Check out a transcript of Tuesday's Samsung v. Apple Supreme Court hearing

2. Diego! (Posts: 607; Member since: 15 Jun 2009)

Another Samsung bashing article… Oh never change iPhoneArena…

3. Fona13A (Posts: 650; Member since: 21 Jun 2016)

Nobody really wins here, the taxpayers who could’ve contributed to something noble have to keep these kids in control, and what happens when a guardian fails to keep their kids in line? The fallout of these court settlements.

6. kumaran555 (Posts: 116; Member since: 07 Mar 2016)

AppleInsider news. Shameless Author (Alan F). SOME PEOPLE ARE f**kING MORONS.

4. PrYmCHGOan (Posts: 38; Member since: 28 Sep 2016)

Here is the problem. Apple is trying to sue Samsung, the same way Apple sued Microsoft. Apple lost.

The USPTO has already identified that many of those patents that were granted, should not have been and were invalidated.

The patent has more to do with just rounded corners and rectangles. The issue is simple. Apple is tryign to claim that, we took things that were not novel and unique, and brought them together to make what we «feel» is novel and unique.

Rows of icons are not unique. They exist in all operating system as a requirement for tme to work.

The front face of an iPhone is simply their trade dress for how they chose to make their phone. But it is a design used in different ways on multiple products

You don’t get to call it your own.

A shape — Unless you make a shape so unique that it can’t be found in nature, then you can never call a shape…YOURS.

A Radius — All curves have a radius. Thus no matter what degree your radius is, you can’t own it, because all curves require a radius to exist.

Icons — Icons can be placed in all types of ways. However, Apple was not the first to have them in columns and rows. As far as I know, Xerox had the first working computer with such.

However to me, a row of icons is equal to a row of food at a store. Each icons represents an app, as a product on the shelf is represented by its own icon or product ID.

But none of those products are unique. A can is still a can, no matter what size it is. It doesn’t matter if its a can of sardines using an oblong can, or a can of beans using a tall can. They all come in a can, made from similar materials.

Just like you can’t patent a tire in its basic format. What you can patent is, how you brought your materials together to make your tire. For example. Firestone use to make a tire called the 721. It was a special design where Firestone to 7 bands of steel, wrapped it with 2 strands and then it was wrapped with 1 band. This is what they patented..

The over concept of a tire cannot be patented, because it is at it maximum design level for its basic look. Its round, it made mostly of rubber and many have steel belts to hold them together.

None of these tire companies are suing each other saying. Wait! You tired tread looks to similar to mine, so I’m suing you unless you change it. None of them are saying your steering wheel design is to similar to mine and if you don’t change it I am suing.

Apple did this to slow company’s that were going to beat them.
One court sides with Apple and ask Samsung to make changes to the Galaxy Tab. They made them. Apple said it wasn’t enough. The court said, it is enough..DISMISSED!

When Apple loses, I hope Samsung sues them for $1B.

5. Fona13A (Posts: 650; Member since: 21 Jun 2016)

Honestly, PhoneArena should take note of this insightful comment. +999