Posted on 05/18/2015 8:14:07 PM PDT by Swordmaker
NEW YORK/SAN FRANCISCO, May 18 (Reuters) - Apple Inc was handed a mixed ruling by a U.S. appeals court in the latest twist in a blockbuster intellectual property battle with Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, as a prior patent infringement verdict was upheld but a trademark finding that the iPhone's appearance could be protected was thrown out.
That means up to 40 percent of a $930 million verdict which had been won by Apple must be reconsidered.
In the highly anticipated ruling stemming from the global smartphone wars, the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. upheld patent infringement violations including one which protects the shape and color of its iPhone as well as the damages awarded for those violations.
"This is a victory for design and those who respect it," Apple said in a statement on Monday. A Samsung representative declined immediately comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Let's get the Freepathon over the top! I challenge the members of the Apple ping list to each donate at least $10 each to the latest Freepathon. I HAVE donated $100. Many members of the Apple Ping list are already rising to the challenge. Join them. Let's show the power of the Apple Ping list in supporting Freerepublic!
I am sorry Swordmaker because I assume you will disagree, but patenting a rectangle with rounded corners has got to be one of the most insane examples ever of the extreme abuse of our patent system. Our patent system is broken.
U.S. federal court rules anyone can copy the iPhone’s design
Monday, May 18, 2015 · 4:28 pm“Apple did such a good job designing its iPhone that it now can’t protect itself from copycats,” Hope King reports for CNNMoney.
“A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that Apple could not seek damages from Samsung for copying the basic design of the iPhone, overturning a lower court’s ruling,” King reports. “Apple had argued that Samsung’s smartphones violated the company’s design patents, because they looked so remarkably similar: a rectangular body, rounded edges, and even the placement of apps and dots on the screen.”
King reports, “Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the overall ‘look’ of the iPhone is so integral to the way other touchscreen smartphones work that Apple can’t prevent Samsung (and probably other companies) from using the same general designs.”
This is actually not quite what the Appellate Court did. . . the court ruled that the designs were not ornamental in nature but were actually functional and therefore were possibly part of the overall utility patent on the iPhone because Apple did indeed patent all of that as well as get a design patent for the ornamental look and feel. It sent the case back for further evaluation and/or litigation.
You’re right, but the fact is, design patents have historically been very weak and difficult to defend.
That is not what Apple did. You obviously do not understand Design patents. . . but the strange thing is that the Appellate court invalidated the Design patents for ornamentation which included that description and adopted Samsung's argument that these rounded corners and rectangle shape were indeed "Functional" and then ruled they were part of Apple's UTILITY PATENT because they facilitated the functions of the phone in that they made it easier to put into a pocket, hold the phone, etc. READ the ruling. I provided a link. They go into quite a bit of detail about their ruling. All Apple wanted to do was to protect the overall look and feel of their unique design of the iPhone. . . which was unique for the time as you can see from this graphic of phones before and after iPhone's introduction. There was a sea change in phone design.
You can deny all you want, but you are denying from ignorance of the purpose of Design patents. The Court of Appeals in this instance is frankly right. Read about the differences between a Design patent and a Utility patent and you might start to get an inkling of why you are talking about something you don't at all understand.
In this instance, Apple was wrong. . . and what they called ornamental was actually functional. . . and it may redound to their benefit, just not in perpetuity, just for the life of the Utility patent.
http://www.bargainpda.com/assets/4228.jpg>
That is strange, it has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, which was part of Apple's case. The PPC-6700 had many features included in the iPhone and a couple that were not. The technology was older so it had a slide-out keyboard with a resistive screen. The PPC-6700 was not the only phone that was released before the iPhone iPhone that was rectangular with rounded corners. If you re going to exclude pictures of these phones the picture you provided seems more than a little disingenuous.
As far as what Apple did and their intent... that is somewhat open to debate as arguments in the lawsuit demonstrated amply. Here is a link to a an article that seems a little ironic given the arguments made in the trial and which demonstrates Apples desire to manipulate the patent system.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
Apple's lawyers act like goons hired by the largest corporation in the world to intimidate other technology companies. They do this with farcical patents that would not be approved for any party were the system not hopelessly corrupt.
I am not going to disagree with you that our patent system needs overhaul, so let's not argue about that.
But with regard to rectangles with rounded corners, I want to share a story with you, since you may not be familiar with it.
In May of 1981 -- that's 34 years ago, half a year before the IBM PC was introduced to the world with MS-DOS -- Bill Atkinson and Steve Jobs were at Apple figuring out how to draw rounded rectangles on their new graphics computers. Why? Because Jobs was inspired by his realization that rounded rectangles were "everywhere" in the environment -- and he in turn inspired Atkinson, and thus one of the core drawing capabilities of the Lisa and Macintosh was the "rounded rectangle".
That shape became the signature shape, the hallmark of the Macintosh -- it was the shape of dialog buttons and window edges and lots of other UI elements, and after Jobs and Ive took over design of Macintosh products, even the enclosure outlines and keycaps and just about everything rectangular got rounded corners... While at the same time virtually all the equivalent Windows features were sharp square corners. But in Apple-Land rounded rectangles were ubiquitous.
Here's the story about Jobs and Atkinson if you're interested: Round Rects Are Everywhere!.
Surely, Apple didn't "invent" the rounded rectangle -- after all, Jobs was inspired by all the rounded rectangles that were already in the environment. But Apple made them a key design element in every aspect of their product line for over 30 years.
I don't like patenting geometric shapes -- I think it's bogus and a bad idea. But I'm willing to say that if some other company started using that shape in a way that imitated Apple's use of it, that ought to be something Apple could protect in SOME way. If not a patent, then something else.
Thanks for listening.
Hey, that is a great story!
Honda still makes some of the best small 4 stroke engines for things like pressure washers and generators. They started manufacturing them in China and the Chinese factories that made them started selling the exact same motors with slightly less QC to other retailers who sold them to the public for much less.
The motors were even painted the same color (red) and nearly all of the parts were interchangeable. Honda rightfully sued and now you can still buy the clone engines but these days you have to get them in blue and not red. So at least you can tell them apart from the genuine articles.
I wanted to add that I truly admire Apple’s ability to introduce and market products. Their products are high quality and designed with an emphasis on usability. Other companies introduce products and it takes years for them to become popular. Apple comes out with a similar product and it becomes an overnight sensation. The Apple watch is a perfect example of this.
I also appreciate Swordmaker’s information and patient explanations on everything Apple.
That's a great story too!
And it happens I have a gas generator with a small Honda 4-stroke engine (red), that is now about 15 years old. Great little engine.
It also happens that in the mid-2000's I was (as a hardware design engineer) designing PC/Mac data storage peripherals, and upper management relocated our production to mainland China "to cut costs"... grrr-rrr... and within about 3 years, we started seeing our products, without our nameplate but otherwise I-Freakin'-Dentical, appearing on the Asian and European markets, competing with ours but at a lower price.
Unfortunately we were a small company without the resources to fight, and they had the tooling for our product enclosures, etc. so they had us over a barrel. Man, that sucked. And I'm not sure, to this day, that our upper management ever really understood how badly their decision "to cut costs" that way hurt the company. When the place folded three years later, they blamed it on anything but their poor decisions. *sigh*
And you see that bump up next to the antenna? That's where you stored your STYLUS. Not the same at all. Count the number of physical buttons. Not the same at all. Can you control it with your finger? Not the same at all. Need I go on. You just proved you do NOT have a clue about Design Patents at all. There is a Design Patent on file for the PPC-6700 as well. . . bet you didn't know that, did you? In that patent are the exact same specifications of a "rectangle with rounded corners" because it's REQUIRED in the physical description! Do you get it now! Apple never, ever, not-at-all, patented "a rectangle with rounded corners!" It was only a single phrase among many in the physical description of the design that Samsung used for their PROPAGANDA which you fell for, hook, line, and sinker!
This is actually not quite what the Appellate Court did. . . the court ruled that the designs were not ornamental in nature but were actually functional and therefore were possibly part of the overall utility patent on the iPhone because Apple did indeed patent all of that as well as get a design patent for the ornamental look and feel.
*************************
Patenting a rectangle with rounded off sides makes as much sense as patenting the general shape of an auto with 4 wheels arranged in a rectangle and expecting all others (including hundreds of companies that previously made horse buggies in the same config) build cars with 3 wheels on the left and one on he right...
Sorry ,, apples patents are not valid because they are too obvious and handheld informational computing devices (I’m looking at my handheld Garmin eMap which predated the iPhone)have been made in that shape and in various colors for a LONG time...
AND YOU don't have the vaguest idea what a DESIGN patent is all about either. . . do you? You are spouting your opinion out of your rear.
What a load of ignorance on parade. Get an education on DESIGN PATENTS before you spout off about patent invalidity. Here's a start:
DESIGN PATENTIn the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.
A similar concept, a registered design can be obtained in other countries. In Kenya, Japan, South Korea and Hungary, industrial designs are registered after performing an official novelty search. In the countries of the European Community, one needs to only pay an official fee and meet other formal requirements for registration (e.g. Community design at OHIM, Germany, France, Spain).
For the member states of WIPO, cover is afforded by registration at WIPO and examination by the designated member states in accordance with the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement.
Protections
A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar.[2] Design patents with line drawings cover only the features shown as solid lines. Items shown as dotted lines are not covered. This is one of the reasons Apple was awarded a jury verdict in the US case of Apple v Samsung. Apple's patent showed much of their iPhone design as broken lines. It didn’t matter if Samsung was different in those areas. The fact that the solid lines of the patent were the same as Samsung's design meant that Samsung infringed the Apple design patent.[1]"
Your Anti-Apple derangement syndrome is severe Neidermeyer. . .
1502 Definition of a Design [R-08.2012]
In a design patent application, the subject matter which is claimed is the design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or portion thereof) and not the article itself. Ex parte Cady, 1916 C.D. 62, 232 O.G. 621 (Comm’r Pat. 1916). “[35 U.S.C.] 171 refers, not to the design of an article, but to the design for an article, and is inclusive of ornamental designs of all kinds including surface ornamentation as well as configuration of goods.” In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980).
The design for an article consists of the visual characteristics embodied in or applied to an article.
Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation.
Design is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone merely as a scheme of surface ornamentation. It must be a definite, preconceived thing, capable of reproduction and not merely the chance result of a method.
¶ 15.42 Visual Characteristics
The design for an article consists of the visual characteristics or aspect displayed by the article. It is the appearance presented by the article which creates an impression through the eye upon the mind of the observer.
¶ 15.43 Subject Matter of Design Patent
Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a Design Patent may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation on an article, or to both.
¶ 15.44 Design Inseparable From Article to Which Applied
Design is inseparable from the article to which it is applied, and cannot exist alone merely as a scheme of ornamentation. It must be a definite preconceived thing, capable of reproduction, and not merely the chance result of a method or of a combination of functional elements (35 U.S.C. 171; 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). See Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 189 F. Supp. 333, 127 USPQ 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), 294 F.2d 694, 131 USPQ 55 (2d Cir. 1961).
1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents [R-11.2013]
In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). The ornamental appearance for an article includes its shape/configuration or surface ornamentation applied to the article, or both. Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance.
While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article may not be easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.
Some of the more common differences between design and utility patents are summarized below:
- (A) The term of a utility patent on an application filed on or after June 8, 1995 is 20 years measured from the U.S. filing date; or if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), 20 years from the earliest effective U.S. filing date, while the term of a design patent is 14 years measured from the date of grant (see 35 U.S.C. 173).
- (B) Maintenance fees are required for utility patents (see 37 CFR 1.20), while no maintenance fees are required for design patents.
- (C) Design patent applications include only a single claim, while utility patent applications can have multiple claims.
- (D) Restriction between plural, distinct inventions is discretionary on the part of the examiner in utility patent applications (see MPEP § 803), while it is mandatory in design patent applications (see MPEP § 1504.05 ).
- (E) An international application naming various countries may be filed for utility patents under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), while no such provision exists for design patents.
- (F) Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) can be obtained for the filing of utility patent applications up to 1 year after the first filing in any country subscribing to the Paris Convention, while this period is only 6 months for design patent applications (see 35 U.S.C. 172).
- (G) Utility patent applications may claim the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) whereas design patent applications may not. See 35 U.S.C. 172 and 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) .
- (H) A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 may only be filed in utility and plant applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, while RCE is not available for design applications (see 37 CFR 1.114(e)).
- (I) Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is only available for design applications (see <37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(i) . Prior to July 14, 2003, CPA practice was available for utility and plant applications only where the prior application has a filing date prior to May 29, 2000 .
- (J) Utility patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000 are subject to application publication under 35 U.S.C.122(b)(1)(A), whereas design applications are not subject to application publication (see 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)).
Other distinctions between design and utility patent practice are detailed in this chapter. Unless otherwise provided, the rules for applications for utility patents are equally applicable to applications for design patents (35 U.S.C. 171 and 37 CFR 1.151).
I guess you didn't bother to look at the link that I posted of a “Design Patent” by Apple for basically a “rectangle with rounded corners”.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
Essentially what was thrown out on appeal related directly to the appearance of the devices... so this was obviously a factor. Not to mention your picture of devices before and after the first iPhone where you left out phones released before the iPhone which were rectangular with rounded corners. You have lost me here because it appears that your arguments are contradictory.
As far as your other comments... I mentioned in my post that the PPC-6700 was earlier technology with a resistive screen. Apple however was not the first to market with capacitive screens and were not the ones who invented this technology. But yes you can control the PPC-6700 and most other devices with resistive screens with your finger; the stylus was not a necessity. The stylus does allow for greater precision than what you can get with a finger or a capacitive screen. The only thing that you are proving here is that you are not familiar with the previous technology which actually still has some notable advantages.
The PPC-6800 which also came out long before the iPhone did not have the bump where the antenna was located. And yes I was using my PPC-6700 when the first iPhones came out and was given the opportunity to try them out side by side. For my uses the PPC-6700 was still a superior device. For one thing the PPC-6700 had 3G data and at that time it came with a cable, my plan had truly “unlimited data” and Sprint technical support gave instruction on how to use it for tethering to your laptop or other devices.
If you want to make a list of all the incredible features that the first iPhone had that the PPC-6700 did not... maybe that would be helpful. Because other than claiming that I “do NOT have a clue” and calling some of the key testimony presented during the trial “PROPAGANDA which you fell for, hook, line, and sinker!”.
I am not trying to argue that the only issue Apple brought up was that Samsung devices were rectangular with rounded corners... but it is a fact that it is one of the issues Apple itself brought up in their arguments.
I appreciate greatly your knowledge of Apple devices and their histories. I also appreciate your patient explanations and I am sorry that I seemed to have pushed you over the edge this time around. I am however having a hard time following what ever point it is that you are trying to make.
The article and the patent you are pointing to are not in discussion of this case. . . and the proportion and shape ARE exactly protectable for a design patent. . . in context TO THE DOTTED LINES that are included with the patent. . . which are just as much of the Design Patent as the non-dotted lines. Without the dotted lines, there would be NO PATENT GRANTED. The dotted lines are what gives the sold lines context of what is being patented and the limitation of the patent! That is why the context is included. The Verge has no clue about what they are talking about, just as you do not.
The patents in suit were not invalidated and Design Patents are NOT invalidatable due to prior art. Again, you do not understand Design patents. And again, you rely on Utility patent law. . . which is not at all applicable to Design patents. Similarity in Design patents does NOT, and CANNOT invalidate a design patent. You still show your ignorance of the purpose and differences between Utility and Design patents. . . and argue something totally irrelevant.
I am not trying to argue that the only issue Apple brought up was that Samsung devices were rectangular with rounded corners... but it is a fact that it is one of the issues Apple itself brought up in their arguments.
They did not bring that up. . . a design patent has to be taken on its whole appearance in context, not feature by feature, not a list of specs to be checked off until a majority is met, and irrelevancies added by the infringer, such as additional buttons, names, colors, etc.. Apple always spoke in suit about how the Samsung products were intended to look like Apple's products.
Again, you do not at all understand what a design patent is all about. . . what it is for.
The patent you linked to which I am writing this reply is for only a rectangle outline with those exact proportions. . . and again, it is NOT any of these patents in suit. If another maker were to make a tablet/phone with other proportions, there would be no problems. . . Problems arise when they make them exactly to the same proportions so they look like Apple's products. Make the corners sharper, or broader, no problems.
Everything you talk about pre-iPhone are also irrelevencies as prior art. . . if they do not do what the iPhone did with a multi-touch capacitance touch screen without a stylus, and without multiple buttons littering up the face of the phone. . . that used only a finger as the input. They are irrelevant, rounded cornered rectangles or not, because THAT was only part of what was patented. . . and they had their own design patents which are not invalidated by any that went before them either.
Everything you talk about pre-iPhone are also irrelevencies as prior art. . . if they do not do what the iPhone did
If this is all irrelevant then why are you the one who posted the irrelevant picture showing cell phones before the iPhone (minus those that which were rectangular with rounded corners) and cell phones after the iPhone (minus flip phones, blackberries, and other designs still being made that were not rectangular with rounded corners)? The original iPhone... like just about everything else that Apple has come out before and since is almost always an evolution of designs and functions that other developers came up with previously.
Apple is very, very good at identifying great features that others have come up with and combining them into a product that is user friendly adding a little window dressing and then doing what they are the very best at... marketing. I admire what they do very much. However, this is an evolutionary process.
You and I both know that Apple did not come up with multi-touch capacitive screens. They were out there long before the iPhone. Other manufacturers such as HTC who came out with the phones that the iPhone evolved from chose resistive screens largely because with the small LCD screens that were affordable years before the iPhone came out resistive input had key advantages.
As screens and capacitive touch control evolved it was only a matter of time before someone came to market with a device that used the technologies. It was certainly not a revolutionary development that only Apple had been considering. To claim that Apple was the first to think of such a thing is outrageous. Microsoft, Mitsubishi and others were working on multi-touch displays years before the iPhone was in development. Many of Apples patents on “gestures” etc. are travesties at least as bad as their claim on a rectangle with rounded corners. And quibbling over a button or two or three at the bottom of the device... absolutely ridiculous. That is strictly aesthetics and has just about nothing to do with anything.
I do appreciate that you have admitted that “Apple always spoke in suit about how the Samsung products were intended to look like Apple’s products.” To try and claim that a Samsung S3 could be mistaken for an iPhone is ridiculous and I am happy that on appeal this has been thrown out.
then you say, “they do not do what the iPhone did with a multi-touch capacitance touch screen.” Obviously not... they did pretty much exactly the same thing that an iPhone did only without a multi-touch capacitance touch screen. Good for Apple, they bought a screen and used it they way the designer of the screen envisioned it to be used. Then they marketed and developed it in a way that made lots of people decide they wanted it. Again good for Apple, but it is just more of the same evolutionary process that defines nearly all Apple designs.
I admire your knowledge and enthusiasm for Apple products. You are a great resource here. I do disagree with some of your characterizations of me, but I especially reject your defense of Apple’s hired goon legal department. They are the biggest bullies in the tech sector and are responsible for the stifling of much innovation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
