How is it that something covered by a design patent is not a patented technology?
Furthermore, Apple won an injunction. If they show that new devices have the same design features covered by the design patent and the injunction, it is fairly easy to add a new device to the existing injunction - certainly easier than starting from scratch.
I realize that you're hurting because your incessant "Apple is evil and Google is great" crap is wearing thin, but please stop being so dense.
You're still wrong. Calling names won't make you any more correct.
Unless you've got some citations to prove your claim that design patents are the same as technology patents and that Apple can just add a device to the existing injunction, just as I supply proof when I make claims, perhaps you should quit before the hole you're in gets deeper. No one, much less me, said design patents weren't patents. Of course they are, but they're not the same as patents on technology. Utility patents protect the technology used to make a thing work. Design patents are used to protect the way a thing looks, it's ornamental appearance. Don't muddy the waters for casual readers just to create a flawed argument attempting to show you were right all along. You weren't.
You're still wrong. Calling names won't make you any more correct.
Unless you've got some citations to prove your claim that design patents are the same as technology patents
Of course, since I never said that, your entire post is moot. Of course, the fact that there's no such legal thing as a 'technology patent' makes your question even more meaningless (I think the term you're looking for is 'utility patent'.
I said that they're both patents. They both cover technology. Leave it to you to be confused over such a simple matter.
Of course, since I never said that, your entire post is moot. Of course, the fact that there's no such legal thing as a 'technology patent' makes your question even more meaningless (I think the term you're looking for is 'utility patent'.
I said that they're both patents. They both cover technology. Leave it to you to be confused over such a simple matter.
I tried to explain the difference to you, and I'm pretty certain you understood it even tho you don't want to. No matter really, since probably every other reader now understands what the two patent types are for if they didn't already. Since you have nothing to add apparently, and not a single citation to offer, why don't we just move along? You can't win this one by being honest and I don't feel like talking any further to someone who's not listening anyway. We're done.
I tried to explain the difference to you, and I'm pretty certain you understood it even tho you don't want to. No matter really, since probably every other reader now understands what the two patent types are for if they didn't already. Since you have nothing to add apparently, and not a single citation to offer, why don't we just move along? You can't win this one by being honest and I don't feel like talking any further to someone who's not listening anyway. We're done.
Of course you want to move along - because you're flat out wrong.
I never claimed it was a technology patent. I said that patented technology was involved.
Let me spell it out for you - since you're obviously incapable of connecting the dots:
1. The iPad is a technology device.
2. The iPad was covered by a design patent.
3. Therefore, the design of the iPad involves patented technology.
You're the one who keeps dreaming up bizarre interpretations. Especially since you don't even realize that what you're referring to is a 'utility patent', not a 'technology patent'. But since no one but you ever mentioned a technology patent, it's moot.
You're still wrong. Calling names won't make you any more correct.
Unless you've got some citations to prove your claim that design patents are the same as technology patents and that Apple can just add a device to the existing injunction, just as I supply proof when I make claims, perhaps you should quit before the hole you're in gets deeper. No one, much less me, said design patents weren't patents. Of course they are, but they're not the same as patents on technology. Utility patents protect the technology used to make a thing work. Design patents are used to protect the way a thing looks, it's ornamental appearance. Don't muddy the waters for casual readers just to create a flawed argument attempting to show you were right all along. You weren't.
And Samsung never used that design before......oh wait they did.
well, it doesn't infringe, but even if it did, you shouldn't stop the sales because it doesn't even compete with Apple's iPad because they are using 3G and we are using 4G
lol...
That like a car company copying a car 75% of the way, then saying... well it doesn't really compete with the product we copied because we put in a 300 hp engine and not a 200 hp engine.
We're talking about an injunction hearing. Actual damages are determined if/once a case has been proven or the parties settle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar
You seriously need to get a life. These are just gadgets.
There is little point in arguing with the mentally handicapped. I suggest ignoring him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And Samsung never used that design before......oh wait they did.
While that was a picture frame, it does point out the generic nature of the front of these devices. The comparison photos are always silly because you can make people believe whatever you want. The troll picture of before/Apple on tablets and phones comes to mind. It brought up many phones that in some cases dated back to a decade before the iphone.
While that was a picture frame, it does point out the generic nature of the front of these devices. The comparison photos are always silly because you can make people believe whatever you want. The troll picture of before/Apple on tablets and phones comes to mind. It brought up many phones that in some cases dated back to a decade before the iphone.
And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.
And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.
Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!
And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!
SolipsismX,
No, that was a quite logical comment by dasanman69. You can not say that photo frame is nothing like IPad. Designwise, they are almost the same. Technowise, they are similar but IPad has more features and thin form factor due to mainly technological improvements by others like Samsung over the 4 year difference.
How is it that something covered by a design patent is not a patented technology?
Furthermore, Apple won an injunction. If they show that new devices have the same design features covered by the design patent and the injunction, it is fairly easy to add a new device to the existing injunction - certainly easier than starting from scratch.
I realize that you're hurting because your incessant "Apple is evil and Google is great" crap is wearing thin, but please stop being so dense.
You don't quite understand what is said to you. And you keep insisting that you are correct without offereing a shred of evidence.
Technowise, they are similar but IPad has more features and thin form factor due to mainly technological improvements by others like Samsung over the 4 year difference.
You don't quite understand what is said to you. And you keep insisting that you are correct without offereing a shred of evidence.
ROTLFMAO,
Of course, you're ignoring one major fact. I predicted months ago that Koh would have to issue the injunction based on the wording of her order and the appeals court order. I was right.
OTOH, you and all the other Apple hating shills were busy saying that Apple lost and would never win any major court battles. You were wrong.
just invalidate the stupid utility patents that do not really add "EFFECTS" to already existing tablet devices.
becoming thin/slim/minimal form factor is a natural evolution of a tablet just like TVs did.
allowing apple's design/utility patent regarding the ipad is equivalent to saying to LG, 'don't make lcd TVs anymore because Samsung patented the TVs that are slim and thin with black glass edge-to-edge bezel.'
come on USPTO. time to be serious about invention and novelty in each patents filed to your office.
btw, i think Samsung did copy Apple, but the whole case should have been based on the trademark (which protects arguably less) for consumer confusion, period.
there should have been nothing to argue about patents for Apple's side.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Are you this dense in real life?
How is it that something covered by a design patent is not a patented technology?
Furthermore, Apple won an injunction. If they show that new devices have the same design features covered by the design patent and the injunction, it is fairly easy to add a new device to the existing injunction - certainly easier than starting from scratch.
I realize that you're hurting because your incessant "Apple is evil and Google is great" crap is wearing thin, but please stop being so dense.
You're still wrong. Calling names won't make you any more correct.
Unless you've got some citations to prove your claim that design patents are the same as technology patents and that Apple can just add a device to the existing injunction, just as I supply proof when I make claims, perhaps you should quit before the hole you're in gets deeper. No one, much less me, said design patents weren't patents. Of course they are, but they're not the same as patents on technology. Utility patents protect the technology used to make a thing work. Design patents are used to protect the way a thing looks, it's ornamental appearance. Don't muddy the waters for casual readers just to create a flawed argument attempting to show you were right all along. You weren't.
Of course, since I never said that, your entire post is moot. Of course, the fact that there's no such legal thing as a 'technology patent' makes your question even more meaningless (I think the term you're looking for is 'utility patent'.
I said that they're both patents. They both cover technology. Leave it to you to be confused over such a simple matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course, since I never said that, your entire post is moot. Of course, the fact that there's no such legal thing as a 'technology patent' makes your question even more meaningless (I think the term you're looking for is 'utility patent'.
I said that they're both patents. They both cover technology. Leave it to you to be confused over such a simple matter.
I tried to explain the difference to you, and I'm pretty certain you understood it even tho you don't want to. No matter really, since probably every other reader now understands what the two patent types are for if they didn't already. Since you have nothing to add apparently, and not a single citation to offer, why don't we just move along? You can't win this one by being honest and I don't feel like talking any further to someone who's not listening anyway. We're done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
They tried to ban the original model in Australia too but failed.
That was the "revised" 10.1, the 10.1V was unaffected.
Before iPad 2
After iPad 2
Of course you want to move along - because you're flat out wrong.
I never claimed it was a technology patent. I said that patented technology was involved.
Let me spell it out for you - since you're obviously incapable of connecting the dots:
1. The iPad is a technology device.
2. The iPad was covered by a design patent.
3. Therefore, the design of the iPad involves patented technology.
You're the one who keeps dreaming up bizarre interpretations. Especially since you don't even realize that what you're referring to is a 'utility patent', not a 'technology patent'. But since no one but you ever mentioned a technology patent, it's moot.
And Samsung never used that design before......oh wait they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123
i really liked Samsung's explanation...
well, it doesn't infringe, but even if it did, you shouldn't stop the sales because it doesn't even compete with Apple's iPad because they are using 3G and we are using 4G
lol...
That like a car company copying a car 75% of the way, then saying... well it doesn't really compete with the product we copied because we put in a 300 hp engine and not a 200 hp engine.
We're talking about an injunction hearing. Actual damages are determined if/once a case has been proven or the parties settle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar
You seriously need to get a life. These are just gadgets.
There is little point in arguing with the mentally handicapped. I suggest ignoring him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And Samsung never used that design before......oh wait they did.
While that was a picture frame, it does point out the generic nature of the front of these devices. The comparison photos are always silly because you can make people believe whatever you want. The troll picture of before/Apple on tablets and phones comes to mind. It brought up many phones that in some cases dated back to a decade before the iphone.
And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.
Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!
It's different in the same way a golf cart isn't an SUV.
You're not that dense. Don't pretend to be.
Like this? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And really how different is a digital photo frame to a tablet? A digital picture frame has at the very least a GPU, memory storage, and a rudimentary OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!
SolipsismX,
No, that was a quite logical comment by dasanman69. You can not say that photo frame is nothing like IPad. Designwise, they are almost the same. Technowise, they are similar but IPad has more features and thin form factor due to mainly technological improvements by others like Samsung over the 4 year difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So? Are you claiming that something covered by a design patent isn't a patented device?
No, he's pointing out that you have only a vague understanding of the facts at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Are you this dense in real life?
How is it that something covered by a design patent is not a patented technology?
Furthermore, Apple won an injunction. If they show that new devices have the same design features covered by the design patent and the injunction, it is fairly easy to add a new device to the existing injunction - certainly easier than starting from scratch.
I realize that you're hurting because your incessant "Apple is evil and Google is great" crap is wearing thin, but please stop being so dense.
You don't quite understand what is said to you. And you keep insisting that you are correct without offereing a shred of evidence.
I'm sorry, you… can't believe this.
ROTLFMAO,
Of course, you're ignoring one major fact. I predicted months ago that Koh would have to issue the injunction based on the wording of her order and the appeals court order. I was right.
OTOH, you and all the other Apple hating shills were busy saying that Apple lost and would never win any major court battles. You were wrong.
So who understands the issues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm sorry, you… can't believe this.
Tallest Skil,
visit following link and READ the spec.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
Did.
I'm sorry, but you really cannot believe what you have said.
just invalidate the stupid utility patents that do not really add "EFFECTS" to already existing tablet devices.
becoming thin/slim/minimal form factor is a natural evolution of a tablet just like TVs did.
allowing apple's design/utility patent regarding the ipad is equivalent to saying to LG, 'don't make lcd TVs anymore because Samsung patented the TVs that are slim and thin with black glass edge-to-edge bezel.'
come on USPTO. time to be serious about invention and novelty in each patents filed to your office.
btw, i think Samsung did copy Apple, but the whole case should have been based on the trademark (which protects arguably less) for consumer confusion, period.
there should have been nothing to argue about patents for Apple's side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
...becoming thin/slim/minimal form factor is a natural evolution of a tablet just like TVs did.
Patents are issued on thin/slim/minimal form factor.