
Apple's suggestions to Samsung to work-around its iPhone and iPad design patents - acak
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/2/2596527/apple-samsung-design-patent-iphone-ipad-work-around
======
pavlov
_As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs
available to Samsung:

Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners. Thick
frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface. Front surface that
isn't entirely flat. Profiles that aren't thin. Cluttered appearance._

If Apple were a car maker, they would be "suggesting" that their competitors
should design cars with non-circular wheels, thick body metal and a non-
aerodynamic appearance.

~~~
amartya916
I understand that people on Hacker News detest courtroom bickering and would
rather talk about innovation, including design innovation; I think I fall
under the same category, however:

a. Samsung's designs are really similar to Apple's designs. Yes, all cars have
to have round wheels, but as Nokia has shown (N9?), it is absolutely possible
to design a phone with the same level (or more) minimalism without copying the
design DNA.

b. Look at an HTC phone. There's no way one can mistakenly think that it's an
iPhone. Same with tablets; a Xoom (esp. Xoom2), an Iconia, or a Touchpad will
never be confused with an iPad.

In fact, this STEALING (couldn't mince words here) goes much deeper. This was
on the internets a few days back: <http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a>

Doesn't this seem like Samsung crossing the line?

~~~
exit
devil's advocate: if design has practical merits beyond branding then why
shouldn't everyone copy verbatim the design elements of successful products?
this can still be iteratively innovative.

~~~
idspispopd
Certain protections of design/research aid the consumer/society.

If all hard work is copied with no limitation, then this severely limits the
amount of money you can spend on r&d to remain profitable.

Take medication for example, the r&d lead time is many years long and a huge
culmination of factors, but duplicating a known-formula can be trivial.

How this applies to business: as society relies on competing bodies to spur
innovation, there is a direct consequence if we remove the ability to compete:

If unfettered duplication of a product is legal, and this duplication can
occur in a shorter timeline than the time required to acquire profit from the
product(i.e when taking away the costs of development) then there is no
business reason to ever develop the product to begin with.

------
martythemaniak
Remember folks, Apple are not patent trolls, they just want justice and to be
given credit for their innovations, like the rectangle and the rounded corner.

~~~
gsivil
Is this sarcastic?

~~~
dextorious
Yeah. But also misguide: Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are
a lot of tablets out there with different designs which they don't challenge
at all.

Samsung choose to copy almost everything of Apple's design. Hell, a
representative for the company couldn't even tell between an iPad and one of
their devices when they were shown to him in court.

~~~
fpgeek
Actually, Apple has challenged a number of other tablets.

They're suing Motorola over the Xoom somewhere in Europe (from what I
understand, this trial has fewer fireworks because the Xoom was already being
sold, so a preliminary injuction is both less likely and less important).

Apple also tried to push _criminal_ charges against a tablet vendor in Spain
(over a technical, but unimportant infraction related to an import ban, IIRC).
Fortunately, the charges were dismissed.

I suspect Apple is focusing their legal energy on Samsung because they think
they are the strongest cases and because they view Samsung as the most
threatening competitor, but there is plenty of evidence that they're planning
to head down their list of competitors if they have legal success.

~~~
dextorious
"""Actually, Apple has challenged a number of other tablets."""

I fail to see how this contradicts my statement though, which was:

"""Apple doesn't object to such trivialities. There are a lot of tablets out
there with different designs which they don't challenge at all."""

I didn't say the don't challenge any other tablet --just that they challenge
for good reasons. The Xoom was also bloody similar.

(Mind you, there are also patents related to the UI etc, not to the external
design).

~~~
fpgeek
>The Xoom was also bloody similar.

First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent (the
details came up in the Samsung lawsuit):
[http://www.macworld.com/article/161675/2011/08/apple_motorol...](http://www.macworld.com/article/161675/2011/08/apple_motorola_xoom_lawsuit.html)

Second, here's a photo gallery of the iPad 2 vs the Xoom:
[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-2-vs-motorola-
xoo...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-2-vs-motorola-xoom-in-
photos/1595)

It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every
comparison shot. Since you disagree, it sounds to me like you're one of the
people who actually think Apple should have the exclusive rights to
minimalist, black rectangles with rounded corners.

~~~
dextorious
"""First, Apple is suing over the Xoom's design, not a technical patent"""

Gee, maybe that's why I f _n wrote "Xoom was also bloody_ similar _", and
added the technical patent issue on a_ separate* line where I'm NOT talking
about Xoom.

"""It was obvious to me which was the iPad and which was the Xoom in every
comparison shot. """

You really believe that the litmus test of an original not derived design is
that you are able to tell which is which?

There are tons of Rolex clones that you can _easily_ tell from the original,
but that doesn't mean the haven't copied it.

"""it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually think Apple
should have the exclusive rights to minimalist, black rectangles with rounded
corners."""

And it sounds to me like you're one of the people who actually defend
companies not even trying to come up with something different.

------
jerrya
What bothers me about Apple's claims, and I assure you, I have no
understanding of how design patents work, is what seems to be good clear prior
art, or prior use of these elements in Samsung's own digital photo frames or
in the movie 2001, and how little that seems to have been addressed by the
courts.

Apple's workarounds seem to indicate that Apple wants some exclusive right to
rectangular shapes, rounded corners, thin frames, flat surfaces, thin
computers, uncluttered appearances.

Take the last one, Apple wants a design patent (monopoly) on uncluttered
appearances.

~~~
wmf
Even if Apple's industrial design is a revival and not original, by the timing
it is clear that Samsung is copying Apple and not _2001_. Whether this should
matter legally is a matter of debate.

~~~
justinschuh
And here I thought the word "prior" was pretty unambiguous. Perhaps there's
some legal definition that clarifies it as some point no more than 2-53 years
in the past?

~~~
lotu
For regular patents you are correct about prior art. But for design patents it
is different, a design patents is closer to a trademark, where what matter is
how it is currently being used to identify a product not who first thought of
the idea.

Part of the problem here is that the * appearance* of a tablet or smartphone
has become a much bigger part of the product. 20 or even 10 years ago people
didn't buy a computer based on how it looks, and all computers looked pretty
different from one another. The way the bulged, how the vents were positioned,
or the color, made it obvious who made the computer (or even which model).
Dell is an excellent example of making a recognizable design despite that
design being ugly and making the USB slots hard to reach.

Now because the look of a tablet or smart phone is so important, perhaps even
subject to fads, it's more like clothing industry which has very little IP
protection.

------
blhack
Why are people stuck in this mindset that Apple invented the tablet?

They didn't. I had a Honeywell tablet way back when, there is a company called
hammerhead that makes tablets (<http://www.yenra.com/rugged-tablet-pc/rugged-
tablet-pc.jpg>), panasonic has had the toughbook, etc. etc.

All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied
their standard solid-colored plastic design to it.

("GUYS! I have an idea! Instead of /white/ plastic lets...wait for this. Are
you sitting down? Guys! Instead of WHITE plastic...what if we used.... _black_
plasitc?!?")

Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in
early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke".
In fact, I think it only had one button on it.

At this point a tablet is as generic a shape as a laptop is. It's rectangular,
about the size of a textook, and about a centimeter thick.

Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us. Take more
scrollbars off of things or something.

~~~
danilocampos
> If you're so /innovative/ then show us.

Will this suffice?

[http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uplo...](http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/tablethistory.jpg)

~~~
spiffworks
What is that photo supposed to show? All I see is that the iPad's physical
design is as much a derivative of all those that came before as the rest are
derivative of the iPad's.

Do you really not see the flaw in your argument or are you just being
willfully dissonant?

~~~
dextorious
"""All I see is that the iPad's physical design is as much a derivative of all
those that came before as the rest are derivative of the iPad's."""

The only thing in common the devices previous to the iPad have with it is that
they all have a rectangular screen. I'll give you that. Apart from that
though, they are totally different.

And that's from the external design aspect.

From a UI aspect it's night and day.

The devices after the iPad, now, copied both from it.

------
jsmcgd
The absurdity of this is breath-taking. Apple tablets look exactly like
miniature flat screen TVs. I don't know how they have the gall to claim that
the form factor of their tablets is in anyway original or protectable. The
Apple design here is the obvious one. There will be aliens on distant worlds
designing tablets they they will be thin, flat, have narrow rounded borders
and have an uncluttered appearance. I can't believe Samsung could even dream
of capitulating.

------
vectorpush
Ever since Apple revolutionized the black rectangle, everyone wants to
capitalize on it. It's pathetic really, can't these companies come up with
_their own_ shapes?

~~~
miahi
Can't wait for the star-shaped tablet.

------
Tichy
In other words, they just want to claim a general trademark on "it looks
good". Apple fanboys will disagree, but I think it is ridiculous and is part
of what makes me dislike Apple with a passion.

~~~
wmf
I think the Nexus S and Nokia N9/Lumia show that you can create something that
looks good without looking exactly like an iPhone.

~~~
makomk
I think you'll find that the Nexus S is actually one of the phones that Apple
have been suing Samsung over; it really is a case of them trying to kill
anything that looks good and could compete with them.

------
sirn
The original wording[1] doesn't sound that bad as The Verge writeup. iPhone:

> For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front
> surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not
> rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are
> more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that
> are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial
> lateral borders; speakers openings that are not horizontal slots with
> rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screens; front
> surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at
> all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an
> inwardly sloping profile.

iPad:

> For the D'889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include:
> overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not
> have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or
> clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin
> rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the
> D'889 or that have a cluttered appearance.

They've also provided some sample phone models that are not covered within
this design patent[2], from a quick scan-through they mentioned LG Prada, LG
Chocolate and Sharp 825SH.

> Among other differences, the LG Prada has thicker borders to the left and
> right of the display screen that are noticeably different from the "big
> screen" look of the D'677 design.

I found this part somewhat interesting:

> in instances where visual elements of a design patent are "purely
> functional," such visual elements should not be considered a part of the
> patented design

[1]: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/74556601/Expert-declaration>

[2]:
[http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_...](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_declaration.pdf)

~~~
fpp
It still is almost comical - my best comment on that is an old computer joke
from the 1980s (it would be a joke if not so true).

You know, I live in a house that has a door, windows and a roof and one thing
is certain - one day Apple is going to sue me for the windows...

------
molecule
_As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs
available to Samsung: Overall shape that isn't rectangular..._

Kubrick's __2001 __cited as prior
art:<http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0/>

------
GHFigs
Every time this kind of thing comes up I remember what incredible dipshits HN
users can be. I forget it sometimes, but it all comes back with a Proustian
rush when I see you stumbling over each other to drown any chance of
discussion or insight in tediously histrionic recitations of your opinion.

------
bane
This is all basically a form factor lawsuit, with Apple making a big arrow
pointing to their chief competitor, the one they think can beat them in the
marketplace.

It's like Apple suing over all-in-one PCs with handles on top, or laptops with
a foldup screen.

------
zmmmmm
I'd have some sympathy for Apple if their design was distinctive in itself,
but its only real claim to "distinctiveness" is its minimalist lack of any
distinctive features. If we allow a lack of design features and utter
minimalism to be considered trade dress then we are in for all sorts of
trouble because any generic shape or design becomes infringing and this
precedent will ripple through everything.

Thus I think the whole argument about "Samsung could have made theirs more
distinctive" is missing the point. Apple can easily make their tablets more
distinctive too, and thus gain the protection of trademarks or trade dress.

------
jen_h
Please, please, can an artist mock up a "Presenting the new Samsung Galaxy X"
graphic post haste? Just the mental picture of the proposed redesign was
snort-out-loud funny. Sharp corners, front surfaces with substantial
adornment, and an off-center, cluttered appearance with wide edges, hoo boy.

------
nodata
Next week: tvs that are square, have sharp corners, and the latest trend:
really thick bezels!

------
phil
"Cluttered appearance:" priceless.

------
Killah911
Anyone else think the title is misleading? It's a really loose definition of
"suggestions", kind'o like "suggesting" someone go jump off a bridge... So, in
the spirit of "suggestion", Samsung could have just gotten rid of the touch
screen thing all together and added a fold out keyboard and cd-rom just to be
sure not to infringe on Apple's patent. How about circular or triangular
screens?

------
gergles
I'd also like to just drop this off here:
[http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-
picture-f...](http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-
frame-stores-pics-movies-music/)

Exactly who is aping who? Make the bezel thinner and take off the logo and
it's a completely different design, your honor!

------
77ko
What would be something if the court on reading Apples ridiculous suggestions
took a second look at the very idea of having such broad design patents in the
first place.

------
Mordor
Why don't they patent the rectangle, the color black and emptiness itself.

------
CubicleNinjas
The fact is Samsung is obviously mirroring the industrial design success of
Apple to cause market confusion. To root for a company like this to succeed is
disgusting.

~~~
nailer
And the Prada phone. And Jil Sander's clothing. And those stoves with entirely
flat surfaces rather than pop out heating elements. And anything made by
Dieter Rams for Braun.

Perhaps Samsung is following modern design techniques, many of which pre-date
Apple, despite being popularized in the computing world by Apple.

~~~
pelemele
If you put money and effort to your R&D, you will try to protect yourself as
well.

~~~
nitrogen
If you spend millions of dollars on R&D to discover that LCDs are rectangular
and that rounded corners hurt less, I don't think you deserve protection.

