I'm shocked that you think Apple is silly for litigating this stuff - just shocked!
Since you choose to ignore facts in evidence to bolster your opinion with hyperbole, it makes sense you post the stuff you do. It is a little like the kid in class that loves to make rude noises to attract attention to themselves - even if it is negative attention. *SIGH*
It is however interesting that the judge dismissed both T-Mobile and Sprint's amicus briefs (in this case NOT the tighty-whiteys that Cash907 was so concerned about) as self-serving and basically claiming that if patent violation occurs it should be allowed because someone would benefit from it.
As the patent stuff gets sorted out, it will be interesting to see if the EU is successful in making FRAND participation more restrictive and increase the controls on what FRAND holders can and cannot do. I have to imagine that Apple, it the process of seeking to disrupt this industry, had to have anticipated some of these activities in setting aside so large a warchest.
Florian Mueller thinks highly of Apple's chances? Say it aint so.
As soon as I read the "one legal expert" I just knew it was Florian Mueller. For clarity, do we have any other "legal experts" that agree with FM or are there any legal experts with an opposite view at all?
I understand the reporting bias at AI but It'd be nice to get the whole picture.
In a way I have to agree with that. Mueller might be a lawyer and a great one and even specializing in IP law etc etc. But he's not part of the cases, doesn't get to see everything and is basically a 'doctor that hasn't met the patient or treated him' commenting on stuff. It would be nice to balance that with some other legal experts even if they do are commenting in the same way. Just to get a different viewpoint on the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Marsh
I guess the courts think that industrial design is easy and worthless, so there's no point in preventing lazier companies from copying successful products, essentially stealing sales by tricking gullible people into buying their clones.
Of course they don't think that. IP courts understand 100% how much goes into design etc. But they have been charged not only with protecting inventor 1 from being copied but also with protecting inventor 2 from having spent hours, months and days on something and having inventor 1 shut them down falsely by screaming 'that's mine'. Thus the courts don't just side with the first party and make them really prove there's an issue that should be an issue.
To pull a recent example from copyrights, renowned sci-fi writer Harlan Ellison sued to stop the release of the film "In Time" claiming it was stolen from his story "Repent, repent said the ticktockman". This was after hundreds of thousands of dollars and weeks of time had been spent producing the film. And in the end it turns out that while they have the same basic idea, the plot, place, dialogue, and characters is totally different. Something Ellison didn't know because he had never read the script etc. But the courts get that ideas can't be protected or eventually writers can't write anything because it was done before. So they put it on him to prove details were the same and let the movie be released, saying if he was right they would then shut it down and he could collect damages for the tickets that had sold. He saw the movie, saw that it was totally different and dropped his case.
To bring it back to the whole Apple and Samsung thing, the courts aren't going to kill something like the Tab simply because it's a rectangle because using that shape which is the same shape as the pieces of paper, the books etc the tablet is replacing. But a totality of details that were copied like the same thickness, screen and back materials, bezel width, placement and style of buttons and ports (especially that 30 pin computer connection port that Apple also has patented) and so on, well that's like using the same characters etcfrom someone else's book in your movie. Samsung will try to say that they have no choice, Apple says not true. And the courts are charged with making both sides thoroughly prove their side before deciding. So that they are fair to both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
In other news, Hanes has announced it's lawsuit against Fruit of the Loom, and demanding an immediate injunction baring them from selling white T-shirts and tighty whities. Other than the label, could you tell the difference between the two? IP infringement!!!!
Comments like that just show how little you understand about what's going on in this case. Or perhaps even IP law in general.
In a way I have to agree with that. Mueller might be a lawyer and a great one and even specializing in IP law etc etc. But he's not part of the cases, doesn't get to see everything and is basically a 'doctor that hasn't met the patient or treated him' commenting on stuff. hould be an issue.
He isn't a lawyer, nor does he have any legal qualifications.
I haven't looked up on this, but the judges name would obviously make her oriental, but maybe still having ties to Asia or even South Korea which would skew the trial.
But a judge of the "Caucasian persuasion" would have no countervailing tendency to skew the trial in another direction?
So the only fair judge would be a member of another species with no economic interest in either continent of interest?
Sheesh. That's the kind of "visual thinking" which kept a number of German spies (and all citizens of Germanic origin) free in the US while hundreds of thousands of patriotic Japanese citizens were interned, had property seized, etc. during WWII.
It would also imply that lacking a Neanderthal community to draw from, we need either a panel of Bonobos from Africa or Orcas from Oceania to give a fair ruling......
Florian Mueller thinks highly of Apple's chances? Say it aint so.
As soon as I read the "one legal expert" I just knew it was Florian Mueller. For clarity, do we have any other "legal experts" that agree with FM or are there any legal experts with an opposite view at all?
I understand the reporting bias at AI but It'd be nice to get the whole picture.
The thing withall experts, analysts and ponderers is that no one fires back at them when they get it wrong (oracle Smokong Gun post by FM anyone?)
I've read one beautifully neutral article on AI in recent memory...it just detailed all facts, offered no spin, the topic title wasn't flame bait...it was amazing.
Sadly that wasn't the beginning of something new...it was a diamond in the rough.
To bring it back to the whole Apple and Samsung thing, the courts aren't going to kill something like the Tab simply because it's a rectangle because using that shape which is the same shape as the pieces of paper, the books etc the tablet is replacing. But a totality of details that were copied like the same thickness, screen and back materials, bezel width, placement and style of buttons and ports (especially that 30 pin computer connection port that Apple also has patented) and so on, well that's like using the same characters etcfrom someone else's book in your movie. Samsung will try to say that they have no choice, Apple says not true. And the courts are charged with making both sides thoroughly prove their side before deciding. So that they are fair to both sides.
And for the most part, they haven't. The courts have mainly threw out the design claims and have been focusing on technology patents.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (following this whole Apple v Samsung mess is a PITA sometimes), but here's how it went down:
Netherlands:
Apple won on a technology patent that covers scrolling behavior.
-Samsung changed scrolling behavior on the tab and avoided the ban
Australia:
Apple won based on a manufacturing patent on the screen?
-Samsung got the injunction overturned on appeal
Germany:
The won place where Apple won based on design
-Samsung attempting to get around it by releasing redesigned tab 10.1N
US:
From what I've read, the case seems to be focusing on the scrolling patent again
So while it seems that Apple is claiming copying of design, the courts have largely ignored that and instead chose to focus on technology patents.
IMO, Groklaw has a more complete/balanced set of articles on the Oracle/Google situation, especially combined with a few of Florian's details. Note that the folks at Groklaw.com are lawyers while Florian is a legal observer.
Mueller's status as a legal observer, as well as someone who has done work for Microsoft is well-documented. I personally think the latter would make him more likely to be biased against Apple. He's also an Android user. I don't think it affects his writing.
I happen to find his posts a lot more accessible than slogging through Groklaw, and a number of tech blogs seem to agree, given the number of references to his posts that are made weekly on sites like Engadget, The Verge and TechCrunch.
Mueller's status as a legal observer, as well as someone who has done work for Microsoft is well-documented. I personally think the latter would make him more likely to be biased against Apple.
Comments
.
I'm shocked that you think Apple is silly for litigating this stuff - just shocked!
Since you choose to ignore facts in evidence to bolster your opinion with hyperbole, it makes sense you post the stuff you do. It is a little like the kid in class that loves to make rude noises to attract attention to themselves - even if it is negative attention. *SIGH*
It is however interesting that the judge dismissed both T-Mobile and Sprint's amicus briefs (in this case NOT the tighty-whiteys that Cash907 was so concerned about) as self-serving and basically claiming that if patent violation occurs it should be allowed because someone would benefit from it.
As the patent stuff gets sorted out, it will be interesting to see if the EU is successful in making FRAND participation more restrictive and increase the controls on what FRAND holders can and cannot do. I have to imagine that Apple, it the process of seeking to disrupt this industry, had to have anticipated some of these activities in setting aside so large a warchest.
It is a little like the kid in class that loves to make rude noises to attract attention to themselves - even if it is negative attention. *SIGH*
Naw. More like Dawn Davenport being despised by "Miss Holland", who bursts into tears for no good reason.
(Look it up. Google works the best.)
Florian Mueller thinks highly of Apple's chances? Say it aint so.
As soon as I read the "one legal expert" I just knew it was Florian Mueller. For clarity, do we have any other "legal experts" that agree with FM or are there any legal experts with an opposite view at all?
I understand the reporting bias at AI but It'd be nice to get the whole picture.
In a way I have to agree with that. Mueller might be a lawyer and a great one and even specializing in IP law etc etc. But he's not part of the cases, doesn't get to see everything and is basically a 'doctor that hasn't met the patient or treated him' commenting on stuff. It would be nice to balance that with some other legal experts even if they do are commenting in the same way. Just to get a different viewpoint on the issues.
I guess the courts think that industrial design is easy and worthless, so there's no point in preventing lazier companies from copying successful products, essentially stealing sales by tricking gullible people into buying their clones.
Of course they don't think that. IP courts understand 100% how much goes into design etc. But they have been charged not only with protecting inventor 1 from being copied but also with protecting inventor 2 from having spent hours, months and days on something and having inventor 1 shut them down falsely by screaming 'that's mine'. Thus the courts don't just side with the first party and make them really prove there's an issue that should be an issue.
To pull a recent example from copyrights, renowned sci-fi writer Harlan Ellison sued to stop the release of the film "In Time" claiming it was stolen from his story "Repent, repent said the ticktockman". This was after hundreds of thousands of dollars and weeks of time had been spent producing the film. And in the end it turns out that while they have the same basic idea, the plot, place, dialogue, and characters is totally different. Something Ellison didn't know because he had never read the script etc. But the courts get that ideas can't be protected or eventually writers can't write anything because it was done before. So they put it on him to prove details were the same and let the movie be released, saying if he was right they would then shut it down and he could collect damages for the tickets that had sold. He saw the movie, saw that it was totally different and dropped his case.
To bring it back to the whole Apple and Samsung thing, the courts aren't going to kill something like the Tab simply because it's a rectangle because using that shape which is the same shape as the pieces of paper, the books etc the tablet is replacing. But a totality of details that were copied like the same thickness, screen and back materials, bezel width, placement and style of buttons and ports (especially that 30 pin computer connection port that Apple also has patented) and so on, well that's like using the same characters etcfrom someone else's book in your movie. Samsung will try to say that they have no choice, Apple says not true. And the courts are charged with making both sides thoroughly prove their side before deciding. So that they are fair to both sides.
In other news, Hanes has announced it's lawsuit against Fruit of the Loom, and demanding an immediate injunction baring them from selling white T-shirts and tighty whities. Other than the label, could you tell the difference between the two? IP infringement!!!!
Comments like that just show how little you understand about what's going on in this case. Or perhaps even IP law in general.
Korean patriotism lies in blood, not citizenship.
Cant say the same with the US.
In a way I have to agree with that. Mueller might be a lawyer and a great one and even specializing in IP law etc etc. But he's not part of the cases, doesn't get to see everything and is basically a 'doctor that hasn't met the patient or treated him' commenting on stuff. hould be an issue.
He isn't a lawyer, nor does he have any legal qualifications.
Let me guess. You believe in racial profiling too?
Nope, I was not sincere. But just following the pattern of some insecure guys here patting each other's back.
Originally Posted by btonedem
Korean patriotism lies in blood, not citizenship.
I haven't looked up on this, but the judges name would obviously make her oriental, but maybe still having ties to Asia or even South Korea which would skew the trial.
But a judge of the "Caucasian persuasion" would have no countervailing tendency to skew the trial in another direction?
So the only fair judge would be a member of another species with no economic interest in either continent of interest?
Sheesh. That's the kind of "visual thinking" which kept a number of German spies (and all citizens of Germanic origin) free in the US while hundreds of thousands of patriotic Japanese citizens were interned, had property seized, etc. during WWII.
It would also imply that lacking a Neanderthal community to draw from, we need either a panel of Bonobos from Africa or Orcas from Oceania to give a fair ruling......
Florian Mueller thinks highly of Apple's chances? Say it aint so.
As soon as I read the "one legal expert" I just knew it was Florian Mueller. For clarity, do we have any other "legal experts" that agree with FM or are there any legal experts with an opposite view at all?
I understand the reporting bias at AI but It'd be nice to get the whole picture.
The thing withall experts, analysts and ponderers is that no one fires back at them when they get it wrong (oracle Smokong Gun post by FM anyone?)
I've read one beautifully neutral article on AI in recent memory...it just detailed all facts, offered no spin, the topic title wasn't flame bait...it was amazing.
Sadly that wasn't the beginning of something new...it was a diamond in the rough.
To bring it back to the whole Apple and Samsung thing, the courts aren't going to kill something like the Tab simply because it's a rectangle because using that shape which is the same shape as the pieces of paper, the books etc the tablet is replacing. But a totality of details that were copied like the same thickness, screen and back materials, bezel width, placement and style of buttons and ports (especially that 30 pin computer connection port that Apple also has patented) and so on, well that's like using the same characters etcfrom someone else's book in your movie. Samsung will try to say that they have no choice, Apple says not true. And the courts are charged with making both sides thoroughly prove their side before deciding. So that they are fair to both sides.
And for the most part, they haven't. The courts have mainly threw out the design claims and have been focusing on technology patents.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (following this whole Apple v Samsung mess is a PITA sometimes), but here's how it went down:
Netherlands:
Apple won on a technology patent that covers scrolling behavior.
-Samsung changed scrolling behavior on the tab and avoided the ban
Australia:
Apple won based on a manufacturing patent on the screen?
-Samsung got the injunction overturned on appeal
Germany:
The won place where Apple won based on design
-Samsung attempting to get around it by releasing redesigned tab 10.1N
US:
From what I've read, the case seems to be focusing on the scrolling patent again
So while it seems that Apple is claiming copying of design, the courts have largely ignored that and instead chose to focus on technology patents.
IMO, Groklaw has a more complete/balanced set of articles on the Oracle/Google situation, especially combined with a few of Florian's details. Note that the folks at Groklaw.com are lawyers while Florian is a legal observer.
Mueller's status as a legal observer, as well as someone who has done work for Microsoft is well-documented. I personally think the latter would make him more likely to be biased against Apple. He's also an Android user. I don't think it affects his writing.
I happen to find his posts a lot more accessible than slogging through Groklaw, and a number of tech blogs seem to agree, given the number of references to his posts that are made weekly on sites like Engadget, The Verge and TechCrunch.
Mueller's status as a legal observer, as well as someone who has done work for Microsoft is well-documented. I personally think the latter would make him more likely to be biased against Apple.
The enemy of my enemy. . .