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.
A retangle with rounded corners is a design!! Give me a break! If you look at all the latest samsung or anyone's LCD/LED TVs, they are a rectangle with rounded corners. IS this natural shape. Why would you have sharp corners in rectangle consumer products!!!
@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.
For prior art, watch 2001: A Space Odyssey and see a flat rectangular device in action. Or Star Trek TNG. Anyone remember the menu wars for spreadsheets or computer desktops? How about Bally/Midway's argument that any game character that consumed (erased after passing over) dots was a PAC-MAN ripoff? I think they would have tried for turning on and off as patent-able idea, if they could have gotten away with it.
If you can't innovate, litigate. I can't remember when portable phones were not rectangular. Maybe a bit fatter, but battery technology improved as well as display technology. The patent system is broken; choose an area and then look at Google Patents or Free Patents Online. Try contact wetting - well known, but patents still being awarded in the face of massive prior art. How about Amazon's one-click! This will be an interesting case like the Oracle Google Java circus before it.
The Palm Pilot came out in 1996ish. It had rounded corners. It had a touch screen. It didn't have a keyboard. And today's iPhone software looks, acts, and behaves like that original software. That's 16 years ago...GMAB.
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So nice to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for starting this up. this website is something that is needed on the web, someone with a little originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet!
cool ipad cases wholesale online http://www.binnbox.com/
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.