One has to wonder when they're going to "quit this bitch." Given that they are still 4x the size of Apple in most respects, I guess they've got the pockets to get some settlement that allows them to copy Apple...no matter what it costs.
Even Apple does not has an issue with back of GT 10.1.(ie. The brick is not an issue).
Apple relys on the Community Design registered in Euroupe in 2004. It is about rounded corners in rectangular shape. See the image, it does not look like IPad nor GT 10.1. And see below link and comment what you think.
Well Apple may have been concerned about that but if Samsung had a big ass brick on the back of the Galaxy Tab, it would not have infringed on the community design which makes the comparison senseless.
"In a 1999 CNN interview Gore created some controversy when his expression "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was misquoted by comedians and the popular media as if he had "invented the Internet". This representation (Gore's) was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, stating "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."
"In a 1999 CNN interview Gore created some controversy when his expression "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was misquoted by comedians and the popular media as if he had "invented the Internet". This representation (Gore's) was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, stating "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."
Come now - Gore deserved what he got. Taking "the initiative in creating the internet" is a whole lot stronger than "helping to create the climate for a thriving internet". A whole lot stronger.
"In a 1999 CNN interview Gore created some controversy when his expression "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was misquoted by comedians and the popular media as if he had "invented the Internet". This representation (Gore's) was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, stating "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."
A rectangle, which when backed up by 40 pages of explanation in a court of law, has proven quite effective at stopping uninnovative copiers.
Besides which the EUROPEAN design you derisively and jokingly refer to, HAS NO BEARING on what is happening in Australia.
Actually it doesn't matter how many pages they have, a rectangle is a rectangle, European courts have already ruled that when there is only one way of designing something, you can't patent it, so in European the rectangle comment is a joke.
Actually it doesn't matter how many pages they have, a rectangle is a rectangle, European courts have already ruled that when there is only one way of designing something, you can't patent it, so in European the rectangle comment is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
Even Apple does not has an issue with back of GT 10.1.(ie. The brick is not an issue).
Apple relys on the Community Design registered in Euroupe in 2004. It is about rounded corners in rectangular shape. See the image, it does not look like IPad nor GT 10.1. And see below link and comment what you think.
"(iii) unde the clear surface, there are noticeable, neutrally-designed delineations on all sides of the display with the same proportions at the top and at the bottom
(iv) the view of a thin rim surrounding the front surface
(v) a back panel that rounds up near the edges to form the thin rim around the front surface,"
Samsung could have made the device non-infringing by having non-equal borders. Or by having the rim invisible from the front (or thick from the front). Or by not using a back panel that rounded up to form the thin rim around the surface.
It's the flipping DESIGN that is infringed, not the general shape.
4G does me no good (not in an area that will have it anytime soon). As for the phone, the iPhone 4 is over a year old. We can revisit once the new iPhone is released
Using your method, we can then revisit when the Galaxy S III is released. See how that works?
And just because you live in the boonies does not mean that 4G is not an improvement overall. By that logic, one could claim that the iPhone is no good, because some people live in the Yukon and have no cellular service.
Consider the collective billions of dollars siphoned ultimately from consumers to pay for these suits, counter-suits, and counter-counter-suits....
The dollars do not come from consumers. They come from the owners of the companies involved.
And those owners hire management types who decide that it is more profitable to use the dollars for lawsuits, rather than pursuing other available alternatives.
If you are talking about this crap being a drain on the economy overall, I won't argue. Litigation is, IMO, a huge waste of resources compared with many alternatives. But the resources are not public resources, but instead, are privately owned. The companies involved can use their money any way they choose. That is the nature of capitalism.
Litigation is a path to larger overall profits. If other methods worked better, then, in theory, companies like Apple would use other methods to generate profits. But so long as they can sue their way to increased profits, Apple will use that weapon in preference to and in combination with other methods.
It is useful to question whether granting bullshit patents to Apple and then allowing Apple to foreclose obvious designs by other companies makes any sense. But that is a meta-question in the sphere of economic regulation, and should rightly be discussed in those terms. Many posters dislike these bullshit patents that Apple has been granted. May posters dislike the regulatory scheme which allows Apple to secure and to exploit such patents.
The money which consumers pay is to support the USPTO and the court system. Apple uses both of these public goods to gain higher private gains. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds that Apple's owners pay to use litigation as a means to increase their profits.
Comments
Meaningless to you may be useful to others. That's why having several choices benefits consumers.
And that's why Apple keeps the previous year's iPhone around.
And that's why Apple keeps the previous year's iPhone around.
Dead on. +1.
I fully expect to see this years model continued after the new one is announced.
Meaningless to you may be useful to others. That's why having several choices benefits consumers.
That would explain Samsung removing the choice to buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet with an 8 megapixel camera as they slavishly mimicked Apple.
Even Apple does not has an issue with back of GT 10.1.(ie. The brick is not an issue).
Apple relys on the Community Design registered in Euroupe in 2004. It is about rounded corners in rectangular shape. See the image, it does not look like IPad nor GT 10.1. And see below link and comment what you think.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/Th..._USPTO_Was_Bad
Well Apple may have been concerned about that but if Samsung had a big ass brick on the back of the Galaxy Tab, it would not have infringed on the community design which makes the comparison senseless.
No wonder Al Gore is one of the Apple Board members
Yea, Apple invented rectangle and Al Gore invented the Internet.
No wonder Al Gore is one of the Apple Board members
This statement dropped the IQ level of the discussion by at least 20 points.
Apple is copying us
Ask HAL 9000
Consider the collective billions of dollars siphoned ultimately from consumers to pay for these suits, counter-suits, and counter-counter-suits....
I'd hazard a guess at much less than a buck per unit. Well worth it for the entertainment value...
So true!
I'm waiting for Samsung to start selling Rolex watch knock offs next!
Yea, Apple invented rectangle and Al Gore invented the Internet.
No wonder Al Gore is one of the Apple Board members
Too much Fox News?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Pe...on_Act_of_1991
"In a 1999 CNN interview Gore created some controversy when his expression "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was misquoted by comedians and the popular media as if he had "invented the Internet". This representation (Gore's) was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, stating "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Bill
Too much Fox News?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Pe...on_Act_of_1991
"In a 1999 CNN interview Gore created some controversy when his expression "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was misquoted by comedians and the popular media as if he had "invented the Internet". This representation (Gore's) was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, stating "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Bill
Come now - Gore deserved what he got. Taking "the initiative in creating the internet" is a whole lot stronger than "helping to create the climate for a thriving internet". A whole lot stronger.
Too much Fox News?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Pe...on_Act_of_1991
"In a 1999 CNN interview Gore created some controversy when his expression "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was misquoted by comedians and the popular media as if he had "invented the Internet". This representation (Gore's) was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, stating "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Bill
Yea, and Apple took "the initiative in creating a rectangle".
Or let's put it this way: "no one has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving" a rectangle than Apple.
Yea, and Apple took "the initiative in creating a rectangle".
Or let's put it this way: "no one has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving" a rectangle than Apple.
A rectangle, which when backed up by 40 pages of explanation in a court of law, has proven quite effective at stopping uninnovative copiers.
Besides which the EUROPEAN design you derisively and jokingly refer to, HAS NO BEARING on what is happening in Australia.
A rectangle, which when backed up by 40 pages of explanation in a court of law, has proven quite effective at stopping uninnovative copiers.
Besides which the EUROPEAN design you derisively and jokingly refer to, HAS NO BEARING on what is happening in Australia.
Actually it doesn't matter how many pages they have, a rectangle is a rectangle, European courts have already ruled that when there is only one way of designing something, you can't patent it, so in European the rectangle comment is a joke.
Actually it doesn't matter how many pages they have, a rectangle is a rectangle, European courts have already ruled that when there is only one way of designing something, you can't patent it, so in European the rectangle comment is a joke.
Even Apple does not has an issue with back of GT 10.1.(ie. The brick is not an issue).
Apple relys on the Community Design registered in Euroupe in 2004. It is about rounded corners in rectangular shape. See the image, it does not look like IPad nor GT 10.1. And see below link and comment what you think.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/Th..._USPTO_Was_Bad
I really wish people would stop with that nonsense.
The German court relied on the SPECIFICS of the community design patent, not any one element. If you look at the final German decision:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-regional.html
"(iii) unde the clear surface, there are noticeable, neutrally-designed delineations on all sides of the display with the same proportions at the top and at the bottom
(iv) the view of a thin rim surrounding the front surface
(v) a back panel that rounds up near the edges to form the thin rim around the front surface,"
Samsung could have made the device non-infringing by having non-equal borders. Or by having the rim invisible from the front (or thick from the front). Or by not using a back panel that rounded up to form the thin rim around the surface.
It's the flipping DESIGN that is infringed, not the general shape.
4G does me no good (not in an area that will have it anytime soon). As for the phone, the iPhone 4 is over a year old. We can revisit once the new iPhone is released
Using your method, we can then revisit when the Galaxy S III is released. See how that works?
And just because you live in the boonies does not mean that 4G is not an improvement overall. By that logic, one could claim that the iPhone is no good, because some people live in the Yukon and have no cellular service.
Consider the collective billions of dollars siphoned ultimately from consumers to pay for these suits, counter-suits, and counter-counter-suits....
The dollars do not come from consumers. They come from the owners of the companies involved.
And those owners hire management types who decide that it is more profitable to use the dollars for lawsuits, rather than pursuing other available alternatives.
If you are talking about this crap being a drain on the economy overall, I won't argue. Litigation is, IMO, a huge waste of resources compared with many alternatives. But the resources are not public resources, but instead, are privately owned. The companies involved can use their money any way they choose. That is the nature of capitalism.
Litigation is a path to larger overall profits. If other methods worked better, then, in theory, companies like Apple would use other methods to generate profits. But so long as they can sue their way to increased profits, Apple will use that weapon in preference to and in combination with other methods.
It is useful to question whether granting bullshit patents to Apple and then allowing Apple to foreclose obvious designs by other companies makes any sense. But that is a meta-question in the sphere of economic regulation, and should rightly be discussed in those terms. Many posters dislike these bullshit patents that Apple has been granted. May posters dislike the regulatory scheme which allows Apple to secure and to exploit such patents.
The money which consumers pay is to support the USPTO and the court system. Apple uses both of these public goods to gain higher private gains. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds that Apple's owners pay to use litigation as a means to increase their profits.