|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
That's OK. Someone is always around to put it into
links and 2 for you. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
That is, from events:
1) Many Groklaw'ians think that the patent bar is much too low and *all* of the
patents in this case should never have been granted and should be invalidated.
Almost all of us think that Apple's Design patent is invalid. Show me a
smartphone that isn't a rectangle with rounded corners and mostly touch screen
on the front. The courts have ruled that the elements in a design patent must
be purely decorative -- for example, an Apple color scheme or "the mark of
the three stripes" (Nike).
2) I think most of Groklaw agrees that Apple's designs are copied from
somewhere. An all-screen device dates all the way back to the movie "2001:
A Space Odyssey". As Apple is not alleging espionage, and was late to the
market, there is no case that Samsung in fact copied the design. It was very
much "in the air".
3) Excluding evidence of the designs that were being considered by Samsung very
much biases the trial against them.
4) The article alleges Judge Koh has prior connections with and possibly stock
in Apple. That is no small appearance of impropriety. But, if true, it would
explain quite a bit.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|