Rounded rectangle copyright

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by James Silverton, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. Can someone explain to me just what sort of a copyright Apple has on the
    "rounded rectangle"? Most of the ebook readers like Kindle and Nook
    could be described as such.
    James Silverton, Aug 29, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. James Silverton

    Mayayana Guest

    | Can someone explain to me just what sort of a copyright Apple has on the
    | "rounded rectangle"? Most of the ebook readers like Kindle and Nook
    | could be described as such.

    It's a "design patent", not a copyright.
    The other patents are equally ludicrous.
    One is for "pinch to zoom". It's not a patent for
    touch-screen. It's just a claim to one style of
    implentation of touchscreen functionality! But it
    doesn't really matter. The patent office is clearly
    out to lunch and patent "trolling" has become an
    accepted business practice.
    Mayayana, Aug 29, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. James Silverton

    J. Clarke Guest

    On the other hand since modern processors have hardware floating point
    and even if they didn't, could do it by brute force and awfulness faster
    than a 68000 could with cleverness and elegance, such a patent likely
    isn't much of an obstacle.

    Regardless, the screen of my Windows machine is full of rounded
    rectangles at the moment.
    J. Clarke, Aug 29, 2012
  4. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    the jury in apple v. samsung disagrees with you. they found those other
    patents to be valid.

    unlike you, they heard all the facts in the case, as opposed to
    deciding based on a personal bias.
    actually it does matter.
    that part is true.
    Guest, Aug 29, 2012
  5. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    it's not rounded rectangle by itself, it's an overall look of a
    product, of which rounded rectangles are one part of the design.

    if you make something that looks like an ipad or an iphone and someone
    might confuse the two, then you may be infringing.

    however, in apple v. samsung, the jury was not convinced regarding
    ipads and apple lost that part.
    Guest, Aug 29, 2012
  6. James Silverton

    Martin Brown Guest

    Only because it was an American company against some nasty foreigners
    (who incidentally make the chips for Apple)

    See for example:

    I am sure Samsung can think of innovative ways to wreck Apples run up to
    the Christmas period without actual breach of contract if they are
    feeling sufficiently aggrieved at their treatment in partisan US courts.
    It is ludicrous that the USPTO will allow major corporations to patent
    trivial stuff like this without bothering to check prior art properly.
    Their golden rule is if your dollars are green they issue the patent not
    matter how trivial and worthless it may be. Xerox has a patent on the
    mathematical identity X + (-X) = 0 dressed up in lawyer speak.

    An US corporations lead the way in this lawyer based exploitation of the
    patents to prevent new inventions and stymie innovation. The exact
    opposite of what the patent system of disclosure is intended to do.
    Martin Brown, Aug 30, 2012
  7. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    more conspiracy theories. what pre-trial rulings were absurd?
    it won't be overturned on the basis of jury misconduct.

    the judge might invalidate some of it for other reasons, or she might
    not. that remains to be seen. chances are it will change a little, but
    what won't happen is it being overturned entirely.
    no, apple didn't lose each time. here's an instance where they won:

    Guest, Aug 30, 2012
  8. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    nonsense. there's no conspiracy here.

    samsung blatantly copied apple. it's not a question of if, but how
    much, and the answer is a *lot*.

    and it's not just apple. samsung has a long history of stealing from
    others. here is their nokia n96 clone:
    not likely.
    the outcome of this is that instead of samsung blatantly copying apple,
    samsung will now have to come up with their own designs, i.e.,

    the end result is *more* choice, not less. instead of having an iphone
    and a clone of it, consumers will have an iphone and something
    different, which might even be better.
    Guest, Aug 30, 2012
  9. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    they missed the deadline.

    would you expect a judge to accept something from you if you were two
    days late?

    how many days late is acceptable?
    prior art would not have helped them all that much. it might have
    invalidated a patent or two but not the fact that they blatantly and
    intentionally copied apple.
    you have that backwards. apple initially wanted to settle it through
    negotiations and avoid a lawsuit. samsung didn't, so apple had no
    choice but to sue.
    the judge can change the actual award so that's not important.
    that was the least of their problems.

    one of samsung's biggest problems was the 132 page document that
    basically said 'here are all of the things we need to copy about the
    iphone.' other problems include emails, google warning them that their
    designs were too close to apple and *much* more.

    the evidence against samsung was overwhelming.

    here's more:

    one of my favourite parts of the trial was when the judge held up an
    ipad and a samsung tablet and samsung's own lawyers couldn't tell the

    if *anyone* should be able to tell the difference, it should be their
    own counsel, who is supposed to know the differences well enough so
    they can convince a jury that they're different and non-infringing.

    copying is what samsung does. here's the nokia n96 and samsung's

    the new samsung series 5 and 7 look like a macbook air. of all the ways
    to make a laptop, it just happens to look the same...

    as i said, it's not a question of *if* samsung copied (they clearly
    did), but just how much? the jury found that it went far and it was
    intentional, which is why they were found to not only just infringe but
    it was willful infringement.
    i would.
    jury misconduct has a high standard. if another jury who followed all
    of the instructions to the letter could have come to the same verdict,
    then the verdict stands. nothing supports that another jury would have
    come to a different verdict.
    i will gladly bet on that.

    it will *not* be completely overturned. it will probably be modified,

    some of the patents are already being reexamined. what's *not* likely
    to happen is all of the patents being invalidated.
    in other words, apple won.
    i never said it was the same.

    you made it sound like apple lost everywhere except in last week's
    decision, when that's not at all true.
    Guest, Sep 1, 2012
  10. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    however, deadlines are deadlines. if deadlines can be ignored, then
    what's the point of having a deadline at all?

    i'm sure that if apple was 2 days late you'd say tough shit.

    you also didn't answer how many days late is acceptable? where do you
    draw the line? 3 days? 5 days? 2 weeks?

    they missed their deadline. it's that simple.
    which prior art? if you mean the f700, that's *not* prior art, and is
    actually laughable that anyone would even make that claim.
    look at android before and after the iphone. it's pretty obvious where
    android got its ideas. it's also why eric schmidt was booted off of
    apple's board of directors.
    you always ask for a lot then negotiate down. samsung wanted no part of
    that, so apple had no choice but to sue. apple has repeatedly said they
    wanted to avoid a trial but had no choice.
    it's unlikely she'll triple it, and she can also reduce it.
    you seem to have no perspective other than an anti-apple bias. you want
    apple to lose, even when the facts prove otherwise.

    the fact is that samsung blatantly copied apple.

    samsung copies other companies too. copying is what they do. this is
    *very* obvious and you don't even need a trial to see it.
    which legal experts? not the ones i've read and listened to.

    nilay patel from theverge agrees with the verdict.

    lawyer peter toren predicted apple would win, before the verdict:
    ...the outcome may come down to simply whether the jury believes with
    its own eyes that Samsung copied the appearance of the iPhone and

    and that's exactly what they did. they saw the evidence and that
    samsung copied apple. it's no surprise it took as little time as it
    look at the evidence, namely that 132 page document.
    the only proof is that you didn't click the link and are talking out
    your ass, as usual.

    that link is not 'random forum comments'. far from it.

    it's multiple photos of several samsung and apple products and how much
    samsung copied apple, including the packaging, the power adapter, and
    even the sync cable, all identical clones of apple.

    samsung even used apple's own icons in their store, without permission
    of course. and it's not like any of those icons would appear on any
    samsung product anyway. they just needed icons and stole a bunch.

    if you can't see that samsung blatantly copied apple, then you're blind.
    Guest, Sep 1, 2012
  11. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    translated: it might prove you wrong so better not follow up on it.

    tim cook. ever heard of him?
    apple winning means that samsung now has to come up with their own
    ideas instead of stealing from others, and those ideas might even be
    better than the iphone.
    yes, the patent system has problems, but apple does have patents and
    has every right to defend them.
    not all and there are many more cases to come.
    that's just one patent.

    have you heard nilay's take on the entire case? he was on a podcast
    last week and had quite a bit to say and he agrees with the verdict.
    it's not meaningless at all, and his comments after the verdict, which
    i heard friday, reinforce what he said in that article.
    if you were actually following the trial, it would mean quite a bit.

    the fact you had to ask means you *aren't* following the trial.

    anyway, here's a link:

    and the actual 132 page document:

    i read the whole thing and it's basically a very specific how-to on
    what to copy, which samsung ultimately did.
    actually, it is very reliable. the link is multiple *pictures* and
    stands on its own. you still haven't clicked it, have you?

    the photo itself happens to be hosted on imgur so maybe you'll click
    this link instead before you make yourself look even more foolish than
    you already have:

    samsung clearly copied apple's designs. there is no other possible
    explanation. that's why they lost.
    Guest, Sep 2, 2012
  12. James Silverton

    Guest Guest

    ad hominem.
    nonsense. of course there is.

    just what do you think those two products *are*?

    hint: android devices.
    in other words, you've already decided how it *should* be without
    having looked at both sides of the story.

    if you don't know who tim cook is, then you are admitting you know very
    little about this case and are very biased.

    at least i know who all those who are involved are and what they've
    said. you do not.

    since you only are looking at one side, your opinion can immediately be
    nonsense, and market share is not what's important anyway.

    apple is making the bulk of the profits in the mobile phone industry
    and is the most valuable company in the world based on market cap. they
    don't need to copy anyone.
    except that the patents are currently valid, therefore they *do* have
    the right to defend them.

    if at some point they are deemed invalid, then things change. that
    hasn't happened yet. the patents are being reexamined so it might
    change, and it might not.
    no, they're defending their ip, which samsung copied.
    wrong. the other cases may not be as big as apple v. samsung, but it's
    not 'exactly one' either.

    ...someone invariably asserts that Cupertino may have won a case on
    its own home turf, but outside the U.S. every patent suit it files
    has fallen flat.
    "You won't be surprised to hear," he replied, "that the assertion is
    demonstrably false."

    Mueller points to a post he wrote in July listing nine Apple and two
    Microsoft patents that had been deemed by courts to be infringed by
    Android-based devices, including courts in Munich and Dusseldorf. In
    addition, he writes,

    € Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 were banned in
    Germany over the European version of Apple's design patent
    € Apple also won a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1
    in Australia, but that one was lifted on appeal and a final ruling is
    still pending
    € Apple won an injunction for a photo gallery patent in The
    € Apple won an overscroll bounce ("rubber banding") patent case in
    Korea (although it was also found to have infringed two
    standards-essential Samsung patents)
    "By contrast," he adds, "Samsung has not won anything outside of
    Korea except an entitlement to a tiny amount of damages in the
    Netherlands over a standard-essential patent. Samsung lost its three
    offensive German cases (all of them over 3G-essential patents), lost
    bids for iPhone 4S preliminary injunctions in France and Italy, and
    lost all of its offensive claims at the U.S. trial."
    a yard they share with samsung, who *also* has offices in silicon
    he has a lot more to say than just that one page, as do other people
    from the verge.

    anyway, you're cherry picking. you are ignoring anything and everything
    that contradicts your view. no surprise there, that's your standard

    in the podcast, he repeatedly said samsung copied apple and why they
    lost the case.

    basically, it boils down to trade dress.

    if you made a car that looked like a corvette or a mustang, you can be
    damned sure chevrolet or ford will go after you.
    some are celebrating and some aren't. quinn emannuel isn't celebrating.

    as for consumers, they won because companies like samsung will now have
    to invent their own products. this means *more* and *different*
    products, not clones of the same stuff. nilay agrees with me on that.

    apple took 5 years and spend millions of dollars to come up with the
    iphone. samsung took 3 months to copy it, without any risk.
    wrong. it's an analysis of the trial, which happened to be written
    before the verdict. he said it would be decided on trade dress, and it
    was. it was a very accurate analysis, and he was even a bit surprised
    at just how well he predicted it.

    you won't click a link to a photo, why would you download and listen to
    a 2 hour legal podcast (not all of it was apple v. samsung though but a
    good chunk of it was) with several ip lawyers discussing it.
    it says a *lot* about infringing trade dress.

    it's also not a competitive analysis, it's an explicit step by step
    guide on exactly which aspects of the iphone to copy.

    other evidence that mattered was google telling samsung to back off
    because their design was too close to what apple was doing.

    you're ignoring all of that, because you want apple to lose, no matter
    what the facts are.

    fortunately, the jury was not biased like you are and looked at *all*
    of the facts, not just one side.
    it has *everything* to do with this particular lawsuit, and yet again
    you can't even take the time to look at it.

    anyway, samsung has already worked around the patents for future
    says the person who ignores the facts he doesn't want to hear.
    yet another ad hominem and i'll take it to mean that you didn't click
    the link and are just mindlessly babbling.

    anyone who looks at that photo can clearly see that samsung copied
    apple's design on multiple products. there's no possible other

    it's not surprising that they lost.
    Guest, Sep 4, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.