5 ms·
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 fo
by 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 agoDo you believe that design patents in general should never hold?
- dpark 15y agoI 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.
- rbarooah 15y agoIf that is indeed all they are trying to apply, then I agree with you. I was under the impression that they were also going after details of the trade dress which I think it is obvious that Samsung is copying in various products.
- dpark 15y agoIt's my understanding that the patent is what Apple's been arguing. I've been getting most of my info about these suits via various news outlets, though, so I might be misinformed.
- rbarooah 15y agoYou also seem to be implying that nothing that actually results in an improvement should be patentable.