I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...
more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-
yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.
Thanks for providing that, but the Samsung shills will refuse to look at anything that interferes with their insane arguments. Let's quote the relevant part:
Quote:
So with all that background, here's Apple's list of trade dress elements it thinks Samsung is infringing:
Hardware and software trade dress claims
- a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
- the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
- as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
- a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
- a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
- a bottom row of square icons (the "Springboard") set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
Packaging trade dress claims
- a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
- a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
- use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.
Apple did not get a patent on a rounded rectangle. It had to have a LOT more characteristics, as well.
It's iterating how the battles are being fought in other countries and not here in the US. We hear more about Germany and Australia and so forth then we do here in the US. Imagine how much money is spent to fight this in Australia. I bet the Attorney's fees are staggering.
Competition is good for the industry. I know that Apple thinks Samsung is copying their iPad but if Apple is doing so well why spend so much money to block them when Apple could just build a better iPad that Samsung can't even come close to before hand?
apple did build a better product and samsung did just copy it ..thats the problem apple makes and samsung copies.
yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.
yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.
Explain how my opinion on the design patent (which isn't Australia so I was off topic) is equivalent to trolling.
The design patent levied against Samsung in another jurisdiction was for a product that doesn't and most likely wont exist. Not for looking like an iPad.
Thanks for providing that, but the Samsung shills will refuse to look at anything that interferes with their insane arguments. Let's quote the relevant part:
Apple did not get a patent on a rounded rectangle. It had to have a LOT more characteristics, as well.
Android 3.0 did not look like iOS for tablets.
The Tab does not look like an iPad.
The design patent is a drawing.
The drawing is of a non existent product.
Like I said, which you Apple fans seem to ignore, of the billion things apple is suing Samsung for (especially trade dress) I don't think the Tab looking like an iPad should be one.
Opinion.
I swear you all have selective reading if you think I am in any way a Samsung shill.
I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...
more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-
Apple do not have monopoly on rounded rectangle. No company can have monopoly on a rectangle or rounded corners. Till date only one Judge (German) has sided with Apple on this design philosophy and that too on following (if you have read the German ruling)
(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
In other words all of the above characteristics needs to be present in a single device to violate Apple patent/community design.. The whole German case was based on above points only and nothing else (no trade dress, grid of icons, etc ).
Moreover in the ruling it was made clear by German judge that point 1 and 2 are obvious design choices. And since no body can lay claim over thin form factor, the whole lawsuit was centered on point (iii), (iv) and (v).
Since Galaxy tab has all above points as mentioned above, it was banned, and now Samsung has redesigned the same as Galaxy Tab 10.1N
Of course you're not. You can't fool us, you're an Android shill!
lol, well my Android bias is definitely prominent but I'd hardly call myself a shill. I have many critiques for the platform as well as many likes. And just as I don't blindly hate Apple I don't get the blind hatred towards Android...and just as I don't misrepresent, lie, or exaggerate things negative about iOS I don't understand why people do it for Android.
Tell me something else. Does it usually benefit a lawyer, in subsequent hearings on the same case,
to have said publicly that the judge was wrong?
Normally, they code it in a diplomatic statement by saying that they disagree with the ruling and file an appeal. When you make it about the person, it can set you up with future trouble.
Comments
As a lawyer who practices both plaintiff and defense work, if you are bitching that the judge didn't understand key elements, you did a shitty job.
That sounds right.
Tell me something else. Does it usually benefit a lawyer, in subsequent hearings on the same case,
to have said publicly that the judge was wrong?
I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...
more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-
Maybe this will help with your over simplification of the lawsuit:
http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/a...sung-analysis/
I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...
more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-
yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.
Samsung attorney says Australian judge wrong in banning its iPad-like tablet
Uh, I highly doubt the Samsung lawyers said the Galaxy Tab was an "iPad-like tablet".
Isn't that why it was banned and isn't their argument just the opposite?
Maybe this will help with your over simplification of the lawsuit:
http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/a...sung-analysis/
Thanks for providing that, but the Samsung shills will refuse to look at anything that interferes with their insane arguments. Let's quote the relevant part:
So with all that background, here's Apple's list of trade dress elements it thinks Samsung is infringing:
Hardware and software trade dress claims
- a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
- the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
- as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
- a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
- a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
- a bottom row of square icons (the "Springboard") set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
Packaging trade dress claims
- a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
- a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
- use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.
Apple did not get a patent on a rounded rectangle. It had to have a LOT more characteristics, as well.
It's iterating how the battles are being fought in other countries and not here in the US. We hear more about Germany and Australia and so forth then we do here in the US. Imagine how much money is spent to fight this in Australia. I bet the Attorney's fees are staggering.
Competition is good for the industry. I know that Apple thinks Samsung is copying their iPad but if Apple is doing so well why spend so much money to block them when Apple could just build a better iPad that Samsung can't even come close to before hand?
apple did build a better product and samsung did just copy it ..thats the problem apple makes and samsung copies.
yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.
Hint ... Ignore list
Last thing you want to do is tell a judge that they were wrong!
That's why you tell the other judges, at the Appeals Court.
Keep your day job, boi-lawyer...
yeah, because they actually did get a patent on a rounded rectangle. The clueless fandrones and microsoft drones love saying such stupid things. If you know nothing about the actual lawsuit, why comment? Obvious troll is obvious.
Explain how my opinion on the design patent (which isn't Australia so I was off topic) is equivalent to trolling.
The design patent levied against Samsung in another jurisdiction was for a product that doesn't and most likely wont exist. Not for looking like an iPad.
Thanks for providing that, but the Samsung shills will refuse to look at anything that interferes with their insane arguments. Let's quote the relevant part:
Apple did not get a patent on a rounded rectangle. It had to have a LOT more characteristics, as well.
Android 3.0 did not look like iOS for tablets.
The Tab does not look like an iPad.
The design patent is a drawing.
The drawing is of a non existent product.
Like I said, which you Apple fans seem to ignore, of the billion things apple is suing Samsung for (especially trade dress) I don't think the Tab looking like an iPad should be one.
Opinion.
I swear you all have selective reading if you think I am in any way a Samsung shill.
I swear you all have selective reading if you think I am in any way a Samsung shill.
Of course you're not. You can't fool us, you're an Android shill!
I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...
more shocked that the design patent put forth wasn't even for the actual iPad -_-
Apple do not have monopoly on rounded rectangle. No company can have monopoly on a rectangle or rounded corners. Till date only one Judge (German) has sided with Apple on this design philosophy and that too on following (if you have read the German ruling)
(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
In other words all of the above characteristics needs to be present in a single device to violate Apple patent/community design.. The whole German case was based on above points only and nothing else (no trade dress, grid of icons, etc ).
Moreover in the ruling it was made clear by German judge that point 1 and 2 are obvious design choices. And since no body can lay claim over thin form factor, the whole lawsuit was centered on point (iii), (iv) and (v).
Since Galaxy tab has all above points as mentioned above, it was banned, and now Samsung has redesigned the same as Galaxy Tab 10.1N
Of course you're not. You can't fool us, you're an Android shill!
lol, well my Android bias is definitely prominent but I'd hardly call myself a shill. I have many critiques for the platform as well as many likes. And just as I don't blindly hate Apple I don't get the blind hatred towards Android...and just as I don't misrepresent, lie, or exaggerate things negative about iOS I don't understand why people do it for Android.
----
Yes I am aware of that and I still don't agree. Because each and every claim is broad as fuck.
Hint ... Ignore list
Yes...the answer to anyone who disagrees with you. Ignore them.
...and just as I don't misrepresent, lie, or exaggerate things negative about iOS....
I still am shocked that Apple managed to get a monopoly on a rounded minimalistic rectangle...
?????
?????
for someone who actually quoted the entire thing I said pertaining to "exaggerate" the fact that you managed to practically quote mine it is shocking.
or exaggerate things negative about iOS....
That sounds right.
Tell me something else. Does it usually benefit a lawyer, in subsequent hearings on the same case,
to have said publicly that the judge was wrong?
Normally, they code it in a diplomatic statement by saying that they disagree with the ruling and file an appeal. When you make it about the person, it can set you up with future trouble.