3 ms·
This particular argument strikes me as coming from people who don't actually understand that Rounded Corners(TM)(R)(C) fall in the same category.
by dirkgently 13y ago
This particular argument strikes me as coming from people who don't actually understand that Rounded Corners(TM)(R)(C) fall in the same category.
- 542458 13y agoI'm really sorry to drag this up again, but the "rounded corners" thing isn't really as ridiculous as some people made it sound. There are two important points here. First - Samsung was found not to infringe on design patent D'889, which is commonly criticized as the "rounded rectangles" patent. Most of the patents in the case covered other ideas ('381 patent - "rubber band" scrolling, 'D '305 patent - home screen design, '163 patent - double tap to zoom onto a specific block). The "rounded rectangles" issue had little bearing on the verdict. Second - Read patent D'889 (Please note that it isn't a regular patent, rather, it's a design patent). The patent specifically (and only) covers a touch-screen handheld tablet shaped like a rounded rectangle, with a thin bezel, edge-to-edge glass, and minimal extras, a charging port at the bottom and no stylus. It's hardly as simple as a patent on "rounded corners" - it's a patent on very specific design features, and if a single one was changed, the patent wouldn't apply (and it didn't!).