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
I don't think that is relevant | 83 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Interesting
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT
The article and the earlier ruling are about design patents and the law is quite
clear that the overall appearance is at issue and that functional elements limit
the scope for infringement.

The Apple argument is about trade dress which, ISTR. can include elements
protected by design patent. Is the Apple objection actually misdirection? How is
trade dress infringement limited by functionality?

Was the inclusion of functional elements in that Mexican restaurant a limiting
factor to the trade dress infringement? Did Apple try to obscure, from the jury,
the fact that design patent infringement and trade dress infringement are
decided differently?

Would the fact that both restaurants had the functional elements of an entrance
door, a window facing the street and a sales counter detract from the trade
dress infringement issue? Did it all boil down to non-functional decoration
elements such as colour scheme and ethnic decorations?

Can a company have many different trade dresses depending upon the product
range? Apple Powerbooks don't look a lot like iPhones. If they make the argument
that the difference in overall appearance is because of the difference between
the functions of product ranges, well...

Apple need a foot-bandage!

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Blame the 9th Cct
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
Apple looking out for their appeal

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I don't think that is relevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT
That seems to only be talking about trade dress, which isn't the issue in the
article.

Thanks for finding Samsung's filing, though.

[ 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 )