I have no doubt that there is plenty of more evidence to be presented. But it doesn't surprise me that Samsung (or anyone else) would conduct a detailed analysis of the iPhone's features etc. in the course of creating a product to compete with it. Sounds like a standard practice.
C'mon guys... Apple won a patent for a, please hear this: "A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data"... it is the troll jargon for a web search. How on earth they granted that?
Patents are supposed to protect the development, not kill it.
And then... copy what: the aspect ratio? or the touch screen? or a higher screen definition? or the BOM? So, I would not be able to use an ARM?
This is getting ridiculous...
Its not patent on a rectangle. Its a "DESIGN" patent of a tablet device. Its a valid form of patent which is used to protect ornamental designs, Aesthetic appearances of devices etc. Samsung is just downplaying the value by calling it a rectangle patent, even when they cant even come up with their own design. And again, as all patents, design patents can be invalidated if there is a prior art. If its just rectangle, why cant samsung bring a prior art and invalidate the patent?? A typical eg of a design patent is a coke bottle. You cant go and copy a coke bottle and fill it with xyz cola and say this is just a cylinder to the jury.
@eewiz I think the big fat button on the iPad and iPhone invalidate your argument, so clearly they did not copy the front. Same goes for sides and back. Design covers the whole device (positions, connections, keys), not just the bit you choose to look at. A patent is granted if it has a clear novel element to it, something a lay person could not dream up. I just don't see it in the design of Apple's products. Sure there is a ton of novelty in their manufacturing and how it is all held together, but then Samsung went entirely their own way by making the back cover removable (hint: useful). How can you call that a copy?
Samsung may have designed and manufactured the Retina display to specifications given by Apple. If that's the case, then Apple isn't copying anything by using it. The processor is manufactured by Samsung to Apple's specifications. Again, that's not copying by Apple. Those are normal customer / supplier arrangements.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.