9 ms·
They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention
by zik 8y ago
They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention that it'd already been done that way many times before and was the standard thing on smartphones by that point. So both obvious and massive prior art.
For instance here's a Nokia phone from 2005:
https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-shipping.html https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-sh...
And a Cingular branded HTC Windows phone from 2006:
http://www.flobee.net/wp-content/uploads/cingular2125.jpg http://www.flobee.net/wp-content/uploads/cingular2125.jpg
- eganist 8y agoGrid-of-icons dates back to the earliest icons in UIs too.
- glandium 8y agoPalm Pilot, 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_1000 http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/8493/pilot-1000-retrospective http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/8493/pilot-1000-retrospec...
- zumu 8y agoThere's also a decade or so of PDA's with grid of icon interfaces that predate the iPhone.
- threeseed 8y agoAnd do those PDAs have the same style and layout of icons as the iPhone ? No. Because I still own a Treo 650 and it looks completely different. This is a design patent remember.
- zumu 8y agoYour anecdote is valid, but there are A LOT of PDA's out there. Many of them have a grid of icons layout. For instance, consider the Sharp PDA's GUI -- it's a grid of rectangular icons broken up into pages (albeit with named tabs). That being said, there may be something unique to Apple's patent, but on its face, "grid of icons" as a UI pattern predates the iPhone considerably.
- threeseed 8y agoYou know we are talking about design patents. In which case Apple's patent is completely legitimate since the home screen remains unique to this very day. And Apple never patented a grid of icons.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoAnd the samsung design is different. The rounded rects have different curvature, and there is no home square. Apple's design looks the same as Windows 3.0
- sbuk 8y agoIronically, most ‘copied’ the Apple Newton. Go figure...
- monochromatic 8y agoDesign patents are different from utility patents.
- madeofpalk 8y agoHmm I'm not convinced. If the iPhones home screen was so obvious why didn't others do it before? Those examples you listed are fairly different from iPhone at the time in a way that the Samsung phone wasn't.
- sjwright 8y agoWhy is that comment being voted down? It's exactly on point.
- CamperBob2 8y agoThe iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it. Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not. As a result, Apple was (properly) rewarded by the marketplace for their insight. There was never any need to grant them an artificial monopoly on trivial and/or obvious design elements.
- krustyburger 8y agoThis is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. And I’m not at all convinced that it was such an obvious idea given the development of multitouch. I think it only seems obvious after the fact.
- CamperBob2 8y agoSorry, but the idea is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that an iPhone-like device isn't inevitable once capacitive multitouch tech appears. Or do people think Apple invented that, too? And make no mistake, it's ideas, and not implementations, that are behind these ludicrous half-billion dollar patent judgments. Patents were not supposed to work that way, but they do.
- threeseed 8y agoYou have a complete misunderstanding of how design patents work. It's akin to those ignorant fools running around talking about Apple patenting round corners. What Apple patented was their design for a grid of icons. You could have created your own just like Google and many others did. What you couldn't do was blatantly rip off their design which Samsung did.
- tathougies 8y agoWhat is special about Apple's grid of icons? Icon sizes are -- due to convention -- almost always some power of two, or other standard size. The number of icons you can fit on a rectangular screen is going to be pretty similar because of the size of the appendage that will be interacting with it (a human thumb).
- sjwright 8y agoIf this was simply about rounded corners or a grid of icons, they would have been laughed out of the court. Trade dress not about any single design choice but the combination of dozens of design choices which, when combined together, become an aesthetic trademark. And importantly, Apple spent millions of dollars on marketing to promote the fact that the iPhone looks a certain way and operates in a certain way. The issue is that Samsung cloned this aesthetic in detail for the express purpose of hijacking Apple's existing media goodwill and advertising spend. And it also dilutes the value of Apple's brand.
- mortehu 8y agoNow compare the those grid and device designs to those of iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S: https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD https://imgur.com/a/mett6HD And remember that these are design patents. Here are the relevant ones: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD593087S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604305S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoBoth, to me, appear to be an evolution of this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju5t-b15_bAhUJWqwKHQF8BeoQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fwhilbl%2F23267191394&psig=AOvVaw1dPDSTLKXbl-eY7zPVauYu&ust=1527297101222515 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&ua...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 8y agoThis is a design patent. Does that look like an iPhone home screen ?
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoI wrote they both appear to be an evolution of the visor's design. Which makes me wonder why something like the iPhone's home screen could be patented in the first place. Where's the novelty?
- rayiner 8y agoDesign patents don’t protect novel technology (and in fact, if there is a functional benefit to the design you can’t get a design patent). Design patents protect arbitrary design elements to keep people from copying the non-functional look of someone else’s product.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- stouset 8y agoThat is a component of the design patents Apple claims are being violated. They are much more specific than you appear to believe. If it were truly as simple to show prior art as you think it is, this case would have been thrown out a decade ago.
- philwelch 8y agoNonsense; I generally find that dismissive drive-by comments on Hacker News are better much thought through than actual court decisions made at the conclusion of a court trial. /s
- tooltalk 8y agoWell, I think average HN'er has much better judgement over average Joe jury in Apple's hometown on technical design and patent issues. The role (or problem) of non-technical jury in highly technical patent litigation is also often debated in academia too.
- saagarjha 8y ago> average Joe jury in Apple's hometown Keep in mind that most of the people in Apple's hometown are have graduate degrees and work in the technology industry…though, it's likely that they wouldn't be selected for the jury at this trial.
- tooltalk 8y agoI was surprised to find that only two of the first jury had any technical background at all. In that case however one such member helped to ignore the jury instruction and somewhat mislead the rest.
- tooltalk 8y agoActually Apple's design cases were thrown out everywhere, except Apple's hometown court. The only difference is that Apple's hometown judge Koh and magistrate judge Grewal didn't allow prior arts in the courts.