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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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?
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.
Comments
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?
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
roundedrectangle.Groan. Talk about dumb dumb.
Please skil up on etymology.
…dumb dumb…
Say what you will about his argument, I do like the phrase “dumb dumb”. It’s just really cute.
They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.
Accomplice.
"Fagan" perhaps...
is that the same as..[VIDEO]
EDIT: This one sounds like a possibility: Vicarious or Contributory damages?
Yes that's the one. Google can be sued for Contributory Infringement.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Don't hate the player... hate the game
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.
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!
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?
It was more fun to laugh at him for posting that. Correcting him ruined it for me.