Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Apple just received a patent for a dimension that doesn't even exist yet   ( gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Apple, plain  
•       •       •

22791 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 8:06 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-25 03:40:06 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Apple does not have a single bit of drafting software that can compare with Microstation let alone AutoCAD or Revit. Therefore Apple sucks dripping ball sweat off a leperous rhino


Please de-insert your head from your anus please.

architosh.com
 
2012-07-25 04:05:45 AM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: OriginalGamer: I love everyone saying Apples iPad/iPhone form factor and look are 'obvious', but I'm sure it's pure coincide that everyone started cloning that "obvious" look/feel after Apple.

Looks more like Apple cloned Palm's form factor and OS icon starting circa 1997 and especially around 2004:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 275x357]

Lots of PDAs and similar devices had similar form factors such as HP's iPAQ (gee, that name from 2000 sure sounds familiar) and Pocket PC, just for starters, that you're claiming others ripped from Apple.

Cherry picking sample pictures to create an argument via graphic doesn't rewrite history. Apple wasn't first with this "obvious" look and feel; they copied others before them too.


The iMac predates the iPaq, and established Apples using of the iWhatever naming scheme. And when I say copy, I mean it much less broadly then you seem to think I'm saying. I'm talking about shiat like this:

iPad:
nichebloggers.org

Obvious Android knock-offs:

www.shenit.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
mybroadband.co.za
uncrate.com

There's "similar", and then there's "practically a clone and everybody knows it"
 
2012-07-25 04:16:28 AM  

OriginalGamer: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: OriginalGamer: I love everyone saying Apples iPad/iPhone form factor and look are 'obvious', but I'm sure it's pure coincide that everyone started cloning that "obvious" look/feel after Apple.

Looks more like Apple cloned Palm's form factor and OS icon starting circa 1997 and especially around 2004:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 275x357]

Lots of PDAs and similar devices had similar form factors such as HP's iPAQ (gee, that name from 2000 sure sounds familiar) and Pocket PC, just for starters, that you're claiming others ripped from Apple.

Cherry picking sample pictures to create an argument via graphic doesn't rewrite history. Apple wasn't first with this "obvious" look and feel; they copied others before them too.

The iMac predates the iPaq, and established Apples using of the iWhatever naming scheme. And when I say copy, I mean it much less broadly then you seem to think I'm saying. I'm talking about shiat like this:

iPad:
[nichebloggers.org image 528x449]

Obvious Android knock-offs:

[www.shenit.com image 600x406]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 832x392]
[mybroadband.co.za image 600x423]
[uncrate.com image 850x525]

There's "similar", and then there's "practically a clone and everybody knows it"


You're bringing up...Chinese iPad clones as an argument against Android?

Am I the only one who thinks this guy is a complete moron and should just get ignored.
 
2012-07-25 04:27:14 AM  

change1211: OriginalGamer: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: OriginalGamer: I love everyone saying Apples iPad/iPhone form factor and look are 'obvious', but I'm sure it's pure coincide that everyone started cloning that "obvious" look/feel after Apple.

Looks more like Apple cloned Palm's form factor and OS icon starting circa 1997 and especially around 2004:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 275x357]

Lots of PDAs and similar devices had similar form factors such as HP's iPAQ (gee, that name from 2000 sure sounds familiar) and Pocket PC, just for starters, that you're claiming others ripped from Apple.

Cherry picking sample pictures to create an argument via graphic doesn't rewrite history. Apple wasn't first with this "obvious" look and feel; they copied others before them too.

The iMac predates the iPaq, and established Apples using of the iWhatever naming scheme. And when I say copy, I mean it much less broadly then you seem to think I'm saying. I'm talking about shiat like this:

iPad:
[nichebloggers.org image 528x449]

Obvious Android knock-offs:

[www.shenit.com image 600x406]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 832x392]
[mybroadband.co.za image 600x423]
[uncrate.com image 850x525]

There's "similar", and then there's "practically a clone and everybody knows it"

You're bringing up...Chinese iPad clones as an argument against Android?

Am I the only one who thinks this guy is a complete moron and should just get ignored.


The bottom two are Samsung actually. An pd look, all I'm saying is if a tablet has general similarity to an iPad no biggie. But when you have the same exact color, same rounded edges, same silver bezel, and a single, or very few front buttons it's hard for a company to claim coincidence. Any one, or two of those things, maybe. But all of them?
 
2012-07-25 04:45:55 AM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo

upload.wikimedia.org

Pre-iPad. Any questions?

/Hot, like jealous rage
 
2012-07-25 05:16:22 AM  
And I thought tea baggers were derpy. Jebus H. Krispy you farkers need to get a grip.
 
2012-07-25 05:17:06 AM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Or that Stanley Kubrick came up with exactly the same form in 1966.

You must have a different reference than that single 2001 screenshot, since it has 10 channel buttons on an angled section on the bottom. So where's this mythical Kubrick tablet with "exactly the same form"?


Since Android tablets have three physical buttons while the iPad has one that means they didn't copy Apple then?
 
2012-07-25 05:48:37 AM  

OriginalGamer: change1211: OriginalGamer: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: OriginalGamer: I love everyone saying Apples iPad/iPhone form factor and look are 'obvious', but I'm sure it's pure coincide that everyone started cloning that "obvious" look/feel after Apple.

Looks more like Apple cloned Palm's form factor and OS icon starting circa 1997 and especially around 2004:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 275x357]

Lots of PDAs and similar devices had similar form factors such as HP's iPAQ (gee, that name from 2000 sure sounds familiar) and Pocket PC, just for starters, that you're claiming others ripped from Apple.

Cherry picking sample pictures to create an argument via graphic doesn't rewrite history. Apple wasn't first with this "obvious" look and feel; they copied others before them too.

The iMac predates the iPaq, and established Apples using of the iWhatever naming scheme. And when I say copy, I mean it much less broadly then you seem to think I'm saying. I'm talking about shiat like this:

iPad:
[nichebloggers.org image 528x449]

Obvious Android knock-offs:

[www.shenit.com image 600x406]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 832x392]
[mybroadband.co.za image 600x423]
[uncrate.com image 850x525]

There's "similar", and then there's "practically a clone and everybody knows it"

You're bringing up...Chinese iPad clones as an argument against Android?

Am I the only one who thinks this guy is a complete moron and should just get ignored.

The bottom two are Samsung actually. An pd look, all I'm saying is if a tablet has general similarity to an iPad no biggie. But when you have the same exact color, same rounded edges, same silver bezel, and a single, or very few front buttons it's hard for a company to claim coincidence. Any one, or two of those things, maybe. But all of them?


Yeah, I had an electronic photo frame that looked exactly like what you described well before the iPad was released.
 
2012-07-25 07:37:23 AM  

kingoomieiii: Oh, good. Another patent for the very notion of doing something, as opposed to the steps required to do that thing.


www.chowrangi.com
 
2012-07-25 07:41:13 AM  

OddLlama: bdub77: Is stupid a dimension?

I just lol'd in a public restroom. :-(


Licked Onna Lit'el Dick?

While I support your right to do that, I rather you keep your personal life personal.
Congratutlations on being British, though.
 
2012-07-25 07:48:43 AM  
mimg.ugo.com
Well once Apple gets their 5D tech in place, maybe some hipster douches will get lost on the way to an Apple store during a subspace field collapse.

I also look forward to hammer-space!
images.wikia.com
 
2012-07-25 08:02:37 AM  

Flint Ironstag: OriginalGamer: [osxdaily.com image 580x812]

[todayilearned.co.uk image 682x487]

Yeah, maybe Apple is being aggressive with SOME of the patent suits....but some are spot on...

Meanwhile, in 1966, over forty years before the iPad:

[img59.imageshack.us image 790x506]

A rectangle with a screen almost as big as the case is just the obvious form factor. And lets not mention how Apple stole the GUI, icons, the mouse etc from Xerox PARC....


They didn't steal a thing from Xerox. Apple licensed that tech and Xerox profited heavily on Apple's IPO.

fc04.deviantart.net

Let's not forget the Star Trek PADD, too
 
2012-07-25 08:32:01 AM  

kingoomieiii: Oh, good. Another patent for the very notion of doing something, as opposed to the steps required to do that thing.

The example that needs to be cried from the heavens in this stupid patent war: What if some company had patented the idea of using a rectangular grid of lit and colored elements to form a digital picture, and was suing everyone who tried to do the same thing?


They did.
 
2012-07-25 08:47:36 AM  

OriginalGamer: I like the fact that two of your "before" iPad tablets were released after the iPad (and are obvious copies of it) and the other before all use a stylus, didn't have multitouch, and have a bunch of buttons on them. But thanks for making my point for me :-)


If they are such obvious clones of them, perhaps it would be instructive to know that the iPad was released in 2010, after the two tablets shown in the picture in 2008 and 2009.
 
2012-07-25 09:08:31 AM  

RexTalionis: OriginalGamer: I like the fact that two of your "before" iPad tablets were released after the iPad (and are obvious copies of it) and the other before all use a stylus, didn't have multitouch, and have a bunch of buttons on them. But thanks for making my point for me :-)

If they are such obvious clones of them, perhaps it would be instructive to know that the iPad was released in 2010, after the two tablets shown in the picture in 2008 and 2009.


It would be slightly more instructive, though deflating, to find out that the D504,889 patent on the iPad design was filed in March 2004.
 
2012-07-25 09:54:36 AM  

bighairyguy: Ohio Art Company, 1960

[img692.imageshack.us image 500x500]


Sumer, 3100 BC

www.tcf.ua.edu
 
2012-07-25 10:10:38 AM  

OriginalGamer: change1211: OriginalGamer: [osxdaily.com image 580x812]

[todayilearned.co.uk image 682x487]

Yeah, maybe Apple is being aggressive with SOME of the patent suits....but some are spot on...

[www.freeimagehosting.net image 800x644]

God I'm sick of Apple trolls.

Especially when they're right!


He just slam-dunked on your argument, you farking twit. You lose. Go home.
 
2012-07-25 10:20:33 AM  

Theaetetus: RexTalionis: OriginalGamer: I like the fact that two of your "before" iPad tablets were released after the iPad (and are obvious copies of it) and the other before all use a stylus, didn't have multitouch, and have a bunch of buttons on them. But thanks for making my point for me :-)

If they are such obvious clones of them, perhaps it would be instructive to know that the iPad was released in 2010, after the two tablets shown in the picture in 2008 and 2009.

It would be slightly more instructive, though deflating, to find out that the D504,889 patent on the iPad design was filed in March 2004.


Which was purely an aesthetic design patent on something that was very similar to electronic devices that pre-dated even said patent. So...right back atcha?

Just to be clear, this is what they patented:
oami.europa.eu

/I mean really...
//REEEALLY...
 
2012-07-25 10:30:01 AM  
I think a lot of the issue is a symptom of minimalist design. By its very nature, it breeds similarity. I'll give Apple credit for popularizing such design, but I can't give them credit for introducing it even within the confined context of electronic computing devices. Not even for most of those aspects they claim they did first.

In a sense, Apple painted themselves into this corner. If the best unique characteristics you've got are "it's square" and "it has rounded corners", you're venturing into the realm of the absurd.
 
2012-07-25 10:37:37 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: RexTalionis: OriginalGamer: I like the fact that two of your "before" iPad tablets were released after the iPad (and are obvious copies of it) and the other before all use a stylus, didn't have multitouch, and have a bunch of buttons on them. But thanks for making my point for me :-)

If they are such obvious clones of them, perhaps it would be instructive to know that the iPad was released in 2010, after the two tablets shown in the picture in 2008 and 2009.

It would be slightly more instructive, though deflating, to find out that the D504,889 patent on the iPad design was filed in March 2004.

Which was purely an aesthetic design patent


Yep.

on something that was very similar to electronic devices that pre-dated even said patent. So...right back atcha?

[Citation needed]

Just to be clear, this is what they patented:
[oami.europa.eu image 425x362]

/I mean really...
//REEEALLY...


Actually, that's only a portion of what they patented. You notice that there are more figures there, right? The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures.

Design patents are narrow. You almost never see infringement of a design patent unless it's intentional.

But Samsung wouldn't copy designs... would they?
www.digitalfilmtree.com
macenstein.com
www.giga.de
 
2012-07-25 10:39:08 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If the best unique characteristics you've got are "it's square" and "it has rounded corners", you're venturing into the realm of the absurd.


If that's all the design patent covered, then this would be anticipatory prior art:
mydroid.biz
Does that picture show each and every feature in Apple's design patent?
 
2012-07-25 10:49:57 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Apple does not have a single bit of drafting software that can compare with Microstation let alone AutoCAD or Revit. Therefore Apple sucks dripping ball sweat off a leperous rhino


Archicad, AutoCAD for Mac, AutoCAD LT (the most expensive appstore purchase you can make that I'm aware of), I also think that UG may run on it as well

oh, and Inventor Fusion for Mac as well

I personally hope they get around to making Inventor for Mac, just to see what they could do.
 
2012-07-25 11:15:29 AM  
Too much apple hate/love for anyone to make note on how the author of this article or the reference article (from Patentlyapple) apparently have no absolutely idea what tactile feedback is and are completely off the mark? Patentlyapple even has a separate article specifically on the tactile feedback technology that apple is considering using (dated back in 2010 no less). link

Apple is considering using fingerprint identification for individual fingers to perform separate functions but thats not tactile feedback (which simulates touch sensations such as texture, motion, etc), although They have actually been considering both for years.

In fact the only thing actually new about this article is the talk of 5D technology and that seems to be about the only thing they got right. Admittedly that's what the article is about, but if you are going to toss in old news, at least make sure you get your facts straight.
 
2012-07-25 11:30:26 AM  

Theaetetus: Actually, that's only a portion of what they patented. You notice that there are more figures there, right? The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures.

Design patents are narrow. You almost never see infringement of a design patent unless it's intentional.


Well, here they are.

Nope, the other drawings are even more vague and minimalist than the first. Even taken as a whole, they're vague. It's just a damn shape. "Narrow", my arse.
 
2012-07-25 11:33:03 AM  

OriginalGamer: Emmexx1: So would the tablets used on ST:TNG count as prior art due to them being used in a TV show in the 90s or a rip-off of Apples "unique" square/rectangle design due to the fact the series is set in the future?

I think Apple is safe since those were non functional props, and I don't think Paramount/CBS patented a prop :-P


It would still count as prior art. People have lost patent applications because their idea had appeared in comics or magazines.
 
2012-07-25 11:34:22 AM  

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If the best unique characteristics you've got are "it's square" and "it has rounded corners", you're venturing into the realm of the absurd.

If that's all the design patent covered, then this would be anticipatory prior art:
[mydroid.biz image 289x289]
Does that picture show each and every feature in Apple's design patent?


Response to first: It should be. That's the whole point. The patent is absurd.
Answer to second: Here's a fun exercise. Describe, in words only, the design patented by Apple in that filing. Do so in a way that makes it sound unique and innovative and special.
 
2012-07-25 11:34:48 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: Actually, that's only a portion of what they patented. You notice that there are more figures there, right? The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures.

Design patents are narrow. You almost never see infringement of a design patent unless it's intentional.

Well, here they are.

Nope, the other drawings are even more vague and minimalist than the first. Even taken as a whole, they're vague. It's just a damn shape. "Narrow", my arse.


This is a vague drawing:
www.steveheimoff.com
So is this:
www.easy-drawings-and-sketches.com
But this is definite and explicit:
cdn-static.zdnet.com

You could take a ruler and protractor to that and come out with very specific measurements and angles. That's not in any way vague. It's a very, very narrow patent.
 
2012-07-25 11:39:35 AM  

Ed Finnerty: GAT_00: kingoomieiii: Oh, good. Another patent for the very notion of doing something, as opposed to the steps required to do that thing.

Apple is the biggest patent troll in existence today.

If Apple ever successfully sues for the patent on Obama's time machine, Apple will go back in time and sue Apple for infringing on Apple. All life in the Appleverse will instantly collapsapple upon itself apple all existence apple we know it will applebee reduced to cosmappleic applesauce. Applegeddon, if you will.


This event willan-on-was referred to as the "Apple event horizon".
 
2012-07-25 11:39:56 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Response to first: It should be. That's the whole point. The patent is absurd.


Counterresponse: you're seriously saying that that rounded square shows every feature in the design patent?
Where's the profile? Where's the curved sides? Where's the headphone jack? Where's the bezel width? How deep is it?
The "whole point" is that you're dismissing tons of features in the design patent with a handwaving "it's absurd," but that's not how the law works. The design patent is narrow and covers only the combination of features shown. Just because you refuse to accept that and ignore 90% of the features doesn't mean that you're right.

Answer to second: Here's a fun exercise. Describe, in words only, the design patented by Apple in that filing. Do so in a way that makes it sound unique and innovative and special.

I'm not sure why that's a fun exercise... Describe, in words only, a collection of aesthetic features in a drawing? Do you not understand that design patents are a visual medium, not a verbal one?
Tell you what - I'll do it when you can describe, in words only, Guernica. Or when you come up with a choreographed dance that describes, in movement only, the design of the Empire State Building.
 
2012-07-25 11:42:45 AM  

trappedspirit: Oh lord, are we going with the argument that science fiction should be considered a legitimate push into the area of patents because patents are now becoming more science fictional-esqe? That's kind of funny. There was a dream of a transporter in the 60s so as soon as you guys get the quantum physics end worked out and the energy creation I'll be wanting to take ownership of it's design...lol


You can't patent "A Transporter" without saying exactly how it would function, and even then someone else could patent a transporter that worked a different way.
But anything can qualify as prior art, a TV show is no different, and if that prior are shows how a device would work then it would invalidate an attempt to patent such an idea. I believe the man who invented, and perfected, the windsurfer lost his patent because someone had written to a surfing magazine years earlier with a sketch of a surfboard with a sail stuck on it. Bank. Prior art, no patent for a windsurfer. He might have been able to patent the specific design of the hinge or the mounting of the handle etc if the sketch hadn't shown that.

But the 2001, ST:TNG examples are for the people who claim that Apple were the first people to come up with the form factor, the idea of a large screen with a minimal frame and little or few buttons. The fact that so many sci-fi movies and shows had devices that looked virtually identical showed it was an "obvious" form and that with or without Apple such devices would have appeared, just as LG came out with a tablet phone before the iPhone.
 
2012-07-25 11:45:31 AM  

Theaetetus: You could take a ruler and protractor to that and come out with very specific measurements and angles. That's not in any way vague. It's a very, very narrow patent.


So it's the specific measures that matter? So as long as a device doesn't exactly copy the measurements (which exist only in the sketch and are in no way otherwise documented, mind you), it's ok?

So, you say it's a "very, very narrow patent". If so, and if measurements are the only defining characteristic, then Samsung is off the hook, because their tablets have a different height-width ratio, do they not?
 
2012-07-25 11:46:34 AM  

Flint Ironstag: But the 2001, ST:TNG examples are for the people who claim that Apple were the first people to come up with the form factor, the idea of a large screen with a minimal frame and little or few buttons. The fact that so many sci-fi movies and shows had devices that looked virtually identical showed it was an "obvious" form and that with or without Apple such devices would have appeared, just as LG came out with a tablet phone before the iPhone.


www.slipperybrick.com
wat
 
2012-07-25 11:48:43 AM  

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Response to first: It should be. That's the whole point. The patent is absurd.

Counterresponse: you're seriously saying that that rounded square shows every feature in the design patent?
Where's the profile? Where's the curved sides? Where's the headphone jack? Where's the bezel width? How deep is it?


OK, so, combining this with your comment that "The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures", and "it's a very, very narrow patent", I ask you: what product out there has displayed a combination of all of those things such that it is a blatant infringement on that very, very narrow patent?

If you want to describe it as being such, great, but that's not how Apple is representing it.
 
2012-07-25 11:50:28 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: You could take a ruler and protractor to that and come out with very specific measurements and angles. That's not in any way vague. It's a very, very narrow patent.

So it's the specific measures that matter? So as long as a device doesn't exactly copy the measurements (which exist only in the sketch and are in no way otherwise documented, mind you), it's ok?


It's actually the ratios, but yes. If a patent shows a shape with dimensions of a*b*c, then 2a*2b*2c infringes, but a*b*2c does not.

So, you say it's a "very, very narrow patent". If so, and if measurements are the only defining characteristic

/facepalm

Once more, for the slow kid. A design patent is a combination of all of the aesthetic features shown. ALL the features.
If a design patent shows features a+b+c+d+e+f+g, then feature a is not "the only defining characteristic".
Got it?

then Samsung is off the hook, because their tablets have a different height-width ratio, do they not?

Apparently not different enough, according to multiple judges in different jurisdictions. There is some slew under the doctrine of equivalents. If my patent shows shape a*b*c and your design is a*b*2c, you don't infringe... But if you have a*b*.999c, then you do. The test is whether a reasonable observer would identify any difference, not whether a micrometer would be able to measure a difference.
 
2012-07-25 11:50:39 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Stile4aly: StoPPeRmobile: Stile4aly: And this is why patents should be granted based on who brings a product to market, not who comes up with an idea based on existing art.

That could be gamed with spies.

/spies

Very well. You can gain a patent on a concept, but if you can't bring it to market in a certain amount of time (a few years at most) the patent should expire and enter the public domain.

I'm Stile4aly and I approved this message.

I don't have a problem with that.



I do.

Patents already have a limited lifespan, so production or not that is already the case. Twenty years may seem like a long time but there are products that can take ten years to develop.
Dyson took ten years to get his vacuum cleaner into production, borrowing money and mortgaging his home and so on. By the time his cleaner hit the market half his patent life had already gone.
You'd have said "Well thanks for all your hard work and coming up with the idea but we're going to now take your patent away from you and let everyone else use it for free."

There would be so many ideas that would simply never be developed because the inventor would know that it would take him too long to get it to market.
Companies would stop spending money on pure R+D because they'd know that if something came up they'd not be able to patent it and bring it to market quickly enough. They'd only spend money on short-term development, incremental improvements on their existing products, so they can be sure of getting a return on their money.
 
2012-07-25 11:54:42 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Response to first: It should be. That's the whole point. The patent is absurd.

Counterresponse: you're seriously saying that that rounded square shows every feature in the design patent?
Where's the profile? Where's the curved sides? Where's the headphone jack? Where's the bezel width? How deep is it?

OK, so, combining this with your comment that "The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures", and "it's a very, very narrow patent", I ask you: what product out there has displayed a combination of all of those things such that it is a blatant infringement on that very, very narrow patent?

If you want to describe it as being such, great, but that's not how Apple is representing it.


No, it's exactly how they've represented it. I really don't know what you're talking about. In the German case, they even identified a list of features where any one feature could be changed and the resulting product wouldn't infringe... In fact, that's what Samsung did with the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, and it's why it doesn't infringe.
And as for the product, the Tab.
static.trustedreviews.comoami.europa.eu
 
2012-07-25 12:04:24 PM  

Theaetetus:

It would be slightly more instructive, though deflating, to find out that the D504,889 patent on the iPad design was filed in March 2004.


Some people here think that Apple should have lost the patent because they took too long to reach the market.
 
2012-07-25 12:44:17 PM  

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: RexTalionis: OriginalGamer: I like the fact that two of your "before" iPad tablets were released after the iPad (and are obvious copies of it) and the other before all use a stylus, didn't have multitouch, and have a bunch of buttons on them. But thanks for making my point for me :-)

If they are such obvious clones of them, perhaps it would be instructive to know that the iPad was released in 2010, after the two tablets shown in the picture in 2008 and 2009.

It would be slightly more instructive, though deflating, to find out that the D504,889 patent on the iPad design was filed in March 2004.

Which was purely an aesthetic design patent

Yep.

on something that was very similar to electronic devices that pre-dated even said patent. So...right back atcha?

[Citation needed]

Just to be clear, this is what they patented:
[oami.europa.eu image 425x362]

/I mean really...
//REEEALLY...

Actually, that's only a portion of what they patented. You notice that there are more figures there, right? The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures.

Design patents are narrow. You almost never see infringement of a design patent unless it's intentional.

But Samsung wouldn't copy designs... would they?
[www.digitalfilmtree.com image 850x1261]
[macenstein.com image 540x443]
[www.giga.de image 797x581]


My god you're reaching. You're comparing a plug, a USB to AC adaptor and a box the devices are contained in?

That's both pathetic and stupid. No one is arguing that Apple isn't vigorously defending what it thinks it has a patent to, right? Then how come they aren't suing over the adaptor, cable and box?

I always see you saying that you're not a fanboy but I'll be damned if you aren't doing a good impression of one.
 
2012-07-25 12:55:38 PM  

change1211: My god you're reaching. You're comparing a plug, a USB to AC adaptor and a box the devices are contained in?

That's both pathetic and stupid. No one is arguing that Apple isn't vigorously defending what it thinks it has a patent to, right? Then how come they aren't suing over the adaptor, cable and box?

I always see you saying that you're not a fanboy but I'll be damned if you aren't doing a good impression of one.



The plug: A standard design, that was NOT designed by Apple. Most plugs manufactured in Asia designed for the US come this way. Belkin makes tons of those as well.

The box: Other than the glaring "Samsung GALAXY Tab" printed on it, Yeah those boxes are identical. But so is any other box that wants to minimize packing space.

The cable: A modified industry standard 30-pin cable that Samsung no longer uses, having been replaced by USB, and then MHL.

The display booth? Yeah, they copied some icons. That could be an idiotic Marketing department, or an outsourced idiotic Marketing firm.
 
2012-07-25 01:15:00 PM  

change1211: That's both pathetic and stupid. No one is arguing that Apple isn't vigorously defending what it thinks it has a patent to, right? Then how come they aren't suing over the adaptor, cable and box?


Actually, I would argue that they aren't vigorously defending what they think they have a patent to, considering that they do have patents on adapters, icons, boxes, power modules, etc.
They probably don't think it's valuable enough to fight Samsung over a box or power adapter if they can instead get an injunction on the entire tablet.
 
2012-07-25 01:15:35 PM  

tgambitg: The plug: A standard design, that was NOT designed by Apple.


See the above-linked patent.
 
2012-07-25 01:25:22 PM  

change1211: Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: RexTalionis: OriginalGamer: I like the fact that two of your "before" iPad tablets were released after the iPad (and are obvious copies of it) and the other before all use a stylus, didn't have multitouch, and have a bunch of buttons on them. But thanks for making my point for me :-)

If they are such obvious clones of them, perhaps it would be instructive to know that the iPad was released in 2010, after the two tablets shown in the picture in 2008 and 2009.

It would be slightly more instructive, though deflating, to find out that the D504,889 patent on the iPad design was filed in March 2004.

Which was purely an aesthetic design patent

Yep.

on something that was very similar to electronic devices that pre-dated even said patent. So...right back atcha?

[Citation needed]

Just to be clear, this is what they patented:
[oami.europa.eu image 425x362]

/I mean really...
//REEEALLY...

Actually, that's only a portion of what they patented. You notice that there are more figures there, right? The patented design is the combination of every feature visible in those figures.

Design patents are narrow. You almost never see infringement of a design patent unless it's intentional.

But Samsung wouldn't copy designs... would they?
[www.digitalfilmtree.com image 850x1261]
[macenstein.com image 540x443]
[www.giga.de image 797x581]

My god you're reaching. You're comparing a plug, a USB to AC adaptor and a box the devices are contained in?

That's both pathetic and stupid. No one is arguing that Apple isn't vigorously defending what it thinks it has a patent to, right? Then how come they aren't suing over the adaptor, cable and box?

I always see you saying that you're not a fanboy but I'll be damned if you aren't doing a good impression of one.


Uh, when the argument being made is that Samsung cloned Apple's designs, then yes, pointing out the device, it's cords, and it's packaging are a clone of Apple's device, cords, and packaging is very relevant.
 
2012-07-25 01:41:43 PM  

Benni K Rok: Here's where it gets interesting for Apple. if someone else can come up with, and release a product that meets the entirety of the patent, and Apple can't replicate it pretty much on the spot, they could lose the patent.

It happened with Henry Ford. He had to fight off a patent troll who tried to patent the internal combustion engine. The guy had to build an engine in the courtroom to the exact specifications, and have it work. Everyone in the courtroom tried, nobody got it to work right.


This sounds like a tv show episode
 
2012-07-25 02:03:55 PM  

Theaetetus: change1211: That's both pathetic and stupid. No one is arguing that Apple isn't vigorously defending what it thinks it has a patent to, right? Then how come they aren't suing over the adaptor, cable and box?

Actually, I would argue that they aren't vigorously defending what they think they have a patent to, considering that they do have patents on adapters, icons, boxes, power modules, etc.
They probably don't think it's valuable enough to fight Samsung over a box or power adapter if they can instead get an injunction on the entire tablet.


The plug patent was filed in 2010? That's pretty recent, I've been seeing similar style plugs for quite a while.

The box patent is just downright silly. Also, the picture that you provided only shows the two tablets in their respective boxes and doesn't show any of the other details so you've failed to prove that there is a violation there.

Again, based on Apple's past overreaching in the courts I find it very unlikely that they wouldn't throw all the crap that they have against the wall just to see what sticks, after all, they declared 'thermonuclear war" against the OS.
 
2012-07-25 02:24:50 PM  

change1211: The plug patent was filed in 2010? That's pretty recent, I've been seeing similar style plugs for quite a while.


It has a priority date of June 5, 2008.

The box patent is just downright silly.

... because? Apple has always been well known for their innovative, lightweight packaging.

Also, the picture that you provided only shows the two tablets in their respective boxes and doesn't show any of the other details so you've failed to prove that there is a violation there.

So, you agree that if Samsung did copy those "other details," that they'd infringe and should pay royalties for the "downright silly box patent"?
If you're going to keep moving the goalposts around, why should I waste time lining up a kick?

Again, based on Apple's past overreaching in the courts I find it very unlikely that they wouldn't throw all the crap that they have against the wall just to see what sticks, after all, they declared 'thermonuclear war" against the OS.

What "past overreaching"?
 
2012-07-25 03:14:18 PM  

Gordon Bennett: bighairyguy: Ohio Art Company, 1960

[img692.imageshack.us image 500x500]

Sumer, 3100 BC

[www.tcf.ua.edu image 365x349]


And we have a winnnnah!
 
2012-07-25 04:10:45 PM  

Theaetetus: Once more, for the slow kid. A design patent is a combination of all of the aesthetic features shown. ALL the features.
If a design patent shows features a+b+c+d+e+f+g, then feature a is not "the only defining characteristic".
Got it?


For a lawyer, your reading comprehension is bloody horrible. How'd you get through the freaking LSAT? I was clearly referring to the MEASUREMENTS as a whole. Being as there was nothing else on that patent that one could glean from it. Unless you're going to be an ass and dwell on something like the location of a port.

then Samsung is off the hook, because their tablets have a different height-width ratio, do they not?

Apparently not different enough, according to multiple judges in different jurisdictions.


Way to appeal to authority. Do you have a legitimate response or are you happy with the "because the Bible tells me so" approach?
 
2012-07-25 04:12:56 PM  

Theaetetus: And as for the product, the Tab.


You're only looking at one angle. I thought you said it was the entirety that mattered.

Which is it?
 
2012-07-25 07:01:27 PM  

change1211: Theaetetus: change1211: That's both pathetic and stupid. No one is arguing that Apple isn't vigorously defending what it thinks it has a patent to, right? Then how come they aren't suing over the adaptor, cable and box?

Actually, I would argue that they aren't vigorously defending what they think they have a patent to, considering that they do have patents on adapters, icons, boxes, power modules, etc.
They probably don't think it's valuable enough to fight Samsung over a box or power adapter if they can instead get an injunction on the entire tablet.

The plug patent was filed in 2010? That's pretty recent, I've been seeing similar style plugs for quite a while.

The box patent is just downright silly. Also, the picture that you provided only shows the two tablets in their respective boxes and doesn't show any of the other details so you've failed to prove that there is a violation there.

Again, based on Apple's past overreaching in the courts I find it very unlikely that they wouldn't throw all the crap that they have against the wall just to see what sticks, after all, they declared 'thermonuclear war" against the OS.


Well, well, seems even GOOGLE thought Samsung was copying the iPad, and before they released the Galaxy Tab even told them they were copying it and advised them to change it!: http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/25/before-the-legal-fiasco-began-google-war ned-samsung-not-to-copy-apple/
 
2012-07-27 01:46:35 AM  
Heh. I just bought a Kobo and the box is really damn similar to the iPad packaging.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report