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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
And that's the exact problem: | 157 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Even Samsung has redesigned their tablet...
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 | # ]

Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj
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 | # ]

The trolls are out in force today
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 | # ]

YA but, the JooJoo/Crunchpad do, images allowed public to view development. n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT
stage_v

from under the bridge

[ 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 @ 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 | # ]

Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj
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 | # ]

The 790 patent *is* about rectangles with rounded corners
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 | # ]

Look at the patent!!!!
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 | # ]

Samsung sdapted their 2006 Digital Picture Frame Design?
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 | # ]

Speaking of Rectangles with Rounded Corners, What About Soylent Green's Tablet? ~pj
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 | # ]

And that's the exact problem:
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 | # ]

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 )