EC investigating Samsung over FRAND patents

[Brian Stirling]

You really don't get it, do you?

Simple test. If we remove the touch screen from a smartphone it loses its input source and therefore its functionality, so it logically follows that a phone's touch screen is a functional component of the device. If the phone doesn't have the same rounded corners as the iPhone it still works the same, therefore that part of the design is ornamental.

You also keep trying to reduce the argument to being about rounded corners. It's not. It's about rounded corners, device color, icon design, and a handful of other ornamental design similarities between the iPhone and some competing devices. Focusing on any single design aspect is missing the forest for the trees.

Wrong, wrong, wrong -- the rounded corners are NOT purely ornamental and the fact, the FACT, that virtually every portable device ever made has rounded corners will attest! How is it so hard to actually imagine a rectangular slab without rounded corners and see how such a design would be unsafe. I don't think you're even trying anymore!

Did Apple invent the device color black? Were they the first ones to employ it in a cell phone?

Were icons only invented when Apple released the iPhone? Seems to me they have been around a long while.

Now I do think Sammy chose to reflect too much of the Apple look and I have said this repeatedly before. What I contend is that Apple is looking to prevent ANYONE from playing in there sandbox and that is flat wrong! Apple has gone after a number of players, big and small, and they appear inclined to continue to quash competition with lawyers instead of products! They lost a case against a small Spanish tablet company but the fact that they went after them in the first place is the salient point. How many companies have decided to quit because they fear the legal team of Apple with $60B at there disposal.

Sammy is not Apples ultimate goal -- they want to kill Android. Apple wants ownership of the whole game. Let me ask you, would we the customer be better off if Apple had there way and all competition was killed off? I want a larger phone than Apple feels I should be permitted to have. I traded in my iP3G for an HTC EVO 4G not because of the iOS/Android thing but because the EVO had a 4.3 inch screen and Apple has not budged from 3.6 inch. I now have an iP4 (my Evo was stolen) but am looking to pickup the Galaxy Note when that becomes available. Will Apple ever produce a phone with the Note capabilities?


Brian

 

[Mopetar]

Wrong, wrong, wrong -- the rounded corners are NOT purely ornamental and the fact, the FACT, that virtually every portable device ever made has rounded corners will attest!

No one has said you can't use some kind of rounded corners. Just don't use the same design as Apple, especially if the rest of your phone is going to end up looking like the iPhone. That there can be hundreds, if not more, different corner designs on phones proves that they're pretty damned ornamental.

Did Apple invent the device color black? Were they the first ones to employ it in a cell phone?

Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Were icons only invented when Apple released the iPhone? Seems to me they have been around a long while.

You're still missing the point. Icons have been used for decades, but that's not the point. No one is getting sued because they use icons. It's just that Apple feels Samsung's icons, along with a lot of other ornamental design aspects of the phone are too similar to the iPhone.

. . . What I contend is that Apple is looking to prevent ANYONE from playing in there sandbox and that is flat wrong! . . . they want to kill Android. Apple wants ownership of the whole game.

Doubtful. There're a lot of people that Apple hasn't gone after. All they've maintained is that their competitors should do their own thing and not use Apple's intellectual property. Samsung and other manufacturers have already started working around Apple's patents. There's nothing fundamental that Apple has that could completely remove Android from the market. Eventually the manufacturers will have removed anything Apple has covered by patents that stand up in court. At that point the whole legal mess goes away.

Design patents are different, though. As long as competitors don't design anything that looks almost exactly like an iPhone or any of their other products, they'll be fine. The case that was thrown out in Spain illustrates this quite clearly.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Well Mopetar I have to say that was a much better reply than previous attempts, progress is good...

Apple has not gone after everyone ... yet -- they have picked battles against little guys they figure will give up without a fight and against companies like Sammy that are there biggest threat. In the beginning of September, at the German electronics show IFA 2011, Apple was able to have the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 removed for sale in Germany even though the 7.7 is nothing like the iPad, or, for that matter, the Sammy 10.1 tablet.

Apple has gone after other tablet makers like the Spanish one, NT-K even though it bears little resemblance to the iPad either in shape or detail. Apple strategy is not merely to protect its IP but to crush any competition -- period!

Again, I have said before that Sammy chose to reflect too much of Apples look in some of there previous products and if Apple had limited its attack on the specific items that were reasonable and not a broad front attack on anyone that dared compete with them they would have a leg to stand on. But, they have been so egregious in there legal attacks that I have little desire to ever buy another product they make. That and the fact that Apple seems to dismiss as unneeded anything larger than there perfect iPhone.

The point of my previous post was to point out that Apple was attempting to blur the line between "functional" and "ornamental" so as to define in fact all competition as a copy of there designs. We've gone round and round on the rounded corners and I won't waste much more time here except to say that it is part of there blurring the line between functional and ornamental that leads them, and many here, to claim that only they can use rounded corners in spite of the fact that all portable devices have rounded corners. Yes, there are some devices with smaller radius and some with larger radius and some with pretty much the same radius -- and that was true BEFORE the iPhone ever existed!


Brian

 

[Phynaz]

So, umm, can we get back on the topic that the EC doesn't like Samsung playing hardball with cellular patents?

 

[Munky]

So basically Samsung can't sue Apple over "patents that are contributed to industry standards", but Apple can sue Samsung over crap like "black rectangular device with touchscreen icons." That makes so much sense, I almost forgot to laugh.

 

[Mopetar]

Apple has gone after other tablet makers like the Spanish one, NT-K even though it bears little resemblance to the iPad either in shape or detail.

A case which was tossed out of court fairly quickly. Although this was an interesting case because it was in criminal court for who knows what reason, so there may still be a civil case.

. . . if Apple had limited its attack on the specific items that were reasonable and not a broad front attack on anyone that dared compete with them they would have a leg to stand on.

The problem is that you're mixing issues. They've gone after pretty much everyone with their iOS software patents. In terms of their design patents they've really only gone after Samsung in terms of phones, but have been more broad with tablets. In terms of phones, Samsung is a pretty obvious offender from a design patent perspective. The lack of additional suits against other companies makes me question whether Apple thinks other phones are also a rip-off or if they're just waiting to proceed with future suits against other companies. Both are plausible, but the second choice requires additional assumptions.

So, umm, can we get back on the topic that the EC doesn't like Samsung playing hardball with cellular patents?

We'd all like to, but in the absence of any actual news related to this particular topic, there's not a lot to of material with which we can stay on topic. :\

We know that an investigation has been started, but don't know how long it will take or have much information about the progress of it. We also know that one court has already tossed out Samsung's case against Apple for these patents for the reason that they're subject from FRAND terms. I believe several other cases related to these patents are still in progress, but until future rulings come, there's not much to say.

At best, the arguments can at least be on-topic, but I don't think they'll be of higher quality than any other patent-related arguments. On another note the ones in this thread have been pretty similar and things haven't devolved to mud-slinging about fanboism, so look on the bright side. :biggrin:

 

[Munky]

A case which was tossed out of court fairly quickly. Although this was an interesting case because it was in criminal court for who knows what reason, so there may still be a civil case.

Why are you so persistent in deflecting the subject that Apple sued and filed criminal charges in the first place? The fact that it got dismissed only goes to show how ridiculous the charges were, and it's not shifting the blame away from Apple by any means.

 

[Mopetar]

Why are you so persistent in deflecting the subject that Apple sued and filed criminal charges in the first place? The fact that it got dismissed only goes to show how ridiculous the charges were, and it's not shifting the blame away from Apple by any means.

Because it was ridiculous and it got tossed out. The fact that other cases aren't getting tossed out like that suggests that they're a lot less ridiculous and that courts won't put up with absolutely ridiculous (at least in my opinion) law suits.

Also, as I said before, that case was interesting/strange. As far as I know, it's the only case where criminal charges were filed, which makes me wonder why. It also leaves some questions unanswered, foremost was the case tossed because it was ridiculous to think that the alleged infringing device looked anything like an iPad, or was it tossed because it was ridiculous to treat it as a criminal case?