I usually buy Rockport loafers, you know, those ox blood colored shoes that are sometimes called "penny loafers." I have to admit, I do get them confused with Florsheim, Hannover, or other brands. Oh my. What is one to do.
I use a Samsung phone and it's easy to tell the difference between it and an iPhone. The Samsung is all black on the sides, while the iPhone has an aluminum side. Black and aluminum look very different.
Does Susan Kare also get confused on which car she is driving?
My Acura RL is a copy of the higher-priced Mercedes sedan, but we don't see these two auto makers in court about the shape of their cars.
Our patent system is broken when a rectangle shape phone with rounded corners can be patented.
The "expert witnesses" for Apple are being paid by Apple, thus they will say whatever Apple tells them to say. Integrity can be bought. I have to believe that Steve Jobs would never have allowed this farce of a lawsuit.
I agree, but I'm not so sure that Jobs wouldn't have approved it. It would be part of his 'thermonuclear' assault on Android.
Just out of interest - when does a person ever have to choose a handset from a conference table packed with handsets? This does have to be a joke, right?
This lady is a "graphics" expert. She doesn't know $hit from Apple Butter about the phones, but was allowed to say something about which phone she mistakenly picked up because she was allowed. If this case hinges on icons, it will be one of the largest travesties ever perpetrated !
Say they stole your OS design, say they stole some functionality in a significant app, Apple say SOMETHING that matters, but please say something that matters !
Just another reason for me to never purchase an Apple product or support anyone who I know that has an Apple when they have technical questions. My response is, I don't own Apple products.
no one designs in a vacuum - indeed, it would be incompetent design to not examine the context, and to learn from competitors. after all, that is the purpose of patents and copyrights: disclosure enables progress.
I believe that Steve Jobs would have allowed for and pushed for this lawsuit if he believed that it could make Apple some money on the IP that they've beens spending money on. BTW, making a statement that she accidently picked up a Samsung phone suggests that she doesn't have much substance. I think my "relatively" non-technical wife would be able to tell the difference. She's an "expert?"
So let me get this straight. Apple hires an expert to testify that iPhone and Samsung phones are similar. So what is she supposed to say? "Apple is paying me $400 per hour and I think Samsung's phones are different than Apple's"??? Also this woman has been working for Apple. If she ever wanting to work again with them, would she testify against them?? Come on people!!
Yes, I did that too. so easy to get confused with those modern things.I picked up a Honda Civic Coupe instead of my Ferrari, both of them was red, has 4 wheels, two doors, a stearing wheel, two seats.....
uh, I think apple deserve some credit anyway.
It's not sueing MS Win7/8 this round since Win7/8 is much more different than OS.
android camp did play lazy and cheap by imitating apple.
apple this poor man need some compensation.
apple is pursuing a scorched-earth policy to preserve its 60% profit margins. the legal framework for IP protection is *not* about "fairness", or even "deserved profits". it's all about granting monopolies to prevent exact copies, no more, no less.
In the automotive industry it's very easy to confuse one car with another as the manufacturers follow each other no more than a year apart. In fact when you sit in any current car, you'll notice that most everything even the switches for the power seats look and feel identical whether the car is from the U.S. Europe or Asia. This is the year of the mass introduction of direct injection and small turbo chargers on vehicle's premium engines. Can you name a manufacturer that doesn't have one?
The same goes for the fashion industry. Most everyone looks the same.
How are cellphones any different? They're mainly a fashion statement.
Car manufacturers are only really assemblers. They do exterior and interior design. The components they use are like the components inside the iPhone / Samsung. ie Not designed by Mercedes or Honda but by Continental or Delphi. If Apple tried to sue on the basis that a DC/DC converter was the same they would lose. If a car manufacturer blantantly copied a Ferrari they would be sued. And rightly (unless the manufacturer was in China) they would win their case. So what's the difference here? Samsung copied Apple. Apple may have copied someone else but that's another case.
"If a car manufacturer blantantly copied a Ferrari they would be sued."
In some superficial adornments, maybe. But for example, car companies design their own engines, and yet these days, with computer modeling of every aspect of the engine, they look more and more alike. For efficiency reasons.
Lancia developed the first V-6 engine, back in the early 1960s. Because of transverse mounted engines and front wheel drive, that V-6 approach has become ubiquitous. Same goes for multivalve cylinders, hemispherical heads, direct injection (used to be available only in diesels or the Mercedes 300SL), turbocharging, electronic engine controls.
And the same goes with the general looks of cars. The high trunk look, for example, adopted in the mid 1970s initially by Triumph TR7 and then the Mercedes C class, is all about reducing coefficient of drag. Everyone has adopted that.
Rounded corners in a rectangular toy, I'm sorry, it's just too ludicrous to raise a stink about that.
I'm confused, I thought stores kept these products in a storage area until a consumer requests one for purchase. So, is Apple saying their consumers aren't specifying that they want an Apple product, or are sales people not describing the product they are selling properly. How many people just walking into a store, and point at a product, saying "I want that!" Okay, I can believe a few people might do that, but not enough people to warrant $2.5 billion worth, especially if you consider that usually those people tend to do a lot of research before hand to know exactly what they want. Don't even get me started on online transactions for these products.
I'm confused. If I pay enough money for an expert to testify that my poop looks and smells like delicious chocolate, can I sue Hearshys inc.?
Just the other day, my dog mistook my poop (we were camping out) for chocolate, and gobbled it all down. Simple, these over reaching “obvious” patents should never have been granted. The patent that was used on BlackBerry was good example of these obvious patents.
Even in 1990, it was obvious that a handheld device, like Kirk and Spock used on star trek (1966) could do all these things, like call people and send written data.
"Lancia developed the first V-6 engine, back in the early 1960s. Because of transverse mounted engines and front wheel drive, that V-6 approach has become ubiquitous. Same goes for multivalve cylinders, hemispherical heads, direct injection (used to be available only in diesels or the Mercedes 300SL), turbocharging, electronic engine controls."
I'd bet every one of those things is patented and licensed too.
I'd take that bet. the amusing thing is that in more established fields (like cars), everyone knows the history of ideas, and things like multi-valve cylinders are universally acknowledged as obvious and _not_ patented.
Well, I don't have data on the V6, but Lancia patented their V8 engine in 1915:
Most car companies have large patent portfolios.
Most things are obvious after the fact. It is when you realize that no one was doing it before the invention despite the advantages that you realize that things are not always as obvious as they appear.
It turns out, Lancia was the first to inroduce the V-6 in production cars, in 1950 (not the '60s as I said before). BUT the V-6 engine had already been built way before that, just never applied to production cars.
The point being, every automaker soon copied Lancia. Because the V-6 is very efficent in space utilization. This is very analogous to Apple and Samsung.
The other thing is, Samsung should come back and say look at our screen. It's 16:9 wide screen. Apple's is not. How can anyone not see the difference?
In point of fact, the iPhone5 is coming out with a 16:9 screen, so I think Samsung should sue Apple. The Apple iPhone and iPad screens have always been hopelessly squarish looking, compared with what the world of digital TV has been providing.
Samsung is not a cheat. They have a right to react to market changes to remain competitive, and yes, even "steal" a rounded rectangular shape if they so choose. I was using a Samsung/Palm color touchscreen phone with web browser, email, etc. in 2003! Many of these patents don't even meet the minimum criteria for patentability and should never have been granted. Samsung has nothing to do with the broken US patent system. This is all just a replay of the Apple-Microsoft lawsuit claims that windows was a blatant rip-off of mac os. Never mind that mac os was a blatant rip off of Xerox. Somehow when Apple does it, it's considered "innovation".
@Bert: Apple got these documents through the legal discovery process whereby both sides are allowed to seek internal emails and documents for the other to support their case.
Stay tuned to see more of these goodies. They are a rare and legal peek in to the workings of giants like Apple and Samsung.
“I went to pick up the iPhone to make a point and I was holding a Samsung phone,”
This strikes me as being very similar to the late-night infomercials where they try to sell you a useless egg cracker by making cracking an egg look impossible to do without losing half the egg on the floor and your face.
They let "experts" say they get confused by the similar "look-and-feel", but denied prior art to be submitted by Samsung. One can only imagine what a farce this is going to be. Reality TV will look like the real deal in comparison. My view from the bottom of the planet is one of disbelief. If this does not get some improvement to the patent system, then I feel China will become the main place to lodge in future, and they will bar the sale of Apple products (like the recent iPad name court case), when silly patents run against common sense. I have an iPhone and the kids have Samsung, and not once in how many years have we ever picked up the wrong phone. I have yet to see a red iPhone.
Remember Apple is arguing this portion of the trial over their 'design patents' which cover the ornamental design. This is different than what we normally think of with patents.
For a design patent they only need to show the designs are 'substantially similar'. The question is what is the legal definition of 'substantially similar'.
@PuterGeek: Indeed, there has been a lot of back and forth on that term.
So far Apple witnesses have claimed that the overall impression one gets looking at accused Samsung industrial designs and screens is substantially similar.
Samsung has raised doubts by noting many differences in details. Apple has countered that minor detail differences appear intended to obscure the fact of the overall impression which is the products really do look a lot alike.
Blog Make a Frequency Plan Tom Burke 17 comments When designing a printed circuit board, you should develop a frequency plan, something that can be easily overlooked. A frequency plan should be one of your first steps ...