... and just what is "prior art" and how does it affect patent applications or claims you might ask? (or should as it's likely no one in this thread really understands).
While that's useful information, it doesn't refute what I said.
Apple cited the Samsung F700 in their patent filing, so the product was accessible to the patent examiners. When given a citation like that, the patent examiner can do one of two things:
1. Argue that the prior art is to close to the claimed invention and there's not enough novelty to issue a patent.
or
2. Issue the patent - which indicates that they did not consider the prior art to be sufficient to prevent patentability.
In this case, USPTO chose the second course of action. They examined the prior art and found that it was different enough that Apple's invention is novel enough to be patentable.
It is quite common for USPTO to later overturn a patent when someone comes up with UNDISCLOSED prior art. But it is almost unheard of for the patent office to later invalidate a patent on the basis of prior art which was disclosed in the original application.
So Apple didn't invent GUI, but improve it.
But ProGear (with Linux) and various Windows tablets came before. Again nowhere sleek and polished as iPad... but that is another thing Apple improved, rather than invented.
There were touch screen phones before iPhone. Like Nokia 7710 from 2004. Another great improvement by Apple, but not invention.
Psst. You need to be informed that design patents and innovation the Jobs way mean much much more than these so-called humdrum "inventions" that you've just mentioned. Apple innovated Xerox's GUI. Thus, Apple is the original superlative innovator, which is why it deserves high praise, accolades and a half a trillion market cap.
Psst. You need to be informed that design patents and innovation the Jobs way mean much much more than these so-called humdrum "inventions" that you've just mentioned. Apple innovated Xerox's GUI. Thus, Apple is the original superlative innovator, which is why it deserves high praise, accolades and a half a trillion market cap.
This whole issue is a bit of an intelligence test, not a hard one, just a clear one about the ability to reason. You just failed it.
Here's the chain of logic:
Apple puts a lot of work into development of a new product, and they get a design patent.
Samsung copies a little too closely in various design details. Apple HAS to sue to protect that patent, whether it's valid or not, because if they don't other companies can follow with exact lookalikes, and Apple will not be able to do a thing about it. It's not about Samsung, it's about other worse copiers in the future.
This whole issue is a bit of an intelligence test, not a hard one, just a clear one about the ability to reason. You just failed it.
Here's the chain of logic:
Apple puts a lot of work into development of a new product, and they get a design patent.
Samsung copies a little too closely in various design details. Apple HAS to sue to protect that patent, whether it's valid or not, because if they don't other companies can follow with exact lookalikes, and Apple will not be able to do a thing about it. It's not about Samsung, it's about other worse copiers in the future.
Why is this so difficult for your mind to grasp?
Not correct. Apple is not obligated to sue every entity that might be infringing one of it's patents. There's no "use it or lose it" requirement for US patents. You've confused it with trademark law.
You should look up the word 'inspired' as it's clear that you have no idea what it means.
It's been revealed that Jobs & company at Apple were 'inspired' by this device upon seeing it, as it was similar to the direction they were intially considering for the iPhone.
It seems that Samsung hasn't gotten the memo that the words "inspiration" and "imitation" are not synonyms. If Apple were suing Samsung just for being "inspired by Apple", then I would say they - and now you - have a point. But Apple claims that Samsung actively copied the iPhone. This case will see whether they can prove it.
Samsung: "Apple has been inspired by others, and we can prove it."
Apple: "Samsung has taken a popular shipping product of ours and deliberately copied it down to the gnat's ass, and we can prove it."
I may be wrong, but I believe FRAND refers to necessary patents/techniques. For instance, cell phones being able to connect to 3G/4G/LTE networks. FRAND doesn't refer to presentation or design nuances.
Comments
While that's useful information, it doesn't refute what I said.
Apple cited the Samsung F700 in their patent filing, so the product was accessible to the patent examiners. When given a citation like that, the patent examiner can do one of two things:
1. Argue that the prior art is to close to the claimed invention and there's not enough novelty to issue a patent.
or
2. Issue the patent - which indicates that they did not consider the prior art to be sufficient to prevent patentability.
In this case, USPTO chose the second course of action. They examined the prior art and found that it was different enough that Apple's invention is novel enough to be patentable.
It is quite common for USPTO to later overturn a patent when someone comes up with UNDISCLOSED prior art. But it is almost unheard of for the patent office to later invalidate a patent on the basis of prior art which was disclosed in the original application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
While that's useful information, it doesn't refute what I said.
I wan't trying to refute what you said Joe. Simply adding to it.
Psst. You need to be informed that design patents and innovation the Jobs way mean much much more than these so-called humdrum "inventions" that you've just mentioned. Apple innovated Xerox's GUI. Thus, Apple is the original superlative innovator, which is why it deserves high praise, accolades and a half a trillion market cap.
This whole issue is a bit of an intelligence test, not a hard one, just a clear one about the ability to reason. You just failed it.
Here's the chain of logic:
Apple puts a lot of work into development of a new product, and they get a design patent.
Samsung copies a little too closely in various design details. Apple HAS to sue to protect that patent, whether it's valid or not, because if they don't other companies can follow with exact lookalikes, and Apple will not be able to do a thing about it. It's not about Samsung, it's about other worse copiers in the future.
Why is this so difficult for your mind to grasp?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
This whole issue is a bit of an intelligence test, not a hard one, just a clear one about the ability to reason. You just failed it.
Here's the chain of logic:
Apple puts a lot of work into development of a new product, and they get a design patent.
Samsung copies a little too closely in various design details. Apple HAS to sue to protect that patent, whether it's valid or not, because if they don't other companies can follow with exact lookalikes, and Apple will not be able to do a thing about it. It's not about Samsung, it's about other worse copiers in the future.
Why is this so difficult for your mind to grasp?
Not correct. Apple is not obligated to sue every entity that might be infringing one of it's patents. There's no "use it or lose it" requirement for US patents. You've confused it with trademark law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
You should look up the word 'inspired' as it's clear that you have no idea what it means.
It's been revealed that Jobs & company at Apple were 'inspired' by this device upon seeing it, as it was similar to the direction they were intially considering for the iPhone.
It seems that Samsung hasn't gotten the memo that the words "inspiration" and "imitation" are not synonyms. If Apple were suing Samsung just for being "inspired by Apple", then I would say they - and now you - have a point. But Apple claims that Samsung actively copied the iPhone. This case will see whether they can prove it.
Samsung: "Apple has been inspired by others, and we can prove it."
Apple: "Samsung has taken a popular shipping product of ours and deliberately copied it down to the gnat's ass, and we can prove it."
You don't see the difference?
Thompson
I may be wrong, but I believe FRAND refers to necessary patents/techniques. For instance, cell phones being able to connect to 3G/4G/LTE networks. FRAND doesn't refer to presentation or design nuances.