I hope you never become near-sighted, but I also hope you live a long life, and the two rarely coincide.
Right. Samsung's lawyer can't afford glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung
This will just make it bad for tech over all. Can you tell a samsung Tv, Lg Tv, Sony TV, and Vizio TV from 20 feet away. This may set a precedent going the wrong way.
The problem with that logic is that if all TV's look the same, then it's not a trade dress issue. It would only be an issue if someone created a TV that looked entirely different and then others copied it - which is what happened with the iPad.
And to disarm some of the other stupid arguments, you'll notice that Apple isn't going after all the rectangular tablets with rounded corners. If you read the German judge's decision, Samsung's tablets were only banned because they are near exact copies of Apple's iPad in 5 or 6 different criteria - which would have been easy to work around if Samsung weren't trying so hard to confuse consumers.
I don't think a common consumer will be able to tell which one is iPad and which one is Galaxy if they're new to the tablet market. They have no idea what they suppose to look like other than a rectangle shape tablet.
Can you tell which digital camera is by Canon and which is by Olympus without looking at the logo? The 2 cameras may be totally different look but you may not be able to tell if you're new to the digital camera market.
A more fair question for a common consumer is "Are these 2 pads different products or they're the same product?" I think a common consumer should be able to answer that.
A common consumer thinking about buying a tablet will do his/her research and try the devices out before plunging >$500 into it. They will not mistake one tablet from another.
From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.
Ja, maybe from 30 or more feet away ... if you can't stand ten feet in front of a TV and tell if it's Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or Magnavox then you really need to get your head or your vision checked.
Any idiot could stand 10 feet into front of a TV and tell what brand it was ... your suggestion is just patently absurd.
The fact this lawyer, standing just 10 feet away, couldn't tell the difference between an iPad2 and the Samsung Galaxy Tab II speaks volumes about the issue at hand ...
Apple doesn't seen to be playing up the trade dress angle; most of their claims right now center around design patents, which present a very different set of requirements.
Really? Then why did the judge hold up two tablets and ask the attorney to tell the difference?
While a ban on selling Galaxy pads would be brutal for Samsung, the sting felt as Apple slowly withdraws from every contract with them will hurt even more.
Oops! You guys are right. I misread it to mean Apple will feel the sting when Samsung withdraws from the contracts to build idevices.
Ask Meuller. He's done a good job explaining the difference between design patents and trade dress in the past, so I'm sure he'll be able to arrive at an answer you'll find satisfying.
No, I'm asking you. You're the one that said the appearance was irrelevant. Once again, if the appearance is irrelevant, why did the judge hold up two tablets and ask the attorney which was which.
First to innovate. Not first to patent or first to conceptualize or first to "air design." Ideas and notions cannot be patented.
Apple owns FingerWorks and it's patents. Also many of their patents have to do with specific ways to implement multitouch.
But this case is mostly about design patents, which are a slam dunk for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:
By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.
That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."
"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
Ummm... it is called APPLE insider... Go troll the Android Insider board...
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
Well jump in a time machine and go back and help Samsung's lawyer to do that.
Tough luck, you can't.
Could have, would have, should have, the lawyers blew it.
The lawyers blew it, get over it, move on.
Samsung slavishly copied Apple and everyone except a few diehards knows that.
Comments
Wow! I can't even make this stuff up.
This was definitely a Perry Mason moment in the courtroom!
I hope you never become near-sighted, but I also hope you live a long life, and the two rarely coincide.
Right. Samsung's lawyer can't afford glasses.
From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.
This will just make it bad for tech over all. Can you tell a samsung Tv, Lg Tv, Sony TV, and Vizio TV from 20 feet away. This may set a precedent going the wrong way.
The problem with that logic is that if all TV's look the same, then it's not a trade dress issue. It would only be an issue if someone created a TV that looked entirely different and then others copied it - which is what happened with the iPad.
And to disarm some of the other stupid arguments, you'll notice that Apple isn't going after all the rectangular tablets with rounded corners. If you read the German judge's decision, Samsung's tablets were only banned because they are near exact copies of Apple's iPad in 5 or 6 different criteria - which would have been easy to work around if Samsung weren't trying so hard to confuse consumers.
Can you tell which digital camera is by Canon and which is by Olympus without looking at the logo? The 2 cameras may be totally different look but you may not be able to tell if you're new to the digital camera market.
A more fair question for a common consumer is "Are these 2 pads different products or they're the same product?" I think a common consumer should be able to answer that.
A common consumer thinking about buying a tablet will do his/her research and try the devices out before plunging >$500 into it. They will not mistake one tablet from another.
From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.
Ja, maybe from 30 or more feet away ... if you can't stand ten feet in front of a TV and tell if it's Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or Magnavox then you really need to get your head or your vision checked.
Any idiot could stand 10 feet into front of a TV and tell what brand it was ... your suggestion is just patently absurd.
The fact this lawyer, standing just 10 feet away, couldn't tell the difference between an iPad2 and the Samsung Galaxy Tab II speaks volumes about the issue at hand ...
Apple doesn't seen to be playing up the trade dress angle; most of their claims right now center around design patents, which present a very different set of requirements.
Really? Then why did the judge hold up two tablets and ask the attorney to tell the difference?
Can you tell the TV is by Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or Magnavox if the logo is missing or is on the back of the TV?
I like how you left LG off that list. You can always tell LG from the "Touch of Crap" they put on all their stuff.
You're probably going to want to reread his post.
Isn't that what he just said?
While a ban on selling Galaxy pads would be brutal for Samsung, the sting felt as Apple slowly withdraws from every contract with them will hurt even more.
Oops! You guys are right. I misread it to mean Apple will feel the sting when Samsung withdraws from the contracts to build idevices.
Samsung's tablets infringe patents owned by Apple, a US judge has ruled.
Ask Meuller. He's done a good job explaining the difference between design patents and trade dress in the past, so I'm sure he'll be able to arrive at an answer you'll find satisfying.
No, I'm asking you. You're the one that said the appearance was irrelevant. Once again, if the appearance is irrelevant, why did the judge hold up two tablets and ask the attorney which was which.
Some iPads have a black screen with a White border.
In fact, if Sammy were smart, they'd pick a different color for their tablets -- maybe:
I think you know that's being pedantic. Apple make black iPads and white ones, so those colours are out? Each company should use a different colour?
The tech industry has a long history of using black as it's primary colour. Almost every television is black for a reason; it's less distracting.
Apple owns FingerWorks and it's patents. Also many of their patents have to do with specific ways to implement multitouch.
But this case is mostly about design patents, which are a slam dunk for Apple.
In a world where OJ was found innocent of crimes but also found financially liable for crimes he didn't commit, how this weird case plays out is anyone's guess.
But a little stroll down Multi-touch Prior Art Lane suggests where it may be headed:
Pinch and zoom circa 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY
Microsoft Multi-Touch Patent App Predates Apple?s
http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...tes-apples/609
Tablet UI concepts, circa 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Touch gestures, including two-finger pinch, circa 1992:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30828816089246
Multitouch UIs, 1970s forward:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
And then there's this summary from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
By the time this is done, the scope of enforceable "non-obvious" elements in Apple's patents related to multitouch will likely be so slender as to have very low liabilities if any at all.
That would leave only the hardware design patents, which are increasingly seen as questionable in the courts since they rely on attributes such as round corners, black frames, and slender form factors which are not only utilitartian in nature but have also been in existence throughout so much of consumer electronics that their application to tablets seems likely to face the same scrutiny, forcing Apple to describe their specific non-obvious contributions over prior art which may form a subset of enforceable elements, again reducing penalties down to something closer to zero.
Other highlights from the article:
HEADLINE: "Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge"
"Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents in the latest courtroom face-off between the technology giants."
"'Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?' Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
"She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents."
"Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as 'tentative' but said she would issue a formal order 'fairly promptly.'"
So one lawyer's near-sighted, others have no problem identifying the tablet, and the headline is about the much deeper question of whether Apple has any case here at all.
What a way for AI to miss the point of the stories they selectively edit for their audience here.
Ummm... it is called APPLE insider... Go troll the Android Insider board...
Right. Samsung's lawyer can't afford glasses.
Maybe she's too vain? And she ran out of fresh contacts, because she's been working 20 hour days?
Impossible.
All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind
Well jump in a time machine and go back and help Samsung's lawyer to do that.
Tough luck, you can't.
Could have, would have, should have, the lawyers blew it.
The lawyers blew it, get over it, move on.
Samsung slavishly copied Apple and everyone except a few diehards knows that.
You simply have to turn them on and realize that they are completely different...
I hate the look and feel patents.... The patents should be banned not the hardware....