Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
I said Troll and I mean Troll - I hope others do what we are supposed to do
which is ignore trolls.
~[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
The iPhone is no doubt an extremely well designed iconic product. But the fact
is that many other companies were moving in exactly the same direction, so much
so that it is hard to tell that Apple has the rights to protect its trade dress
to the extent that the (current) result of this case appears to suggest.
There is no doubt that Samsung and just about every other company were looking
at each others designs to see what was good and bad about them, and from such
comparisons were making changes to their designs to better the competition.
A Samsung phone is in no way a slavish copy of an iPhone, which is what the
trade dress standard should require in order to demonstrate possible confusion.
Quite honestly a sensible jury would have tried to cobble a decision together
that gave a small (<100M) result to one side or the other, or tried to sort
out a draw. There is no way a verdict of this magnitude is going to stand or be
allowed to stand, whereas a smaller verdict towards one side or another may have
prompted both sides to settle.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
Except that in other countries Apple has lost exactly the same case. There is no
slavish copying, just a jury that decided to ignore all the evidence and give
the home team a big win.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|