/article-new/2015/04/Samsung_Logo-250x86.png?lossy){kind=logo}
Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and over 100 of the world's leading design professionals have filed a lengthy amicus brief [PDF] in support of Apple in an over five year old patent lawsuit against rival Samsung.
Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages in 2012 after Samsung was found to have copied the "look and feel" of the iPhone, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million -- a sum that Samsung has paid but continues to appeal. The patent lawsuit began back in 2011 and has since made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Apple is fighting for it to remain.
/article-new/2016/08/coca-cola.png?lossy)
The design professionals, which have collectively provided services to Apple, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Ford, General Electric, GM, Google, IBM, Knoll, Lenovo, LG, Louis Vuitton, NASA, Nike, Polaroid, Porsche, Starbucks, Target, Xerox, and even Samsung itself, among others, believe that Apple is entitled to all profits that Samsung has earned from copying patented designs.
The designers argued that a product's visual design has "powerful effects on the human mind and decision making processes," citing a 1949 study that showed more than 99% of Americans could identify a bottle of Coca-Cola by shape alone. The amicus brief further states that "successful technology companies use design to differentiate themselves from competitors."
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Samsung are historically a company that steal design, functionality, features, make bagloads of profit, and then glue the lawsuits in redtape for years -- until it's not a financial hit for them to pay the fine, as they've made all the money already.
We're not just talking about Apple of course. Kodak, SHARP, Dyson... the list goes on and on and on.
so well fnanced and lawyer'd up that fighting them would be pointless. The big firms thrive on intimidating others.
Congratulations on identifying Samsung's part in this case.The rest of what you've written couldn't be further from the truth. Have a look at the simple facts.
Right, but wrong. The lawsuit contained these items, though was not the flagship of the case. That is part of the larger picture; namely, the look and feel of the product. There were hundereds of other software and hardware patents which were being disputed.Notice the lawsuit was for copying things like rounded corners and rubber bounce scroll feature. Yeah it looks like these were copied but should they be stuff that is patentable?
Let's also not forget that the 'look and feel' extended to:
Chargers
Packaging
So many other things. Operating system icons, etc.
Come on people, thinking Samsung are in the wrong here does not mean you think Apple are in the right about all similar cases.
You can despise Apple for the same stuff. You can even hate Apple and never want one of their products. But open your eyes here. Samsung are flagrant rip-off merchants.
Hate to pop your bubble, but Apple didn't patent the screen.And what came out of those Samsung prototypes? Exactly, exactly what you would expect for a company at that time.
They weren't prototypes of full touchscreen phones. They were just prototypes of slider phones. Prototypes of phones that Nokia already had released in the market, by the way.