They own design patents on those things, and that gives them protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them. Arguments about obviousness are irrelevant under design patent law.
See http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
> protection against things that could be reasonably
> mistaken for them
That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market. Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand, it would not be uncommon for someone to see any tablet (regardless of design similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?"
It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one that can make cars.
Design patents are far more like trademark law than utility patents. And, frankly, the wiggle room for arguing infringement is far less than for Trademarks.
Samsung is not in court for having the same rough shape, or bezel, or frame, or dock connector, or packaging as an iPad. It's there because it has all of these things.
They can literally only lose if the court determines they were making a KIRF.
From what I understand Apple refuses to pay Motorola royalties on the basic patent of a "hand-held mobile telephone radio" (or whatever phrase is used). If Apple refuses to pay for such a basic fundamental mobile phone patent how do they expect anyone to take them seriously for simple esthetics/design of a device?
Now, speaking from a real world perspective and not about law, I'd say that the Motorola case is a lot like the Ford case. I'm the case of Ford you really can't stop others from making 4-wheeled, passenger carrying, combustion engine cars. There was just no other way at the time. Same for "hand-held mobile telephone radios". If Apple gets sued for such a generic technology then every cell phone and walki-talkie maker not paying Motorola royalties should too. In the case of Apple v Samsung, they aren't arguing that others can't make a tablet. You can easily make tablets that are similar (because even I will admit that nowadays there really isn't much more you can do with tablet design) and people have without infringing. But the Samsung tablet is so close to the iPad that its almost indistinguishable unless you inspect it further. It's like if someone made a project management web app and called it "OperatingBase" and it had all the features of Basecamp, a website with the same colors, similar logo, and all the rest. Well 37Signals couldn't sue the other project management app developers (let's pretend they have design patents in this case) but they sure can try to stop the asshole who is very obviously trying to rip off their product and ride its coat tails by hoping consumers who don't know better will think its the same exact thing.
I'm going to guess you're misdescribing the law here as elsewise they could simply point out that the origin of the goods and hence their distinctiveness is clearly born out by the articles bearing the trademarks of the respective companies.
I know practically nothing of US (presumably this is the jurisdiction in question) Design Patents ... do you have a pointer to a primer (or just the USC), thanks.
Where did you get that idea? Design patents are subject to the obviousness rules just like any other patent.
The design for a Coca Cola bottle is "obvious", but it is still protected.
Mr. Worf's tactical consoles were mounted on a curved, wooden surface: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aEN8erVEI/AAAAAAAAJo...
The conn and ops consoles were a solid piece of glass, and while the glass surface was a roundrect and there was a margin around the displayed interface, there wasn't any physical bezel, and the housing was triangular rather than iPad shaped: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD98o3EII/AAAAAAAAJn... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD9MMAf3I/AAAAAAAAJn...
And the consoles in the back of the bridge were also dissimilar: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aDvkLoPSI/AAAAAAAAJm...
The transporter consoles had triangular housings similar to the conn and ops consoles: http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/850/850252/chi...
The only real similarity is that the TNG consoles were touchscreens. Everything else, software and hardware, is different.
Even so, a few of the PADDs shown were more practical. In particular, take a look at these two PADDs:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Sisko_reconstruct...
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_stylus_interface.j...
Between the two of them, they give you almost every design element except being black, depending on whether you think those things are buttons or that LCARS is clluttered or whatever.
Maybe you can find another image of it or something and prove me wrong, but I can't seen an inset there.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334437
suggests that the home button was copied even though " They changed white square into a white rectangle and that's about it." So change of shape isn't enough to maintain originality.
In Russian we have a saying for such cases - "one's desire to climb up the pine without getting the one's ass poked/scratched by the needles".
The difference between flush and inset is qualitative, and even conceding that point there are significant design differences.
I guess, ultimately, I don't know what to say about all of this. Minimalism has been a trend for quite a while now, given how many products (including many of Apple's) that display it. Is Apple one of the trendsetters? Do they make beautiful products? Absolutely.
But all this patent silliness about getting each others' products banned has just got to stop. Every penny spent on it keeps them from hiring engineers to make something even better than what we have now. I don't like seeing Apple's products banned for using a Motorola standard any more than I like seeing the Galaxy Tab banned for being too minimalist. If they had any sense, they'd call off the lawyers and settle with each other before they waste any more money.
I can't find any videos or pictures (the show predates easy sharing of video and images), but I remember some specific examples.
Thre first is the episode where the captain offends some very picky aliens who produce an essential component, so he has to perform a detailed ritual and uses an iPhone-like device for a reference.
The other was the episode where the crew became increasingly obsessed with minor activities due to some weird radiation, and the captain's obsession was a speech he was drafting on what looks like an iPad.
Generic Rectangle Device was also the standard thing for reports given to senior officers.
So when somebody invents a similar robot, should they be unable to patent that invention?
should they be unable to patent that invention
The helm consoles are large flat touchscreens with black bezels and natural user interaction:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8jnaB-iM1I/AAAAAAAAJx...
The iPad is absolutely a small version of that device.
From http://www.trektoday.com/interviews/okuda_qa.shtml
The Okudas: The TNG panel graphics are intended to suggest something well-organized when a viewer sees them in the background of a scene. My advantage, of course, is that they are seldom seen closely, so I rarely have to take the time to figure out a panel in exact detail. As long as it looks credible on camera, I'm okay. This is extremely valuable, because it could easily require ten or fifty times as much time (and therefore labor and money) if I had to have all of the panels done in that kind of detail. The problem with actual software implementations of the style is that it requires far more than simply mimicking the colors and patterns. In order to work well, one has to analyze the tasks and the users' needs in great detail. This is something that the software industry in general does poorly, in my opinion. One also sees the same kinds of issues in things that should be well-understood, like VCR controls and TV remotes. They are all elegantly designed, but the users' needs are seldom adequately anticipated. On the show, I have the advantage that the viewer can assume that I've anticipated the crew's needs, simply because you can see how easy it is for the actors to use the controls.
The users needs are seldom adequately anticipated -- that does, in fact, sound like prior art for the Galaxy Tab.
I concede the point.
But instead of picking one of the trillions of other designs they used the iPad design because it sold well.e
http://www.phonearena.com/news/U.S.-version-of-Samsung-Galax...
And again, if they had two buttons and use a square for one of them then that's also fine. Or if it's an arrow that stands for play that's cool. But a white rectangle?
sounds like why 1-click is patentable scheme of thinking.
Maybe you're talking about a different product, but the Samsung tablet does not copy the iPad in that respect. I have one right in front of me right now.