Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Apple proposed $30-40 Samsung license fee per device

updated 10:29 pm EDT, Fri August 10, 2012

Six witnesses examined, new documents revealed in trial

Friday's events in the Apple vs. Samsung trial in Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom in San Francisco today included two University of Toronto professors, an MIT marketing professor and two market research experts as Apple begins to wrap up its case against Samsung, clearing the way for Samsung to present its own charges next week. A presentation entered into evidence showed that Apple had warned Samsung it was infringing in 2010, and proposed a license of $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.

The October 2010 patent license meeting proposed Samsung pay a base rate of $30 per touchscreen phone, and $40 per tablet regardless of operating system, with tablet fees decreasing to $30 over two years. A royalty discount would apply depending on the phone features. Phones with Apple patents that Microsoft had already licensed would give 40 percent off, a cross-licensing deal on Samsung's patents would apply another 20 percent, and a QWERTY form-factor design would deduct a further 20 percent.

Apple had given a presentation to Samsung executives in August of 2010 -- the first of two such presentations -- warning Samsung that Android infringed on many Apple patents (with dozens of examples) and that the platform would "lead companies to imitate the iPhone." The slideshow (seen in full below) showed examples both of areas where Android was infringing Apple patents as well as specific instances where Samsung was doing so as well. The second presentation (not yet available) was the one where Apple proposed the licensing of many, but not all, of Apple's iOS-related patents.

In other events, trademark survey expert Hal Poret took the stand first for the completion of Samsung's cross examination begun on Thursday. Poret conducted a survey for Apple demonstrating that a large proportion of customers could identify the iPad and iPhone, even when unique labeling on the home button and icons were masked.

The expert claimed that the general look and feel of the device -- the "trade dress" -- is what allows customers to clearly identify Apple versus its competitors. The same survey showed a large percentage of consumers confusing Samsung devices with Apple-produced phones and tablets. Samsung attempted to prove that the identification of Apple's devices has only recently manifested itself, and Samsung's devices caused no market confusion.

The second expert for the day, market research expert Kent Van Liere, added that consumers were apt to be confused if they observed someone using a device -- an experience he called a "post-sales environment." Van Liere detailed another survey showing consumers clearly-branded and also unbranded Samsung products, asking if they resembled any other company's devices, as well as other surveys where customers were shown videos of Samsung devices from the side and front. His surveys found that about one-third of the people surveyed by video saw Samsung tablets and thought they were iPads, with 24 percent of people confusing the Barnes and Noble Nook with an iPad as well.

The methodology of the surveys was questioned by Samsung lawyers, asking why the device wasn't simply handed to the consumer. Van Liere responded that the survey wasn't designed for an observer to interact with the device, but was modeled to demonstrate how customers respond to the devices when in use by another person.

Computer scientist and University of Toronto computer science professor Ravin Balakrishnan claimed that many Samsung phones violated Apple patents, and played videos demonstrating his points. Balakrishnan discussed Apple's "bounce-back" patent which is utilized when the user over-scrolls content, and the screen snaps back into place, and noted that Samsung internal documents noting that the bounce-back feature "generates fun for the user with a visual element that seems to bounce." On cross examination, Balakrishnan admitted that a bounce effect can be implemented without violating the patent, but emphasized that to not violate, the effect would have to be notably different. On cross-examination, some phones were shown that don't utilize the "bounce-back" feature, but Balakrishnan noted that the ones he examined did.

Doctor Karan Singh, also from the University of Toronto, was called after lunch. She believed that 24 Samsung products violated Apple's pinch-to-resize patent. The jury was shown source code, not displayed to the press or public, notable as being one of the few elements Judge Koh has sealed as proprietary information. Apple lawyers produced another internal Samsung document which recommended to its design engineers should use the iPhone interface as a "design benchmark" for similar features in Samsung phones.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology marketing professor John Hauser testified about a survey he conducted that found that customers would pay extra for Apple's technologies in Samsung phones, perhaps laying the groundwork for damages. He did admit to the results not predicting to the dollar what customers would actually pay in the market. Hauser's survey found that customers said they would pay around $100 more in order to have the specific features Apple is claiming Samsung copied, though Samsung noted that if the same question had been asked about other features, customers might have added up thousands of dollars for all the features of a modern smartphone, which typically sells for $200 or less with a contract.

Finishing the day, Apple patent license strategist Boris Tesker was called to the stand. He recalled being shocked when Samsung introduced smartphones that strongly resembled Apple devices. A brief second-hand recounting of a meeting with Apple executives approaching Samsung two months later with a slideshow that illustrated areas Apple believed Samsung was infringing was revealed. Apple's goal, according to Tesker, was to obtain a "cost effective license to our patent portfolio" was addressed, with restrictions -- Apple would not allow Samsung to adopt "distinctive industrial design, software platforms, or feature sets." Tesker admitted Apple had a group of patents called the "unique user experience intellectual property," which he called the concepts and ideas "which make our brand identity and keep us in the marketplace."

Judge Koh declared an end to the day's trial prior to cross-examination of Tesker. Apple intends on wrapping up its case on Monday. To date, Apple has used 11 hours and 35 minutes of its allowed 25 hours, and Samsung has consumed 12 hours and 16 minutes before before beginning its case on the patents it claims Apple infringed.


52



By Electronista Staff
toggle

Comments

  1. wrenchy

    Forum Regular

    Joined: 11-03-09

    with 24 percent of people confusing the Barnes and Noble Nook with an iPad as well. Oh good God, people really are brain dead. I walked into a car dealership and bought what I thought was a nice Mercedes Benz. Turned out it was a 2011 Hyundai Sonata. They kinda looked the same... Both had four tires, two aerodynamic headlights. It even had this funny stylized "H" for the logo. I thought it stood for "High" performance. Turned out I was wrong. I returned it.

  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    Interestingly, Lexus saw it fit to actually LICENSE Mercedes designs for some of their early cars.

    Maybe they know more about design and brand recognition than you do.

  1. wrenchy

    Forum Regular

    Joined: 11-03-09

    Maybe they know more about design and brand recognition than you do..... Tell that to the 24% of the bozo's that confuse the Nook for an iPad.

  1. aviamquepasa

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 10-22-11

    I would advice children to become lawyers, the future looks bright for them.

  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    Originally Posted by wrenchyView Post

    Maybe they know more about design and brand recognition than you do..... Tell that to the 24% of the bozo's that confuse the Nook for an iPad.



    That's kind of the point here.

  1. chefpastry

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: 11-14-05

    Don't bother wasting your time with him.

  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    Ah, okay.

    Having only been around the forums, I haven't quite yet got the hang of the News Trolls yet.

    blahblahbber/testudo were obvious.

    Wrenchy doesn't quite seem as stupid at first glance.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    [COLOR=blue][/COLOR]

    Originally Posted by Spheric HarlotView Post

    Ah, okay.
    Having only been around the forums, I haven't quite yet got the hang of the News Trolls yet.
    blahblahbber/testudo were obvious.
    Wrenchy doesn't quite seem as stupid at first glance.



    Why don't you play your gang up game somewhere else? Wrenchy is spot on.

    So not many less people confuse a Nook tablet with an iPad then people confuse a Samsung tablet with an iPad? So should Apple sue Barnes and Noble?

    I keep saying this. Tablets look similar because they are! They are a category of device. They're supposed to look similar. They're not buildings or Apples. Hey, your Apples look like mine! I'm going to sue you!

    The point is that the design elements Apple is trying to make a case for itself on are obvious and not patentable. Therefore, there is no copying, no incringement, no licensing fees in order. Apple is simply arrogant and delusional.

    And $30 a phone in licensing fees? That is insane. Yet, Apple vehemently argues that AFAIK licensing fees Samsung wanted to charge them were unfair. Hmmmm Apple, when are you going to stop being selfish, hypocritical bastards?

    Yes, I love Apple but they're being really stupid and wasting their energy. I look at phones out like the HTC One X, the Samsung Galaxy S3, Android Sense UI. Lots of innovation, different interfaces and mulit-tasking. What is Apple trying to do to itself, back itself in a corner of design and function? Because so much is happening and being done with smartphones Apple is beginning to lag behind. And then when they in innovate they may end up copying what's already been done, knowingly or not, because so much is being done right now. And do any of us think anyone sill take mercy on Apple when they end up using some of these innovations on their phones? No. Apple is making itself out to be an enemy. They're trying to set a precedent that is going to backfire because a. They're going to lose b. They will likely get sued by others as retaliation in the industry. And sued they could be because Apple uses a lot of stuff on their phones that they were not first in.

    An interesting note with a cherry on top. Like Apple's notifications? That's cool. But it's a rip off from webOS. They actually hired the guy who worked at HP on the notification system.

    Good old Apple: our crap doesn't smell.

    http://m.electronista.com/iphone/articles/10/06/09/apple.hints.at.new.ui.for.ios.notifications/

  1. Charles Martin

    MacNN Editor

    Joined: 08-04-01

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    Tablets look similar because they are! They are a category of device. They're supposed to look similar.



    Except that this argument is easily dismissed by having a look at the many Windows tablets that came out before the iPad. They looked nothing like it.

    So, simply put, you're wrong.

    The point is that the design elements Apple is trying to make a case for itself on are obvious and not patentable. Therefore, there is no copying, no incringement, no licensing fees in order. Apple is simply arrogant and delusional.

    You can believe this if you want, but it's funny how this is so "obvious" and yet ... oddly enough ... none of the many courts that have looked at this case (including the ITC) seem to agree with you on this. The reason for that is because you are wrong that Apple's patents are obvious. They are obviously the right way to do this stuff NOW, but at the time of the granting of the patent the weren't.

    It's like cola. You can buy 50 very similar (but not quite the same) brands of cola now. A lot of uninformed people would argue that Coke and Pepsi are essentially the exact same thing. But when the Coca-Cola company won their original patents, brown sugar water was NOT obvious. And I doubt you'd be successful arguing in court that both companies should give up their patents because you can get cola everywhere these days.

    And $30 a phone in licensing fees? That is insane. Yet, Apple vehemently argues that AFAIK licensing fees Samsung wanted to charge them were unfair.

    Of all the holes in your arguments, this is the largest. There is a huge difference between FRAND patents (what Apple is accusing primarily Google, Motorola, HTC and Samsung of abusing) and non-FRAND patents. License fees for non-FRAND can be whatever they are worth to you. It's FRAND patents (essential standards that are required to make the devices work at all) that require a low, non-discriminatory fee. No wonder you're so confused, you don't have even the most basic grasp of what's going on in this case.

    Indeed, this whole debate in the larger context is about Apple (and Microsoft) trying to fight the FRAND abusers, while at the same time get companies like Google to stop ripping off their non-FRAND patents. As mentioned, it's not just Apple here -- Microsoft is just as active (and has so far been equally successful) at getting court orders to stop Motorola and Google from stealing from them.

    I'd suggest you try reading these articles more closely and educate yourself a bit more on the facts of these matters, but really the best experience for you would be to move out from Mom's basement, go out in the real world, invent something new, patent it and then watch others steal your idea. I think it would give you a lot of perspective on how the real world works.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by chas_mView Post


    Except that this argument is easily dismissed by having a look at the many Windows tablets that came out before the iPad. They looked nothing like it.
    So, simply put, you're wrong.



    Here we go, another one who loves to argue. Your the one who labels things arguments. It speaks volumes of the dogma on this forum.

    Fact: tablets look similar because they are.

    You want to get cute? Rounded rectangle tablets came before Apple's, and a long promo video of a thin rounded rectangle prototype from 1994... obvious design elements with DEMONSTRATED prior art:

    4951/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

    HP Tablet from 2002:

    4952/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

    http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI&feature=player_embedded

    Originally Posted by chas_mView Post

    You can believe this if you want, but it's funny how this is so "obvious" and yet ... oddly enough ... none of the many courts that have looked at this case (including the ITC) seem to agree with you on this. The reason for that is blah blah



    The courts don't agree with Apple on many things, and even have moved to reject and question some of these design related patents and patent APPLICATIONS from Apple precisely because they are OBVIOUS WITH PRIOR ART. In fact, Apple is arguing over many design related things that they have to patents on. They're trying to use the sum total to show that their tradedress... in other words... brand has been infringed on.

    http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/05/brand-dilution-as-design-patent-theory.html

    Originally Posted by chas_mView Post

    Of all the holes in your arguments, this is the largest. There is a huge difference between FRAND patents (what Apple is accusing primarily Google, Motorola, HTC and Samsung of abusing) and non-FRAND patents. License fees for non-FRAND can... a bunch of blahs



    There is no argument. There is no anything. Just fact. Apple does not own patents to rounded icons, a rounded rectangle design, or even a touchscreen phone. Yet, they're arguing like they do. Anyone is free to make a rounded rectangle phone or tablet with a touchscreen. Anyone is free to make a phone or tablet with a multi-touch operating system as in Android.

    LG Prada (2006/early 2007) and O2's XDA (2003) came FIRST, then the iPhone:





    Get a grip dude, I love Apple as much as you but no amount of you arguing is going to change the facts. And we don't want Apple getting a monopoly on things like rounded rectangle phones, etc. Move on, and tell Apple to move on too. This is a dead end.

  1. Charles Martin

    MacNN Editor

    Joined: 08-04-01

    Okay, so I see two further problems:

    1. You have no idea what the word "argument" actually means (hint: not "shouting match"). I'm using the word "argument" as in a position you've taken, a case you're trying to make.

    2. Again, if you think Apple has a patent on rounded rectangles (they don't, but you appear to believe that they do) and you don't think they deserve to have a patent on it because of prior art, go to the USPTO and the ITC and make your case. Get Apple's patent invalidated. THEN come back and make your case that Samsung isn't ripping them off.

    Have you done that? No you have not.

    Do you seriously believe you are the first person to think of this, and pursue it? No, you are not.

    Conclusion: if Samsung thought they could get Apple's patents invalidated, they'd try to do that. They may have a fairly incompetent legal team, but they're not THAT stupid. In fact, there have been several court cases already where Samsung has tried to do exactly what you describe. Guess what happened? They lost. If I remember correctly, Apple has had exactly ONE patent invalidated so far, and it was not against Samsung.

    So I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have patents that might possibly get invalidated. What I'm saying is that you appear to be unaware that to have even gotten to this point, the patents Apple (and Samsung, for that matter) are asserting against each other have *already been deemed valid* or this court case would not exist.

    So your argument that these patents aren't valid due to prior art -- which appears to be your sole argument against Apple -- is simply wrong, as I said before. I think the biggest problem that you're having with this is that you're oversimplifying everything -- see my cola analogy in my last post. You're essentially saying that all cars have four wheels, an engine and get you from point A to point B, how could trade dress and design patents possibly exist for cars? All cars are (essentially) the same.

    To you, maybe. To the designers and engineers who sweated every part and worked hard to create their own technology, not so much. Just because you ignore the details and differences doesn't mean they're not there, and that each company's contribution to the art of making automobiles (or smartphones) doesn't deserve to have protection from being stolen and exploited unfairly.

    So I stand by my conclusion. You will need to put forth some other argument other than claiming Apple has patents on things it doesn't (and that those patents are bogus when, through the process of law, you've already been deemed wrong about that) if you expect to have any credibility when commenting on technical issues in a court case that you clearly don't understand.

  1. bleee

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: 03-28-02

    Originally Posted by wrenchyView Post

    Oh good God, people really are brain dead. I walked into a car dealership and bought what I thought was a nice Mercedes Benz. Turned out it was a 2011 Hyundai Sonata. They kinda looked the same... Both had four tires, two aerodynamic headlights. It even had this funny stylized "H" for the logo. I thought it stood for "High" performance. Turned out I was wrong. I returned it.



    Actually the Hyundai Genesis and Equus look very similar to a Mercedes Benz, often times just walking down the street I actually have to pause and double check to see if it is a Benz. Also the Chrysler 300 series looks alot like a Bentley even the emblems "Wings" look similar, often times I've seen 300's on the street modded to look like Bentleys. Do a Google image search for "chrysler 300 bentley" you'll see what I mean.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by chas_mView Post

    Okay, so I see two further problems:
    1. You have no idea what the word "argument" actually means (hint: not "shouting match"). I'm using the word "argument" as in a position you've taken, a case you're trying to make.
    2. Again, if you think Apple has a patent on rounded rectangles (they don't, but you appear to believe that they do) and you don't think they deserve to have a patent on it because of prior art, go to the USPTO and the ITC and make your case. Get Apple's patent invalidated. THEN come back and make your case that Samsung isn't ripping them off.
    Have you done that? No you have not.
    Do you seriously believe you are the first person to think of this, and pursue it? No, you are not.
    Conclusion: if Samsung thought they could get Apple's patents invalidated, they'd try to do that. They may have a fairly incompetent legal team, but they're not THAT stupid. In fact, there have been several court cases already where Samsung has tried to do exactly what you describe. Guess what happened? They lost. If I remember correctly, Apple has had exactly ONE patent invalidated so far, and it was not against Samsung.
    So I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have patents that might possibly get invalidated. What I'm saying is that you appear to be unaware that to have even gotten to this point, the patents Apple (and Samsung, for that matter) are asserting against each other have *already been deemed valid* or this court case would not exist.
    So your argument that these patents aren't valid due to prior art -- which appears to be your sole argument against Apple -- is simply wrong, as I said before. I think the biggest problem that you're having with this is that you're oversimplifying everything -- see my cola analogy in my last post. You're essentially saying that all cars have four wheels, an engine and get you from point A to point B, how could trade dress and design patents possibly exist for cars? All cars are (essentially) the same.
    To you, maybe. To the designers and engineers who sweated every part and worked hard to create their own technology, not so much. Just because you ignore the details and differences doesn't mean they're not there, and that each company's contribution to the art of making automobiles (or smartphones) doesn't deserve to have protection from being stolen and exploited unfairly.
    So I stand by my conclusion. You will need to put forth some other argument other than claiming Apple has patents on things it doesn't (and that those patents are bogus when, through the process of law, you've already been deemed wrong about that) if you expect to have any credibility when commenting on technical issues in a court case that you clearly don't understand.



    The only thing that's clear is:

    1. You don't understand what you read
    2. You see and hear what you want
    3. You have next door to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.

  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    [COLOR=blue][/COLOR][QUOTE=Spheric Harlot;4183265]Ah, okay.
    Having only been around the forums, I haven't quite yet got the hang of the News Trolls yet.
    blahblahbber/testudo were obvious.
    Wrenchy doesn't quite seem as stupid at first glance.



    Why don't you play your gang up game somewhere else? Wrenchy is spot on.

    So not many less people confuse a Nook tablet with an iPad then people confuse a Samsung tablet with an iPad? So should Apple sue Barnes and Noble?[/quote]
    Freudling:

    What the hell do you think will happen if Apple wins this case?
    Why the hell do you think they're going through this trouble?

    This isn't about Samsung: they're simply the biggest, most profitable example, and probably the only one that can survive this court case to the end, establishing legal precedent.

    OF COURSE Apple will go after the Nook and anybody else if they win.

    Point is, they wouldn't even have to sue! They can use the court decision to slap an injunction on anything deemed too close and just sit on that, demanding settlement.

    A win would give them some serious argumentative clout.

  1. chefpastry

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: 11-14-05

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post


    The only thing that's clear is:
    1. You don't understand what you read
    2. You see and hear what you want
    3. You have next door to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.



    I will do what Samsung does...

    The only thing that's clear is:
    1. You don't understand what you read
    2. You see and hear what you want
    3. You have next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.

  1. Charles Martin

    MacNN Editor

    Joined: 08-04-01

    1. Freudling doesn't understand what he reads
    2. Freudling sees and hears what he wants
    3. Freudling has next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.

    Fixed that for you. :lol:

    Okay, I think I see now what the real problem is -- you're not comprehending that I'm not the one challenging you. I'm the one pointing out that THE FACTS are challenging you.

    You claim that Apple's patents are invalid due to prior art. Clearly, that's not the case -- these patents Samsung is being challenged on have already passed that test. It's not me calling you wrong, it's the USPTO, the ITC and the court system. Maybe you're a genius and all the people in those organisations are chumps, but as you can't even give an actual name on a forum I think I have valid reasons to question your understanding of the case when you infer that all those organizations (and Samsung itself) are too stupid to have seen this obvious issue and not dispensed with it beforehand.

    I would suggest that it is YOU with the rose-coloured glasses on here, chum. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're starting from a very flawed premise that is likely to lead to a flawed assumption. It will be interesting, I'm sure, to discuss this case with you when the trial is over.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by chefpastryView Post


    I will do what Samsung does...
    The only thing that's clear is:
    1. You don't understand what you read
    2. You see and hear what you want
    3. You have next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.



    The only thing that's clear is:

    1. You don't understand what you read
    2. You see and hear what you want
    3. You have next door to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by chas_mView Post

    1. Freudling doesn't understand what he reads
    2. Freudling sees and hears what he wants
    3. Freudling has next to zero understanding of what is happening in this trial.
    Fixed that for you. :lol:
    Okay, I think I see now what the real problem is -- you're not comprehending that I'm not the one challenging you. I'm the one pointing out that THE FACTS are challenging you.
    You claim that Apple's patents are invalid due to prior art. Clearly, that's not the case -- these patents Samsung is being challenged on have already passed that test. It's not me calling you wrong, it's the USPTO, the ITC and the court system. Maybe you're a genius and all the people in those organisations are chumps, but as you can't even give an actual name on a forum I think I have valid reasons to question your understanding of the case when you infer that all those organizations (and Samsung itself) are too stupid to have seen this obvious issue and not dispensed with it beforehand.
    I would suggest that it is YOU with the rose-coloured glasses on here, chum. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're starting from a very flawed premise that is likely to lead to a flawed assumption. It will be interesting, I'm sure, to discuss this case with you when the trial is over.



    Good old chas_m, never makes it out of the starting gates...

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by Spheric HarlotView Post


    Freudling:
    What the hell do you think will happen if Apple wins this case?
    Why the hell do you think they're going through this trouble?
    This isn't about Samsung: they're simply the biggest, most profitable example, and probably the only one that can survive this court case to the end, establishing legal precedent.
    OF COURSE Apple will go after the Nook and anybody else if they win.
    Point is, they wouldn't even have to sue! They can use the court decision to slap an injunction on anything deemed too close and just sit on that, demanding settlement.
    A win would give them some serious argumentative clout.



    What the hell! Hell this and hell that!

    For these reasons and more, Apple won't win.

  1. DiabloConQueso

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 06-11-08

    If someone says "rounded corners" one more time as if Apple is suing Samsung over that, then the proof that they clearly don't understand the court case at all, nor what a patent protects and how it's enforced.

    Apple is not suing Samsung over rounded corners, nor does Apple hold a patent on rounded corners at all. If they did, they'd be suing anyone and everyone that produces a product with rounded corners -- and they're not.

    Plenty of examples of devices with rounded corners have been posted here. That's not the point, though. The case hinges on the fact that Samsung produces a device that has ROUNDED CORNERS, combined with A BLACK FACE, combined with A SILVER/GRAY BEZEL, combined with ICONS THAT ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR, combined with FUNCTIONALITY LIKE SPRING-BACK ON OVERSCROLL, etc.

    None of those things by themselves is the issue -- it's the combination and presence of ALL those things together.

    So yeah, the "rounded corners" argument is dead, because it's being pulled out of a pool of similar features and being taken out of context. Show us artwork or a product that incorporates ALL of the features above that predates the iPhone/iPad, and now we've got a debate going on.... But until then, zeroing in on rounded corners shows lack of understanding.

  1. freudling

    Banned

    Joined: 03-17-05

    Originally Posted by DiabloConQuesoView Post

    If someone says "rounded corners" one more time as if Apple is suing Samsung over that, then the proof that they clearly don't understand the court case at all, nor what a patent protects and how it's enforced.
    Apple is not suing Samsung over rounded corners, nor does Apple hold a patent on rounded corners at all. If they did, they'd be suing anyone and everyone that produces a product with rounded corners -- and they're not.
    Plenty of examples of devices with rounded corners have been posted here. That's not the point, though. The case hinges on the fact that Samsung produces a device that has ROUNDED CORNERS, combined with A BLACK FACE, combined with A SILVER/GRAY BEZEL, combined with ICONS THAT ARE EXTREMELY SIMILAR, combined with FUNCTIONALITY LIKE SPRING-BACK ON OVERSCROLL, etc.
    None of those things by themselves is the issue -- it's the combination and presence of ALL those things together.
    So yeah, the "rounded corners" argument is dead, because it's being pulled out of a pool of similar features and being taken out of context. Show us artwork or a product that incorporates ALL of the features above that predates the iPhone/iPad, and now we've got a debate going on.... But until then, zeroing in on rounded corners shows lack of understanding.



    Thanks dude, like we didn't know it wasn't about the combination of these things. If you actually read this thread you'd see a lot of discussion about the combination of these things together and confusion in the market. And this has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread as well.

    BUT THANKS FOR CHIMING IN WITH YOUR ALL CAPS. YOUR POST REALLY ADDED TO THE DISCUSSION. NOT.

  1. Spheric Harlot

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 11-07-99

    Originally Posted by freudlingView Post

    What the hell! Hell this and hell that!

    For these reasons and more, Apple won't win.



    Damn.

    This would have been your one chance to actually make your point.

    Oh well, I guess you're not interested.

    Empty rhetoric prowess and logorrhea are of no real interest.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Asus Chromebook C300

When Chromebooks hit the market back in 2011, consumers didn't know what to do with them. The low-cost laptops, powered by Google's Ch ...

Plantronics BackBeat Pro Bluetooth headphones

Looking for a pair of headphones that can do everything a user requires is a task that can take some study. Trying to decide on in-ear ...

Lemur BlueDriver

"Oh no, the check engine light is on…again! What one of the hundreds of reasons could it be this time? Probably going to cost a fort ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News