or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents - Page 4

post #121 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

\Dude, that IS the Community Design Patent awarded to Apple. The actual honest-to-God "certificate of registration" that is the only document the EU sends as proof of ownership of a Community Design Patent. A copy of which was given to the German court as evidence. All four pages of it. It's not some unrelated supporting document. It' the actual document you keep claiming doesn't really exist, since it would be stupid for anyone to allow a patent on a rectangular shape with rounded corners.

And if you just don't understand what the document you're looking at is, here's an explanation of the EU patent law as regards Community Designs.
http://www.stoel.com/files/15Things.pdf

I've decided that you're being purposely obtuse at this point. Perhaps playing a little joke on us.

I followed the original link and several others -- and got the same 4-page "trademark registration"...

I figured those suggesting that was a patent were misinformed.


After reading the document listed above -- I have a better understanding of the issue.

That said, it appears that:

1) Apple applied for, and was granted this "EU Patent"under EU Law

2) Apple has a "supportable" claim against Sammy and others -- based on this EU Law.

3) No one had or has proven that they have a "patent" that invalidates Apples "patent"

4) All players have the same opportunities -- but they must all play within the EU's rules of the game -- if they want to sell products in the EU.

Without understanding the intricacies of the EU legal system -- it appears that "prior art" design for a "digital picture frame" or even an Etch-A-Sketch (if they had a "patent") would not invalidate this Apple "patent"

I suspect that the EU legal system will work through these issues... mas o menos!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #122 of 132
And here's the link to the US patent for a device with a rectangular shape and evenly rounded corners. Apple is using this Patent infringement claim (their D667 claim) against Samsung in the California case.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...RS=PN/D618,677

Click on 'Images" at the bottom to see what Apple claims ownership of.

And a link to the court papers:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...39768/80/0.pdf
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #123 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I followed the original link and several others -- and got the same 4-page "trademark registration"...

I figured those suggesting that was a patent were misinformed.

Or, more likely, lying. See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

If you visited the link I provided in the post you quoted, you'd find that Mr. Mueller provided a link to the USPTO record for the patent in question.l[/url]

No, it didn't. It had a link to a certificate of registration, not a patent.

Furthermore, the patent application that you keep citing is about configuration, not about shape - at least based on the title which is the only thing you've provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

\Dude, that IS the Community Design Patent awarded to Apple. The actual honest-to-God "certificate of registration" that is the only document the EU sends as proof of ownership of a Community Design Patent. A copy of which was given to the German court as evidence. All four pages of it. It's not some unrelated supporting document. It' the actual document you keep claiming doesn't really exist, since it would be stupid for anyone to allow a patent on a rectangular shape with rounded corners.

Why do you insist on lying when it's so easy to prove that you're doing so?

http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/index.html
A Certificate of Registration is "official document from the USPTO evidencing that a mark has been registered."

It has to do with a trademark, not a patent. . So your assertion that it is Apple's patent is just, plain, 100% wrong.

Furthermore, it does not include the entire application, but is only evidence that a registration has occurred.

Now, if you would care to redeem yourself, how about providing a copy of the patent or patent application where you keep claiming that Apple attempted to patent a rectangle with rounded corners?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #124 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And here's the link to the US patent for a device with a rectangular shape and evenly rounded corners. Apple is using this Patent infringement claim (their D667 claim) against Samsung in the California case.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...RS=PN/D618,677

Click on 'Images" at the bottom to see what Apple claims ownership of.

And a link to the court papers:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...39768/80/0.pdf

You're getting closer, but you're still wrong.

That does not claim that Apple owns a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Rather, it shows that Apple owns the right to a VERY SPECIFIC shape and design.

It's like Ferrari owning the design of their cars. They do not own the rights to a 4 wheeled vehicle with steering wheel and engine. But if you copy their car exactly, you would get in trouble.

Similarly, Apple's design patent does not entitle Apple to anything with a rectangular shape with rounded corners. But if you copy Apple's product exactly or nearly exactly, you are infringing.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #125 of 132
deleted
post #126 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Again, I'd be impressed if you could actually explain the difference between FRAND patents and unencumbered patents. If you understood that difference, you'd understand why it is not the same thing for Apple to be suing Samsung as it is for Samsung to be suing Apple.

Samsung gave its patents up to a standards body so that Samsung could help create a standard whereby it wouldn't' have to compete with other competing technologies. Those patents are available for anybody to use. Apple doesn't need permission, although it might have to pay a reasonable and nondiscriminatory fee. Apple didn't give its patents up to create a standard. The difference is akin to somebody who offers to allow a bunch of kids to play with his basketball to complain when the kids actually played with his basketball [which is how Samsung is behaving], and the kids breaking into the owner of the basketball's house to steal the ball [Apple arguably is akin to the basketball owner here].

Maybe Samsung feels number of Apple's patents should be FRAND, or not patents at all?

If you let kids play with your basketball and one kid figures out how to slam-dunk or drive ball between legs - and then try to stop everyone else on the playground do the same - will you not tell that kid to stop behaving or he can't play with your basketball any more?

Of course it will be up to judges to determine if this is legal or not, but from the moral point of view, I think what Samsung is trying here in not worst than what Apple is trying with number of their over-generic and prior-art existing patents.
post #127 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, it didn't. It had a link to a certificate of registration, not a patent. . .

Why do you insist on lying when it's so easy to prove that you're doing so?

http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/index.html
A Certificate of Registration is "official document from the USPTO evidencing that a mark has been registered."

It has to do with a trademark, not a patent. . So your assertion that it is Apple's patent is just, plain, 100% wrong.


You''re making the very obvious and silly mistake of assuming EU patent law is governed by the US Patent Office and uses the same rules.


It's really so easy to see if you haven't already made up your mind to ignore the inconvenient facts.
I can't post anything to convince you and have apparently wasted too much time already. Fortunately I've probably shown at least a few others what the Apple assertions in Germany are all about.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're getting closer, but you're still wrong.

That does not claim that Apple owns a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Rather, it shows that Apple owns the right to a VERY SPECIFIC shape and design.


... which happens to be a rectangle with equally rounded corners.\
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #129 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Yes, a registration for a patent.

I've already provided you with Florian Mueller's contact info, and life has already provided you with Google. If you can't find what you're looking for, I doubt anyone here can help you.


Ah, so your professed confusion over not being able to find the patent was ingenuous, eh? Thanks for clearing that up.

Care to share the URL you've found which has so enlightened you beyond Mr. Mueller's ambitions?


This part wasn't addressed to me, but it's so funny I can't resist -

In response to Gatorguy's providing you with a URL to an EU Community Design document, you wrote:

How did you come to believe that the USPTO governs EU Community Design recognitions?

Dude, get some sleep. Seriously. Your unusual emotional investment in this has apparently exhausted you.

Sweet dreams...

With posts as aggressive and demeaning as yours, do not be surprised if you receive responses in kind...

...Maybe that's your objective here...
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #130 of 132
deleted
post #131 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

With posts as aggressive and demeaning as yours, do not be surprised if you receive responses in kind...

...Maybe that's your objective here...

You have the right idea, but the wrong instigator. Jragosta is a troll. He's proven this over months of posts. Which is why people respond to HIM in kind.


as for his assertion that Apple was granted protection over a very SPECIFIC design, please answer this:

They are asserting said design over both the Tab 10.1 AND the Motorola xoom. Two devices that look VERY different from each other. If the application is so specific, how can they go after both?

Are they going to go after the 7.7 as well?
post #132 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Because Apple's refused to pay: Nokia, Motorola, Samsung (and who knows how many others) the licensing fees for those Frand patents. That means that not only can these companies NOT use the patents defensively, but the revenue stream isn't there.

(If apple was paying fees already, the case couldn't be brought to court)

ARRGH !! Menno Apple delayed paying because the frand holders wanted more than the frand terms to license.

The FRAND patents are a special case, the companies that developed them wanted them to become standards, so they agreed to pool them in a non-competitive manner (all players can play) for a more or less standard fee.

This is not simply a case of Nokia, Motorola, Samsung developing something essential and then not getting paid for it (they get standard Frand licensing), it is essential because they agreed to put them in a standard for all to use on FRAND terms.

It is the defintiton of a monopoly if they could use Frand terms to leverage other's patented inventions.

An example in apple's case I think is the video format MP4 (might be wrong about the specific format) to which apple contributed and then agreed to essentially frand license it so all users could have access. Imagine if apple wanted to use its video codec license to prevent all video being shown on all phones unless other companies agreed to cross license their technology. (they can't because in return for making it the standard, they gave up the right to do so-just like the Frand licensees).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple accuses Motorola, Samsung of monopolizing markets with patents