The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. . The problem is the UK court wanted Apple to CLEARLY make the point that Samsung did not infringe on their patents. Instead they decided to bury that point in four paragraphs of text, which people may or may not have the patience to read through completely. If you think that it's okay for Apple to put whatever they want in the statement as long as it's true, then they could have rambled on for several more paragraphs about Grass being Green, the sky being blue, and clouds being white, or any other irrelevant topic by your argument as long as they have that one sentence buried somewhere in there that Samsung didn't infringe.
Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based on Microsoft legal claims, tho it's clear you'd prefer not to?
It is essential only because those companies chose to use it. Apple used their own. MS uses NFTS for their desktops and servers. SUN/Oracle own a couple.
It is essential only to those that decided FAT. Yes, they did so because it was common and interoperable, but that was still their choice. MS also has a choice how and for how much they choose to license it and to whom. And that is the problem I have with not just seeking to have it (or anything) declared a de-facto standard and subsequently imposing SEP obligations on it. The advantage for a company to submit their IP into a standard is a guaranteed source of licensing fees with the trade off of not being to otherwise monetize or control their IP or using it as leverage. But a company that never pledged to do so with their IP being forced to give up control of their IP, simply because it is popular is wrong. Popularity should not mean losing control of how your IP is used, by whom and for how much, de facto standard or not.
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"
do you not understand?
If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge. They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.
The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done. They tried to push it as far as they could.
Which part of the difference between "I would propose" and "I hereby order", in a legal sense, do you not understand?
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.
The judge's order was to publish on their website and print that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the design "patent" of the iPad. (aka "does not copy")
Design patents have nothing whatsoever to do with copying.
This was made clear by the judges who claimed that Apple, by using the fine legal distinction in their statement, could confuse the general public.
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
Which part of the difference between "I would propose" and "I hereby order", in a legal sense, do you not understand?
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.
Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.
And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?
Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand? Seems pretty obvious to me.
And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?
"Proposed" or "ordered", do you understand the difference?
Stop avoiding the question.
A judge proposing something is not the same as ordering something. "proposing" introduces a gray area, it is "wishy washy", it leaves room for interpretation, which Apple duly took advantage of, opening a can of Samsung whining to the Judges who in turn went whining to Apple, can of worms.
One doesn't need to know too much about law when expressing opinions about people making fools of themselves.
Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.
Samsung's whining appeal and the Judges' subsequent whining response are based on this "pretty flimsy springboard" as you so handily put it.
Now this is a classy one! One that I'm sure apple would be more than happy to apply for patent & subsequently use in legal cases as would fit nicely with any claims to shape of tablets etc
Originally Posted by hill60
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools
Does this class as a double negative in which case being idiotic when already a fool makes them wise or clever!?
if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:
The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select them from a list of on-screen choices.
Apparently in Europe when using a mobile device, unless of course you have a license to use this European software patent from Samsung.
Apple should bring that one to the UK where it will be immediately thrown out as software based and Samsung will have to publish a notice that Apple is not infringing their emoticon patent.
if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:
The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select them from a list of on-screen choices.
So are there more asian language iPhone users in Germany or are there more Galaxy Tab 7.7 buyers in Germany?
Not that it matters, the fact that Samsung is using it to seek an injunction against Apple is enough according to the Justices of the High Court of England and Wales.
My MacBook has these, it's a "mobile device".
See (or not depending on the platform you are using}:-
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowspark
The stuff that Apple wrote in the statement may have been true but it was completely irrelevant to the purpose of the statement that the UK courts wanted Apple to make. . The problem is the UK court wanted Apple to CLEARLY make the point that Samsung did not infringe on their patents. Instead they decided to bury that point in four paragraphs of text, which people may or may not have the patience to read through completely. If you think that it's okay for Apple to put whatever they want in the statement as long as it's true, then they could have rambled on for several more paragraphs about Grass being Green, the sky being blue, and clouds being white, or any other irrelevant topic by your argument as long as they have that one sentence buried somewhere in there that Samsung didn't infringe.
They buried it? It was the opening paragraph.
Looks like Apple pulled the statement and has yet to post the new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Which ones don't fall under the Microsoft FAT claims, at least according to Microsoft? If you can't find "many, many" would you agree that FAT licensing is essential to nearly every modern OS based on Microsoft legal claims, tho it's clear you'd prefer not to?
It is essential only because those companies chose to use it. Apple used their own. MS uses NFTS for their desktops and servers. SUN/Oracle own a couple.
It is essential only to those that decided FAT. Yes, they did so because it was common and interoperable, but that was still their choice. MS also has a choice how and for how much they choose to license it and to whom. And that is the problem I have with not just seeking to have it (or anything) declared a de-facto standard and subsequently imposing SEP obligations on it. The advantage for a company to submit their IP into a standard is a guaranteed source of licensing fees with the trade off of not being to otherwise monetize or control their IP or using it as leverage. But a company that never pledged to do so with their IP being forced to give up control of their IP, simply because it is popular is wrong. Popularity should not mean losing control of how your IP is used, by whom and for how much, de facto standard or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
Judge's comment:
Which part of:
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"
do you not understand?
If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge. They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.
The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done. They tried to push it as far as they could.
Which part of the difference between "I would propose" and "I hereby order", in a legal sense, do you not understand?
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
The judge's order was to publish on their website and print that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the design "patent" of the iPad. (aka "does not copy")
Design patents have nothing whatsoever to do with copying.
This was made clear by the judges who claimed that Apple, by using the fine legal distinction in their statement, could confuse the general public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement. It's wilfully clouding the intent. That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.
Court "ordered" or court "proposed"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Which part of the difference between "I would propose" and "I hereby order", in a legal sense, do you not understand?
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.
Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools.
And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?
Well there's this one that Samsung is suing Apple over:-
Emoticon input method for mobile terminal
:-)
Oops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
Which part of "Subject to anything that may be submitted" did Apple not understand? Seems pretty obvious to me.
And with that one statement you've killed off what little credibility you had in this thread. Do you seriously think you know more about English law than an English judge?
"Proposed" or "ordered", do you understand the difference?
Stop avoiding the question.
A judge proposing something is not the same as ordering something. "proposing" introduces a gray area, it is "wishy washy", it leaves room for interpretation, which Apple duly took advantage of, opening a can of Samsung whining to the Judges who in turn went whining to Apple, can of worms.
One doesn't need to know too much about law when expressing opinions about people making fools of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Hello semantics my old friend. Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant. An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.
Samsung's whining appeal and the Judges' subsequent whining response are based on this "pretty flimsy springboard" as you so handily put it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Well there's this one that Samsung is suing Apple over:-
Emoticon input method for mobile terminal
:-)
Oops.
Now this is a classy one! One that I'm sure apple would be more than happy to apply for patent & subsequently use in legal cases as would fit nicely with any claims to shape of tablets etc
Originally Posted by hill60
A wishy washy ruling from an idiotic pack of fools
Does this class as a double negative in which case being idiotic when already a fool makes them wise or clever!?
on a serious note though it's very very sad when companies resort to legal action over stuff like the above.
And surely someone somewhere has challenged the patent application?
Q
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Q
Ah, finally, something worth reading in the thread.
happy to oblige
can i get sued for using a
in response to the emoticon legal action:
if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:
The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select them from a list of on-screen choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
happy to oblige
can i get sued for using a
Apparently in Europe when using a mobile device, unless of course you have a license to use this European software patent from Samsung.
Apple should bring that one to the UK where it will be immediately thrown out as software based and Samsung will have to publish a notice that Apple is not infringing their emoticon patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
if the below is correct then this really is a minor lawsuit, only affects one situation:
The smiley input method patent would affect only those of Apple's German customers who use Asian on-screen keyboards. The problem with Asian character sets is that smileys can't be entered with only a couple of keystrokes such as ":-)" but consist of several symbols, each of which requires multiple keystrokes. So it's more convenient to enter a special smiley input mode and select them from a list of on-screen choices.
So are there more asian language iPhone users in Germany or are there more Galaxy Tab 7.7 buyers in Germany?
Not that it matters, the fact that Samsung is using it to seek an injunction against Apple is enough according to the Justices of the High Court of England and Wales.
My MacBook has these, it's a "mobile device".
See (or not depending on the platform you are using}:-
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
1?2?3?4?5?6?7?8?9?0?????????#???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????©®™???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Of course Apple uses a completely different method, but that didn't stop Samsung from accusing Apple of copying them.
Originally Posted by hill60
See (or not depending on the platform you are using}:-
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
1?2?3?4?5?6?7?8?9?0?????????#???????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????©®™???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
… Wait, did you go through and double click every single one of those out of the Special Characters menu? Props.
Anyway, worldwide software compatibility with emoji is iOS 5 and above and Mac OS 10.7 and above, at least on the Mac side.
Can Windows machines even see emoji at all? Even with Windows 8?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Can Windows machines even see emoji at all? Even with Windows 8?Yes. Yes.
Don't be too impressed by my encyclopedic knowledge of all things Windows, though. I just know how to use google.