FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
You are missing the point. Did Apple design and build a great revolutionary tablet? YES! The iPad is outstanding! They are selling millions of them. BUT they are suing Samsung on the "look and feel" and that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad. Businesses copy each other all the time! It is part of the free market system. Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated? We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed. Look and feel patents should never be allowed. Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember? So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad. The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.
Samsung does not own the designs of those parts they just have the manufacturing facilities to build them..
But Apple is finding it very tough to replace Samsung. In fact Samsung has very specific patents regarding Apple devices too. As patently Apple reported on Oct 25:-
"
Samsung Wins a Patent Relating to a Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Die Package for Apple's iOS Devices
Samsung has been granted patent 8,043,892 that relates to a method for fabricating a semiconductor die package for Apple's iOS Devices.
The patent states that "the described packages are the basis for realizing micro-sized and high performance electronic devices with small volume. That is, the above described semiconductor die package and integrated circuit package have been widely used for developing portable devices, e.g., mobile terminals, telephones, iPods, iPhones. iPod and iPhone are registered trademarks of Apple Inc, Cupertino, Calif., USA.
_ _ _ _ _But I do wonder if Apple, mainly Steve Jobs, was aware of Samsung customizing and patenting this method. He wasn't one for losing control of any aspect of Apple's products and or processes. I wonder if this is keeping Apple's production of iOS chipsets with Samsung. An alternative supplier would have to have different design approach to Samsung's semiconductor die package."
Samsung is making it increasingly difficult for Apple to replace them by patenting all cost effective or efficient ways to make their chips
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
What's getting lost here is that the reason for the decision has nothing to do with the merits. Under U.S. law, in order to get a preliminary injunction, you must show that you will be irreparably harmed if the other party is allowed to continue with their actions.
Well, either the judge was misquoted or this argument will be thrown out on appeal. Under U.S. law, a patent is PRESUMED to be valid as soon as it's issued..
Please read the court document before making such comments.
A large part of document was dedicated on validity. In fact top lawyers of the country (from both Apple and Samsung) are fighting over the validity issue for past many months. Probably they know law better than you by concentrating their effort on validity questions ( When it was not all necessary as per your viewpoint)
And case was definitely fought over four points
1, Merits ( i.e patents are valid or not and whether infringed or not)
Apple likely realizes that their focus on asserting design patents/community designs as their (so far) primary legal argument is going to be a failure. In hindsight they erred. Samsung out-flanked them, whether by accident or good planning. Here's the way I read things:
1. Apple claims Samsung tablets infringe on design patents.
2. Samsung says the design is obvious and lists prior art.
3. Apple says those aren't valid examples, and now gets into the specific design elements in the patent that make it unique and infringed by Samsung. Hmmm. . . The beginning of a southward turn.
4. Samsung replies that there's no practical way to design around it, the elements are too broad.
5. Apple has to respond and is required to show that Samsung's claim of there not being workarounds isn't accurate. Apple's legal team is probably seeing the mistake in the gameplan.
6. With Apple's list in hand, Samsung makes minor changes to the exterior appearance, and perhaps thanks Apple for the advice.
7. Back in the tablet market with minimal changes to their product.
8. In the event these small initial changes aren't enough, Samsung tweaks it a tiny bit more using Apple's road-map.
The same "Apple arguing against itself" if they use design patent claims applied in the US case too. Apple didn't invent the tablet idea and therefor there's prior examples. Apple will of course argue their design idea is unique but, with the plaintiff introducing prior art, Apple has to list specifics that make their design patent unique. At this point the plan begins to fall apart as seen in the numbered list above, with the added possibility that even some of the Apple utility patents may be invalidated.
At the end of the day, design patents, while they have some value, aren't going to be effective as bludgeons against competitors.
Going forward I'll be surprised if they don't move away from design patent claims for the most part. Even tho it will take longer, and some of their patents may be invalidated in the process, if they have valid, unique and creative IP they'll be successful in keeping some devices off the market. Arguing that someone's else's "look" shares similarities with some product Apple sells is a waste of time, effort and money.
The same "Apple arguing against itself" if they use design patent claims applied in the US case too. Apple didn't invent the tablet idea and therefor there's prior examples. Apple will of course argue their design idea is unique but, with the plaintiff introducing prior art, Apple has to list specifics that make their design patent unique. At this point the plan begins to fall apart as seen in the numbered list above, with the added possibility that even some of the Apple utility patents may be invalidated.
Going forward I'll be surprised if they don't move away from design patent claims for the most part. Even tho it will take longer, and some of their patents may be invalidated in the process, if they have valid, unique and creative IP they'll be successful in keeping some devices off the market. Arguing that someone's else's "look" shares similarities with some product Apple sells is a waste of time, effort and money.
Just my opinion.
You are correct in terms of Design patent, Samsung has used similar ploy in Germany.
But if Apple uses Utility orTechnology patents , it will be next to impossible to claim irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction
And if such patents cannot be work around , then Apple will need to license them to Competitors. And if work around is possible, possibly it has already been done by Samsung or other OEMs.
Apple will succeed with only those patents which are not impossible but quite difficult to work around.
You are missing the point. Did Apple design and build a great revolutionary tablet? YES! The iPad is outstanding! They are selling millions of them. BUT they are suing Samsung on the "look and feel" and that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad. Businesses copy each other all the time! It is part of the free market system. Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated? We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed. Look and feel patents should never be allowed. Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember? So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad. The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.
Too a blind person, i agree. Obviously the Samesung looks the same...their attorney could not even tell the difference. The look and feel was there if by that you mean, pre-ipad tables had screens. No tablet in your pictures show anything close to the ipad. So no, nothing existed prior to the iPad which looked like the iPad.
Businesses do not copy each other all the time. I would love to see you clone a BMW and try to sell it. Ever hear of copyright, trademarks and patents? those things were created to protect innovation. Granted the length of these has been extended beyond what they should but they exist to protect innovators from cloner trolls like Samesung, Microsoft and Google.
No car replicated a Ford...if they did, they would get sued into the ground, and rightfully so. Your analogy makes no sense. Remember, Apple did re-invent the tablet look and feel. Nothing looked like an iPad before the iPad. Your pictures prove it. Since the iPad and iPhone came out, everyone is cloning them. The old tablets were big square boxes with noisy fans and pen based input. Who makes those today? Or does everyone now make slim fanless iPad clones?
You are correct in terms of Design patent, Samsung has used similar ploy in Germany.
But if Apple uses Utility orTechnology patents , it will be next to impossible to claim irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction
And if such patents cannot be work around , then Apple will need to license them to Competitors. And if work around is possible, possibly it has already been done by Samsung or other OEMs.
Apple will succeed with only those patents which are not impossible but quite difficult to work around.
Please state the law that requires you to license patents to your competitors. Apple absolutely has no legal or moral obligation to license their patents to the competition.
(FRAND stuff is different - but we're not talking about FRAND).
Too a blind person, i agree. Obviously the Samesung looks the same...their attorney could not even tell the difference. The look and feel was there if by that you mean, pre-ipad tables had screens. No tablet in your pictures show anything close to the ipad. So no, nothing existed prior to the iPad which looked like the iPad.
Businesses do not copy each other all the time. I would love to see you clone a BMW and try to sell it. Ever hear of copyright, trademarks and patents? those things were created to protect innovation. Granted the length of these has been extended beyond what they should but they exist to protect innovators from cloner trolls like Samesung, Microsoft and Google.
No car replicated a Ford...if they did, they would get sued into the ground, and rightfully so. Your analogy makes no sense. Remember, Apple did re-invent the tablet look and feel. Nothing looked like an iPad before the iPad. Your pictures prove it. Since the iPad and iPhone came out, everyone is cloning them. The old tablets were big square boxes with noisy fans and pen based input. Who makes those today? Or does everyone now make slim fanless iPad clones?
First...I did not post any pictures. So I don't know what you meant by that. Your examples prove my point. The exact look and feel of a BMW can be seen all over the auto industry. For that matter every car has the same look and fell.........a steering wheel....ignition key and turn to start...windows.....four wheels...aerodynamic shapes.
Lets say my company puts out a new microwave. It is sleek and beautiful. It also performs quite well! Everyone wants one. I also take the time to patent the look and feel. Nobody challenges my patent so it goes through the patent office. That look is square...rectangle with a door with predefined buttons with cooking times preprogrammed and a light that comes on when you turn it on.
From this point forward....I will sue any other company that produces a microwave with the same look and feel of mine. My companies has very very deep pockets and has unlimited resources to litigate anyone that produces a microwave that is sleek and square with a door and light that comes on when you open it. All companies are threatened with lawsuits.
But this one company i sue because they aslo made a microwave with a square shape and door with a light and pre programmed cooking buttons. I sue that they violated the look and feel of my microwave. OHHH did I mention this company also makes parts for my product.....so it has become personal. I want to punish them. I feel betrayed. Other companies are producing the same microwave but I don't sue them.....only the company that i feel betrayed by.......
Please state the law that requires you to license patents to your competitors. Apple absolutely has no legal or moral obligation to license their patents to the competition.
(FRAND stuff is different - but we're not talking about FRAND).
No you will need to license if there is no work around as anti competitive regulations will come to play. It is no brainer else there will only be a single smartphone/tablet manufacturer.
All these heated arguments are interesting but I am not convinced sales of Android Tablets are so abysmal because of Apple's legal actions. Hence the removal or loss of all such actions can't be assumed to lead to significant market share increases. The legal suits may well have helped in creating uncertainty in buyer's minds helping them go the iPad route or it may simply be like the iPod market place, a total annihilation of all opposition by a far superior product regardless of price or legal actions by Apple.
No you will need to license if there is no work around as anti competitive regulations will come to play. It is no brainer else there will only be a single smartphone/tablet manufacturer.
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all.
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all?
I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.
"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."
Comments
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
You are missing the point. Did Apple design and build a great revolutionary tablet? YES! The iPad is outstanding! They are selling millions of them. BUT they are suing Samsung on the "look and feel" and that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad. Businesses copy each other all the time! It is part of the free market system. Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated? We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed. Look and feel patents should never be allowed. Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember? So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad. The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.
Samsung does not own the designs of those parts they just have the manufacturing facilities to build them..
But Apple is finding it very tough to replace Samsung. In fact Samsung has very specific patents regarding Apple devices too. As patently Apple reported on Oct 25:-
"
Samsung Wins a Patent Relating to a Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Die Package for Apple's iOS Devices
Samsung has been granted patent 8,043,892 that relates to a method for fabricating a semiconductor die package for Apple's iOS Devices.
The patent states that "the described packages are the basis for realizing micro-sized and high performance electronic devices with small volume. That is, the above described semiconductor die package and integrated circuit package have been widely used for developing portable devices, e.g., mobile terminals, telephones, iPods, iPhones. iPod and iPhone are registered trademarks of Apple Inc, Cupertino, Calif., USA.
_ _ _ _ _But I do wonder if Apple, mainly Steve Jobs, was aware of Samsung customizing and patenting this method. He wasn't one for losing control of any aspect of Apple's products and or processes. I wonder if this is keeping Apple's production of iOS chipsets with Samsung. An alternative supplier would have to have different design approach to Samsung's semiconductor die package."
Samsung is making it increasingly difficult for Apple to replace them by patenting all cost effective or efficient ways to make their chips
FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.
Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.
FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.
FACT???????
FACT???????
The idea of consumer tablet started in 1997 with http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/L...-Screen-Phone/
What's getting lost here is that the reason for the decision has nothing to do with the merits. Under U.S. law, in order to get a preliminary injunction, you must show that you will be irreparably harmed if the other party is allowed to continue with their actions.
Well, either the judge was misquoted or this argument will be thrown out on appeal. Under U.S. law, a patent is PRESUMED to be valid as soon as it's issued..
Please read the court document before making such comments.
A large part of document was dedicated on validity. In fact top lawyers of the country (from both Apple and Samsung) are fighting over the validity issue for past many months. Probably they know law better than you by concentrating their effort on validity questions ( When it was not all necessary as per your viewpoint)
And case was definitely fought over four points
1, Merits ( i.e patents are valid or not and whether infringed or not)
2, Irreparable harm
3, Balance of Hardship
4, Public Interest
Samsung is obviously copying Apple and deserves to be punished. Boycott them now and for a long time.
Really?
Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.
1. Apple claims Samsung tablets infringe on design patents.
2. Samsung says the design is obvious and lists prior art.
3. Apple says those aren't valid examples, and now gets into the specific design elements in the patent that make it unique and infringed by Samsung. Hmmm. . . The beginning of a southward turn.
4. Samsung replies that there's no practical way to design around it, the elements are too broad.
5. Apple has to respond and is required to show that Samsung's claim of there not being workarounds isn't accurate. Apple's legal team is probably seeing the mistake in the gameplan.
6. With Apple's list in hand, Samsung makes minor changes to the exterior appearance, and perhaps thanks Apple for the advice.
7. Back in the tablet market with minimal changes to their product.
8. In the event these small initial changes aren't enough, Samsung tweaks it a tiny bit more using Apple's road-map.
The same "Apple arguing against itself" if they use design patent claims applied in the US case too. Apple didn't invent the tablet idea and therefor there's prior examples. Apple will of course argue their design idea is unique but, with the plaintiff introducing prior art, Apple has to list specifics that make their design patent unique. At this point the plan begins to fall apart as seen in the numbered list above, with the added possibility that even some of the Apple utility patents may be invalidated.
At the end of the day, design patents, while they have some value, aren't going to be effective as bludgeons against competitors.
Going forward I'll be surprised if they don't move away from design patent claims for the most part. Even tho it will take longer, and some of their patents may be invalidated in the process, if they have valid, unique and creative IP they'll be successful in keeping some devices off the market. Arguing that someone's else's "look" shares similarities with some product Apple sells is a waste of time, effort and money.
Just my opinion.
Really?
Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.
And now someone will post regarding backs of Photo frame. Apple lawsuit against Samsung is all about how device looks from front.
Anyways, this picture proves that Ipad's design was used by Samsung previously too.
But this could not be used in courts since Apple's design patent is prior to this so Samsung used Knight Ridder and HP compaq TC 100
The same "Apple arguing against itself" if they use design patent claims applied in the US case too. Apple didn't invent the tablet idea and therefor there's prior examples. Apple will of course argue their design idea is unique but, with the plaintiff introducing prior art, Apple has to list specifics that make their design patent unique. At this point the plan begins to fall apart as seen in the numbered list above, with the added possibility that even some of the Apple utility patents may be invalidated.
Going forward I'll be surprised if they don't move away from design patent claims for the most part. Even tho it will take longer, and some of their patents may be invalidated in the process, if they have valid, unique and creative IP they'll be successful in keeping some devices off the market. Arguing that someone's else's "look" shares similarities with some product Apple sells is a waste of time, effort and money.
Just my opinion.
You are correct in terms of Design patent, Samsung has used similar ploy in Germany.
But if Apple uses Utility orTechnology patents , it will be next to impossible to claim irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction
And if such patents cannot be work around , then Apple will need to license them to Competitors. And if work around is possible, possibly it has already been done by Samsung or other OEMs.
Apple will succeed with only those patents which are not impossible but quite difficult to work around.
You are missing the point. Did Apple design and build a great revolutionary tablet? YES! The iPad is outstanding! They are selling millions of them. BUT they are suing Samsung on the "look and feel" and that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad. Businesses copy each other all the time! It is part of the free market system. Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated? We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed. Look and feel patents should never be allowed. Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember? So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad. The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.
Too a blind person, i agree. Obviously the Samesung looks the same...their attorney could not even tell the difference. The look and feel was there if by that you mean, pre-ipad tables had screens. No tablet in your pictures show anything close to the ipad. So no, nothing existed prior to the iPad which looked like the iPad.
Businesses do not copy each other all the time. I would love to see you clone a BMW and try to sell it. Ever hear of copyright, trademarks and patents? those things were created to protect innovation. Granted the length of these has been extended beyond what they should but they exist to protect innovators from cloner trolls like Samesung, Microsoft and Google.
No car replicated a Ford...if they did, they would get sued into the ground, and rightfully so. Your analogy makes no sense. Remember, Apple did re-invent the tablet look and feel. Nothing looked like an iPad before the iPad. Your pictures prove it. Since the iPad and iPhone came out, everyone is cloning them. The old tablets were big square boxes with noisy fans and pen based input. Who makes those today? Or does everyone now make slim fanless iPad clones?
You are correct in terms of Design patent, Samsung has used similar ploy in Germany.
But if Apple uses Utility orTechnology patents , it will be next to impossible to claim irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction
And if such patents cannot be work around , then Apple will need to license them to Competitors. And if work around is possible, possibly it has already been done by Samsung or other OEMs.
Apple will succeed with only those patents which are not impossible but quite difficult to work around.
Please state the law that requires you to license patents to your competitors. Apple absolutely has no legal or moral obligation to license their patents to the competition.
(FRAND stuff is different - but we're not talking about FRAND).
Really?
Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.
Mind showing the whole thing....here let me show you how this is nothing like the iPad. Or better yet, i will point you to this which debunks this fantasy... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...e-was-no-ipad/
Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.
waste your time elsewhere :-))
FACT???????
The idea of consumer tablet started in 1997 with http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/L...-Screen-Phone/
I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit....
Too a blind person, i agree. Obviously the Samesung looks the same...their attorney could not even tell the difference. The look and feel was there if by that you mean, pre-ipad tables had screens. No tablet in your pictures show anything close to the ipad. So no, nothing existed prior to the iPad which looked like the iPad.
Businesses do not copy each other all the time. I would love to see you clone a BMW and try to sell it. Ever hear of copyright, trademarks and patents? those things were created to protect innovation. Granted the length of these has been extended beyond what they should but they exist to protect innovators from cloner trolls like Samesung, Microsoft and Google.
No car replicated a Ford...if they did, they would get sued into the ground, and rightfully so. Your analogy makes no sense. Remember, Apple did re-invent the tablet look and feel. Nothing looked like an iPad before the iPad. Your pictures prove it. Since the iPad and iPhone came out, everyone is cloning them. The old tablets were big square boxes with noisy fans and pen based input. Who makes those today? Or does everyone now make slim fanless iPad clones?
First...I did not post any pictures. So I don't know what you meant by that. Your examples prove my point. The exact look and feel of a BMW can be seen all over the auto industry. For that matter every car has the same look and fell.........a steering wheel....ignition key and turn to start...windows.....four wheels...aerodynamic shapes.
Lets say my company puts out a new microwave. It is sleek and beautiful. It also performs quite well! Everyone wants one. I also take the time to patent the look and feel. Nobody challenges my patent so it goes through the patent office. That look is square...rectangle with a door with predefined buttons with cooking times preprogrammed and a light that comes on when you turn it on.
From this point forward....I will sue any other company that produces a microwave with the same look and feel of mine. My companies has very very deep pockets and has unlimited resources to litigate anyone that produces a microwave that is sleek and square with a door and light that comes on when you open it. All companies are threatened with lawsuits.
But this one company i sue because they aslo made a microwave with a square shape and door with a light and pre programmed cooking buttons. I sue that they violated the look and feel of my microwave. OHHH did I mention this company also makes parts for my product.....so it has become personal. I want to punish them. I feel betrayed. Other companies are producing the same microwave but I don't sue them.....only the company that i feel betrayed by.......
Please state the law that requires you to license patents to your competitors. Apple absolutely has no legal or moral obligation to license their patents to the competition.
(FRAND stuff is different - but we're not talking about FRAND).
No you will need to license if there is no work around as anti competitive regulations will come to play. It is no brainer else there will only be a single smartphone/tablet manufacturer.
Mind showing the whole thing....here let me show you how this is nothing like the iPad. Or better yet, i will point you to this which debunks this fantasy... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...e-was-no-ipad/
Apple is claiming only front design in most of their design patents.
So it is not wrong to compare the front side of two devices.
Though it is also clear that from other sides it is quite dissimilar with IPAD
No you will need to license if there is no work around as anti competitive regulations will come to play. It is no brainer else there will only be a single smartphone/tablet manufacturer.
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all.
Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all?
I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.
"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."