USPTO finds Apple iPhone design patent invalid in court fight against Samsung

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 113
    If it was obvious, why didn't others develop the designs and why are they now copying Apple's designs.

    Apple's design patents are only obvious after the fact.

    I read a great definition of both "thinking outside the box" and of the characteristic of genius. It's "seeing the obvious".
  • Reply 62 of 113
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,245member
    What's that, you say? Oh, right... That ex-Google employee now heads the USPTO. Bet most people forgot about that.

    "Thanks, Obama!"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/
    She look to be very qualified for the position IMO. There's a lot of folks at Apple, Google, Microsoft or in government who "used to work for" a company or agency someone doesn't like.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/director-of-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-who-is-michelle-k-lee-141122?news=854893
  • Reply 63 of 113
    gatorguy wrote: »
    She look to be very qualified for the position IMO. There's a lot of folks at Apple, Google, Microsoft or in government who "used to work for" a company or agency someone doesn't like.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/director-of-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-who-is-michelle-k-lee-141122?news=854893

    Yes, the Washington "revolving door" has contributed greatly to the corporatist form of government we currently have.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
  • Reply 64 of 113
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,465member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    She look to be very qualified for the position IMO. There's a lot of folks at Apple, Google, Microsoft or in government who "used to work for" a company or agency someone doesn't like.

    http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/director-of-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-who-is-michelle-k-lee-141122?news=854893

    She's fine; it isn't an issue. Likely any qualified candidate from the corporate pool would be fine as well. 

  • Reply 65 of 113
    frankiefrankie Posts: 378member
    In the unlikely and unpleasant event it came down to Trump vs. Sanders, there is no possibly way I'd support Sanders.

    In the event it would be Trump versus Sanders I'll support Sanders all day long.
  • Reply 66 of 113
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grkm3 View Post






    Great off context montage.   Steve Job knows how well every tech company looked at Apple to steal and replicate their R&D.  Apple has been back stabbed many time by "partner" during new product R&D.  Google's CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple board and had access to every Apple secret product developpements. 

  • Reply 67 of 113
    frankiefrankie Posts: 378member
    Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist. Socialists and progressives will be the end of America.

    Bernie is a Democratic socialist. There's quite a huge difference.

    I know you already know this from reading your other posts and you're just talking bad about him like all the other conservatives parroting Fox News.

    I'm going to support someone who wants to create jobs in America and not in China.

    I gonna to support someone who wants to get the money out of Washington not make it worse. I support candidates who aren't 100% completely bought and paid for like the entire GOP and 90% of the Dems.

    The death of America is giving everything to the filthy rich and letting them buy our government, something all conservatives have been gladly doing for decades. And as I said above yes many Dems are glad to sell out as well but not nearly as much.

    I guess you like your government paid for by billionaires.? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would agree with me on both of those issues and would call modern conservatives another word-traitors.
  • Reply 68 of 113
    frankie wrote: »
    In the event it would be Trump versus Sanders I'll support Sanders all day long.

    That's a shame. Socialism is economically ruinous and taken to its logical conclusion, would result in the elimination of individual rights.
  • Reply 69 of 113
    frankie wrote: »
    Bernie is a Democratic socialist. There's quite a huge difference.

    I know you already know this from reading your other posts and you're just talking bad about him like all the other conservatives parroting Fox News.

    I'm going to support someone who wants to create jobs in America and not in China.

    I gonna someone who wants to get the money out of Washington not make it worse. I support candidates who aren't 100% completely bought and paid for like the entire GOP and 90% of the Dems.

    I guess you like your government paid for by billionaires.? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would agree with me on both of those issues and would modern conservatives another word-traitors.

    Are you under the misimpression that Sanders is actually aligned with the founding fathers? He is not. He's quite far from the core ideas this country was founded upon, primarily his fairly communistic view of property ownership.

    "Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. From this perspective, democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by a transition from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, and that any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms will only cause problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

    I don't expect you to visit either of the links I'm providing, but they are there for you if you are interested:

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/heres-why-bernie-sanders-is-wrong-about-everything/

    http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-461-the-fallacies-of-bernie-sanders/
  • Reply 70 of 113

    Wow! Well someone at the USPTO received a nice bonus, it seems...!

     

    "Justice is not a principal, it's whatever you can afford to buy."

  • Reply 71 of 113
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member

    As others have said, perhaps the problem is that the patent should never have been granted in the first place. If it is now being rejected for obviousness, why did the original patent examiners not see the obviousness of the design at the time?

     

    Didn't Apple successfully sue another computer company in the past for making a teardrop iMac look-alike? But I believe that was under trademarks infringement or some other such laws. Not patent infringement. You shouldn't be able to patent the shape of something unless that shape is performing some specific function integral to the device's operation (ie, the dimple pattern on a golf ball or the shape of an aircraft propeller).

  • Reply 72 of 113
    wiggin wrote: »
    As others have said, perhaps the problem is that the patent should never have been granted in the first place. If it is now being rejected for obviousness, why did the original patent examiners not see the obviousness of the design at the time?

    Didn't Apple successfully sue another computer company in the past for making a teardrop iMac look-alike? But I believe that was under trademarks infringement or some other such laws. Not patent infringement. You shouldn't be able to patent the shape of something unless that shape is performing some specific function integral to the device's operation (ie, the dimple pattern on a golf ball or the shape of an aircraft propeller).

    A design patent is different from a utility patent, but design is an important competitive differentiator in the marketplace.
  • Reply 73 of 113
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,591member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Yes, the Washington "revolving door" has contributed greatly to the corporatist form of government we currently have.



    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism



    The revolving door refers more to people who leave Government and then go work for the corporations they regulated, implying that the job is a reward for giving business regulations (or not) that they liked.

     

    If you want the Government to hire people with experience and not just people who are friends with politicians or contributed to campaigns, where do you think these people are going to come from?   They're going to come from the corporate world and in most cases, they should.   

  • Reply 74 of 113
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Socialism is economically ruinous and taken to its logical conclusion, would result in the elimination of individual rights.

     

    But only because of people are like they are, not because of the idea ;-)

    Still, in a real world your assessment is correct IMO.

  • Reply 75 of 113
    zoetmb wrote: »

    The revolving door refers more to people who leave Government and then go work for the corporations they regulated, implying that the job is a reward for giving business regulations (or not) that they liked.

    If you want the Government to hire people with experience and not just people who are friends with politicians or contributed to campaigns, where do you think these people are going to come from?   They're going to come from the corporate world and in most cases, they should.   

    I don't want more regulators. I want free markets, laws that protect us from fraud and courts capable of prosecuting lawbreakers, all as described in our Constitution. Instead we have a pay-for-play system of government populated by former lobbyists and soon-to-be or ex-special interest employees. It's all quite incestuous.
  • Reply 76 of 113

    On the bright side: The USPTO did not make it to the 25th century. Because otherwise they clearly would have revoked all patents related to the USS Enterprise and given them for free to Samsung, ahm no, the Klingons to shamelessly be "inspired" by them.

     

    Hm, or they are finally effective, and that's why the Birds of Prey don't look like and iPhone, ahm no, Enterprise?

    That would mean, someone shakes this system....nah, it is like in the first option.

  • Reply 77 of 113
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,591member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    That's a shame. Socialism is economically ruinous and taken to its logical conclusion, would result in the elimination of individual rights.



    Yes, so we should immediately get rid of public schools, public hospitals, the post office, public highways, public water systems, social security, Medicare, the police, teachers, sanitation workers, fire fighters, etc.

     

    Do citizens not have individual rights in socialist countries like the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc?

     

    But you don't have to worry.   In spite of his current popularity, Sanders isn't getting elected.   Because Americans have been taught that 'socialism' is a dirty word, even if they actually want what it provides (just as they don't want Obamacare, but wants what it provides), if Sanders got the nomination, which is highly unlikely, it would be George McGovern all over again.  He'd win just a few states.  (McGovern won one plus New York City).    

     

    Trump isn't getting elected either.   He's popular because supporting a vulgar loudmouth is fun.   I would contend that many of his supporters don't even bother voting (although I obviously can't prove that).   Trump does not want to be President and he will back out at some point.   This is a branding exercise for him and he would never place his companies in trust, which he'd have to do if elected.  While he has a big mouth, he doesn't have a single legitimate idea as to how to accomplish anything that he suggests.     In a real debate with fewer participants, even a George Bush could make him look like a fool.    And on the unlikely chance he did become President, he'd accomplish absolutely nothing because both the Democrats and Republicans hate him and he'd get nothing out of Congress.   He'd get even less than Obama got.  Even if he ran and was elected as an independent, he'd be perceived as a Republican and then the Republicans would be routed in 2020, even possibly out of the House.

     

    And if he runs as a third party candidate, he will cost the Republicans the election, although it's unlikely they'd win anyway:   without the 9 tossup states (all of which Obama won in 2012), the Democrats are highly likely to have 232 electoral votes (Republicans have 206).   If the Dems win Florida, they only need 9 more electoral votes to win.    The only chance Republicans have is to run Jeb Bush on the theory he can win Florida and then have him spend most of the campaign in Pennsylvania.   If the Republicans can win FL and PA, they'd need only 15 more electoral votes to win, although that would still be a tough road.

  • Reply 78 of 113
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,245member
    bigmac2 wrote: »

    Great off context montage.   Steve Job knows how well every tech company looked at Apple to steal and replicate their R&D.  Apple has been back stabbed many time by "partner" during new product R&D.  Google's CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple board and had access to every Apple secret product developpements. 

    Yet Android engineers were taken by surprise by how the iPhone worked, needing to go back and rethink the interface for an upcoming "Google phone". So which is it, Schmidt wasn't taking a thing he learned from Apple back to Google to begin with or was the entire story about needing to go back to the drawing board after the iPhone reveal a fake and Google knew all along because Schmidt stole it?

    A little common sense can go a long way.
  • Reply 79 of 113
    ronnronn Posts: 453member
    Apple screwed up. The patent was an add-on to earlier Apple patents, was too broad, and contained a single weak claim. Apple was a bit coy regarding the earlier patents knowing prior art trumped their application.

    The patent office is understaffed and is criticised for not granting patents fast enough. It's helped with challenges by rivals that have the resources and motivation to have weak, broad, silly patents knocked out.

    The simplest, fastest reform for our dysfunctional system is an immediate increase in the number of patent examiners. Any patent that requires multiple, years-long revisions probably shouldn't be granted.

    The next step to reform is making the patent system much more transparent: no suing in the dark. If you're suing rivals you can't do so without stating how they're infringing and you shouldn't be allowed to use shadow/dummy corps. Frivolous litigation should be severely punished by having obvious trolls paying all costs with a hefty fine to boot.

    And forgodsakes, simplify the process. This isn't a final ruling. Apple will keep appealing until a final rejection which isn't final as it can be appealed to the federal level, and even to the Supreme Court. That can take years.
  • Reply 80 of 113
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,594member
    Let me get this straight - the patent is invalid because of prior art, but the prior art is Apple's. That makes no fk'n sense!!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.