By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?
No, but if somebody had obtained a design patent for a flip phone, it could be invalidated based upon Star Trek's design being prior to the grant of the patent.
And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?
Apple is making a higher profit margin on their products than anyone else in their field, and they are by far the market leader when it comes to sales Volume for the ipad. I'd say they're doing quite fine with people "stealing"
And samsung's argument (with this submission) is that it wasn't apple's idea.
I didn't write the original statement, DED wrote it. I think that a better word could have been used. Perhaps "object"?
For example, the Statue of Liberty received a design patent, but it is a piece of art, and not an invention. So design patents can cover the design of an invention, but can cover other objects as well.
The point is that if somebody gets a design patent for their object, but they merely copied pre-existing design, like Apple is claimed to have done, their design patent can be invalidated. The object could be an invention, but it ca also be, for example, a distinctive bottle (like Coca-Cola's iconic bottle), which is not an invention.
OK - understood and agreed. But in this case, the object referred to by Samsung doesn't look much at all like an iPad in terms of the design elements that Apple claims as theirs. Just being flat and rectangular with a moving image is a rather small subset of the design.
6. If a first person furnishes all of the ideas to make an invention and a second person employs the first person or furnishes the money for building and testing the invention, should the patent application be filed by the first and second persons jointly?
A. No. The application must be signed by the true inventor, and filed in the USPTO, in the inventor?s name. This is the person who furnishes the ideas (e.g. the first person in the above fact pattern), not the employer or the person who furnishes the money.
Not a definitive "You can patent ideas" but it does show that in order to get a patent for the design, you need to be the person who came up with the idea, and not just the employer or finance guy. You can't patent JUST an idea, but when something get's to a "prop" stage, or when a writer develops a new interface for a computer in his book, they're not "just" ideas anymore.
The people at Samsung who designed the Galaxy Tab know that the iPad was their design goal. How could they not? I understand if they can't admit it. What kills me is that some rabid fandroids believe this latest Chewbacca defense. What happened to common sense?
It would be as if these guys blatantly copied the BMW X5 design and then denied it, then defended themselves by claiming prior art because Ford designed the Model-T waaaay back at the dawn of the horseless carriage days, and it kinda sorta looks like an SUV:
Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.
I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device,
It certainly does! For example, the fact that apples pre-exist and represent a well-known shape cannot be the reason for invalidating one's effort to get a design pattent patent on a novel apple-shaped pencil sharpener.
I am often called anti Apple here because I dont support the "App Store" trademark (sic). But Apple is pulling a big win against Samsung. The longer it goes, the weaker Samsung looks. Either they can be a copycat firm or they can be an honorable company. They are choosing copycat which makes them just another junk emporium IMO. Too bad. Samsung has such awesome capabilities. I guess they aren't able to detect mistakes and correct them.
I am often called anti Apple here because I dont support the "App Store" trademark (sic). But Apple is pulling a big win against Samsung. The longer it goes, the weaker Samsung looks. Either they can be a copycat firm or they can be an honorable company. They are choosing copycat which makes them just another junk emporium IMO. Too bad. Samsung has such awesome capabilities. I guess they aren't able to detect mistakes and correct them.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
"If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?"
"Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.
I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe
It certainly does! For example, the fact that apples pre-exist and represent a well-known shape cannot be the reason for invalidating one's effort to get a design patent on a novel apple-shaped pencil sharpener.
Correction (since it would actually be better to stick with man-made objects): Would a person who designed a novel apple-shaped refrigerator not be able to get a design patent because there is prior art that shows apple-shaped washing machines? I think the answer is obvious. The functionality of the item must be taken into account.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
Interesting link. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
No, but if somebody had obtained a design patent for a flip phone, it could be invalidated based upon Star Trek's design being prior to the grant of the patent.
I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
Such a special effect cannot be patented. You can rest easy. And BTW, nobody who knows what they are talking about claims otherwise.
But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?
Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
I bet the Luxor Casino in Las Vegas has a design patent on it. It's based on more than just being the shape of a pyramid. And you can't build another building that looks like it. But that's not the same as saying you can't build another building that is shape like a pyramid. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
Interesting link. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
Agreed. Quite the find. Surprised that this goes back to 1994. Someone had some real foresight, and yes I'd absolutely consider this prior art.
From a design patent standpoint, that's not close enough. There's more to a Razr design than just the flip.
The closest Samsung came to copying a Razr is with their "Sync". And even that phone won't be visually mistaken for a Razr, even if all you got was a glance at it. For sure they were influenced by the Razr design (That's providing the Razr was the first phone to look like that.) but there are enough differences to avoid a design patent suit by Motorola.
Their Galaxy phone and tablets on the other hand can be mistaken for the iPhone and iPad by Apple at first glance. Whether that's enough to violate a design patent will be up to the judge. But I can see some one who never actually handled an iPhone or iPad, given a Galaxy phone or tablet and told it was an Apple product, believing it was an Apple product just based on the Apple advertising they've seen. And that may be enough to violate a design patent.
Comments
By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?
No, but if somebody had obtained a design patent for a flip phone, it could be invalidated based upon Star Trek's design being prior to the grant of the patent.
And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?
Apple is making a higher profit margin on their products than anyone else in their field, and they are by far the market leader when it comes to sales Volume for the ipad. I'd say they're doing quite fine with people "stealing"
And samsung's argument (with this submission) is that it wasn't apple's idea.
If they patented the ideas, they technically could.
Ideas cannot be patented.
And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?
Ideas cannot be protected.
I didn't write the original statement, DED wrote it. I think that a better word could have been used. Perhaps "object"?
For example, the Statue of Liberty received a design patent, but it is a piece of art, and not an invention. So design patents can cover the design of an invention, but can cover other objects as well.
The point is that if somebody gets a design patent for their object, but they merely copied pre-existing design, like Apple is claimed to have done, their design patent can be invalidated. The object could be an invention, but it ca also be, for example, a distinctive bottle (like Coca-Cola's iconic bottle), which is not an invention.
OK - understood and agreed. But in this case, the object referred to by Samsung doesn't look much at all like an iPad in terms of the design elements that Apple claims as theirs. Just being flat and rectangular with a moving image is a rather small subset of the design.
Ideas cannot be patented.
Too much of a generalization - not all ideas can be patented.
Ideas cannot be protected.
Same comment.
Ideas cannot be patented.
6. If a first person furnishes all of the ideas to make an invention and a second person employs the first person or furnishes the money for building and testing the invention, should the patent application be filed by the first and second persons jointly?
A. No. The application must be signed by the true inventor, and filed in the USPTO, in the inventor?s name. This is the person who furnishes the ideas (e.g. the first person in the above fact pattern), not the employer or the person who furnishes the money.
http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp
Not a definitive "You can patent ideas" but it does show that in order to get a patent for the design, you need to be the person who came up with the idea, and not just the employer or finance guy. You can't patent JUST an idea, but when something get's to a "prop" stage, or when a writer develops a new interface for a computer in his book, they're not "just" ideas anymore.
Hence they copy Apple. Its obvious based on images before and after iDevices are revealed.
Also goes to show they have no idea when they need to quote or extract evidence from SciFi movies. Lame as...
It would be as if these guys blatantly copied the BMW X5 design and then denied it, then defended themselves by claiming prior art because Ford designed the Model-T waaaay back at the dawn of the horseless carriage days, and it kinda sorta looks like an SUV:
OMG, prior art, therefore we didn't copy BMW!
Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.
I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device,
It certainly does! For example, the fact that apples pre-exist and represent a well-known shape cannot be the reason for invalidating one's effort to get a design pattent patent on a novel apple-shaped pencil sharpener.
I am often called anti Apple here because I dont support the "App Store" trademark (sic). But Apple is pulling a big win against Samsung. The longer it goes, the weaker Samsung looks. Either they can be a copycat firm or they can be an honorable company. They are choosing copycat which makes them just another junk emporium IMO. Too bad. Samsung has such awesome capabilities. I guess they aren't able to detect mistakes and correct them.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtP...eature=feedlik
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
"If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?"
"Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.
I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device..."
It certainly does! For example, the fact that apples pre-exist and represent a well-known shape cannot be the reason for invalidating one's effort to get a design patent on a novel apple-shaped pencil sharpener.
Correction (since it would actually be better to stick with man-made objects): Would a person who designed a novel apple-shaped refrigerator not be able to get a design patent because there is prior art that shows apple-shaped washing machines? I think the answer is obvious. The functionality of the item must be taken into account.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtP...eature=feedlik
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
Interesting link. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
No, but if somebody had obtained a design patent for a flip phone, it could be invalidated based upon Star Trek's design being prior to the grant of the patent.
I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
Such a special effect cannot be patented. You can rest easy. And BTW, nobody who knows what they are talking about claims otherwise.
But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?
Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
I bet the Luxor Casino in Las Vegas has a design patent on it. It's based on more than just being the shape of a pyramid. And you can't build another building that looks like it. But that's not the same as saying you can't build another building that is shape like a pyramid. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
Samsung, been there, done that:-
Interesting link. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
Agreed. Quite the find. Surprised that this goes back to 1994. Someone had some real foresight, and yes I'd absolutely consider this prior art.
Samsung, been there, done that:-
From a design patent standpoint, that's not close enough. There's more to a Razr design than just the flip.
The closest Samsung came to copying a Razr is with their "Sync". And even that phone won't be visually mistaken for a Razr, even if all you got was a glance at it. For sure they were influenced by the Razr design (That's providing the Razr was the first phone to look like that.) but there are enough differences to avoid a design patent suit by Motorola.
Their Galaxy phone and tablets on the other hand can be mistaken for the iPhone and iPad by Apple at first glance. Whether that's enough to violate a design patent will be up to the judge. But I can see some one who never actually handled an iPhone or iPad, given a Galaxy phone or tablet and told it was an Apple product, believing it was an Apple product just based on the Apple advertising they've seen. And that may be enough to violate a design patent.
You can see the comparison for yourself here.
http://www.businessinsider.com/samsu...ns-2011-4?op=1