5 ms·

It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.

by asdfologist 8y ago

ShabbosGoy 8y ago
I mean sure, you could have a world where everything was free and unpatentable.
- asdfologist 8y ago
  Textbook strawman.
  - ShabbosGoy 8y ago
    In what way? Do you accept the premise that certain precise design elements, organized in a precise manner, are patentable?
    - Covzire 8y ago
      Based on this precedent, we should have seen a lot of half-billion dollar lawsuits over the design of automobiles in the last 30 years.
rayiner 8y ago
It's not just "rounded corners." The patent addresses a very specific design, with rounded corners, a border, etc. It is basically only infringed if you try to make your product look like an iPhone, in order to free-ride on the iPhone brand, which is exactly what Samsung did.
- trimbo 8y ago
  I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Anyway, shouldn't this be copyright law and not patent law?
  - denzil_correa 8y ago
    > I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Did reasonable amount of people confuse a Braun Pocket radio with the Apple iPod?
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?
      - madeofpalk 8y ago
        Well, the courts believed so.
        dba7dba 8y ago
        No not courts. Apple did not win in other non American courts. Not in Germany. Not in Japan. Not in Australia. Only in a courtroom in Silicon Valley. And with a jury headed by a jury foreman with very questionable opinions and patents himself. He had to be told to shut up after the verdict because he was going around interviewing saying things that tainted the verdict not so greatly.
        tooltalk 8y ago
        and let's not forget Obama who reversed Samsung's win in ITC.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Yes. To fit the standard at issue here, that happened every time somebody bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing. Most people who buy phones are not as engaged with the market as HN commenters are. The argument at play here seems to be: you can make something that looks like a Braun device if Braun doesn't already have a design-patented device that does the same thing. And you can make a device that does exactly the same thing as a Braun device as long as you don't try to make your device look confusingly similar to Braun's device. What you can't do is make a direct substitute for a design-patented Braun device, and then go out of your way to clone the design so that people have a hard time telling the difference between the two. Another simple way to look at this (it's incomplete, but might settle the issue for you) is that a lot of people pick their phone based on how it looks.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Exactly this. I see lots of other comments bringing up "Hey, rounded corners are obvious" or "A grid of icons is obvious", and then bringing up phones like the Sony Ericsson P800 to show how grid of icons already existed. This is what I call "losing the forest for the trees", and for some reason I think is extremely common among engineering folks. It's not just rounded corners, or a grid of icons, but rounded corners and a grid of icons that looked and felt extremely similar to the iPhone. I think it's still a very valid debate to say whether or not these kinds of things should be patentable, but lets not pretend that Samsung just happened along to a similar design. They were clearly copying the overall gestalt of the iPhone.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    I've never heard an engineer claim that, well, anything from Samsung was novel or original. Nobody is making that argument. We're trying to have that very valid debate you're referring to right now. This stuff should not be patentable, not even in aggregate. Full stop.
    - bluthru 8y ago
      Should Hyundai be able to ship cars with the same body as a BMW?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- brandonjm 8y ago
  Not to mention that Apple's rounded corners are not just a quarter of a circle stuck on the corner of a rectangle. Their corners are actually a specific design for their icons and their devices. [1] It's worth noting that they actually didn't at the time of writing have a patent on their specific corner design. I haven't read it yet but it would be interesting if corner shape this is mentioned as part of this patent. [1] https://hackernoon.com/apples-icons-have-that-shape-for-a-very-good-reason-720d4e7c8a14 https://hackernoon.com/apples-icons-have-that-shape-for-a-ve...
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Then why is it a design patent violation to have circles on a square?
loa-in-backup 8y ago
It's the rounded corners with a rounded rectangle button in the middle under rectangle screen layout.

It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.

ShabbosGoy 8y ago

I mean sure, you could have a world where everything was free and unpatentable.

asdfologist 8y ago
Textbook strawman.
- ShabbosGoy 8y ago
  In what way? Do you accept the premise that certain precise design elements, organized in a precise manner, are patentable?
  - Covzire 8y ago
    Based on this precedent, we should have seen a lot of half-billion dollar lawsuits over the design of automobiles in the last 30 years.

rayiner 8y ago

It's not just "rounded corners." The patent addresses a very specific design, with rounded corners, a border, etc. It is basically only infringed if you try to make your product look like an iPhone, in order to free-ride on the iPhone brand, which is exactly what Samsung did.

trimbo 8y ago
I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Anyway, shouldn't this be copyright law and not patent law?
- denzil_correa 8y ago
  > I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Did reasonable amount of people confuse a Braun Pocket radio with the Apple iPod?
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?
    - madeofpalk 8y ago
      Well, the courts believed so.
      - dba7dba 8y ago
        No not courts. Apple did not win in other non American courts. Not in Germany. Not in Japan. Not in Australia. Only in a courtroom in Silicon Valley. And with a jury headed by a jury foreman with very questionable opinions and patents himself. He had to be told to shut up after the verdict because he was going around interviewing saying things that tainted the verdict not so greatly.
      - tooltalk 8y ago
        and let's not forget Obama who reversed Samsung's win in ITC.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Yes. To fit the standard at issue here, that happened every time somebody bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing. Most people who buy phones are not as engaged with the market as HN commenters are. The argument at play here seems to be: you can make something that looks like a Braun device if Braun doesn't already have a design-patented device that does the same thing. And you can make a device that does exactly the same thing as a Braun device as long as you don't try to make your device look confusingly similar to Braun's device. What you can't do is make a direct substitute for a design-patented Braun device, and then go out of your way to clone the design so that people have a hard time telling the difference between the two. Another simple way to look at this (it's incomplete, but might settle the issue for you) is that a lot of people pick their phone based on how it looks.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Exactly this. I see lots of other comments bringing up "Hey, rounded corners are obvious" or "A grid of icons is obvious", and then bringing up phones like the Sony Ericsson P800 to show how grid of icons already existed. This is what I call "losing the forest for the trees", and for some reason I think is extremely common among engineering folks. It's not just rounded corners, or a grid of icons, but rounded corners and a grid of icons that looked and felt extremely similar to the iPhone. I think it's still a very valid debate to say whether or not these kinds of things should be patentable, but lets not pretend that Samsung just happened along to a similar design. They were clearly copying the overall gestalt of the iPhone.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  I've never heard an engineer claim that, well, anything from Samsung was novel or original. Nobody is making that argument. We're trying to have that very valid debate you're referring to right now. This stuff should not be patentable, not even in aggregate. Full stop.
  - bluthru 8y ago
    Should Hyundai be able to ship cars with the same body as a BMW?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
brandonjm 8y ago
Not to mention that Apple's rounded corners are not just a quarter of a circle stuck on the corner of a rectangle. Their corners are actually a specific design for their icons and their devices. [1] It's worth noting that they actually didn't at the time of writing have a patent on their specific corner design. I haven't read it yet but it would be interesting if corner shape this is mentioned as part of this patent. [1] https://hackernoon.com/apples-icons-have-that-shape-for-a-very-good-reason-720d4e7c8a14 https://hackernoon.com/apples-icons-have-that-shape-for-a-ve...
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Then why is it a design patent violation to have circles on a square?

loa-in-backup 8y ago

It's the rounded corners with a rounded rectangle button in the middle under rectangle screen layout.