You did not understand what I meant. I think you can go back my post and visit those 3 links. Take your time.
I did. And unlike you, I read the court decision. The injunction covers:
Quote:
computer products characterized by
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor
So all the people whining about how unfair it was for Apple to patent 'a rectangle with rounded corners' were wrong. For something to be covered by Apple's design patent, it must have ALL SIX of those characteristics.
I did. And unlike you, I read the court decision. The injunction covers:
So all the people whining about how unfair it was for Apple to patent 'a rectangle with rounded corners' were wrong. For something to be covered by Apple's design patent, it must have ALL SIX of those characteristics.
Then, why were you calling 'nonsense' refering my comment? What parts of comments I posted nonsense to you?
Yes, German judge looked at the overall impression, but the base was the Community Design (glass top, rounded corners, tiny bezel in retangular shape). So it was all about the Community Design (ie, a rectangle with rounded corners). Without it, Apple would have failed getting injuction. I think the German Judge made a mistake.
GT 10.1 AND IPAD DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN. Ratio is different. GT 10.1 has bigger bezel. GT 10.1 conners are more rounded. Back design is different. Thickness is different. All things considered, they are different.
Howabout overall impression that the Comunity Design Apple registered in 2004 does look like 'Tablet newspapers (1994) and pre-2004 tablets'?
Then, why were you calling 'nonsense' refering my comment? What parts of comments I posted nonsense to you?
Yes, German judge looked at the overall impression, but the base was the Community Design (glass top, rounded corners, tiny bezel in retangular shape). So it was all about the Community Design (ie, a rectangle with rounded corners). Without it, Apple would have failed getting injuction. I think the German Judge made a mistake.
GT 10.1 AND IPAD DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN. Ratio is different. GT 10.1 has bigger bezel. GT 10.1 conners are more rounded. Back design is different. Thickness is different. All things considered, they are different.
Howabout overall impression that the Comunity Design Apple registered in 2004 does look like 'Tablet newspapers (1994) and pre-2004 tablets'?
Who to believe: an anonymous poster on the Internet who can't even be bothered to read the judge's decision or the judge who knows the law and the facts of the case.
The judge was clear. The injunction covers:
Quote:
computer products characterized by
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor
It's not enough for something to be a rectangle - even a rectangle with rounded corners. It must meet ALL of those criteria to be covered.
Oh, and note how the criterial also eliminates all the claims that a picture frame is prior art. The earlier electronic picture frames do not meet all those criteria, either.
Who to believe: an anonymous poster on the Internet who can't even be bothered to read the judge's decision or the judge who knows the law and the facts of the case.
The judge was clear. The injunction covers:
It's not enough for something to be a rectangle - even a rectangle with rounded corners. It must meet ALL of those criteria to be covered.
Oh, and note how the criterial also eliminates all the claims that a picture frame is prior art. The earlier electronic picture frames do not meet all those criteria, either.
You need to read the reasonings below. (Keyword: Overall impression)
Community Design has flaws as Apple successfully registered multiful Community Designs for same products without ever being checked. Now even as minimal as this drawing can be applied so widely? I think the judge made a mistake.
You need to read the reasonings below. (Keyword: Overall impression)
Community Design has flaws as Apple successfully registered multiful Community Designs for same products without ever being checked. Now even as minimal as this drawing can be applied so widely? I think the judge made a mistake.
Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.
Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.
Yes I had the decision especially for the reasonings parts (again keyword 'overall impression'). I guess this is what happened if you allow design patent. Yes, Imay be wrong, but I think the judge made mistake.
Yes I had the decision especially for the reasonings parts (again keyword 'overall impression'). I guess this is what happened if you allow design patent. Yes, Imay be wrong, but I think the judge made mistake.
Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.
Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.
I dont know why you keep saying this copy thing. When I purchased Ipad2, I compared it with GT 10.1, it is nothing a like apart from retangular shape with rounded corners. You have more possiblilites with GT 10.1 whereas Ipad2 has quite limited usage. In this sense, GT 10.1 is more like tablet computer whereas Ipad2 is more like an expensive toy.
I have been saying since around two month ago, if Apple add more features in Iphone 5 to match Galaxy S2, would you call this time 'copy' to Apple?
By the way, I think Ipad aluminum case is really cool. Would Iphone 5 be comming out in aluminum case?
That is definitely not true, although I agree with you for the most part.
What do you mean "definitely not true"? HTC has 1.3 mpx front camera vs. iPhone's 0.3 mpx camera. iPhone front camera is just crappy.
The iPhone back camera is pretty good, but again at 5mpx you can't get as much detail and low noise as 8mpx camera. Check out this comparison and you will see that iPhone camera has high noise level vs. older 2010 8mpx HTC. The new Galaxy camera is even better.
Comments
You did not understand what I meant. I think you can go back my post and visit those 3 links. Take your time.
I did. And unlike you, I read the court decision. The injunction covers:
computer products characterized by
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor
So all the people whining about how unfair it was for Apple to patent 'a rectangle with rounded corners' were wrong. For something to be covered by Apple's design patent, it must have ALL SIX of those characteristics.
I did. And unlike you, I read the court decision. The injunction covers:
So all the people whining about how unfair it was for Apple to patent 'a rectangle with rounded corners' were wrong. For something to be covered by Apple's design patent, it must have ALL SIX of those characteristics.
Then, why were you calling 'nonsense' refering my comment? What parts of comments I posted nonsense to you?
Yes, German judge looked at the overall impression, but the base was the Community Design (glass top, rounded corners, tiny bezel in retangular shape). So it was all about the Community Design (ie, a rectangle with rounded corners). Without it, Apple would have failed getting injuction. I think the German Judge made a mistake.
GT 10.1 AND IPAD DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN. Ratio is different. GT 10.1 has bigger bezel. GT 10.1 conners are more rounded. Back design is different. Thickness is different. All things considered, they are different.
Howabout overall impression that the Comunity Design Apple registered in 2004 does look like 'Tablet newspapers (1994) and pre-2004 tablets'?
Then, why were you calling 'nonsense' refering my comment? What parts of comments I posted nonsense to you?
Yes, German judge looked at the overall impression, but the base was the Community Design (glass top, rounded corners, tiny bezel in retangular shape). So it was all about the Community Design (ie, a rectangle with rounded corners). Without it, Apple would have failed getting injuction. I think the German Judge made a mistake.
GT 10.1 AND IPAD DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE COMMUNITY DESIGN. Ratio is different. GT 10.1 has bigger bezel. GT 10.1 conners are more rounded. Back design is different. Thickness is different. All things considered, they are different.
Howabout overall impression that the Comunity Design Apple registered in 2004 does look like 'Tablet newspapers (1994) and pre-2004 tablets'?
Who to believe: an anonymous poster on the Internet who can't even be bothered to read the judge's decision or the judge who knows the law and the facts of the case.
The judge was clear. The injunction covers:
computer products characterized by
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor
It's not enough for something to be a rectangle - even a rectangle with rounded corners. It must meet ALL of those criteria to be covered.
Oh, and note how the criterial also eliminates all the claims that a picture frame is prior art. The earlier electronic picture frames do not meet all those criteria, either.
Who to believe: an anonymous poster on the Internet who can't even be bothered to read the judge's decision or the judge who knows the law and the facts of the case.
The judge was clear. The injunction covers:
It's not enough for something to be a rectangle - even a rectangle with rounded corners. It must meet ALL of those criteria to be covered.
Oh, and note how the criterial also eliminates all the claims that a picture frame is prior art. The earlier electronic picture frames do not meet all those criteria, either.
You need to read the reasonings below. (Keyword: Overall impression)
Community Design has flaws as Apple successfully registered multiful Community Designs for same products without ever being checked. Now even as minimal as this drawing can be applied so widely? I think the judge made a mistake.
You need to read the reasonings below. (Keyword: Overall impression)
Community Design has flaws as Apple successfully registered multiful Community Designs for same products without ever being checked. Now even as minimal as this drawing can be applied so widely? I think the judge made a mistake.
Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.
Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.
I thought the judge in the case was female, not that it affects the judgement.
Uh huh. You can't even be bothered to read the ruling yet you're so sure the judge made a mistake. I'm sure he's concerned.
Yes I had the decision especially for the reasonings parts (again keyword 'overall impression'). I guess this is what happened if you allow design patent. Yes, Imay be wrong, but I think the judge made mistake.
Yes I had the decision especially for the reasonings parts (again keyword 'overall impression'). I guess this is what happened if you allow design patent. Yes, Imay be wrong, but I think the judge made mistake.
Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.
Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.
I dont know why you keep saying this copy thing. When I purchased Ipad2, I compared it with GT 10.1, it is nothing a like apart from retangular shape with rounded corners. You have more possiblilites with GT 10.1 whereas Ipad2 has quite limited usage. In this sense, GT 10.1 is more like tablet computer whereas Ipad2 is more like an expensive toy.
I have been saying since around two month ago, if Apple add more features in Iphone 5 to match Galaxy S2, would you call this time 'copy' to Apple?
By the way, I think Ipad aluminum case is really cool. Would Iphone 5 be comming out in aluminum case?
Samsung made the mistake when they thought they could get away with copying the iPad.
The tab wasn't banned for looking like an iPad though o.O
better camera...
That is definitely not true, although I agree with you for the most part.
What do you mean "definitely not true"? HTC has 1.3 mpx front camera vs. iPhone's 0.3 mpx camera. iPhone front camera is just crappy.
The iPhone back camera is pretty good, but again at 5mpx you can't get as much detail and low noise as 8mpx camera. Check out this comparison and you will see that iPhone camera has high noise level vs. older 2010 8mpx HTC. The new Galaxy camera is even better.
http://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?...&idPhone3=3788
Also HTC has face recognition which is very handy.