or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google,... - Page 2

post #41 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Apple says this is more than about financial compensation, then apple should sue Google and get this over with.

Samsung is doing a great job making this about Google vs apple as it should be.

You really are becoming tiresome on this site. Your comment is utter nonsense. Samsung has been the one making , marketing and selling stolen technology raking in billions. They are absolutely the right one to be suing first. Google will get their turn once Apple takes down this scumbag of a company. Apple will wound them first.
post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post
 

NEWS FLASH:
"Samsung throws Google under the bus." Details at 11:00 PM.

 

I hope Samsung's lawyers call Eric Schmidt, the Apple mole, to testify... I'd buy popcorn to watch that.
 


Hehe, the throwing under the bus is actually not too far from the truth. It does seem to be Samsung's best defense though trying to prove that Apple is 'unfairly' targeting them, this could actually work :s. If it does I'm curious if Apple would go ahead and sue Google directly, they have been very hesitant in doing that for now (remember the Motorola case was started before the Google acquisition), don't know why exactly but I imagine it has to do with the amount of profits made on the use of the patents if they are found to infringe.


Edited by Chipsy - 4/12/14 at 5:35am
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?

I would assume it comes with testimony from deposed Google folks next week. I'm sure Apple counsel thought of that.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/12/14 at 6:01am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


From how I understand it Google could be sued. It's just that the possible damages are going to be a lot lower. When you can prove that a company made significant profits from using your patents you will be able to ask for more compensation. With Google not making any profit on Android (only Google Services), if found to infringe, the amount of damages would be limited and could even result in the court being content if Google adapted their software so it doesn't infringe anymore and at most a small compensation.
That's why Apple goes after Samsung.

Apple can most certainly make the same "lost profits" argument for damages they're making against Samsung if they were to sue Google directly. It doesn't matter one whit if Google ever made a single penny from Android, or even lost billions on it. If Apple wants to claim they've been monetarily harmed by Google's Android they only have to file a lawsuit and prove their claim to receive a probably huge multi-billion damage award. Inability to get money from Google is not the reason Apple has avoided taking them on directly so far.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Apple can most certainly make the same "lost profits" argument for damages they're making against Samsung if they were to sue Google directly. It doesn't matter one whit if Google ever made a single penny from Android, or even lost billions on it. If Apple wants to claim they've been monetarily harmed by Google's Android they only have to file a lawsuit and prove their claim to receive a probably huge multi-billion damage award. Inability to get money from Google is not the reason Apple has avoided taking them on directly so far.


If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why.... :s


Edited by Chipsy - 4/12/14 at 6:00am
post #46 of 103
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post
I suggest best you read up and educate your self if you believe that

 

‘Kay. Go ahead and keep believing that you can patent a tree or a fish, I guess.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #47 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan96 View Post

Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.

Actually we're not all thinking that at all. It's mindless drones such as yourself, who parade through here without the slightest idea about patent law, or that this is a fairly significant case. If it is such an irritant to you, why did you click the link and then add a comment. 

Please go and spend a large amount of money on R&D and then see if you think it's OK if some asian company makes masses of cheap copies - then lets see who's "childish."

P.S> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Apple says this is more than about financial compensation, then apple should sue Google and get this over with.

Samsung is doing a great job making this about Google vs apple as it should be.

It doesn't matter if it's Google or Samsung that originated the infringing functionality. If the functionality is shown to infringe a patent then the fact that Samsung released that functionality in its handsets makes Samsung liable for what in patent law is termed indirect infringement. And that means Samsung is liable to Apple for damages. How the law works then, is that Samsung, if it feels Google did not inform it that parts of Android infringed Apple's patents, can then sue Google to recover its costs. In such situations, a smart company would have in place a contract element that states that the supplier of technology (Google) will hold harmless and indemnify the user of that technology (Samsung) in situations where the supplied technology causes harm. That's typically the way contracts are written in the case where the supplier of a technology sells rights to reuse its technology in an end-use product. However, Google is not selling (licensing for a fee) Android, so it may be that such a contract element does not exist between Google and Samsung; I don't know and it doesn't factor into this trial. If Samsung is found to have infringed Apple's patents, then Samsung will have to pay damages to Apple. Whether Samsung can later make a recovery against Google is another issue altogether.
Edited by RadarTheKat - 4/12/14 at 6:57am
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan96 View Post

Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.

Educating people one at-a-time. I think that's become my lot in life. Here we go again. Something I wrote at the time of the first trial to help dispell the simplistic notion that Apple tried to patent the rectangle. Hope you find this at least interesting, Ryan96:

Apple's assertion in its lawsuit is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents.  These particular patents are known as design patents.  It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist.  There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law.  Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark.  By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger.  Why?  For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores.  The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal.  This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.

Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law.  This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas.  Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively.  Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement. 

Here's what this case was about:  After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law.  Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand.  After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products.  Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand.  Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari.  Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari.  The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.

But how does this relate to design patent law? 

The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers.  Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.

This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #50 of 103

Ok I now see the purpose of patents more clearly, thank you so much for explaining it to me. I apologize for being so ignorant, I didn't realize how big of a deal it really was. 

post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Educating people one at-a-time. I think that's become my lot in life. Here we go again. Something I wrote at the time of the first trial to help dispell the simplistic notion that Apple tried to patent the rectangle

Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!

As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286

I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.

What's your opinion on it?
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/12/14 at 7:54am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.

 

An implementation of an idea is still just an idea until it has been made tangible.

 

see: patent trolls. Their patents are all just ideas since none of them are put into practice, regardless of what they might cover.

post #53 of 103
Pretty sure I invented it first... Now...Where did I put those drawings?
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Apple says this is more than about financial compensation, then apple should sue Google and get this over with.

Samsung is doing a great job making this about Google vs apple as it should be.
post #55 of 103
'Great job' you say, this seems to remind me of schoolyard finger pointing - Samsung can't man-up to its copy - cat practices.
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!

As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286

I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.

What's your opinion on it?
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/

Well, like this article indicates, in the sidebar at the bottom, most companies that create a distinctive ornamental form for a product go on to apply for a design patent to protect that design. Microsoft did this for the xBox, as the sidebar indicates. So there's nothing unusual about this application of design patents by Apple. And I think Apple had a point to make, if not a legally enforceable one, that Samsung did its level best to copy the form of the iPad (and iPhone), bolstering Apple's position that Samsung copied many elements of Apple's iDevices. I think it helped to form a context under which Apple did prove infringement of other of its patents.
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #57 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post

Unfortunately for you (& Apple), you can't patent an idea.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/15/protecting-ideas-can-ideas-be-protected-or-patented/id=48009/

Unfortunately for Samsung, Apple has legitimate patents.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #58 of 103

Funny thing about legal systems.  They are run on their own system of precedents and rules.  EU laws and patents exist in Europe.  American laws and patents exist in America.  Is it really that hard to keep track of where this trial is occurring?   

post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Well, like this article indicates, in the sidebar at the bottom, most companies that create a distinctive ornamental form for a product go on to apply for a design patent to protect that design. Microsoft did this for the xBox, as the sidebar indicates. So there's nothing unusual about this application of design patents by Apple. And I think Apple had a point to make, if not a legally enforceable one, that Samsung did its level best to copy the form of the iPad (and iPhone), bolstering Apple's position that Samsung copied many elements of Apple's iDevices. I think it helped to form a context under which Apple did prove infringement of other of its patents.

I understand the rationale behind design patents and why companies apply for them. What I was curious about is what do you think is "distinctive" about that particular now-supposedly-protected design? Do you believe a rounded-rectangle warrants design protection?

Based on the examiner's notes it looks as tho what she thought she was approving and what Apple factually applied for and received are not one and the same. When examiners can't properly understand what the applicant is applying for is this what happens or did it deserve patent protection anyway? Apple asks for and actually receives a design patent for a simple rounded rectangle.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/13/14 at 11:31am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.

 

Accomplice.

post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Anderson View Post

Accomplice.

lol.gif that one most certainly fits, but the term I'm looking for is more obscure.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


lol.gif that one most certainly fits, but the term I'm looking for is more obscure.

"Fagan" perhaps...

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #63 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

"Fagan" perhaps...

is that the same as..?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

lol.gif that one most certainly fits, but the term I'm looking for is more obscure.
The term you're looking for is perhaps Compensatory Damages?

EDIT: This one sounds like a possibility: Vicarious or Contributory damages?
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/12/14 at 2:33pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The term you're looking for is perhaps Compensatory Damages?

EDIT: This one sounds like a possibility: Vicarious or Contributory damages?

Yes that's the one. Google can be sued for Contributory Infringement.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post
 

 

Unfortunately for you (& Apple), you can't patent an idea.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/15/protecting-ideas-can-ideas-be-protected-or-patented/id=48009/

 

Which is why Apple patented a specific 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 #67 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Which is why Apple patented a specific implementation of an idea.

Why is it so hard for people to comprehend such a simple concept? I'm starting to believe that they don't want to understand it. Selective ignorance if you may.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post
 

 

The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...

You dribble on his drivel?

post #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyMarc43 View Post
 

It would be shocking to me if you are older than 12. 
 

You're best argument was to go after his spelling?? 

 

"Yourself" is one word, Mr. Grammar. Remember when you're pointing a finger, three are pointing at you.

Please restrain your self - it's out of control.

post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by iObserve View Post

An implementation of an idea is still just an idea until it has been made tangible.

see: patent trolls. Their patents are all just ideas since none of them are put into practice, regardless of what they might cover.

I thought you had to show proof that your thing works before they will grant you a patent? Otherwise... it really is just an idea... a dream.

Apple's patents in this court case are for things they are currently using in shipping hardware... they're not some idea on a chalkboard.

As for patent trolls... some companies buy patents from another company... even if they aren't gonna use them.

But that goes back to my first question... didn't the first company who was granted the patent have to prove that it works before they got it?
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple asks for and actually receives a design patent for a simple rounded rectangle.

Don't hate the player... hate the game 1biggrin.gif

I agree that the entire patent system needs an overhaul... especially for software patents. That's something that our childrens' children might get.

But as of right now... Apple and Samsung are using the rules and laws that are in place today... however crappy they may seem.
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I thought you had to show proof that your thing works before they will grant you a patent? Otherwise... it really is just an idea... a dream.

Apple's patents in this court case are for things they are currently using in shipping hardware... they're not some idea on a chalkboard.

As for patent trolls... some companies buy patents from another company... even if they aren't gonna use them.

But that goes back to my first question... didn't the first company who was granted the patent have to prove that it works before they got it?

An applicant does not have to submit a working model to obtain a patent, actual reduction to practice. They do have to supply some evidence that the claimed invention would work tho, constructive reduction to practice in the case of software. IMO it would solve a lot of issues about just what an applicant was really intending to patent, avoiding a lot of lawsuits and legal fees, if a working model was required. As it is years later a patentee can ask for a broad court interpretation of his patents claims to profit from another's innovation that he had never considered or anticipated with his own invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Don't hate the player... hate the game 1biggrin.gif

I agree that the entire patent system needs an overhaul... especially for software patents. That's something that our childrens' children might get.

But as of right now... Apple and Samsung are using the rules and laws that are in place today... however crappy they may seem.

Edited by Gatorguy - 4/12/14 at 5:15pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

An applicant does not have to submit a working model to obtain a patent, actual reduction to practice. They do have to supply some evidence that the claimed invention would work tho, constructive reduction to practice in the case of software. IMO it would solve a lot of issues about just what an applicant was really intending to patent, avoiding a lot of lawsuits and legal fees, if a working model was required. As it is years later a patentee can ask for a broad court interpretation of his patents claims to profit from another's innovation that he had never considered or anticipated with his own invention.

Gotcha... thanks!
post #74 of 103
Quote:
The main argument: Google invented certain features before Apple patented them.

Apple also invented those features before Apple patented them. Sounds real similar to comparing sold versus shipped. The only statement that would have any real relevance would be did Google invent them before Apple invented them...wouldn't it?
post #75 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenly View Post

Apple also invented those features before Apple patented them. Sounds real similar to comparing sold versus shipped. The only statement that would have any real relevance would be did Google invent them before Apple invented them...wouldn't it?

Apparently you can patent just about anything.

It makes me wonder why Google didn't run to the patent office to get some of their things patented.
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

It makes me wonder why Google didn't run to the patent office to get some of their things patented.

 

Perhaps they didn't consider them patentable? Big companies spend a lot of time quibbling over whether their change is patentable against what already exists in the wild in some form. Have you noticed how much stuff comes up on both sides whenever these patents are challenged? It's also not just a case of companies challenging Apple patents. They do the same if they think the patent could be invalidated.

post #77 of 103
I thought lying in front of the court was a criminal act.
Look at this article:
http://macdailynews.com/2013/12/19/how-google-reacted-when-steve-jobs-revealed-the-revolutionary-iphone/
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...
You dribble on his drivel?

Yes, he does ... Now, tell him to shake the dew off his lily!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!

As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286

I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.

What's your opinion on it?
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/


Well the US government thinks ornamental design patents are valid
And the examiner agreed that Apple's request worthy
Quote:
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

In discharging its patent-related duties, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them. The patent law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:

But everything should be free, right?
post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I understand the rationale behind design patents and why companies apply for them. What I was curious about is what do you think is "distinctive" about that particular now-supposedly-protected design? Do you believe a rounded-rectangle warrants design protection?

Based on the examiner's notes it looks as tho what she thought she was approving and what Apple factually applied for and received are not one and the same. When examiners can't properly understand what the applicant is applying for is this what happens or did it deserve patent protection anyway? Apple asks for and actually receives a design patent for a simple rounded rectangle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank pope View Post

Well the US government thinks ornamental design patents are valid
And the examiner agreed that Apple's request worthy

Ummm, , , Isn't that the same thing I noted? There's a purpose served by design patents and Apple was able to get one for what is literally a simple rounded rectangle. So would you like to offer a personal opinion on the questions surrounding ir?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not Apple