decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Interesting POV: "Apple may have finally figured out what they are" | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
iOS 7 borrows heavily from its competition. Is it OK?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 09:28 AM EDT
Is it ok?

Only if it stops suing competitors for doing the same thing.

But other than calling them on it really publicly, I don't think anyone should
take any new legal action. No need to stoop to their level.

Samsung should certainly bring this up in every one of their lawsuits. Maybe
along with a certain dead CEO's line about "great artists".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

iOS 7 borrows heavily from its competition. Is it OK?
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 10:46 AM EDT
You have to understand, if Apple "borrows", it's innovation. If
someone else does it, it's copying. ;-)

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Look and feel
Authored by: ailuromancy on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 11:35 AM EDT

Decades ago, Apple sued Microsoft for copying their look and feel. Microsoft won by citing a previous case where it was decided that look and feel were not protected. The case in question was when Xerox Parc sued Apple for copying their look and feel.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting POV: "Apple may have finally figured out what they are"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Link

Apple simply can’t make iOS as beautiful or functional as Android has the ability to be. This is result of the age-old “proprietary versus open source” argument. Android is sublime because there are so many contributing to the success of the platform, while Apple simply dictates what “their” OS is. In their “theft” of ideas for iOS 7, they may have softly conceded their place to Android. Apple has also begun accepting Google services like Maps on their platform, again suggesting an understanding that they’ve been bested.

I don't think that the litigation machine Apple is now is "suggesting an understanding that they’ve been bested". On the contrary. It's the proof that Apple continues to be as arrogant as always running by the old motto: "We innovate, the others just copy".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why reasonable people are insulted/angered
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 01:56 PM EDT

The article asks:

So why are there so many folks deeply insulted or angered by the features that Apple has cherry-picked from its rivals?
The article answers the question quite well.

However, I think it's beneficial if it's said in several different ways to get the point accross. So here's my wording:

    I'm upset with Apple because they take a position of "do as I say, not as I do".
In other words:
    It's ok for Apple to behave a certain way but not others.
So when Apple is busy borrowing ideas of others they get upset when others borrow Apple's ideas.

Additionally, it doesn't matter that - at the basic ethic/moral level - that the particular "whatever" may be patented/copyrighted or not.

The whole exchange of patents/copyrights is to grant a limited monopoly in exchange for the knowledge of the "whatever" to be immediately disseminated to the public so the public can immediately make use of the knowledge of that "whatever". The knowledge is not supposed to be taxed by way of patents/copyrights.

As a result, in my humble opinion, Apple is basically saying:

    It's wrong for you to use any knowledge in the public domain!
And that's just totally wrong*!

At the heart, I think a lot of people recognize that on a subconscious level even if they don't understand on a conscious level why they're annoyed with Apple.

* As a side note: Of course, I also believe the Patent System is feeding Apple's behavior by granting patents on things that shouldn't be patented - such as patenting the knowledge rather then a particular implementation of the knowledge. Patenting "rectangle with rounded corners" on anything should have been completely refused given the obviousness of the design as applied to anything and it's historical existence going back a very long time (like thousands of years old).

Just query Google images for "table 1950's" and you'll see many pictures of rectangle with rounded corners. Query "monitors 1980's" and you'll see many with rectangle with rounded corners. Query "tv 1950's" and you'll see rectangle with rounded corners.

Examine the display area of tv's closely and you'll see the rectangle shape with rounded corners. Not just the units encasing the display but the display themselves as well.

Now ask yourself:

    If tv's as early as 1950 have viewing screens and encasing units designed as "rectangle with rounded corners" - and the retooling of the viewing screens for smartphones makes most sense to just shrinking the viewing size - does it really make sense to grant a particular company a patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" and force all the other manufacturing that has already been doing that for 2 decades to change?
I'm sure even the USPTO - if honestly answering that question - would agree that it does not make sense. That's just wrong!

Some may scoff on the 2 decades claim. In Google images, query "cell phone 1980's" and take a close look at the images.

A patent grant has a 20 year maximum lifespan in the US. A patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" granted in 1990 expires in 2010.

A very serious question for the USPTO: Why was Apple granted a patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" they can use as a Legal Club today against manufacturing that has been doing this for at least 30 years? (Google images, "cell phone 1970's") - of course, the timeline is variable depending on which "subject matter" you target:

    "communication devices" = 30+ years
    "electronic displays" = 40+ years
    "external to electronic surfaces" = 2000+ years

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

One day,
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 03:56 PM EDT
most phones will look the same. Form following function.
Car makers got that sorted out a hundred years ago.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I must be missing something
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 04:37 PM EDT
I don't see this as a battle between Apple and Android. Oh yes, there
are some silly lawsuits in a few countries with too many otherwise
unemployed lawyers. But nobody makes "Android" phones. Each
vendor makes his own brand with his own skinned version of the
Android OS. Android is a huge field of disparate makers, and
their devices really are different. It's too easy from the comfort of
a market where share is measured in $ales, to overlook the other
parts of the world where market share is measured in units shipped.
Customers want a phone that works, any phone that they can afford,
and they're not niggling over drop shadows or font niceties.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )