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

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.

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

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 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.

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

Two interesting videos

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

Steve jobs saying Apple invented multi-touch. ALLEGEDLY

"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

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. 

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

... 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?