Originally Posted by hill60
You know the article you are posting in response to?
If you bothered to read it and comprehend it, you'd realise your bullish*t won't fly, not even with the judge, making the decision who is quoted in the third paragraph, which I'll post here because you obviously missed it:-"The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible,"
Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffman said in the verdict.OTHER DESIGNS ARE POSSIBLE
Guess what Hill60. . .
Apple has received design patents on most other possible slate designs as well. Wedge shape, narrow bezel? Nope, belongs to Apple. Widen the bezel then. Sorry, belongs to Apple. No Bezel? Apple again. Recessed screen? Yup, Apple too. Narrower bezel, more squared off corners? Still Apple. Offset the screen towards the top, bezel at the bottom. Might as well quit trying, that design is claimed by Apple too. I've put all the reference numbers in my last post if anyone doubts this.
This is where the lengths that Apple has gone to assure themselves of no competition becomes obvious to me. None of the other tablet/slate designs are used by Apple. Most were filed back in 2008, around the time the iPad was finalized. To go before that same German judge to get one of the unused designs they laid claim to enforced they don't have to show they ever made a product that resembles it. They only need to submit evidence that the line drawings in the patent resemble a competitors product.
Hmmm. . .If they never built a device that resembles the line drawings in a design patent, why did Apple claim the design anyway? IMHO, this is the likely answer, at least in part.
Any manufacturer who is considering the build of a slate/tablet computer is going to have to consider the possibility that Apple will drag out one of it's numerous registered designs to claim infringement. Is it really worth investing in the tablet market when the market leader has a demonstrated penchant for lawsuits and pockets so deep that losing won't matter and isn't the point anyway. By the time the suit is over the damage is done and the iPad is the last man standing. Potentially pay out a few million in damages? Big deal with billions to be made selling the iPad with no competition.
Is it worth a company-wide commitment to produce a great quality innovative slate with the fear hanging in the air that the ownership of a simple vague pencil drawing of an un-produced product is proven capable of banning you from the market?A competing device does not have to resemble the iPad at all.
It just needs to resemble some set of line drawings that Apple lays claim to for it to be subject to a sales injunction. No one knows if Apple will go that far. Perhaps they might or perhaps not but they've laid claim to the right, and that's where the anti-competitive danger is.
Apple didn't write the law, but this was never the law's intent either.