The point he was making doesn't make sense anyway. What does the start up screen have to do with anything? The phones are already on and 'live' at the store when customers make their purchase.
Battle of the ludicrous patent claims: Apple vs Samsung vs Apple
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
The point he was making doesn't make sense anyway. What does the start up screen have to do with anything? The phones are already on and 'live' at the store when customers make their purchase.
Maybe, maybe not. Stores often have dummy plastic phones to combat theft, and if you want to try one out, they take a real one out of a box and turn it on. And if stores present it to a customer at the app screen, then its not Samsung's fault anyway, its the retailer's.
I think the point of the questions was that while the devices may look similar at the Samsung app screen, so much happens with the phone before getting to that screen that its impossible to be confused by the time you get there. It ties in with yesterday's discussion of the Samsung logo and whatnot during boot time.
And usually not in their application window, but their homescreen. I think the line of questioning was trying to highlight the fact that after spending a few seconds with the device, someone would know it was different - and generally trade dress claims are about trying to imitate to the point that you would confuse a customer - not so much about borrowing one too many aesthetics.
pants
Member
i fully expect some equally inane shit from Samsung once they start
Zombie James
Banned
*sigh*
I ask again, *why* should it have consequences? What greater purpose does that serve? Has Apple lost even a single sale because of this 'copying'? Has Apple's reputation been tarnished in any way? Has anyone ever bought a samsung phone thinking they were buying an Apple phone?
And it is absolutely not necessary that a door be a rectangle anyways. There in fact are doors that are circles, rectangular prisms, ovoids, triangles, etc. Of course, no one ever put in a trade dress claim for a rectangular door and that's the difference you should be focusing on there.
There are two tests for trade dress:
- Functionality: It must not be functional in any way. Having your icons in a grid so they an be organized, having them have coloured backgrounds to indicate grouping, and a bar at the bottom to indicate commonly used functions, are functional purposes that apple has claimed themselves. That rules them out as protectable. When colour patterns on clothes are the subject of trade dress it's because they literally serve no purpose other than to identify the maker. That's not even remotely true of anything in the iOS' minimalist UI.
- Distinctiveness: Icons in a grid and a task bar have been a universal part of OS UI design since the late 80s. That they plopped this idea on a phone does not make it special or distinctive, nor was it even within that field. Phones with colourful icons in a grid have been a thing since the early 2000s.
I'm sorry, but "they copied us" is not a legal argument. If copying something that is functional and non-distinct were a legal argument for restraint of trade commerce would have ground to a halt long long ago. It's essential to product evolution that competition be allowed and encouraged, even when it's for similar products.
whatsinaname
Member
Just imagine if whoever had first used the play/stop/fast-forward and rewind symbols had patented them. Richest person/corporation in the world.
Goddamn thats an uncomfortable read. She got wrecked up there.
I cant tell if you are joking or not. But those phones in those stores bro.... they are on their home screens. And the Home screen for Android is not an Application drawer. Thats why she was fumbling all over herself not to admit that its ridiculous to assume a person wouldnt notice the difference.
Lol. Them being paid isnt really out of the ordinary for something like this, but you can see what he is trying to do with it. Some grimy shit man.
Oooohhh now thats a tough one. Which is which. Especially since we are talking Sprint, where the iPhone wasn't even available at the time. Thats a little more than a stretch.
Well... yes? Okay, not a phone, but we know that part of Apple's case is that Samsung themselves highlighted internally the number of people returning tablets because they thought they'd bought an iPad but turned out to have a Tab.
I think it's important to differentiate between people who return products and are knowledgeable about the products, and those who are really not.
To the day I quit working at Best Buy (couple of months back) there would be people coming in asking for 'iPads' - and what they REALLY wanted was a non-iOS tablet/eReader/Air Conditioner. Around the introduction of these generation of tablets, so many people didn't know anything about Android, and assumed every flat device with a touch screen was an iPad. Distinguishing between the two (people in the know, and people who are not) is so important.
Has this argument actually been introduced in court yet? What I can find online talks about people returning tabs for ipads, which is not necessarily the same thing.
That said, I think that Samsung plastering their logo all over everything pretty much kills any argument of an informed and reasonable consumer being confused. That there are uninformed and unreasonable consumers out there is a whole other matter.
Also Apple should be very careful about this line, imo. They could risk admitting to genericization of their trademark.
The more and more I think about this. Apple may stand to lose their claim to the iPad trademark.
It's become more or less become a term for current day tablets. Usually companies have to actively prevent people from using their trademarks as everyday words to prevent it from become common language("Google it" for example).
Apart from their litigation, I can't think of Apple actively making sure that iPad isn't replacing the word "tablet". Although it might be a little bit early in the game.
All this was brought on by Kinitari mentioning people wanting non-ios "iPads".
It's become more or less become a term for current day tablets. Usually companies have to actively prevent people from using their trademarks as everyday words to prevent it from become common language("Google it" for example).
Apart from their litigation, I can't think of Apple actively making sure that iPad isn't replacing the word "tablet". Although it might be a little bit early in the game.
All this was brought on by Kinitari mentioning people wanting non-ios "iPads".
Marty Chinn
Member
Is there any place you can actually physically pick up and head to a register with a tablet without having to ask for it? I would think anyone wanting an iPad is going to ask for Apple or iPad to the sales person.
Some people are just so uninformed and in a rush that it ends up looking something like this
Customer: Hi! Can I buy this? *customer thinks this is an iPad*
Employee: Okay, do you need x y and z with that?
Customer :No no, I'm in a rush, I just want to grab this and go
Employee: Kay
Customer left with a god knows what. Could be anything, could be a speaker, I'm telling you.
Sometimes the employee can even say "Just so you know, this is an Android product" and a customer will fucking tune their asses out because they think they're being sold a warranty or some shit. Maybe they went in looking for a non-iOS tablet, asked for an iPad and got an iPad - maybe they went in asking for an iPad and just pointed at something that looked like what they wanted. I've seen some crazy shit brah.
......I'll say again, I don't think these experts were prepped properly.
To anyone interested: I am officially available to act as an expert witness, you can check my posting history for references.
Excluding background about a witness? Really Koh?
Live blog(pretty shittly as numble mentioned) http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21275393/live-blog-apple-samsung-patent-trial-experts-take-stand
I think it speaks more to the fundamental absurdity of software patents. Under any real scrutiny, arguments fall the fuck apart.
Is it about whether someone would MISTAKE a Samsung phone for an iPhone, or whether one would just pass for one? And I don't mean think that it's an iPhone at a glance, I mean like, "oh this Samsung phone is identical to an iPhone in look and feel, so I'll just get this instead".
And I don't mean in a features context, because that is just competition. But if a company apes another device entirely in the hopes that they would choose it as an alternative or substitute....
And I don't mean in a features context, because that is just competition. But if a company apes another device entirely in the hopes that they would choose it as an alternative or substitute....
That was my earlier post
.As far as I understand, the bold is generally what most trade dress issues are about. And the effects that sort of deception has on a brand:
Ie, if someone buys an iPud, with an apple bitten in the wrong spot as the logo - and the device sucks balls - it hurts Apple's brand.
Every company produces a product they hope customers would choose as an alternative or a substitute. Trade dress and trademarks are about *fraud*.
Marty Chinn
Member
I figured many/most consumers aren't bright or savvy(contrary to what some other threads have claimed), but I just would have assumed the fact that they have to interact with someone before they can get it would have been enough of a barrier for most cases.
Not really. If you open up the Best Buy circular or watch a commercial and you see a $99 tablet advertised you may go in an point to the paper or ask for the $99 ipad. A salesperson will know what you mean and give you the sale item and not necessarily correct you on the misuse of the word ipad. Because then they risk you getting offended and not buying anything.
I used to work retail as well and people confused stuff all the time. Particularly when something is cheaper or on a big sale compared to the leading brand, everyone wants the cheaper one then a week later some return it because its not the actual thing they wanted. We used to see it with laptops, cameras, phones and all sorts of electronics.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
You can't be serious. Apple won't lose their trademark on iPad. Not going to happen. People can call other tablets an "iPad" all they want, but you're not going to see it become the official de facto name for these types of devices.
If Apple lawyers are to be believed it's already happening.
The point I was making, has, and does happen with unique products (velcro, scotch tape, google, etc).
Is it even a question that people are starting to universally called tablets ipads?
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
There is a difference between a product becoming the generic term for something and a company losing the trademark. Velcro, Scotch Tape and Google may have become generic, but each of their respective companies still holds the trademark for them. In which case it isn't possible for someone to create a line of tape and call it Scotch Tape nor would it ever be possible for Samsung to create a tablet and call it the Galaxy iPad.
It's called a generic trademark and it happens overtime if the the owner doesn't actively protect it from falling into common usage(and not just from competitors).
Which is why I said:
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Yep, I know what a generic trademark is and we're a long way from Apple falling into that category. If it didn't happen with the iPod it isn't going to happen to the iPad. It was far more prevalent in the mp3 player market than it is in tablets.
Purely anecdotal evidence I know, but I've never heard anyone call a different tablet an iPad. Then again, most everyone I know who has a tablet that isn't an iPad has a Kindle, which is already a pretty strong brand in it's own right.
mugurumakensei
Member
Apple to retroactively sue AIGA.
I can't wait until Samsung blows up Apple's spot on their doctored images.
Patent infringements:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491403-37/heres-apples-original-copying-presentation-to-samsung/
When Apple fully decouples from Google services, the lawsuit that follows is going to be monumental.
Patent infringements:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491403-37/heres-apples-original-copying-presentation-to-samsung/
When Apple fully decouples from Google services, the lawsuit that follows is going to be monumental.
Zombie James
Banned
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102595858/Apple-s-August-2010-presentation-to-Samsung-on-iPhone-patents
Check out pages 5-7 and 12-16. The things Apple thinks they invented (and got patents for), of note:
This is beyond ridiculous.
Check out pages 5-7 and 12-16. The things Apple thinks they invented (and got patents for), of note:
- Status bars.
- Calendar entries.
- Multitasking.
- Application switching.
- Video compression.
- Menus.
- Translucent user interfaces.
- Animated transitions.
- Threaded email.
- Lists.
This is beyond ridiculous.
I can't wait until Samsung blows up Apple's spot on their doctored images.
Patent infringements:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491403-37/heres-apples-original-copying-presentation-to-samsung/
When Apple fully decouples from Google services, the lawsuit that follows is going to be monumental.
Being in bed with Samsung for parts didn't stop them from suing.
Thought this video was appropriate for this thread: http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html . Doesn't mention Apple until the second half.
tfur
Member
The slimeyness at the soul of Apple is all Steve Jobs' doing. Sadly, toe picker RMS was right.
What a blight on computing.
It will all be glossed over by TMZ level techno journalists.
They should basically patent moving stuff thats been a feature on PC for decades onto a phone...
sableholic
Member
These slides are so insane, apple apparently owns patents on every single programming pattern ever
mugurumakensei
Member
I'm patenting "sending structured data over a medium".
The Verge is basically claiming Samsung outright lied and had to have Apple's witness correct them:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/10/3233870/samsung-mislead-jury-apple-patent-experts-trial/in/2971889
Samsung's lawyer seriously didn't know how scrolling or pinch to zoom works? Really?! Wow. Their lawyer is completely braindead.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/10/3233870/samsung-mislead-jury-apple-patent-experts-trial/in/2971889
Samsung's lawyer seriously didn't know how scrolling or pinch to zoom works? Really?! Wow. Their lawyer is completely braindead.
Y'know, this pisses me off... But what really fucks me off is the people who buy their products and are aware of what they're capable of. If Apple get their way, this could end very, very badly.
Where will they stop? Anyone who poses competition to them? And why does the general public not care about any of this? Are they too distracted by shiny objects?
Windows Phone poses competition to them. Apple has brought it up multiple times as an example of a mobile OS that doesn't infringe on its patents as an example against the TouchWiz skinned Android.
And why would you expect the public to care? No one cares about this stuff but tech nerds. And especially this being an American centric court battle. And Apple dominates Samsung in smartphone sales in America (the sales data from the case shows 80 million+ iPhone sales in America to date vs about 20 million Samsung smartphone sales in America). Samsung's advantage is the international market. Apple dominates the states which is where this battle is being fought.
Apple has what, the strongest brand name of any company in America or something? Outside of tech nerds you won't see the public here getting outraged by something Apple does. They have more public goodwill than they would know what to do with.
If they weren't allowed stupid patents no one would be infringing. Really, status bars and menus? Multitasking? Gmail like emails? Lists? Seriously?
Besides, apple copies too, no? They took the notification bar. Did they not draw inspiration from android? you think there wasn't an internal document at Apple showing exactly how the notifications on Android work?
Technosteve
Banned
- Status