Where will the haters get their biased information when the Samsung/Apple trial starts?
That coward PJ shut down Groklaw, so who's left? Going to be interesting to see comments this time around since there won't be someones opinion that can be copied/pasted to show Apple in a bad light while sounding "all legal and expert like."
Don't count Florian Mueller out just yet. He's been taking a much less-friendly Apple stance lately.
Don't count Florian Mueller out just yet. He's been taking a much less-friendly Apple stance lately.
Or you could just say that he calls it like he sees it. If he sees Apple do something he doesn't agree with he says so. It just happens he agrees with Apple/MS/Oracle far more often than he does with Google/Motorola/Samsung.
Or you could just say that he calls it like he sees it. If he sees Apple do something he doesn't agree with he says so. It just happens he agrees with Apple/MS/Oracle far more often than he does with Google/Motorola/Samsung.
In the prelim to the upcoming Apple/Samsung trial Mueller (FOSSPatents) already opined that Apple has lost their mind when it comes to what they argue to be the value of their patents. That's why I bring him up. He may not be nearly as friendly to Apple's position this go round as he was with the last but who knows until the trial gets underway.
You only see what you want to see apparently. Just yesterday I accused Google of doing evil in a post here at AI. Not the first time I've criticized them either.
Fair enough. I'm on here pretty often, but I don't catch everything that's said. That said, you do post here a lot, and after reading your posts it's hard for me to believe your obvious bias for google does not significantly influence your judgment.
GG isn't a troll. A troll derails a discussion or says thing that are completely false just to get a response. A troll also whines about the same thing over and over. To my knowledge, GG has done none of that. He's a bit of a Google defender but whatever.
"Troll" is a pretty loaded word, so I guess it depends on your definition. I'm using the broad definition of someone with a specific agenda beyond the scope of any specific topic, who uses spin or other means (lies, antagonism, etc.) to pursue this agenda. To GGs credit, I would put him in the former camp. Maybe you're right, maybe "troll" should be reserved for those who truly contribute nothing to the conversation. GG does post interesting things that I've learned from. Anyway, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it; it is what it is. Cheers.
This might seem pedantic, but AI articles these days are littered with grammatical errors and typos. Doesn't anybody check these stories? Aside from that, it was an interesting read.
Agree with you tho that Motorola had some questionable patent licensing tactics, particularly after Apple joined the mobile phone club . Another reason it was good for Google to buy them and put an end to new patent lawsuits.
I wasn't clear, I meant Rockstar joining the smartphone wars, with their LTE SEPs.
I think Google should have withdrawn the wireless SEPs in the US, like they did in the EU.
I read that scribd lawsuit. It's interesting, but in the 44 pages, there is only one direct connection of Nortel to a license/Letter of Assurance (LOA) to the EITF. Unfortunately that letter wasn't included in the PDF. There a lot of allegations of reneging on licenses, but the lawsuit can only specify one LOA in 44 pages.
IIRC, the IEEE doesn't do any licensing and doesn't/hasn't taken a position on the matter.
Thanks for the links, I'll check out that other one later.
In the prelim to the upcoming Apple/Samsung trial Mueller (FOSSPatents) already opined that Apple has lost their mind when it comes to what they argue to be the value of their patents. That's why I bring him up. He may not be nearly as friendly to Apple's position this go round as he was with the last but who knows until the trial gets underway.
I found it funny, one of his recent posts, Book Review of a book that he didn't read except the parts that referred to himself. Then he ranted about some Apple employee as a neighbor, and some lawsuit.
I've always taken Mueller with a grain of salt, same with the Groklaw crowd. People see what they want to see
I do think that sometimes Mueller is disingenuous.
Anyway, GG, I read that second PDF that you listed. It's interesting too, but the LOAs aren't available either.
I wish the world would settle on what FRAND really is, the only US starting point so far was MSvsMoto in Washington state.
"Hey, Dan... Yeah, how ya doin'? Cool, cool. So, we need a new 10,000 word story for tomorrow. Think you can throw together another one of your usual pieces for us under the standard arrangement? We need you to make this one really clicky, so feel free to go wild. Awesome, dude. You're a real lifesaver."
I generally enjoy your posts, but I cannot understand your contempt/ irritation with DED. Best to ignore if you don't like it right?
During the Apple/Samsung trial in California I read a lot of misinformed articles and comments regarding the viability of Apple's patents. We've all heard the "Apple thinks it can patent a rectangle" narrative. In frustration over that narrative, I wrote the following to clarify the story behind design patents and why they are important. Hope everyone finds this interesting.
Apple's assertion in its lawsuits is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. Some of these particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
This might seem pedantic, but AI articles, these days, are littered with grammatical errors and typos. Doesn't anybody check these stories? Aside from that, it was an interesting read.
General conclusion about all those who continue writing their tedious posts about the never-ending patent fights. You all have pale skin and pasty complexions from spending too many hours hunched over your keyboards. Take a walk. Get some fresh air and sunlight. Go out and play this weekend!
Where will the haters get their biased information when the Samsung/Apple trial starts?
That coward PJ shut down Groklaw, so who's left? Going to be interesting to see comments this time around since there won't be someones opinion that can be copied/pasted to show Apple in a bad light while sounding "all legal and expert like."
Or you could just say that he calls it like he sees it. If he sees Apple do something he doesn't agree with he says so. It just happens he agrees with Apple/MS/Oracle far more often than he does with Google/Motorola/Samsung.
In the prelim to the upcoming Apple/Samsung trial Mueller (FOSSPatents) already opined that Apple has lost their mind when it comes to what they argue to be the value of their patents. That's why I bring him up. He may not be nearly as friendly to Apple's position this go round as he was with the last but who knows until the trial gets underway.
In a blog post today Florian looks to be sympathizing with Samsung, just as I suspected he might.
"I wasn't going to comment on the new Apple v. Samsung trial until after the parties' opening argument, but I've changed plans because Judge Koh made a decision I really wouldn't have expected. That decision, all by itself, could easily give rise to a retrial. (I see a fairly high likelihood of a post-appeal retrial anyway when I compare the damages theories allowed by Judge Koh to what the highest-ranking U.S. patent judge, Chief Judge Randall Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, said on September 11, 2013 about a Motorola damages claim against Apple. In that case, the Chief Judge found a damages claim of $300 million over "one patent in a crowded field" downright "crazy"; at the trial starting later today, Apple is apparently seeking $2 billion over five patents, i.e., an average of $400 million for each patent in a crowded field.)"
This decision marks a surprising departure from Judge Koh's previously consistent efforts to ensure a level playing field for Samsung in Apple's home court. . . I thought it would have been a no-brainer for her to just simply use the same video as at the summer 2012 trial instead of one that is, in some parts, like a propaganda video for Apple's innovative capacity. . . I think the video overstates Apple's contributions to innovation."
"Unlike Apple, I have been consistent over the years on issues like this. In May 2012 Apple indicated in a court filing that it would ask the court to obscure the Samsung logo on monitors in the courthouse because it could be prejudicial to Apple, and this is what I wrote back then:
"At first sight, this may seem very funny, but I actually understand why Apple would make this request: at a conscious level, it can show to jurors that Samsung actually contributes technology to the U.S. government, and at a subconscious level, it creates the impression of the court being Samsung territory."
I now support Samsung for the same reasons for which I supported Apple then. I find Judge Koh's decision very troubling."
Eric, is Florian simply calling it like he sees it?
General conclusion about all those who continue writing their tedious posts about the never-ending patent fights. You all have pale skin and pasty complexions from spending too many hours hunched over your keyboards. Take a walk. Get some fresh air and sunlight. Go out and play this weekend!
Haha! I wrote the longest comment on this article. I live in Boca Raton, FL and went for a 20 mile bike ride to the beach and back this afternoon. No pasty skin here.
Comments
Don't count Florian Mueller out just yet. He's been taking a much less-friendly Apple stance lately.
Don't count Florian Mueller out just yet. He's been taking a much less-friendly Apple stance lately.
Or you could just say that he calls it like he sees it. If he sees Apple do something he doesn't agree with he says so. It just happens he agrees with Apple/MS/Oracle far more often than he does with Google/Motorola/Samsung.
In the prelim to the upcoming Apple/Samsung trial Mueller (FOSSPatents) already opined that Apple has lost their mind when it comes to what they argue to be the value of their patents. That's why I bring him up. He may not be nearly as friendly to Apple's position this go round as he was with the last but who knows until the trial gets underway.
Fair enough. I'm on here pretty often, but I don't catch everything that's said. That said, you do post here a lot, and after reading your posts it's hard for me to believe your obvious bias for google does not significantly influence your judgment.
"Troll" is a pretty loaded word, so I guess it depends on your definition. I'm using the broad definition of someone with a specific agenda beyond the scope of any specific topic, who uses spin or other means (lies, antagonism, etc.) to pursue this agenda. To GGs credit, I would put him in the former camp. Maybe you're right, maybe "troll" should be reserved for those who truly contribute nothing to the conversation. GG does post interesting things that I've learned from. Anyway, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it; it is what it is. Cheers.
I wasn't clear, I meant Rockstar joining the smartphone wars, with their LTE SEPs.
I think Google should have withdrawn the wireless SEPs in the US, like they did in the EU.
I read that scribd lawsuit. It's interesting, but in the 44 pages, there is only one direct connection of Nortel to a license/Letter of Assurance (LOA) to the EITF. Unfortunately that letter wasn't included in the PDF. There a lot of allegations of reneging on licenses, but the lawsuit can only specify one LOA in 44 pages.
IIRC, the IEEE doesn't do any licensing and doesn't/hasn't taken a position on the matter.
Thanks for the links, I'll check out that other one later.
I found it funny, one of his recent posts, Book Review of a book that he didn't read except the parts that referred to himself. Then he ranted about some Apple employee as a neighbor, and some lawsuit.
I've always taken Mueller with a grain of salt, same with the Groklaw crowd. People see what they want to see
I do think that sometimes Mueller is disingenuous.
Anyway, GG, I read that second PDF that you listed. It's interesting too, but the LOAs aren't available either.
I wish the world would settle on what FRAND really is, the only US starting point so far was MSvsMoto in Washington state.
"Hey, Dan... Yeah, how ya doin'? Cool, cool. So, we need a new 10,000 word story for tomorrow. Think you can throw together another one of your usual pieces for us under the standard arrangement? We need you to make this one really clicky, so feel free to go wild. Awesome, dude. You're a real lifesaver."
I generally enjoy your posts, but I cannot understand your contempt/ irritation with DED. Best to ignore if you don't like it right?
Good explanation, thanks. Well done.
Missing commas added for you.
In a blog post today Florian looks to be sympathizing with Samsung, just as I suspected he might.
"I wasn't going to comment on the new Apple v. Samsung trial until after the parties' opening argument, but I've changed plans because Judge Koh made a decision I really wouldn't have expected. That decision, all by itself, could easily give rise to a retrial. (I see a fairly high likelihood of a post-appeal retrial anyway when I compare the damages theories allowed by Judge Koh to what the highest-ranking U.S. patent judge, Chief Judge Randall Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, said on September 11, 2013 about a Motorola damages claim against Apple. In that case, the Chief Judge found a damages claim of $300 million over "one patent in a crowded field" downright "crazy"; at the trial starting later today, Apple is apparently seeking $2 billion over five patents, i.e., an average of $400 million for each patent in a crowded field.)"
This decision marks a surprising departure from Judge Koh's previously consistent efforts to ensure a level playing field for Samsung in Apple's home court. . . I thought it would have been a no-brainer for her to just simply use the same video as at the summer 2012 trial instead of one that is, in some parts, like a propaganda video for Apple's innovative capacity. . . I think the video overstates Apple's contributions to innovation."
"Unlike Apple, I have been consistent over the years on issues like this. In May 2012 Apple indicated in a court filing that it would ask the court to obscure the Samsung logo on monitors in the courthouse because it could be prejudicial to Apple, and this is what I wrote back then:
"At first sight, this may seem very funny, but I actually understand why Apple would make this request: at a conscious level, it can show to jurors that Samsung actually contributes technology to the U.S. government, and at a subconscious level, it creates the impression of the court being Samsung territory."
I now support Samsung for the same reasons for which I supported Apple then. I find Judge Koh's decision very troubling."
Eric, is Florian simply calling it like he sees it?
Haha! I wrote the longest comment on this article. I live in Boca Raton, FL and went for a 20 mile bike ride to the beach and back this afternoon. No pasty skin here.