him:
“Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple’s design right, such as ‘slightly rounded corners,’ ‘a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,’ and ‘a thin profile.’
“However, the High Court dismissed Apple’s arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004.
These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP’s TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004.”
Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile.
Q: So Samsung is off the hook?
A: Nope, Apple will appeal, Apple will get verdicts from other jurisdictions, so the case will go on for another six months or so, but for Europe (be aware, very different from the US design patent system) this is a huge blow to Apple´s whole strategy.
Most importantly, this could well be the end of Apple´s business model: monopolizing a market, not through technical innovation, but by patenting design. Steve Jobs wouldn´t be happy but he gambled on a strategy which is now backfiring #Patents
The "cool" thing makes me giggle.
But it won´t make Apple laugh +Jeffrey Hamby
Being a cool copycat is what Steve envisioned, but a judge confirming it, is not what they hoped for :=
Hey, a judge that's paying attention… who would have thunk it?
A teensy-weenie quibble, perhaps, but a quibble nonetheless, +Max Huijgen. I don't think Steve Jobs's strategy centered around "design patents" so much as the human emotional response to good design. People don't flock to Apple Stores because of patents but because the products themselves evoke something within people.
I won't reprise my argument here, but I do think Apple is making a mistake by rigorously defending its patents and striving to prevent competition. It's not cool.
Great news. To base a business on bullying and lawyers is krass and so last year. As an apple fan, a huge apple fan, I am very pleased to hear the Europeans are not taking Apples strategy seriously.
Its only a good thing that this is happening and I hope that for all the tea in China that the appeal judges will through it out of court.
Their next iterations of tablets and phones will be unique, and then the competition can make them with
Ohhh –
1. flat screens (FFS)
2. bevelled edges ( wow FXXK me that is SO original)
3. slighlty rounded corners – JEEZ, my nokia 6550 had rounded corners.
4. Thin profile -OMG, a 15 page magazine has a slim profile, my texas instruments calculator I took to school with me in the late 80's also had a thin profile….
I'm embarrassed to be a fan when they some of the above to be their innovations.
As +Jason ON humourously says, its nice to see a judge is paying attention, but in reality, they should be doing just that.
#applecool still rock, their hardware is great, with unoriginal thin profiles and slightly rounded corners.
What they do though is make it look very good, very stylish, but again, they cant patent stylish, as Audrey Hepburn was doing style long before the iPad was iMagined
http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=135432 go girl
cool – Apple still hungry…:) (apple or Apple Stores? ))
It's about time a judge somewhere actually gave a sensible ruling on this matter. I hope others follow (and Judge Koh never gets another case like this put in front of her…what a moron).
+Max Huijgen true that. Apple's hypocrisy astounds me though. What's worse is their rabid iZealot fanbase that is even worse.
People should buy devices that suit them and not bicker in the "my hardware that I didn't design is better than your hardware that neither of us designed" pissing match.
that is what hardware is all about. Its perception +Jeffrey Hamby, its a mentality not just limited to apple fanboys (and girls)
On topic, Apple is doing the same to other people,
saying "hey, ours is better and no you can't copy it I'll go to the teecher"
and fortunately "teecher" can't be bought, even by the school bullies – read the leeches called apples corporate lawyers
so teecher is telling them to grow a pair, get over themselves and effectively make new designs and then let the competition flatter you by copying it.
+Leland LeCuyer I have written more indepth about Apple´s belief about the holy design patents and the gamble they took under Steve Jobs lead. I address his successors strategy as well.
Apple willing to end patent war and offer licenses? A reality check!
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/hKcghVwW9ty
And here it comes. IMO Apple started losing the moment it shifted focus from core business – and that designing great things – to legal battleground. Instead of fighting competitors by staying ahead with more competitive products and services, leaving to the market to make a verdict, they started fighting competitors in court. Sad way to go.
SCO v2.
And once the establishment says something is cool?
good point +Eric Roussounis by default….. down the pan
Excellent point +Eric Roussounis and something I have been worried about (on Apple´s behalf that is) for a while. How can you mix the ´artistic, think different´ branding with a volume market. Answer: you can´t.
I wonder why Apple draws all the attention in the smartphone patent war despite the fact that the other corporations are also suing their competitors as soon as they have a chance:
Nokia
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2009, Oct 22: Nokia sues Apple over 10 patents.
2009, Dec 11: Apple countersues Nokia over 13 patents.
2009, Dec 29: Nokia files a second lawsuit[9] and a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint against Apple over 7 more patents.
2010, May 7: Nokia files a third lawsuit against Apple over 5 more patents.
2010, Sep 17: Nokia adds 2 more patents to their third lawsuit against Apple.
2010, Sep 30: Nokia countersues Apple in Germany over 4 patents.
2010, Oct 12: Nokia adds 3 more patents to their countersuit against Apple in Germany.
2010, Oct 25: Nokia sues Apple in another German court over 5 patents
2010, Dec 03: Nokia countersues Apple in the UK over 4 patents, and files a new suit against Apple in the Netherlands over 2 patents.
2010, Dec 06: Nokia drops 1 patent from their ITC complaint against Apple.
2010, Dec 15 and 22: Nokia and Apple take their first German suit/countersuit to the Federal Patent Court of Germany.
2011, Jan 06: The third Nokia/Apple lawsuit/countersuit is transferred to the location of the first and second ones.
2011, Jan 18: Apple seeks to invalidate one Nokia patent in the UK, which it was not yet being sued over.
2011, Mar 25: ITC finds that Apple does not infringe on 5 Nokia patents.
2011, Mar 29: Nokia files an ITC complaint against Apple over 7 more patents, and a fourth lawsuit over 6 of those.
2011, Jun 14: Nokia and Apple settle their litigation with Apple agreeing to pay Nokia an undisclosed one-time payment as well as continuing royalties.
2012, Jul 2: Nokia claims that the Nexus 7 infringes on its patents
______________________
Google/Motorola
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2010, Oct 06: Motorola sues Apple over 18 patents, and files an ITC complaint against Apple over 6 of them.
2010, Nov 09: Microsoft alleges Motorola has failed to comply with RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations.
2010, Nov 10: Motorola sues Microsoft over 7 patents in one court and 9 patents in another.
2010, Nov 22: Motorola files an ITC complaint against Microsoft over 5 patents.
2010, Dec 23: Motorola files a third lawsuit against Microsoft over 3 patents.
2011, Feb 14: Motorola adds 2 patents to their lawsuits against Microsoft.
2011, Jun 30: A consortium of companies made up of Apple, EMC Corporation, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion and Sony win against Google in an auction of over 6,000 Nortel mobile-related telecommunications patents for $4.5 billion USD.
2011, Jul 11-12: Google acquires 1,029 Patents from IBM for an undisclosed amount.
2011, Aug 15: Google announces its intention to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion USD. Eighteen of Motorola's patents could potentially be used for defense or countersuits against Apple and Microsoft, and may influence the smartphone war. These patents may change the balance of power, and force the various players to settle their lawsuits.
2011, Aug 17: Google acquires 1,023 more patents from IBM for an undisclosed amount (not revealed until 13 Sep 2011).
2011, Sep 07: HTC countersues Apple using nine patents from Google. The move is seen as a possible first step for Google giving direct support in lawsuits involving manufacturers using Android.
2011, Sep 13: Google's August 17 acquisition of 1,023 patents from IBM is revealed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
2012, Jun 23: Federal Judge Posner throws out Apple-Motorola case with prejudice.
______________________
Microsoft
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2010, Apr 27: HTC signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on HTC's Android-based devices (rumored to be $5 per handset).
2010, Oct 01: Microsoft files an ITC complaint and a lawsuit against Motorola over 9 patents.
2010, Nov 09: Microsoft alleges Motorola has failed to comply with RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations.
2010, Dec 23: Microsoft countersues Motorola over 7 patents.
2011, Jan 19: Microsoft counterclaims against Motorola, asserting 5 patents.
2011, Jan 25: Microsoft counterclaims against Motorola, asserting 2 patents.
2011, Mar 21: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble over the Android operating system in the Nook ebook reader.
011, Jun 27: General Dynamics Itronix signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on General Dynamics Itronix's Android-based devices.
2011, Jun 29: Velocity Micro signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on Velocity Micro's Android-based devices.
2011, Jun 30: A consortium of companies made up of Apple, EMC Corporation, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion and Sony win against Google in an auction of over 6,000 Nortel mobile-related telecommunications patents for $4.5 billion USD.
2011, Jun 30: Onkyo signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on Onkyo's Android-based devices.
2011, Jul 05: Wistron signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on Wistron's Android-based devices.
2011, Jul 06: Microsoft seeks $15 licensing fees from Samsung for a range of claimed patent violations on every Android device
2011, Aug 23: Microsoft files a complaint with the ITC requesting a ban on several key Motorola smartphones and devices in the USA based on infringements of 7 patents.
2011, Sep 08: Acer[84] and ViewSonic sign patent license agreements with Microsoft regarding their use of Android on smartphones and tablets.
2011, Sep 28: Samsung signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on Samsung's Android-based devices.
2011, Oct 13: Quanta signs an agreement with Microsoft to licence Microsoft patents in return for royalties on Quanta's Android and Chrome-based devices.
______________________
Samsung
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2011, Apr 22: Samsung sues Apple in South Korea (5 patents), Japan (2 patents), and Germany (3 patents).
2011, Apr 28: Samsung countersues Apple over 10 patents.
2011, May 18: Samsung files a court motion for Apple to provide samples of the unannounced iPhone 5 and iPad 3 prototypes.
2011, Jun 28: Samsung files an ITC complaint and a lawsuit against Apple over 5 patents.
2011, Jun 29: Samsung sues Apple in London, UK over an unknown number of patents, and a Samsung lawsuit against Apple in Italy becomes known (details unknown).
2011, Jun 30: Samsung converts its countersuit against Apple into counterclaims against Apple's suit, dropping 2 patents but adding 4 more.
2011, Sep 12: Samsung announces a lawsuit against Apple in France that had been filed in July over 3 patents.
2011, Sep 17: Samsung countersues Apple in Australia over 7 patents.
2012, March 7: Samsung files a lawsuit in Seoul's Central district court claiming that the iPhone 4S and Ipad 2 infringe on three of its patents.
______________________
HTC
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2010, May 12: HTC files an ITC complaint against Apple over 5 patents.
2010, Jul 06: HTC countersues Apple over 3 patents.
2011, Jul 06: HTC agrees to purchase S3 Graphics to secure 235 patents for use in its defense against Apple.
2011, Jul 29: HTC sues Apple in London, UK over an unknown number of patents.
2011, Sep 07: HTC countersues Apple using nine patents from Google. The move is seen as a possible first step for Google giving direct support in lawsuits involving manufacturers using Android.
______________________
Source:
en.wikipedia.org – Smartphone wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
—————-
+Zephyr López Cervilla it's what they're suing over. Rectangle shapes and rounded corners rather than actual technology.
+Twain Twain I still don't agree. Touchscreen phones with accelerators predate the iPhone, tablets predate the iPad (by a lot), gestures on touchscreens go back to the 70s and had nothing to do with Apple. They don't innovate, they just change existing technology to suit the masses, mostly in appearance.
+Jeffrey Hamby I guess that's the best they have. 🙂 [joking, of course]
+Jeffrey Hamby: "it's what they're suing over. Rectangle shapes and rounded corners rather than actual technology."
– I don't consider design patents any more valid (or invalid) than utility patents. Design patents are closer to copyright, similarly to software code. On the other hand, design patents are easier to circumvent so they hardly ever are a serious obstacle for market competition and development of new products.
Besides, how many lawsuits of other competitors aren't utility patents?
+Zephyr López Cervilla the lawsuits that seem to have been newsworthy were technology related… antenna design, radio code, etc…
This +Zephyr López Cervilla and +Jeffrey Hamby is not the first verdict on design patents, but the first which was not done by expedited trial. If you read the verdict you will see it´s a highly detailed treatise of angles, corners, ornaments, etc. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html#para1
+Twain Twain I am (was?) Steve Jobs age and we grew up in the same world of hardware and software innovations. I have seen them all as it was my business as well as his. There was a time he wasn´t that famous and we could just disagree. I can assure you that Apple, compared to others in the industry is not an outstanding technical innovator
In my opinion, courts are applying a much less restrictive criterion on design patents than on copyright infringement. A couple of examples:
1. Copyright over the basic idea of a photograph
– Doctorow, Cory. Insane English copyright ruling creates ownership in the idea of a photo's composition. boingboing.net Jan 25, 2012
boingboing.net/2012/01/25/insane-english-copyright-rulin.html
In a bizarre ruling, an English court has ruled that in favor of a commercial poster company that argued that a photo that showed a similar (but different) scene taken by a different person in a different place nevertheless infringed the copyright of a poster. What the judge ruled was that photographing a scene that is "substantially similar" to a scene someone else has already photographed infringes the first shooter's copyright.
_________________
2. Literary plagiarism
– US judge bans 'Rye' book sequel. bbc.co.uk 2 July 2009
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8129782.stm
A US judge has banned publication of a book promoted as a sequel to JD Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.
US District Judge Deborah Batts ruled that Swedish author Fredrik Colting's novel too closely mirrored Mr Salinger's 1951 classic.
Mr Salinger brought the lawsuit against Mr Colting, with his lawyers calling the book a "rip-off pure and simple".
Mr Colting claims his book, featuring a character based on Salinger's hero, is a literary commentary not a sequel.
But Judge Batts, in her 37-page ruling issued in Manhattan, said the main character in Mr Colting's novel – Mr C – was "an infringement" on Mr Salinger's main character, Holden Caulfield.
She said the Swedish author's claim that he also wrote the book to critically examine the character Holden Caulfield, was "problematic and lacking in credibility".
The judge said Mr Colting had "taken well more from 'Catcher', in both substance and style, than is necessary for the alleged transformative purpose of criticising Salinger and his attitudes and behaviour".
_________________
If I were Apple I would base my lawsuits against other competitors on the copyright of my designs since copyright seems to include pretty much everything.
Nobody could deny that Samsung's design of some phones and tablets are copies the basic idea [1] of the iPhone and the iPad, or that those designs are their sequels in both "substance and style" [2].
Hmm, did you actually read the post or the court verdict +Zephyr López Cervilla? You are usually spot on, but why do you state:
Nobody could deny that Samsung's design of some phones and tablets are copies the basic idea [1] of the iPhone and the iPad, or that those designs are their sequels in both "substance and style" [2]. that has been denied by the UK High Court
+Max Huijgen: "that has been denied by the UK High Court"
– That is precisely my point. The British courts are applying a double standard on design patents and copyright infringement. Different pictures of different scenes (thus, easy to tell apart) are considered copyright infringement whereas much closer (industrial) designs are not. The criterion on which they base their rulings is inconsistent.
If the iPad had been a picture Apple would have won the lawsuit.
Ah, I misunderstood you. Sorry for that +Zephyr López Cervilla I need to check on the British court rulings. BTW: this was an infringement case, not really a patent validation. I left out a lot of detail in the post as nobody wants to read legalism. I usually save that for the comments.
Do you have any guess on why Apple decided to file that lawsuit in the UK instead of, say the US? Are these lawsuits faster, easier to win, or the costs lower in the UK than in other countries?
+Zephyr López Cervilla they've filed in Germany, Australia, and Korea (that might be Samsung that filed there) as well.
Chinese company sues Apple related to Siri. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/apple-faces-new-legal-challenge-in-china-20120710-21sm5.html
They cheap what they sew.
Fully agree on the small petri-scale part of your comment +Twain Twain
Looking at the really large companies it´s helpful to look at their R&D budgets. Apple is not even in the top 20, which is dominated by pharma companies.Nokia, Google and Microsoft are the big spenders on R&D and Samsung moved ahead of these companies by pumping 42 billion in research which outclasses everyone else.
But of course Samsung does fundamental research, even more than Nokia and Microsoft, as they stretch the whole gamma from cpu to end user devices. Microsoft labs are very productive with new, advanced technologies.
Apple is nowhere to be found in this league of companies.
http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/Editorial-Research/Top-50-Technology-R&D-Spenders/50-Biggest-R.html
+Zephyr López Cervilla thanks for taking the time to point this extensive list of actions in the mobile #patentWars by all sides. Here is what I wrote on a different thread (slightly edited):
—
2) …It's a WAR, for who controls or at least dominates mobile. You know, the only thing that is currently growing like a weed -> plus.google.com/112964117318166648677/posts/FJctFpjmzvc
These are all for profit corporations, and just because Google cagily sent a "Moat Strategy" into the race, which this poor fella confuses for some sort of charity, does not change one iota the fact that Google chose this route of confrontation with Apple:
A few years ago, they weren't in the phone business, they weren't in the smartphone business, they weren't in any hardware business, and they weren't in any OS business, mobile or otherwise. Why wouldn't Apple perceive this as a direct threat and attack on what turned into its core business since 2007 (iPods in decline, Mac business more or less static)? Because that's what it is.
Read this following post in full, and unless you can somehow debunk the spirit of the argument, I see no reason why Apple should have taken kindly to what Google has done for even one nano-second, strategically brilliant though it was. -> businessmindhacks.com/post/required-reading-the-freight-train-that-is-android-by-bill-gurley
And while I am demonstrably -> plus.google.com/s/schleber%20patentlyabsurd not a fan of the current patent system, U.S. or otherwise, and hope that this very #MobileWar leads to software/method patents going extinct, there is no doubt that Apple is well within its right to use it to its advantage.
…Eric Schmidt was even on Apple's board… if that doesn't take away any illusions of good guys vs. bad guys narrative in this case, then I don't know what…"
—
+Twain Twain that's true for software, but high resolution displays, use of accelerometers, etc are innovations of hardware companies, not software startups.
And Google's not really in the phone business. They're in the ad business. The smartphone is just another medium to get data to make search more viable/sellable.
Make sure you patent Apple powered skis as well +Prem Gyani
+Prem Gyani: "the US innovation engine can't open the playing field for Android. Apple can still 'win' if the crazy US patent system supports them."
– All current OSs as we know them, most apps and other software have their years numbered (including Android). Most of the computer processing and running applications will be performed in the cloud. So Android will disappear soon after most mobile devices are being used as mere peripherals.
+Hrvoje Peranovic: "Talking of the US Patent system, I'm off now to patent the idea of a banana powered jet ski in case someone actually makes that work sometime in the future."
– I think that a rule to get utility patents is that you have to prove that they actually work for the intended purpose. This is why the claim that the Star Trek scriptwriters (or whoever else sci-fi writer) invented the tablet is nonsense, they never made it work in real life nor they explained how it would do it.
You'll still need an OS to get to anything in the cloud, and with the trend toward offline usage with HTML5 the need for a strong OS continues to exist.
+Jeffrey Hamby: "You'll still need an OS to get to anything in the cloud, and with the trend toward offline usage with HTML5 the need for a strong OS continues to exist."
– That's why I said "as we know it". Some kind of software will be still required to run your terminal as a peripheral (to translate and transmit your input data), and to manage your connection to the cloud.
As for the trend toward offline usage, it may well be an ephimerous trend. There will be still some "emergency" software (and even a different OS) for the few occasions in which you won't have Internet access (such as apps to download photos from your camera, read/write documents, spreadsheet, listen to music, and watch videos when there's no hotspot available), but the software of your device will be optimized to work online and outsource most of the processing to the cloud.
There are way too many spots without connectivity though, and without offline capabilities built into any OS rolling forward devices won't be very usable.
Try driving between El Paso and San Antonio, or having lunch in the tunnels below downtown Houston.
While UIs in OSs might be different rolling forward the underpinnings won't. Bear in mind that in almost 40 years the main functions of kernels are relatively unchanged.
Windows 8 and Ubuntu with Unity are pretty good examples of what we'll see in the visible future. An OS whose UI is designed with mobile devices and cloud in mind, but that can also run on the desktop without losing core functionality.
Thank the gods. Finally a justice system that does not suck. Apple don't want to disable their opponent, they just want to rake in profits from what is not theirs.
ششششششششششششششششششششو هذا يييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييييا سلام