Who Copied From Whom? The Sony Ericsson P800 Touchscreen Smartphone Led the Trend in Designs that Paved the Way to the iPhone and the Galaxy S

Who Copied from Whom?

Let us take a look at the basic dimensional specs of three smartphones, especially their basic design and see who copied from whom.

Smartphones (PDAs) with Digital Camera

Smartphone Specifications (Specs)

Sony Ericsson P800 ..... Apple iPhone ....... Samsung Galaxy S

Year
Intro.     2002               2008                     2010

Display   Large               Super large            Super large
Form      Flat rectangle    Flat rectangle         Flat rectangle
Bezel     Rounded edges  Rounded edges       Rounded edges 
Height    4.6 inches          4.5 inches             4.82 inches
Width     2.3 inches          2.3 inches             2.54 inches
Depth     1.1 inches          0.37 inches            0.39 inches
Weight   5.6 ounces         4.8 ounces             4.26 ounces

As can be seen from the figures above, in terms of GENERAL size and shape design, except for a bit less weight, a narrower bezel (frame), and the thinner depth of the iPhone -- as enabled by increasing technological miniaturization of electronic parts over time for the ENTIRE industry, not just for Apple -- the iPhone is a virtual copy of the Sony Ericsson P800. The Samsung Galaxy S differs substantially.

Our point here is that the entire legal discussion about litigation over the design of Apple and Samsung products leaves out the very important fact that the design of electronic hand-held devices has a long history, a history providing prior art for a host of features adapted one way or another by subsequent products. Basic features are clearly copied, also by Apple.

We have covered the design debt of the iPhone (introduced in the year 2008) to the 1972 Sinclair Executive and the 1977 Braun ET44 at LCD Touch Screens Led to Thinner Design for Smartphones and Tablets via the Prior Art for Pocket Calculators: The iPhone Copies the Sinclair Executive of 1972 and the Braun ET44 of 1977.

Take a look now at GSMArena.com and Mobile phone evolution: Story of shapes and sizes.

The first touchscreen smartphone to make any substantial impact was the Sony Ericsson P800, which was introduced in the year 2002, six years prior to the iPhone. It was followed by the Sony Ericsson P900 and the Motorola A920, introduced in 2003. These phones already show the typical design features that are found in subsequent more modern touchscreen smartphones: i.e. design rectangles with rounded edges, a much larger display area enabled by miniaturization of technology and larger screen displays, much narrower bezels (frames around the LCD) and a much thinner depth of the entire device.

We have linked the following image of the Sony Ericsson P900 (left) and the Sony Ericsson P800 (right) from CNET UK:

Image of Sony Ericsson P900 and Sony Ericsson P800 linked from CNET.
The iPhone merely increased the display surface, but it was not the first.

Image of Motorola A920 linked from GSMArena.com. 

The trend not only to a thinner depth but also to a display that covers nearly the entire front surface of a hand-held can be seen in the 2005 Palm TX, a "PDA" (personal digital assistant) with a touch screen, here shown from the front and side.




Images of Palm TX linked from ZDNet in an article written by by Bonnie Cha, CNET.com on October 14th, 2005, several years before the iPhone.

All of these designs are prior art to the iPhone and encompass numerous features to which Apple  can by no stretch of the imagination claim exclusivity for itself. The entire development of design follows the limitations viz. enablements of electronic technology, and not vice-versa. 

Hence, in order for a design to possess some special protection, as Apple claims for its iPhone, it would have to contain some unusual element of creativity. The paradox is that the iPhone does not do that at all, but rather is remarkable for its design simplicity. There is really nothing new about it, it is just done nicely. Indeed, the iPhone has the least amount of razzle-dazzle design, not the most, when compared with its predecessors. The rest is public taste and a product of marketing, and for that, the courts are not there to grant injunctions or to follow like sheep the call of the madding crowd. 

Patents are the Big Weapons in Smartphone and Tablet Wars of 2011

At the CNET UK blog "Crave",

Stuart Dredge reports on Mobile patent warfare: Who's suing who and why,
writing that:

"The biggest weapons in the smart phone and tablet wars of 2011 aren't processors, touchscreens, operating systems or app stores. They're patents."

Copyright Law: First Sale Doctrine Not Applicable To Genuine Works Manufactured Outside the United States

Under the so-called "first sale doctrine", if you buy a book in the United States you can later sell it without violating the copyright owner's rights, since the copyright owner has presumably already been rewarded for his copyright through the first sale.

Without this doctrine, we could not sell "used books", for example, or any books out of our private libraries without owing a royalty to the copyright owner, who gets paid only through the first sale.

But what about a book that is manufactured outside the USA, sold to someone here in the States, who then sells it below the selling price of that same book as manufactured in the USA? The US book is a "first sale", whereas the sale of the foreign publication is no longer a first sale. Does the first sale doctrine apply?

As reported by Kenyon & Kenyon LLP regarding a Second Circuit decision: Copyright Act’s First Sale Doctrine Does Not Apply To Genuine Works Manufactured Outside the United States.

This makes sense to us, as the "first sale doctrine" is not intended as a means to work around copyrights.

A Color Trademark on Red Shoe Soles? Another Real Blooper from the USPTO Finds its Way Into the Courts

The question before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was whether Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) could continue to use red soles on shoes because the hopeless USPTO in 2008 had granted Christian Louboutin a trademark for women's high fashion designer footwear with lacquered red soles.

Louboutin now claims that YSL is using a confusingly similar red shade on their shoe soles. Arina Shulga at the LexisNexis Communities Copyright & Trademark Law Community has the story at How Strong is Your Trademark? – The Red Shoe Sole Design Saga.

Looked at humorously, shoe fashion designers can count themselves lucky that the USPTO has not had a chance to issue trademarks on all the basic colors, which would thereby effectively block any new fashion designers at all from entering the market because all the colors would then have been taken.

And let us hope that this color trademarking does not extend broadly to other industries, which could make new enterprises impossible because of a dearth of available hues.

LOL (laughing out loud).