Samsung sues Australia's patent commissioner to hinder Apple patent case

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    Or not. As I understand this whole thing Samsung is saying that Apple was granted the shorter patent and then granted the longer one (a conversion if you will) that isn't allowed under Aussie law. We haven't seen proof that that is true. The implication in the rule as it was written is, it seems, to keep someone for getting the short patent and then as it is running out, the fuller one. 


     


    If Samsung is correct then all they would be able to invalidate in this round is the 20 year patent that should have stayed an 8 year one, i.e. the extension to the protection time. But based on those dates, all these innovation patents are still well in effect. So Samsung would then have to prove that those patents are invalid before they have truly 'won'



    According to another article, those innovation patents have now expired.


     


    "Watermark senior associate and patent blogger Mark Summerfield told ZDNet Australia that the Australian Commissioner of Patents should have realised that when Apple had sought the patents in question, it already had innovation patents on those inventions and, therefore, should have told Apple to surrender the innovation patents, before granting the new patents. Since Apple has let the innovation patents expire, should Samsung be successful in invalidating its currently held patents, Apple would lose the patents on those four inventions. This will mean that there will be four less patents for Apple to use in its legal battle against Samsung."


     


    http://www.zdnet.com.au/samsung-banks-on-apple-patent-mistake-339339415.htm

  • Reply 22 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member


    BTW, Samsung supposedly "suing"  the Australian Commissioner is simply a procedural issue and not truly accurate. The case isn't actually new either, with Samsung claiming to have initiated the challenge last year. Adding the Commissioner to the proceedings is simply a formality to ensure all their bases were covered.


     


    http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=15242

  • Reply 23 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    fredaroony wrote: »
    Right so you can't answer it either. Seems to be a common theme in this forum to make baseless accusations without backing it up with facts.

    How about the facts that got Samsung products banned in Germany and Australia due to being based on copying Apple stuff?

    Hummingbird.
  • Reply 24 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    How about the facts that got Samsung products banned in Germany and Australia due to being based on copying Apple stuff?

    Hummingbird.


    Go back and read my original question....

  • Reply 25 of 29
    eric475eric475 Posts: 177member


    Big ruthless corporations so loved by the masses...

  • Reply 26 of 29
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member


    Ah, hill60 and GTR, holding the fort here in Oz.

  • Reply 27 of 29
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eric475 View Post


    Big ruthless corporations so loved by the masses...



     


    Yes, this is why I have nuked Google and Samsung stuff from my life as far as possible.

  • Reply 28 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Ah, hill60 and GTR, holding the fort here in Oz.



    More like two trolls that can't provide any real facts...

  • Reply 29 of 29
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


     


    Yes, this is why I have nuked Google and Samsung stuff from my life as far as possible.



    What about all those Samsung components inside your iDevices?

Sign In or Register to comment.