6 ms·

The community design is an "and", not an "or". The Galaxy Tab model which had issues with this in Germany, if you look at it, has all, not just one, of those ch

by Xuzz 14y ago

The community design is an "and", not an "or". The Galaxy Tab model which had issues with this in Germany, if you look at it, has all, not just one, of those characteristics. The "Apple thinks it owns the rectangle" meme is nice, but untrue. Nilay Patel, in the Verge article linked by Android Community: Now, some of these are a little ridiculous when taken individually — is Apple going to sue every digital photo frame maker that puts equal size black borders around the screen as well? — but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. (Edit: is this wrong? If not, why downvote?)

eddington 14y ago
You're correct, but the article makes exactly the same point as you. There's no reason to correct it.
stephengillie 14y ago
but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. How can consumers be confused about what they're buying? Even if their software appears similar, one device has a large Apple logo on the back and is sold almost entirely through a different retail chain.
- oskarth 14y ago
  You'd be surprised what consumers can mistake a product for. In many people's eyes, iPhone == smartphone. It'd be a relatively simple mistake to make if you are a elderly non-techie.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    Then they should read what's written on the box because its pretty damn clear. I mean going by that kind of thinking, one can mistake vodka and water. In fact its probably a LOT easier to mistake vodka and water than an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S2. Vodka, water, same color. iPhone, Galaxy S.. not even the same color. Just a vaguely similar shape. Heh.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      That's the whole point! The S and the SII weren't 'vaguely similar' to the iPhone, they were almost identical.
      - zobzu 14y ago
        That's very much incorrect. The SII doesn't remotely look than an iPhone 4, except both are squared... different COLOR, different SIZE, different BUTTONS...
        sbuk 14y ago
        Both are offered in black and white. Although the SII was bigger the aesthetic is practically identical. You can say that you disagree, but to suggest my statement is very much incorrect is off the mark.
  - CookWithMe 14y ago
    So, if they ended up buying an android phone, does that really count as a mistake? After all, they didnt really want an iPhone, they wanted a smartphone, and that is what they got.
- taligent 14y ago
  Because when you are a retail store you are only looking at the front of a device not the back. In some stores they actually have the tablets fixed to the table. Also outside of the US (and pretty sure in the US as well) the same retail chains will sell all types of tablets including iPads.
- macrael 14y ago
  For what it's worth, the "different retail chain" isn't as different as you might think. Apple only sells 15% of all iPhones in the US directly. Most of them are bought through cell providers and Best Buy. http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as-many-iphones-as-apple-itself/ http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as...
Tobu 14y ago
Protecting customers from misrepresentation – unknowingly being sold something that does not match the logo stamped on it: fine; protecting a megacorp from its competitors selling something with similar design, but a different brand name: customers lose.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  That's a reasonable opinion, but it's not how that type of intellectual property works. Again, Nilay Patel (a lawyer, fwiw) at The Verge: Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."
  - Tobu 14y ago
    This kind of legal weapon is just emerging, and it's a product of circumstance — patent offices have rubberstamped hundreds of Apple's bevelled rectangles, and Apple recently found a court that would act on it and delay sales. It's a bit early to say lawyers have it all figured out, and that we should shut up and listen to them. Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
    - Retric 14y ago
      If by 'new' you mean 1946 then sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
      - Tobu 14y ago
        That's trademarks, which so far have been more faithful to their stated goal of preventing consumer confusion, rather than creating new kinds of private property. For example, I don't need Apple's permission to use the trademarked word Apple, as long as I'm referring to the firm, or as long as I'm not using it in the context of electronics or music.
greggman 14y ago
because the JooJoo was announced BEFORE THE iPad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo That combination of features is not unique.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  Many of the features listed apply, but certainly not all of them. Again, it is an "and" relationship: Apple claims ownership on all of those features combined. Here's a JooJoo's home screen: http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen.jpg http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen... The JooJoo does not include three of these items: the "square icons" on the home screen, the dock of, again, "square icons", and the "metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface". Thus, this doesn't apply (at all) to the JooJoo. On the other hand, the original Galaxy S phone did seem to apply to each one on the list: http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... — metallic border, check; rounded square icons, check; dock of round squares, check; rounded rectangle shape, check; equal sides of black borders, check; dominated by screen, check.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - sasidharm 14y ago
    Anyone who truly believes Samsung wasn't just ripping off Apple's product (hardware/software) need only look at the Phone App's icon here http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... (Link from the parent).
wavephorm 14y ago
The average human being is a complete imbecile. When they see any rectangular device that can make sounds and records sounds, they truly believe it is an iPhone. They're all like "whoa is that the new Iphone?". Really, regular people are complete idiots.
- diminish 14y ago
  Calling people imbecile is not much correct when it comes to behavior towards branded objects, remember your early teenage times. In this case people mostly care for a brand, and I believe, the logo is what matters the most, not resemblance. Mobile devices are closer to the realm of fashion mainly because when you are outside, when you hold it, and when you put it on a table you want people to see the logo. Au contraire, desktops are usually at home or workplace or even hidden beneath your table, and they are less of a fashion object. A good example for mobile devices would be the jeans, bags, sun glasses etc. Where resemblance to fashionable brand matters however the logo or tag matters the most. All that said, I am fine with my Rasberry PI and Linux.
- philf 14y ago
  Calling them imbecile is a bit drastic but I've also seen ordinary people call any kind of smartphone an iPhone because they have no clue about this stuff. Same for MP3 players, which they call iPods. May be like calling any kind of vacuum cleaner a hoover.
- epo 14y ago
  Unlike you, who is prone to hysterical generalisations. Perhaps you ought to step outside and meet some other human beings rather than just looking at them on computer screens.
jessriedel 14y ago
>in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. I don't believe design patents hinge on whether the consumer would be confused; that's for trademarks. Design patents are for protecting the aesthetic idea, just like regular patents are for protecting a technological idea.
- ghancock 14y ago
  The article talks about both trade dress and design patents. That said a court's decision about design patents can involve whether a consumer would be confused. There's a short article that talks about the legal rules for design patent infringement at http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pdf http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pd....
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    Very interesting. What's the legal theory behind this? Shouldn't trademark infringement protect against consumer confusion?

by Xuzz 14y ago

eddington 14y ago

You're correct, but the article makes exactly the same point as you. There's no reason to correct it.

stephengillie 14y ago

but in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. How can consumers be confused about what they're buying? Even if their software appears similar, one device has a large Apple logo on the back and is sold almost entirely through a different retail chain.

oskarth 14y ago
You'd be surprised what consumers can mistake a product for. In many people's eyes, iPhone == smartphone. It'd be a relatively simple mistake to make if you are a elderly non-techie.
- zobzu 14y ago
  Then they should read what's written on the box because its pretty damn clear. I mean going by that kind of thinking, one can mistake vodka and water. In fact its probably a LOT easier to mistake vodka and water than an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S2. Vodka, water, same color. iPhone, Galaxy S.. not even the same color. Just a vaguely similar shape. Heh.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    That's the whole point! The S and the SII weren't 'vaguely similar' to the iPhone, they were almost identical.
    - zobzu 14y ago
      That's very much incorrect. The SII doesn't remotely look than an iPhone 4, except both are squared... different COLOR, different SIZE, different BUTTONS...
      - sbuk 14y ago
        Both are offered in black and white. Although the SII was bigger the aesthetic is practically identical. You can say that you disagree, but to suggest my statement is very much incorrect is off the mark.
- CookWithMe 14y ago
  So, if they ended up buying an android phone, does that really count as a mistake? After all, they didnt really want an iPhone, they wanted a smartphone, and that is what they got.
taligent 14y ago
Because when you are a retail store you are only looking at the front of a device not the back. In some stores they actually have the tablets fixed to the table. Also outside of the US (and pretty sure in the US as well) the same retail chains will sell all types of tablets including iPads.
macrael 14y ago
For what it's worth, the "different retail chain" isn't as different as you might think. Apple only sells 15% of all iPhones in the US directly. Most of them are bought through cell providers and Best Buy. http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as-many-iphones-as-apple-itself/ http://allthingsd.com/20120323/best-buy-is-selling-nearly-as...

Tobu 14y ago

Protecting customers from misrepresentation – unknowingly being sold something that does not match the logo stamped on it: fine; protecting a megacorp from its competitors selling something with similar design, but a different brand name: customers lose.

Xuzz 14y ago
That's a reasonable opinion, but it's not how that type of intellectual property works. Again, Nilay Patel (a lawyer, fwiw) at The Verge: Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."
- Tobu 14y ago
  This kind of legal weapon is just emerging, and it's a product of circumstance — patent offices have rubberstamped hundreds of Apple's bevelled rectangles, and Apple recently found a court that would act on it and delay sales. It's a bit early to say lawyers have it all figured out, and that we should shut up and listen to them. Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
  - Retric 14y ago
    If by 'new' you mean 1946 then sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
    - Tobu 14y ago
      That's trademarks, which so far have been more faithful to their stated goal of preventing consumer confusion, rather than creating new kinds of private property. For example, I don't need Apple's permission to use the trademarked word Apple, as long as I'm referring to the firm, or as long as I'm not using it in the context of electronics or music.

greggman 14y ago

because the JooJoo was announced BEFORE THE iPad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo That combination of features is not unique.

Xuzz 14y ago
Many of the features listed apply, but certainly not all of them. Again, it is an "and" relationship: Apple claims ownership on all of those features combined. Here's a JooJoo's home screen: http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen.jpg http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/224043-joojoo-home-screen... The JooJoo does not include three of these items: the "square icons" on the home screen, the dock of, again, "square icons", and the "metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface". Thus, this doesn't apply (at all) to the JooJoo. On the other hand, the original Galaxy S phone did seem to apply to each one on the list: http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... — metallic border, check; rounded square icons, check; dock of round squares, check; rounded rectangle shape, check; equal sides of black borders, check; dominated by screen, check.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sasidharm 14y ago
  Anyone who truly believes Samsung wasn't just ripping off Apple's product (hardware/software) need only look at the Phone App's icon here http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/844649/2011-04-19ap... (Link from the parent).

wavephorm 14y ago

The average human being is a complete imbecile. When they see any rectangular device that can make sounds and records sounds, they truly believe it is an iPhone. They're all like "whoa is that the new Iphone?". Really, regular people are complete idiots.

diminish 14y ago
Calling people imbecile is not much correct when it comes to behavior towards branded objects, remember your early teenage times. In this case people mostly care for a brand, and I believe, the logo is what matters the most, not resemblance. Mobile devices are closer to the realm of fashion mainly because when you are outside, when you hold it, and when you put it on a table you want people to see the logo. Au contraire, desktops are usually at home or workplace or even hidden beneath your table, and they are less of a fashion object. A good example for mobile devices would be the jeans, bags, sun glasses etc. Where resemblance to fashionable brand matters however the logo or tag matters the most. All that said, I am fine with my Rasberry PI and Linux.
philf 14y ago
Calling them imbecile is a bit drastic but I've also seen ordinary people call any kind of smartphone an iPhone because they have no clue about this stuff. Same for MP3 players, which they call iPods. May be like calling any kind of vacuum cleaner a hoover.
epo 14y ago
Unlike you, who is prone to hysterical generalisations. Perhaps you ought to step outside and meet some other human beings rather than just looking at them on computer screens.

jessriedel 14y ago

>in the end, the main question for the court will be whether or not Samsung has used all of these elements in a way that's likely to confuse consumers about what they're buying. I don't believe design patents hinge on whether the consumer would be confused; that's for trademarks. Design patents are for protecting the aesthetic idea, just like regular patents are for protecting a technological idea.

ghancock 14y ago
The article talks about both trade dress and design patents. That said a court's decision about design patents can involve whether a consumer would be confused. There's a short article that talks about the legal rules for design patent infringement at http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pdf http://www.designpatentschool.com/assets/Oake_SEPT11%20V2.pd....
- jessriedel 14y ago
  Very interesting. What's the legal theory behind this? Shouldn't trademark infringement protect against consumer confusion?