|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
The trade dress issue surely only applies at the time of sale. I can't imagine
there is any way someone could possibly buy a galaxy thinking they were getting
an iphone.
The boxes they come in look very different just for a start. And the differences
become clear as soon as you turn them on as they run completely different
operating systems with a different application ecology, API, and everything.
They only look vaguely similar in the brief time between unwrapping them from
their respective distinctive boxes and turning them on.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 01:39 AM EDT
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT
- The Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- Literacy Problem? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Glenn on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Has there been a flood of reports about people buying Samsung products
thinking they were Apple products?
Glenn[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 04:21 AM EDT |
Put the jury mobile 'phones on a table and see whether an Apple owner picks up a
Samsung, and vice verse.
Of course, there is the snag that an Apple owner might secretly lust after a
Galaxy. So, perhaps not legally conclusive, then.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
This is just a poor argument that one hopes the jury
ignores. If you mistakenly buy one brand over another then
you have been conned by the sales person. Really I doubt
that anyone can tell that a tablet with the screen powered
off from a mirror or even a chunk of glass with black
borders unless upclose. There might be a visible logo and a
small circle that is a camera if you are close enough.
Depending on the angle you might see the side buttons and
connections. Further I doubt many portable mirrors also have
sharp edges...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Is the patent is so broad as to exclude anyone from producing anything, because
the most obvious, functional, shape has been claimed.
Rectangular, with rounded corners and a glass face... my house is full of
infringing items, like my coffee table...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
Chevy would never have copied the Mustang, as that would have immediately led to
litigation, and a lost case for Chevy. I one can see past the silliness of
Apple/Samsung, one could use the example of a shovel. Lots of shovels are made
by many manufacturers. They all look similar. They are not suing each other
over designs that, of necessity, MUST look similar, in order to provide the
functionality of a shovel.
It's sad that Apple feels it must copy Microsofts anti-competitive tactics. I
was never an Apple fanboi, but they are now on my 'no-buy' list (for which I use
a different name), along with Sony & Microsoft.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 01 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
The problem I have is what is the definition of a "rounded corner"? At
what radius does a sharp corner become rounded? If you can't cut your finger on
it, is that enough for it to be rounded? Are Apple basically patenting the
humble rectangle?
Before the iPhone and before the iPad there was the old MS tablet laptop. That
was rectangular. That had rounded corners. Sure it had a flippable keyboard that
folded underneath, but does the Apple patent explicitly preclude tablets with
physical keyboards?
If the issue is confusion of potential customers, how many iPads have Samsung's
name printed on the front? How many Galaxy Tabs have Apple's apple logo on the
back?
It is clear that regardless of what patents Apple has or hasn't got, the reality
is that they want to effectively patent the whole tablet and smartphone concepts
as their own and exclude all competitors. Samsung just happens to be one of
their first targets.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
