Hacker News Reader

The LG Prada pre-dates the iPhone and was actually the first phone to have a capacitive touch screen. It had as many buttons as the infringing Samsung devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada ). This was noticed at the time of the iPhone launch too: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separ...

This is all silly though, Apple wasn't making the argument based on Samsung making a touch based phone. The arguments were on very small "inventions" like the rubber band effect and double tap to zoom. The design patent wasn't based on the fact that it was touch based, but that it looked like the iPhone (in shape and color). A weird thing to be able to patent if you ask me, but hey.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsun...

If you read the jury comments though, they made a single decision based on the overall look and feel of the device, and then applied that decision to all the arguments. Essentially, they felt like Samsung had broadly copied apple's look and feel, therefore apple deserved exclusive ownership of things like rubber band, whether they invented it or not.

I think that was a part of their decision. If Samsung had come forward and said, "ok, this this and this we copied, but that we didn't" I expect they would have gotten a better response. But the blanket denial killed a lot of their credibility.

The LG Prada was a feature-phone with a nicer display. If Samsung had released the Prada in 2008, they would have been at zero risk from retaliation by Apple.

The LG Prada was so bad you had to use 2px scrollbars with your thumb to scroll down a list, like a contact list. It was like using Windows XP on earlier touch devices. I don't think making something like the Prada in 2008 would have helped Samsung's case in any way, because it had none of the things that made the iPhone great, none of the features people copied from the iPhone.

The LG Prada was a complete failure, because your old, classic feature phones like those in clamshell form were MORE usable with their keyboards than the Prada and its really bad touchscreen and bad software. I wanted to go back to a regular phone real fast when I made the mistake of buying a Prada. Not quite the same experience that people have when they buy an iPhone.

Feature phone or not (you have to compare it to the original iPhone which wasn't a smartphone either), it looked a lot like the iPhone. Apple didn't invent touch screen phones, they "just" made them popular. It's a big accomplishment, but they didn't create the segment.

The LG Prada looks a lot like the iPhone ?

That's crazy. I couldn't think of two phones that looked less alike.

The other way around actually since the iPhone came out after it. But yes, if you were sent back in time to 2007 you would notice the similarity. I ran a mobile phone news website at the time, the similarity was definitely talked about (see the Engadget link in my OP).

The original iphone had a clean aluminum casing whereas the prada used generic black plastic casing -- I think people could tell them apart back in 2007. Practically all phones on the market were black. The differences were even bigger if you used either device for more than a minute.

And Apple quickly went to all black... The differences between anything Samsung makes and an iPhone are quite apparent too if you use them for a minute.

So what's the innovation here? Applying minimalism (an established style from the 60's) to computers and phones?

Is that really worthy of patent protection? Asked another way, should I be granted a patent to apply minimalism to other objects all around me? Suitcases? Refrigerators? Etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

Yes. There are plenty of things left that could use some simplicity and minimalism. Patent away.

Why does that warrant patent protection? The idea behind a patent is to protect innovation, however the innovative cost in that sense is negligible.

You're confusing utility and design patents. They are different things and have different purposes and requirements.

Really, you're not the only one, but it is shameful that at this point in time so many people still don't know what patents are, yet comment on HN.

Fair point; I was too quick to comment there. I'm curious though: are you familiar with the reasoning behind the development of design patents? I've done some light research and not turned up much. It seems that trademark and copyright already provide fairly expansive coverage for non-functional IP, so I don't quite see the intent behind the design patent laws.

Here's a small article to get you going: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as...

Here's a brief excerpt:

"Design patent secures for their owner a fourteen-year right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product and, thus, allows time to build up secondary meaning necessary to acquire product design trade dress protection. Trade dress protection can last for as long as product design trade dress remains in use and continues to identify the source of goods to consumers. "

And other one on infringement:

"Infringement of the design patent is found when an ordinary observer, giving the attention of a purchaser, perceives the patented and the accused designs as substantially the same, in light of the prior art."

In the court opinions on Gorham v White (1871):

"It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other."

This is why if Samsung creates a product whose design is substantially similar to Apple's, then infringement may occur. This is why the jury consists of "ordinary" people who are the right people to make the judgement call. Too many HN readers are complaining that the jurors should be technically minded because they are thinking of utility patents, and not design patents. You also fall in the same boat, but I'm guessing most HN readers don't even realize there is such thing as "design patents" and "trade dress protection". This is why lawyers are paid to do the arguing, while we sit back and yell from the sidelines.

Ah, thank you very much. With this context, the verdict does make more sense now. I have one last question for you though: I've seen mention of design patents for a bezel around a screen or rectangle with round corners, however should a design patent not cover the entire device? It seems if the idea is to prevent consumer confusion, devices should be viewed holistically, not piecemeal.

Unfortunately, I'm not an IP lawyer. This is why lawyers exist -- they know the historical reasons for why one should file a design patent piecemeal.

My guess is there must have been a prior case where one patented an entire device and the patent was not able to penalize an infringer that may have had a slightly different device. It's possible the defense may have shown that the patent is only valid if the devices are in the exact same category. But who knows, this is just a guess.

I should also note that I'm a different person that the one whom you were replying to in your previous threads.

> it wasn't about a 'few' buttons, the iPhone was about none.

Excuse me? Last I checked, the iPhone has at least three buttons, maybe four! Home, Volume Down, Volume Up, Power.

It's not a button, but if you count the mute switch, that's 5.

It's a dedicated hardware switch. I'd count it.

The funny thing about that switch is that in 2007, I thought it was the best invention in the world.

It was a pain muting my Windows phones because you had to fiddle around with the UI to change the profile to silence the ringer.

That switch was on every single Treo device from the 270 onwards, and numerous feature phones had a hardware mute switch as well.

Not saying that Apple invented that feature for all phones, but if you were coming from Windows Phone, it was a giant godsend.

PDA's usually had a few extra buttons because navigation using a stylus was always a bits awkward. If you ever tried scolling a web page using a stylus and scrollbars in Windows Mobile you'd understand why every PDA had a D-pad and a separate home button - it was a neccessity because of the stylus.

Apple was simply the first on the market with a touch-driven display, which let them drop the extra navigation buttons. It's not like nobody ever thought of having less buttons.

In any case, the invention of removing buttons should not be a patentable idea. The sheer absurdity of all, of Apple's patents is an abomination and makes the US law system look like a carnival.

I don't know about your iPhone, but my iPad has four buttons plus a scroll-lock switch.

Interesting take on "mobile," which is a bit of a fuzzy term. So, I take it you don't consider the wifi-only iPad or the Nexus 7 to be mobile devices? I guess the concept of "mobile Web" has really made things murky.

> if it's not Linux or open source, it bad/wrong/etc.

It's ideological.

There is a trend in these objections in articles like this and across hacker news. They simply ignore what was unique about the iPhone and trivialize it completely and then pretend like it was obvious all along. Notice the repeated comparisons to stylus based devices as prior art for multi-touch. They don't care about the differences, as long as it takes some sort of touch imput, they can rationalize that Apple never invented anything.

I see this as an admission that they know the iPhone was revolutionary but they are making arguments from an ideological, rather than rational perspective.

If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?

They say it was "marketing" and a "slick package" and the "Advantage" of charging "twice the price" --- as if charging more ever was the path to easy sales volume!

> If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?

People were just enamored with the iPod, it was a good device and people paid to see if Apple would make a good phone as well, which it did.

This makes NO sense what so ever. Apple has had plenty of failures in the past e.g. Cube G4 so it is not the case that people will just blindly "buy and try" Apple products.

And the idea that ANYONE is going to spend nearly a thousand dollars and lock themselves into a year long contract just to "see if Apple would make a good phone" is plain and utter lunacy.

Don't you know how to argue without doing this type of argumentation that you so commonly uses in Apple versus Android threads? I am not a Apple or Android fan to argue how the US patent system sucks, or how Android sucks, or how Apple is evil, or how Apple is the only company that innovates, all opinions that I read here on Hacker News from people who generally know nothing about life, people just like me. I am really not into these type of discussion that you appear to be so eager to enter in HN.

It's easy to come and say that I am a lunatic, so what's your opinion? Why the iPhone succeeded among the early adopters? Were they all geeks that loved Apple? What about other places that are not the United States in which there's not a Apple store in every major city, do your analysis still stands?

>If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?

Has everyone forgotten about iTunes? After I got my first iPod I wanted apple to make an iPhone (years before they did) just so it would work flawlessly with iTunes and I could stop carrying 2 devices.

If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years?

While I find a lot of the anti-Apple commentary here at HN completely frustrating, the fact that Apple made a lot of money is not proof that they were innovative or revolutionary. Steve Jobs telling them they needed it played a really big part. Another company putting out the exact same product probably would not have enjoyed the same success.