"MultiTouch" as a trademark was ruled against recently. The court said that the word was in such common usage, almost immediately after Apple released the iPhone, that it couldn't be trademarked. Of course it was in common usage because of Google's rip-off of Apple's technology.
Well, it looks like the copyists will be able to use the word but not the technology!
that's like saying there's nothing special about iPad.
with your reasoning, the only problem with tablet market was that manufacturers did not sell more minimalistic, thinner, and customized os included tablets.
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
Isn't it just easier to point to how Android's notifactions reselembed Palm's and that Apple hired the guy who designed Palm's implimentation?
A few judges around the world couldn't either, maybe we're all dumb and you and Samsung are the smart ones.
Wasn't one of them lacking physical units to examine? Also did they turn on the devices and use them? I'm just wondering what the method of determination was here. I like the ipad. I haven't seen the other around to really look at it. I've read the articles on these things. It's still unclear how far they went with testing. Computers in general have had a tendency toward design homogenization with regard to fairly mainstream volume devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
you were saying?
That really made me laugh. The one with the carrying handles and bumpered corners are hilarious. I'm sure at least some people realize the design styles on the right have existed for quite some time. Windows CE also existed as a low overhead OS for such devices. It may not have been popular but it has existed since the 1990s.
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
There's an inherent difficulty with preliminary injunctions: As the judge herself notes, putting this preliminary injunction in place is not in lieu of a trial, but merely a protective measure for one possible outcome at the trial.
If Samsung prevails at the trial, what multiple of the lost sales revenue would Apple have to pay? 10x? 20x? More?
This is a very high-stake gamble for a short-term benefit, not something many companies would risk armed only with a sketch of a device that looks nothing like what they actually produced.
If these patents hold up (In Australia) then Apple could effectively monopolize the modern touch device sector as single touch devices are not very functional.
Now one thing I don't get...
Apple didn't invent multitouch specifically as related to tech nor the entire concept of using more than one appendage/finger to manipulate something
nor did they invent the tech that is necessary for multitouch to exist...
so how do they own the patent to using more than one appendage of your body to manipulate something?
There's an inherent difficulty with preliminary injunctions: As the judge herself notes, putting this preliminary injunction in place is not in lieu of a trial, but merely a protective measure for one possible outcome at the trial.
If Samsung prevails at the trial, what multiple of the lost sales revenue would Apple have to pay? 10x? 20x? More?
This is a very high-stake gamble for a short-term benefit, not something many companies would risk armed only with a sketch of a device that looks nothing like what they actually produced.
In this case they are armed with a couple of patents, not a sketch. Perhaps you only read the first paragraph of the article?
ummmmmm Android came out before Web OS though....sooooooooooo wtf? Did you just rewrite time for your own personal agenda?
A) I'm aware they hired the Palm guy...so what.
I don't feel that copying and improving upon Android's implementation is wrong in any way. A bit hypocritical, sure, but not wrong at all. I don't think software should be patentable to the degree that it is. It's practically like trying to patent slide to unlock or something...utterly ridiculous.
I simply answered your question: "Which Palm OS had android like notifications?"
I have no agenda. FWIW, I use an android phone. Big deal - it's a phone - no more, no less.
the way you worded it implied a succession of events that didn't take place.
It'd be like saying Androids notifications resemble iOS's...that implies that Android's came after iOS's....
so the confusion is because of wording...plus people have adamantly said that Android stole WebOS's notifications...what went unsaid was if Google stole or made the time machine in house.
The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.
Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.
Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.
Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.
So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.
First, I agree with the shortfalls of royalty assessment. But what I am trying to say is that granting a preliminary injunction was too harsh for the matter at issue. The matter at issue is infringing on trade dress. For a gadget, since when this became a crucial factor for sales? It has always been the overall user experience with gadget, and while the Samsung's and Apple's gadget may look similar, the experiences are startlingly different due to their OS and hardware. Also, it will be the same, if not harder, to make Samsung whole when the final verdict comes out, though unlikely, against the preliminary injunction.
Second, I can't buy the argument that Apple defines itself by the overall design means anything. It is not just Apple but many other, if not all, companies try to do. It is just that Apple does it very well. And, I think I probably can't distinguish between SONY TV and SAMSUNG TV unless I come close and read the brand name on the TVs.
Finally, like I said, Apple should've registered its design as a trademark. But rather, they registered their UI and overall designs as patents. It is precisely because they know that arguing these cases through trademark, they have much slimmer chance of winning a verdict against Samsung.
Preliminary injunction is a very strong legal remedy especially for gadgets that have very short life span. It practically meant complete ban on Samsung's products without having a full trial at issue.
I don't think it was the right remedy because people know. People already love Apple more and criticize Samsung for copying out of moral reasons not legal reasons. Does Apple really need to be protected here? Maybe through damages... later...
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
Well, you never gave a reason why or how to distinguish between the two situations:
one about finally improving the notification system that's been successfully implemented by others,
and the other about finally improving the tablet design that's been successfully redefined by Apple.
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?
IP Law is to protect creators and to protect fair market competition; but at the moment, Apple is using this tool way beyond well (rather sickly) and it is rather ATTACKING and BURYING their potential rivals and raising barriers to enter the market, by saying "oh dude, that one is just like ours, so stop selling it and make it look like a shit."
"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.
It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.
Comments
You do know you're being disingenuous right?
Wrong.
if you really can't distinguish and make mistake between Galaxy Series and iPhone/iPad, I am sorry.
A few judges around the world couldn't either, maybe we're all dumb and you and Samsung are the smart ones.
are these two patents on a) a multitouch screen and b) using a multitouch screen to controll a user interface?????
wow if that's the case.
Yep, those patents.
I love this part of Steve's introduction of the iPhone in '07:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU
We waited a long time for this day!
Well, it looks like the copyists will be able to use the word but not the technology!
that's like saying there's nothing special about iPad.
with your reasoning, the only problem with tablet market was that manufacturers did not sell more minimalistic, thinner, and customized os included tablets.
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
Isn't it just easier to point to how Android's notifactions reselembed Palm's and that Apple hired the guy who designed Palm's implimentation?
A few judges around the world couldn't either, maybe we're all dumb and you and Samsung are the smart ones.
Wasn't one of them lacking physical units to examine? Also did they turn on the devices and use them? I'm just wondering what the method of determination was here. I like the ipad. I haven't seen the other around to really look at it. I've read the articles on these things. It's still unclear how far they went with testing. Computers in general have had a tendency toward design homogenization with regard to fairly mainstream volume devices.
you were saying?
That really made me laugh. The one with the carrying handles and bumpered corners are hilarious. I'm sure at least some people realize the design styles on the right have existed for quite some time. Windows CE also existed as a low overhead OS for such devices. It may not have been popular but it has existed since the 1990s.
Yep, those patents.
I love this part of Steve's introduction of the iPhone in '07:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU
We waited a long time for this day!
we? forgive my language but who the fuck are you?
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
so ironic...
Isn't it just easier to point to how Android's notifactions reselembed Palm's and that Apple hired the guy who designed Palm's implimentation?
which palm OS had Android like notifications?
which palm OS had Android like notifications?
webOS
http://www.electronista.com/articles...notifications/
or
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...porate_hq.html
last paragraph
There's an inherent difficulty with preliminary injunctions: As the judge herself notes, putting this preliminary injunction in place is not in lieu of a trial, but merely a protective measure for one possible outcome at the trial.
If Samsung prevails at the trial, what multiple of the lost sales revenue would Apple have to pay? 10x? 20x? More?
This is a very high-stake gamble for a short-term benefit, not something many companies would risk armed only with a sketch of a device that looks nothing like what they actually produced.
If these patents hold up (In Australia) then Apple could effectively monopolize the modern touch device sector as single touch devices are not very functional.
Now one thing I don't get...
Apple didn't invent multitouch specifically as related to tech nor the entire concept of using more than one appendage/finger to manipulate something
nor did they invent the tech that is necessary for multitouch to exist...
so how do they own the patent to using more than one appendage of your body to manipulate something?
There's an inherent difficulty with preliminary injunctions: As the judge herself notes, putting this preliminary injunction in place is not in lieu of a trial, but merely a protective measure for one possible outcome at the trial.
If Samsung prevails at the trial, what multiple of the lost sales revenue would Apple have to pay? 10x? 20x? More?
This is a very high-stake gamble for a short-term benefit, not something many companies would risk armed only with a sketch of a device that looks nothing like what they actually produced.
In this case they are armed with a couple of patents, not a sketch. Perhaps you only read the first paragraph of the article?
webOS
http://www.electronista.com/articles...notifications/
or
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...porate_hq.html
last paragraph
ummmmmm Android came out before Web OS though....sooooooooooo wtf? Did you just rewrite time for your own personal agenda?
A) I'm aware they hired the Palm guy...so what.
ummmmmm Android came out before Web OS though....sooooooooooo wtf? Did you just rewrite time for your own personal agenda?
I simply answered your question: "Which Palm OS had android like notifications?"
I have no agenda. FWIW, I use an android phone. Big deal - it's a phone - no more, no less.
In this case they are armed with a couple of patents, not a sketch. Perhaps you only read the first paragraph of the article?
a lot of people are skimming then commenting...both pro and con...
it should've been made clear that this injunction is not like the German one.
I simply answered your question: "Which Palm OS had android like notifications?"
I have no agenda. FWIW, I use an android phone. Big deal - it's a phone - no more, no less.
the way you worded it implied a succession of events that didn't take place.
It'd be like saying Androids notifications resemble iOS's...that implies that Android's came after iOS's....
so the confusion is because of wording...plus people have adamantly said that Android stole WebOS's notifications...what went unsaid was if Google stole or made the time machine in house.
The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.
Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.
Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.
Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.
So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.
First, I agree with the shortfalls of royalty assessment. But what I am trying to say is that granting a preliminary injunction was too harsh for the matter at issue. The matter at issue is infringing on trade dress. For a gadget, since when this became a crucial factor for sales? It has always been the overall user experience with gadget, and while the Samsung's and Apple's gadget may look similar, the experiences are startlingly different due to their OS and hardware. Also, it will be the same, if not harder, to make Samsung whole when the final verdict comes out, though unlikely, against the preliminary injunction.
Second, I can't buy the argument that Apple defines itself by the overall design means anything. It is not just Apple but many other, if not all, companies try to do. It is just that Apple does it very well. And, I think I probably can't distinguish between SONY TV and SAMSUNG TV unless I come close and read the brand name on the TVs.
Finally, like I said, Apple should've registered its design as a trademark. But rather, they registered their UI and overall designs as patents. It is precisely because they know that arguing these cases through trademark, they have much slimmer chance of winning a verdict against Samsung.
Preliminary injunction is a very strong legal remedy especially for gadgets that have very short life span. It practically meant complete ban on Samsung's products without having a full trial at issue.
I don't think it was the right remedy because people know. People already love Apple more and criticize Samsung for copying out of moral reasons not legal reasons. Does Apple really need to be protected here? Maybe through damages... later...
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
Well, you never gave a reason why or how to distinguish between the two situations:
one about finally improving the notification system that's been successfully implemented by others,
and the other about finally improving the tablet design that's been successfully redefined by Apple.
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?
IP Law is to protect creators and to protect fair market competition; but at the moment, Apple is using this tool way beyond well (rather sickly) and it is rather ATTACKING and BURYING their potential rivals and raising barriers to enter the market, by saying "oh dude, that one is just like ours, so stop selling it and make it look like a shit."
we? forgive my language but who the fuck are you?
"We" are the majority of participants in AppleInsider forums, and I am quite sure most of us think Apple invented multitouch. As does Apple (read these two patents). Now the legal systems are beginning to agree.
It took four years for the first case to come to trial and be decided. "We" waited a long time for it.