4 ms·

Agreed - if Samsung cloned this grey, bulbous plastic tablet along with its screen printed label, I don't think Apple would care at all. It's the fact that the

Agreed - if Samsung cloned this grey, bulbous plastic tablet along with its screen printed label, I don't think Apple would care at all. It's the fact that they're copying the exact combination of flat glass front, curved metal back, black plastic buttons, visible camera, etc. etc. that they think is a problem. There's no prior art for an industrial design like the iPhone 4 or the iPad, and other manufacturers than Samsung, e.g. Motorola, HTC & Nokia, seem to have no problem creating alternative designs. It's easy to mistake Samsung phones and tablets in public for their Apple equivalents, and that's what Apple thinks is wrong. Whether we think outright cloning of designs should be wrong or right is a separate question from judging whether or not that's what Samsung are doing.

bstar77 15y ago
I think you need to take into context the difference in 20 years here. Back then there was no concept of digital photography or gps or bluetooth, etc. As technology evolves, then many of those improvements naturally contribute to enhancements in other products. I believe that if a small, commercially viable camera existed at the time that video was made, it would have been featured. You can't say that the features/technology that we have taken for granted for the past 10 years are not natural upgrades all existing products in this category. In other words, I think the details you mentioned are trivial. The overall concept is pretty much the same, with some varying details.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  If I hadn't mentioned a camera it wouldn't have changed my point at all. What this tablet (and the non-clone tablets) actually show is that there is no need for Samsung to have copied Apple's trade dress of not using a bezel, having an all glass front, an aluminum back, black buttons etc. If, as you concede the details are trivial, then Samsung should be able to easily vary them and produce a tablet that doesn't look like a cloned iPad.
  - dpark 15y ago
    > not using a bezel The black (or white) border around the iPad screen is effectively a bezel. > having an all glass front The all-glass front is neither unique to Apple nor truly optional. Edge-to-edge touch capability requires that the glass extend far enough past the edge of the screen to allow touch gestures to work across the full screen. A "bump" going from the screen to the bezel makes it nearly impossible to effectively touch at the edges. If you extend the glass past the screen but then also introduce a "bump" to transition to plastic or some other material, you either make the device bulkier, make it uncomfortable to hold, or both. > an aluminum back Meh. This a functional element, because it dissipates heat better. But it is optional. However, it hardly constitutes a clone by itself. > black buttons The buttons on the tab are completely different, in that there are multiple and also in that they are just capacitive buttons. The color of the buttons in both Apple's and Samsung's designs are chosen to match the bezel. Note that Apple does not put a black button on the white iPad, because it would look stupid. Even the original Kindle had color-matched buttons (ugly as it was).
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      Do you believe that design patents in general should never hold?
      - dpark 15y ago
        I think in general design patents are somewhat redundant with copyright and trademark law. They might be reasonable in some cases, but not this one. I don't think that a design patent (or copyright or trademark) covering essential functionality is acceptable. Have you ever looked at the actual design patent that Apple filed? http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... It looks about as much like an iPad as it does the Knight Ridder concept, or the tablet from 2001: A Space Odyssey, because Apple's patent is generic. The patent covers the very concept of a tablet (for which there is plenty of prior art), and none of the "trade dress" you mentioned except the edge-to-edge glass, which was not an idea unique to Apple. The patent that Apple has been citing in support of its claims does not even cover the features they claim to have patented, and I frankly don't understand why the courts haven't recognized that and told them that they have, at best, a copyright claim and not a patent claim.

bstar77 15y ago

I think you need to take into context the difference in 20 years here. Back then there was no concept of digital photography or gps or bluetooth, etc. As technology evolves, then many of those improvements naturally contribute to enhancements in other products. I believe that if a small, commercially viable camera existed at the time that video was made, it would have been featured. You can't say that the features/technology that we have taken for granted for the past 10 years are not natural upgrades all existing products in this category. In other words, I think the details you mentioned are trivial. The overall concept is pretty much the same, with some varying details.

rbarooah 15y ago
If I hadn't mentioned a camera it wouldn't have changed my point at all. What this tablet (and the non-clone tablets) actually show is that there is no need for Samsung to have copied Apple's trade dress of not using a bezel, having an all glass front, an aluminum back, black buttons etc. If, as you concede the details are trivial, then Samsung should be able to easily vary them and produce a tablet that doesn't look like a cloned iPad.
- dpark 15y ago
  > not using a bezel The black (or white) border around the iPad screen is effectively a bezel. > having an all glass front The all-glass front is neither unique to Apple nor truly optional. Edge-to-edge touch capability requires that the glass extend far enough past the edge of the screen to allow touch gestures to work across the full screen. A "bump" going from the screen to the bezel makes it nearly impossible to effectively touch at the edges. If you extend the glass past the screen but then also introduce a "bump" to transition to plastic or some other material, you either make the device bulkier, make it uncomfortable to hold, or both. > an aluminum back Meh. This a functional element, because it dissipates heat better. But it is optional. However, it hardly constitutes a clone by itself. > black buttons The buttons on the tab are completely different, in that there are multiple and also in that they are just capacitive buttons. The color of the buttons in both Apple's and Samsung's designs are chosen to match the bezel. Note that Apple does not put a black button on the white iPad, because it would look stupid. Even the original Kindle had color-matched buttons (ugly as it was).
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    Do you believe that design patents in general should never hold?
    - dpark 15y ago
      I think in general design patents are somewhat redundant with copyright and trademark law. They might be reasonable in some cases, but not this one. I don't think that a design patent (or copyright or trademark) covering essential functionality is acceptable. Have you ever looked at the actual design patent that Apple filed? http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... It looks about as much like an iPad as it does the Knight Ridder concept, or the tablet from 2001: A Space Odyssey, because Apple's patent is generic. The patent covers the very concept of a tablet (for which there is plenty of prior art), and none of the "trade dress" you mentioned except the edge-to-edge glass, which was not an idea unique to Apple. The patent that Apple has been citing in support of its claims does not even cover the features they claim to have patented, and I frankly don't understand why the courts haven't recognized that and told them that they have, at best, a copyright claim and not a patent claim.