In order for prior art to prevent or invalidate a patent, that prior art must have been available to the patent filer or patent holder. It is up to the patent filer to do the research for prior art before filing. The patent office will also review the patent claim before issuing the patent to see if any prior art exist. However, if your ideas was locked up in a safe place and in a sealed notarized envelope that only you knew about, then it was not available to the patent filer (or Patent Office) and the patent filer can claim that he arrived at his invention without using any of your ideas as prior art.
Actually, this situation is not un-heard of: Inventor A develops a invention, keeps its design private as a "trade secret" and then goes on to make a successful product/business out of that design. Inventor B independently develops an identical invention and publicly files to patent it, then creates his own successful product/business based on this patented invention. Inventor B subsequently proves that Inventor A's previous trade-secret-protected product is identical to his own patented product (because the secret was somehow exposed) and successfully sues Inventor A to halt sales and production of the original product for patent infringement. Prior art arguments don't have any application in this case.
Does the Etch-a-Sketch resemble Apple's design patent? Rather than make a silly comparison, simply look at Apple's design patent, then tell me what technology they specify for the display. There's your answer.
Now you're talking about the technology they specify for the display after you wrote, "The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type."? It's this kind of back and forth crap that is probably not fairing well for Samsung's lawyers either.
Now you're talking about the technology they specify for the display after you wrote, "The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type."? It's this kind of back and forth crap that is probably not fairing well for Samsung's lawyers either.
Soli, I've no idea what you're getting at. The screen technology isn't described in the Apple design patent, nor should it be as it's not pertinent if it's not germane to the look. So why do you want to claim it matters? Are you wanting to validate the argument that any similar designs that might have pre-dated the Apple patent don't matter if they don't have capacitive screens? That's a argument without merit.
So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.?
Does the Etch-a-Sketch resemble Apple's design patent? Rather than make a silly comparison, simply look at Apple's design patent, then tell me what technology they specify for the display. There's your answer.
This is really cracking me up. What were Samsung's lawyers thinking? A simulation of a device using special effects is now considered prior art? In that case, I guess if anyone ever truly invents a transporter, they can't patent it because Star Trek did it first. I guess Apple should lose any iPhone patents because Dick Tracy had one on his wrist. And I guess Universal Studios (for Frankenstein) should own any patents relating to organ transplants.
I suppose this would mean that if I set up a bunch of toys on a table, shine a light on them and use animation to move them around, I can claim I invented holographic television because I emulated what that would be like?
Besides, back when Sculley was still at Apple, they put together a clip where Sculley goes to the park, sits on a bench and opens a paper-thin device that then beeps like a Mac and enables him to read a book. I believe it had a foldable screen, so it looked like the double-page spread of a book, but it worked essentially like a tablet, although it might have used a stylus. So Apple was still there before Samsung, according to Samsung's legal fantasies.
Considering how the dissenters claim the iPad is just a toy and is for idiots it's hard to imagine them arguing that the Etch-A-Sketch is not prior art because it has a tablet shape with a display and border. It's certainly more functiona that's the prior art Samsung's lawyers have tried to present.
So? The F700 is a phone with a slide-out keyboard like a number of phones that came earlier and looks very little like an iPhone in most respects. What does it have to do with Samsung's design philosophy: "make a bunch of prototypes and choose the one that looks the most like Apple's product"?
Oh, didn't Apple say Samsung copied iPhone in f-700?
I'm having trouble understanding your point. No, his point wasnt nonsense, but you seem confused. Yes, even if they developed this phone in 2006, SO WHAT? Read my post again. Their argument was that this phone was similar to an iPhone, and the point I made is that it absolutely had no relation to the iPhone, functionally, hardware wise, software wise, etc. Its irrelevant when they made this phone because it doesnt jive with their argument that their phones were headed in the iPhone's direction- this one clearly wasn't, for all the obvious reasons I listed. And this is what they consider their strongest case of that argument. Their goal was to prove their were working on an iPhone like design before the iPhone, and this phone is anything but, and in no way, shape, or phone resembles an iPhone. Again, whats your point? You don't seem to understand the basic premise of the argument yet you're intent on vaguely disagreeing.
So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.? ????
PS: Addabox and NasserAE have this list of steps that people take to discounting anything Apple ever invents. I don't remember the whole thing but it first starts off with the anti-Apple crowd saying how stupid and pointless their new product is, followed by claims that it won't sell. And it ends with those same people saying how obvious the whole thing was from the start after it's sold very well and a rush of me-to imitators have rushed in behind them.
It usually ends with them praising imitators for doing it better than Apple and offering that opinion as 'proof' that Apple is uncompetitive.
Just look at the stunt the Koreans pulled in the Olympics, and that will tell you everything you need to know about the unethical Koreans and Same Old Song.
Just look at the stunt the Koreans pulled in the Olympics, and that will tell you everything you need to know about the unethical Koreans and Same Old Song.
1) What stunt is that?
2) What is your argument that Olympic gymnasts and a company are all exactly alike? How do rationalize the behavior of some humans that is not unique in any part of the world with an entire country and their entire population?
Comments
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Does the Etch-a-Sketch resemble Apple's design patent?
Well, it and the iPad both have 'shake to undo'. I guess Etch's owners can sue Apple for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
In order for prior art to prevent or invalidate a patent, that prior art must have been available to the patent filer or patent holder. It is up to the patent filer to do the research for prior art before filing. The patent office will also review the patent claim before issuing the patent to see if any prior art exist. However, if your ideas was locked up in a safe place and in a sealed notarized envelope that only you knew about, then it was not available to the patent filer (or Patent Office) and the patent filer can claim that he arrived at his invention without using any of your ideas as prior art.
Actually, this situation is not un-heard of: Inventor A develops a invention, keeps its design private as a "trade secret" and then goes on to make a successful product/business out of that design. Inventor B independently develops an identical invention and publicly files to patent it, then creates his own successful product/business based on this patented invention. Inventor B subsequently proves that Inventor A's previous trade-secret-protected product is identical to his own patented product (because the secret was somehow exposed) and successfully sues Inventor A to halt sales and production of the original product for patent infringement. Prior art arguments don't have any application in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, it and the iPad both have 'shake to undo'. I guess Etch's owners can sue Apple for that.
Well played sir...
Now you're talking about the technology they specify for the display after you wrote, "The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type."? It's this kind of back and forth crap that is probably not fairing well for Samsung's lawyers either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Now you're talking about the technology they specify for the display after you wrote, "The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type."? It's this kind of back and forth crap that is probably not fairing well for Samsung's lawyers either.
Soli, I've no idea what you're getting at. The screen technology isn't described in the Apple design patent, nor should it be as it's not pertinent if it's not germane to the look. So why do you want to claim it matters? Are you wanting to validate the argument that any similar designs that might have pre-dated the Apple patent don't matter if they don't have capacitive screens? That's a argument without merit.
Absolutely; their both easy to operate
This is really cracking me up. What were Samsung's lawyers thinking? A simulation of a device using special effects is now considered prior art? In that case, I guess if anyone ever truly invents a transporter, they can't patent it because Star Trek did it first. I guess Apple should lose any iPhone patents because Dick Tracy had one on his wrist. And I guess Universal Studios (for Frankenstein) should own any patents relating to organ transplants.
I suppose this would mean that if I set up a bunch of toys on a table, shine a light on them and use animation to move them around, I can claim I invented holographic television because I emulated what that would be like?
Besides, back when Sculley was still at Apple, they put together a clip where Sculley goes to the park, sits on a bench and opens a paper-thin device that then beeps like a Mac and enables him to read a book. I believe it had a foldable screen, so it looked like the double-page spread of a book, but it worked essentially like a tablet, although it might have used a stylus. So Apple was still there before Samsung, according to Samsung's legal fantasies.
Considering how the dissenters claim the iPad is just a toy and is for idiots it's hard to imagine them arguing that the Etch-A-Sketch is not prior art because it has a tablet shape with a display and border. It's certainly more functiona that's the prior art Samsung's lawyers have tried to present.
Oh, didn't Apple say Samsung copied iPhone in f-700?
See above
It usually ends with them praising imitators for doing it better than Apple and offering that opinion as 'proof' that Apple is uncompetitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.?
I read Apple's actual wording in their design patent, and strangely enough they assert it applies even to a toy!
"The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.
As indicated in the title, the article of manufacture to which
the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic
device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player),
media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), a novelty item or toy
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf
Just look at the stunt the Koreans pulled in the Olympics, and that will tell you everything you need to know about the unethical Koreans and Same Old Song.
1) What stunt is that?
2) What is your argument that Olympic gymnasts and a company are all exactly alike? How do rationalize the behavior of some humans that is not unique in any part of the world with an entire country and their entire population?