And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
Censorship? How is getting a non-existing device as evidence thrown out censorship? It's just irrelevant.
Fictional products aren't functional products. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo , not once are the devices moved. Even the startrek PADD's you see in TNG are non-functional props. The touch screens are just backlit plastic.
Don't even bother. When some people ahve made up their minds about what 'side' they want to be on, facts, common sense, reason, etc cease to matter. It's a pretty disgusting aspect of human nature, but it is what it is. Just shriek 'censorship', 'Apple bias', and call it a day. The judge dismissed ridiculous, irrelevant evidence by Samsung? Apple bias. Censorship. What the 'evidence' actually is, is utterly irrelevant. Try to imagine what these people would be saying if Apple was pulling this shit. Yeah, I can see the full throated defences in that case.
There's some live-blogging going on. Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller and handed him the wrong one. Schiller cracks a joke "Well, they're confusing".
Priceless.
EDIT: Samsung shows a chart of a survey that claims only 1% of buyers think phone design is an important criteria for choosing a device. Apple previously showed a survey that said 85% of people considered design important.
Really Samsung? Maybe your buyers are less concerned, but to claim only 1%? Schiller objected saying it's worthless without knowing the methedology of the study.
The survey was probably done around the office of Quinn Emmanuel.
Using Samsung's 1% figure completely destroys the "iSheep" argument.
Forstall says he has 1,000 people working DIRECTLY for him. Huh? I can see that many people (or more) working on iOS, but working directly for Scott? Seems a bit high.
Fortstall has always struck me as "a bit of an over-reacher," shall we say?
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
[Tripe from Wikipedia here]
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
LOL (I'm sure you're a troll.)
Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea. Then theres the question of what Samsung thinks that bit of movie footage is prior art for? Have they ever even said?
Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea.
Sorry, when the patent being asserted is about look and feel, it IS prior art. There were a lot of flip phones out before this, but nooo, they weren't at all influenced by the Star Trek communicator. Oh wait, yes they were. There is nothing at all revolutionary here, really. It's just taking the same industrial / international design style that's been been used on furniture and buildings in... oh, the 1920s, and using it for computers and phones.
Sorry, when the patent being asserted is about look and feel, it IS prior art. There were a lot of flip phones out before this, but nooo, they weren't at all influenced by the Star Trek communicator. Oh wait, yes they were. There is nothing at all revolutionary here, really. It's just taking the same industrial / international design style that's been been used on furniture and buildings in... oh, the 1920s, and using it for computers and phones.
But hey, everything old is new again, and evidently repatentable. It worked for Disney with The Great Mouse Detective, after all.
Two links on modern furniture design as your citation that a movie prop is prior art? That's so incredibly lame and ignorant.
Clearly you have no understanding of of the fact that "prior art" is a legal term with a very specific meaning with regard to patents.
Perhaps I am too harsh?
Maybe I should assess your credibility based on your lengthy 1 day membership here at AI and your long history of zero credible contributions to the forum? :-)
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea.</span>
Sorry, when the patent being asserted is about look and feel, it IS prior art. There were a lot of flip phones out before this, but nooo, they weren't at all influenced by the Star Trek communicator. Oh wait, yes they were. There is nothing at all revolutionary here, really. It's just taking the same industrial / international design style that's been been used on furniture and buildings in... oh, the 1920s, and using it for computers and phones.
But hey, everything old is new again, and evidently repatentable. It worked for Disney with The Great Mouse Detective, after all.
So it may have changed, but my understanding was that "look and feel" is a term applied solely to GUIs or APIs. The shape of the device, packaging etc., would be trade dress. The fictional devices seem unlikely to constitute prior art either for look and feel since they had no functioning GUI, or for trade dress arguments since they only resemble the products in a couple of rather limited ways.
Forstall says he has 1,000 people working DIRECTLY for him. Huh? I can see that many people (or more) working on iOS, but working directly for Scott? Seems a bit high.
Seems about right. He has the Siri team working for him, which is the largest department Apple has.
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea.</span>
Sorry, when the patent being asserted is about look and feel, it IS prior art.
Please try to keep up. You can't use science fiction films as prior art. And your use of Wikipedia as proof of anything is laughable.
Yes one could. Prior art isn’t limited to just devices, but includes books, brochures, web pages, etc. A film would fall under a “printed publication.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbryan
This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on the Internet in20 years (yes, including years before the commercial web). I presume it must be trolling, but really, a prop in a sci fi movie as prior art? It is a prop, not an invention. The judge quite properly excluded it because the assertion was incredibly stupid and has no place in a court of law. The lawyers for Samsung should be (and might be) ashamed of themselves for such a frivolous motion.
The judge excluded the 2001 art because it was disclosed too late, not on the merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
LOL (I'm sure you're a troll.)
Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea. Then theres the question of what Samsung thinks that bit of movie footage is prior art for? Have they ever even said?
You’re on the right track. I think what you’re getting at is the enablement requirement: the prior art has to enable one to make and use the invention. For most utility patents, one probably won’t see this fulfilled by a science fiction film, although it would depend on the film and the invention. But 2001 was being asserted against Apple’s design patent, which covers an ornamental design, which by definition is not functional. Thus, one would only have to compare the patented design to the 2001 tablet. That said, do they actually look the same? The world may never know (or we’ll see when the next guy challenges the patent).
Samsung's legal team is fighting dirty and trying to confuse the jury. My take on this is that they're either pushing for mistrial or laying the grounds for appeal. The late submissions, "answering media queries" (they claim they didn't leak the rejected submissions to the media), the irrelevant objections, etc are all designed to get Judge Koh's back up (notice how all the Samsungites hailed her as the best judge when she recently rule for Samsung, now these same people are asking her to recuse herself or be removed by a higher authority for bias in Apple's favour).
The Samsung legal team hasn't just walked into court thinking they would win -- I think they actually know they are going to lose, so they will prolong this case as long as possible -- didn't the Apple-Microsoft case run for nearly 10 years? In the meantime, Samsung can merrily duplicate Apple's product designs and Apple will be spending precious time & money litigating in every market in the world against all new Samsung products.
What Apple needs to do once the FRAND case involving Samsung is settled is find alternative suppliers of components -- US$7-US$8 billion (and rising) business with Samsung each year is going to be a good incentive for Samsung to settle. After all, we have always argued that Apple isn't about market-share but production of well-designed, simple to use and quality products. Huge profits help too.
Many posts do not credibility make. Simply someone that shares their opinion frequently. Also, I'm fairly sure that you did not instantly come into being with 300+ posts to your credit here. Summary: Throwing the n00b card isn't really useful here.
My point was more to the direction that Law Talkin' Guy made, just without as good of terminology. Ornamental design (right term, wrong term?) or trade dress that's being asserted, the style vastly predates the case under consideration. Is Apple trying to claim a patent on industrial design style as applied to phones?
When I think of trade dress or ornamental design... I think I think of the double scoop inlet that BMW has. It's not their logo, which would be trademark, but it's a feature that's instantly recognized as BMW. I don't see that for the phone.
Ok maybe I'm just thick but I don't see how one question could get an 80%+ response and the other only 1%. They don't seem that different to me.
Samsung cited a survey implying only 1% of buyers thought design was an important criteria for choosing a device. This was completely inaccurate and intentionally misleading (typical for Samsung).
What the 1% said was that design was their FIRST consideration (other than price) when choosing a device. So only 1% thought it was THE most important factor.
However, in a separate question 85% stated that they considered design important.
Yes one could. Prior art isn’t limited to just devices, but includes books, brochures, web pages, etc. A film would fall under a “printed publication.”
The judge excluded the 2001 art because it was disclosed too late, not on the merits.
You’re on the right track. I think what you’re getting at is the enablement requirement: the prior art has to enable one to make and use the invention. For most utility patents, one probably won’t see this fulfilled by a science fiction film, although it would depend on the film and the invention. But 2001 was being asserted against Apple’s design patent, which covers an ornamental design, which by definition is not functional. Thus, one would only have to compare the patented design to the 2001 tablet. That said, do they actually look the same? The world may never know (or we’ll see when the next guy challenges the patent).
Many posts do not credibility make. Simply someone that shares their opinion frequently. Also, I'm fairly sure that you did not instantly come into being with 300+ posts to your credit here. Summary: Throwing the n00b card isn't really useful here.
My point was more to the direction that Law Talkin' Guy made, just without as good of terminology. Ornamental design (right term, wrong term?) or trade dress that's being asserted, the style vastly predates the case under consideration. Is Apple trying to claim a patent on industrial design style as applied to phones?
When I think of trade dress or ornamental design... I think I think of the double scoop inlet that BMW has. It's not their logo, which would be trademark, but it's a feature that's instantly recognized as BMW. I don't see that for the phone.
Re: muppetry
Fair enough.
Re: PhilBoogie
....
Well played, sir.
I love all the Samsung shills who just signed up days ago to troll this forum.
That’s pretty compelling. For design patents, the bar is quite high for prior art to look like the patented design. Just remember that one must compare the 2001 tablet to the patent, not an iPad. (I’m not saying your conclusion will be different.)
That’s pretty compelling. For design patents, the bar is quite high for prior art to look like the patented design. Just remember that one must compare the 2001 tablet to the patent, not an iPad. (I’m not saying your conclusion will be different.)
Excellent comment. I don't think Apple is even claiming the two design patents they are asserting against the Samsung phones apply to the iPhone. They appear to be an old iPhone design, but again I don't see where Apple is claiming that.
As an example, here's what Apple actually says the design patent they're asserting against Samsung's smartphones encompasses. It's not limited to a smartphone, nor even resembling an iPhone in features and functions:
Patent No.: US D618,677 S
** *Jun.29,2010
"The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein. (ie, it could be much larger or much smaller)
As indicated in the title, the article of manufacture to which
the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic
device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player),
media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), (even)a novelty item or toy"
And here's the supposed iPad design patent that Apple's claims Samsung to be violating. It doesn't mention the iPad tho the last image (#9) obviously shows a portable device of some kind that could be an iPad. Oddly they point out the dotted line showing the apparent display area is not part of their claims. Some may be surprised by the lack of details and description, but that's the entire patent and it's claims.
I'm not a shill, I'm a technology enthusiast. I'm sure there's a lot of those about here, on both sides of the fence.
I think the fight between Samsung and Apple comes down to whether someone can patent minimalism. Yes, Apple seems to have embraced it more quickly and fully than most, but that doesn't give them exclusive use of it. Really, pointing out that nobody else is using something doesn't really make for an argument about it being an innovation. It just means they're not using it. Price per unit is/was a concern, design philosophies develop nice ruts, and I'm pretty sure everyone has taken a look at a product and said "That looks like hammered crap, what the hell were they THINKING?". This stuff has always been there to draw inspiration from, it's just that it wasn't pursued because folks got bogged down in being plastic fantastic.
So yeah. I want more simple, elegant design from everyone. And less of this nonsense about who was first when neither was.
OK I'm confused. Is he saying the top two reasons are price and design? Or that only 1% thought design was an important element?
Let me explain with a different example. If someone punches you, which part of your body would you protect other than your head?
Now people could answer a dozen things - neck, legs, crotch, whatever. If 1% of people say they will protect their crotch - would you draw a conclusion that only 1% of people care about their crotch?
"Next most important" is just like that. For 1%, it is next most important. For some it might be 3rd most important. For some 4th most important. You cannot draw a conclusion saying ONLY 1% care about design.
Samsung is trying some real sneaky stuff here. But kind of expected considering how they shamelessly copied. You can't expect someone who copied so shamelessly to fight a clean legal battle!
Let me explain with a different example. If someone punches you, which part of your body would you protect other than your head?
Now people could answer a dozen things - neck, legs, crotch, whatever. If 1% of people say they will protect their crotch - would you draw a conclusion that only 1% of people care about their crotch?
"Next most important" is just like that. For 1%, it is next most important. For some it might be 3rd most important. For some 4th most important. You cannot draw a conclusion saying ONLY 1% care about design.
Samsung is trying some real sneaky stuff here. But kind of expected considering how they shamelessly copied. You can't expect someone who copied so shamelessly to fight a clean legal battle!
And the more things you list, the fewer will choose 'design'. So you can change the results simply by giving the consumer more options.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
Censorship? How is getting a non-existing device as evidence thrown out censorship? It's just irrelevant.
Do you think everyone making flipphones was sued by Motorola, and then claimed Star trek did it first? ( http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/qualcomm-announces-win-in-motorola-lawsuit-156395405.html Design patent "Foldable housing for a portable telephone")
Fictional products aren't functional products. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo , not once are the devices moved. Even the startrek PADD's you see in TNG are non-functional props. The touch screens are just backlit plastic.
Don't even bother. When some people ahve made up their minds about what 'side' they want to be on, facts, common sense, reason, etc cease to matter. It's a pretty disgusting aspect of human nature, but it is what it is. Just shriek 'censorship', 'Apple bias', and call it a day. The judge dismissed ridiculous, irrelevant evidence by Samsung? Apple bias. Censorship. What the 'evidence' actually is, is utterly irrelevant. Try to imagine what these people would be saying if Apple was pulling this shit. Yeah, I can see the full throated defences in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
LOL.
There's some live-blogging going on. Samsung got its own phones confused when cross-examining Schiller and handed him the wrong one. Schiller cracks a joke "Well, they're confusing".
Priceless.
EDIT: Samsung shows a chart of a survey that claims only 1% of buyers think phone design is an important criteria for choosing a device. Apple previously showed a survey that said 85% of people considered design important.
Really Samsung? Maybe your buyers are less concerned, but to claim only 1%? Schiller objected saying it's worthless without knowing the methedology of the study.
The survey was probably done around the office of Quinn Emmanuel.
Using Samsung's 1% figure completely destroys the "iSheep" argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Forstall says he has 1,000 people working DIRECTLY for him. Huh? I can see that many people (or more) working on iOS, but working directly for Scott? Seems a bit high.
Fortstall has always struck me as "a bit of an over-reacher," shall we say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Apple lawyers need to cool it. I've watched the scene in 2001, a 1968 film, that has a device that looks and behaves remarkably like an iPad. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
[Tripe from Wikipedia here]
And yet that's something Apple has sought to exclude, apparently successfully. That's censorship Apple. And censorship is bad.
Sorry Apple, but I don't like your tactics in this lawsuit, in and outside the courtroom. Get you own act together and quit going after Samsung. You're just hot and bothered because you have a competitor in a space you think you own.
LOL (I'm sure you're a troll.)
Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea. Then theres the question of what Samsung thinks that bit of movie footage is prior art for? Have they ever even said?
Quote:
Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea.
Sorry, when the patent being asserted is about look and feel, it IS prior art. There were a lot of flip phones out before this, but nooo, they weren't at all influenced by the Star Trek communicator. Oh wait, yes they were. There is nothing at all revolutionary here, really. It's just taking the same industrial / international design style that's been been used on furniture and buildings in... oh, the 1920s, and using it for computers and phones.
http://www.buffaloah.com/f/fstyles/mod/modern.html
http://www.buffaloah.com/a/DCTNRY/i/intrntl.html
But hey, everything old is new again, and evidently repatentable. It worked for Disney with The Great Mouse Detective, after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DryBones
Sorry, when the patent being asserted is about look and feel, it IS prior art. There were a lot of flip phones out before this, but nooo, they weren't at all influenced by the Star Trek communicator. Oh wait, yes they were. There is nothing at all revolutionary here, really. It's just taking the same industrial / international design style that's been been used on furniture and buildings in... oh, the 1920s, and using it for computers and phones.
http://www.buffaloah.com/f/fstyles/mod/modern.html
http://www.buffaloah.com/a/DCTNRY/i/intrntl.html
But hey, everything old is new again, and evidently repatentable. It worked for Disney with The Great Mouse Detective, after all.
Two links on modern furniture design as your citation that a movie prop is prior art? That's so incredibly lame and ignorant.
Clearly you have no understanding of of the fact that "prior art" is a legal term with a very specific meaning with regard to patents.
Perhaps I am too harsh?
Maybe I should assess your credibility based on your lengthy 1 day membership here at AI and your long history of zero credible contributions to the forum? :-)
So it may have changed, but my understanding was that "look and feel" is a term applied solely to GUIs or APIs. The shape of the device, packaging etc., would be trade dress. The fictional devices seem unlikely to constitute prior art either for look and feel since they had no functioning GUI, or for trade dress arguments since they only resemble the products in a couple of rather limited ways.
Seems about right. He has the Siri team working for him, which is the largest department Apple has.
That article also answers a question being raised here: the trial lasts 4 weeks.
Here's some prior art for ya
Please try to keep up. You can't use science fiction films as prior art. And your use of Wikipedia as proof of anything is laughable.
Yes one could. Prior art isn’t limited to just devices, but includes books, brochures, web pages, etc. A film would fall under a “printed publication.”This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on the Internet in20 years (yes, including years before the commercial web). I presume it must be trolling, but really, a prop in a sci fi movie as prior art? It is a prop, not an invention. The judge quite properly excluded it because the assertion was incredibly stupid and has no place in a court of law. The lawyers for Samsung should be (and might be) ashamed of themselves for such a frivolous motion.
The judge excluded the 2001 art because it was disclosed too late, not on the merits.LOL (I'm sure you're a troll.)
Sorry, that's not prior art. somebody has to learn something about patents. A special effect, a prop, even an idea is not prior art unless it is thoroughly descriptive of the patented idea. Then theres the question of what Samsung thinks that bit of movie footage is prior art for? Have they ever even said?
You’re on the right track. I think what you’re getting at is the enablement requirement: the prior art has to enable one to make and use the invention. For most utility patents, one probably won’t see this fulfilled by a science fiction film, although it would depend on the film and the invention. But 2001 was being asserted against Apple’s design patent, which covers an ornamental design, which by definition is not functional. Thus, one would only have to compare the patented design to the 2001 tablet. That said, do they actually look the same? The world may never know (or we’ll see when the next guy challenges the patent).Samsung's legal team is fighting dirty and trying to confuse the jury. My take on this is that they're either pushing for mistrial or laying the grounds for appeal. The late submissions, "answering media queries" (they claim they didn't leak the rejected submissions to the media), the irrelevant objections, etc are all designed to get Judge Koh's back up (notice how all the Samsungites hailed her as the best judge when she recently rule for Samsung, now these same people are asking her to recuse herself or be removed by a higher authority for bias in Apple's favour).
The Samsung legal team hasn't just walked into court thinking they would win -- I think they actually know they are going to lose, so they will prolong this case as long as possible -- didn't the Apple-Microsoft case run for nearly 10 years? In the meantime, Samsung can merrily duplicate Apple's product designs and Apple will be spending precious time & money litigating in every market in the world against all new Samsung products.
What Apple needs to do once the FRAND case involving Samsung is settled is find alternative suppliers of components -- US$7-US$8 billion (and rising) business with Samsung each year is going to be a good incentive for Samsung to settle. After all, we have always argued that Apple isn't about market-share but production of well-designed, simple to use and quality products. Huge profits help too.
Re: DESuserIGN
Many posts do not credibility make. Simply someone that shares their opinion frequently. Also, I'm fairly sure that you did not instantly come into being with 300+ posts to your credit here. Summary: Throwing the n00b card isn't really useful here.
My point was more to the direction that Law Talkin' Guy made, just without as good of terminology. Ornamental design (right term, wrong term?) or trade dress that's being asserted, the style vastly predates the case under consideration. Is Apple trying to claim a patent on industrial design style as applied to phones?
When I think of trade dress or ornamental design... I think I think of the double scoop inlet that BMW has. It's not their logo, which would be trademark, but it's a feature that's instantly recognized as BMW. I don't see that for the phone.
Re: muppetry
Fair enough.
Re: PhilBoogie
....
Well played, sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Ok maybe I'm just thick but I don't see how one question could get an 80%+ response and the other only 1%. They don't seem that different to me.
Samsung cited a survey implying only 1% of buyers thought design was an important criteria for choosing a device. This was completely inaccurate and intentionally misleading (typical for Samsung).
What the 1% said was that design was their FIRST consideration (other than price) when choosing a device. So only 1% thought it was THE most important factor.
However, in a separate question 85% stated that they considered design important.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
Yes one could. Prior art isn’t limited to just devices, but includes books, brochures, web pages, etc. A film would fall under a “printed publication.”
The judge excluded the 2001 art because it was disclosed too late, not on the merits.
You’re on the right track. I think what you’re getting at is the enablement requirement: the prior art has to enable one to make and use the invention. For most utility patents, one probably won’t see this fulfilled by a science fiction film, although it would depend on the film and the invention. But 2001 was being asserted against Apple’s design patent, which covers an ornamental design, which by definition is not functional. Thus, one would only have to compare the patented design to the 2001 tablet. That said, do they actually look the same? The world may never know (or we’ll see when the next guy challenges the patent).Yup, exactly like an iPad:
- No screen bezel
- No corner radius
- No beveled edges
- No home button
- No aluminum unibody construction
- No touch interface
- Tapered chin at 45 degree angle
- Chunky "1-9" push buttons
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }This is basically a forward-looking vision of a 12", portrait format, 9-channel flat panel tv set.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by DryBones
Re: DESuserIGN
Many posts do not credibility make. Simply someone that shares their opinion frequently. Also, I'm fairly sure that you did not instantly come into being with 300+ posts to your credit here. Summary: Throwing the n00b card isn't really useful here.
My point was more to the direction that Law Talkin' Guy made, just without as good of terminology. Ornamental design (right term, wrong term?) or trade dress that's being asserted, the style vastly predates the case under consideration. Is Apple trying to claim a patent on industrial design style as applied to phones?
When I think of trade dress or ornamental design... I think I think of the double scoop inlet that BMW has. It's not their logo, which would be trademark, but it's a feature that's instantly recognized as BMW. I don't see that for the phone.
Re: muppetry
Fair enough.
Re: PhilBoogie
....
Well played, sir.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I love all the Samsung shills who just signed up days ago to troll this forum.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Yup, exactly like an iPad:
- No screen bezel
- No corner radius
- No beveled edges
- No home button
- No aluminum unibody construction
- No touch interface
- Tapered chin at 45 degree angle
- Chunky "1-9" push buttons
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
That’s pretty compelling. For design patents, the bar is quite high for prior art to look like the patented design. Just remember that one must compare the 2001 tablet to the patent, not an iPad. (I’m not saying your conclusion will be different.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
That’s pretty compelling. For design patents, the bar is quite high for prior art to look like the patented design. Just remember that one must compare the 2001 tablet to the patent, not an iPad. (I’m not saying your conclusion will be different.)Excellent comment. I don't think Apple is even claiming the two design patents they are asserting against the Samsung phones apply to the iPhone. They appear to be an old iPhone design, but again I don't see where Apple is claiming that.
As an example, here's what Apple actually says the design patent they're asserting against Samsung's smartphones encompasses. It's not limited to a smartphone, nor even resembling an iPhone in features and functions:
Patent No.: US D618,677 S
** *Jun.29,2010
"The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein. (ie, it could be much larger or much smaller)
As indicated in the title, the article of manufacture to which
the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic
device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player),
media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), (even) a novelty item or toy"
And here's the supposed iPad design patent that Apple's claims Samsung to be violating. It doesn't mention the iPad tho the last image (#9) obviously shows a portable device of some kind that could be an iPad. Oddly they point out the dotted line showing the apparent display area is not part of their claims. Some may be surprised by the lack of details and description, but that's the entire patent and it's claims.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/889patent.pdf
I'm not a shill, I'm a technology enthusiast. I'm sure there's a lot of those about here, on both sides of the fence.
I think the fight between Samsung and Apple comes down to whether someone can patent minimalism. Yes, Apple seems to have embraced it more quickly and fully than most, but that doesn't give them exclusive use of it. Really, pointing out that nobody else is using something doesn't really make for an argument about it being an innovation. It just means they're not using it. Price per unit is/was a concern, design philosophies develop nice ruts, and I'm pretty sure everyone has taken a look at a product and said "That looks like hammered crap, what the hell were they THINKING?". This stuff has always been there to draw inspiration from, it's just that it wasn't pursued because folks got bogged down in being plastic fantastic.
So yeah. I want more simple, elegant design from everyone. And less of this nonsense about who was first when neither was.
Let me explain with a different example. If someone punches you, which part of your body would you protect other than your head?
Now people could answer a dozen things - neck, legs, crotch, whatever. If 1% of people say they will protect their crotch - would you draw a conclusion that only 1% of people care about their crotch?
"Next most important" is just like that. For 1%, it is next most important. For some it might be 3rd most important. For some 4th most important. You cannot draw a conclusion saying ONLY 1% care about design.
Samsung is trying some real sneaky stuff here. But kind of expected considering how they shamelessly copied. You can't expect someone who copied so shamelessly to fight a clean legal battle!
And the more things you list, the fewer will choose 'design'. So you can change the results simply by giving the consumer more options.