Kevin Bostic
Apple and Samsung's ongoing international patent struggle took a novel turn in Australian Federal Court on Wednesday, with Samsung's counsel questioning whether Apple's claims to "beauty" and "elegance" in its iOS interface is enough to justify an enforceable patent.
Apple's slide-to-unlock patent, shown here in a USPTO filing, is among those challenged by Samsung in Australian court.
ZDNet carried word on Wednesday that Samsung counsel Richard Coben argued before the Australian Federal Court's two-judge panel that Apple's patents — such as pinch-to-zoom and slide-to-unlock — describe only human-computer interaction, a design principle that cannot be patented.
Apple, Cobden said, was inferring that the interactions' functionality stems from the "elegant or beautiful" movements users perform to activate them. Such features, he said don't constitute grounds for a patent.
"Patents," Cobden argued, "are not granted for the reason that something is beautiful or elegant. The attractiveness of a feature is subjective."
Cobden went on to state that Samsung disputed the notion that functionality derives from the attractiveness of a feature. The gestures Apple has patented, he argued, are more akin to "fine art," and thus cannot be patented.
"What is subjectively beautiful to one may not be beautiful to another."
Samsung is attempting to invalidate the patents in suit with the Australian Commissioner of Patents. Apple cannot, Samsung argues, hold innovation patents and be granted standards patents for the same patents. Allowing them to do so, the company argues, would give Apple leeway to "threaten the market" with more patent suits.
William Gallagher
AppleInsider Staff
Malcolm Owen
Wesley Hilliard
Bon Adamson
40 Comments
Samsung's defense, ``We can't create it, but we know it when we see it, so we naturally copy it.''
Maybe Samsung can sue Apple on the grounds that "Patents aren't a thing."
No. Obviously those claims are not enough. Nor is a black rectangle with rounded corners. Nor is a touchscreen. Of course, those kinds of things are just details contributing to a larger whole. They are not the patent. You can't attack a patent for some new machine, say, just because it uses gears and gears are old news. Not if gears are just a contributing part of a truly innovative whole, or the gears are of a new kind. People like to single out certain details of Apple patents, and pretend Apple is trying to patent that detail. (If Samsung were smart, they have a program automatically generate 3D renderings of vaguely rectangular objects with every variety of size, outer frame, angle, curve, and color scheme. Come up with a dozen variables, say, and render 8 versions of each variable. Automatically generate almost 7 billion renderings, all dated and with a Samsung logo. (Better not print them!) Maybe put them up with public access. Then nearly any time anyone comes out with a future touch product, Samsung can simply search their database and claim prior art! There, Samsung, I gave you that for free.)
Maybe Samsung can sue Apple on the grounds that "Patents aren't a thing."
At least "patents are subjective".
Screw you Samsung.
First you try to distract people by claiming the "Rectangle with rounded corners" drama-queen episode, that costed you $1b so far, now you're doing it again by claiming "Beauty".
The pathetic thing is that some day you may actually believe the nonsense you are claiming.
Create your own stuff will you?