Now I see where you are going, but you attempted to spring that trap too soon. Bevelled, rounded rectangular structure with inlaid touchscreen of the general appearance as drawn, and it seems clear to me that it is a smartphone (and I don't believe they are asserting that patent against anything except Samsung smartphones). That is the minimum claim. And before you make the argument that it is only a fine distinction from a rounded rectangle, I'll tell you up front that I disagree. There are plenty of rounded rectangular smartphones out there that look nothing like that.
It's not intended as a trap. It's meant to lead to a reasoned conclusion which is why I believe Jr did what he could to avoid answering, including a disappearing act whenever I asked for his opinion.
It may seem clear to you that Apple is speaking to a smartphone design, but they've very clearly and with intent stated they are not limiting the design claims to a smartphone.
And by the way - I suspect that the other posters were simply frustrated by your dogged pursuit of increasingly detailed answers to questions that they believe (as do I) have obvious answers.
Right, now can we dispense with the thoroughly disingenuous claims that this is about rectangles. Sophistry is one thing, but completely dishonest arguments are entirely another.
OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?
In general I disagree. See this 2nd of two patents Apple is asserting against Samsung smartphones. Note again that dotted lines show items that are not part of the claimed design but shown only for illustrative purposes.(This one would be the actual trap if one was intended)
It simply describes a flat, rectangular display face with evenly rounded corners as far as I can tell. No bezels or buttons, nor even anything with "depth" are included in the claims. Muppetry, are you seeing that one differently than I am?
This is not in any way an indication that I believe Samsung didn't intentionally take the easy path of imitating way too many Apple design elements. I've consistently said I think they have, and I don't think they should get off scot-free. At the same time posters who say Apple is claiming ownership of any electronic display face that is a flat rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners, no matter what size or type of device, isn't far off the truth.
Right, now can we dispense with the thoroughly disingenuous claims that this is about rectangles. Sophistry is one thing, but completely dishonest arguments are entirely another.
OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?
In general I disagree. See this 2nd of two patents Apple is asserting against Samsung smartphones. Note again that dotted lines show items that are not part of the claimed design but shown only for illustrative purposes.(This one would be the actual trap if one was intended) http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf
That one does appear to exclude the bevel detail, and is just the rounded rectangle, inlaid front and touchscreen. Closer, definitely, but still not just a rounded rectangle. Consider other examples. Since it was one of the patents granted it would probably look odd not to include it in the asserted IP.
I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.
Yes, well, it does seem to be an approved talking point. But, the real purpose of this ridiculous "rectangle" argument is to simply serve as a distraction from the real issues. There is really no question that Samsung has attempted to copy Apple's design as closely as possible, just as Google has ripped off Apple's IP with Android. What this is really about is a much more fundamental question, that goes even beyond the law: whether it is fundamentally right or wrong to steal other people's work Those defending Samsung (and Google) seem to believe that it's ok to steal, as long as you can get away with it, however you manage to do that.
This is not in any way an indication that I believe Samsung didn't intentionally take the easy path of imitating way too many Apple design elements. I've consistently said I think they have, and I don't think they should get off scot-free. At the same time posters who say Apple is claiming ownership of any electronic display face that is a flat rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners, no matter what size or type of device, isn't far off the truth.
Are you basing that opinion on that patent? What do you think Apple should do, given that patent exists? Not pursue Samsung, even though they clearly (IMO) violated more than just that shape? Request that the patent be invalidated? Not invoke it? Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.
Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.
But could you answer whether youpersonally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.
EDIT: I see you already generally agreed that it describes little else, if anything more than that. Sorry for asking again.
I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.
Yes, well, it does seem to be an approved talking point. But, the real purpose of this ridiculous "rectangle" argument is to simply serve as a distraction from the real issues.
Of course. What else do they have?
There is really no question that Samsung has attempted to copy Apple's design as closely as possible, just as Google has ripped off Apple's IP with Android. What this is really about is a much more fundamental question, that goes even beyond the law: whether it is fundamentally right or wrong to steal other people's work Those defending Samsung (and Google) seem to believe that it's ok to steal, as long as you can get away with it, however you manage to do that.
I suspect that most companies will try to get away with whatever they can. Apple, while often clearly inspired by other work, does not seem to have done much outright copying, largely, I suspect, because they have tended to be ahead of the design game in the areas where they compete. Once they finally coupled that with efficient production, marketing and market integration, they became hard to catch any other way.
Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.
But could you answer whether youpersonally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.
EDIT: I see you already generally agreed that it describes little else, if anything more than that. Sorry for asking again.
Clearly it does represent something other than, "a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners," since black parts are not limited to the perimeter. I would say I don't understand why you insist on dishonestly describing everything you link to, except I do understand exactly why.
But, again, your entire argument for n posts back is premised on the (false) impression you are trying to create that Apple's case hinges entirely on a single patent. It doesn't, and it's, again, disingenuous of you to attempt to create the impression that it does. Perhaps you'd like to address the other parts of the case to show us that you aren't just engaging in sophistry and confusion?
So in your personal opinion this:
[images]
looks like this:
[image]
Yes, I think the sum of all parts resemble the iPad too closely to be 1) a coincidence, and 2) too be too confusing for a certain part of the population. Surely anyone on this site would know the difference but we read, about digest and analyze tech in atypical ways compared to the general population. Rule of thumb: If you what RAM and know how much your phone has then you as not the average user.
Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.
But could you answer whether youpersonally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.
I thought I had answered that. It is a rounded rectangular shape (a particular one - not just any rounded rectangular shape) with an inlaid front, a touchscreen area and the top speaker. I can't see how that could be applied to anything other than a phone, even though they don't specify that. And I don't believe they have asserted it, or suggested that they might, in future, assert it, against anything except a phone, so, no, I don't see it describing a generic electronic device of any size.
And again, what's your point here? Do you believe that this patent could or should be asserted against all those other rounded rectangular phones, or even more broadly? It isn't being asserted against them because mostly they don't look like that. It's being asserted against Samsung because they not only copied this design, they also worked hard to copy almost everything else about the iPhone.
Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.
I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.
What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.
I thought I had answered that. It is a rounded rectangular shape (a particular one - not just any rounded rectangular shape) with an inlaid front, a touchscreen area and the top speaker. I can't see how that could be applied to anything other than a phone, even though they don't specify that.
No, there's no touchscreen area specified, nor a touchscreen at all as far as I know. It's simply a drawing of a generic display area which could be using any display technology. Could be in any size, tiny or huge, used by a phone, used by a PDA, or could even be part of a toy according to Apple's statement.
EDIT: ...and yes you had already answered, but I had noted that as an edit in the original post so you apparently missed it. I even apologized for asking again.
I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.
What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.
Well, except that your use of scare quotes around 'falsely claiming' indicates that you do want us to think that Apple is claiming that. But, your position has become more than a bit untenable, so I can understand why you'd want to back off directly asserting it and simply start using cues to indicate it.
And let's get this whole thing about shills and trolls straight. Certainly no one is naive enough to think that there are not shills posting on AI. (And, no one is stupid enough to assert there are no trolls.) I'd say who I think the shills are, but apparently the mods don't like that. Certain posters clearly aren't shills: no one would pay them to post the stuff they do. Not every pro-Android poster is a shill, some of them are just confused about what's good and right. But there are definitely those whose only reason for posting here is because they are compensated to do so, and I think it's pretty clear in most instances who they are.
As I said in my earlier post, it's very clear to [SIZE=16px]you[/SIZE] 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.
Read the patent. The patent examiner obviously knows what they were referring to.
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 don't see it that way. They had three recommendations:
1. Insert lighting effects so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
2. Make the edge curve smoother so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
3. Differentiate the design so it doesn't look too much like the iPhone. They did NOT do this. In fact, their finished product moved even closer to the iPhone.
It's obvious from this document that they compared their product to the iPhone and intentionally made their product look more like the iPhone.
Again, it's clearly a 3-Dimensional surface. But then again, since you called it a 1-Dimensional object at one point, maybe you just don't know the correct words to express this.
Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.
Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.
What part of this patent describes anything Apple is requesting patent protection for in three-dimensions Jr? You're falling behind by trying to avoid simply answering questions you're asked.
What part of this patent describes anything Apple is requesting patent protection for in three-dimensions Jr? You're falling behind by trying to avoid simply answering questions you're asked.
<a class="bbcode_url" href="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf" id="user_yui_3_4_1_1_1344187014153_642" style="color:rgb(204,102,0);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(198,204,208);" target="_blank" name="user_yui_3_4_1_1_1344187014153_642">http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf</a>;
What part of "Description" do you not understand? Open the document, read the section entitled 'Description". Problem solved.
That is, until googleguy pretends once again that he doesn't comprehend simple English and acts like he can't understand the document.
What part of "Description" do you not understand? Open the document, read the section entitled 'Description". Problem solved.
That is, until googleguy pretends once again that he doesn't comprehend simple English and acts like he can't understand the document.
Well, here's the description. What is it you'd like to point out? You do understand that anything in the accompanying figures 1 thru 8 drawn with dotted lines is not part of Apple's patent claims or specified use. As such they're not germane to the protected elements, which in this case is a flat rectangular display with evenly rounded corners, and possibly a small cut-away elongated oval area on the display near the top.. If that's incorrect in your opinion, please be specific as to why for a change..
"The claimed surface ofthe electronic device is illustrated with
the color designation for the color black.
The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.
As indicated in the title, the article ofmanufacture 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), a novelty item or toy"
Comments
And by the way - I suspect that the other posters were simply frustrated by your dogged pursuit of increasingly detailed answers to questions that they believe (as do I) have obvious answers.
Seems we need these again:
Right, now can we dispense with the thoroughly disingenuous claims that this is about rectangles. Sophistry is one thing, but completely dishonest arguments are entirely another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Seems we need these again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
OK - set aside whether they mean just a smartphone, even though they have not asserted it against anything else. I addressed your other points about whether it is just a rounded rectangle. Do you agree or disagree?
In general I disagree. See this 2nd of two patents Apple is asserting against Samsung smartphones. Note again that dotted lines show items that are not part of the claimed design but shown only for illustrative purposes.(This one would be the actual trap if one was intended)
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf
It simply describes a flat, rectangular display face with evenly rounded corners as far as I can tell. No bezels or buttons, nor even anything with "depth" are included in the claims. Muppetry, are you seeing that one differently than I am?
This is not in any way an indication that I believe Samsung didn't intentionally take the easy path of imitating way too many Apple design elements. I've consistently said I think they have, and I don't think they should get off scot-free. At the same time posters who say Apple is claiming ownership of any electronic display face that is a flat rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners, no matter what size or type of device, isn't far off the truth.
I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.
That one does appear to exclude the bevel detail, and is just the rounded rectangle, inlaid front and touchscreen. Closer, definitely, but still not just a rounded rectangle. Consider other examples. Since it was one of the patents granted it would probably look odd not to include it in the asserted IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I don't think they will go away that easily, since it appears to be a central pillar of Samsung's defense.
Yes, well, it does seem to be an approved talking point. But, the real purpose of this ridiculous "rectangle" argument is to simply serve as a distraction from the real issues. There is really no question that Samsung has attempted to copy Apple's design as closely as possible, just as Google has ripped off Apple's IP with Android. What this is really about is a much more fundamental question, that goes even beyond the law: whether it is fundamentally right or wrong to steal other people's work Those defending Samsung (and Google) seem to believe that it's ok to steal, as long as you can get away with it, however you manage to do that.
Are you basing that opinion on that patent? What do you think Apple should do, given that patent exists? Not pursue Samsung, even though they clearly (IMO) violated more than just that shape? Request that the patent be invalidated? Not invoke it? Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.
Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.
But could you answer whether you personally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.
EDIT: I see you already generally agreed that it describes little else, if anything more than that. Sorry for asking again.
Of course. What else do they have?
I suspect that most companies will try to get away with whatever they can. Apple, while often clearly inspired by other work, does not seem to have done much outright copying, largely, I suspect, because they have tended to be ahead of the design game in the areas where they compete. Once they finally coupled that with efficient production, marketing and market integration, they became hard to catch any other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Certainly not. They obviously were awarded the patent and would be remiss not to use it to their advantage.
But could you answer whether you personally believe that patent describes anything more than a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners for use with any electronic device of any size? I'm not sure any of the other regulars would be honest enough to give their real opinion (tho I could hope they would), while you've clearly shown a willingness to at least consider the actual patent claims.
EDIT: I see you already generally agreed that it describes little else, if anything more than that. Sorry for asking again.
Clearly it does represent something other than, "a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners," since black parts are not limited to the perimeter. I would say I don't understand why you insist on dishonestly describing everything you link to, except I do understand exactly why.
But, again, your entire argument for n posts back is premised on the (false) impression you are trying to create that Apple's case hinges entirely on a single patent. It doesn't, and it's, again, disingenuous of you to attempt to create the impression that it does. Perhaps you'd like to address the other parts of the case to show us that you aren't just engaging in sophistry and confusion?
Yes, I think the sum of all parts resemble the iPad too closely to be 1) a coincidence, and 2) too be too confusing for a certain part of the population. Surely anyone on this site would know the difference but we read, about digest and analyze tech in atypical ways compared to the general population. Rule of thumb: If you what RAM and know how much your phone has then you as not the average user.
I thought I had answered that. It is a rounded rectangular shape (a particular one - not just any rounded rectangular shape) with an inlaid front, a touchscreen area and the top speaker. I can't see how that could be applied to anything other than a phone, even though they don't specify that. And I don't believe they have asserted it, or suggested that they might, in future, assert it, against anything except a phone, so, no, I don't see it describing a generic electronic device of any size.
And again, what's your point here? Do you believe that this patent could or should be asserted against all those other rounded rectangular phones, or even more broadly? It isn't being asserted against them because mostly they don't look like that. It's being asserted against Samsung because they not only copied this design, they also worked hard to copy almost everything else about the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Those posters are focusing on one small aspect of a much larger alleged infringement to try to invalidate the entire argument.
I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.
What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
I thought I had answered that. It is a rounded rectangular shape (a particular one - not just any rounded rectangular shape) with an inlaid front, a touchscreen area and the top speaker. I can't see how that could be applied to anything other than a phone, even though they don't specify that.
No, there's no touchscreen area specified, nor a touchscreen at all as far as I know. It's simply a drawing of a generic display area which could be using any display technology. Could be in any size, tiny or huge, used by a phone, used by a PDA, or could even be part of a toy according to Apple's statement.
EDIT: ...and yes you had already answered, but I had noted that as an edit in the original post so you apparently missed it. I even apologized for asking again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I agree that's the goal of many and even perhaps most of them. I not trying to give them ammo, especially since I agree that Samsung took too many design cues a bit too literally from Apple, even completely ignoring those two design patents.
What I wanted you and others to see is that in replies to "shills and trolls" as they're often called at AI it might be better to point out other reasons why Samsung is in the wrong rather than making fun of them for "falsely claiming" Apple says they own the right to rounded rectangular smartphone displays. Apple feels they do IMO based on their awarded design patents. I also don't think even Apple believes it will pass muster in a court challenge, but it certainly can't hurt to try.
Well, except that your use of scare quotes around 'falsely claiming' indicates that you do want us to think that Apple is claiming that. But, your position has become more than a bit untenable, so I can understand why you'd want to back off directly asserting it and simply start using cues to indicate it.
And let's get this whole thing about shills and trolls straight. Certainly no one is naive enough to think that there are not shills posting on AI. (And, no one is stupid enough to assert there are no trolls.) I'd say who I think the shills are, but apparently the mods don't like that. Certain posters clearly aren't shills: no one would pay them to post the stuff they do. Not every pro-Android poster is a shill, some of them are just confused about what's good and right. But there are definitely those whose only reason for posting here is because they are compensated to do so, and I think it's pretty clear in most instances who they are.
Read the patent. The patent examiner obviously knows what they were referring to.
I don't see it that way. They had three recommendations:
1. Insert lighting effects so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
2. Make the edge curve smoother so it looks more like the iPhone. They did this in the final product.
3. Differentiate the design so it doesn't look too much like the iPhone. They did NOT do this. In fact, their finished product moved even closer to the iPhone.
It's obvious from this document that they compared their product to the iPhone and intentionally made their product look more like the iPhone.
Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Googleguy obviously knows enough of the language to express himself. He CHOOSES not to so that he can play his still trolling/shill games.
What part of this patent describes anything Apple is requesting patent protection for in three-dimensions Jr? You're falling behind by trying to avoid simply answering questions you're asked.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf
What part of "Description" do you not understand? Open the document, read the section entitled 'Description". Problem solved.
That is, until googleguy pretends once again that he doesn't comprehend simple English and acts like he can't understand the document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What part of "Description" do you not understand? Open the document, read the section entitled 'Description". Problem solved.
That is, until googleguy pretends once again that he doesn't comprehend simple English and acts like he can't understand the document.
Well, here's the description. What is it you'd like to point out? You do understand that anything in the accompanying figures 1 thru 8 drawn with dotted lines is not part of Apple's patent claims or specified use. As such they're not germane to the protected elements, which in this case is a flat rectangular display with evenly rounded corners, and possibly a small cut-away elongated oval area on the display near the top.. If that's incorrect in your opinion, please be specific as to why for a change..
"The claimed surface ofthe electronic device is illustrated with
the color designation for the color black.
The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.
As indicated in the title, the article ofmanufacture 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), a novelty item or toy"