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.
Monopoly?
... and nobody else is enforcing patents for technology that seems obvious?
Even Apple is paying royalties for the use of various technologies.
"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.
No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.
Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.
Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
Apple (via Fingerworks) may have a reasonable claim to have been the first to implement multitouch on a capacitative screen, which seems to be the basis for their patents. They clearly were not the first to design or use multitouch in general.
No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.
Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
We've been through this ad nauseam, and many of us are tired of rehashing the facts.
Perhaps you can take a the trouble to find those discussions from early 2007 to inform yourself. You'll learn a lot about what Apple 'invented' and did not, what Apple patented and did not, etc.
That's funny, coming from the individual who's trying to divert a discussion by playing games with semantics:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.
The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.
The second is based on two broad patents.
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
Ok, I'll play the semantics game:
1) The ban was granted on the basis that there is reason to believe that the product Samsung is producing infringes on Apple's patents.
2) To "infringe" is defined as "actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)".
3) A patent is defined as "a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention".
4) To "copy" something is to "make a similar or identical version of; reproduce"
5) Stealing is defined as" to "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right"
The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.
Soooo, let me just correct that for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? You bet'cha.
I must hand it to you Newton. I just could not understand anything tyler was saying, but obviously you did! Was that pro-Apple? Anti-Apple? I don't know. Why can't we just have straightforward trolls?
Something about McIntosh apple monopolies and teachers. It's the plot of a new Dan Brown novel. There's a coded message in there somewhere. WE HAVE TO DECIPHER ITS SECRETS.
Something about McIntosh apple monopolies and teachers. It's the plot of a new Dan Brown novel. There's a coded message in there somewhere. WE HAVE TO DECIPHER ITS SECRETS.
That's funny, coming from the individual who's trying to divert a discussion by playing games with semantics:
Ok, I'll play the semantics game:
1) The ban was granted on the basis that there is reason to believe that the product Samsung is producing infringes on Apple's patents.
2) To "infringe" is defined as "actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)".
3) A patent is defined as "a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention".
4) To "copy" something is to "make a similar or identical version of; reproduce"
5) Stealing is defined as" to "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right"
The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.
Soooo, let me just correct that for you:
so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?
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?
Apple had acquired Fingerworks who developed multi-touch technologies
so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?
So we agree.
No, I do not admit that, nor do we agree. In point of fact, I never stated anything of the sort.
As you can see in my post, what I stated was that a ban was apparently granted on the basis of a patent violation. I made no mention of the specifics or merits of the the patent or the ban. I furthermore explained to you why a patent infringement is by definition copying and theft, as you seemed to be confused about the definition.
On a personal note: You're not very good at this, are you? You're again trying to deflect by injecting irrelevant statements. You're like my 16-year old step-son, being contrary for it's own sake isn't constructive. You argue for the sake of argument, and when you exhaust even your weakest basis for argument, you simply emit nonsense.
That's, not surprisingly, true, but the patents involved in the Australian injunction are not design patents - they are about multitouch implementation - and the injunction is not about design.
Hang on. Are we still talking about Australia? You agreed earlier that this injunction was not about design - it's about patents.
The topic sways between both injunctions. I was replying to a previous posters claim on Samsung copying the iPad which no one agreed was the case who mattered.
Comments
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.
Monopoly?
... and nobody else is enforcing patents for technology that seems obvious?
Even Apple is paying royalties for the use of various technologies.
Monopoly?
... and nobody else is enforcing patents for technology that seems obvious?
Even Apple is paying royalties for the use of various technologies.
And I don't agree with a single one of those. None of the others are pushing for a ban and a ban only though.... That I know of at least.
"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.
No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.
Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.
Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
Apple (via Fingerworks) may have a reasonable claim to have been the first to implement multitouch on a capacitative screen, which seems to be the basis for their patents. They clearly were not the first to design or use multitouch in general.
No offense to any readers here as I've come to enjoy many of you but I'd hope that a majority of people here know damn well Apple did NOT invent multitouch.
Specific gestures? sure, but the entire concept? No as the concept of using multiple fingers on a single device is not new.
We've been through this ad nauseam, and many of us are tired of rehashing the facts.
Perhaps you can take a the trouble to find those discussions from early 2007 to inform yourself. You'll learn a lot about what Apple 'invented' and did not, what Apple patented and did not, etc.
You do know you're being disingenuous right?
That's funny, coming from the individual who's trying to divert a discussion by playing games with semantics:
yet again, not a single ban has been based on copying :-/ or stealing for that matter.
The first was based on a loose resemblance to a non-existent tablet drawn in 2004.
The second is based on two broad patents.
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? no.
Ok, I'll play the semantics game:
1) The ban was granted on the basis that there is reason to believe that the product Samsung is producing infringes on Apple's patents.
2) To "infringe" is defined as "actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)".
3) A patent is defined as "a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention".
4) To "copy" something is to "make a similar or identical version of; reproduce"
5) Stealing is defined as" to "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right"
The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.
Soooo, let me just correct that for you:
soooo...infringement? sure...copying and stealing? You bet'cha.
I must hand it to you Newton. I just could not understand anything tyler was saying, but obviously you did! Was that pro-Apple? Anti-Apple? I don't know. Why can't we just have straightforward trolls?
Something about McIntosh apple monopolies and teachers. It's the plot of a new Dan Brown novel. There's a coded message in there somewhere. WE HAVE TO DECIPHER ITS SECRETS.
Something about McIntosh apple monopolies and teachers. It's the plot of a new Dan Brown novel. There's a coded message in there somewhere. WE HAVE TO DECIPHER ITS SECRETS.
hahahahahhahahahha love it.
That's funny, coming from the individual who's trying to divert a discussion by playing games with semantics:
Ok, I'll play the semantics game:
1) The ban was granted on the basis that there is reason to believe that the product Samsung is producing infringes on Apple's patents.
2) To "infringe" is defined as "actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)".
3) A patent is defined as "a government authority to an individual or organization conferring a right or title, esp. the sole right to make, use, or sell some invention".
4) To "copy" something is to "make a similar or identical version of; reproduce"
5) Stealing is defined as" to "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right"
The "infringement" Samsung is being accused of is a violation of Apple's patent-granted sole right to produce [make] the intellectual property in question, without permission. The only way to infringe a patent right is to produce a similar or identical product - in other words to COPY it, and if the copy was made without permission (in this case it has previously been unequivocally determined that it was without permission), it violates the patent holder's rights for their intellectual property, which therefore, buy definition, constitutes STEALING.
Soooo, let me just correct that for you:
so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?
So we agree.
so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?
So we agree.
Hang on. Are we still talking about Australia? You agreed earlier that this injunction was not about design - it's about patents.
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?
Apple had acquired Fingerworks who developed multi-touch technologies
And I don't agree with a single one of those. None of the others are pushing for a ban and a ban only though.... That I know of at least.
I don't think SJ was in favor of a ban either... but, by the sounds of it, Samsung didn't want to play ball... therefore, fuck 'em... ban it is.
so you admit that the injunction was granted based on the similarity to a drawing of a non-existent device?
So we agree.
No, I do not admit that, nor do we agree. In point of fact, I never stated anything of the sort.
As you can see in my post, what I stated was that a ban was apparently granted on the basis of a patent violation. I made no mention of the specifics or merits of the the patent or the ban. I furthermore explained to you why a patent infringement is by definition copying and theft, as you seemed to be confused about the definition.
On a personal note: You're not very good at this, are you? You're again trying to deflect by injecting irrelevant statements. You're like my 16-year old step-son, being contrary for it's own sake isn't constructive. You argue for the sake of argument, and when you exhaust even your weakest basis for argument, you simply emit nonsense.
Apple's design-related disputes involve design patents.
That's, not surprisingly, true, but the patents involved in the Australian injunction are not design patents - they are about multitouch implementation - and the injunction is not about design.
Hang on. Are we still talking about Australia? You agreed earlier that this injunction was not about design - it's about patents.
The topic sways between both injunctions. I was replying to a previous posters claim on Samsung copying the iPad which no one agreed was the case who mattered.
Stop the Apple fanboyism. This injunction isn't about copying the appearance of the Apple iPad, it is about patents. Get your facts straight.
Wether it's appearance or functionality sales of Samsung products have been banned in three jurisdictions due to Samsung blatantly copying Apple.
This is undeniable fact.
Deal with it, move on...
...to the US next week.
The ban hammer is rapidly descending on the Korean phandroid golden child with rather loose morals.