Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 2:57pm
The dotted-line drawings don't matter to the protected elements in the patent claims. I'm sure that's what Apple wants you and others to see in the dotted line drawings... an iPhone. But that's not what they're claiming for the usage, nor what they're limiting it to as they plainly state in their description. If Apple's intent was to protect only their iPhone design they wouldn't mention other device type examples nor claim ownership of it no matter the scale would they?
.Those accompanying dotted-line drawings were simply serving as an example of a possible use and do not affect or limit the patent in any way. The patent as granted can apply to any number of possible devices in any type of use or any size. Whether they use it against devices that do not look like an iPhone is their choice, but it's certainly possible they would be successful as long as the display area alone resembles the patented features. Apple put no limits on the usage, and the patent office accepted that.
It doesn't affect Samsung's guilt or innocence in the big picture as far as I'm concerned. They are guilty of trade dress infringement in my opinion. Even a couple of the icons are taken from iOS. These two design patents are a different story and I won't be at all surprised to see one or both of them found to be invalid by the time the case is over.
I'll agree with that.
In the handset market Samsung overtook other established players around ten years ago, (Motorola, Sony Ericsson etc) to sit firmly in number two behind Nokia, they have been number one handset vendor in the US for at least 5 or 6 years.
In much the same way as a stock car they drafted behind Apple's success to come out and first overtake Nokia as number one handset vendor and Apple as number one smartphone vendor.
Samsung have always been one of the biggest handset vendors, as the line blurred between "feature" phones to Android based "smartphones" their market share has increased there as well.
No more than Apple is saying that they have the patent on rectangle phones with touch screens.
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting.
This trial and Steve Jobs pure hatred of Android and Google is all well documented.
There is no way you can compare the pure beauty of the Samsung Galaxy S III and the iPhone 4S.
They are nothing alike in look, OS, or features.
Samsung has taken every product to the next level and Apple is still in 2007 as their rudementary Map application shows.
Give the customer the minimum to maximize profits is running a bit thin with Apple these days. Their sales numbers are showing it.
If you're trying to troll, you're doing very badly at it. I estimate your age to be around 15 years old.
Since when did the Galaxy S3 matter in this case? And since when was it considered "beautiful" when almost everyone in the Android community hates it or does not consider it as good as the S2 or S?
... at night.
... at night.
The first argument was that Samsung didn't copy Apple. From the chart, any reasonable person who disagrees with that statement is not being honest and should not be taken seriously. The next argument is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to patent rectangles with rounded edges. As your chart points out, Apple is more than just protecting a rectangle with rounded edges.
The real question for Samsung and this trial is whether Apple's patents are valid and did Samsung copy any of the ideas in valid patents. Samsung is saying the patents should be nullified by claiming all this prior art. My take on what I have read is that a good part of what Samsung is claiming seems bogus and they are trying to conjure something together that makes sense to a jury. For Samsung to win IMO, they have to confuse the court and jury with misdirection. The chart you posted makes it pretty obvious what went on at Samsung. Question is what will this look like in the courtroom without all this extra media coverage that we are looking at.
... and just what is "prior art" and how does it affect patent applications or claims you might ask? (or should as it's likely no one in this thread really understands).
So here it is, clear as mud.
Not correct. Apple is not obligated to sue every entity that might be infringing one of it's patents. There's no "use it or lose it" requirement for US patents. You've confused it with trademark law.
It seems that Samsung hasn't gotten the memo that the words "inspiration" and "imitation" are not synonyms. If Apple were suing Samsung just for being "inspired by Apple", then I would say they - and now you - have a point. But Apple claims that Samsung actively copied the iPhone. This case will see whether they can prove it.
Samsung: "Apple has been inspired by others, and we can prove it."
Apple: "Samsung has taken a popular shipping product of ours and deliberately copied it down to the gnat's ass, and we can prove it."
You don't see the difference?