<i>As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung:<p>Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners.
Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
Front surface that isn't entirely flat.
Profiles that aren't thin.
Cluttered appearance.</i><p>If Apple were a car maker, they would be "suggesting" that their competitors should design cars with non-circular wheels, thick body metal and a non-aerodynamic appearance.
Remember folks, Apple are not patent trolls, they just want justice and to be given credit for their innovations, like the rectangle and the rounded corner.
What bothers me about Apple's claims, and I assure you, I have no understanding of how design patents work, is what seems to be good clear prior art, or prior use of these elements in Samsung's own digital photo frames or in the movie 2001, and how little that seems to have been addressed by the courts.<p>Apple's workarounds seem to indicate that Apple wants some exclusive right to rectangular shapes, rounded corners, thin frames, flat surfaces, thin computers, uncluttered appearances.<p>Take the last one, Apple wants a design patent (monopoly) on uncluttered appearances.
Why are people stuck in this mindset that Apple invented the tablet?<p>They didn't. I had a Honeywell tablet way back when, there is a company called hammerhead that makes tablets (<a href="http://www.yenra.com/rugged-tablet-pc/rugged-tablet-pc.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.yenra.com/rugged-tablet-pc/rugged-tablet-pc.jpg</a>), panasonic has had the toughbook, etc. etc.<p>All of these are roughly the shape and size of an iPad. Apple just applied their standard solid-colored plastic design to it.<p>("GUYS! I have an idea! Instead of /white/ plastic lets...wait for this. Are you sitting down? Guys! Instead of WHITE plastic...what if we used....<i>black</i> plasitc?!?")<p>Even the iPhone. Palm had something that looked exactly like an iPhone in early 2000s. I remember my dad having one and giving it to me when it "broke". In fact, I think it only had one button on it.<p>At this point a tablet is as generic a shape as a laptop is. It's rectangular, about the size of a textook, and about a centimeter thick.<p>Apple: get over yourselves. If you're so /innovative/ then show us. Take more scrollbars off of things or something.
The absurdity of this is breath-taking. Apple tablets look exactly like miniature flat screen TVs. I don't know how they have the gall to claim that the form factor of their tablets is in anyway original or protectable. The Apple design here is the obvious one. There will be aliens on distant worlds designing tablets they they will be thin, flat, have narrow rounded borders and have an uncluttered appearance. I can't believe Samsung could even dream of capitulating.
Ever since Apple revolutionized the black rectangle, everyone wants to capitalize on it. It's pathetic really, can't these companies come up with <i>their own</i> shapes?
In other words, they just want to claim a general trademark on "it looks good". Apple fanboys will disagree, but I think it is ridiculous and is part of what makes me dislike Apple with a passion.
The original wording[1] doesn't sound that bad as The Verge writeup. iPhone:<p>> For the iPhone design, alternative smartphone designs include: front surfaces that are not black or clear; front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all; display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone and that have substantial lateral borders; speakers openings that are not horizontal slots with rounded ends and that are not centered above the display screens; front surfaces that contain substantial adornment; and phones without bezels at all or very different looking bezels that are not thin, uniform, and with an inwardly sloping profile.<p>iPad:<p>> For the D'889 tablet design, alternate tablet computer designs include: overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear and that have substantial adornment; thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface; and profiles that are not thin relative to the D'889 or that have a cluttered appearance.<p>They've also provided some sample phone models that are not covered within this design patent[2], from a quick scan-through they mentioned LG Prada, LG Chocolate and Sharp 825SH.<p>> Among other differences, the LG Prada has thicker borders to the left and right of the display screen that are noticeably different from the "big screen" look of the D'677 design.<p>I found this part somewhat interesting:<p>> in instances where visual elements of a design patent are "purely functional," such visual elements should not be considered a part of the patented design<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/74556601/Expert-declaration" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/74556601/Expert-declaration</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_declaration.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_...</a>
<i>As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung:
Overall shape that isn't rectangular...</i><p>Kubrick's <i></i>2001<i></i> cited as prior art: <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/e1e0/</a>
Every time this kind of thing comes up I remember what incredible dipshits HN users can be. I forget it sometimes, but it all comes back with a Proustian rush when I see you stumbling over each other to drown any chance of discussion or insight in tediously histrionic recitations of your opinion.
This is all basically a form factor lawsuit, with Apple making a big arrow pointing to their chief competitor, the one they think can beat them in the marketplace.<p>It's like Apple suing over all-in-one PCs with handles on top, or laptops with a foldup screen.
I'd have some sympathy for Apple if their design was distinctive in itself, but its only real claim to "distinctiveness" is its minimalist lack of any distinctive features. If we allow a lack of design features and utter minimalism to be considered trade dress then we are in for all sorts of trouble because any generic shape or design becomes infringing and this precedent will ripple through everything.<p>Thus I think the whole argument about "Samsung could have made theirs more distinctive" is missing the point. Apple can easily make their tablets more distinctive too, and thus gain the protection of trademarks or trade dress.
Please, please, can an artist mock up a "Presenting the new Samsung Galaxy X" graphic post haste? Just the mental picture of the proposed redesign was snort-out-loud funny. Sharp corners, front surfaces with substantial adornment, and an off-center, cluttered appearance with wide edges, hoo boy.
Anyone else think the title is misleading? It's a really loose definition of "suggestions", kind'o like "suggesting" someone go jump off a bridge... So, in the spirit of "suggestion", Samsung could have just gotten rid of the touch screen thing all together and added a fold out keyboard and cd-rom just to be sure not to infringe on Apple's patent. How about circular or triangular screens?
I'd also like to just drop this off here: <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-f...</a><p>Exactly who is aping who? Make the bezel thinner and take off the logo and it's a completely different design, your honor!
What would be something if the court on reading Apples ridiculous suggestions took a second look at the very idea of having such broad design patents in the first place.
The fact is Samsung is obviously mirroring the industrial design success of Apple to cause market confusion. To root for a company like this to succeed is disgusting.