
The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design - nikcub
http://nikcub.appspot.com/posts/crunchpad-proof-obviousness-in-ipad-design
======
reader5000
Apple is grasping for straws here. The argument that out of the space of all
possible designs for a tablet, they own the subset defined by the conjunction
of "rounded corners AND flat front surface AND uncluttered design AND thin
profile etc." is absurdly overbroad. It's like a car manufacturer arguing they
own all car designs that have "good gas mileage AND automatic windows AND
bluetooth radio AND leather interior" etc. In the weakest argument the
features Apple claims as their own are simply universally desirable features
that would be obvious to any designer of such a device. In a stronger argument
many of features claimed are necessary for the function of any tablet. Not
really comfortable with these IP shenanigans harming the market.

~~~
nl
I _never_ defend Apple, but they aren't grasping at straws.

They own _design_ patents on those things, and that gives them protection
against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them. Arguments about
obviousness are irrelevant under design patent law.

See [http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-
analys...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/)

~~~
pyre

      > protection against things that could be reasonably
      > mistaken for them
    

That sounds more like trademark law.

That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market.
Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand,
it would not be uncommon for someone to see _any_ tablet (regardless of design
similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?"

It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of
the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor
Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a
combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one
that can make cars.

~~~
meow
Ironically, Ford fought tooth and nail against an overly generic patent for
automobile (similar to a design patent because the guy who owns it is a lawyer
and never built an actual model before getting the patent) and won.

<http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html>

~~~
gujk
That's not what "design patent" means in US law.

------
nl
Unfortunately, this misses the point.

Apple's argument is based on the _design patents_ (and "Trade Dress") they
have. Design patents aren't like normal patents, nor like trademarks.

They are more typically used to protect something like a car or dress design,
and the test for infringement is "would this other product be mistaken for the
subject by a normal person"

It's things like the radius of the rounded corners, the location of the
button, and the width of the bevel that will be argued here, not how obvious
the design is.

[http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-
analys...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/)
explains this pretty well.

(IANAL, and I think design patents are stupid, but this is the law as I
understand it. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_uti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Comparison_to_utility_patents)
for more).

~~~
pyre

      > the location of the button
    

Do you really think that a 'normal person' would say, 'oh, the location of the
button is different. _this is obviously not an Apple product!_ '. I find that
doubtful. Being first-to-market and the best-selling tablet to date, most
'normal people' will see _any_ tablet within the same size range wonder, "Is
that an iPad?"

~~~
fpgeek
Indeed. I've lost track of the number of times my ASUS Transformer has been
mistaken for an iPad, sometimes even when docked!

~~~
buu700
We will be filing suit tonight.

------
TeMPOraL
"There was a lot of prior art when we began the Crunchpad project, and having
a tablet that was touch controlled rather than with a stylus wasn't really a
revolutionary idea since there were a number of component manufacturers at the
time who were scaling up their touch controllers to larger dimensions (9",
11", 12" etc.) in preparation for this market."

Having a tablet that was touch controlled rather than with a stylus wasn't
really a revolutionary idea since Star Trek: The Next Generation was aired in
1987, with it's touch-controlled screens [0] and PADDs [1] [2].

BTW. I'm surprised by Star Trek not being mentioned at all since the dawn of
consumer touch-screen technology. I expected people to be doing lots of LCARS
rip-offs on MS Surface, tablets and phones, and there's almost nothing.

[0] -
[http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/images/galaxy/ed-m...](http://techspecs.startrek.acalltoduty.com/images/galaxy/ed-
msd.jpg)

[1] - <http://www.teleread.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/padd.gif>

[2] - <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD>

~~~
LeafStorm
> Having a tablet that was touch controlled rather than with a stylus wasn't
> really a revolutionary idea since Star Trek: The Next Generation was aired
> in 1987, with it's touch-controlled screens [0] and PADDs [1] [2].

Star Trek: The Next Generation also has FTL drive and matter transporters that
don't kill you. The idea _may_ have come from TNG, but I think it's more that
using a finger was the next logical step after the stylus than actual
"inspiration" on the part of TNG.

> I expected people to be doing lots of LCARS rip-offs on MS Surface, tablets
> and phones, and there's almost nothing.

LCARS really isn't that practical of a user interface (narrow font, odd color
scheme, lack of consistent layouts...) Michael Okuda designed it more to look
futuristic and "cool" than to really be something usable.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> Star Trek: The Next Generation also has FTL drive and matter transporters
> that don't kill you. The idea may have come from TNG, but I think it's more
> that using a finger was the next logical step after the stylus than actual
> "inspiration" on the part of TNG.

Those are different kind of ideas. FTL drive and matter transporter might not
be treated as real idea, but whatever procedures, safety precautions and
logistic considerations were conceived around them _may_ prove to be valuable
ideas if we ever get to FTL/transporter technology or something similar. On
the other hand, touchscreens in TNG were an useful, realistic concept.

> LCARS really isn't that practical of a user interface (narrow font, odd
> color scheme, lack of consistent layouts...) Michael Okuda designed it more
> to look futuristic and "cool" than to really be something usable.

Sure it's not really usable (compared to our current interfaces), but I
personally assumed that ST is so ingrained in minds of most hackers that such
projects would start appearing immediately, as an 'obvious thing to do'.

~~~
delinka
I think there's fear of legal retribution from CBS. Sure, you can hack
something together for your own personal use, but don't even think about
making any real money by selling an app that looks all LCARSy.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, they recently killed a _free_ LCARS app for Android:

<http://code.google.com/p/moonblink/wiki/Tricorder>

:(.

------
powertower
The notion that a company can patent rounded corners and sue others claiming
innovation makes me sick.

Maybe they do actually believe what they do is innovation rather than slight
revision (and product/market fit)... I mean, that's what people keep telling
them they do ... eventually it must stick.

~~~
barredo
> The notion that a company can patent rounded corners and sue others claiming
> innovation makes me sick.

Apple didn't patent "rounded corners". Apple v Samsung is more than that
repeating mantra about rounded corners.

Why would Apple sue Samsung _after_ GalaxyTab 10.1 and not when the original
Galaxy Tab arrived?

* original galaxytab [http://www.ebooksytablets.com/68-224-thickbox/protector-pant...](http://www.ebooksytablets.com/68-224-thickbox/protector-pantalla-original-samsung-galaxy-tab-p1000.jpg)

* second galaxytab [http://messenger.com.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/galaxy-ta...](http://messenger.com.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/galaxy-tab.jpg)

I suggest you to read early Nilay Patel analysis for more understanding about
trade dressing and the reasons behind Apple's requirements.

[http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-
analys...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/)

~~~
jsnk
After reading the article, I was all I was doing was wondering how could these
trivial things possibly get patents that supposedly claims to be new
innovation.

~~~
jeswin
Just today morning, I was talking to someone who is getting a patent. He was
telling me that you outline the idea, and then the patent lawyers come in to
phrase it. I don't know how far this is true, but if true just shows how
broken the system is.

------
elemeno
And yet none of the photos of their devices show a screen that's flush with
the front of the tablet - in all of them the surface of the screen is slightly
indented from the face of the tablet, like laptop screens and TV screens often
are.

Being oblivious to that rather crucial point rather invalidates the entire
argument being made since you've clearly designed something which doesn't have
an identical design to an iPad, thus the design and form of an iPad is not the
only possible design for a tablet.

It's fairly important to remember that in order to infringe a design patent
you need to have a design that is 'substantially similar' to the described
design rather than simply having design features in common with the described
design. Rounded corners is fine, as long as its not rounded corner AND a whole
bunch of other design decisions that makes it look identical to an iPad.

~~~
jmcqk6
Did you feel the least bit ridiculous writing that? I know I felt a little
ridiculous just reading that. Perhaps I just have a really hard time
understanding how _any kind_ of rounded corners or edges could possibly
qualify for a patent unless it had some sort of _unique function_. Form should
never be patentable. Function maybe sometimes.

~~~
scott_s
elemeno clearly stated that rounded corners alone is not enough, it's part of
many other things. You may disagree that design patents should exist at all,
but they do not just cover a single thing.

Also, the "ridiculous" stuff is unnecessary.

------
rythie
The Crunchpad was merely an extension of the ideas from the iPhone/iPod Touch,
I think a lot of people could see there was a market for a big iPod Touch.
Mostly the competition didn't have an OS ready and Apple was late to the
market due to focusing on the iPhone.

~~~
jeswin
And the iPhone/iPod was just an improvement over Windows/Palm phones. I guess
the article is echoing the sentiment that these "innovations" aren't worthy of
a patent.

------
Duff
I'm really torn by this debate.

On the one hand, for an idea so obvious, Apple was first for both phones and
tablets -- and they were "first" very late in the game. Microsoft OEMs made
tablets for a decade, but NONE of them (even the slate tablets) really
compared to the iPad.

On the other, I don't see how this is a patent. It feels more like a
trademark, although the design of the iPad is probably too general to
trademark.

My question is: How did the auto industry resolve this? Early cars looked like
horse carriages and steered like boats or trolleys. How did the development of
the timeless car design patterns (sedan, coupe, wagon, van, pickup, etc) get
to the present state?

~~~
xer0
"How did the auto industry resolve this?"

Perhaps the auto industry's period of innovation and establishment happened
during a more rational patent regime.

~~~
Duff
Not really.

Google "George Selden patent"

~~~
xer0
Interesting. Then according to this result,
<http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsseldona.htm> , one rational
response to patent trolls (established and loved, or merely trollish) is to
not pay, to fight.

------
ebbv
The iPad is basically a big iPhone, so pointing out that there were people
making a big iPhone between when the iPhone was announced and when the iPad
was announced just shows that they were copying the iPhone instead of the
iPad.

Simple, minimalist, elegant designs look obvious in retrospect.

The fact that Samsung, HTC, and others are aping Apple's designs in the iPhone
and iPad is clear. Denying it only makes you look ridiculous. The question is,
are they aping it too much or are they bringing enough new to the table for it
to be considered an original design? That's something that almost has to be
addressed on a device by device basis.

~~~
shasta
AFAIK,the point of a design patent is to protect stylistic (non-functional)
elements of a design. The question being asked is whether the common elements
between these products are non-functional or actual have important functional
reasons for existing. Why are all car tires round, with rubber on the outside,
and with cool tread patterns on the outside?

------
preek
Does nobody remember that there were big corporations trying to get a tablet
out for the last decade and have terribly failed to do so?

The iPad is not at all obvious. It is intuitive. That's why everyone thinks
it's obvious _after_ having seen and used it.

~~~
vacri
<http://gdeluxe.com/tablets-before-ipad-part-ii/>

Turns out that there are actually quite a few tablets before the iPad that
sport design features that supposedly only arrived in 2010.

~~~
preek
Perfect link. Thanks!

All of them have either a stylus, are cluttered with buttons all over the
place or have a stock WinXP which is totally useless for touch.

For these reasons, all of them failed terribly and nobody bought them. I
haven't seen one of these IRL.

I see my point proven, so thanks again for the link.

~~~
DanBC
No. Many of those tablets have features (eg, rectangular shape with rounded
corners) that are supposed to be not obvious.

It's more evidence that a lot of iPad is evolutionary not revolutionary. See
also PDAs which contain a bunch of features which are covered by patents. (a
big menu button at the bottom centre of the screen).

------
bitsweet
The iPad is just a larger IPhone. The real innovation in design here was the
iPhone which release pre-dates even the first announcement of the JooJoo. I
think it is naive to think the sleek iPhone design didn't significantly
influence all current tablet designs.

To illustrate how not-obvious the design is, compare the original kindle
(released prior to the iphone) to the iPad. And now compare the Kindle Fire
(released after the iPhone/iPad) to the iPad.

~~~
dazbradbury
Two of my previous phones, the Sony Ericsson p800 and p900 both pre-date the
iPhone. The former was launched in 2002.

They were truly innovative imo (although probably something similar pre-dates
them that I just don't know about), but as a smartphone with a single front
screen, and nothing else (the keypad was detachable), they were a first for
me.

The evolution from a p800/p900 form factor, to the iphone, is a natural
progression as engineering techniques improve. Couple that progression, with
Apple's iOS, and you have the iPhone.

My point is, where has it been shown that the iPhone design was the _first_ in
any case?

Personally, I think Apple's argument is weak. Either way, Apple will continue
to dominate the market regardless of competitors - I just hope they fail so we
can see some fair competition.

~~~
wmf
I had a P800 and I think the difference between the P800 and iPhone is much
greater than the difference between the iPhone and the Galaxy. Replacing a
raised plastic bezel with a single flat piece of glass is innovative IMO. The
feel of using a modern phone is also completely different from the P800.

------
Steko
Pernicious falsehoods about Apple's iPad design patents (take a drink every
time you see one of these in an iPad design thread):

(1) Apple has a patent on rounded corners.

(2) Apple has a patent on rectangular slabs.

(3) One example of vaguely relevant prior art invalidates Apple's protections.

(4) Prior art means anything that came out before the iPad shipped.

(5) There's no other way to design a tablet.

And remember kids: slavishly copying your competitors' designs and style
should be encouraged and rewarded!

------
cheald
The thing that I can't seem to get past is that Samsung (and all the other
Japanese electronics makers) has been making televisions that closely resemble
the iPad for _years_ now. "Black, rectangular, curved corners, thin bezel" has
pretty much been the default design aesthetic of flatscreen displays since
their popularization. I have a Philips LCD TV that I bought in late 2007 that
could be an iPad if you took it off its stand, blacked out the logo, and put a
button on one end of it.

[http://www.argos.co.uk/wcsstore/argos/images/70-5297124MMA75...](http://www.argos.co.uk/wcsstore/argos/images/70-5297124MMA75UC943128M.jpg)

Just because Apple shrunk the black curved rectangle with uniform bezel down
into tablet form doesn't mean they actually invented anything new design-wise.
They certainly improved upon existing designs, but it's just arrogant for them
to try to claim ownership of that particular design aesthetic.

------
abk
IANAL and I hate to sound like a fanboy, but can't Apple claim that the 2007
iPod touch is prior art, since it's basically a small black tablet with
rounded corners and a single button at the bottom? It looks much more similar
to an iPad than the 2008 crunchpad.

------
zdean
I posted this video 7 days ago that shows a tablet prototype in 1994 that
looks/works a lot like current tablets:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3304198>

------
donnyg107
Both of these posts are completely opposite to what the system of production
should be. OBVIOUSLY we would see the apple design as intelligent, and
obviously thats how we think intelligent tablets should look now that they
have been established as functional and successful, but that is completely the
result of apple engineers hard work, not some universal tablet design that
just makes sense. I can understand why apple would be so pissed. They created
a novel (and initially, quite criticized for several aspects of it's
simplicity) piece of technology, and because everyone likes it, they're
claiming that it was barely designed at all. Apple made tough and meticulous
decisions that allowed them to nail this design, and now, seeing that they are
successful, other companies are claiming that those decisions were obvious and
effectively unmade. And even if the designs were in fact "obvious," and
impossible to do any other way, then why hadn't tablets taken this form before
now? And even further, why do we patent things at all, if whenever someone
releases a design seen as intelligent and novel, it can be declared as the
industry standard and infinitely copyable? We patent so that apple has an
incentive to make such a well thought out product, not so they can "shut out
other designs that are simply following the same completely objective
universal blueprints for the tablet computer."

~~~
jsmcgd
> then why hadn't tablets taken this form before now?

They have. Many times. Not one aspect of the iPad design is original. That's
the whole problem. They're able to claim other people's inventions as their
own. It's tantamount to theft.

That's what makes this whole scenario so galling. They're committing the crime
they're accusing others of.

------
nextparadigms
I'm surprised nobody made this case before. I remember I started believing in
the idea of tablets way before we even heard rumors about an Apple tablet. I
started believing in this idea when I first saw the initial Crunchpad mock-
ups.

------
podperson
So, the Crunchpad is "proof" that -- having seen the iPhone and iPod Touch --
the iPad's design is obvious. The article doesn't mention the prior release of
the iPhone and iPod Touch (remember Jobs starting out by saying Apple was
releasing three things, one of which was a tablet computer). I agree that
having seen an iPhone the iPad design is obvious. Next.

~~~
fossuser
What about the star trek padd? [http://www.inventinginteractive.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/...](http://www.inventinginteractive.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/01/Sarah_Sisko_reconstruction.jpg)

~~~
philwelch
* Red case

* Screen physically depressed from bezel

* Extraneous white rectangular design elements on the bezel

DS9's dark cinematography, combined with a device that doesn't really look
like an iPad, makes for a device that at first glance looks like a black iPad.
Well, at least if you've seen a black iPad before. If it was better
illuminated it would look more like a metallic etch-a-sketch.

------
grannyg00se
One thing I like about the iPad innovation debade is that it really stresses
the importance of execution (because I think it is weak on innovation). People
have had the idea of a touch pad for decades and even tried to execute on it
dozens of times with real products. The execution of the idea in the form of
the iPad made it a success.

------
GHFigs
This post, like almost every other on the subject, misrepresents the content
of the testimony being cited, and thus the arguments being made. Please read
it yourself if you care about having discussion any more sophisticated than
"Apple is the Great Satan!"/"NO U!"

(Edit:"Reading primary sources is heresy! Downvote! Downvote!")

------
billpatrianakos
There's a good case for Applemif they can get the right point across. Looking
back its easy to say that the design of a tablet is obvious but it really
isn't.

Since the iPad came out we all have a preconceived notion of what a tablet
should look like but had the iPad been designed differently as it very well
could have been and it remained as successful then we'd live in an alternate
universe where everything is the same including the court cases and me-too
tablets except they'd all be copying a different design. Consider this:

Apple could have chosen to use a built in keyboard. They could have used more
than one physical button much like Android phones instead of just the home
button. They could have used a flat back instead of an convex curve. Consider
the similarity in the radius of the corners too - very similar if not the same
(I haven't measured though). The black frame is _not_ obvious as a choice. It
could have easily had little to no frame. The metal border just outside the
frame, also not obvious.

All of this "obvious" talk seems to me like people trying to fit a square peg
(the answer) into a round hole (the answer). You may be able to jam them
together but it's still not e right fit. "Obvious" is always obvious after the
fact. This stuff may make sense from an industrial design perspective but it
doesn't mean that tablet makers were ready to actually follow those design
patterns. Companies ignore convention all the time when designing products.

And I'm closing I'll leave you all with something a little less compelling.
The Samsung tablet really does look an iPad clone. All tablets look somewhat
similar but in the case of Samsung it's just so obvious that it looks almost
exactly the same and would it be unreasonable to wonder if maybe the
similarity was not for usability reasons but just to maybe confuse consumers
into thinking "hey, they look exactly alike, I'll just buy the cheaper one
since its basically the same thing"?

~~~
wwweston
"Since the iPad came out we all have a preconceived notion of what a tablet
should look like but had the iPad been designed differently...we'd live in an
alternate universe where everything is the same including the court cases and
me-too tablets except they'd all be copying a different design."

Right. All of them.

Except of course for the mid-2009 prototype of the JooJoo mentioned in the
article, which was what went to market by the end of 2009, months before Jobs
showcased the iPad at the end of Jan 2010.

"'Obvious' is always obvious after the fact."

The person writing the article you're responding to is writing it from the
perspective of someone who designed a similar-looking product _before_ the
fact.

~~~
billpatrianakos
Okay, you make some pretty good points and I'm not one to hold on to a belief
that's wrong for egotistical reasons but I still have a couple of problems
with your argument.

First, when you said "Right. All of them". To be clear, I know that all
tablets are in a similar vein as the iPad these days. So why doesn't Apple sue
all of them? Well I'm no dummy and I know this has a lot to do with trying to
stamp out the competition but at the same time the rest of the tablets except
the Samsung tablet in question are just different enough to give them some
wiggle room. The Samsung tablet, when viewed next to an iPad is so similar
that a layperson could easily mistake them as the same and not know the
difference until they inspect it further.

I didn't know the author designed a similar tablet previously. But his case
could have been a coincidence. We all know that just because design decisions
are obvious not every company will follow the rules of design. It's hard to
say that the iPad design is obvious unless you actually have working products
on the market. Concepts change before being massed produced and a differently
designed tablet that was as successful as the iPad could have become the
standard and we'd be arguing about whether Apple copied LG's design or Sony's
had they come out with such a tablet first.

Approaching this subject from a legal perspective is the wrong way to go.
There's this obvious (I hate to have to use that word I'm this context) gray
area between "how else do you design such a product" and "that design is just
a rip off". Look at the tablets side by side. I can't imagine any regular
consumer being able to immediately spot the difference. They look almost
exactly alike in a way no other tablet does. There's an aspect of this that
can't be proven in court but is plain as day to anyone else and that's where
I'm approaching this from. It's like Samsung intentionally ripped off the iPad
because they knew they couldn't compete so instead tried to piggyback off
people who think the closer it looks to an iPad the better it is as a less
expensive alternative. But despite how much anyone knows in these gray areas
you can't prove it in court so they're forced to use patents as a tool to stop
the rip offs.

