To me it seems like the thing making this case complex is that they are arguing a non SEP design patent issue with a very SEP wireless one. That kind of thing should be two different cases to me.
Yes, that's what Samsung would like you to believe.
In the REAL world, Samsung's phones before the iPhone were very different. After the iPhone rumors started, Samsung started making phones that looked more like the way the iPhone ended up, but there was still some variation. After the iPhone came out, Samsung morphed their phone so it looked like a near-exact copy, down to the charger and packaging.
Some of it is grossly overstated, yet it's really annoying to sort through the FUD. One of the Samsung plugs compared looks a lot like PDMI, although that's not exactly what they use. The store section where copying was claimed all over the internet ended up being decorations put up by the store itself rather than endorsed by Samsung. Nothing is ever that clear. The issue becomes one of sorting out the material that can't be applied. There is always a very unrefined "copied" mentality on here. It's presented as an abstract concept, yet if you read some of the linked claims, they are for the most part highly specific. "Copied" look and feel has little to do with the utility patent claims, yet they're often lumped in due to the bulk of Apple's requested figure coming from the look and feel claim. Beyond that there seems to be a lack of understanding that these claims are asserted per device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The jury is made up of laymen with no specific training in patent matters.
And please do not use text highlights unnecessarily. There's no reason to make your entire post bold, italic, and colored.
This is something that has always irritated me. The people making determinations in these cases are not truly educate on the subject.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, that's what Samsung would like you to believe.
In the REAL world, Samsung's phones before the iPhone were very different. After the iPhone rumors started, Samsung started making phones that looked more like the way the iPhone ended up, but there was still some variation. After the iPhone came out, Samsung morphed their phone so it looked like a near-exact copy, down to the charger and packaging.
Some of it is grossly overstated, yet it's really annoying to sort through the FUD. One of the Samsung plugs compared looks a lot like PDMI, although that's not exactly what they use. The store section where copying was claimed all over the internet ended up being decorations put up by the store itself rather than endorsed by Samsung. Nothing is ever that clear. The issue becomes one of sorting out the material that can't be applied. There is always a very unrefined "copied" mentality on here. It's presented as an abstract concept, yet if you read some of the linked claims, they are for the most part highly specific. "Copied" look and feel has little to do with the utility patent claims, yet they're often lumped in due to the bulk of Apple's requested figure coming from the look and feel claim. Beyond that there seems to be a lack of understanding that these claims are asserted per device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The jury is made up of laymen with no specific training in patent matters.
And please do not use text highlights unnecessarily. There's no reason to make your entire post bold, italic, and colored.
This is something that has always irritated me. The people making determinations in these cases are not truly educate on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
3. Filder Tablet (Prior-Art of ipad)
Here is the tablet that apple copied its design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Funny how the Fiddler Tab is displaying the exact same screen 18 friggin years later as displayed in 1994. What a bunch of hyped up BS!
I could put a crow under glass and tell you it was pheasant and you wouldn't know the difference.
? Use original p
It is interesting that in that photo, the guy holding it is obscuring the bottom bezel with his left arm.
Is that because Apple's design patent specifically covers that the top and bottom bezels are of equal width?
That model is not like Apple's design patent.