Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by swayvil | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

swayvil

Isn't this the same Apple that patented rounded corners?

Fuck em. Live by the sword etc...

View on HN

Sure, reduce history to a single liner that doesn't truly represent the patent and apply it in a sweeping manner.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/claim-check-if-apple-pate...

Well, the actual design patent (670286) was really only about a device with rounded rectangles (if you look at the solid lines in their drawing as declared by them). And it was one of the points in their litigation. People remember history incidences with one lines that made them famous, but that doesn't make the fact incorrect. Also, the other points were almost equally ludicrous. There is no sweeping generalization here.

Florian Mueller isn't the greatest source to quote, mind you.

If you're asking yourself why your comment is being downvoted:

- no, it's not because you attacked Apple.

- yes, it's because you wrote a shallow comment that was factually inaccurate.

What part was inaccurate?

Well, it might be 'inaccurate', but it's broadly true that they did patent the design in which one of the major elements was a device with rounded rectangles. http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rect...

You can interpret it in your own way and might not like it that people remember it the way they do, but it's ludicrous nevertheless.

Uhh, what part is factually inaccurate? In the 2012 trial against Samsung, Apple most certainly did point out that a rectangular device with rounded corners was an essential part of the design patent.

Seems like people voting things down have a very bad memory regarding history. I suggest they take a trip to 2012 Memory Lane and read up on the entire year.

Note that design patents are totally different from method patents. If there is a physical/method reason to infringe a design patent to achieve functionality (say, "not eat through pants pocket cloth") then a design patent can, theoretically, not protect that feature.

Monster Cable used to use a design patent to threaten other cable manufacturers, too, seemingly largely without actual standing.

Seems you have a case of a selective memory because the case in question had some more arguments than round corners. It's intellectual dishonest to reduce it to only that.

Samsung was being caught having a 155 manual (http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui...) of how to copy the iOS UI. That alone is so clear that it's not even funny.

That's a fact the iHaters always seem to left out, but the round corners on the other hand...

I find it very hard to believe they won that case on the pure fact another device had round corners.

I find it hard to believe that they got the patent D670,286 approved in the first place. The 'some more' arguments you are talking about were equally insane. Icons arranged in a rectangular grid? How else are you supposed to arrange them? Flat screen, button at the center? Are these patent-worthy? If you notice, Apple themselves copied a lot before and after that incident. For example, camera at the back, browser in a phone, icons you can touch (or touchscreen itself?), etc. and the list goes on - so it's not that they started everything from scratch. It's just that there was either no patent at that time which covered such stupid things, or even if there was, they didn't want to use them offensively. Yes, they had Samsung's internal document which talked about copying their elements, but then they should have talked about only those points. If one of the major (and first) points of argument is that it had similar rounded rectangles and flat screen, people are definitely going to mock them, and remember it "selectively".

etc... being code for "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"?

So by your logic everyone should be blind except apple? Fuck them. They must sacrifice their eye and pay their due taxes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com