|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
If you want to be able to show wide screen video's (16:9 format) does this not
also effect the length and height ratios of the screen you need which means most
screens will have the same ratio (and roughly same handy size) which points to
obviousness and should make any similarities in screen (and hence phone) sizes
completely moot?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
They reinforce the message that the phone shape and size were determined by
engineering constraints. Rounded corners were the only stylists addition and
even those were constrained by the functional requirements of the user.
Did you try to answer the two questions about trade dress that I listed? Compare
Apple and Samsung products with the design patent. Are they exactly the same?
Why not? Is there a single, unified trade dress across all the Apple mobile
products? If not, how do Samsung infringe on the trade dress?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
| Yes, just look at the teardowns of
the new iPad with it's
retina display. Apple tried to keep the size
the same
as the previous but had to change slightly to accommodate
the huge
battery. So the v3 is thicker (0.03 inches) and
heavier (0.11lbs) than
v2.
The shape or form is also determined by usability as very
few, if any,
large
handheld electronics are not rectangular in shape. Not that
it would have
helped here and also, I did
not follow the trial enough to know, but Samsung
should have
displayed all the different handheld devices especially
portable
games systems like gameboy and playstation portable
to demonstrate that
rectangles are the norm. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
