And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.
Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.
There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
What specifically are you still trying to claim is false in what I wrote? I don't believe you can add another claim during an ex parte reexam. That requires a patent reissue application doesn't it? If that's correct (and I'm not 100% certain it is) how would your bolded statement apply to an ex parte reexamination?
Wait, what? Didn't we just go through this with me pointing out that you can add claims and you responding that the new claims cannot broaden the scope of the patent?
As for what "the rest" means it would be the other two sentences in your three sentence post:
"If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct."
Nope, I didn't mean that, I meant what Bailey wrote, I linked and then quoted for you again. There are multiple ways a patent can be strengthened on a re-exam he goes over.
And the last sentence it's the "adding claims" part we disagree on.
Wait, what? Didn't we just go through this with me pointing out that you can add claims and you responding that the new claims cannot broaden the scope of the patent?
As for what "the rest" means it would be the other two sentences in your three sentence post:
"If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct."
Nope, I didn't mean that, I meant what Bailey wrote, I linked and then quoted for you again. There are multiple ways a patent can be strengthened on a re-exam he goes over.
And the last sentence it's the "adding claims" part we disagree on.
I know you've said you can add claims in an ex parte reexam. I disagreed, opining that the claims can only be approved as originally written or narrowed, either of which could strengthen IP claims in litigation. There cannot be new claims added in an ex parte re-exam as far as I can see going by the patent subsection I linked for you.
I suspect you've realized I was correct in the first place but doing your best to avoid admitting as much. If I'm reading you wrong then perhaps you could use an actual example of an ex parte re-exam where the patent claims weren't either narrowed or approved in the original form and still strengthened the patent. So far you seem to be arguing in circles, agreeing with me yet not agreeing. If you have an example that shows where I've not taken something into account I'll happily admit as much. I'm more than willing to learn.
There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.
Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.
There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
I think you're right about the demographic and it all seems to be playing to the kind of free-software, free-everything geeks that loiter on Android forums. Samsung has really become the douchebag brand par excellence: and they know there is a large audience that is in tune with them. I don't think they care about women as a target audience. They send trolls like Nathillien onto this forum because they really believe that the war will be won by winning over the geeks of the world to their anti-Apple dark side. It's a hearts-and-minds war.
Edit: I see from looking back through the posts that I'm only saying the same thing here that Flaneur and others have said.
Marshall McLuhan would probably ascribe it to the use of ideographic writing, where the clarity of communication depends on the precision of copying complex characters with many times the pictorial detail of Western analytical alphabets. Fosters an imitative habit of mind, as well as a heightened awareness of aesthetic detail. But not adventurousness, necessarily.
I'm sure the Asians among us here are going to just love this casual generalizing. Apologies in advance!
Edit: And the Korean alphabet and its history would have to be squeezed into this theory somehow. It could be done, but do these kinds of "explanations" ever describe any culture fairly? How do Westerners feel when McLuhan says that intellectual property is such a Western obsession because the alphabet and the printed book have created an ethic of individual thought?
Possibly, or possibly it has something to do with the very strict Feudalism that has characterised the region for well over a thousand years.
On the general issue of how serious a problem plagiarism is in Asia I wanted to link to an article in the Chinese press. The highly distinguished mathematician S.-T. Yau, discoverer of the Calabi-Yau manifolds in string theory, complained that a Chinese doctoral student in the U.S. had plagiarised his PhD thesis, but that on returning to China this person had been put in a leading position in the Academy of Sciences and was in control of a great deal of funding. (I am having to note this from memory because the newspaper is no longer showing the article on-line.) When this became a scandal in 2006 even the Chinese government noted that steps had to be taken to curb plagiarism in the country's Universities.
My original point was not that plagiarism is rife, but that it is so entrenched that it is taken as a mark of excellence to copy and incrementally improve. Many South Koreans will see Samsung as having bested Apple by copying them. Not all, but many. Stealing is not only not seen as a crime, it is seen as a good, smart move.
I suspect you've realized I was correct in the first place but doing your best to avoid admitting as much.
Heck no. If you're right you're right. Facts are facts. Yogi Berra was a baseball player. I don't (usually) have a problem admitting I screwed up.
/shrug
I said you made a stupid comment because you wrote something directly opposite of what an IP lawyer wrote. The burden of proof is on you to show different...and thus far you seem to be avoiding addressing his points at all and concentrating on mine. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a dev. Any knowledge I have regarding IP is by osmosis/reading legal blogs so refuting any of my comments regarding the meaning of legalese has very little value.
Which also means that I'm not going to be able to find that example for you. Especially since you worded the challenge so weirdly.
"an actual example of an ex parte re-exam where the patent claims weren't either narrowed or approved in the original form and still strengthened the patent."
Given that the regulations indicate that new claims must be numbered in a certain way in the section discussing ex-parte reexams I have no idea what would qualify as proof to you that new claims can be added and patents can be strengthened as a result. Here's another discussion:
4. A third party requester cannot prevent a patent owner from amending existing claims and/or adding claims of the same scope or narrower scope to make them stronger and still be infringed by the third party requester.
Again, another analysis by another lawyer that specifically state that claims can be added to make a patent stronger against an infringing requestor as part of a discussion regarding the drawbacks of requesting reexamination.
I'm sure there are case-law examples in actual IP law books of where some infringer totally screwed the pooch by requesting a re-exam but I ain't got any such books and therefore ain't got any specific examples.
Nor am I inclined to go looking for further evidence when you don't actually believe what actual IP lawyers write about a subject.
There cannot be new claims added in an ex parte re-exam as far as I can see going by the patent subsection I linked for you.
I didn't address this so I'll do it here:
No, the section you quoted stated that patents can not be broadened either by amending existing ones or adding new ones.
Not that new claims cannot be added as long as the the scope remains the same or is narrowed.
My laypersons understanding is that if claim 1 goes from 10-50 (using numbers as an easy to understand proxy) and claim 2 goes from 40-90 then no new claims can go beyond the bounds of 10-90 but a new claim 3 that ranges between 20-80 is permissible since the scope remains the same. Because I could already sue you for anything from 20 to 50 because of Claim 1 and from 40 to 80 because of Claim 2 then Claim 3 didn't expand the scope of the patent one iota but clarified it. But since your product specifically does 20-80 you just got screwed by the re-exam as to be obviously infringing rather than needing to walk a jury through half of Claim 1 and half of Claim 2 and needing to connect the dots.
A new claim 4 that went from 80-100 wouldn't be allowed since now I could sue you because your product does 95 when I could not before. That would be broadening the patent and not allowed.
Which is why I cited MPEP 1412.03. It defines what the USPTO means by broadening.
Wow. You guys are reading way too much into something as simple as a phone. Surely Android is not the cause of downfall of human civilisation? Jeez.. "inimate with forms of plastic" ... "office woman stories" ~ I'd hate to read into that stuff like you've read into my use of a smartphone and tablet.
And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.
Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.
There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.
Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.
There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
Wow. You guys are reading way too much into something as simple as a phone. Surely Android is not the cause of downfall of human civilisation? Jeez.. "inimate with forms of plastic" ... "office woman stories" ~ I'd hate to read into that stuff like you've read into my use of a smartphone and tablet.
If only we could put this energy to better use.
Says the guy given to posting extravagant, endless Android apologia at an Apple site, complete with charts and graphs. For you to talk about better use of anyone's energy is pretty funny.
Says the guy given to posting extravagant, endless Android apologia at an Apple site, complete with charts and graphs. For you to talk about better use of anyone's energy is pretty funny.
Energy is one thing, that is my own to decide how to spend. Suffice to say I'm spending much less of it on AppleInsider.
As for "extravagant, endless" Android apologia? I don't think my Android posts hold a candle to the hardcore apologists (if you want to use that term) and moral judgementalists on this forum.
But for people living in the ~Real World~ ... 2013 will see some very interesting Android developments. iPhone and iPad won't go anywhere, they'll still be world class. But the lustre may come off a little as it is now. That's all I'm saying.
Just six months ago I was Android-bashing heavily on these here forums. Then the MBP 15" Retina came out. I tried it, returned it. The iPad 3 came out before that, I got it, and it's nice, but I was taken aback by it getting bigger and heavier than the iPad 2. Recently I got a MacBook Air 13", very very nice, but one niggle is the colour, deep reds do not exist. iPhone 5... got it, nice, but just doesn't have that je ne se quois (spelling?). Recently took some time to tinker with the Nexus 7 and Xperia S, suddenly with Android 4 it is quite viable. Got a HTC One X for myself for Christmas, Android 4.1... Very good experience if you put some effort into understanding and optimising your phone (Samsung S3 is solid right out of the box that's probably why it is No. 1 in Android smartphones).
I must say sr2012, your post was one of the best written ones I have seen on this forum in a long time. No hate ridden text, just observation. And I like that you are not above getting your information from different sources and also try out modern android devices.
I for one, am going for android in 2013 when it comes to a tablet. I am soon going to need one, and after looking at the competition, there is no way I will hand out my cash to Apple, for what I am offered.
If I'm also getting my next phone on the android sign is still up in the air. The iPhone5 was a huge blow to my apple fandom I must admit. Unlike others here, I can't just envelope myself in a uncontrolled tornado of rage and just ignore the reality by shoutung out hateful sentences all day long, until I make myself believe the stuff I'm blurting out. So with that option gone, I will have to take a close look at what the android phones are doing.
After the last update my friend at work got on his S3, I'm already nearly breaking down. He got great features, some just to play with (best face) and some really great ones (lowlight photography) that would headline any iPhone campagne.. and he got it for free, just like that. Its really hard to sit there and see that with my tiny phone next to his that does everything better and cost so much less.
I am still clinging to the hope, that Apple will once again, as they did a long long time ago, just blast into the market with new inventions that nobody has and that change the game totally. Not just stuff my friends have been showing me forever... just slapping a different name and apple logo over it.
Okay, I almost didn't dare to write all this cause of what will follow, but yeah, I herethereby yield the floor to the hatescreamers and ragetypers.
I must say sr2012, your post was one of the best written ones I have seen on this forum in a long time. No hate ridden text, just observation. And I like that you are not above getting your information from different sources and also try out modern android devices.
Thank you very much, I appreciate the support. I have outlined time and time again what devices I use, what I like and don't like about Apple, and observations of the trends. Yes I am passionate about things, but not in shouting down other people, as far as possible I try to highlight the benefits and facts of what I like.
Cheers and indeed, this year is going to be an interesting one.
PS I have also highlighted that what I am trying to communicate is the difference that Steve Jobs made, and continues to make, in his absence. Some of what I am saying is how much I truly admire a human being such as Steve that literally, changed the world forever ~ time and time again. I am just starting my own business, ie. formalising my freelance work into a company (just me at the moment), and when you step out from employee to your own company, the amount of rubbish out there in the business and non-business community is staggering. For Steve it must have seemed like climbing a sheer cliff face, almost everyday.
But he made it to the top. And decided to climb the next peak. And the next.
No, the section you quoted stated that patents can not be broadened either by amending existing ones or adding new ones.
Not that new claims cannot be added as long as the the scope remains the same or is narrowed.
My laypersons understanding is that if claim 1 goes from 10-50 (using numbers as an easy to understand proxy) and claim 2 goes from 40-90 then no new claims can go beyond the bounds of 10-90 but a new claim 3 that ranges between 20-80 is permissible since the scope remains the same. Because I could already sue you for anything from 20 to 50 because of Claim 1 and from 40 to 80 because of Claim 2 then Claim 3 didn't expand the scope of the patent one iota but clarified it. But since your product specifically does 20-80 you just got screwed by the re-exam as to be obviously infringing rather than needing to walk a jury through half of Claim 1 and half of Claim 2 and needing to connect the dots.
A new claim 4 that went from 80-100 wouldn't be allowed since now I could sue you because your product does 95 when I could not before. That would be broadening the patent and not allowed.
Which is why I cited MPEP 1412.03. It defines what the USPTO means by broadening.
That's a well-thought out reply. Thanks. Much better than the arrogant and mocking tone you took with your first reply to me.
I actually agree with your reasoning. But I wouldn't personally consider a claim revision that clarifies or narrows the existing ones to be a "new claim". It's more a re-hashing of existing ones rather than something new, is it not? IMO, we're both saying the same thing, in essence agreeing, but using different definitions and thus arguments to do so. As far as I'm concerned my original statement can stand as is and be perfectly and completely true. I call it narrowing, you call it a new claim. You're simply using the same tree to find disagreement in what color the leaves are.
Do you see a different price than I do because they look the same to me. The non-discounted price varies but not by much and it's irrelevant unless you buy the phone outright.
When you say it "does everything better" I assume you mean it does things like data syncing better (even though Samsung's CEO uses Apple's products and says it doesn't), it's easier to buy music on and manage songs, it's easier to get high quality apps like Garageband, iWork etc, easier to find hardware peripherals?
No what you mean is that Samsung comes out with a program here and there that is quite cool and after ripping off most of what makes a modern smartphone from Apple, these tiny additional programs suddenly put them ahead. Of course Apple shouldn't rest on their laurels but give them the laurels at least.
It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags.
It's just advertising though. It only has to resonate with potenial buyers and although it might offend a handful of people, you have to allow advertisers some license to make fun of scenarios that actually do happen. It doesn't mean all girls are bubble-headed types nor that men are the workers, it's just showing one scenario.
Some of Apple's ads don't come across very well either. These have a pretty condescending tone to them:
What demographic is that targeting, people who go around gloating that they have a better phone than everyone else?
Advertisers will use whatever works for them. If Samsung's ads work then it's not the ads that are the problem.
Energy is one thing, that is my own to decide how to spend. Suffice to say I'm spending much less of it on AppleInsider.
As for "extravagant, endless" Android apologia? I don't think my Android posts hold a candle to the hardcore apologists (if you want to use that term) and moral judgementalists on this forum.
To be fair, isn't it silly, pointless, rhetorical to highlight Apple bias in an Apple forum?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
And everything wrong with the Android demi-monde. This is what sr2012 leaves out of his epic confessional above. Crossing over to the Dark Side means selling youself to an advertising machine, thus loss of integrity, or evidence that you never had integrity. ("I don't mind if Google mines my data, look what I'm getting for free!")
Not to mention getting intimate with forms of plastic and ungodly extrusions that no one of taste would ever associate with. I mean, HTC makes as nice a phone as any Android maker, but what is that awful excrescence that surrounds the camera lens?
There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.
Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.
There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
"The rest is false"?
What specifically are you still trying to claim is false in what I wrote? I don't believe you can add another claim during an ex parte reexam. That requires a patent reissue application doesn't it? If that's correct (and I'm not 100% certain it is) how would your bolded statement apply to an ex parte reexamination?
Wait, what? Didn't we just go through this with me pointing out that you can add claims and you responding that the new claims cannot broaden the scope of the patent?
As for what "the rest" means it would be the other two sentences in your three sentence post:
"If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct."
Nope, I didn't mean that, I meant what Bailey wrote, I linked and then quoted for you again. There are multiple ways a patent can be strengthened on a re-exam he goes over.
And the last sentence it's the "adding claims" part we disagree on.
edit /duplicate
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Wait, what? Didn't we just go through this with me pointing out that you can add claims and you responding that the new claims cannot broaden the scope of the patent?
As for what "the rest" means it would be the other two sentences in your three sentence post:
"If by strengthened you mean the claims being narrowed and thus easier to defend, then you could be correct."
Nope, I didn't mean that, I meant what Bailey wrote, I linked and then quoted for you again. There are multiple ways a patent can be strengthened on a re-exam he goes over.
And the last sentence it's the "adding claims" part we disagree on.
I know you've said you can add claims in an ex parte reexam. I disagreed, opining that the claims can only be approved as originally written or narrowed, either of which could strengthen IP claims in litigation. There cannot be new claims added in an ex parte re-exam as far as I can see going by the patent subsection I linked for you.
I suspect you've realized I was correct in the first place but doing your best to avoid admitting as much. If I'm reading you wrong then perhaps you could use an actual example of an ex parte re-exam where the patent claims weren't either narrowed or approved in the original form and still strengthened the patent. So far you seem to be arguing in circles, agreeing with me yet not agreeing. If you have an example that shows where I've not taken something into account I'll happily admit as much. I'm more than willing to learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
There's also the matter of Samsung's tone deaf notion of demographics, which we've seen before. That office ad feature a no-nonsense, get work done dude vs. a bubble headed "let's play games" gal who proves to be a scheming bitch, but who then gets her comeuppance when the dudes go off to their boys only treehouse while ordering the girl to stay behind and do the scut work.
Think the average woman working in an office is going to be impressed by this scenario? It puts me in mind of the general vibe around most Android advertising, which seems to be directed at precisely the same demographic as Red Bull, Axe and shitty vodka ads--- young male urban or wannabe urban douche-bags. The guy in this ad is just the "grown-up" version of same, and he and his boss/buddy will no doubt have a totally righteous bro-down once the dumb skirt is safely out of sight.
There's something about Samsung that exudes a kind of ugliness that they don't seem to even be concerned about keeping under wraps. It seems to arise from their overinflated sense of their importance, a kind of preening, entirely unearned arrogance that translates into bullying, off-putting marketing. Someone should remind them that they make commodity phones with someone else's OS, and that their "innovations" are limited to big screens, a bigger advertising budget, and aggressive pricing. Which is fine and all, and they've certainly done a great job of capturing market share, but copying Apple's designs and using Google's software are not the stuff of long term market leaders. They have the kind of success that could disappear overnight, because outside of name recognition and being the Android badge of the moment, what are they really offering that anyone else couldn't?
I think you're right about the demographic and it all seems to be playing to the kind of free-software, free-everything geeks that loiter on Android forums. Samsung has really become the douchebag brand par excellence: and they know there is a large audience that is in tune with them. I don't think they care about women as a target audience. They send trolls like Nathillien onto this forum because they really believe that the war will be won by winning over the geeks of the world to their anti-Apple dark side. It's a hearts-and-minds war.
Edit: I see from looking back through the posts that I'm only saying the same thing here that Flaneur and others have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Interestimg post. Just an offhand suggestion:
Marshall McLuhan would probably ascribe it to the use of ideographic writing, where the clarity of communication depends on the precision of copying complex characters with many times the pictorial detail of Western analytical alphabets. Fosters an imitative habit of mind, as well as a heightened awareness of aesthetic detail. But not adventurousness, necessarily.
I'm sure the Asians among us here are going to just love this casual generalizing. Apologies in advance!
Edit: And the Korean alphabet and its history would have to be squeezed into this theory somehow. It could be done, but do these kinds of "explanations" ever describe any culture fairly? How do Westerners feel when McLuhan says that intellectual property is such a Western obsession because the alphabet and the printed book have created an ethic of individual thought?
Possibly, or possibly it has something to do with the very strict Feudalism that has characterised the region for well over a thousand years.
On the general issue of how serious a problem plagiarism is in Asia I wanted to link to an article in the Chinese press. The highly distinguished mathematician S.-T. Yau, discoverer of the Calabi-Yau manifolds in string theory, complained that a Chinese doctoral student in the U.S. had plagiarised his PhD thesis, but that on returning to China this person had been put in a leading position in the Academy of Sciences and was in control of a great deal of funding. (I am having to note this from memory because the newspaper is no longer showing the article on-line.) When this became a scandal in 2006 even the Chinese government noted that steps had to be taken to curb plagiarism in the country's Universities.
My original point was not that plagiarism is rife, but that it is so entrenched that it is taken as a mark of excellence to copy and incrementally improve. Many South Koreans will see Samsung as having bested Apple by copying them. Not all, but many. Stealing is not only not seen as a crime, it is seen as a good, smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I suspect you've realized I was correct in the first place but doing your best to avoid admitting as much.
Heck no. If you're right you're right. Facts are facts. Yogi Berra was a baseball player. I don't (usually) have a problem admitting I screwed up.
/shrug
I said you made a stupid comment because you wrote something directly opposite of what an IP lawyer wrote. The burden of proof is on you to show different...and thus far you seem to be avoiding addressing his points at all and concentrating on mine. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a dev. Any knowledge I have regarding IP is by osmosis/reading legal blogs so refuting any of my comments regarding the meaning of legalese has very little value.
Which also means that I'm not going to be able to find that example for you. Especially since you worded the challenge so weirdly.
"an actual example of an ex parte re-exam where the patent claims weren't either narrowed or approved in the original form and still strengthened the patent."
Given that the regulations indicate that new claims must be numbered in a certain way in the section discussing ex-parte reexams I have no idea what would qualify as proof to you that new claims can be added and patents can be strengthened as a result. Here's another discussion:
Quote:
Ex parte reexamination drawbacks for a third party Requester include:
4. A third party requester cannot prevent a patent owner from amending existing claims and/or adding claims of the same scope or narrower scope to make them stronger and still be infringed by the third party requester....
http://www.bskb.com/news_and_events/lectures_and_articles/ETP_Post_Grant_Article_Ex_Parte_Reexam.html
Again, another analysis by another lawyer that specifically state that claims can be added to make a patent stronger against an infringing requestor as part of a discussion regarding the drawbacks of requesting reexamination.
I'm sure there are case-law examples in actual IP law books of where some infringer totally screwed the pooch by requesting a re-exam but I ain't got any such books and therefore ain't got any specific examples.
Nor am I inclined to go looking for further evidence when you don't actually believe what actual IP lawyers write about a subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There cannot be new claims added in an ex parte re-exam as far as I can see going by the patent subsection I linked for you.
I didn't address this so I'll do it here:
No, the section you quoted stated that patents can not be broadened either by amending existing ones or adding new ones.
Not that new claims cannot be added as long as the the scope remains the same or is narrowed.
My laypersons understanding is that if claim 1 goes from 10-50 (using numbers as an easy to understand proxy) and claim 2 goes from 40-90 then no new claims can go beyond the bounds of 10-90 but a new claim 3 that ranges between 20-80 is permissible since the scope remains the same. Because I could already sue you for anything from 20 to 50 because of Claim 1 and from 40 to 80 because of Claim 2 then Claim 3 didn't expand the scope of the patent one iota but clarified it. But since your product specifically does 20-80 you just got screwed by the re-exam as to be obviously infringing rather than needing to walk a jury through half of Claim 1 and half of Claim 2 and needing to connect the dots.
A new claim 4 that went from 80-100 wouldn't be allowed since now I could sue you because your product does 95 when I could not before. That would be broadening the patent and not allowed.
Which is why I cited MPEP 1412.03. It defines what the USPTO means by broadening.
If only we could put this energy to better use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Wow. You guys are reading way too much into something as simple as a phone. Surely Android is not the cause of downfall of human civilisation? Jeez.. "inimate with forms of plastic" ... "office woman stories" ~ I'd hate to read into that stuff like you've read into my use of a smartphone and tablet.
If only we could put this energy to better use.
Says the guy given to posting extravagant, endless Android apologia at an Apple site, complete with charts and graphs. For you to talk about better use of anyone's energy is pretty funny.
Energy is one thing, that is my own to decide how to spend. Suffice to say I'm spending much less of it on AppleInsider.
As for "extravagant, endless" Android apologia? I don't think my Android posts hold a candle to the hardcore apologists (if you want to use that term) and moral judgementalists on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
But for people living in the ~Real World~ ... 2013 will see some very interesting Android developments. iPhone and iPad won't go anywhere, they'll still be world class. But the lustre may come off a little as it is now. That's all I'm saying.
Just six months ago I was Android-bashing heavily on these here forums. Then the MBP 15" Retina came out. I tried it, returned it. The iPad 3 came out before that, I got it, and it's nice, but I was taken aback by it getting bigger and heavier than the iPad 2. Recently I got a MacBook Air 13", very very nice, but one niggle is the colour, deep reds do not exist. iPhone 5... got it, nice, but just doesn't have that je ne se quois (spelling?). Recently took some time to tinker with the Nexus 7 and Xperia S, suddenly with Android 4 it is quite viable. Got a HTC One X for myself for Christmas, Android 4.1... Very good experience if you put some effort into understanding and optimising your phone (Samsung S3 is solid right out of the box that's probably why it is No. 1 in Android smartphones).
I must say sr2012, your post was one of the best written ones I have seen on this forum in a long time. No hate ridden text, just observation. And I like that you are not above getting your information from different sources and also try out modern android devices.
I for one, am going for android in 2013 when it comes to a tablet. I am soon going to need one, and after looking at the competition, there is no way I will hand out my cash to Apple, for what I am offered.
If I'm also getting my next phone on the android sign is still up in the air. The iPhone5 was a huge blow to my apple fandom I must admit. Unlike others here, I can't just envelope myself in a uncontrolled tornado of rage and just ignore the reality by shoutung out hateful sentences all day long, until I make myself believe the stuff I'm blurting out. So with that option gone, I will have to take a close look at what the android phones are doing.
After the last update my friend at work got on his S3, I'm already nearly breaking down. He got great features, some just to play with (best face) and some really great ones (lowlight photography) that would headline any iPhone campagne.. and he got it for free, just like that. Its really hard to sit there and see that with my tiny phone next to his that does everything better and cost so much less.
I am still clinging to the hope, that Apple will once again, as they did a long long time ago, just blast into the market with new inventions that nobody has and that change the game totally. Not just stuff my friends have been showing me forever... just slapping a different name and apple logo over it.
Okay, I almost didn't dare to write all this cause of what will follow, but yeah, I herethereby yield the floor to the hatescreamers and ragetypers.
Thank you very much, I appreciate the support. I have outlined time and time again what devices I use, what I like and don't like about Apple, and observations of the trends. Yes I am passionate about things, but not in shouting down other people, as far as possible I try to highlight the benefits and facts of what I like.
Cheers and indeed, this year is going to be an interesting one.
PS I have also highlighted that what I am trying to communicate is the difference that Steve Jobs made, and continues to make, in his absence. Some of what I am saying is how much I truly admire a human being such as Steve that literally, changed the world forever ~ time and time again. I am just starting my own business, ie. formalising my freelance work into a company (just me at the moment), and when you step out from employee to your own company, the amount of rubbish out there in the business and non-business community is staggering. For Steve it must have seemed like climbing a sheer cliff face, almost everyday.
But he made it to the top. And decided to climb the next peak. And the next.
PPS If you like see my comments here on the new insights in my life in 2013... http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152839/rules-of-the-troll-wip#post_2254047
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
I didn't address this so I'll do it here:
No, the section you quoted stated that patents can not be broadened either by amending existing ones or adding new ones.
Not that new claims cannot be added as long as the the scope remains the same or is narrowed.
My laypersons understanding is that if claim 1 goes from 10-50 (using numbers as an easy to understand proxy) and claim 2 goes from 40-90 then no new claims can go beyond the bounds of 10-90 but a new claim 3 that ranges between 20-80 is permissible since the scope remains the same. Because I could already sue you for anything from 20 to 50 because of Claim 1 and from 40 to 80 because of Claim 2 then Claim 3 didn't expand the scope of the patent one iota but clarified it. But since your product specifically does 20-80 you just got screwed by the re-exam as to be obviously infringing rather than needing to walk a jury through half of Claim 1 and half of Claim 2 and needing to connect the dots.
A new claim 4 that went from 80-100 wouldn't be allowed since now I could sue you because your product does 95 when I could not before. That would be broadening the patent and not allowed.
Which is why I cited MPEP 1412.03. It defines what the USPTO means by broadening.
That's a well-thought out reply. Thanks. Much better than the arrogant and mocking tone you took with your first reply to me.
I actually agree with your reasoning. But I wouldn't personally consider a claim revision that clarifies or narrows the existing ones to be a "new claim". It's more a re-hashing of existing ones rather than something new, is it not? IMO, we're both saying the same thing, in essence agreeing, but using different definitions and thus arguments to do so. As far as I'm concerned my original statement can stand as is and be perfectly and completely true. I call it narrowing, you call it a new claim. You're simply using the same tree to find disagreement in what color the leaves are.
When you write things like the following what do you expect?
Everybody says "so much cheaper" but look at the following links:
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/apple/iphone/5-16gb-black.html
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/samsung/galaxy-s-iii-garnet-red.html#fbid=s_Qau-LXSp6
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/samsung/galaxy-note-carbon-blue.html#fbid=s_Qau-LXSp6
Do you see a different price than I do because they look the same to me. The non-discounted price varies but not by much and it's irrelevant unless you buy the phone outright.
When you say it "does everything better" I assume you mean it does things like data syncing better (even though Samsung's CEO uses Apple's products and says it doesn't), it's easier to buy music on and manage songs, it's easier to get high quality apps like Garageband, iWork etc, easier to find hardware peripherals?
No what you mean is that Samsung comes out with a program here and there that is quite cool and after ripping off most of what makes a modern smartphone from Apple, these tiny additional programs suddenly put them ahead. Of course Apple shouldn't rest on their laurels but give them the laurels at least.
It's just advertising though. It only has to resonate with potenial buyers and although it might offend a handful of people, you have to allow advertisers some license to make fun of scenarios that actually do happen. It doesn't mean all girls are bubble-headed types nor that men are the workers, it's just showing one scenario.
Some of Apple's ads don't come across very well either. These have a pretty condescending tone to them:
What demographic is that targeting, people who go around gloating that they have a better phone than everyone else?
Advertisers will use whatever works for them. If Samsung's ads work then it's not the ads that are the problem.
To be fair, isn't it silly, pointless, rhetorical to highlight Apple bias in an Apple forum?
Bias is one thing. Going to great heights on one's horse is another.