It points to the momentum shift from North America to elsewhere in patents that matters to people, i.e. HDTV, 4G LTE, etc... So people overseas don't patent rectangles because they've been living with rectangles since eons ago.
But since you can't patent rectangles in the U.S., either, that's a silly point.
You CAN get a design patent for a specific design that might contain a rectangle, but that's true around the world, as well (at least in countries that have design patents).
IThe late SJ famously commented on this incident: "Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases." I wonder if Apple has already been granted a patent by USPTO for "THE CORRECT GRIP" complete with its schematics. As far as I know, there is no "prior art" for this idiocy.
Idiocy? What's wrong with Jobs' statement? It has been confirmed repeatedly by independent labs around the world. ANY phone has its signal attenuated when you grip it and the amount of attenuation varies.
Again, it's a shame we can't have brighter trolls.
Forget the galaxy S (I think Samsung is guilty there) but do people here REALLY think the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad? Not even the OS is similar in almost any way...
I genuinely want to know...
Then ask the Samsung attorneys who couldn't tell the difference in a court room (I wonder if that will be admissible in this trial).
Or, ask Samsung for the documents they filed in court that said that the #1 reason for returns at Best Buy were because the customer thought they were buying an iPad and found out when they got home that it wasn't.
Arguing that they don't look similar enough to confuse is disingenuous, at best, and outright trolling at worst.
My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.
I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.
Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.
Wasn't their original goal to make money from advertising back when you "actively promoted them"?
I also doubt they are paid for posting here, but why did you assume that you are in that supposed category?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
I've been accused before.
Not by me, although, it's not the first time you've gotten all defensive when I've mentioned shills. I've always just thought that you don't think or write clearly enough for someone to pay you to do this.
Not by me, although, it's not the first time you've gotten all defensive when I've mentioned shills. I've always just thought that you don't think or write clearly enough for someone to pay you to do this.
Yep. If these trolls are shills, their employers aren't getting their money's worth.
My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.
I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.
Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Wasn't their original goal to make money from advertising back when you "actively promoted them"?
Advertising isn't the same as violating individual privacy to build profiles sold to advertisers. It's interesting that you can't make that distinction, though.
But since you can't patent rectangles in the U.S., either, that's a silly point.
You CAN get a design patent for a specific design that might contain a rectangle, but that's true around the world, as well (at least in countries that have design patents).
I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.
So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?
Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.
Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything Apple has shown with dotted lines is not part of their patent claims and for "illustrative purposes only". They're not claiming the protected design applies to anything other than a one-dimension view as far as I can tell, but Jragosta can probably explain better than I can.
I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.
So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?
Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.
The simple answer is that the design patent describes a 3-dimensional object, thus, it clearly isn't a rectangle. But, it's obvious to anyone who actually looks at the patent for 30 seconds that there is much, much more to it than just a cuboid. But, then, you and Samsung's lawyers know that. You are, as usual, being disingenuous. I guess you were, also as usual, hoping no one would actually follow your link. I don't think you've ever posted a link that actually supports your assertions.
It points to the momentum shift from North America to elsewhere in patents that matters to people, i.e. HDTV, 4G LTE, etc... So people overseas don't patent rectangles because they've been living with rectangles since eons ago. The two ancient civilizations in the world , the Korean and Chinese civilizations, have enjoyed living with rectangular, circular and triangular objects since thousands of years before Christ was even born. In addition, people all over love to use rectangular objects with sharp edges because they enjoy to hurt their arms, bodies and legs when they use them. After all, in all of us, apparently, deep inside all of us, we have that hidden masochistic side awaiting to be discovered.
And, to make you happier, I will fix my original statement:
It sort of explains Apple idiotic moves in both Australian and Europe where they sold Ipad3 with wrong 4G LTE [SIZE=16px]band[/SIZE] there?
And, of course, ala fanboism, you BELIEVE Apple's explanation of what's going on.
In any case, Apple is still behaving rather idiotic. Apple is selling IPAD3 without studying its market? Hmmm,. It feels very un-Apple like. But wait, what if Apple can get away with it. It can rely on fanboism. Fanbois are like those people with "hidden masochistic" tendencies. They will either let it slide or start blaming themselves for living in the wrong countries. But, Apple offer refunds for those who are not happy with their Ipad3 in those countries, but not before being threatened with class lawsuits. It is like that "never happened" DEATH GRIP issue. The funny thing is Apple offered 12 bucks for every Iphone owners with this specific issue, but, again, only after it was settled out of court in late February 2012.
The late SJ famously commented on this incident: "Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases." I wonder if Apple has already been granted a patent by USPTO for "THE CORRECT GRIP" complete with its schematics. As far as I know, there is no "prior art" for this idiocy.
So many idiotic comments in a single post that you must be trolling. I'll split the difference and note Apple never advertised 4G LTE as working in Australia so there was no wrong operating bands being used (which is difference from your original comment) and go ahead and follow the more intelligent posters on this forum by putting you on my ignore list.
Wow. That alone should make the case a slam dunk. Samsung makes prototypes and then decides to modify the prototypes because they're not close enough to Apple's product.
It's really amazing how many people will still insist that Samsung wasn't copying Apple and all cell phones must have shaded icons and 'fluid rounded corners' on the icons. Samsung didn't, copy, it's just natural (other than, of course, the fact that their original prototype didn't have those things.
I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.
So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?
<p id="user_yui_3_4_1_1_1344171605439_590" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf</p>
Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.
Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything shown with dotted lines is not part of the patent claims, so it's not describing a 3-dimensional object.
The link you provided has 48 figures and a bunch of text. If you can't figure it out, you need help beyond what anyone can provide here.
As for it not being a 3 dimensional object, you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY object on the planet is three dimensional. Obviously, they're describing a three dimensional object.
If the document is authentic then it does look like bad news for Samsung's defense. Trying to counter that kind of solid evidence with "Apple was inspired by Sony" or "Apple are now thinking of entering the 7" tablet market" seems unlikely to cut it, even with an average jury.
The link you provided has 48 figures and a bunch of text. If you can't figure it out, you need help beyond what anyone can provide here.
As for it not being a 3 dimensional object, you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY object on the planet is three dimensional. Obviously, they're describing a three dimensional object.
As I said in my earlier post, it's very clear to you what Apple is claiming, unlike many of us. Since your understanding of it is much better than most, please do the forum members (and not me) a favor and continue to explain what Apple is really claiming so that any possible validity to those "Apple patented a rounded rectangle" stories can be put to rest once and for all. I agree there's more to it than those two elements IMO.
You have an opportunity to share your understanding of it so the rest of us can understand too. Simply telling others they're wrong about "rounded rectangles" doesn't mean much if you can't explain why they're wrong. I'm confident you can.
Wow. That alone should make the case a slam dunk. Samsung makes prototypes and then decides to modify the prototypes because they're not close enough to Apple's product.
That isn't how I read that image. I'd argue 1( their comparison to the 3D effect and icon edge was that it had to be more like Apple's but that it wasn't nearly as good as Apple's because it lacked fluidity. This is the comparative evaluation that one Apple exec talked about on the stand, and 2) their mention of the icons was to show that it was too close to the iPhone, meaning they should be made more unique as to not be confusing. That said, this is very damaging but whoever made this image was clearly trying to show where they could improve on the UI and one of those ways to not make it so iOS-like.
I am not someone that blindly defends Apple and condemns Android. In general, I would defend Android itself from various accusations. That said, I think Samsung has knowingly and intentionally designed their products and UI to look like the iPhone and it would confuse all but the most trained eye. They customized Android to be more like iOS- and I feel very different about that.
All major tech companies patent things that are obvious and should never have been awarded a patent, but that is an entirely different issue. The issue at question here is whether Samsung knowingly stole design elements and infringed Apple patents. Apple will use patents to prove that case, some I probably disagree with, but that's really irrelevant to whether Apple will win or loose. I am sure Samsung tried to have some of the patents invalidated, but courts are pretty conservative with patents. That is exactly why there are so many calls for patent reform. Until that happens, Samsung and others must operate within the law, whether they agree with it or not.
That said, with the level or disregard to intellectual property Samsung has shown, I doubt patent reform would prevent them from loosing this case. Patent reform would change patent standards, not eliminate patents entirely. Apple is painting a pretty clear picture that the entire strategy was to copy the iPhone, and much of that evidence is from internal memos and emails. That is bad news for Samsung.
Wow. That alone should make the case a slam dunk. Samsung makes prototypes and then decides to modify the prototypes because they're not close enough to Apple's product.
That isn't how I read that image. I'd argue 1( their comparison to the 3D effect and icon edge was that it had to be more like Apple's but that it wasn't nearly as good as Apple's because it lacked fluidity. This is the comparative evaluation that one Apple exec talked about on the stand, and 2) their mention of the icons was to show that it was too close to the iPhone, meaning they should be made more unique as to not be confusing. That said, this is very damaging but whoever made this image was clearly trying to show where they could improve on the UI and one of those ways to not make it so iOS-like.
I'd agree, based on the 3rd direction listed, but the first two directions seem quite clearly intended to make it more similar to iOS. It suggests that there is a lack coherent direction and internal design inspiration at Samsung.
All major tech companies patent things that are obvious and should never have been awarded a patent, but that is an entirely different issue. The issue at question here is whether Samsung knowingly stole design elements
I agree in general, and believe they borrowed just a bit too heavily in their original S series phones a few years back. I also think they've realized it's not worth it either, with making more unique design choices not all that expensive nor difficult compared to litigation.
I'd agree, based on the 3rd direction listed, but the first two directions seem quite clearly intended to make it more similar to iOS. It suggests that there is a lack coherent direction and internal design inspiration at Samsung.
I can see that argument but I read it as an acknowledgement that it's not nearly as attractive as Apple's icons and they list two distinct reasons why. I'd argue that a more pleasant look and feel was what needed to be "copied", not simply making it look as close to iOS icons as possible. I me that is a distinct different in the focus of whoever made this comparison. That said, it does show that Samsung copied too many things too closet an then didn't change them when they were pointed out.
- MacBook Air set the price point for its segment. Even today, the only way anyone has managed to beat the price is by significantly cutting features.
- iPhone - priced right in line with other premium phones
- MacPro - generally lower than competitive Xeon systems of similar quality, particularly when you look at the dual CPU version
- iMac - you still can't find a comparable 27" AIO for less
- iPad - other 10" tablets are around the same price
Apple's profits and success are not coming from a significant premium in pricing as they did in the past. Today, their prices are pretty much in line with the market while their margins are from volume, design efficiency, and an unmatched supply chain.
You're confusing 'popular' and 'profitable' with 'luxury brand'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
ROTFLMAO.
Apple:
Some of the 7" tablets on the market appear to be reasonably successful. Maybe we should make one.
Samsung:
Apple's iPad is the industry leader, so let's copy as many details as we can, including the appearance of the product, patented software technologies, the packaging, the cables, the icons, and anything else we can think of.
You think those two are equivalent?
Dude, you make way, way too much sense in your posts. Does the internet know you're here?
I'd agree, based on the 3rd direction listed, but the first two directions seem quite clearly intended to make it more similar to iOS. It suggests that there is a lack coherent direction and internal design inspiration at Samsung.
I can see that argument but I read it as an acknowledgement that it's not nearly as attractive as Apple's icons and they list two distinct reasons why. I'd argue that a more pleasant look and feel was what needed to be "copied", not simply making it look as close to iOS icons as possible. I me that is a distinct different in the focus of whoever made this comparison. That said, it does show that Samsung copied too many things too closet an then didn't change them when they were pointed out.
Fair enough - could be what they were trying to do.
Comments
But since you can't patent rectangles in the U.S., either, that's a silly point.
You CAN get a design patent for a specific design that might contain a rectangle, but that's true around the world, as well (at least in countries that have design patents).
I really wish we could find some brighter trolls.
Idiocy? What's wrong with Jobs' statement? It has been confirmed repeatedly by independent labs around the world. ANY phone has its signal attenuated when you grip it and the amount of attenuation varies.
Again, it's a shame we can't have brighter trolls.
Then ask the Samsung attorneys who couldn't tell the difference in a court room (I wonder if that will be admissible in this trial).
Or, ask Samsung for the documents they filed in court that said that the #1 reason for returns at Best Buy were because the customer thought they were buying an iPad and found out when they got home that it wasn't.
Arguing that they don't look similar enough to confuse is disingenuous, at best, and outright trolling at worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.
I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.
Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.
Wasn't their original goal to make money from advertising back when you "actively promoted them"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I also doubt they are paid for posting here, but why did you assume that you are in that supposed category?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
I've been accused before.
Not by me, although, it's not the first time you've gotten all defensive when I've mentioned shills. I've always just thought that you don't think or write clearly enough for someone to pay you to do this.
Yep. If these trolls are shills, their employers aren't getting their money's worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
My opinion is that Google have become a bunch of sleaze bags since figuring out that they can make money out of selling information about people attracted to their honeypots to advertisers.
I actively promoted them when they came out of Stanford in the mid nineties, unfortunately they became corrupted by greed.
Google's abuse of standards essential patents using Motorola is the lowest form of patent trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Wasn't their original goal to make money from advertising back when you "actively promoted them"?
Advertising isn't the same as violating individual privacy to build profiles sold to advertisers. It's interesting that you can't make that distinction, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But since you can't patent rectangles in the U.S., either, that's a silly point.
You CAN get a design patent for a specific design that might contain a rectangle, but that's true around the world, as well (at least in countries that have design patents).
I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.
So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf
Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.
Of note to others who follow the patent link, anything Apple has shown with dotted lines is not part of their patent claims and for "illustrative purposes only". They're not claiming the protected design applies to anything other than a one-dimension view as far as I can tell, but Jragosta can probably explain better than I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I agree with you Jr. You can't patent a rectangle.
So as to put all that silly talk to rest, and since you understand it so well, could you explain in words to those less knowledgeable what Apple is claiming ownership of with this patent they're asserting against Samsung smartphones?
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf
Forum members have a lot of respect for what you have to say, so your explanation of what Apple has patented would go a long ways towards putting all this talk about rounded rectangles to bed.
The simple answer is that the design patent describes a 3-dimensional object, thus, it clearly isn't a rectangle. But, it's obvious to anyone who actually looks at the patent for 30 seconds that there is much, much more to it than just a cuboid. But, then, you and Samsung's lawyers know that. You are, as usual, being disingenuous. I guess you were, also as usual, hoping no one would actually follow your link. I don't think you've ever posted a link that actually supports your assertions.
So many idiotic comments in a single post that you must be trolling. I'll split the difference and note Apple never advertised 4G LTE as working in Australia so there was no wrong operating bands being used (which is difference from your original comment) and go ahead and follow the more intelligent posters on this forum by putting you on my ignore list.
Wow. That alone should make the case a slam dunk. Samsung makes prototypes and then decides to modify the prototypes because they're not close enough to Apple's product.
It's really amazing how many people will still insist that Samsung wasn't copying Apple and all cell phones must have shaded icons and 'fluid rounded corners' on the icons. Samsung didn't, copy, it's just natural (other than, of course, the fact that their original prototype didn't have those things.
The link you provided has 48 figures and a bunch of text. If you can't figure it out, you need help beyond what anyone can provide here.
As for it not being a 3 dimensional object, you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY object on the planet is three dimensional. Obviously, they're describing a three dimensional object.
If the document is authentic then it does look like bad news for Samsung's defense. Trying to counter that kind of solid evidence with "Apple was inspired by Sony" or "Apple are now thinking of entering the 7" tablet market" seems unlikely to cut it, even with an average jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The link you provided has 48 figures and a bunch of text. If you can't figure it out, you need help beyond what anyone can provide here.
As for it not being a 3 dimensional object, you couldn't be more wrong. EVERY object on the planet is three dimensional. Obviously, they're describing a three dimensional object.
As I said in my earlier post, it's very clear to you what Apple is claiming, unlike many of us. Since your understanding of it is much better than most, please do the forum members (and not me) a favor and continue to explain what Apple is really claiming so that any possible validity to those "Apple patented a rounded rectangle" stories can be put to rest once and for all. I agree there's more to it than those two elements IMO.
You have an opportunity to share your understanding of it so the rest of us can understand too. Simply telling others they're wrong about "rounded rectangles" doesn't mean much if you can't explain why they're wrong. I'm confident you can.
That isn't how I read that image. I'd argue 1( their comparison to the 3D effect and icon edge was that it had to be more like Apple's but that it wasn't nearly as good as Apple's because it lacked fluidity. This is the comparative evaluation that one Apple exec talked about on the stand, and 2) their mention of the icons was to show that it was too close to the iPhone, meaning they should be made more unique as to not be confusing. That said, this is very damaging but whoever made this image was clearly trying to show where they could improve on the UI and one of those ways to not make it so iOS-like.
All major tech companies patent things that are obvious and should never have been awarded a patent, but that is an entirely different issue. The issue at question here is whether Samsung knowingly stole design elements and infringed Apple patents. Apple will use patents to prove that case, some I probably disagree with, but that's really irrelevant to whether Apple will win or loose. I am sure Samsung tried to have some of the patents invalidated, but courts are pretty conservative with patents. That is exactly why there are so many calls for patent reform. Until that happens, Samsung and others must operate within the law, whether they agree with it or not.
That said, with the level or disregard to intellectual property Samsung has shown, I doubt patent reform would prevent them from loosing this case. Patent reform would change patent standards, not eliminate patents entirely. Apple is painting a pretty clear picture that the entire strategy was to copy the iPhone, and much of that evidence is from internal memos and emails. That is bad news for Samsung.
I'd agree, based on the 3rd direction listed, but the first two directions seem quite clearly intended to make it more similar to iOS. It suggests that there is a lack coherent direction and internal design inspiration at Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
All major tech companies patent things that are obvious and should never have been awarded a patent, but that is an entirely different issue. The issue at question here is whether Samsung knowingly stole design elements
I agree in general, and believe they borrowed just a bit too heavily in their original S series phones a few years back. I also think they've realized it's not worth it either, with making more unique design choices not all that expensive nor difficult compared to litigation.
I can see that argument but I read it as an acknowledgement that it's not nearly as attractive as Apple's icons and they list two distinct reasons why. I'd argue that a more pleasant look and feel was what needed to be "copied", not simply making it look as close to iOS icons as possible. I me that is a distinct different in the focus of whoever made this comparison. That said, it does show that Samsung copied too many things too closet an then didn't change them when they were pointed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Luxury brand? Strange definition:
- MacBook Air set the price point for its segment. Even today, the only way anyone has managed to beat the price is by significantly cutting features.
- iPhone - priced right in line with other premium phones
- MacPro - generally lower than competitive Xeon systems of similar quality, particularly when you look at the dual CPU version
- iMac - you still can't find a comparable 27" AIO for less
- iPad - other 10" tablets are around the same price
Apple's profits and success are not coming from a significant premium in pricing as they did in the past. Today, their prices are pretty much in line with the market while their margins are from volume, design efficiency, and an unmatched supply chain.
You're confusing 'popular' and 'profitable' with 'luxury brand'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
ROTFLMAO.
Apple:
Some of the 7" tablets on the market appear to be reasonably successful. Maybe we should make one.
Samsung:
Apple's iPad is the industry leader, so let's copy as many details as we can, including the appearance of the product, patented software technologies, the packaging, the cables, the icons, and anything else we can think of.
You think those two are equivalent?
Dude, you make way, way too much sense in your posts. Does the internet know you're here?
Fair enough - could be what they were trying to do.
deleted