"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!
Trademark and patents are two different things. Apple was denied the trademark of "multi-touch" - meaning they cannot exclusively use the term multi-touch and prevent others from doing so. Patents on the technology, however, means that they hold the rights to the technology.
The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.
Your post specifically said "earlier injunctions".
In this current case, it'll be interesting to see how long Apple's patent claims survive the "obvious" test once the full range of prior art it considered:
If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around, just like the bounce-back scroll which was ultimately the only claim Apple presented that wasn't completely thrown out by the Dutch court, where the court gave Samsung several weeks to revise the few lines of coded needed to avoid "infringement".
Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.
Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.
The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.
Honestly...I don't really give a damn about Samsung. lol.
The reason I'm so defensive here is because the precedent these set for the future of products.
A ban based on a drawing?
A ban based on tech that was in the works for 40 years before it was popularized?
I can't agree. I wouldn't care if it was Google, Samsung, Sony, Toyota, Ford...doesn't matter.
I just personally cannot agree.
If Windows 8 had a dock that looked remarkably like OS X's dock I'd be against that 100%.
If Android looked like iOS to the point of MIUI in it's earlier iterations I'd be against it...hence why I'm againts touchwhiz and SOME iterations of the Galaxy S (T-mobile Vibrant I'm looking at you)
Samsung is a copycat firm...not to the extent mentioned by people here, but it's obvious.
If Apple wasn't going after the Xoom and HTC (who went out of their way to avoid similarity) I'd have nothing against the cases. But it is apparent they want to cut off the competitions legs by any means necessary...
which is shocking to me considering that IMO for the general consumer both Mac OS and iOS are much better suited than most Android devices and most bloatware filled PCs... the booming market share and rising stock is indicative of a mutual feeling across the board.
Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.
Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.
It's easy to get turned around in this thread as we all keep wantonly discussing both injunctions
Fair enough: how many here are willing to take a bet that within two years the total sum Apple collects on these suits and counter-suits is less than their payouts?
Good analysis. I won't take your bet, although i am tempted. But I think you are missing the non-monetary effects. I AM willing to bet a large sum that Samsung will have stopped using Apple's "trade dress" in their products by your 2-year deadline. Which I believe was Apple's primary goal in suing Samsung all over the world.
It's not about the money for Apple, at least not in this instance. They will happily pay damages if they have achieved their goal: to sell products that are Different.
Actually, that's not true. It was only 'the fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the type of fruit, it could have been a plantain for all we know.
Actually, that's not true. It was only 'the fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the type of fruit, it could have been a plantain for all we know.
You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.
Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.
It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
What about the Dutch judge said? He basically thrown out all the look and feel claims by Apple.
I read a Fullan Mul..'s article on FOSS site, even his translation I can see that the German judge discussed but implied the Community Design registered as legitimate. So, Samsung can rubbish the Cummunity Design in German Court, then this German judge decision has no relevance.
Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.
Apple might have known that the look and feel claim had no base, so they had to go with the software patents in Austraila. Absolute Design said that those patents were related to multi touch. If what he said is true, it only proves that how ridiculous they are patenting everyting while they are enjoying all goodies(Android Notification Centre) developed by others.
The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.
Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.
Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.
Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.
Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.
But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.
Well, for better or worse the patent office doesn't accept physical models anymore, not since 1880. So most patents are based upon a drawing(s), at least in part.
And you can't agree? You wanna go back to models, eh?
Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.
But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.
For god sake, have you seen the comunity design? It does not look like Ipad nor Samsung GT. It looks rather similar to tablets before 2004, see images AbsoluteDesign posted. If you look at the 'Tablet Newspapers (1994)', you can see that the Comunity Design is a copy from it.
Tech companies do compete each other in certain aspects like thinness. Anything wrong with that?
Hope everyone realizes that patented right is not a proof of an invention.
They very well can be invalidated/revoked.
Furthermore, it is hard to swallow the saying that Apple invented Multitouch when they merely acquired the company that invented a subset of multitouch technology.
Similar to what they did with A4 chipset. They bought Intrinsity after they already created A4 (Hummingbird variant), and then claim that they invented it.
The problem with Apple is that they hardly ever license stuff that they own.
Not very good for the consumer market, and very sketchy marketing tactics altogether.
Comments
"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!
Trademark and patents are two different things. Apple was denied the trademark of "multi-touch" - meaning they cannot exclusively use the term multi-touch and prevent others from doing so. Patents on the technology, however, means that they hold the rights to the technology.
Your post specifically said "earlier injunctions".
In this current case, it'll be interesting to see how long Apple's patent claims survive the "obvious" test once the full range of prior art it considered:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
See also Microsoft's earlier touch patent:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...tes-apples/609
If Apple's multitouch patent can survive at all, it will likely be because it's so very specific that it's easy for other vendors to work around, just like the bounce-back scroll which was ultimately the only claim Apple presented that wasn't completely thrown out by the Dutch court, where the court gave Samsung several weeks to revise the few lines of coded needed to avoid "infringement".
Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.
Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.
The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.
Honestly...I don't really give a damn about Samsung. lol.
The reason I'm so defensive here is because the precedent these set for the future of products.
A ban based on a drawing?
A ban based on tech that was in the works for 40 years before it was popularized?
I can't agree. I wouldn't care if it was Google, Samsung, Sony, Toyota, Ford...doesn't matter.
I just personally cannot agree.
If Windows 8 had a dock that looked remarkably like OS X's dock I'd be against that 100%.
If Android looked like iOS to the point of MIUI in it's earlier iterations I'd be against it...hence why I'm againts touchwhiz and SOME iterations of the Galaxy S (T-mobile Vibrant I'm looking at you)
Samsung is a copycat firm...not to the extent mentioned by people here, but it's obvious.
If Apple wasn't going after the Xoom and HTC (who went out of their way to avoid similarity) I'd have nothing against the cases. But it is apparent they want to cut off the competitions legs by any means necessary...
which is shocking to me considering that IMO for the general consumer both Mac OS and iOS are much better suited than most Android devices and most bloatware filled PCs... the booming market share and rising stock is indicative of a mutual feeling across the board.
Actually my post did not say or imply "earlier injunctions" - it said (to AbsoluteDesignz) "you agreed earlier..." but no matter - I see the source of the confusion.
Your other points are good. I suspect the patents are specific enough, and that the workaround route will be the solution, but who knows.
It's easy to get turned around in this thread as we all keep wantonly discussing both injunctions
Fair enough: how many here are willing to take a bet that within two years the total sum Apple collects on these suits and counter-suits is less than their payouts?
Good analysis. I won't take your bet, although i am tempted. But I think you are missing the non-monetary effects. I AM willing to bet a large sum that Samsung will have stopped using Apple's "trade dress" in their products by your 2-year deadline. Which I believe was Apple's primary goal in suing Samsung all over the world.
It's not about the money for Apple, at least not in this instance. They will happily pay damages if they have achieved their goal: to sell products that are Different.
It's easy to get turned around in this thread as we all keep wantonly discussing both injunctions
That's fine. I'm catching up.
An apple was the instrumentality of original sin.
Actually, that's not true. It was only 'the fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the type of fruit, it could have been a plantain for all we know.
Actually, that's not true. It was only 'the fruit' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the type of fruit, it could have been a plantain for all we know.
I'm sure it was nothing. -_-
but I always pictured a pomegranate.
You keep saying that - even though it has been pointed out again and again that you're wrong.
Read the German judge's decision. He found Samsung to be in violation of Apple's design patent based on 6 very specific criteria - not just 'loose resemblance'. I'm not going to look it up, but it included things like having a metal one-piece back which wrapped around the sides and was visible from the front. Equal size bezels all the way around. And several other items.
It would have been easy for Samsung to make a tablet that was different. Heck, most of the ones in the picture you keep showing are probably different enough that Samsung would not have gotten into trouble. But they chose to make a near-exact copy of Apple's product and violated the design patent.
What about the Dutch judge said? He basically thrown out all the look and feel claims by Apple.
I read a Fullan Mul..'s article on FOSS site, even his translation I can see that the German judge discussed but implied the Community Design registered as legitimate. So, Samsung can rubbish the Cummunity Design in German Court, then this German judge decision has no relevance.
Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.
Apple might have known that the look and feel claim had no base, so they had to go with the software patents in Austraila. Absolute Design said that those patents were related to multi touch. If what he said is true, it only proves that how ridiculous they are patenting everyting while they are enjoying all goodies(Android Notification Centre) developed by others.
It is about monopoly nothing else.
The only thing I see in this battle is that both companies want the same thing - market share and money. I love apple products but I can't take their side on this and neither can I take Samsungs side on this one. They both deserve a spanking! The whole patent system needs to take a step back a figure out whether or not the current system is the best for our economy and innovation.
Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.
Of course not, Samsung is probably paying you to write this tripe with all the hallmarks of a quasi middle of the fence view, astroturfer seeking to present as reasonable.
Now there's a nice welcome to a newcomer.
Like AbsoluteDesign posted here apple tablet design was not new. Samsung might have seen the trand from IPad and used their own design (Samsung Digital Photo frame 2006) into their tab.
Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.
But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.
A ban based on a drawing?
I can't agree.
Well, for better or worse the patent office doesn't accept physical models anymore, not since 1880. So most patents are based upon a drawing(s), at least in part.
And you can't agree? You wanna go back to models, eh?
Samsung is quite welcome to release a thick tablet with a beige plastic back and buttons based on their 2006 design, come to think of it the Galaxy Tab 10.1v that Samsung scrapped the minute they saw the iPad 2 is closer to the picture frame they showed TWO YEARS AFTER APPLE LODGED THE DESIGN in question with the EU, i.e. in 2004.
But what the hey, you keep believing that fantastical notion you picked up somewhere on the Internet.
For god sake, have you seen the comunity design? It does not look like Ipad nor Samsung GT. It looks rather similar to tablets before 2004, see images AbsoluteDesign posted. If you look at the 'Tablet Newspapers (1994)', you can see that the Comunity Design is a copy from it.
Tech companies do compete each other in certain aspects like thinness. Anything wrong with that?
They very well can be invalidated/revoked.
Furthermore, it is hard to swallow the saying that Apple invented Multitouch when they merely acquired the company that invented a subset of multitouch technology.
Similar to what they did with A4 chipset. They bought Intrinsity after they already created A4 (Hummingbird variant), and then claim that they invented it.
The problem with Apple is that they hardly ever license stuff that they own.
Not very good for the consumer market, and very sketchy marketing tactics altogether.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/...t.html?_r=1&hp
well this should get even more interesting huh?