Did Samsung really just say what Apple does is akin to fine art, and you can't patent art? The Samsung Fandroids must be scratching their heads right now.
I love how samsung operate, use any distractions minced with legal jargon.
I have mentioned it in a previous thread, but why does the US allow a foreign company (samsung) to blatantly steal their IP and do absolutely nothing about it.
You would think there would be directives from the government for the courts to come down really hard on this.
Did Samsung really just say what Apple does is akin to fine art, and you can't patent art? The Samsung Fandroids must be scratching their heads right now.
Only because they just felt something go 'whoosh', over their heads!
The entire thread went 'woosh' over most commenter's heads.
Australian patent law is not the same as either the US or EU, and the acceptance of software as patentable depends on some subtle arguments developed over the past 20-something years there. The "fine art" comment has nothing to do with art in the traditional sense (paintings, sculpture etc). This short caselaw article explains what Samsung's argument is and why it matters. If you're still interested after that, there's links to more detailed and thorough explanations at the same site.
Unfortunately, considering the relative success of Samsung, the USD $1 bbn is probably worth the result. Additionally, considering Samsung's unprecedented USD $12 bbn advertising and marketing campaign USD $1 bbn is a drop in the bucket.
That's the really unfortunate thing. Samsung blatantly copied Apple's products and created a foothold in the market by doing so. No one could possibly doubt that their near-exact duplicates of the earlier iPad and iPhones were part of the reason they're the only Android handset maker who's profitable right now - and they own the lion's share of the Android business. Even if the $1 B fine were tripled, Samsung still came out ahead by stealing Apple's IP.
And, of course, the normal shills will defend their right to do so.
The entire thread went 'woosh' over most commenter's heads.
Australian patent law is not the same as either the US or EU, and the acceptance of software as patentable depends on some subtle arguments developed over the past 20-something years there. The "fine art" comment has nothing to do with art in the traditional sense (paintings, sculpture etc). This short caselaw article explains what Samsung's argument is and why it matters. If you're still interested after that, there's links to more detailed and thorough explanations at the same site.
You really didn't need to bother. Everyone knew that you'd be rushing in to defend Samsung and Google's right to infringe everyone else's intellectual property.
There is such a thing as beauty and elegance in engineering and you should be able to patent it. It is when you, e.g. solve 5 problems with one simple and intuitive solution instead of 5 separate discordant solutions.
So just like with "rounded rectangles" Samsung creates a strawman so they can knock it down. When did Apple EVER claim they have the rights to beauty or elegance?
yes, but if that patent is required in order for that beauty to be created... didn't Australia allow/grant the patents in the first place?... so ugly duckling into a swan?... and now "we can't have that"...
so, models are not needed for beauty!... yes that is correct... anybody could be wearing the clothes on a runaway and show them off... but that does not happen... why not?... because the clothes need someone beautiful to give people the idea that they could/should be wearing these clothes...
yes, but if that patent is required in order for that beauty to be created...
didn't Australia allow/grant the patents in the first place?... so ugly duckling into a swan?... and now "we can't have that"...
so, models are not needed for beauty!... yes that is correct... anybody could be wearing the clothes on a runaway and show them off... but that does not happen... why not?... because the clothes need someone beautiful to give people the idea that they could/should be wearing these clothes...
Bad analogy. You using beautiful models to show off your clothes doesn't prevent me from using beautiful models or even the same exact ones. You might have 2-3 under contract but not all of them.
I need to use that more often, but how many here will take offense that you took them to Google? Lol
1) I don' think I've used LMGTFY for a couple years. I'm not sure why I'm sure people have asked questions that they could pop into Google. Teach a man to fish...
2) LOL you're right. Some want nothing to do with Google in any way but "Let Me Bing That For You" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Uhm, Samsung, isn't that what is called patenting your intellectual property? The design of an interface or product is in direct correspondence with how your customers feel connected to the brand (in this case, Apple). If anything, I think that design patents could be even more important then technical patents in some cases. The feel of a product (digital or physical), the color and material, the roundness of a corner, and the elements used throughout a product are what makes a consumer feels connected with it.
I do believe that wether or not you find something beautiful can be very personal, but if a designer gets the combination of design elements (hardware and software) just right, the majority of consumers might feel inclined to unconsiously agree with the choices made by the designer. It's part of what makes or breaks a product imho, and with copy-frenzy-companies like Samsung around, I can only agree that design patents are a necessity.
Apple is never going to win the patent war. All they can do is win with common sense and manufacturing capabilities years in advance of everyone else. Samsung has no common sense and it's not something you can learn.
Common sense is a non-sequitur in this context. You are talk about engineering capabilities, design sense and business sense. Ethics aside, Samsung is showing tons of business sense in their strategy. The proof is in the numbers.
News today the the EU version of this patent has been invalidated by a German Federal Court during an IP infringement trial, and none of Apple's amendments to try and save it have been accepted. Apple will no doubt try to appeal the decision. Personally, based on the reasons given for the invalidation, I don't see the patent being resurrected.
Comments
Did Samsung really just say what Apple does is akin to fine art, and you can't patent art? The Samsung Fandroids must be scratching their heads right now.
Whats a Chewbacca defence ?
I love how samsung operate, use any distractions minced with legal jargon.
I have mentioned it in a previous thread, but why does the US allow a foreign company (samsung) to blatantly steal their IP and do absolutely nothing about it.
You would think there would be directives from the government for the courts to come down really hard on this.
Perhaps the US is losing its mojo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
Did Samsung really just say what Apple does is akin to fine art, and you can't patent art? The Samsung Fandroids must be scratching their heads right now.
Only because they just felt something go 'whoosh', over their heads!
The entire thread went 'woosh' over most commenter's heads.
Australian patent law is not the same as either the US or EU, and the acceptance of software as patentable depends on some subtle arguments developed over the past 20-something years there. The "fine art" comment has nothing to do with art in the traditional sense (paintings, sculpture etc). This short caselaw article explains what Samsung's argument is and why it matters. If you're still interested after that, there's links to more detailed and thorough explanations at the same site.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Case_law_in_Australia
That's the really unfortunate thing. Samsung blatantly copied Apple's products and created a foothold in the market by doing so. No one could possibly doubt that their near-exact duplicates of the earlier iPad and iPhones were part of the reason they're the only Android handset maker who's profitable right now - and they own the lion's share of the Android business. Even if the $1 B fine were tripled, Samsung still came out ahead by stealing Apple's IP.
And, of course, the normal shills will defend their right to do so.
You really didn't need to bother. Everyone knew that you'd be rushing in to defend Samsung and Google's right to infringe everyone else's intellectual property.
No doubt they'd argue that Picasso's use of a rectangular canvas made his paintings open to be copied.
There is such a thing as beauty and elegance in engineering and you should be able to patent it. It is when you, e.g. solve 5 problems with one simple and intuitive solution instead of 5 separate discordant solutions.
You can, you just can't try to pass it as a Picasso. How many cover bands are there making money singing songs of other bands.
So just like with "rounded rectangles" Samsung creates a strawman so they can knock it down. When did Apple EVER claim they have the rights to beauty or elegance?
didn't Australia allow/grant the patents in the first place?... so ugly duckling into a swan?... and now "we can't have that"...
so, models are not needed for beauty!... yes that is correct... anybody could be wearing the clothes on a runaway and show them off... but that does not happen... why not?... because the clothes need someone beautiful to give people the idea that they could/should be wearing these clothes...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what's+the+Chewbacca+defense?
Bad analogy. You using beautiful models to show off your clothes doesn't prevent me from using beautiful models or even the same exact ones. You might have 2-3 under contract but not all of them.
I need to use that more often, but how many here will take offense that you took them to Google? Lol
Yes, but then we're both right!
1) I don' think I've used LMGTFY for a couple years. I'm not sure why I'm sure people have asked questions that they could pop into Google. Teach a man to fish...
2) LOL you're right. Some want nothing to do with Google in any way but "Let Me Bing That For You" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
edit: It exists: http://letmebingthatforyou.com/?q=What is the Chewbacca defense?
Uhm, Samsung, isn't that what is called patenting your intellectual property? The design of an interface or product is in direct correspondence with how your customers feel connected to the brand (in this case, Apple). If anything, I think that design patents could be even more important then technical patents in some cases. The feel of a product (digital or physical), the color and material, the roundness of a corner, and the elements used throughout a product are what makes a consumer feels connected with it.
I do believe that wether or not you find something beautiful can be very personal, but if a designer gets the combination of design elements (hardware and software) just right, the majority of consumers might feel inclined to unconsiously agree with the choices made by the designer. It's part of what makes or breaks a product imho, and with copy-frenzy-companies like Samsung around, I can only agree that design patents are a necessity.
Just to be clear:
The patent in question is a utility patent, not an ornamental design patent.
(The diagram at the head of this article is the wrong one for this particular trial.)
This is a correct drawing:
Carry on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Apple is never going to win the patent war. All they can do is win with common sense and manufacturing capabilities years in advance of everyone else. Samsung has no common sense and it's not something you can learn.
Common sense is a non-sequitur in this context. You are talk about engineering capabilities, design sense and business sense. Ethics aside, Samsung is showing tons of business sense in their strategy. The proof is in the numbers.