If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.
Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.
Why don't American corporations that call foul about the onslaught of Chinese counterfeit products pull out of China? That'll serve them right.
According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....
Basically if Samsung didn't use a bezel around the screen it wouldn't infringe the design patents, as the three elements of Apple's asserted patent are a flat uninterrupted face, a rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners and a bezel. He went on to say that other views in a design patent should also be considered, but in Apple's case those "other views" are not intended to be included in their claims and simply shown for illustrative purposes according to Apple's patent filing.
This is what I don't get. You quote all this perfectly reasonable stuff, yet I know you are actually in disagreement with Apple's case. It's as if you think this is not only wrong, but so obviously so that yo udon't even have to tell us exactly what's wrong here.
Yes, if they included a bezel, it would violate Apple's design patent. This is perfectly reasonable. Yes, when making a design patent, it's perfectly reasonable to state in the patent that certain views are supposed to be unique (and thus patentable) and others not. This is all perfectly normal stuff.
Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that malfunction was the number 1 reason that iPads are returned as well. That's the reason I returned my first iPad. It's also the reason I returned my recently purchased refurbished asus transformer.
In fact, it's probably the number 1 reason given by consumers for returning anything...
This is what I don't get. You quote all this perfectly reasonable stuff, yet I know you are actually in disagreement with Apple's case. It's as if you think this is not only wrong, but so obviously so that yo udon't even have to tell us exactly what's wrong here.
Yes, if they included a bezel, it would violate Apple's design patent. This is perfectly reasonable. Yes, when making a design patent, it's perfectly reasonable to state in the patent that certain views are supposed to be unique (and thus patentable) and others not. This is all perfectly normal stuff.
I'm don't at all disagree with Apple's complaints of Samsung "copying" Apple's general designs. If you read my other posts on the subject you would know that. I don't think that either of the two design patents that Apple was awarded should have been.
The brunt of Apple's design protection on one is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners surrounded by a bezel. That's about it, and all that even Apple's expert is claiming. The other design patent is even more generic, dropping any reference to even a bezel and simply referencing a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners. According to Apple's statement these patents apply to any type of electronic device, even a toy, no matter the dimensions or usage.
IMO, Apple doesn't need either one of those to prove Samsung has infringed on their trade dress, and neither should be found valid. If you take the time to actually look at the patent claims, understanding that anything shown with dotted lines is not part of them, you might even agree with me. I don't personally think that they should ever have been issued to begin with and may be found invalid before all is said and done. That doesn't mean that Samsung is innocent tho.
This usage long predates the degeneration of the original term "fanboy" into "fanboi."
"Fanboi" came to be used by goofs who think it sounds cool or more "internet-y" than the original "fanboy" but "boi" has been in use for decades previous. I don't use Google, but if Google says otherwise, they are wrong, and you are wrong.
I find it pretty hilarious that a lot of teenaged males who sometimes show signs of homophobia and often display an alarmingly incomplete knowledge of ... well, pretty much anything, are using this term without even knowing what it really means.
OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?
because the low end products are probably from the same third party manufacturer. They just slap a different company label on it or a slightly different shell from that manufacturer. Like those seen on TV shit. That's what you see on big box retailers. Everyone benefits from the economy of scale. Do a google image search of those kitchen products and you see a lot of designer kitchens for enormous sums.
This usage long predates the degeneration of the original term "fanboy" into "fanboi."
"Fanboi" came to be used by goofs who think it sounds cool or more "internet-y" than the original "fanboy" but "boi" has been in use for decades previous. I don't use Google, but if Google says otherwise, they are wrong, and you are wrong.
I find it pretty hilarious that a lot of teenaged males who sometimes show signs of homophobia and often display an alarmingly incomplete knowledge of ... well, pretty much anything, are using this term without even knowing what it really means.
When you're able to do a quick wiki search of boi but can't be bothered to use any search engine to look up fanboi, then what is the purpose of replying to what I said?
Is it because you took affront at a simple instruction?
I write a popular iPad app, and I have had several people ask how to install my app on their Samsung iPad. I'm not kidding. I have to explain to them it's not an iPad and to return it and buy a real one.
I think part of the reason is that they go to the store looking for an iPad and somehow get convinced to buy a Samsung "version" because it's $50 less or whatever. Some people really don't know the difference and when it looks the same they figure it does the task.
I write a popular iPad app, and I have had several people ask how to install my app on their Samsung iPad. I'm not kidding. I have to explain to them it's not an iPad and to return it and buy a real one.
I think part of the reason is that they go to the store looking for an iPad and somehow get convinced to buy a Samsung "version" because it's $50 less or whatever. Some people really don't know the difference and when it looks the same they figure it does the task.
I have never come across a tablet user in South Korea who has ever asked me where he or she could get my iPad app for a Galaxy Tab (Samsung iPad?). If a Korean were to come up to me at Starbucks Apgujeong station and point out that my iPad was the same device as their Samsung iPad, I think everyone in the store would stop sipping their caramel macchiatos and silently say, "I pity you, fool."
According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....
"Two Japanese patents and one Korean patent show a rectangular phone form with a large glass face and rounded corners. The glass face varies in size from one patent to the other, but all are much larger than older generations of phones. All three resemble the form of the iPhone, as well as the popular Samsung Galaxy line and its many variants."
Because none of those manufacturers have design patents that are as detailed as Apple's. Furthermore, none of them revolutionized their industry the way that Apple did. For refrigerators, microwaves, etc, they really DID get to the current design via a natural progression - or at least everyone thought so and never bothered to patent their designs.
An expert must be certified as an expert to be able toe express an OPINION. Anyone (expert or not) can state facts that they observed. It is certainly allowable to ask someone what they've observed. Of course, Apple could then ask him how much time he spent hanging around the cash registers of big box stores to show that even if people were mis-buying Samsung products every day he probably wouldn't have seen it.
It's really a moot point. Samsung's own documents state that the #1 reason for returns of their products at Best Buy was because people thought they were buying an iDevice and bought Samsung instead. That's going to carry a lot more weight than someone who probably doesn't hang out at Best Buy's cash register - and even if he did, the consumers didn't realize their error until they got home.
Would you not say the refrigerator was revolutionary over the ice box? A can list many more inventions that were more revolutionary than the iPhone.
OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?
how do you know that there aren't some law suits? There ways that refridgerators do distinguish themselves from each other that if those ideas were taken you would see lawsuits. But, i doubt you follow fridge trends enough to know whether there are or are not patent suits.
I'm sure Subzero has probably kept an eye on the GE Monogram series. And i'm sure Viking keeps an eye on the design of other manufacturing ranges. But, to the point, the GE Monogram and some Haier knock offs do cut into losses of Subzero and Viking, because from a design standpoint they look very similar for a decent discount. Is it right that Viking and Subzero popularized an indsutrial look to then lose in residential sales to simply cheaper products that look the same? Clearly, these two companies found a way to design a fridge and a range that look drastically different then other residential fridges. Why should that not be protected?
I'm don't at all disagree with Apple's complaints of Samsung "copying" Apple's general designs. If you read my other posts on the subject you would know that. I don't think that either of the two design patents that Apple was awarded should have been.
The brunt of Apple's design protection on one is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners surrounded by a bezel. That's about it, and all that even Apple's expert is claiming. The other design patent is even more generic, dropping any reference to even a bezel and simply referencing a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners. According to Apple's statement these patents apply to any type of electronic device, even a toy, no matter the dimensions or usage.
IMO, Apple doesn't need either one of those to prove Samsung has infringed on their trade dress, and neither should be found valid. If you take the time to actually look at the patent claims, understanding that anything shown with dotted lines is not part of them, you might even agree with me. I don't personally think that they should ever have been issued to begin with and may be found invalid before all is said and done. That doesn't mean that Samsung is innocent tho.
LOL losing steam, eh bud? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Follow these dotted lines --------> polly want a cracker, you sure are trained well.
LOL losing steam, eh bud? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Follow these dotted lines --------> polly want a cracker, you sure are trained well.
Apparently you disagree with at least some part of the post claims, but having a problem putting it in words so that it's understandable. Which part specifically? Perhaps easier for you, what was it that Apple's patent expert testified Samsung was copying from the patents, which is what the article is about?
Even if that's correct (the information provided by Samsung to the court tells a different story), it suggests that more than 8% of returns were due to product confusion. That's plenty to support Apple's case.
How many people buy a GM car thinking that they bought a Ford? How many fly somewhere on American and think they actually flew on United? I'll be the answers are way below 1% in either case.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
If Samsung feels so hard done by and if they had any principles, then they can withdraw all their products from the US and refuse to do business there.
Of course that won't happen because your fantasy is just that a fantasy.
Why don't American corporations that call foul about the onslaught of Chinese counterfeit products pull out of China? That'll serve them right.
Or maybe there's another reason. Hmm...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/26/a_nation_of_outlaws/?page=full
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach
In which part of Solip's post did he discount Dieter Rams' design? Better read his posts twice before commenting.
Apart from that you still don't get the difference between inspiration and copying.
Any designer so even Rams gets their inspiration from somewhere.
But in the case of Samesung we are talking about blatant copying.
I'll let Solip answer your question, Rabbit_Coach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-06/apple-expert-cites-returns-of-samsung-tablets-mistaken-for-ipad
Basically if Samsung didn't use a bezel around the screen it wouldn't infringe the design patents, as the three elements of Apple's asserted patent are a flat uninterrupted face, a rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners and a bezel. He went on to say that other views in a design patent should also be considered, but in Apple's case those "other views" are not intended to be included in their claims and simply shown for illustrative purposes according to Apple's patent filing.
This is what I don't get. You quote all this perfectly reasonable stuff, yet I know you are actually in disagreement with Apple's case. It's as if you think this is not only wrong, but so obviously so that yo udon't even have to tell us exactly what's wrong here.
Yes, if they included a bezel, it would violate Apple's design patent. This is perfectly reasonable. Yes, when making a design patent, it's perfectly reasonable to state in the patent that certain views are supposed to be unique (and thus patentable) and others not. This is all perfectly normal stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
Ok, fanboi. Fanboism are happened often.
That's "fanboy."
A "Boi" is a girl in drag as a man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Well according to CNET it was malfunction, not iPad confusion that caused people to return their Galaxy Tabs. Is that supposed to make Samsung feel better? It's not that your tablet is a ripoff it's that it sucks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57487895-37/malfunction-not-ipad-played-greater-role-in-galaxy-returns/
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that malfunction was the number 1 reason that iPads are returned as well. That's the reason I returned my first iPad. It's also the reason I returned my recently purchased refurbished asus transformer.
In fact, it's probably the number 1 reason given by consumers for returning anything...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
That's "fanboy."
A "Boi" is a girl in drag as a man.
Let Google be your friend this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa
Diasgreements are happened often. You're called a troll not because of disagreement, but because you're repeating what Android trolls spew everywhere.
Disagreements are happened often.
->Disagreements often happen.
There, I fixed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is what I don't get. You quote all this perfectly reasonable stuff, yet I know you are actually in disagreement with Apple's case. It's as if you think this is not only wrong, but so obviously so that yo udon't even have to tell us exactly what's wrong here.
Yes, if they included a bezel, it would violate Apple's design patent. This is perfectly reasonable. Yes, when making a design patent, it's perfectly reasonable to state in the patent that certain views are supposed to be unique (and thus patentable) and others not. This is all perfectly normal stuff.
I'm don't at all disagree with Apple's complaints of Samsung "copying" Apple's general designs. If you read my other posts on the subject you would know that. I don't think that either of the two design patents that Apple was awarded should have been.
The brunt of Apple's design protection on one is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners surrounded by a bezel. That's about it, and all that even Apple's expert is claiming. The other design patent is even more generic, dropping any reference to even a bezel and simply referencing a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners. According to Apple's statement these patents apply to any type of electronic device, even a toy, no matter the dimensions or usage.
IMO, Apple doesn't need either one of those to prove Samsung has infringed on their trade dress, and neither should be found valid. If you take the time to actually look at the patent claims, understanding that anything shown with dotted lines is not part of them, you might even agree with me. I don't personally think that they should ever have been issued to begin with and may be found invalid before all is said and done. That doesn't mean that Samsung is innocent tho.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475
Let Google be your friend this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi_(sexual_slang)
This usage long predates the degeneration of the original term "fanboy" into "fanboi."
"Fanboi" came to be used by goofs who think it sounds cool or more "internet-y" than the original "fanboy" but "boi" has been in use for decades previous. I don't use Google, but if Google says otherwise, they are wrong, and you are wrong.
I find it pretty hilarious that a lot of teenaged males who sometimes show signs of homophobia and often display an alarmingly incomplete knowledge of ... well, pretty much anything, are using this term without even knowing what it really means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?
because the low end products are probably from the same third party manufacturer. They just slap a different company label on it or a slightly different shell from that manufacturer. Like those seen on TV shit. That's what you see on big box retailers. Everyone benefits from the economy of scale. Do a google image search of those kitchen products and you see a lot of designer kitchens for enormous sums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi_(sexual_slang)
This usage long predates the degeneration of the original term "fanboy" into "fanboi."
"Fanboi" came to be used by goofs who think it sounds cool or more "internet-y" than the original "fanboy" but "boi" has been in use for decades previous. I don't use Google, but if Google says otherwise, they are wrong, and you are wrong.
I find it pretty hilarious that a lot of teenaged males who sometimes show signs of homophobia and often display an alarmingly incomplete knowledge of ... well, pretty much anything, are using this term without even knowing what it really means.
When you're able to do a quick wiki search of boi but can't be bothered to use any search engine to look up fanboi, then what is the purpose of replying to what I said?
Is it because you took affront at a simple instruction?
I write a popular iPad app, and I have had several people ask how to install my app on their Samsung iPad. I'm not kidding. I have to explain to them it's not an iPad and to return it and buy a real one.
I think part of the reason is that they go to the store looking for an iPad and somehow get convinced to buy a Samsung "version" because it's $50 less or whatever. Some people really don't know the difference and when it looks the same they figure it does the task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
I write a popular iPad app, and I have had several people ask how to install my app on their Samsung iPad. I'm not kidding. I have to explain to them it's not an iPad and to return it and buy a real one.
I think part of the reason is that they go to the store looking for an iPad and somehow get convinced to buy a Samsung "version" because it's $50 less or whatever. Some people really don't know the difference and when it looks the same they figure it does the task.
I have never come across a tablet user in South Korea who has ever asked me where he or she could get my iPad app for a Galaxy Tab (Samsung iPad?). If a Korean were to come up to me at Starbucks Apgujeong station and point out that my iPad was the same device as their Samsung iPad, I think everyone in the store would stop sipping their caramel macchiatos and silently say, "I pity you, fool."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
According to BusinessWeek, Bressler said that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents due to their use of "a flat, uninterrupted surface" and "rectangular proportions". Hmmmm.....
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-06/apple-expert-cites-returns-of-samsung-tablets-mistaken-for-ipad
does anyone know whether it's possible to get a copy of the official court transcripts in which this exchange, paraphrased above, took place?
here's another take on the events: http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240005067
"Two Japanese patents and one Korean patent show a rectangular phone form with a large glass face and rounded corners. The glass face varies in size from one patent to the other, but all are much larger than older generations of phones. All three resemble the form of the iPhone, as well as the popular Samsung Galaxy line and its many variants."
Would you not say the refrigerator was revolutionary over the ice box? A can list many more inventions that were more revolutionary than the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
OK, I have a serious question. If Samsung can be sued for design infringement, then why don't refrigerator, microwave, washing machine/dryer, vacuum cleaner, DVD/Blu-ray player, TV manufacturers, etc. sue each other into oblivion for similar designs?
how do you know that there aren't some law suits? There ways that refridgerators do distinguish themselves from each other that if those ideas were taken you would see lawsuits. But, i doubt you follow fridge trends enough to know whether there are or are not patent suits.
I'm sure Subzero has probably kept an eye on the GE Monogram series. And i'm sure Viking keeps an eye on the design of other manufacturing ranges. But, to the point, the GE Monogram and some Haier knock offs do cut into losses of Subzero and Viking, because from a design standpoint they look very similar for a decent discount. Is it right that Viking and Subzero popularized an indsutrial look to then lose in residential sales to simply cheaper products that look the same? Clearly, these two companies found a way to design a fridge and a range that look drastically different then other residential fridges. Why should that not be protected?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm don't at all disagree with Apple's complaints of Samsung "copying" Apple's general designs. If you read my other posts on the subject you would know that. I don't think that either of the two design patents that Apple was awarded should have been.
The brunt of Apple's design protection on one is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners surrounded by a bezel. That's about it, and all that even Apple's expert is claiming. The other design patent is even more generic, dropping any reference to even a bezel and simply referencing a flat rectangular shape with rounded corners. According to Apple's statement these patents apply to any type of electronic device, even a toy, no matter the dimensions or usage.
IMO, Apple doesn't need either one of those to prove Samsung has infringed on their trade dress, and neither should be found valid. If you take the time to actually look at the patent claims, understanding that anything shown with dotted lines is not part of them, you might even agree with me. I don't personally think that they should ever have been issued to begin with and may be found invalid before all is said and done. That doesn't mean that Samsung is innocent tho.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/677patent.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2012/07/087patent.pdf
LOL losing steam, eh bud? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Follow these dotted lines --------> polly want a cracker, you sure are trained well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
LOL losing steam, eh bud? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Follow these dotted lines --------> polly want a cracker, you sure are trained well.
Apparently you disagree with at least some part of the post claims, but having a problem putting it in words so that it's understandable. Which part specifically? Perhaps easier for you, what was it that Apple's patent expert testified Samsung was copying from the patents, which is what the article is about?
Even if that's correct (the information provided by Samsung to the court tells a different story), it suggests that more than 8% of returns were due to product confusion. That's plenty to support Apple's case.
How many people buy a GM car thinking that they bought a Ford? How many fly somewhere on American and think they actually flew on United? I'll be the answers are way below 1% in either case.