"A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008."
"It was first announced on December 12, 2006."
Why don't you try reading the article first next time.....
Why let mere facts stand in the way of a strong opinion and fierce loyalty? You need to go along in order to get along. If you are an instrumentalist, facts are whatever work best for you. Reality ain't got much hold on some folks.
intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable
And so you're the one who gets to define "intuitive", then? So what happens if something more "intuitive" comes along? Does that mean I get to patent my older, once-thought-to-be-unpatentable invention?
Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.
It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.
Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.
This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.
Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
If there was something factually incorrect in their article, wouldn't it be better to just point it out rather than using vague accusations painted with a broad brush but no detail?
So what parts were incorrect? That way others don\\'t repeat the same misinformation.
BTW, FOSSPatents real patent lawyer makes the same "likely invalid" comment regarding Appl'es swipe to unloack infringement claim.
I have never stated that it looks like it, just saying that your statement about the release date is incorrect. The prada isn't even mentioned in the court order.
If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
The judge is just going over the design in parts; the comment about the icons is a part of why he/she thinks the patent isn't applicable. The judge also covers side views, back, front, things like audio jack placement, logo placement, etc.
Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.
It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.
Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.
This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.
Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.
You, on the other hand, have none of that.
How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?
Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?
For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".
From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?
At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.
You, on the other hand, have none of that.
How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?
Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?
For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".
From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?
I'm sorry that Santa Claus wasn't real.
That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.
If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.
Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.
If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.
Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
I missed the part where you tell us where the article you don't like is incorrect.
That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.
If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.
Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
Still waiting any argument against the article.
Can you point any false or wrong point?
Who is crying? It seems you are crying and in denying phase
The photo viewer issue the judge ruled on in this case applies to all android models. Does anyone know if samsung can make the changes itself or do they need google to do it?
Maybe they could get Skyhook to do it, they fit well in Android's "open" system.
Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.
The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.
That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).
"Samsung violates patent EP 868 with its Galaxy S, S2 and Ace model, but not with its Galaxy tablets. Samsung does not violate patent EP 948, while patent EP 022 was considered invalid. There was no violation by Samsung on any of Apple's design or copyright ..."
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.
If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
I'm afraid you'll need a judge with strong Applefanboysm syndrome before IQ.
Original iPhone was announced on announced on January 9, 2007. LG Prada was was first announced on December 12, 2006. Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006. Plus, there's a bit of controversy re International Forum Design; Prada won iF Award in 2007, but entries for that award had to be applied before the end of September 2006. I think LG would have strong case that design for the phone (if not working prototypes) were in existence by the September 2006. It might be truth that iPhone design and prototypes were finalised even before that, but thanks to Apple's traditional secrecy, it is a bit harder to be sure.
Re Nokia, it is true that it doesn't look like iPhone, but basic GUI has the same attributes - grid arranged icons, touch icon to start app. Same goes for Palm and WinMo PDAs.
Comments
Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?
"Sometimes an insect will even mimic its predator."
It should help Samsung realise they aren't going to come out on top by taking this approach.
"A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008."
"It was first announced on December 12, 2006."
Why don't you try reading the article first next time.....
Why let mere facts stand in the way of a strong opinion and fierce loyalty? You need to go along in order to get along. If you are an instrumentalist, facts are whatever work best for you. Reality ain't got much hold on some folks.
intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable
And so you're the one who gets to define "intuitive", then? So what happens if something more "intuitive" comes along? Does that mean I get to patent my older, once-thought-to-be-unpatentable invention?
Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.
It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.
Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.
This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.
Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
If there was something factually incorrect in their article, wouldn't it be better to just point it out rather than using vague accusations painted with a broad brush but no detail?
So what parts were incorrect? That way others don\\'t repeat the same misinformation.
BTW, FOSSPatents real patent lawyer makes the same "likely invalid" comment regarding Appl'es swipe to unloack infringement claim.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/
So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg
I have never stated that it looks like it, just saying that your statement about the release date is incorrect. The prada isn't even mentioned in the court order.
If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
The judge is just going over the design in parts; the comment about the icons is a part of why he/she thinks the patent isn't applicable. The judge also covers side views, back, front, things like audio jack placement, logo placement, etc.
Comment in quote
Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.
It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.
Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.
This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.
Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.
You, on the other hand, have none of that.
How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?
Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?
For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".
From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?
I'm sorry that Santa Claus wasn't real.
At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.
You, on the other hand, have none of that.
How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?
Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?
For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".
From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?
I'm sorry that Santa Claus wasn't real.
That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.
If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.
Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
Galaxy Quest.
That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.
If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.
Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
I missed the part where you tell us where the article you don't like is incorrect.
That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.
If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.
Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
Still waiting any argument against the article.
Can you point any false or wrong point?
Who is crying? It seems you are crying and in denying phase
Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?
The judge used Knight Rider in Samsung defense about Galaxy Tab.
Do you still find using movies funny?
It?s a very Shocking news for Samsung Galaxy smart phones buyers as they will not get such good business Phone.
No, is a shoking news for AI readers as they won't have right information in this article
The photo viewer issue the judge ruled on in this case applies to all android models. Does anyone know if samsung can make the changes itself or do they need google to do it?
Maybe they could get Skyhook to do it, they fit well in Android's "open" system.
Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.
The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.
That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).
According to this:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22527
"Samsung violates patent EP 868 with its Galaxy S, S2 and Ace model, but not with its Galaxy tablets. Samsung does not violate patent EP 948, while patent EP 022 was considered invalid. There was no violation by Samsung on any of Apple's design or copyright ..."
Not sure how accurate translation is, thought.
Maybe they could get Skyhook to do it, they fit well in Android's "open" system.
Maybe they only need to put AOSP gallery app
OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.
Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.
Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone
And the Nokia 7710?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.
If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
I'm afraid you'll need a judge with strong Applefanboysm syndrome before IQ.
Original iPhone was announced on announced on January 9, 2007. LG Prada was was first announced on December 12, 2006. Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006. Plus, there's a bit of controversy re International Forum Design; Prada won iF Award in 2007, but entries for that award had to be applied before the end of September 2006. I think LG would have strong case that design for the phone (if not working prototypes) were in existence by the September 2006. It might be truth that iPhone design and prototypes were finalised even before that, but thanks to Apple's traditional secrecy, it is a bit harder to be sure.
Re Nokia, it is true that it doesn't look like iPhone, but basic GUI has the same attributes - grid arranged icons, touch icon to start app. Same goes for Palm and WinMo PDAs.