They have a design patent for the ornamental design of the iPad.
Just like Google has design patents for the ornamental design of a smiley face, a usb cable, a “computer icon” etc etc.
Just like Samsung has a design patent for the ornamental design of a "Terminal for portable mobile communication”, which based on the images looks like a tablet.
In 1981 some company got a design patent for the ornamental design of a briefcase, with rounded corners.
D670,286 is, quite literally, a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners (it's about the solid lines in the drawing). And they sued Samsung over it and Samsung was forced to make the rounded corners on the top and bottom of their phone different sizes. Despite the fact that multiple phones and tablets predated the iPad and iPhone and were rectangles with rounded corners.
They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities:
"Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design:
* a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners [emphasis mine];
* an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the display screen and substantial borders above and below the display screen; and
* a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front surface above the display screen,
* where the rectangular front surface is otherwise substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional button area centrally located below the display."
And ALL of that already existed in the marketplace before the iPhone. Heck, the things that are claimed to be unique in what you quote above is an almost exact description of the LG Prada which came out before the iPhone.
Remove the phone answer/end keys from the bottom row, and it basically is the front of the iPhone. Re-read what you wrote above and look at that picture of the LG Prada. That design patent should have never been issued.
Its not about whether those individual attributes existed already.
Samsung blatantly copied apple product designs, from the physical appearance of the device, to the design of the packaging right down to the design of the chargers and cables.
This is not speculation, it's fact.
I don't deny that most modern smartphones, including the iPhone, look vaguely similar to that LG. No way you would confuse them for the same product though.
This isn't some case of "oh but Apple's design is obvious how can it not be the same?"
This is Samsung's business model.
Motorola RAZR (copied Samesung Blade) - even the name is a pun on the fact that its a copy (hint: razor blade)
Blackberry (copied as Samsung BlackJack) - again the even the name is a ridiculous rip off. This one went to court and funnily enough RIM won.
Samsung Innov8 (copied from Nokia N96)
In 2012 Samsung released their Chromebox, which copies the circular cover on the 2 year old MacMini. The MacMini has it there to allow RAM upgrades. The ChromeBox has no reason for it, besides copying the MacMini design.
In their advertising they have a history of either reproducing Apple ads (e.g. the way a phone and the earbuds are arranged). In one case, they literally photoshopped the iOS Google Maps app onto their own device.
Their "iRemote Control 4" is a ridiculously blatant copy of the iPhone 4
Do a quick search for "Dyson Samsung clone"
There is no question that Samsung copies it's competitors designs, packaging and advertising. Apple was granted a design patent and used that in its fight with Samsung.
Show me a case where Apple has used its design patent against a competitor that is not obviously trying to blatantly copy their devices?
I never said Samsung didn't copy Apple. I said the design patent was bullshit. You're setting up convenient strawmen to knock down.
You reaffirmed this by quoting that "They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities:" and then listing design features that the iPhone copied from the LG Prada.
Not exactly a 'design pattern' (I'll find and report those cases here too), but these two examples should suffice to show you their unethically greedy intentions:
1) Apple tries to sue a small German coffee shop over logo:
http://gawker.com/5853402/apple-threatens-to-sue-tiny-german...
(Now tell me honestly, does the logo of the 'fruit' apple really look similar at all to Apple's logo? I mean, that poor lady running the coffee shop was not even in electronics business, just serving some coffee! What did they think, the fruit apple is their property now? This is inhuman to do that to a small coffee shop in my opinion.
2) Apple sues Polish Grocery store over name "a.pl": http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp - Apple said they are trying to use their 'reputation' by using a name similar to theirs. really? Come on, .pl is Poland's top level domain for god's sake. 'a' is the first letter of English alphabet. And they are in Grocery business! How would they snatch Apple's customers?
A company which can do the above, can sue anyone, for just anything. They have money, they are big. They're the electronics equivalent of Monsanto.
On the other hand, it's not that Apple doesn't copy blatantly. They stole Swiss railway's clock blatantly and 'exactly', without taking permission or paying. Finally Swiss railway sued and Apple had to pay $21 million for theft. Many, many other such examples.
The crux is, incremental evolution is the only way the industry learns and progresses. Suing others for getting inspiration (while doing the same yourself) is dangerous.
The most obvious example of trying to copy the design is the charge cable of the galaxy tab. Apple's charge cable was ridiculously and unnecessarily wide, as is evident by the fact that later on they switched to the new design of the lightning cable. Samsung made their cable plug also very wide, and very similar that I personally, on one occasion have grabbed an off brand white Samsung cable, tried to shove it into my iPad, and was rather surprised when it did not fit.
Rather then looking at weather or not Samsung copied apple, let's look at the motivations. Because I believe that imitating someones design because you think its the best and the most practical way to do something should be perfectly ok. However, it is wrong to copy a design of your competitors in the hopes that consumers will confuse your product for your competitors. For instance, I would call BS on Apple arguing that a black rounded rectangle with rounded corners is somehow their design. It's just the most obvious and straightforward way of making an glass touch tablet. But then look at the power / sync cord. Can you justify that choice? No, there is no practical reason to make your cord look like that other than to make your product look more like an iPad.
They do say that imitation is the sincerest from of flattery, and I do tend to believe it, as long as the motivation is right. A company can look at the fact that iPads are doing really well in the market and tell it's designers and engineers: "Let's get a few of those iPads, play with them, figure out why people love them, and than make better one our selves, incorporating some of the features that we thing people really love about the iPad." I think that's what ASUS did with their Transformer line. They observed that a lot of people liked the simple and clean look of the iPad, and they made it even cleaner by removing all buttons. They also decided that people really want a option to have a keyboard on a tablet, as evidenced by the abundance of the keyboard cases for the iPad, so they added that function as well.
On the other hand, Samsung told its engineers: "Here is an iPad, copy it! No, don't bother figuring out why people like it, use those ideas, build on them, and maybe come up with something better. Just copy it. You see that idiotic, unnecessarily wide connector that only made any kind of sense when it was first installed in the original iPod, and not even then really. Copy that too."
So, to finish my thought, yes Apple is a bit bitchy when people copy their stuff. In case of most manufacturers I think they are wrong. In case of Samsung, I can see it, they copied Apple, and they did it for all the wrong reasons.
I think the complete unabashed copying is specifically why Apple sued Samsung.
Companies have been getting design patents on generic looking devices for years, this one just got a lot of attention because it actually ended up in court. If Samsung's devices were simply the same shape as the iPad but weren't otherwise so similar, Apple would have had no case to argue, (and probably never filed the lawsuit) and no one would care about this patent.
For reference, the 30 pin connector wasn't actually on the first iPod - it was introduced with the 3rd gen. Previously they used a full sized Firewire 400 (1394A) port on top next to the headphone port.
Apple was not saying that Samsung had a similar design, they were saying that Samsung had the SAME design. Which was nicely proved when even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the difference.
> Remove the phone answer/end keys from the bottom row, and it basically is the front of the iPhone
That's not how designs work. A design is violated if you copy multiple elements, giving an overall impression that is substantially similar. If I copy just the buttons from a dress, or just the cut, or just the colour - no infringement. If I copy all of them, then I have infringed.
As people said above, all of those things, except one or two, were already there in their entirety (in their combined form, like LG Prada) in the market before Apple released their first iPhone.
But you have to take a look at the entire product as a whole. No consumer would confuse the LG Prada with Apple iPhone. LG has a physical keyboard, much sharper edges, 3 physical buttons on the front, different software layout, etc. Even though LG has claimed that Apple copied there designs, the general look an feel of the iPhone was fixed in 2005, long before the LG released the Prada.
Also, I think that a grate confusion stems from USPTO using the word "patent" to describe design patents. Design patents are not like utility patents. Utility patents are interpreted broadly. Design patents are usually interpreted very specifically. Meaning, for instance, that apple would not be able to enforce it's design patent against the Prada (if it had come out subsequent to iPhone), or most of the Android phones, including the Galaxy line. But you have to admit that the Galaxy Tab looks remarkably like the iPad. I am not saying that that alone should have permitted apple to sue Samsung. But when you take the entire product as a whole, including the packaging, the charger, the ridiculous and unnecessarily wide charging cable, and the look of the device, you can see where Apple had a point.
Samsung blatantly copied, and for all the wrong reasons.
Samsung is a bad example because like you said, they actually did copy a lot more than the rounded corners. The patent though is incredibly broad, and regardless of who else has such broad patents nobody should. https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286
So, the fact that they sued Samsung on a 'number of combined similarities', doesn't take away the fact that they quite literally have a patent for a rectangle with rounded corners. So probably it was not me who was talking shit.
