Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-review/
This is a rounded corner design that does not infringe the Apple patent. Why
didn't Samsung just use this design originally?
I wish people could break from the group think and realize that there is merit
to
some of Apple's patents and claims. For sure there are issues, but there
definitely is merit to some of Apple's claims.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
Assume you are correct (I think you probably
are but I have not checked)
The question still remains did Samsung
do anything wrong by making a tablet
that looked like the I-pad? If they
did not infringe upon something that Apple
owns, the answer is no.
Even under brain dead US copyright law
Apple does not own the concept of
a thin rectangle with rounded corners.
Does Apple own the rather fuzzy
"looks like an I-pad"? If so, is this
what they are claiming, and how?
The tablet in the photos certainly looks
like a I-pad to me. I guess I am not
discriminating enough.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- The Galaxy looks like an Apple replica to you? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- My mistake - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT
- Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- You just provided the reasoning to invalidate the patent... - Authored by: Charles888 on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- "the" problem? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
Extrapolating from what happened in the various SCO cases, with trolls coming
out from under their bridges immediately before each and every one of SCO's
setbacks in court, that may mean that the trolls think that Apple is losing
badly.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
stage_v
from under the bridge[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Yes, yes it is about the description asserted in the paper, and if you have
readed the document you will notice the minimalist design that can only be
described as "generic", that's why even not "looking" and
"feeling" like an iPad they can sue anything that could resemble like
the design described in the paper, you can remember the NT-K case:
http://www.nt-k.com/la-justicia-nos-ha-dado-la-razon-ante-apple/
http://www.nt-k.com/zona/dispositivos/
Now i wonder if generic designs are the same as standard designs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 11:00 PM EDT |
I have to ask a few questions, do illustrations for book covers, magazines,
or
television programs, movies and paintings fall within what the law refers to
as
prior art? Did the Soylent Green studio miss a bet by not patenting its
fictional
technology back then? Would they have passed the test that any
competent
inventor could invent the technology by reviewing the
patent? Are you
saying
that each patent filer is now at risk, unless
they searched through all fiction to
see if their idea appeared in illustration
or text and since Dick Tracy
communicated remotely via two-way wrist radio, is
Motorola Mobility's patent
portfolio now nullified? Are you saying that
counsel for Samsung are
less
than excellent because they did not submit the
jury-convincing evidence of old
sci-fi films, such as 2001: A Space
Odyssey? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
It covers an interface composed of square icons with rounded
corners.
Or maybe when under the influence of the Reality Distortion
Field a square is no longer a rectangle.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
The patent is on nothing but a rectangle with round corners and a screen! The
insanity of this whole thing is that you and that patent office and the CAFC
seem to think that trivial junk like this deserves a creator's monopoly. EGAD!
How hopelessly STUPID do you have to be to think that round-cornered rectangles
would never be created unless we offered a creator's monopoly for them? Has
everyone in the world gone insane?????[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: starsky on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 02:09 AM EDT |
I must disagree with your contention.
The tablets are really similar, but I
can't imagine being confused between the Apple box and the Samsung box when they
are clearly labelled and obviously different.
Maybe Samsung just adapted the
look from their Picture Frame?
Engadget 2006 article on Samsung Digital Picture
frame
Come on we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and the "Ipad
look" is just obvious, and not patentable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 02:47 AM EDT |
Only a hallucinated Apple fan would not recognize the
obvious differences between Apple's and Samsung's devices at
an usable distance. From a distance, all sedans look the
same, all hatchbacks also look similar. Also, from a
distance, all TVs look the same, all computer screens look
the same, all laptops look the same. So unless the judge and
jury are also hypnotized by the Apple mania in the US, they
should be able to recognize the differences.
As Prof. Risch pointed out earlier, at the point of purchase
there is no confusion. Certainly, nobody buys an Apple
device thinking they are buying a Samsung device and vice-
versa. Therefore, there is no damage, despite all claims to
the contrary.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 05:50 AM EDT |
and
every other one of them
obviously went to substantial effort to
try to be distinctive
If it takes substantial effort to be
distinctive, then it seems like the original design was kind of obvious
and functional and should not have been granted a patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|