Tablet Zero | Hacker News Reader

Tablet Zero

techcrunch.com

34 pointstilt11 comments

The inventor of the ballpoint pen was named Biro (interesting because as a kid we all referred to ballpoint pen as "biros" so I guess this wasn't exactly an obscure fact). Bich improved on Biro's invention, mainly in ink and process, but the classic "Bic Biro" had a rounded hexagonal cross section (which meant the pens wouldn't roll off desks, evn when separated from their lids) not the cylinder of the more modern pen shown in th article. Is this obvious? I can't find out if this design was patented, but I would be surprised if it weren't.

I realize that it's annoying that what seems like such an obvious and simple design might turn out to be protectable under IP law. Certainly Apple has produced many seemingly more clever and inobvious designs that have turned out to be less easy to protect.

If you look at the kindle fire it's a rounded rectangle with a flat screen. It supposedly represents the first credible threat to the iPad. Is Apple suing? The kindle fire is obviously a lot like the iPad for the kinds of reasons usually raised, but it's not a slavish imitation of the iPad. It's not rounded in the same way. The home screen doesn't feature an arrangement of icons designed, superficially to resemble the iPad home screen. And so on. It's perfectly possible to create a tablet with rounded corners that isn't weirdly identical to the iPad. It's perfectly clear to anyone who has watched Samsung over the years that they're the Burger King of consumer electronics. They let the market leader do the R&D and then slavishly imitate their successes. If someone behaved this way in elementary school you'd call them a cheat and move a desk away from them; getting caught doing it in academia should end your career (but before you get caught it might get you tenure), but it's dandy in business. Frankly, I'd be happy to see more companies get smacked down for behaving this way.

I also wonder why we've basically been seeing a series of histrionic anti Apple pieces from Tech Crunch over the last few days.

The pen pen identified in the article even complicates his argument. When I see the identifiable white cylinder Bic pen with distinctive black text, with a black or blue-colored head and cap, I know it is a Bic or a pen closely imitating Bic's style. Pens come in an enormous amount of variety and styles despite the form being mostly equivalent.

Now compare an iPad and a Samsung Galaxy Tab when they are both off. Ignore the subtle "Samsung" logo in the front, or the Apple logo in the back. Black front with metallic bevel and back. Any consumer would either confuse the two or say they are imitating each other. Apple's design patents may be stretching the meaning of novelty, but when consumers can so easily confuse the two, it is hardly defensible for Samsung to say there were no distinctive factors they could have added to lessen the confusion. The TouchPad had a slick black back to it and an oblong home screen button. The Kindle Fire is smaller and dark grey. Etc.

Funny you refer to the TouchPad. I have one and whenever someone sees it they just say: "Oh, you have an iPad!"

Heh, I have an Iconia A500 (which is styled a bit differently: http://zapp0.staticworld.net/reviews/graphics/products/uploa... ) and I get the same response.

In the eyes of the public, we don't own tablets, we own iPad knockoffs.

> but it's not a slavish imitation of the iPad.

The slavish/not slavish distinction is actually key when it comes to design. Look at Nokia's Lumia phone. It is clear that Lumia's design is iPhone-inspired, but it is in no way a slavish imitation, unlike a certain device from Samsung. In fact I just love how Lumia's stylish and ergonomic design makes a compelling argument against the rhetoric that "a black rectangle with rounded corners is the only logical/possible design".

A lot of people here are understandably worried about protecting smaller business owners from patent threats from established companies, especially using ridiculous/obvious patents for which prior art existed. I think that's a genuine concern. What they completely miss however is how much money companies like Samsung make by letting someone else do all the hard design/visionary work for them and by confining themselves solely to the role of the imitator/free rider.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think the iPad design is that innovative. The consumer electronics business is full of similar-looking designs like this. If Apple had designed the first modern flatscreen TV, they probably would have patented that. I mean, look at these two TVs:

LG TV: http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/public/yEUu64G5sUWGrdYWPYOk...

NEC TV: http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/public/UUeHqPaLSeGY7av_FuyC...

Imagine what the world would be like if only one company could produce a TV that looked like that!

The example you give only proves that it's possible to create variety in designs with a single form. Both have the same design features (black borders and screen in the center), however the details in implementation is different. From color black, size of borders to the evenness of borders (judging from your small image alone, NEC's have larger borders on the side). If you considers the part that can't be seen from that image, then there's also location of speaker, back of the TV, raised border or even location of LED indicator, to think of a few.

And features a rounded borders or not.

Quoting the Expert Declaration (the one that everyone keep saying "Apple patents rounded borders!"):

> "[i]n determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily ornamental the claimed design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is not the functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but the overall appearance of the article, in determining whether the claimed design is dictated by the utilitarian purpose of the article."

> It's perfectly clear to anyone who has watched Samsung > over the years that they're the Burger King of consumer > electronics. They let the market leader do the R&D and > then slavishly imitate their successes.

We may not be watching the same company then : Samsung invests over 6 billion USD per year in R&D, approx. 9% of its revenue (Apple does 2.2%).

Sure, on some markets Samsung acts more as a "fast follower" than as as innovator, but to call it the "Burger King of consumer electronics" is plain ridiculous.

I'm sure Samsung innovates in some aspects such as chip and low-power circuit design etc., but I think it is very clear to everyone that they chose not to innovate in terms of visual design/form/appearance of their Galaxy tablet (the only people this may not be clear to are nerds for whom the difference between two similar hardware designs is as clear as the difference between black and white -- most normal people don't notice those things, which is why the problem of imitators exists in the first place). Whether that choice (to be different from the iPad or not) was intentional or not is a topic for a different discussion, though only a fool would think it was unintentional.

There is an unspoken rule among designers: it is okay to be inspired by someone else, but you almost have an "obligation" to make your design appear different in some way from the design you are inspired by. Once you break that rule, you look like a cheat, and I or anyone who cares about design/original thinking has no sympathy for cheats.

My starting point to design a tablet would (likely) be the screen on my laptop and after detaching it, work from there to design/engineer a tablet. With this starting point, and looking at the three laptops on my desk (Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, each a different screen size as well) it already looks a lot like an iPad or any other tablet currently on the market.

Blah blah blah. It's fashionable to hate on Apple now.

Regardless of how basic/obvious/fundamental a design is, there are plenty ways to differentiate one product from another, and Samsung actively did the opposite. No comparing to Bic pens (which incidentally, are very recognizable), TVs or whatever will change that fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com