Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 115
    tenly wrote: »
    Apple also invented those features before Apple patented them. Sounds real similar to comparing sold versus shipped. The only statement that would have any real relevance would be did Google invent them before Apple invented them...wouldn't it?

    Apparently you can patent just about anything.

    It makes me wonder why Google didn't run to the patent office to get some of their things patented.
  • Reply 82 of 115
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post



    It makes me wonder why Google didn't run to the patent office to get some of their things patented.

     

    Perhaps they didn't consider them patentable? Big companies spend a lot of time quibbling over whether their change is patentable against what already exists in the wild in some form. Have you noticed how much stuff comes up on both sides whenever these patents are challenged? It's also not just a case of companies challenging Apple patents. They do the same if they think the patent could be invalidated.

  • Reply 83 of 115
    vorstvorst Posts: 11member
    I thought lying in front of the court was a criminal act.
    Look at this article:
    http://macdailynews.com/2013/12/19/how-google-reacted-when-steve-jobs-revealed-the-revolutionary-iphone/
  • Reply 84 of 115
    deanbardeanbar Posts: 113member

    And don't forget, "while your at it" should either be - "while you're at it" or "while you are at it" :D

  • Reply 85 of 115
    deanbardeanbar Posts: 113member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

     

    You are assuming that Skil has the same meaning as Skill.

    and as you noted, it is his name...

     

    and you, dumb dumb, ?before you start trying to correct people, may want to make sure you write correctly.

    You do not use an apostrophe to make a word plural.

    It is "two Ls", not "two L's".  and in this case, it is one l, not two Ls.

     

    And "Bryan" is correctly spelled "Brian". :rolleyes:


     

    And "while your at it" should either be - "while you're at it" or "while you are at it" :D

  • Reply 86 of 115
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    The Chinese and South Korean are dumb dumb
  • Reply 87 of 115
    …<span style="line-height:1.4em;">dumb dumb</span>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">...dumb dumb.</span>

    Say what you will about his argument, I do like the phrase “dumb dumb”. It’s just really cute. 

    Or dumdum?


    [VIDEO]


    Or ...

    dumdum baauer
    dumdum putty
    dumdum police station
    rimando dumdum
    dumdum boys
    dumdum ordnance factory
    dumdum flavors
    dumdum motijheel college

    And ...

    1000

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dum-dum-pops-flick-a-pop/id319699491?mt=8
  • Reply 88 of 115
    elroth wrote: »
     

    The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...
    You dribble on his drivel?

    Yes, he does ... Now, tell him to shake the dew off his lily!
  • Reply 89 of 115
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!

    As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286

    I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.

    What's your opinion on it?
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/


    Well the US government thinks ornamental design patents are valid
    And the examiner agreed that Apple's request worthy
    A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

    In discharging its patent-related duties, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) examines applications and grants patents on inventions when applicants are entitled to them. The patent law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:

    But everything should be free, right?
  • Reply 90 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I understand the rationale behind design patents and why companies apply for them. What I was curious about is what do you think is "distinctive" about that particular now-supposedly-protected design? Do you believe a rounded-rectangle warrants design protection?

    Based on the examiner's notes it looks as tho what she thought she was approving and what Apple factually applied for and received are not one and the same. When examiners can't properly understand what the applicant is applying for is this what happens or did it deserve patent protection anyway? Apple asks for and actually receives a design patent for a simple rounded rectangle.

    frank pope wrote: »
    Well the US government thinks ornamental design patents are valid
    And the examiner agreed that Apple's request worthy

    Ummm, , , Isn't that the same thing I noted? There's a purpose served by design patents and Apple was able to get one for what is literally a simple rounded rectangle. So would you like to offer a personal opinion on the questions surrounding ir?
  • Reply 91 of 115
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

    Since Google isn't a party to this case, I'm not sure that this is even relevant.


    Samsung is involving google in this case as there defense saying that they didn't invent these features google did and hence apple should sue google not samsung, which is baloney.  Samsungs phones use touchwiz interface developed by samsung.  The fact that Samsung has already changed some of there interface because of previous trials says otherwise.  Even if they did not invent the infringing parts there guilty because they use them and are still violating a patented item by its use.  Also lets not forget that they are a convicted patent infringer from the first trial.  Also in the damages adjustment trial just concluded they admitted they were guilty in court of infringing Apples patents.

  • Reply 92 of 115
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    ryan96 wrote: »
    Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.

    The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...

    i agree Macky the Macky, Ryan 96 is being obsequious to Samsung, and in the process obfuscating the trurh...
  • Reply 93 of 115
    gatorguy wrote: »

    Ummm, , , Isn't that the same thing I noted? There's a purpose served by design patents and Apple was able to get one for what is literally a simple rounded rectangle. So would you like to offer a personal opinion on the questions surrounding ir?

    Ummmmmmmmmmm no

    What you tried to do is discredit apple and the us parent system
    by reducing the application down to a single "funny" aspect.

    There are 5 figures depicting the manufactured product
    none of which emphasized the corners.

    My opinion is that you are a paid troll,
    fed links which seem to be sooo true, until you look into the details.
    YMMV
  • Reply 94 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    frank pope wrote: »
    Ummmmmmmmmmm no

    What you tried to do is discredit apple and the us parent system
    by reducing the application down to a single "funny" aspect.

    There are 5 figures depicting the manufactured product
    none of which emphasized the corners.

    My opinion is that you are a paid troll,
    fed links which seem to be sooo true, until you look into the details.
    YMMV

    Which part of the design that Apple lays claim to do you consider to be unique, novel?

    Examine the details for yourself. The only elements Apple is applying for protection of are denoted by solid lines. That would omit elements drawn with superfluous dotted lines that indicate where inapplicable items such as a speaker, or display or microphone or button might go. The only thing drawn with solid lines and thus claimed by Apple as a novel design is what sir? To me (and others) it sure looks like a simple rectangle with no other embellishments connected to it. it's really OK to admit you see it. The examiner apparently did not based on the comments attached to the approval,

    And to be clear it's not Apple's fault for asking for it. There's nothing wrong with applying for everything, throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. II's the USPTO's IMHO inexcusable issuance of one. No major issue in any event since Apple is highly unlikely to try and assert that design patent against any competitor. It does serve as evidence of the quality of some patent examinations and the level of training those examiners receive in how to read an application.
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/
  • Reply 95 of 115
    Blah blah blah.

    Who cares if Google was working on the same ideas. It's IRRELEVANT. All that matters if who has a patent on it. If Google did in fact come up with it earlier, then they are stupid (or incompetent) for not applying for a patent.

    This happens all the time in the real world - when you have multiple companies all trying to solve various problems it's inevitable that sometimes two people come up with the same idea. However, the first person to patent it is the one who gains all the benefits.
  • Reply 96 of 115
    My thoughts are is that apple is going to keep sueing Samsung until Samsung drops android from all its devices in favor of its own south Korean is which will assumably be no match for iOS which will end the success of the Samsung galaxy devices.
  • Reply 97 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Blah blah blah.

    Who cares if Google was working on the same ideas. It's IRRELEVANT. All that matters if who has a patent on it..

    Not true at all. If someone can show use of the innovation prior to the patentee applying for a patent (prior art) the law has long allowed for it to serve as a possible basis for invalidating at least business method patents (software).. It's even more significant for all types of patents issued after September 16th, 2011. Whether a business method patent of not, those accused of patent infringement can now challenge validity by "establishing it commercially used, in good faith, a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter that is asserted to infringe the patent at least 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public (whichever is earlier)."

    In this case even if Google cannot prove they were using the patented methods at least a year before Apple applied for a patent, possibly invalidating it it may be enough to show the jury they were at least actively developing it before the patent application was known, helping limit any damage finding.
  • Reply 98 of 115
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bradipao View Post





    You are right. But it's difficult for people to catch the difference.

    Actually, on AI it's quite simple to catch the difference... just by ignoring it <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 99 of 115
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Which part of the design that Apple lays claim to do you consider to be unique, novel?

    Examine the details for yourself. The only elements Apple is applying for protection of are denoted by solid lines. That would omit elements drawn with superfluous dotted lines that indicate where inapplicable items such as a speaker, or display or microphone or button might go. The only thing drawn with solid lines and thus claimed by Apple as a novel design is what sir? To me (and others) it sure looks like a simple rectangle with no other embellishments connected to it. it's really OK to admit you see it. The examiner apparently did not based on the comments attached to the approval,

    And to be clear it's not Apple's fault for asking for it. There's nothing wrong with applying for everything, throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. II's the USPTO's IMHO inexcusable issuance of one. No major issue in any event since Apple is highly unlikely to try and assert that design patent against any competitor. It does serve as evidence of the quality of some patent examinations and the level of training those examiners receive in how to read an application.
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/

    Let's try the original

    http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=D0504889&IDKey=FF23CAE24AB1%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3DD504%2C889.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD504%2C889%2526RS%3DPN%2FD504%2C889

    And how exactly would you describe an iPad?

    Does your boyfriend have a knock off Gucci?
    It's just a bag right, everyone deserves a Gucci,
    and they just do not make enough
    so everyone should be able to copy Gucci.
    Gosh does the vaunted euro standard protect Gucci?
    Tell me it's not so!
  • Reply 100 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    The '889 patent you've linked is not the same as the '286 we were discussing. If they were then one ot the other would be invalid. I've no problem with Apple protecting a novel design in any event. Not sure why I'm bothering to ask you again as I suspect the same non-answer.but here 'ya go anyway: What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?
Sign In or Register to comment.