Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 115

    Funny thing about legal systems.  They are run on their own system of precedents and rules.  EU laws and patents exist in Europe.  American laws and patents exist in America.  Is it really that hard to keep track of where this trial is occurring?   

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    Well, like this article indicates, in the sidebar at the bottom, most companies that create a distinctive ornamental form for a product go on to apply for a design patent to protect that design. Microsoft did this for the xBox, as the sidebar indicates. So there's nothing unusual about this application of design patents by Apple. And I think Apple had a point to make, if not a legally enforceable one, that Samsung did its level best to copy the form of the iPad (and iPhone), bolstering Apple's position that Samsung copied many elements of Apple's iDevices. I think it helped to form a context under which Apple did prove infringement of other of its patents.

    I understand the rationale behind design patents and why companies apply for them. What I was curious about is what do you think is "distinctive" about that particular now-supposedly-protected design? Do you believe a rounded-rectangle warrants design protection?

    Based on the examiner's notes it looks as tho what she thought she was approving and what Apple factually applied for and received are not one and the same. When examiners can't properly understand what the applicant is applying for is this what happens or did it deserve patent protection anyway? Apple asks for and actually receives a design patent for a simple rounded rectangle.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 115
    .. oh, and while your at it, run a spell check on your name.. "skill" has two L's dumb dumb.

    Groan. Talk about dumb dumb.

    Please skil up on etymology.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 115
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

    dumb dumb




    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

    ...dumb dumb.

     

    Say what you will about his argument, I do like the phrase “dumb dumb”. It’s just really cute. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.

     

    Accomplice.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 115
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Accomplice.

    :lol: that one most certainly fits, but the term I'm looking for is more obscure.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 115
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    image that one most certainly fits, but the term I'm looking for is more obscure.

    "Fagan" perhaps...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 115
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    "Fagan" perhaps...

    is that the same as..[VIDEO]
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    :lol: that one most certainly fits, but the term I'm looking for is more obscure.
    The term you're looking for is perhaps Compensatory Damages?

    EDIT: This one sounds like a possibility: Vicarious or Contributory damages?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 115
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    The term you're looking for is perhaps Compensatory Damages?

    EDIT: This one sounds like a possibility: Vicarious or Contributory damages?

    Yes that's the one. Google can be sued for Contributory Infringement.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 115
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post

     

     

    Unfortunately for you (& Apple), you can't patent an idea.

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/15/protecting-ideas-can-ideas-be-protected-or-patented/id=48009/


     

    Which is why Apple patented a specific implementation of an idea.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 115
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Which is why Apple patented a specific implementation of an idea.

    Why is it so hard for people to comprehend such a simple concept? I'm starting to believe that they don't want to understand it. Selective ignorance if you may.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 115
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

     

     

    The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...


    You dribble on his drivel?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 115
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MarkyMarc43 View Post

     

    It would be shocking to me if you are older than 12. 

     

    You're best argument was to go after his spelling?? 

     

    "Yourself" is one word, Mr. Grammar. Remember when you're pointing a finger, three are pointing at you.


    Please restrain your self - it's out of control.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 115
    iobserve wrote: »
    An implementation of an idea is still just an idea until it has been made tangible.

    see: patent trolls. Their patents are all just ideas since none of them are put into practice, regardless of what they might cover.

    I thought you had to show proof that your thing works before they will grant you a patent? Otherwise... it really is just an idea... a dream.

    Apple's patents in this court case are for things they are currently using in shipping hardware... they're not some idea on a chalkboard.

    As for patent trolls... some companies buy patents from another company... even if they aren't gonna use them.

    But that goes back to my first question... didn't the first company who was granted the patent have to prove that it works before they got it?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 115
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Apple asks for and actually receives a design patent for a simple rounded rectangle.

    Don't hate the player... hate the game :D

    I agree that the entire patent system needs an overhaul... especially for software patents. That's something that our childrens' children might get.

    But as of right now... Apple and Samsung are using the rules and laws that are in place today... however crappy they may seem.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    I thought you had to show proof that your thing works before they will grant you a patent? Otherwise... it really is just an idea... a dream.

    Apple's patents in this court case are for things they are currently using in shipping hardware... they're not some idea on a chalkboard.

    As for patent trolls... some companies buy patents from another company... even if they aren't gonna use them.

    But that goes back to my first question... didn't the first company who was granted the patent have to prove that it works before they got it?

    An applicant does not have to submit a working model to obtain a patent, actual reduction to practice. They do have to supply some evidence that the claimed invention would work tho, constructive reduction to practice in the case of software. IMO it would solve a lot of issues about just what an applicant was really intending to patent, avoiding a lot of lawsuits and legal fees, if a working model was required. As it is years later a patentee can ask for a broad court interpretation of his patents claims to profit from another's innovation that he had never considered or anticipated with his own invention.
    Don't hate the player... hate the game :D

    I agree that the entire patent system needs an overhaul... especially for software patents. That's something that our childrens' children might get.

    But as of right now... Apple and Samsung are using the rules and laws that are in place today... however crappy they may seem.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 115
    gatorguy wrote: »
    An applicant does not have to submit a working model to obtain a patent, actual reduction to practice. They do have to supply some evidence that the claimed invention would work tho, constructive reduction to practice in the case of software. IMO it would solve a lot of issues about just what an applicant was really intending to patent, avoiding a lot of lawsuits and legal fees, if a working model was required. As it is years later a patentee can ask for a broad court interpretation of his patents claims to profit from another's innovation that he had never considered or anticipated with his own invention.

    Gotcha... thanks!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 115
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    [quote]The main argument: Google invented certain features before Apple patented them.[/quote]

    Apple also invented those features before Apple patented them. Sounds real similar to comparing sold versus shipped. The only statement that would have any real relevance would be did Google invent them before Apple invented them...wouldn't it?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 115
    chris_ca wrote: »
    You are assuming that Skil has the same meaning as Skill.
    and as you noted, it is his name...

    and you, dumb dumb, ?before you start trying to correct people, may want to make sure you write correctly.
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">You do not use an apostrophe to make a word plural.</span>

    It is "two Ls", not "two L's".  and in this case, it is one l, not two Ls.

    It was more fun to laugh at him for posting that. Correcting him ruined it for me. :p
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.