|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
This.
And don't call me a troll unless disagreement makes me a troll (which is what it
seems to have come to here).
(and yes I have been reading Groklaw since the beginning)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
The whole "copycat" statement is based on the idea that apple's design
patents were valid. However, many think otherwise.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Hargoth on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Anonymous == Troll by default.
However, only those who's first smart phone was an iPhone would ever think that
any modern mobile phone copied Apple.
The rest of us roll our eyes at Apple's ability to get other people's work
patented as an Apple invention. In fact, design patents, software patents, gene
patents, drug patents, etc etc etc should not exist, period.
But they do, and THAT, my troll friend, is the really sad thing here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
> Its about blatant copying.
> I don't expect you to see that
Apple is shameless about blatant copying.
I don't expect you to see that.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless
about stealing great ideas."
-- Steve Jobs
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
He said they looked at the phones side by side and that was enough. How plain
does it need to be for you to understand?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
In my view, the flaw in the case is that a long list of vaque design features,
individually registered was used to protect the whole of the product which was a
collection of design considerations.
Although I can see the similarity of the opposing collections, when I consider
whether individually a flat surface, edge to edge glass, a rounded bezel, a grid
layout for icons, squarish icons with radius corners, etc. should enjoy patent,
trade dress or other protections the absolute answer is no. Of course not.
So the problem is that Apple is greedy, and the system dropped the ball. Apple
should be allowed to protect the overall package but not the individual pieces
and that is why most of this case should not even have been presented to the
jury as it was.
I don't really care if Samsung gets stung with a billion dollar judgement so
much as I care that all of these generic, well practiced design features have
been placed under a cloud.
Apple should be forced to be far more specific and the judge and jury should be
far more savvy than to allow this complaint to succeed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
I see what you mean, to paraphrase J. R. R. Tolkien: *One Copyist to rule them
all*.
Tell me something: Why should "the bus stop here", so to speak?
Why should copying stop just because Apple copied? Why integration of the
"aspects of the art" (they keep coming up with crap terms like SSO,
Trade Dress, etc. so here, I came up with one myself so sue me) should stop
because Apple integrated some of them?
That jury was biased. For example: they tested how to defend Apple's patents,
why didn't they test how to defend Samsung's?
It should have been obvious to the jury that Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom
because it is a feature inherent in the design of the capacitive touch
screens.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
