Apple sues Samsung over "copying" iPhone and iPad

Linky

At first I wasn't sure what to make of this, until I saw this line:

I wonder if Apple is once again trying to create a monopoly, like they did when they sued microsoft over the windows GUI.

My troper wall

The thing they seem to be most angry about is that Samsung produces some of the chips used in iProducts. This could mean a conflict of interest, or suggest that they(Samsung) use their own chips(those made for Apple) to create their Galaxy line.

Yeah, the CPU in particular is a Samsung product (though Apple did some of the design work on the latest incarnation).

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

Anyone got any details on the suit? That article is rather unhelpful on that.

It strikes me that currently everyone is suing everyone in the smartphone & tablet area, seeing if they can get any luck in the courts. Google is suing and being sued. Motorola and Apple are suing each other, I think. And several others.

It can hardly be argued that Apple was first-to-market with the all-touchscreen phone; this may translate into their having legit patents on some things. Unless you believe patents are a universal evil, if they have valid patents they deserve to get redress in the courts if their competition is infringing them. Same with the other guys; if they have valid claims, let's see.

Of course, most of them will probably settle before trial.

edited 18th Apr '11 9:38:39 PM by Morven

A brighter future for a darker age.

This MacWorld article has a little more info:

It looks like a suite of patent infringement claims on the technology, plus some extra trademark claims that the Galaxy is attempting to imitate Apple's distinctive style.

I don't think you can really consider a touch interface a trademark can you?

Fight smart, not fair.

They're calling rectangles with rounded corners a "distinctive style"?

@Deboss: if so, it would not be the most stupid patent ever granted.

Nonetheless, I suspect that, since Apple was the first company to bring a (almost) completely touch-screen-driven phone to market, they encountered some problems that prompted some patentable inventions that might prove rather crucial to implementing such a phone.

It's also worth noting that Apple doing this is in some respects a "defense via offense" move. Many of these companies have been in the cellphone business for a long time and may hold patents that could hurt Apple. If Apple's the one with the developed case against its competitors, it has a much stronger bargaining position against them than if the competitors got to choose the moment.

A brighter future for a darker age.

I, for one, believe that patents are an universal evil. On those suits, I always root for the defendant.

Intellectual property is a cancer.

edited 19th Apr '11 3:44:50 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Trademark, not patent.

Fight smart, not fair.

Hmm... Trademarks are the least evil part of IP law.

I'm still rooting for the defendant, though. .

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I don't think Patents are inherently evil, just that the patent office doesn't do enough oversight and gives them out for stuff that should be unpatentable.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Watching Steve stew is fun.

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

“The copying is so pervasive, that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products — with the same rectangular shape with rounded corners, silver edging, a flat surface face with substantial top and bottom black borders, gently curving edges on the back, and a display of colorful square icons with rounded corners, ” the complaint says.

so does mac own the trademark to rectangles with rounded edges?

If it doesn't, then my cellphone is fucked.

   Yes.   

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

I entirely agree.

Wow, I think that this is the first time we ever agreed on anything... ;)

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Agree. Unfortunately, it's so far proven one of the most effective means of pushing technology forward. That said, there's no reason we can't cut all copyright laws and make it a free for all.

Fight smart, not fair.

Perhaps "pushing technology forward" is not worth it.

We're a sufficiently high-tech society that we can afford tech growing naturally.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I disagree. Knowledge is a resource, and patent laws codify that.

Without them, Europe would be fucked, as we basically have no natural resources any more. We rely on having better infrastructure, better education and yes, more accumulated knowledge than places like China or India.

Now, what needs to be done is not to abolish patent law, but to overhaul the entire legal system of intellectual property, to protect it better against abuses.

Bah, Luddism.

edited 19th Apr '11 6:53:23 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

State-enforced private monopolies are very ugly. "Intellectual property" is a monstrosity that should be killed dead.

Knowledge is, by nature, a non-scarce resource. Generating artificial scarcity in one of the few valuable but non-scarce resources around is simply evil.

edited 19th Apr '11 6:55:00 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Yes, knowledge is a potentially non-scarce resource. But other resources aren't. Other resources need to be traded in for something. And if that is done by making knowledge artificial scarce, if that what it takes to keep Europe first world, then... so be it.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Ok, a few things here.

First of all, even assuming that your analysis of that the situation were correct, I would still be against intellectual property laws: if all we only way in which we can be rich is by keeping others down, then perhaps we do not deserve to be rich.

This said, I think that your observations are wrong at a more fundamental level. Third world countries gleefully (and rightfully, as far as I am concerned) ignore brevets and even trademarks, and can be expected to continue do so for the foreseeable future; the reason why Europe is prosperous is not because European companies hold these rights, but rather because of its advanced levels of technological development. What we export are not property rights, but services and complex technological products, and we mostly export these to other first-world countries. Sure, Europe will need to rethink the foundations of its economic system as more and more nations become capable of offering such products and services; but hoping to stave off this competition through intellectual property rights is worse than immoral, it is infeasible.

edited 19th Apr '11 7:44:23 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Deserving? How are such things about being deserved or not? It's the task and duty of every government to look out for their respective country's interest, and that includes very fundamentally maintaining or even bettering the standard of living within that country. It's really not about keeping others down - that may be a regrettable side effect, but really it's about keeping ourselves up.

But what is technological development if not (executed) knowledge? Yes, Europe prospers through technological advantages, but that is exactly why it needs patents.

edited 19th Apr '11 7:52:13 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

You're endorsing making stuff artificially scarce to get rich, using the jackboot of the State no less. That's immoral, unconscionable, asinine and (thank the Gods) impractical. Eventually intellectual property will die.

It's on its last generation, like Prohibition and other statist boogeymen.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.