Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

Forums › Android › Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 21

354 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677177 26-Aug-2012 17:11

richms: Copying happens all the time with cars. To think that you shouldnt take inspiration from competing products is to just go totally against the design process.

Indeed. And illustrates my point above. Copying is not necessarily bad and is how design improves. The question is when do you cross the line into plagiarism/duplication or what constitutes something unique and patentable.

Batman

Mad Scientist
21324 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 677182 26-Aug-2012 17:40

spacedog:
richms: Copying happens all the time with cars. To think that you shouldnt take inspiration from competing products is to just go totally against the design process.

Indeed. And illustrates my point above. Copying is not necessarily bad and is how design improves. The question is when do you cross the line into plagiarism/duplication or what constitutes something unique and patentable.

absolutely ... imagine mr benz patenting cars have 4 wheels, or accelerator pedal on right, brake in middle, or disc brakes, or ...

in another vein, the verge vid on youtube - they use apple products ...

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

networkn

21748 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 677183 26-Aug-2012 17:40

richms: Copying happens all the time with cars. To think that you shouldnt take inspiration from competing products is to just go totally against the design process.

I was just compiling this email in my head. Imagine if Ford had patented all the car shapes! We would have no innovation or progress and you would have only 1 car manufacturer in the world.

spacedog

354 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677186 26-Aug-2012 17:46

networkn:
richms: Copying happens all the time with cars. To think that you shouldnt take inspiration from competing products is to just go totally against the design process.

I was just compiling this email in my head. Imagine if Ford had patented all the car shapes! We would have no innovation or progress and you would have only 1 car manufacturer in the world.

Yeah, I don't think the rectangle with rounded corners should have ever been granted a patent.

Also, think many people will learn from Samsung in this trial that if you are going to emulate a design that has a patent filed on it, don't be so damned obvious about it in your internal emails and documents.

;)

Giggs

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677311 26-Aug-2012 22:07

The patent system is broken and has been for a long time. This case only reinforces that. This is only the start, there will appeals probably from both sides and they have lined up cases in 10 other countries so there is a long way to go.

These decisions will not affect NZ directly as we have a separate legal system and there is probably little point bringing a case here as our market is too small. However if for example Samsung is banned from selling certain products then they will hardly supply just us. It is not worth it.

Ragnor

8035 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 677355 27-Aug-2012 01:50

Fortunately there are effectively no software patents in NZ, we are one of the few sane countries in the world in this regard.

Giggs

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677409 27-Aug-2012 09:03

Ragnor: Fortunately there are effectively no software patents in NZ, we are one of the few sane countries in the world in this regard.

Actually you can at the moment but there is strict criteria around it.

A new Patents bill currently before Parliament is seeking to exclude it though. Here is a quote from the commentary to the bill:

"We recommend amending clause 15 to include computer programs among inventions that may not be patented. We received many submissions concerning the patentability of computer programs. Under the Patents Act 1953 computer programs can be patented in New Zealand provided they produce a commercially useful effect.3 Open source, or free, software has grown in popularity since the 1980s. Protecting software by patenting is inconsistent with the open source model, and its proponents oppose it. A number of submitters argued that there is no “inventive step” in software development, as “new” software invariably builds on existing software. They felt that computer software should be excluded from patent protection as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques. In general we accept this position.

While the bill would provide adequate incentives for innovation, however, we are aware of New Zealand companies who have invested in a significant number of software-related inventions, involving embedded software.4 We sought advice on the approach taken in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, and whether legislation that would enable “embedded software” to be patentable might be practicable. After careful consideration we concluded that developing a clear and definitive distinction between embedded and other types of software is not a simple matter; and that, for the sake of clarity, a simple approach would be best. We received advice that our recommendation to include computer programs among the inventions that may not be patented would be unlikely to prevent the granting of patents for inventions involving embedded software.

We recommend that the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand develop guidelines for inventions containing embedded software."

Kiwipixter

246 posts

Master Geek

# 677442 27-Aug-2012 10:01

Giggs: The patent system is broken and has been for a long time. This case only reinforces that. This is only the start, there will appeals probably from both sides and they have lined up cases in 10 other countries so there is a long way to go.

These decisions will not affect NZ directly as we have a separate legal system and there is probably little point bringing a case here as our market is too small. However if for example Samsung is banned from selling certain products then they will hardly supply just us. It is not worth it.

It may be broken but it does serve its purpose in this case. There are not many other Android phones, and there are are plenty of them, that blatantly designed to look and feel like the iPhone like the Galaxy S range. Even the single home button, Android was never designed with a single home button interface.

blair003

553 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677456 27-Aug-2012 10:16

If someone creates a product so similar to a competitors product that consumers are reasonably likely to mistake it for the competitors product, that is probably illegal (I think this falls under trade dress, not patents per se.. although I could be wrong, IP laws get a bit complex).

But that doesn't mean that because ferrari are known for having all their cars red that ford, nissan etc can't paint and sell red cars of their own.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 677461 27-Aug-2012 10:23

I feel sorry for all those people who bought a Samsung device and still don't know its not an Apple.

ibuksh

519 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677463 27-Aug-2012 10:25

kiwitrc: I feel sorry for all those people who bought a Samsung device and still don't know its not an Apple.

I suppose if someone's bought a smartphone, they are smart enough to know what they have bought..

The interface, look and feel can be similar but there is no mistaking when the product brand spells out "SAMSUNG" insteap of Apple with their logo..

cyril7

7193 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 677464 27-Aug-2012 10:26

kiwitrc: I feel sorry for all those people who bought a Samsung device and still don't know its not an Apple.

Sounds like such a person could have been on the jury :)

Cyril

keewee01

1711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 677466 27-Aug-2012 10:37

ibuksh:
kiwitrc: I feel sorry for all those people who bought a Samsung device and still don't know its not an Apple.

I suppose if someone's bought a smartphone, they are smart enough to know what they have bought..

The interface, look and feel can be similar but there is no mistaking when the product brand spells out "SAMSUNG" insteap of Apple with their logo..

I think it was obvious that kiwitrc was being facetious or sarcastic

ibuksh

519 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677468 27-Aug-2012 10:38

keewee01:
ibuksh:
kiwitrc: I feel sorry for all those people who bought a Samsung device and still don't know its not an Apple.

I suppose if someone's bought a smartphone, they are smart enough to know what they have bought..

The interface, look and feel can be similar but there is no mistaking when the product brand spells out "SAMSUNG" insteap of Apple with their logo..

I think it was obvious that kiwitrc was being facetious or sarcastic

Yeah I got that.. thats why I tried my best to make a plain statement..

ibuksh

519 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 677471 27-Aug-2012 10:40

its just wierd how samsung had similar looking phones in design way before the 1st iphone and still gets slapped with a fine/ban

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 21