Why is AI not covering the MEAT AND POTATOES of this recent court proceedings: that Apple's patent might be invalid throwing the entire case out the door?
Because it would disfavor Apple.
I found the right place.
How about giving a link to your sources?
How pathetic and unethical is it for you people to not cite sources?
That is journalism 101.
Even high school students know how to do it.
AI, "Are you better than a high schooler?" Season 1 first episode showing in Oct 30.
Keyword: "might"
You could say that in every patent case. It's a given, and a non story.
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
Um... Actually the others did have difficulty, as it took some time for them to decide which one was the Samsung tablet. That's what is meant by "A moment later." I guess it could be up for debate on exactly how long a "moment" is. Sounds to me like the lawyers for Samsung had to have a discussion to decide which was which.
Regardless, it proves the point that they are too similar and someone off the street asked the same question probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference until they were turned around to display the logos on the backs.
While a ban on selling Galaxy pads would be brutal for Samsung, the sting felt as Apple slowly withdraws from every contract with them will hurt even more.
I hope that is the case. Samsung's greed was to much.
Apple is Samsung's largest customer with 8 billion in revenue
Was 8 billion enough for Samsung? No. Samsung had to backstab Apple by using same parts and design that Apple had.
Whatever... They look different from the back since the iPad has an Apple logo on it. That is the part that has the value. People who want a Galaxy tab aren't Apple's type of customer anyway. I think the blatant knock offs like the ones in China a far more damaging to the brand since they actually put an Apple logo on it. One of my Chinese friends told me about a fake iPhone her husband bought. You couldn't let it touch your face while on a call since it didn't have a proximity sensor and would hang up the call if you touch it.
Whatever? This is positively damning for Samsung. We're not talking about knock offs. We're talking about legit products that have been essentially copied...which is illegal.
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
The judge's point is still valid. If all that distinguishes one from the other is aspect ratio, it's still a copied design.
How long is "a moment" (which AI misquoted as "moments later")?
I believe Apple very much hopes the case doesn't boil down to direct consumer confusion. Indeed, their case thus far has been resting on abstract sketches of rectangular blobs in patent filings, apparently unable to find compelling evidence that droves of consumers looking at a box which may have a similar shape to Apple's but which also clearly says "SAMSUNG" in 72-point type will somehow misread that as "Apple".
I would say the length of a moment is about the amount of time a judge needs to think "jesus, Samsungs own lawyers can't tell the difference".
From about a mile and half away I can't tell the difference between Angelina Jolie and Kathy Bates.
Please, Jolie's been copying Kathy for years!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:
By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.
That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
Some good links, haven't seen those videos in a while! You are making an assumption that the gripe Apple has it related to muli-touch, and I don't think that's the case. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Whilst your links make your point well (assuming multi-touch is the issue in question here), the overwhelming feeling I get watching the clips is "what have Apple's competitors been doing with this technology for the last 5 years?"
Where is Microsoft's Surface? Apple have brought the wow factor of that first Adobe demo into people's homes in a way nobody else has. I think they deserve credit for that. I know that's not related to this case, it's just a thought. Therein likes a legal question, if MS and Adobe haven't used this technology and Apple has, is there patent really valid? To my knowledge, that's how the law sees it to some extent. A patent troll is someone who files a patent, does nothing with it and then sues others that do. Just spitballing.
The brilliance of Apple was to make those features demoed in your links into a coherent operating system. It's not as easy as it sounds. Moving photos around on a grey background and pinching them to zoom is a long way from a full OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
well, i probably can't tell samsung tv and sony tv apart from 10 feet away.
That's a very valid point, more so than it appears. The issue here isn't whether the iPad and Galaxy Tab look the same - they undeniably do; the issue is whether or not the design elements of the iPad that look so similar in the Galaxy Tab are actually so intrinsic to the tablet form factor that they cannot be subject to an enforceable patent.
With televisions, you have to have a rectangle around a screen. There's only so much you can do with that stylistically without being simply pedantic.
Personally, I think Apple will ultimately have to concede that the iPad's form factor is inherent to the tablet form factor. Ultimately, the iPad is a screen with a black border and round edges. There's only to much you can do with that.
That said, Samsung take it to the wire. They copy docks and accessories and even their docking ports looks similar. They have the rows of icons with the springboard etc. It does all seem a little too much. I don't know if Apple can make that stick in court, but if I was Apple, I'd be hacked off too. To my mind, there is no doubt Samsung copy Apple, but if they didn't copy Apple I don't think there tablets would looks ENORMOUSLY different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1h15233
This lawyer should have at least guessed. She had a 50/50 shot haha.
Can you imagine the headline if she'd guessed wrong? That's how lawyers think. If she says the Samsung Galaxy Tab is the iPad, she looses her job. It's that simple.
Comments
Um, that dude's name is Kathleen.
Maybe he couldn't tell from ten feet away.
Why is AI not covering the MEAT AND POTATOES of this recent court proceedings: that Apple's patent might be invalid throwing the entire case out the door?
Because it would disfavor Apple.
I found the right place.
How about giving a link to your sources?
How pathetic and unethical is it for you people to not cite sources?
That is journalism 101.
Even high school students know how to do it.
AI, "Are you better than a high schooler?" Season 1 first episode showing in Oct 30.
Keyword: "might"
You could say that in every patent case. It's a given, and a non story.
This lawyer should have at least guessed. She had a 50/50 shot haha.
That was my first thought. Maybe he did and was wrong?
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
Um... Actually the others did have difficulty, as it took some time for them to decide which one was the Samsung tablet. That's what is meant by "A moment later." I guess it could be up for debate on exactly how long a "moment" is. Sounds to me like the lawyers for Samsung had to have a discussion to decide which was which.
Regardless, it proves the point that they are too similar and someone off the street asked the same question probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference until they were turned around to display the logos on the backs.
While a ban on selling Galaxy pads would be brutal for Samsung, the sting felt as Apple slowly withdraws from every contract with them will hurt even more.
I hope that is the case. Samsung's greed was to much.
Apple is Samsung's largest customer with 8 billion in revenue
Was 8 billion enough for Samsung? No. Samsung had to backstab Apple by using same parts and design that Apple had.
Whatever... They look different from the back since the iPad has an Apple logo on it. That is the part that has the value. People who want a Galaxy tab aren't Apple's type of customer anyway. I think the blatant knock offs like the ones in China a far more damaging to the brand since they actually put an Apple logo on it. One of my Chinese friends told me about a fake iPhone her husband bought. You couldn't let it touch your face while on a call since it didn't have a proximity sensor and would hang up the call if you touch it.
Whatever? This is positively damning for Samsung. We're not talking about knock offs. We're talking about legit products that have been essentially copied...which is illegal.
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
The judge's point is still valid. If all that distinguishes one from the other is aspect ratio, it's still a copied design.
well, i probably can't tell samsung tv and sony tv apart from 10 feet away.
I know, right? Samsung needs to lay off the photocopying
From about a mile and half away I can't tell the difference between Angelina Jolie and Kathy Bates.
That's a 50/50 where I'd take choice.
Why is there a picture of an iPad in this story about the Samsung model?
haha. I thought you were serious for a second.
Maybe they weren't real lawyers... just copies of real lawyers
That's funny!
How long is "a moment" (which AI misquoted as "moments later")?
I believe Apple very much hopes the case doesn't boil down to direct consumer confusion. Indeed, their case thus far has been resting on abstract sketches of rectangular blobs in patent filings, apparently unable to find compelling evidence that droves of consumers looking at a box which may have a similar shape to Apple's but which also clearly says "SAMSUNG" in 72-point type will somehow misread that as "Apple".
I would say the length of a moment is about the amount of time a judge needs to think "jesus, Samsungs own lawyers can't tell the difference".
From about a mile and half away I can't tell the difference between Angelina Jolie and Kathy Bates.
Please, Jolie's been copying Kathy for years!!
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:
Pinch and zoom circa 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY
Microsoft Multi-Touch Patent App Predates Apple’s
http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...tes-apples/609
Tablet UI concepts, circa 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Touch gestures, including two-finger pinch, circa 1992:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30828816089246
Multitouch UIs, 1970s forward:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
And then there's this summary from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.
That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
Some good links, haven't seen those videos in a while! You are making an assumption that the gripe Apple has it related to muli-touch, and I don't think that's the case. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Whilst your links make your point well (assuming multi-touch is the issue in question here), the overwhelming feeling I get watching the clips is "what have Apple's competitors been doing with this technology for the last 5 years?"
Where is Microsoft's Surface? Apple have brought the wow factor of that first Adobe demo into people's homes in a way nobody else has. I think they deserve credit for that. I know that's not related to this case, it's just a thought. Therein likes a legal question, if MS and Adobe haven't used this technology and Apple has, is there patent really valid? To my knowledge, that's how the law sees it to some extent. A patent troll is someone who files a patent, does nothing with it and then sues others that do. Just spitballing.
The brilliance of Apple was to make those features demoed in your links into a coherent operating system. It's not as easy as it sounds. Moving photos around on a grey background and pinching them to zoom is a long way from a full OS.
well, i probably can't tell samsung tv and sony tv apart from 10 feet away.
That's a very valid point, more so than it appears. The issue here isn't whether the iPad and Galaxy Tab look the same - they undeniably do; the issue is whether or not the design elements of the iPad that look so similar in the Galaxy Tab are actually so intrinsic to the tablet form factor that they cannot be subject to an enforceable patent.
With televisions, you have to have a rectangle around a screen. There's only so much you can do with that stylistically without being simply pedantic.
Personally, I think Apple will ultimately have to concede that the iPad's form factor is inherent to the tablet form factor. Ultimately, the iPad is a screen with a black border and round edges. There's only to much you can do with that.
That said, Samsung take it to the wire. They copy docks and accessories and even their docking ports looks similar. They have the rows of icons with the springboard etc. It does all seem a little too much. I don't know if Apple can make that stick in court, but if I was Apple, I'd be hacked off too. To my mind, there is no doubt Samsung copy Apple, but if they didn't copy Apple I don't think there tablets would looks ENORMOUSLY different.
This lawyer should have at least guessed. She had a 50/50 shot haha.
Can you imagine the headline if she'd guessed wrong? That's how lawyers think. If she says the Samsung Galaxy Tab is the iPad, she looses her job. It's that simple.