The only one claiming to have such a wide range of knowledge of the legalisms here is you, addabox. What I ( and others ) are claiming is that if you do bring a case like this, a case like this is more likely to be brought someday against you. Thats human nature. And corporations are full of humans.
Maybe you know more about trade dress than the rest of us, maybe you just googled it. The Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different. The whole differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult. Theres a screen which takes up the majority of the space in front. And some ports. And some buttons. Often one button. Who knows if a case can be made against Apple someday. Maybe if there is a rumour of a 4' screen, for instance, which looks like a 4' Android. Not claiming to be a lawyer, claiming that if such a case can be made, it is more likely to be made now. the only claims to legal expertise are those claiming it can never happen.
In any case, I generally believe that the lawyers are overfed, as a class.
Maybe you know more about trade dress than the rest of us, maybe you just googled it. The Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different. The whole differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult.
Or maybe you could take the time to learn something about a topic before shooting off your mouth.
If the phone is found to have similar enough appearance to cause confusion, then it doesn't matter one whit whether the software is completely different or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
So if I'm understanding the internet lawyers correctly, a particular ruling in a particular case wherein Samsung has pretty evidently done a blatant job of copying the trade dress of Apple products will lead to the ruination of Apple itself because now the whole idea of "trade dress" will inexplicably be expanded to include anything anyone wants it to, and the "precedent" set by this particular ruling in this particular case will make it likely such random litigation will prevail.
Or maybe you could stop making things up.
There are few, if any cases, where Apple's products have looked like the competitors' products. There are zillions of cases where Apple releases something new and everyone else copies it. Stronger trade dress enforcement would be a huge boon to Apple.
Or maybe you could take the time to learn something about a topic before shooting off your mouth.
Lol, I claimed ignorance of the law, but suggested human nature would mean a similar case would be more likely now, against Apple.
Quote:
If the phone is found to have similar enough appearance to cause confusion, then it doesn't matter one whit whether the software is completely different or not.
Yeah, thats what I said, in the sentence where I said :
..differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult. Theres a screen which takes up the majority of the space in front. And some ports. And some buttons. Often one button. Who knows if a case can be made against Apple someday. Maybe if there is a rumour of a 4' screen, for instance, which looks like a 4' Android device. despite the fact that the Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different.
Thats the bit you actually quoted.
In any case I doubt you are a lawyer, either. Neither am I , just claiming if you try this stuff on then people are more likely to try this on you.
Don't use words that guys like asdasd and cykz don't understand.
Thank you anantksundaram for my first referral on this forum. I'm Dutch so I might not fully appreciate your way of helping me here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
...So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.
Thank you Galbi and timgriff84. This is what I meant. I fear that besides the patenttrolling, we might start to see companies suing others in order to obtain information on prototypes or pre-sales innovations. Of course under the disguise of patent infringement audits.
For Apple this could mean no surprise introduction of new products (because unexpectedly some information was leaked, which had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a prototype was ordered for inspection by the legal team of a competitor) and/or the pre-emptive introduction of badly copied products by competitors derived from the visual cues of the ordered prototype. There is absolutely no telling whether a competitor introduces a new product based on 'stolen' information or 'genuine' innovation.
The only one claiming to have such a wide range of knowledge of the legalisms here is you, addabox. What I ( and others ) are claiming is that if you do bring a case like this, a case like this is more likely to be brought someday against you. Thats human nature. And corporations are full of humans.
I know enough about trade dress to know it's not a novel concept. Apple isn't setting any "precedent" here, which seems to be what the theory is. That now that Apple has been so bold
as to pursue this litigation litigants will come out of the woodwork on account of "human nature." By that reasoning each and every lawsuit is an invitation to frivolous follow-on litigation, so unless it's your contention that no one should sue for anything, ever, you have no point.
Quote:
Maybe you know more about trade dress than the rest of us, maybe you just googled it. The Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different. The whole differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult. Theres a screen which takes up the majority of the space in front. And some ports. And some buttons. Often one button. Who knows if a case can be made against Apple someday. Maybe if there is a rumour of a 4' screen, for instance, which looks like a 4' Android. Not claiming to be a lawyer, claiming that if such a case can be made, it is more likely to be made now. the only claims to legal expertise are those claiming it can never happen.
Fine. If Apple doesn't a solid case, then they're unlikely to prevail. But it's foolish to contend that merely by bringing suit they're ushering in an avalanche of similar litigation. Are you under the impression that Apple dreamed up "trade dress" just now? What if someone were to copy Apple's products exactly, down to the screw head? Seems like you'd still be complaining that by bringing suit they would be inviting a lot of subsequent frivolous lawsuits, since "frivolous" by its very nature doesn't need a solid example, one way or the other. Holding Apple responsible for what some made-up class of potential litigants might or might not do is ridiculous.
Quote:
In any case, I generally believe that the lawyers are overfed, as a class.
If you're against litigation in general, just say so.
So if I'm understanding the internet lawyers correctly, a particular ruling in a particular case wherein Samsung has pretty evidently done a blatant job of copying the trade dress of Apple products will lead to the ruination of Apple itself because now the whole idea of "trade dress" will inexplicably be expanded to include anything anyone wants it to, and the "precedent" set by this particular ruling in this particular case will make it likely such random litigation will prevail.
Because the legal system doesn't concern itself with the particulars or rigor of a given case, but instead relies on broad categories such as "someone sued someone for something and won so now all such lawsuits are winnable", apparently.
If Apple prevails it will be because they had a case and made it. No new principle is being articulated, and the bit about allowing outside council to have a look at upcoming products doesn't change that.
The judge in the case specifically noted that his ruling derived from the fact that the images Apple produced provided a reasonable basis for their complaint. I imagine if Apple takes to producing devices that closely mimic a competitors products then they'll possibly be subject to similar treatment, should they prevail in this case. Just like anyone copying trade dress has been all along.
You sound like you have never met AI's crack(ed) legal team before!
Comments
Maybe you know more about trade dress than the rest of us, maybe you just googled it. The Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different. The whole differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult. Theres a screen which takes up the majority of the space in front. And some ports. And some buttons. Often one button. Who knows if a case can be made against Apple someday. Maybe if there is a rumour of a 4' screen, for instance, which looks like a 4' Android. Not claiming to be a lawyer, claiming that if such a case can be made, it is more likely to be made now. the only claims to legal expertise are those claiming it can never happen.
In any case, I generally believe that the lawyers are overfed, as a class.
Maybe you know more about trade dress than the rest of us, maybe you just googled it. The Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different. The whole differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult.
Or maybe you could take the time to learn something about a topic before shooting off your mouth.
If the phone is found to have similar enough appearance to cause confusion, then it doesn't matter one whit whether the software is completely different or not.
So if I'm understanding the internet lawyers correctly, a particular ruling in a particular case wherein Samsung has pretty evidently done a blatant job of copying the trade dress of Apple products will lead to the ruination of Apple itself because now the whole idea of "trade dress" will inexplicably be expanded to include anything anyone wants it to, and the "precedent" set by this particular ruling in this particular case will make it likely such random litigation will prevail.
Or maybe you could stop making things up.
There are few, if any cases, where Apple's products have looked like the competitors' products. There are zillions of cases where Apple releases something new and everyone else copies it. Stronger trade dress enforcement would be a huge boon to Apple.
Or maybe you could take the time to learn something about a topic before shooting off your mouth.
Lol, I claimed ignorance of the law, but suggested human nature would mean a similar case would be more likely now, against Apple.
If the phone is found to have similar enough appearance to cause confusion, then it doesn't matter one whit whether the software is completely different or not.
Yeah, thats what I said, in the sentence where I said :
..differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult. Theres a screen which takes up the majority of the space in front. And some ports. And some buttons. Often one button. Who knows if a case can be made against Apple someday. Maybe if there is a rumour of a 4' screen, for instance, which looks like a 4' Android device. despite the fact that the Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different.
Thats the bit you actually quoted.
In any case I doubt you are a lawyer, either. Neither am I , just claiming if you try this stuff on then people are more likely to try this on you.
Dangerous precedent.
Why?
Why?
Don't use words that guys like asdasd and cykz don't understand.
Thank you anantksundaram for my first referral on this forum. I'm Dutch so I might not fully appreciate your way of helping me here.
Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices.
...So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.
Thank you Galbi and timgriff84. This is what I meant. I fear that besides the patenttrolling, we might start to see companies suing others in order to obtain information on prototypes or pre-sales innovations. Of course under the disguise of patent infringement audits.
For Apple this could mean no surprise introduction of new products (because unexpectedly some information was leaked, which had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a prototype was ordered for inspection by the legal team of a competitor) and/or the pre-emptive introduction of badly copied products by competitors derived from the visual cues of the ordered prototype. There is absolutely no telling whether a competitor introduces a new product based on 'stolen' information or 'genuine' innovation.
The only one claiming to have such a wide range of knowledge of the legalisms here is you, addabox. What I ( and others ) are claiming is that if you do bring a case like this, a case like this is more likely to be brought someday against you. Thats human nature. And corporations are full of humans.
I know enough about trade dress to know it's not a novel concept. Apple isn't setting any "precedent" here, which seems to be what the theory is. That now that Apple has been so bold
as to pursue this litigation litigants will come out of the woodwork on account of "human nature." By that reasoning each and every lawsuit is an invitation to frivolous follow-on litigation, so unless it's your contention that no one should sue for anything, ever, you have no point.
Maybe you know more about trade dress than the rest of us, maybe you just googled it. The Samsung phones may look like an iPhone, but the software is totally different. The whole differentiation in the product line for touch screen phones is difficult. Theres a screen which takes up the majority of the space in front. And some ports. And some buttons. Often one button. Who knows if a case can be made against Apple someday. Maybe if there is a rumour of a 4' screen, for instance, which looks like a 4' Android. Not claiming to be a lawyer, claiming that if such a case can be made, it is more likely to be made now. the only claims to legal expertise are those claiming it can never happen.
Fine. If Apple doesn't a solid case, then they're unlikely to prevail. But it's foolish to contend that merely by bringing suit they're ushering in an avalanche of similar litigation. Are you under the impression that Apple dreamed up "trade dress" just now? What if someone were to copy Apple's products exactly, down to the screw head? Seems like you'd still be complaining that by bringing suit they would be inviting a lot of subsequent frivolous lawsuits, since "frivolous" by its very nature doesn't need a solid example, one way or the other. Holding Apple responsible for what some made-up class of potential litigants might or might not do is ridiculous.
In any case, I generally believe that the lawyers are overfed, as a class.
If you're against litigation in general, just say so.
So if I'm understanding the internet lawyers correctly, a particular ruling in a particular case wherein Samsung has pretty evidently done a blatant job of copying the trade dress of Apple products will lead to the ruination of Apple itself because now the whole idea of "trade dress" will inexplicably be expanded to include anything anyone wants it to, and the "precedent" set by this particular ruling in this particular case will make it likely such random litigation will prevail.
Because the legal system doesn't concern itself with the particulars or rigor of a given case, but instead relies on broad categories such as "someone sued someone for something and won so now all such lawsuits are winnable", apparently.
If Apple prevails it will be because they had a case and made it. No new principle is being articulated, and the bit about allowing outside council to have a look at upcoming products doesn't change that.
The judge in the case specifically noted that his ruling derived from the fact that the images Apple produced provided a reasonable basis for their complaint. I imagine if Apple takes to producing devices that closely mimic a competitors products then they'll possibly be subject to similar treatment, should they prevail in this case. Just like anyone copying trade dress has been all along.
You sound like you have never met AI's crack(ed) legal team before!