FARK.com: (7281357) So Samsung replicates Apple products. Who cares and why should this be illegal? Harvard author claims the world would be better if more companies just copied, like Samsung

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.

		So Samsung replicates Apple products. Who cares and why should this be illegal? Harvard author claims the world would be better if more companies just copied, like Samsung (gizmodo.com)		233
		More: Interesting, apples, Apple-Samsung, Harvard University, Harvard Business Review, graphical user interfaces, authors

• • •

5234 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7281357

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

233 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

SkunkWerks		2012-08-22 03:26:24 PM

HeartBurnKid: The sooner we realize that everything is a remix, the better off we'll be.

Heh, nice. I remember this video. Watched all three parts. I was really impressed, even if a fair amount of it was stuff I already knew.

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 03:26:25 PM

SkunkWerks: LasersHurt: SkunkWerks: If believing that Steve Jobs is not God, nor Apple Computer the fountainhead of all creation is being on the "Anti-Apple Bandwagon" then I guess I'm just going to have to ride that wagon.

What a lovely straw man.

What a lovely missin'-the-point?

I'm not missing the point. But if I sat here and said, "Well, if not believing that Android literally rapes cats means I'm on the band-wagon, so be it." That's a ridiculous test. You're separating yourself from this hyperbolized construct that more or less solely exists to shiat on Apple.

Don't get me wrong, the rest of what you said - they're just a company making products, no more, no less - is totally correct. It's also what most people believe - even those who like Apple products. 99% of Apple buyers are just normal-ass people, like the buyers of just about anything else.

stonicus		2012-08-22 03:28:23 PM

AdamK: stonicus: Apple products are for people that don't really know what they're doing, but still want to participate in the modern technological world.

so basically Apple corners 90% of the market? sucks for samsung then

Yeah, just like it sucks for people who make custom-tuned racing cars. Most people just want to hit the gas to go and the brake to stop. They don't care how it works, and don't want to dig under the hood to tweak it.

BeesNuts		2012-08-22 03:29:12 PM

Theaetetus: BeesNuts: Bilski merely says that you can't patent a business strategy. Not even that generally. It says that you can't patent that particular business strategy as it was argued in front of the court.

Yes, but it is important to note that the Bilski court said that business strategies themselves could be patentable. Just not poor Mr. Bilski's dumb-ass strategy.

Now you're just being disagreeable. That's exactly what I just said. That you just quoted.

/am I confus?

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 03:30:44 PM

stonicus: AdamK: stonicus: Apple products are for people that don't really know what they're doing, but still want to participate in the modern technological world.

so basically Apple corners 90% of the market? sucks for samsung then

Yeah, just like it sucks for people who make custom-tuned racing cars. Most people just want to hit the gas to go and the brake to stop. They don't care how it works, and don't want to dig under the hood to tweak it.

So if we accept the (wrong) numbers of 50/50 mac/pc (or mac/android on mobile), you're saying that 50% of the population metaphorically are custom-tuned racers?

Or could it be that your entire premise is wrong, and dumb people and smart people tend to purchase all products? That your attempt to shoehorn the technically ungifted into the form of "Apple Users" is clumsy and factually inaccurate?

BeesNuts		2012-08-22 03:31:09 PM

farkingatwork: BeesNuts: farkingatwork: BeesNuts: zarberg: I'd rather fix the absolutely broken patent system instead. There are companies that are putting more money into lawyers to argue near-irrelevant minutia than they put into R&D

Yep. Patents should exist to protect your ideas. Not your market share.

Uh, no. Ideas are not patentable. See: Bilski. Nor do they actually show ideas, since a software patent describes how something works but doesn't show the source code. Thus, there's no benefit under the current system.

Not all patent law is created equal. Apple's is a design patent, which has been discussed above. If you came up with a process that fundamentally changed some material, say... silica... and gave it properties that are beneficial to certain applications, you are directly skirting the (very specific, by the way) nature of the Bilski ruling. .

This is wrong. Their patent is a DESIGN patent. Design patents cannot be functional. If your new ipad4™ uses silica instead of aluminum that is a functional issue and not patentworthy as a DESIGN. Why do you think apple keeps trying to say that rounded corners are simply a design aesthetic as opposed to "it prevents devices from breaking when dropped on their corners"?

That's not bilski, that's just the nature of "patents that matter and patents that don't". A design patent cannot have anything to do with function.

It's like you people are reading different posts than the ones I'm writing, wtf?

stonicus		2012-08-22 03:34:45 PM

LasersHurt: stonicus: AdamK: stonicus: Apple products are for people that don't really know what they're doing, but still want to participate in the modern technological world.

so basically Apple corners 90% of the market? sucks for samsung then

Yeah, just like it sucks for people who make custom-tuned racing cars. Most people just want to hit the gas to go and the brake to stop. They don't care how it works, and don't want to dig under the hood to tweak it.

So if we accept the (wrong) numbers of 50/50 mac/pc (or mac/android on mobile), you're saying that 50% of the population metaphorically are custom-tuned racers?

Or could it be that your entire premise is wrong, and dumb people and smart people tend to purchase all products? That your attempt to shoehorn the technically ungifted into the form of "Apple Users" is clumsy and factually inaccurate?

I never used the word dumb... I said Apple products are great for people that just want their shiat to work with one button push and don't give a fark how it actually works. I have the "apple" mentality when it comes to my car. I just want it to go when I push the gas, and stop when I hit the brake. Doesn't mean I am incapable of figuring a car out, just means I don't care to. There's different tools for diffrerent consumers. There's room for both. iDVD is great, if you just want to push one button and have your video on a DVD. If you need a specific resolution or a specific codec, then iDVD isn't the tool to use. Just like I won't use some huge badass laser guided table saw if I just want to cut a dowel rod in half.

umad		2012-08-22 03:35:25 PM

LasersHurt: That your attempt to shoehorn the technically ungifted into the form of "Apple Users" is clumsy and factually inaccurate?

Except it is right the fark on.

SkunkWerks		2012-08-22 03:35:59 PM

LasersHurt: I'm not missing the point.

You did.

Did you catch the part where I said I would neither embrace nor reject products based on the notion that they're Apple's products? Did you bother to quote that at all along with my (very-much-intended) hyperbole?

Did you catch the bit just before that where I refuted a claim that "apple products are mostly inferior"?

No?

Then you very much missed the point with that post, my friend.

LasersHurt: Don't get me wrong, the rest of what you said - they're just a company making products, no more, no less - is totally correct.

And you're just beginning to catch up with it.

LasersHurt: 99% of Apple buyers are just normal-ass people, like the buyers of just about anything else.

That is very probably correct, actually. I suspect that the people that stand out in my mind are invariably the most vocal, and thus the most apt to express the particular opinion that inspires the hyperbole you quoted.

Nonetheless, having a persecution complex is also a sign of narcissism- it's based on the notion, for starters, that you're somehow more important than everyone else to be targeted for persecution.

There's no anti-Apple-bandwagon any more then every Apple user is a pseudo-religious adherent to a (albeit brilliant) marketing strategy. There are however a lot of technophiles that just wish that a product's merits could be judged on, well, actually using it rather than what pretty logo happens to be stamped on it.

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 03:44:49 PM

umad: LasersHurt: That your attempt to shoehorn the technically ungifted into the form of "Apple Users" is clumsy and factually inaccurate?

Except it is right the fark on.

It's not. Source: I support both Apple and Android users Daily. It's my job. I have supported Windows and Linux users too. There is no discernible difference in intelligence, willingness to learn, or ability to use products between the two groups.

SkunkWerks: There's no anti-Apple-bandwagon any more then every Apple user is a pseudo-religious adherent to a (albeit brilliant) marketing strategy. There are however a lot of technophiles that just wish that a product's merits could be judged on, well, actually using it rather than what pretty logo happens to be stamped on it.

This is simply incorrect, and I'm annoyed that you felt like you had to shoehorn in some bull about "persecution complexes." Hang around Fark, for example, for any given 5-day span. Any article that mentions Apple at all will be filled with people talking about Steve Jobs being rude, or mention Foxconn, or will complain about how apple products are for the intellectually stunted. It's not something I'm making up, it's something that you could easily prove by tracking the data.

It's extremely reminiscent, to me, of Microsoft around 10 years ago. You couldn't go within 100 feet of someone mentioning MS without it being a circle-jerk of hate. It IS a bandwagon of hate, and you can tell this because of the amount of unsubstantiated bull-fluff that makes up the body of it.

Do not confuse this with the legitimate criticism of the company, as this happens too. Just, you know, pay attention, and don't let your confirmation Bias get the better of you. I've worked in the industry for years and seen this before.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 03:47:03 PM

farkingatwork: Theaetetus: farkingatwork: Theaetetus: e
They show flow charts, and frequently include pseudocode. You shouldn't need the actual source.

If you can't implement the "invention" via the patent, the patent is invalid. This isn't difficult. Pseudocode will not do that.

No, it's not difficult. One of skill in the art reading the pseudocode could easily implement that code in any language they care to. It's not a requirement that you have to be able to copy-paste out of the patent. Otherwise, how could you ever patent a machine? It's not like you can actually use a drawing of a gear to drive your car.

No. That is not implementing the invention. That is coding an obvious feature, which invalidates the patent. Hello obviousness? It is like you can use a drawing of a gear to design that gear. That's the point.

First, the patent application cannot render itself obvious, since it's not prior to itself.
Second, yes, coding a flow chart is implementing that flow chart in code. That's exactly what implementing means. The specific test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could create such working code without undue experimentation, based on the flow charts and disclosure in the spec. If so, then the patent is sufficiently enabling and you don't need explicit source code. Are you saying that a skilled coder couldn't write a program based on a flow chart and pseudocode? If so, then what do software architects get paid for?

Also, apple is trying to claim the design patent as design and not functional - otherwise it would not be a design patent. That is what they're trying to claim and assert, as affirmed by groklaw in various instances such as http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120814110227662 .

Yes, and? That's a different discussion... I thought you were talking about whether patent applications for software methods had to include explicit code or just flow charts. If you want to talk about design patents and functionality, I'm happy to do so.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 03:48:56 PM

BeesNuts: Theaetetus: BeesNuts: Bilski merely says that you can't patent a business strategy. Not even that generally. It says that you can't patent that particular business strategy as it was argued in front of the court.

Yes, but it is important to note that the Bilski court said that business strategies themselves could be patentable. Just not poor Mr. Bilski's dumb-ass strategy.

Now you're just being disagreeable. That's exactly what I just said. That you just quoted.

/am I confus?

Was agreeing with a slight gloss... The Supreme Court was explicit in saying that business methods could be patentable, so it's not like Bilski's failure opens the door to saying that other business strategies also can't be patentable.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 03:49:35 PM

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: It's a good thing, too. Design patents are narrow and only last 14 years.

We've been through this and you've never missed the opportunity to dance around it. The iPad design patent is not narrow at all. It is broad by design.

And this is where you appeal to authority rather than defend your position...

Nope, nor have I ever appealed to authority on this*. I'll happily defend my position. Would you like to start with some sort of rebuttal for my contention, or would you like me to start?

*unless you're saying that quoting patent law and court decisions on patents is an "appeal to authority"... in which case, you're essentially demanding that I defend the law while not discussing the law, which is just insane. Is that what you're doing? Are you actually wanting me to defend the contention that design patents are narrow without actually quoting any sort of patent law? Please answer so that I know how seriously to take you.

[crickets]

... I guess not very seriously.

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 03:53:00 PM

limboslam: If it were Apple copying from Samsung, this guy would be crying blasphemie.

You mean like Apple copied from LG?

c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com

c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 04:02:01 PM

HeartBurnKid: limboslam: If it were Apple copying from Samsung, this guy would be crying blasphemie.

You mean like Apple copied from LG?

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 300x300]

Yeah, that time when they went back in their time machine to file the patent application prior to the release of the LG. Curse those Apple copycats.

Old Smokie		2012-08-22 04:06:17 PM

Yeah, I'm gonna let the lawyers settle this one.

If, after applying their no-doubt enormous brains and balls to this problem, they could deign to let us regular folks what you can and cannot copy that would be great.

They won't though. No profit in that.

TheOriginalEd		2012-08-22 04:10:54 PM

You make something. its a hit. you make billions.
Your competitor copies it. it sells. they make millions.

NOW You can go one of two ways from here.

1) You can improve your product, make another hit, innovate, and make more billions.

2) sue your competitor. rest on your success and stifle innovation.

Apple doesnt want to innovate. they want to control.

I hope they dont win this.

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 04:16:27 PM

TheOriginalEd: rest on your success and stifle innovation.

By creating new products? And... in no way stifling innovation?

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 04:17:30 PM

Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: limboslam: If it were Apple copying from Samsung, this guy would be crying blasphemie.

You mean like Apple copied from LG?

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 300x300]

Yeah, that time when they went back in their time machine to file the patent application prior to the release of the LG. Curse those Apple copycats.

The first version of the Prada was released in January 2007. Apple's design patent was filed in July 2007. Try again.

RRedline		2012-08-22 04:27:12 PM

HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It's not. It's used to sync your music files to the cloud.

Believe it or not, some of us have music files in various formats that we use programs other than iTunes to listen to.

Jesus H. Christ. When I was referring to my "iTunes music," I meant "my music that I manage with iTunes." I will try to be more clear when I am referring to my music, as in, my music FILES.

And again, I do not own ANY music that came from Apple. I don't own a single .AAC file. 95% of my music is 320 kbps MP3, most of which I ripped myself. Any digital music player will play all of my music.

Despite that, the iTunes service is absolutely amazing. Their music catalog is massive. I don't know if it is the largest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It also integrates with Mac/PC and iDevices very, very well. You guys can keep shiating on Apple all you want, but their products and services are solid. I know it's cool for people to hate, and big, successful companies like Apple seem to be the typical targets.

Have fun with your various music file formats that 90% of people have never heard of.

RRedline		2012-08-22 04:32:30 PM

umad: Cant even quote the right post. You are definitely Apple's kind of customer.

No, I was just too lazy to look at the quoted text. Your implication that dumb=Apple just goes to show that the anti-Apple bandwagon is real.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 04:32:31 PM

HeartBurnKid: The first version of the Prada was released in January 2007. Apple's design patent was filed in July 2007. Try again.

Uh, I'd like to try again, but I'm not really sure how, considering that the patent says January 5, 2007. By "try again," do you mean "teach you how to read"?

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 04:34:24 PM

Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: The first version of the Prada was released in January 2007. Apple's design patent was filed in July 2007. Try again.

Uh, I'd like to try again, but I'm not really sure how, considering that the patent says January 5, 2007. By "try again," do you mean "teach you how to read"?

From your link:

Filing date: Nov 18, 2008

You want to try yet again?

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 04:37:42 PM

HeartBurnKid: Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: The first version of the Prada was released in January 2007. Apple's design patent was filed in July 2007. Try again.

Uh, I'd like to try again, but I'm not really sure how, considering that the patent says January 5, 2007. By "try again," do you mean "teach you how to read"?

From your link:

Filing date: Nov 18, 2008

You want to try yet again?

Sure. From my link:
Division of application No. 29/282,834, filed on Jul. 30, 2007, now Pat. No. Des. 581,922, which is a continuation of application No. 29/270,888, filed on Jan. 5, 2007, now Pat. No. Des. 558,758.

Do you need me to sound out any of those words for you?

Incidentally, you should also check out page 3, lines 3-5 on the left-hand column.

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 04:40:29 PM

RRedline: HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It's not. It's used to sync your music files to the cloud.

Believe it or not, some of us have music files in various formats that we use programs other than iTunes to listen to.

Jesus H. Christ. When I was referring to my "iTunes music," I meant "my music that I manage with iTunes." I will try to be more clear when I am referring to my music, as in, my music FILES.

And again, I do not own ANY music that came from Apple. I don't own a single .AAC file. 95% of my music is 320 kbps MP3, most of which I ripped myself. Any digital music player will play all of my music.

Despite that, the iTunes service is absolutely amazing. Their music catalog is massive. I don't know if it is the largest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It also integrates with Mac/PC and iDevices very, very well. You guys can keep shiating on Apple all you want, but their products and services are solid. I know it's cool for people to hate, and big, successful companies like Apple seem to be the typical targets.

Have fun with your various music file formats that 90% of people have never heard of.

So you're asserting that, by reading your music files that are in a standard format and uploading them to the cloud, Google is copying Apple simply because you, personally, happen to use iTunes to manage your local collection? And you're further implying that iTunes is the only possible way to manage those files, and if I use a different program, I must be using a "music file format that 90% of people have never heard of"?

The RDF is strong with this one.

Hella Fark		2012-08-22 04:42:06 PM

RRedline: HeartBurnKid: Ummm... no. It's not. It's used to sync your music files to the cloud.

Believe it or not, some of us have music files in various formats that we use programs other than iTunes to listen to.

Jesus H. Christ. When I was referring to my "iTunes music," I meant "my music that I manage with iTunes." I will try to be more clear when I am referring to my music, as in, my music FILES.

And again, I do not own ANY music that came from Apple. I don't own a single .AAC file. 95% of my music is 320 kbps MP3, most of which I ripped myself. Any digital music player will play all of my music.

Despite that, the iTunes service is absolutely amazing. Their music catalog is massive. I don't know if it is the largest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It also integrates with Mac/PC and iDevices very, very well. You guys can keep shiating on Apple all you want, but their products and services are solid. I know it's cool for people to hate, and big, successful companies like Apple seem to be the typical targets.

Have fun with your various music file formats that 90% of people have never heard of.

LOL wut? itunes sucks so bad on a PC it can't even work smoothly as a basic music player. I doubt anyone would use it if they didn't have to for some iDevice. For instance I wouldn't even have it installed if not for my ipod nano from 5 years ago that I occasionally update. but even that is becoming obscure with cheap flash drives for my car and a good amount of internal storage on my phone for everywhere else. and I'll relish the day I uninstall that piece of crap.

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 04:47:53 PM

Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: The first version of the Prada was released in January 2007. Apple's design patent was filed in July 2007. Try again.

Uh, I'd like to try again, but I'm not really sure how, considering that the patent says January 5, 2007. By "try again," do you mean "teach you how to read"?

From your link:

Filing date: Nov 18, 2008

You want to try yet again?

Sure. From my link:
Division of application No. 29/282,834, filed on Jul. 30, 2007, now Pat. No. Des. 581,922, which is a continuation of application No. 29/270,888, filed on Jan. 5, 2007, now Pat. No. Des. 558,758.

Do you need me to sound out any of those words for you?

Incidentally, you should also check out page 3, lines 3-5 on the left-hand column.

You don't need to sound them out for me, but perhaps you could link to the page they're actually on, instead of linking to a page that links to the page they're on. I did finally find them here, so thanks, I guess. I missed the original patent, and only caught the revised versions. My bad.

Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 04:51:37 PM

SkunkWerks		2012-08-22 04:51:53 PM

LasersHurt: This is simply incorrect

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm going to have to suspect you fall into "that BS about persecution complexes".

Sorry Chum. Thought we could have a reasonable discussion here for a moment.

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 04:52:58 PM

SkunkWerks: LasersHurt: This is simply incorrect

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm going to have to suspect you fall into "that BS about persecution complexes".

Sorry Chum. Thought we could have a reasonable discussion here for a moment.

Yes, how silly to take into account the opinions of the guy who literally deals with mobiles for a living. I apologize for having the temerity to disagree.

poot_rootbeer		2012-08-22 04:53:00 PM

tricycleracer: I hear hipsters really want you to bring back drum photocopiers.

Yeah, a lot of people were really into photocopiers last year, but now I'm totally getting sold on mimeographing. I know this guy who lives in a loft in Bushwick and he makes his own organic purple ditto fluid...

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 04:53:24 PM

LasersHurt: HeartBurnKid: Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

Do either of you realize how much time you've put into being a pair of niggly nancies? Yeesh.

Boredom at work is a powerful thing.

SkunkWerks		2012-08-22 04:55:07 PM

LasersHurt: Yes, how silly to take into account the opinions of the guy who literally deals with mobiles for a living

Or the guy who is a paid IT professional?

Appeal to Authority? I can do it too, man...

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 04:55:15 PM

HeartBurnKid: perhaps you could link to the page they're actually on,

... it was literally 7 lines below the Nov. 18 date you quoted. Including blank lines.

Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

First, that's relatively trivial. I'm sure Apple has documentation that they were drafting that application earlier than December 2006, and since that patent was under the "first-to-invent" system, that would come into play and they could pre-date the LG.
Second, and more importantly, the Examiner explicitly considered the LG Prada, using this page and found the iPhone design patentable over it. So, it's a high bar to jump - you can't simply say that it wasn't considered, but instead have to show how the Examiner was wrong.

rugman11		2012-08-22 04:55:23 PM

So how exactly does this work? LG filed this patent on Jan. 16, 2007. It looks to me like Apple patented the shape of the case and then added the details of the speaker, button, and screen later, after LG had submitted a patent for its entire phone. Am I wrong?

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 05:00:41 PM

SkunkWerks: LasersHurt: Yes, how silly to take into account the opinions of the guy who literally deals with mobiles for a living

Or the guy who is a paid IT professional?

Appeal to Authority? I can do it too, man...

You act as if it's not relevant. You're dismissing the idea entirely because you don't personally "see it." Well, I work with this stuff all the time, and I spend a lot of time in public forums where platforms come up. I'm not arguing from ignorance - it seemed relevant to point this out.

umad		2012-08-22 05:01:24 PM

RRedline: umad: Cant even quote the right post. You are definitely Apple's kind of customer.

No, I was just too lazy to look at the quoted text. Your implication that dumb=Apple just goes to show that the anti-Apple bandwagon is real.

Are you talking to me? It is hard to tell with you guys. I'll answer anyway. Maybe people just hate Apple because their business practices suck and their vocal supporters are the lowest form of life on this planet. Did you ever consider that?

HeartBurnKid: Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

Even though they used a rounded rectangle, they neglected to patent it. Therefore, Apple invented the rounded rectangle.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 05:04:41 PM

rugman11:
So how exactly does this work? LG filed this patent on Jan. 16, 2007. It looks to me like Apple patented the shape of the case and then added the details of the speaker, button, and screen later, after LG had submitted a patent for its entire phone. Am I wrong?

Well, it gets a little interesting, but the public file is accessible here (enter the captcha, then at the search screen put in the patent number, then click on "image file wrapper" to see all the documents in the application).
Specifically, Apple filed two applications simultaneously, the 29/270,885 application which is those two figures... and the 29/270,880 application (later patent no. D558756) which included the speaker, button and screen stuff. Same filing date of Jan 5, 2007, though.

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 05:05:31 PM

Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: perhaps you could link to the page they're actually on,

... it was literally 7 lines below the Nov. 18 date you quoted. Including blank lines.

I get the feeling you and I are looking at very different pages. I'm using Firefox, and I'm not seeing the bit you quoted anywhere on the page you linked.

Theaetetus: So, it's a high bar to jump - you can't simply say that it wasn't considered, but instead have to show how the Examiner was wrong.

Personally, I feel the examiner was wrong because the design in question is largely a functional choice and wasn't (and still isn't) exclusively identified with Apple. But then, I also feel design patents are just slightly more retarded than software patents in the first place, so perhaps I am biased.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 05:05:59 PM

umad: Maybe people just hate Apple because their business practices suck and their vocal supporters are the lowest form of life on this planet.

i871.photobucket.com

poot_rootbeer		2012-08-22 05:06:18 PM

HeartBurnKid: Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

Yes, but is there an LG Prada design patent predate the iPhone design patent?

My patent-fu is not strong enough to answer, but several other 2007 patent applications for mobile phone designs site the Prada under "Other References", and not by patent number, which suggests to me that LG might not have filed one.

SkunkWerks		2012-08-22 05:07:59 PM

LasersHurt: You act as if it's not relevant.

You only brought it up just now? Apparently because I had the "temerity to disagree" with you once again.

LasersHurt: You're dismissing the idea entirely because you don't personally "see it."

Okay, the bit about Steve Jobs being (not) god? Yeah, that was hyperbole, and it was intentional. I'll hit you with something that's not though:

My brother actually thinks his laptop has what basically amounts to a magic shiled around it protecting it from viruses because it has the "mystick apple sigil" on it's cover.

I'm not kidding. No technical data to back it up. No thoughtful investigation. It's Apple, so it's safe. I know this isn't hyperbole because I've "personally seen it." Not just with him, but with one of his buddies who should, once again, be a good deal smarter than this.

Now then, assuming I've got whatever "thing" it is that you say I'm not "personally seeing" on the nose, what's the problem here? I personally see quite a lot. What am I missing here, hmm?

LasersHurt: I'm not arguing from ignorance - it seemed relevant to point this out.

As relevant as it was for me to point out my area of expertise, yes. I'm sorry you can't gain ground on me in this debate by profession-dropping, but yeah, you're going to have to do a little better than this to convince me of... whatever "thing" it is you're trying to convince me of. Honestly I've lost track.

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 05:08:51 PM

poot_rootbeer: HeartBurnKid: Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

Yes, but is there an LG Prada design patent predate the iPhone design patent?

It doesn't matter if the prior art was patented or not; it's still prior art.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 05:09:57 PM

HeartBurnKid: Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: perhaps you could link to the page they're actually on,

... it was literally 7 lines below the Nov. 18 date you quoted. Including blank lines.

I get the feeling you and I are looking at very different pages. I'm using Firefox, and I'm not seeing the bit you quoted anywhere on the page you linked.

[shrug] Conceded. You found it, so my snark is withdrawn.

Theaetetus: So, it's a high bar to jump - you can't simply say that it wasn't considered, but instead have to show how the Examiner was wrong.

Personally, I feel the examiner was wrong because the design in question is largely a functional choice and wasn't (and still isn't) exclusively identified with Apple. But then, I also feel design patents are just slightly more retarded than software patents in the first place, so perhaps I am biased.

Fair enough. I'd disagree because there are many alternative designs that exist that are not significantly more expensive to manufacture or difficult to use, indicating that the design wasn't a functional choice but an aesthetic one. But, that said, if you're arguing that Apple's design was functional, then the existence of the LG is irrelevant - you can't get a design patent on a functional feature even if it's the most novel, nonobvious design in the history of man.

LasersHurt		2012-08-22 05:10:44 PM

SkunkWerks: whatever "thing" it is you're trying to convince me of. Honestly I've lost track.

You claim that there is no negative bandwagon against Apple, and that all criticism of them comes from valid wellsprings. I claim that that is bullshiat, and there absolutely IS an Anti-Apple bandwagon which is based on just hating on Apple.

I'm not sure why your brother being a moron is relevant, but thanks for sharing? I have a dumb sister too, if that helps. (She doesn't have apple products).

rugman11		2012-08-22 05:14:02 PM

poot_rootbeer:
Yes, but is there an LG Prada design patent predate the iPhone design patent?

My patent-fu is not strong enough to answer, but several other 2007 patent applications for mobile phone designs site the Prada under "Other References", and not by patent number, which suggests to me that LG might not have filed one.

The LG patent I linked above is the Prada design patent. It was submitted on Jan. 16, 2007.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 05:14:58 PM

HeartBurnKid: poot_rootbeer: HeartBurnKid: Nevertheless, your point is invalid, because while the Prada was released in January 2007, it was announced and images leaked in December 2006. So it still pre-dates the patent.

Yes, but is there an LG Prada design patent predate the iPhone design patent?

It doesn't matter if the prior art was patented or not; it's still prior art.

Only if it's actually prior, and the jury's not out on that. First, the leaked image in 2006 doesn't show all of the features of the design, so it can't actually anticipate it. At best it renders it obvious. Second, Apple can easily swear behind it by showing that they were drafting the application in December 2006, which makes sense if it was filed Jan 5 the next year.

And third (but unrelated to whether it's prior art or not), even if the LG is prior art, I don't think it invalidates the patent. The Prada is pretty different from the iPhone in the design patent and gives a different visual impression. It's actually a lot closer to the iPhone 4 with the metal band, but even then, there are some pretty big differences. I'm not sure that anyone would be able look at the Prada, turn around and immediately draw the iPhone patent figures.

HeartBurnKid		2012-08-22 05:16:01 PM

Theaetetus: Fair enough. I'd disagree because there are many alternative designs that exist that are not significantly more expensive to manufacture or difficult to use, indicating that the design wasn't a functional choice but an aesthetic one.

And there I'd disagree, especially since Apple spent so much of their time playing up the functional benefits of their design (for example, the rounded corners making it more comfortable to hold, and the black bezel being less distracting from the screen). The very specifics of the design may be aesthetic choices, but the generalities, by Apple's own admission, aren't.

Theaetetus		2012-08-22 05:20:05 PM

HeartBurnKid: Theaetetus: Fair enough. I'd disagree because there are many alternative designs that exist that are not significantly more expensive to manufacture or difficult to use, indicating that the design wasn't a functional choice but an aesthetic one.

And there I'd disagree, especially since Apple spent so much of their time playing up the functional benefits of their design (for example, the rounded corners making it more comfortable to hold, and the black bezel being less distracting from the screen). The very specifics of the design may be aesthetic choices, but the generalities, by Apple's own admission, aren't.

Sure, but then those generalities - the color black, the concept of a rounded corner - aren't covered by the patent. Apple can't just sue anyone using the color black or a rounded corner, but only people who make a product that has a specific bezel arrangement and rounded corners of a specific radius... as well as including all of the other features in the patent. Change any one feature, and you don't infringe.

SkunkWerks		2012-08-22 05:20:25 PM

LasersHurt: You claim that there is no negative bandwagon against Apple

There isn't, again: any more than absolutely every apple user is a brainwashed Jobs-sycophant that can't make informed product decisions- as you suggested and I agreed with.

Context is important.

LasersHurt: ...and that all criticism of them comes from valid wellsprings.

I most definitely did NOT say this. I said most critique does. This I will stand by. Just as Apple has it's fetishists, it also has it's creepy stalkers who want to string it up with electrical tap and taze the snot out of it.

LasersHurt: and there absolutely IS an Anti-Apple bandwagon

Which I again, categorically disagree with. There isn't. Again, if you want to allow for hordes of brainwashed apple zombies, I'll allow for your hyperbole. But I'm not giving up this ground for anything less.

LasersHurt: I'm not sure why your brother being a moron is relevant

Personally seen things. I have. You said I haven't.

You're wrong? I'm thinking that might be it.

Displayed 50 of 233 comments