This is not an endorsement of all your arguments, but that's a nice bit of research finding and referencing the actual Apple complaint against Samsung.
EDIT: After reading thru Apple's complaint, they got a lot of valid ones with certain older Samsung devices IMO, particularly in the areas of trade dress, trademarks. Thanks for the link.
This is not an endorsement of all your arguments, but that's a nice bit of research finding and referencing the actual Apple complaint against Samsung.
EDIT: After reading thru Apple's complaint, they got a lot of valid ones with certain older Samsung devices IMO, particularly in the areas of trade dress, trademarks. Thanks for the link.
TBh I haven't had the time to go through all of it.
After reading it I do sympathise more with the Apple claim but I guess that is to be expected given that I have not read through the counter argument.
Reading the document with benefit of hindsight, one can see a number of errors. Some of those errors would be the result of changes after writing, for example Apple stating that they own the term multi-touch, I can't remember specifics but the application was rejected after the document was written. Other errors can best be described as "poetic licence".
Comments
This is not an endorsement of all your arguments, but that's a nice bit of research finding and referencing the actual Apple complaint against Samsung.
EDIT: After reading thru Apple's complaint, they got a lot of valid ones with certain older Samsung devices IMO, particularly in the areas of trade dress, trademarks. Thanks for the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
This is not an endorsement of all your arguments, but that's a nice bit of research finding and referencing the actual Apple complaint against Samsung.
EDIT: After reading thru Apple's complaint, they got a lot of valid ones with certain older Samsung devices IMO, particularly in the areas of trade dress, trademarks. Thanks for the link.
TBh I haven't had the time to go through all of it.
After reading it I do sympathise more with the Apple claim but I guess that is to be expected given that I have not read through the counter argument.
Reading the document with benefit of hindsight, one can see a number of errors. Some of those errors would be the result of changes after writing, for example Apple stating that they own the term multi-touch, I can't remember specifics but the application was rejected after the document was written. Other errors can best be described as "poetic licence".