DaniWeb can reveal exactly what it is that Apple thinks Samsung has copied, and we hope you are sitting down because the actual community design images contained within that certification are basic to say the least. In fact, we would go so far as to say that it looks remarkably like every tablet every to hit the streets and we are, frankly, amazed that the certificate was ever granted in the first place. What it doesn't look like, in any really meaningful way, is an Apple iPad. It looks like something my son would do with an Etch-a-Sketch, which ironically also looks like this interpretation of an iPad!
This has to be one of the most bizarre court cases we've seen in the tech sector in recent years. And that's saying a lot considering how daft most software patent cases are. DaniWeb would love to know what you think. Why not tell us using the comment box below?
I'm a hacker turned writer and consultant, specialising in IT security. I've been a freelance word punk for over 20 years and along the way I have seen 23 of my books published, produced and presented programmes for TV and radio, picked up a bunch of awards and continue being a contributing editor with PC Pro - the best selling IT magazine in the UK .
Did anyone notice that the design "patent" that apple uses against Samsung has no home button? Isn't that surprising? All iPads have this button. But the registered design does NOT. Did Apple file a design "patent" that is doesn't implement themselves? And now that Samsung avoids to have the iconic home button, they get sued? Isn't that a bit strange?
Wow, I would tend to agree. Something this short on information and detail should never even have been acknowledged as a viable application.
Samsung should sue/file/... for revocation of Apple's certificate on grounds of excessive generality.
>>Did anyone notice that the design "patent" that apple uses against Samsung has no home button?
I did notice that. I also noticed that the sketches don't show any ports of any kind (which are also pretty standard/iconic for Apple's i* products). Any respectable tablet design will have some sort of port.
Can someone tell me which electronic gadget just jumped up from space?They all where modifications of existing technology with some extra features.So I think this case is really childish.It is just fear I think.
Great. Now Apple is credited with patenting the rectangle. I suppose as time marches on we'll also be informed that Jobs discovered fire and invented the wheel. Sadly, I'm a big fan of Apple - have been since the '80s. But I have to say in all candor that this is absolutely ridiculous and Apple/Jobs is going too far. Additionally, I find it ironic that the man who blatantly stole GUI from Xerox Parc back in the day has the audacity to lay claim to the most basic community design elements as his invention (look at Apple's patent credits) - or maybe not since it would take that same type of audacity to make those types of accusations.
On a slightly separate note, I'm disappointed that USPTO granted Apple patents related to pinch and scroll, zoom, etc. Maybe most reading this post are too young to remember, but all the hand gestures associated with the touch control of the iPhone/iPad has been around since the late '80s. These are the same gestures used to control virtual reality environments from back in the day. In fact, you see elements of these in the movie "Minority Report" where the character played by Tom Cruise controls a display system near the beginning of the movie. Everything old is new again and Apple is just beating everyone else to the punch by just patenting them as their own. The USPTO judges the granting of a patent on a "new" and "non-obvious" standard. There's nothing about the gestures used to control smart phones that is new and non-obivous. The USPTO dropped the ball on this one.
Unfortunately, the patent probably uses the unique technological features that implement and allow usage of such gestures to be interpreted by a computing device, which produces a new human-interface design!!! (a.k.a using an existing concept and describing it differently) hehe!
There's been a true fight going on between Apple and Samsung in the Hague court in the Netherlands, for any of you fellow Dutch speaking techies: http://www.nu.nl/gadgets/2587590/apple-en-samsung-botsen-hard-in-haagse-rechtbank.html
Basically this news story reveals how childish Apple is, even in the Netherlands, which isn't exactly between the US and Korea without a reason.
Okay I admit, my Samsung Galaxy S does look like an iPhone 3G, but with a slight closer look anyone can tell it's not.
Then this article speaks about the way the devices get unlocked, by sliding a lock symbol over a path. I can tell ya, it's totally different on the two devices.
Lastly, Apple blames Samsung for the software "patent-stealing" which, if it really was stealing, is a mistake by Google, and not Samsung.
In my opinion Apple's just playing a filthy game of Monopoly on the rest of the smartphone builders.
I don't think it's about media attention but about market position. "Innovation" isn't what it's used to be these days. Instead of being more innovative than the rest they're just slowing down competitors in order to keep up. Yes, Apple was innovative, now they're "just another gadget company".
I imagine that they are trying to plant doubt and distrust in the minds of consumers (ie. for consumers to view brands such as Samsung in a more skeptical fashion) and to reduce their brand value really, separate to whether they get any injunctions/royalties/damages.
I hope Apple won't protect the ownership of rectangular screens, because then all computer manufacturers will have to make CIRCULAR screens!!!
(and thank God the 0's and 1's in binary are not copyrighted!)
By doing this, Apple proved that Samsung is strong enough to give competition. What you expect how would be tablets? if those are not in shape of rectangle than how it should be? Then what is matter of copying design? There are lots of dummies of iPhone, why apple is not suing them?