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.
That's a nice straw man argument.
Design patents are not issued on "slim" any more than on "rectangles". The design patent is issued on specific features as laid out in the patent. It is not difficult to make a product with similar or even equivalent functionality without making it a copy so close that your own attorneys can't tell the difference.
Case in point:
Pre-legal battles. iPad vs Galaxy Tab. So close the attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-legal battles: iPhone 4S vs Galaxy SIII. While the overall dimensions are similar (the Galaxy is larger and maybe thinner, but they're comparable), the two look nothing alike.
Arguing that the Tab looked like the iPad because of natural evolution or because 'that's the only way to make a tablet' doesn't fly in light of the SIII example.
Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!
I was only saying they used that screen style before. Anyway I googled design patents a while ago hoping to come across some lawyer's blog. It didn't turn up anything interesting. I'm not sure the majority of these arguments really present much either way. None of them really mention anything about how a design patent is tested. It would be more interesting if we had anyone posting with some kind of background in patent law. The photo frame thing does show that the side by side things are silly whether they're for or against your side of the argument.
Design patents are not issued on "slim" any more than on "rectangles". The design patent is issued on specific features as laid out in the patent. It is not difficult to make a product with similar or even equivalent functionality without making it a copy so close that your own attorneys can't tell the difference.
Case in point:
Pre-legal battles. iPad vs Galaxy Tab. So close the attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-legal battles: iPhone 4S vs Galaxy SIII. While the overall dimensions are similar (the Galaxy is larger and maybe thinner, but they're comparable), the two look nothing alike.
Arguing that the Tab looked like the iPad because of natural evolution or because 'that's the only way to make a tablet' doesn't fly in light of the SIII example.
you have no clue what i am getting at.
i am saying that designs that do not add any "real" values to a device shouldn't be granted with patent rights from the beginning.
be it slim, rectangular, triangular, and what not. if there's no real additional effects/values on a device, then why do you grant a patent?
come on.
like i said, this entire case is more related to trademark infringement, the likelihood of consumer confusion.
I'm under the impression that this case is about the design/customer impression of the look of the product. A digital picture frame is in many ways just an under-powered tablet. So, Samsung already had a device, of similar functionality, which looked like the iPad. If Company X designed a golf cart which looked like a Hummer before the Hummer was ever designed, would you not consider it ridiculous for Hummer to take legal action against Company X selling a larger, more beefed up version of Company X's original design?
If you are reacting to the idea of apple using components made by Samsung... that is just how it goes. The R&D from other companies develop components which are incorporated into and improve many other companies' devices. Not sure what percentage comes from Samsung, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were substantial (though I have no idea the percentage).
samsung sung its last note LMAO!!! just give up some of that good $$$ you made off the people with all those junk ass smartphones too and fire all your research and development and marketing they the reson your in this mess in the first place ill work for you if the price is rght or we can do business
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
Patents are issued on thin/slim/minimal form factor.
did i say they aren't issued?
That's a nice straw man argument.
Design patents are not issued on "slim" any more than on "rectangles". The design patent is issued on specific features as laid out in the patent. It is not difficult to make a product with similar or even equivalent functionality without making it a copy so close that your own attorneys can't tell the difference.
Case in point:
Pre-legal battles. iPad vs Galaxy Tab. So close the attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-legal battles: iPhone 4S vs Galaxy SIII. While the overall dimensions are similar (the Galaxy is larger and maybe thinner, but they're comparable), the two look nothing alike.
Arguing that the Tab looked like the iPad because of natural evolution or because 'that's the only way to make a tablet' doesn't fly in light of the SIII example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Are you fucking kidding me? That can't be a serious comment!
I was only saying they used that screen style before. Anyway I googled design patents a while ago hoping to come across some lawyer's blog. It didn't turn up anything interesting. I'm not sure the majority of these arguments really present much either way. None of them really mention anything about how a design patent is tested. It would be more interesting if we had anyone posting with some kind of background in patent law. The photo frame thing does show that the side by side things are silly whether they're for or against your side of the argument.
afioaefbaoefboaef arg
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's a nice straw man argument.
Design patents are not issued on "slim" any more than on "rectangles". The design patent is issued on specific features as laid out in the patent. It is not difficult to make a product with similar or even equivalent functionality without making it a copy so close that your own attorneys can't tell the difference.
Case in point:
Pre-legal battles. iPad vs Galaxy Tab. So close the attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-legal battles: iPhone 4S vs Galaxy SIII. While the overall dimensions are similar (the Galaxy is larger and maybe thinner, but they're comparable), the two look nothing alike.
Arguing that the Tab looked like the iPad because of natural evolution or because 'that's the only way to make a tablet' doesn't fly in light of the SIII example.
you have no clue what i am getting at.
i am saying that designs that do not add any "real" values to a device shouldn't be granted with patent rights from the beginning.
be it slim, rectangular, triangular, and what not. if there's no real additional effects/values on a device, then why do you grant a patent?
come on.
like i said, this entire case is more related to trademark infringement, the likelihood of consumer confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm sorry, you… can't believe this.
Why not?
I'm under the impression that this case is about the design/customer impression of the look of the product. A digital picture frame is in many ways just an under-powered tablet. So, Samsung already had a device, of similar functionality, which looked like the iPad. If Company X designed a golf cart which looked like a Hummer before the Hummer was ever designed, would you not consider it ridiculous for Hummer to take legal action against Company X selling a larger, more beefed up version of Company X's original design?
If you are reacting to the idea of apple using components made by Samsung... that is just how it goes. The R&D from other companies develop components which are incorporated into and improve many other companies' devices. Not sure what percentage comes from Samsung, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were substantial (though I have no idea the percentage).
samsung sung its last note LMAO!!! just give up some of that good $$$ you made off the people with all those junk ass smartphones too and fire all your research and development and marketing they the reson your in this mess in the first place ill work for you if the price is rght or we can do business