or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents should be invalidated
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents... - Page 3

post #81 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

I have heard over and over people claiming that patent lawsuits are so expensive and are destroying innovation.  I wonder how much this lawsuit is costing vis a vis the actual profits and gross sales that are being considered.  

Insignificant. Even if the lawsuit costs Apple $100,000,000 (which is very unlikely), that's only a tiny fraction of the profits involved - especially when you consider what happens to Apple's future products if competitors are allowed to simply make near-identical copies of all their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post


Sorry, guy, but had you followed the link in the tweet you'd know that it wasn't Mr. Mulller making that statement. Here is the first paragraph from that referenced article…

"InformationWeek
 on Monday caught up with Christopher Canari, chairman of the American Bar Association’s design rights committee and former chair of the American Intellectual Property Law Association committee on industrial design, to get his take on the 
Samsung
 (
005930
) vs. 
Apple
 (
AAPL
) patent trial. And so far, he says that based on what he’s seen, he thinks 
Samsung is in serious trouble
."

While it's nice to have a patent expert confirm it, it has been clear throughout this trial that Samsung is in serious trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by japm View Post

It's all COINCIDENCE people WAKE UP!

Samsung did not copy anything, they invent and design their own devices.


My favorite is their copy of the Smart Cover.
"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 #82 of 96
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
My favorite is their copy of the Smart Cover.

 

Mine as well, but wasn't that a third party's?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #83 of 96

Contrary to the other "posters," I see no insight in your post.

Would you like to be specific about exactly what *ideas* Apple is trying to patent that they shouldn't?

And while your at it why don't you tell us what Apple could protect if not these *ideas*?

It seems to me these vague *ideas* you refer to are actually very specific and unique design and utility patents, which are the whole basis of intellectual property rights. The *ideas* that aren't very specific and unique design and utility patents would appear to be more about copyrights and trade dress which are also protectable intellectual property.

 

I'll be the first one to admit that there are some problems with the patent system, but Apple patenting ideas rather than inventions, processes, or designs certainly isn't one of them. On the other hand, the ease and impunity with which companies like Samsung can infringe on those patents is one of the problems (and always has been.)  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

In principle this is true, and believe me, I'm the biggest Apple nerd ALIVE (fact) but what Apple is doing here, either by choice or by force of a broken legal system, is not stopping a company from copying their products. What Apple is arguing here is that Samsung should not be able to use any ideas that Apple seems to believe are all 100% new and theirs. And sure, Apple did certainly bring a TON of new stuff to the table with the iPhone but no company ever creates things in a complete vacuum, and ideas are not legal property. After all, Apple themselves uses ideas from other products and companies ALL THE TIME. All companies do. It's just a part of creativity. In fact it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something that doesn't in some way connect back to something else.

What Apple deserves to be protected from, as does anyone, is straight up wholesale copying. The kind that goes on in asian countries where they literally take products and cast molds from them and stamp out exact replicas. That is what patents were always supposed to protect and it only hurts the industry when they're taken further than that.

post #84 of 96

You are correct on one thing, it's just you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

It's just me, but I don't think this trial has Apple focusing on "innovation". . . .

post #85 of 96

You ought to know that exactly at 5:40 of that video you had just entered what SJ's associates famously coined as "Reality Distortion Field". On every keynote and product launching, SJ had been successful in warping people's mind around him, be the presses, apologists and other attendees, into his rather formidable "Reality Distortion Field" [RDF]. The place like AI is so full of SJ's RDF; otherwise, it ain't gonna be called "Apple Insider", is it?.

 

When in the past, during its glory days, Microsoft made "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" [FUD] as its daily schtick, Apple nowadays employs both FUD and RDF to stiffle competition. Barely a notion of a brand new Iphone to be released in October is enough to make a great many people in the US [especially] to delay buying their new phones even when competitors already outed many compelling and highly advanced alternatives. The fact is until we see one or hold one in our hand, it is only qualified to be called a vaporware. 

 

So, to answer your question, no, Apple doesn't invent many of the things it claims to have invented, and that will include the "multi-touch" thingy. Phew..., I have to employ the strongest spell available concocted by the collective voodoo masters in Jamaica to deflect the strong RDF here just to make it possible to write this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

At 5:40 there is video of SJ at the iphone unveiling saying and I quote

 

"We have invented a new technology called multi-touch"

 

Did you even watch the video? SJ said Apple invented it. 


Edited by mcrs - 8/15/12 at 3:05pm
post #86 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

You ought to know that exactly at 5:40 of that video you had just entered what SJ's associates famously coined as "Reality Distortion Field". On every keynote and product launching, SJ had been successful in warping people's mind around him, be the presses, apologists and other attendees, into his rather formidable "Reality Distortion Field" [RDF]. The place like AI is so full of SJ's RDF; otherwise, it ain't gonna be called "Apple Insider", is it?.

 

When in the past, during its glory days, Microsoft made "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" [FUD] as its daily schtick, Apple nowadays employs both FUD and RDF to stiffle competition. Barely a notion of a brand new Iphone to be released in October is enough to make a great many people in the US [especially] to delay buying their new phones even when competitors already outed many compelling and highly advanced alternatives. The fact is until we see one or holding one in our hand, it is only qualified to be called a vaporware. 

 

So, to answer your question, no, Apple doesn't invent many of the things it claims to have invented, and that will include the "multi-touch" thingy. Phew..., I have to employ the strongest spell available concocted by the collective voodoo masters in Jamaica to deflect the strong RDF here just to make it possible to write this.


Perhaps he was referring to Fingerworks (at that point was part of Apple since 2005) when he said this? Just a thought.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

 

More news on the subject. As you said, it may be a bit of his RDF, but considering it appears they arranged for the patent rights from the original inventor, he potentially just shortcutted to "we invented it." As with the original Mac GUI, the original idea may not have been theirs, but they (Apple) did a lot of work on improving and refining it to make it what it was by the original release. Just as they paid for access to Xerox Parq, they appear to have acquired the base multitouch patent rights from the original holder (and then went to work making it better).

 

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/24/apple-secures-multitouch-related-patent-dating-back-to-1995-from/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/29/apple_multitouch_patent/

post #87 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Mine as well, but wasn't that a third party's?

Yup.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Two interesting videos

 

http://www.youtube.com/embed/L1s_PybOuY0?start=308&fs=1&feature=oembed

Steve jobs saying Apple invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY

 

 

In which dictionary does "introduce" have the same meaning as "invent"?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #89 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post

"According to in-court reports from All Things D, Sherman's testimony took shots at Apple's design patents, which he says are functional rather than ornamental. The patent expert also argued a number of alleged prior art claims, including a Japanese design patent from 2005 that bears passing resemblance to the iPhone with its rounded corners, rectangular shape and "lozenge-shaped" speaker."

 

I think this is worth talking about:

 

There are two types of patents being discussed in this case. One are functional patents, on specific ways of solving a problem. The other are design patents, covering aspects of the design itself. These are much more like trademarks, and are considered using similar criterion.

 

We're all aware of "obviousness" and "prior art" in terms of functional patents. It is very important to note that these do NOT apply to design patents. It is perfectly OK for Apple to have a design patent on a device with prior art. The point of interest in these cases is whether or not the design was in widespread use prior to the patent being granted. That's not "any example of it", but "it was widely used".

 

Sherman's examples of mock-ups are not germain. Unless those devices went into production and use, then, like trademarks, they aren't defendable.

 

So thus the attempt to link the design patents to functionality, because otherwise the argument fails.

Criterion = singular.  Criteria = plural

post #90 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by blursd View Post

Criterion = singular.  Criteria = plural


Thank you. I believe confusing these two words is more common than "your" and "you're".

post #91 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

At 5:40 there is video of SJ at the iphone unveiling saying and I quote

 

"We have invented a new technology called multi-touch"

 

Did you even watch the video? SJ said Apple invented it. 

 

You can't patent an idea.

 

Steve Job's was talking about the invention of THE IMPLEMENTATION of an idea.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #92 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Mine as well, but wasn't that a third party's?


It was. At first, it appeared the company Anymode had Samsung certify this cover. But Samsung subsequently made a denial of that happening, and forced Anymore to remove the product from their website.

post #93 of 96
So I suppose Samsung considers this prior art? lol.gif

bill-gates-tablets.jpg
post #94 of 96
And let's not forget this one. A big seller I'm sure. lol.gif

saupload_ballmer.jpg
post #95 of 96
It seems rather missing the point to argue about the "rectangular shape" when the bigger question is about the whole new user experience that iPhone brought to consumers. Did the world see a smart phone that doesn't use a pen before the iPhone for example? NO! It follows then anything that provides a similar user experience is a copycat. In 2007 Samsung launched an LCD TV that had a "wine glass" shape that was remarkebly similar to a 25" Bang & Olufsen CRT TV launched in early 2000s. B&O must be aware of this but maybe they were just too small to take on Samsung, especially when they were relying heavily on Samsung for parts and even a couple of OEM products at that time. Android fanboys can dislike Apple and Steve Jobs, but please don't distort the facts!
post #96 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by microview View Post

... Is the technology field so slow these days that the site needs to fill up the pages with the boring legal wrangling between these two companies? Can we get back to reporting on real technological innovations?

 

You could set up a custom RSS feed to filter out the topics you don't want to see. For an example, see The Verge, Ltd. Pipe.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents should be invalidated