Supreme Court To Hear Apple-Samsung Feud Over iPhone Designs

That's right folks, this case has finally made it to U.S. Supreme Court. Am I the only one that thinks the justices have more important cases to decide than "who had rounded corners first?"

After five years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in the bitter patent dispute between the world's two top smartphone manufacturers over the amount Samsung (005930.KS) should pay Apple (AAPL.O) for copying the iPhone's distinctive look. The justices' ruling, due by the end of June, could have a long-term impact for designers and product manufacturers going forward because the Supreme Court, if it agrees with Samsung, could limit the penalties for swiping a patented design.

Honestly? It is kind of important. Design patents are utter garbage and protection of the identity of a manufacturer's brand should already be covered by trademark anyway. It would be a major first step(well, a baby step) toward at least giving people a clue that the patent system in general needs massive reforms.

How much in damages is this for soap makers?

The current patent system is somewhere between terrible and *really* terrible in usefulness. I'm all in favor of any review the SC will give to continue to try to prune this counter-productive BS back into something that serves its original purpose. Now if only East Texas would actually read the Alice opinion...

Best part will be the no-ruling that will result from there not being an odd number of Justices.

They've already decided who had the rounded corners first (Apple). The patent is valid, infringed, and not disputed. This is only about how much Samsung has to pay.

spugm1r3 said:

Best part will be the no-ruling that will result from there not being an odd number of Justices.

Click to expand...

Most of the recent patent cases at SCOTUS have been 9-0. Doubtful they'll gridlock on this one.

The problem is the law was written to apply to things like a carpet or wallpaper where the design *is* the product. It wasn't meant to apply to something where the design aspects are just one of a set of conditions a consumer would use in deciding which product to purchase. Whether the justices will restrict the law to something sane or punt it with a note to Congress to not be idiots is the question. If they punt it to Congress, expect nothing to change any time soon.

"Our phones exploded first, we hold the patent on exploding phones"

A quick look at patent laws around the world, the US seems to be one of the only places where aesthetic concerns are patentable. Europe, in particular, specifically states:

The aesthetic effect itself is not patentable, neither in a product nor in a process claim.

Click to expand...

If you look at the original patent from Apple, the patent is specifically for the aesthetics:

CLAIMS(1)

1. The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described.

Click to expand...

Hence the whole existence of this ludicrous waste of taxpayer dollars. If Apple had cited rounded corners to prevent snagging in your pocket, this would make a little more sense.

of all the phones i have owned, the only feel-able difference I deal with is whether my thumb or index finger hits the power button. They are all a squinted image of eachother.

in the United States of America it has to be new unique and never before showed up in print or media... if there was even a single flyer before they filed for the patent it should not have been granted. my guess is the sc chose to rule on that design like say the pockets on jeans stitching which is protected so people who want to pay more to look appealing don't have people selling jeans that fall apart with what looked like the same jeans. If they chose to rule that it infriged since a patent was granted but that time should have been given to challenge the patent office's ruling and that were the devices actually mistaken for apple devices... meaning that they should have to pay damages if they knowing infringed the design but if they simply built something that looks similar as function of form follows function that is supposed to be protected much like you can not patent code but you can copy right it. I saw an android phone the other day that had the really curved corners circular that is bigger than the camera that looked like the old apple phones... but my samsung s5 when I look at it looks like a rectangle with corners that are rounded because nothing in real life has razor edged corners other than the old unsafe computer cases where the alminium edges that were riveted inside the case would cut your hands up if you did not wear gloves when taking parts in and out of them. I used to carry around soft wool gloves without the finger tips to stick my hands in office machines.

Rounded corners on electronic mobile device in 1998. Preexisting art. Case closed. Incompetent judges allowed this to go to court. Which it never should have in the first place.