You are on page 1of 17

Tugas Keweirausahaan

: Adiyat
: 13/346762/TK/40615
Apple Wins 9 Detailed iPhone 6 Design Patents that could Pack a Punch
in Court Should Samsung's S6 Design Cross the Line

On August 24, 2012 the jury in Apple's first patent infringement lawsuit against
Samsung returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple. It found that Samsung had
willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's
trade dresses related to the iPhone. The jury awarded Apple $1.049 billion in
damages. Within the verdict were design patents that covered iPhone's features
such as the "home button, rounded corners and tapered edges" (US D593087) and
"On-Screen Icons" (US D604305). Another one was Design Patent 504,889 which
described the ornamental design of the iPad). So design patents played a huge role
in Apple's first patent infringement case against Samsung.
On February 3 we posted a report titled "The Samsung Galaxy S6 is rumored to
Look More iPhone-Like." The Korean Times had plainly stated that their sources
claimed that Samsung's Galaxy S6 "will look a lot like Apple's iPhone 6." We
sarcastically stated that "Surely this is a joke as we all know what Einstein's
definition of insanity is: to do the same thing over and over expecting different
results." Within 24 hours, the French blog presented photos of what
they claimed were those of the Galaxy S6 frame.
If these photos truly end up being what the S6 actually looks like, then Samsung is
once again blurring the line to mimic Apple's wildly successful iPhone-6 design. Has
Samsung purposely done so to start another patent war with Apple? Do they think

another patent war is what will bring the Samsung fan base back to the fold against
evil Apple? Will they risk blowing their contract with Apple for the A9 processor over a
smartphone design?
It's hard to say definitively until we actually see Samsung's new design debut in
Barcelona. But if Samsung has crossed the line, again, will Apple legal file a patent
infringement case against Samsung? If the first Apple victory in court was based on
the iPhone design being copied, would they not once again defend their design?
Today it was revealed in Hong Kong China, an important market for both Apple and
Samsung, that Apple has been granted a series of nine iPhone 6 design patents. If
Apple can determine that the Galaxy S6 infringes on their design, will they sue for
patent infringement again?
In October Apple's Jony Ive spoke candidly with Vanity Fair about the magical
process of design at Apple as well his view of competitors whose products border on
"theft." While Apple doesn't sue everyone who has products that are close to theirs,
Samsung is a different case. If the designs do cross the line in a significant way, then
they're not only challenging Apple, they'd also be laughing at Judge Koh and the
U.S. Patent system. So this is going to be very interesting to see what Samsung
introduces in Barcelona on March 1 and the potential fallout should the designs
actually cross the line.
For now, we present you with some of the granted design patents for the iPhone 6
that were published today by China's Patent and Trademark Office. If the design
wins could be used as a Priority filing for any future U.S. filing, then they could be
used in future litigation. The dates would therefore be important.
It was reported by The Korea Herald yesterday that Samsung had just filed for
patents for the Galaxy S6 (and S6 edge). If they were design patents, then they're
clearly behind those from Apple.
Images from Apple's Nine Design Patents
Below we present you with a series of 11 patent figures that were taken from the
nine iPhone 6 design patents issued to Apple officially on February 6, 2015. The
designs were made public yesterday by the Hong Kong Patent and Trademark
Office. In total there were 54 images covering every angle of the iPhone 6 with
unique sets pointing out very specific areas of the design that Apple wanted to

Apple's iPhone 6 Granted 9 Design Wins

Below is the first form-in-part representing one of the nine design patents that were
granted to Apple on February 6, 2015 and published today on China's Patent and
Trademark Office website. The first shown below is design patent number
1402043.8M001. Further below you'll find a graphic showing the complete series of
design win numbers.

In the end, there are two or more ways that this could go. If the Galaxy S6 copies the
iPhone 6 design too much then Apple could sue. On the other hand, Apple knows
that Samsung's popularity took a huge leap because of their litigation against them

last time and may not want to play into Samsung's hand. How will it all play out?
Only time will tell.
For the record, the patent and trademark office in Hong Kong is officially named the
"Intellectual Property Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region."
A Note for Tech Sites covering our Report: We ask tech sites covering our report to
kindly limit the use of our graphics to one image. Thanking you in advance for your

Callaway Iron
The concept of iron adjustability is nothing new, but the major manufacturers are
adding their own spin on the concept and seeking patent protection.
Recall THIS post questioning who did it better, Acushnet or Bridgestone?
Apparently Callaway also has some interest in adjustable irons, as exhibited by a
patent that issued last week as USPN 8777774, titled adjustable iron-type golf club
head. The patent describes the invention as:

The present invention discloses an iron-type golf club head having features that
permit adjustment to the principal moment of inertia angle, the center of gravity
location, turf interaction, loft, and overall club forgiveness. In particular, the golf club
head includes a rear cavity sized to receive a weight cartridge composed of one or
more materials, the adjustment of which changes one or more of the mass properties
of the golf club head and also changes the interaction of the golf club head with turf
during play. The weight cartridge may comprise one or more high density materials,
and may be located in or proximate the sole.

The patent goes on to explain:

2. Description of the Related Art

The prior art discloses various types of golf club heads having preferred moments of
inertia characteristics. In particular, U.S. Pat. No. 6,045,455, entitled Inertially
tailored golf club heads, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated in its entirety
herein, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,905, entitled Methods for designing golf club
heads, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated in its entirety herein, are both
related to methods for designing inertially tailored golf club heads. The prior art does
not, however disclose optimized, adjustable irons that permit a user to tailor the
moment of inertia or center of gravity characteristics of his or her club.
Furthermore, traditional iron-type golf clubs include faces made of metal materials,
and usually the same material as the rest of the iron body. This reduces the amount

of discretionary weight available to manufacturers, which they otherwise would be

able to use to adjust characteristics of the golf club head like moment of inertia and

The location of the weight cartridge 20 near the sole portion 12 of the golf club head
10 also preferably is designed to affect the interaction of the golf club head 10 with
turf during play. For example, in the preferred embodiment of the present invention,
shown in FIGS. 5A-7B, an iron-type golf club head 100 comprises a top rail 111, heel
113, toe 114, face 160, and sole portion 120, as well as a tubular recess 125 in the
sole portion that extends into a rear cavity of the golf club head 10 but, in alternative
embodiments, may be contained entirely within the sole portion 120. The preferred
embodiment also includes a cylindrical weight cartridge 200, which preferably
includes three sections: a first end section 202, a middle section 204, and a second
end section 206. As shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B, the orientation of the weight
cartridge 200 within the recess 125 affects the mass properties of the club iron-type
golf club head 100, with the orientation shown in FIG. 6A causing neutral weighting
and the orientation shown in FIG. 6B causing draw weighting.
As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the orientation of the weight cartridge 200 also affects
the interaction between the golf club head 100 and the turf or ground surface. In the
preferred embodiment, the middle section 204 of the weight cartridge has a diameter
that is greater than that of the first and second end sections 202, 206, and is slightly
offset from the first and second end sections 202, 206 so that the middle section 204
protrudes slightly from one side of the weight cartridge 200. When the protruding part
205 of the middle section 204 faces upward into the body of the golf club head 100,
the golf club head has a different loft than when the protruding part of the middle
section 204 faces downwards into the turf. In this way, turf interaction can be altered
by changing the orientation of the weight cartridge 200, and can further be altered by
replacing the weight cartridge 200 with a different weight cartridge 200 having a
different shape or turf interaction profile. The weight cartridge 200 can be retained
within the recess 125 by any means known to a person skilled in the art, but
preferably is removably secured within the recess 125 with at least one screw 150.

Another embodiment of the present invention shown in FIGS. 8A through 9B, also
includes a feature that allows a golfer to adjust the turf interaction provided by his or
her golf club head 100. In this embodiment, the golf club head 100 has a similar
structure to that of the preferred embodiment shown in FIGS. 5A through 7B, but
instead of a weight cartridge 200, the golf club head includes an adjustable sole
piece 300 having a screw receiving portion 310, which is affixed within the recess

125 of the sole portion 120, and a flange portion 320 that extends away from the
screw receiving portion 310. As in the preferred embodiment, the adjustable sole
piece 300 can be retained within the recess 125 by any means known to a person
skilled in the art, but preferably is removably secured within the recess 125 with at
least one screw 150.

As shown in FIGS. 8A through 9B, adjusting the orientation of the flange portion 320
changes the overall width of the sole of the golf club head 100. When in the
configuration shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B, and the flange portion 320 is approximately
parallel with the face 160, the golf club head 100 has a narrow sole, and much less
turf interaction. When the adjustable sole piece 300 is adjusted so that the flange
portion 320 is approximately perpendicular to the face 160 as shown in FIGS. 9A and
9B, the sole width is much increased. The flange portion 320 may further include
texturing or other features on its outermost surface 325 to further affect the
interaction between the golf club head 100 and the turf. In other embodiments, the
adjustable sole piece 300 may make up the entirety of the sole of the golf club head
100, such that the golf club head 100 has no sole portion 120 when the adjustable
sole piece 300 is removed from the golf club head 100. In these embodiments, the
adjustable sole piece 300 is affixed directly to the heel and toe portions 113, 114 of
the golf club head 100 and may make contact with the face 160.



Three stripes is a trademark of Adidas consisting of three parallel lines, which

typically feature along the side of Adidas apparel. Adidas was known for this
branding early in its history, with its owner, Adolf Dassler, describing it as "The three
stripe company".[1]
Designs for shoes registered in 1949 incorporated the three stripes along the side. [2]
A Finnish sports brand Karhu Sports sold the three stripe trademark to Adidas for
(the equivalent of) 1,600 euros and two bottles of Whiskey.



17 SINCE 27

According to Steve Jobs, the company's name was inspired by his visit to an apple
farm while on a fruitarian diet. Jobs thought the name "Apple" was "fun, spirited and
not intimidating"

Apple's first logo, designed by Ron Wayne, depicts Sir Isaac Newton sitting under an
apple tree. It was almost immediately replaced by Rob Janoff's "rainbow Apple", the
now-familiar rainbow-colored silhouette of an apple with a bite taken out of it. Janoff
presented Jobs with several different monochromatic themes for the "bitten" logo,
and Jobs immediately took a liking to it. However, Jobs insisted that the logo be
colorized to humanize the company. The logo was designed with a bite so that it
would not be confused with a cherry. The colored stripes were conceived to make
the logo more accessible, and to represent the fact the Apple II could generate
graphics in color. This logo is often erroneously referred to as a tribute to Alan
Turing, with the bite mark a reference to his method of suicide. Both Janoff and
Apple deny any homage to Turing in the design of the logo.
On August 27, 1999 (the year following the introduction of the iMac G3), Apple
officially dropped the rainbow scheme and began to use monochromatic logos nearly
identical in shape to the previous rainbow incarnation. An Aqua-themed version of
the monochrome logo was used from 1999 to 2003, and a glass-themed version was
used from 2007 to 2013.
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were Beatles fans, but Apple Inc. had name and logo
trademark issues with Apple Corps Ltd., a multimedia company started by the
Beatles in 1967. This resulted in a series of lawsuits and tension between the two
companies. These issues ended with settling of their most recent lawsuit in 2007.

Merek Dagang Sony

Merek dagang Nike

Merek dagang coca-cola