decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Avoidability is not equivalent to non-functionality | 201 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A Quibble Regarding Ridiculous
Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
This is a fair comment, and certainly one of the key things
that will be debated.

However, from a functionality standpoint, the inability to
increase (or decrease) the number of buttons - that is,
Apple telling me what is best -- is ridiculous.

Note as well, that Apple would hate your explanation -
because it implies the four across is functional, and if it
is functional, it cannot be protected in the way Apple is
attempting to protect it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

An After-thought
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT

After posting, I realized that I may not have clearly stated that I had no problem with the key thought, that Apple put four icons at the bottom in order to strengthen its trademark claims. I don't think I would have had a problem with the author adding something along the lines of "even though some customers might have preferred a fifth button and less negative space."

Let me emphasize that I was sincere in my gratitude for today's article. I realize that Apple may be grasping at straws as it pursues these cases and I appreciate the background that lets me understand better how the case is being presented and judged.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A Quibble Regarding Ridiculous
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
Four large buttons with lots of negative space may be a good thing.

but what about four small buttons with even more blank, unresponsive space
around them?

It sounds as if you haven't seen the ipad icons. The icons at the bottom of the
ipad are exactly the same size as they are on the iphone, it's just on a
10" screen instead of a 3.5" screen.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Avoidability is not equivalent to non-functionality
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
The fact that it is possible to choose a different number of icons doesn't make
the number of icons non-functional. There are a very limited number of
functional possibilities here. If Apple is allowed a design patent monopoly on 4
... and Nokia grabs 5 ... and HTC grabs 6 ... This isn't like the design of a
corporate logo where there is a massive space of possible choices so claiming
one choice has no impact on functionality. The possible choices here are limited
by functionality to an extent that makes permitting a monopoly on one choice
extremely obstructive.

The mere fact that it is possible to sell drinks in a bottle would not make it
possible to claim a design patent monopoly on the idea of selling drinks in a
can.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A Quibble Regarding Ridiculous
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 10:25 AM EDT
Errrmmm. Cough.. My Palmpilot has 4 icons across the bottom...

Mac the Unruly

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )