Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by shasta on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:23AM
(#3333752)
AFAIK,the point of a design patent is to protect stylistic (non-functional) elements of a design. The question being asked is whether the common elements between these products are non-functional or actual have important functional reasons for existing. Why are all car tires round, with rubber on the outside, and with cool tread patterns on the outside?
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by powertower on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:15AM
(#3333727)
Innovation innovates. Revision revises.
Rounded-corners / while you can call it simple, minimalist, elegant design ... is not innovation, it is revision.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by shareme on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:25AM
(#3333754)
its extremely hard to patent designs and extremely hard to defend such patents..
Want the list of lost patent cases on designs in previous years by Apple?
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by mmcconnell1618 on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:22AM
(#3333751)
Spot on ebbv! Apple designed the iPad long before the iPhone and chose to release the phone first because of technical limitations. While the CrunchPad designs were revealed long before the iPad can they say that the iPhone had no influence on their designs?
Simple, minimalist, elegant designs look obvious in retrospect.
The fact that Samsung, HTC, and others are aping Apple's designs in the iPhone and iPad is clear. Denying it only makes you look ridiculous. The question is, are they aping it too much or are they bringing enough new to the table for it to be considered an original design? That's something that almost has to be addressed on a device by device basis.