When was the iPhone patent FILED? It doesn't matter if these patents pre-date the iPhone, what matters is who filed the patent first. If Samsung and LG failed to file patents, then that's there's problem. If the Apple patent pre-dates the prior art, they are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
There is other prior art that invalidates Apple’s claims, Sherman says.It includes Korean Registered Design KR547, issued on July 6, 2006. It discloses a portable phone that has an overall rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners with a display centered on the front of the display, flat face, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
Samsung is now showing photos of the LG Prada phone, which Sherman says was released in late 2006 before Apple filed its patents.
LG Prada is a mobile handset that is rectangular, with rounded edges, flat front, black, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
Have LG's research and development documents or even patent applications on the features of the iPhone that predate Apple's own iPhone research and development documents or patent application filings ever seen the day of light in a court of record?
This whole apple fans vs google fans vs android fans vs samsung fans is getting old
Why can't we have a normal discussion without the childish playground fighting?
The trial is interesting and very important for the future of the industry. I am a fan of great products, who ever makes them and so I am interested to see the dynamics and details of the development of such products.
I am personally of the opinion that Apple did succeed in developing a product everyone was expecting to fail, especially when Nokia was dominating the phone market, but they did what others could not and credit needs to be given to Apple as they executed an innovative phone. Its one thing to conceptualize something and its another thing to actually make a functioning prototype and its yet another to make it commercially viable and manufacturable and its yet a whole another thing to succeed at it. Ask microsoft with their courier concept (no intention to criticize microsoft) but the concept is still very intriguing idea... the same is true for the iPad, others said there is no market for it, people want netbooks, yet Apple did it again. We are approaching yet another product the Apple TV (I don't mean the current little box) but the rumoured Apple TV. Others are trying desperately to predict what Apple will do and they are releasing everything that comes to mind, smartTVs, tv with gesture control, tv with voice control, tv with various providers etc but no one is really revolutionising the tv industry. Yet once Apple releases its idea then you will see others trying to imitate what Apple is doing because they know Apple would not release a product unless its was thought thru meticulously, so is it fair for one company to work hard at innovating and revolutionising the industry while others wait for Apples idea and then replicate it (legally or illegally)
I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...
I dream of a time when companies would have enough dignity to want to innovate and be the best at something rather than take the road Apple has already traveled and they make sure if there is danger ahead, let Apple discover it, while the rest waits (I am reffering to this particular case not saying no one else is innovating) android was a good idea and one opposite to Apple in philosophy and the fact that they both exist is great for everyone as long as they don't step on each other toes...
Apple may claim that's the date they invented it but Apple's D'087 patent wasn't filed until July 30, 2007, the D'667 wasn't filed until November 18, 2008.
Whether that witness opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, there's no way Apple's lawyers would have let it stand if he made such a false statement in terms of when the patents was filed.
Apple may claim that's the date they invented it but Apple's D'087 patent wasn't filed until July 30, 2007, the D'667 wasn't filed until November 18, 2008.
Whether that witness opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, there's no way Apple's lawyers would have let it stand if he made such a false statement in terms of when the patents was filed.
Internal R&D specs always pre-date patent filings by well over a year to two years.
Internal R&D specs always pre-date patent filings by well over a year to two years.
If we take that into consideration, whoever holds that KR547 patent likely worked it sometime before it was issued in July 2006. Possibly predating, April 2006 that Apple listed. Unless the patent office in South Korea works crazy fast.
In any case, my point remains. The witness made a statement regarding dates of when something was issue and when something was filed. If it was factually incorrect, Apple would've challenged it immediately.
Why can't we have a normal discussion without the childish playground fighting?
We could if the Anti-Apple Brigade packed up their troubles in their old kit-bag…
I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...
The other side would argue that this doesn't matter at all. And in the strictest sense, they may be right, but they're also wrong about the right arguments, so it doesn't leave them with much.
There is other prior art that invalidates Apple’s claims, Sherman says.It includes Korean Registered Design KR547, issued on July 6, 2006. It discloses a portable phone that has an overall rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners with a display centered on the front of the display, flat face, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
Samsung is now showing photos of the LG Prada phone, which Sherman says was released in late 2006 before Apple filed its patents.
LG Prada is a mobile handset that is rectangular, with rounded edges, flat front, black, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
Take your dissembling cr4p elsewhere. It has become quite tiresome.
If you are the type of consumer/employee that Samsung caters to, that reflects really poorly on the company.
Huh? You mean the kind who can recognize that the Prada and the iPhone are no more similar or different than the Galaxy S series and the iPhone? If you don't mind (and this goes for Tallest as well), please post a list of the similarities of the iPhone to the Prada and a second list of the similarities between the Galaxy S series and the iPhone. I can help out if you're unable or unwilling.
The Prada phone was clearly an inspiration for Apple to draw upon. Very few products are created in a vacuum, they're all built upon what came before them, and we all benefit from this gradual development. Android was built upon the advances made in iOS, and now iOS is taking Android developments and incorporating them. It's a two way street, and that's perfectly fine.
This petty fighting between Apple, Samsung, and everyone else is not only childish and demeaning, but also utterly pathetic. Hard to believe all this is being driven by supposedly professional adults, when in reality it's more like watching a bunch of children fighting over who has the better action figures.
I am personally of the opinion that Apple did succeed in developing a product everyone was expecting to fail, especially when Nokia was dominating the phone market, but they did what others could not and credit needs to be given to Apple as they executed an innovative phone. ...
Yet once Apple releases its idea then you will see others trying to imitate what Apple is doing because they know Apple would not release a product unless its was thought thru meticulously, so is it fair for one company to work hard at innovating and revolutionising the industry while others wait for Apples idea and then replicate it (legally or illegally)
...
I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...
....
You can have that opinion, but you state a fact.
And no, not everyone thought that the iPhone would fail.
So speak for yourself in that respect.
(It should have been clear to anyone looking at the keynote, the virtual keyboard was a revolution and the software centered approach and mobile OS X (iOS) was never shown before.)
Every good idea, whoever came up with it, is used by others.
Implementing them, without outright stealing the blueprints (as the Sovjets did with the Concorde) is ofcourse legit and almost as hard as the original development even if you know what the end result looks like. The result is yesterdays rage and the original developer has already moved on to the next great product that sells like crazy.
Huh? You mean the kind who can recognize that the Prada and the iPhone are no more similar or different than the Galaxy S series and the iPhone? If you don't mind (and this goes for Tallest as well), please post a list of the similarities of the iPhone to the Prada and a second list of the similarities between the Galaxy S series and the iPhone. I can help out if you're unable or unwilling.
The three protuding buttons on the face of the Prada, i.e. it is not flat, as Apple's design patent specifies, the Galaxy S countersunk it's single home button, just like Apple's design patent specifies.
Maybe you need one of these ???? or have had too many of these ????????????or these????????????.
Microsoft didn't 'bring' windows, they simply reversed engineered Mac OS.
Microsoft didn't need to reverse the Mac OS. Jobs trusted Microsoft to develop Office software for the Mac. Microsoft had internal access to the working of the Mac.
You can have that opinion, but you state a fact.
And no, not everyone thought that the iPhone would fail.
So speak for yourself in that respect.
J.
While 'everyone' is an exaggeration, there was a strong industry sentiment at the time that Apple would never succeed in the mobile phone market. Not only did you have people like Microsoft and Nokia and RIM executives publicly ridiculing the idea, a huge percentage of bloggers and journalists were highlighting that it was a high volume, low margin, commodity-like business where Apple couldn't compete.
The Prada phone was clearly an inspiration for Apple to draw upon. Very few products are created in a vacuum, they're all built upon what came before them, and we all benefit from this gradual development. Android was built upon the advances made in iOS, and now iOS is taking Android developments and incorporating them. It's a two way street, and that's perfectly fine.
Maybe you should start by learning the difference between 'inspiration' and 'slavish copying'.
Even if Apple was inspired by the Prada (which really doesn't seem likely), there's nothing illegal or even morally wrong with inspiration. There is, however, a great deal wrong with Samsung's clear attempts to copy every detail of the iPhone.
"invention" date ? What is that ? Is there any proof that date is correct ?
Apple D’677 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007
Apple D’087 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007
LG Prada July 6, 2006
Japan sharp phone design also prior-art of Apple's
Just to clarify things:
In terms of patent protection, invention date is no longer relevant in the US. At one time, we used the 'first to invent' system, so a great deal of energy was spent poring over old records to try to determine who implemented an patentable invention first. We switched to 'first to file' over a decade ago, so the important date is the day you get your application into the hands of the patent office.
In terms of invalidating a patent, invention date can be important under some circumstances. If company A files for a patent on Jan 1, 2005 and company B can prove that they were working on the patent in 2002, it might be possible to use that information to have the patent declared invalid. It's somewhat complicated, though, as there are a number of factors to be considered. In particular, it's not at all clear that Apple's design patents (which have different rules than utility patents) infringe on the JP patents you've cited or that the JP patents provide prior art for the Apple patents. And even if the JP patents ARE prior art, if they were disclosed by Apple to the patent office, then it's almost impossible to use them to invalidate Apple's patent.
I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.
One big difference in this case is that Apple outsells Samsung in the mobile space by nearly the same ratio as Microsoft outsold Apple in the desktop space. Samsung products also don't undercut Apple significantly. Not only this, Apple is the most valuable company in the world just now vs being on the verge of bankruptcy.
The situation is very different this time round. Combined Android phones from multiple manufacturers aren't even outselling Apple 2:1 so the Android/iOS overall marketshare will stay very close for a long time and Apple will take the majority of the profit.
Even if the worst case happened and Apple had to pay for Samsung's patents and got nothing in return, they will still be the most valuable company in the world and still outsell Samsung by a massive ratio. I can't see how that outcome would be possible though when you look at what Samsung has done. Apple will also cut contracts with Samsung so it severely affects their profits.
If Apple doesn't receive some damages, this trial will suggest that deliberate, planned plagiarism is acceptable in the electronics industry and sets a bad example going forward.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
When was the iPhone patent FILED? It doesn't matter if these patents pre-date the iPhone, what matters is who filed the patent first. If Samsung and LG failed to file patents, then that's there's problem. If the Apple patent pre-dates the prior art, they are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
There is other prior art that invalidates Apple’s claims, Sherman says.It includes Korean Registered Design KR547, issued on July 6, 2006. It discloses a portable phone that has an overall rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners with a display centered on the front of the display, flat face, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
Samsung is now showing photos of the LG Prada phone, which Sherman says was released in late 2006 before Apple filed its patents.
LG Prada is a mobile handset that is rectangular, with rounded edges, flat front, black, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/14/samsung-argues-prior-art-invalidates-apples-patents-calls-its-designer-as-trial-continues-live-blog/
Originally Posted by 845032
…issued on July 6, 2006… …late 2006… …before Apple filed its patents.
Have LG's research and development documents or even patent applications on the features of the iPhone that predate Apple's own iPhone research and development documents or patent application filings ever seen the day of light in a court of record?
If not, then there's a reason for that: copycats.
"invention" date ? What is that ? Is there any proof that date is correct ?
Apple D’677 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007
Apple D’087 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007
LG Prada July 6, 2006
Japan sharp phone design also prior-art of Apple's
This whole apple fans vs google fans vs android fans vs samsung fans is getting old
Why can't we have a normal discussion without the childish playground fighting?
The trial is interesting and very important for the future of the industry. I am a fan of great products, who ever makes them and so I am interested to see the dynamics and details of the development of such products.
I am personally of the opinion that Apple did succeed in developing a product everyone was expecting to fail, especially when Nokia was dominating the phone market, but they did what others could not and credit needs to be given to Apple as they executed an innovative phone. Its one thing to conceptualize something and its another thing to actually make a functioning prototype and its yet another to make it commercially viable and manufacturable and its yet a whole another thing to succeed at it. Ask microsoft with their courier concept (no intention to criticize microsoft) but the concept is still very intriguing idea... the same is true for the iPad, others said there is no market for it, people want netbooks, yet Apple did it again. We are approaching yet another product the Apple TV (I don't mean the current little box) but the rumoured Apple TV. Others are trying desperately to predict what Apple will do and they are releasing everything that comes to mind, smartTVs, tv with gesture control, tv with voice control, tv with various providers etc but no one is really revolutionising the tv industry. Yet once Apple releases its idea then you will see others trying to imitate what Apple is doing because they know Apple would not release a product unless its was thought thru meticulously, so is it fair for one company to work hard at innovating and revolutionising the industry while others wait for Apples idea and then replicate it (legally or illegally)
I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...
I dream of a time when companies would have enough dignity to want to innovate and be the best at something rather than take the road Apple has already traveled and they make sure if there is danger ahead, let Apple discover it, while the rest waits (I am reffering to this particular case not saying no one else is innovating) android was a good idea and one opposite to Apple in philosophy and the fact that they both exist is great for everyone as long as they don't step on each other toes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple may claim that's the date they invented it but Apple's D'087 patent wasn't filed until July 30, 2007, the D'667 wasn't filed until November 18, 2008.
Whether that witness opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, there's no way Apple's lawyers would have let it stand if he made such a false statement in terms of when the patents was filed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ufwa
Apple may claim that's the date they invented it but Apple's D'087 patent wasn't filed until July 30, 2007, the D'667 wasn't filed until November 18, 2008.
Whether that witness opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, there's no way Apple's lawyers would have let it stand if he made such a false statement in terms of when the patents was filed.
Internal R&D specs always pre-date patent filings by well over a year to two years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Internal R&D specs always pre-date patent filings by well over a year to two years.
If we take that into consideration, whoever holds that KR547 patent likely worked it sometime before it was issued in July 2006. Possibly predating, April 2006 that Apple listed. Unless the patent office in South Korea works crazy fast.
In any case, my point remains. The witness made a statement regarding dates of when something was issue and when something was filed. If it was factually incorrect, Apple would've challenged it immediately.
Originally Posted by Loading
Why can't we have a normal discussion without the childish playground fighting?
We could if the Anti-Apple Brigade packed up their troubles in their old kit-bag…
I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...
The other side would argue that this doesn't matter at all. And in the strictest sense, they may be right, but they're also wrong about the right arguments, so it doesn't leave them with much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
There is other prior art that invalidates Apple’s claims, Sherman says.It includes Korean Registered Design KR547, issued on July 6, 2006. It discloses a portable phone that has an overall rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners with a display centered on the front of the display, flat face, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
Samsung is now showing photos of the LG Prada phone, which Sherman says was released in late 2006 before Apple filed its patents.
LG Prada is a mobile handset that is rectangular, with rounded edges, flat front, black, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/14/samsung-argues-prior-art-invalidates-apples-patents-calls-its-designer-as-trial-continues-live-blog/
Take your dissembling cr4p elsewhere. It has become quite tiresome.
If you are the type of consumer/employee that Samsung caters to, that reflects really poorly on the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Take your dissembling cr4p elsewhere. It has become quite tiresome.
If you are the type of consumer/employee that Samsung caters to, that reflects really poorly on the company.
Huh? You mean the kind who can recognize that the Prada and the iPhone are no more similar or different than the Galaxy S series and the iPhone? If you don't mind (and this goes for Tallest as well), please post a list of the similarities of the iPhone to the Prada and a second list of the similarities between the Galaxy S series and the iPhone. I can help out if you're unable or unwilling.
The Prada phone was clearly an inspiration for Apple to draw upon. Very few products are created in a vacuum, they're all built upon what came before them, and we all benefit from this gradual development. Android was built upon the advances made in iOS, and now iOS is taking Android developments and incorporating them. It's a two way street, and that's perfectly fine.
This petty fighting between Apple, Samsung, and everyone else is not only childish and demeaning, but also utterly pathetic. Hard to believe all this is being driven by supposedly professional adults, when in reality it's more like watching a bunch of children fighting over who has the better action figures.
You can have that opinion, but you state a fact.
And no, not everyone thought that the iPhone would fail.
So speak for yourself in that respect.
(It should have been clear to anyone looking at the keynote, the virtual keyboard was a revolution and the software centered approach and mobile OS X (iOS) was never shown before.)
Every good idea, whoever came up with it, is used by others.
Implementing them, without outright stealing the blueprints (as the Sovjets did with the Concorde) is ofcourse legit and almost as hard as the original development even if you know what the end result looks like. The result is yesterdays rage and the original developer has already moved on to the next great product that sells like crazy.
J.
The three protuding buttons on the face of the Prada, i.e. it is not flat, as Apple's design patent specifies, the Galaxy S countersunk it's single home button, just like Apple's design patent specifies.
Maybe you need one of these ???? or have had too many of these ????????????or these????????????.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Microsoft didn't 'bring' windows, they simply reversed engineered Mac OS.
Microsoft didn't need to reverse the Mac OS. Jobs trusted Microsoft to develop Office software for the Mac. Microsoft had internal access to the working of the Mac.
While 'everyone' is an exaggeration, there was a strong industry sentiment at the time that Apple would never succeed in the mobile phone market. Not only did you have people like Microsoft and Nokia and RIM executives publicly ridiculing the idea, a huge percentage of bloggers and journalists were highlighting that it was a high volume, low margin, commodity-like business where Apple couldn't compete.
Maybe you should start by learning the difference between 'inspiration' and 'slavish copying'.
Even if Apple was inspired by the Prada (which really doesn't seem likely), there's nothing illegal or even morally wrong with inspiration. There is, however, a great deal wrong with Samsung's clear attempts to copy every detail of the iPhone.
Just to clarify things:
In terms of patent protection, invention date is no longer relevant in the US. At one time, we used the 'first to invent' system, so a great deal of energy was spent poring over old records to try to determine who implemented an patentable invention first. We switched to 'first to file' over a decade ago, so the important date is the day you get your application into the hands of the patent office.
In terms of invalidating a patent, invention date can be important under some circumstances. If company A files for a patent on Jan 1, 2005 and company B can prove that they were working on the patent in 2002, it might be possible to use that information to have the patent declared invalid. It's somewhat complicated, though, as there are a number of factors to be considered. In particular, it's not at all clear that Apple's design patents (which have different rules than utility patents) infringe on the JP patents you've cited or that the JP patents provide prior art for the Apple patents. And even if the JP patents ARE prior art, if they were disclosed by Apple to the patent office, then it's almost impossible to use them to invalidate Apple's patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Galaxy S1 vs. Iphone
why did you not compare the Galaxy S1 to the iPhone 3g?... because you would have provided evidence that samsung copied Apple!...
One big difference in this case is that Apple outsells Samsung in the mobile space by nearly the same ratio as Microsoft outsold Apple in the desktop space. Samsung products also don't undercut Apple significantly. Not only this, Apple is the most valuable company in the world just now vs being on the verge of bankruptcy.
The situation is very different this time round. Combined Android phones from multiple manufacturers aren't even outselling Apple 2:1 so the Android/iOS overall marketshare will stay very close for a long time and Apple will take the majority of the profit.
Even if the worst case happened and Apple had to pay for Samsung's patents and got nothing in return, they will still be the most valuable company in the world and still outsell Samsung by a massive ratio. I can't see how that outcome would be possible though when you look at what Samsung has done. Apple will also cut contracts with Samsung so it severely affects their profits.
If Apple doesn't receive some damages, this trial will suggest that deliberate, planned plagiarism is acceptable in the electronics industry and sets a bad example going forward.