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.

(Engadget)   Engadget on the Apple v. Samsung decision: "It seems that every half-baked idea that pops into a designer's head is thrown into the patent bin"   (engadget.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, Engadget, Samsung, apples, software patents, Cupertino, Dodge Grand Caravan, designers, USPTO  
•       •       •

3543 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Aug 2012 at 5:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-27 02:44:15 PM
I wish that a tech/gadget company would create a product with the best of the best technology that "infringed" on dozens or even hundreds of bullshiat patents and then create a similar device that was "patent infringement free." Then present these items to the general public and show them why a substantial portion of the patents issued stifle innovation and ultimately hurt the end user/consumer as they do not get the best that can be produced without it being overwhelmingly expensive.

Seriously, I think that this is the only way that the apathetic, "average Joe" will ever understand how aspects of patent law, as it sits today, is broken.
 
2012-08-27 04:35:30 PM
It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art".
 
2012-08-27 04:54:45 PM
This is exactly what these big companies do: they encourage you to patent whatever you can manage. This is why of all the various software and mechanical engineers I know to have patents, the ones I remember most are things like a bicycle part, patented by a company that sells high-end servers. I tried the process a few times because it can be lucrative once you get into it, but I couldn't get past not wanting to give a company possession of good ideas which are hardly relevant.

Or I just sucked at it. Whatever. It still seemed wrong to me.
 
2012-08-27 06:07:04 PM
Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.
 
2012-08-27 06:11:16 PM
Yep. That's the whole of what's happening, actually. And it's not going to get better any time soon, at least not for Android OEMs.

/WP8, on the other hand...
 
2012-08-27 06:11:30 PM
To bad the corps give you jack crap for the patent rights. The corporate side needs to go the way of the University, 50% of the profit of the patent goes to the corp/uni, 50% is divided among the inventors.
 
2012-08-27 06:17:23 PM

lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.


Anyone who watched star trek ever.

For christ sake Apple took the name iPad from it.
 
2012-08-27 06:19:30 PM
And when I worked as a Software Engineer at Amazon, we were vigorously encouraged to patent any small idea that we came up with. There were sessions with technical and legal specialists, and everyone was encouraged to submit any idea and have it filtered out.

Hell, if you got an idea accepted, you got a little jigsaw piece (block of perspex about 3" square of the appropriate shape); the subtext here was that as you submitted more ideas you got more pieces and could make a bigger "My Idea" wall than other punters,

You got dinged if you were not actively participating in this madness. Interestingly, one of the most vocal proponents of patenting everything was ax ex-CTO from SourceForge/OSTG who was also a self-proclaimed advocate for Open Source...

AMZN is not alone in this, but this was the most vocal I had ever seen it. Management within our group approached patents with the same enthusiasm that HR teams have for the United Way.
 
2012-08-27 06:27:43 PM
I'm going to slap the next person I meet who brags about having a gazillion patents under their belt.
 
2012-08-27 06:54:36 PM

lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.


To experts in the field.

Laypersons should never be involved in patent decisions.
 
2012-08-27 06:55:16 PM
The race to have the most patents is a race to lose.

www.atariage.com
 
2012-08-27 06:58:22 PM
I heard that Firestone is suing Goodyear after finding out their tires are black and round.
 
2012-08-27 07:03:06 PM

fluffy2097: lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.

Anyone who watched star trek ever.

For christ sake Apple took the name iPad from it.


I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?
 
2012-08-27 07:03:59 PM

Kirby Muxloe: Management within our group approached patents with the same enthusiasm that HR teams have for the United Way


I farking love that analogy.

I should patent my Outlook rule to funnel every email with United Way in the subject line straight to my Deleted Files folder.
 
2012-08-27 07:15:00 PM
I've trademarked "Patent Bin."
It's a linux program that randomly generates paragraphs of words and diagrams and submits them to the patent office. Even with our .0001% approval rate, we're doing well.
 
2012-08-27 07:20:16 PM
Yep the patent system is broken. Welcome to the last 10+ years subby!!!!
 
2012-08-27 07:21:55 PM

Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?


You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.
 
2012-08-27 07:23:45 PM

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.

Anyone who watched star trek ever.

For christ sake Apple took the name iPad from it.

I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?


Besides, the PADD is fake. The interface of the PADD was such that anything the actor does is how you use it.
 
2012-08-27 07:36:11 PM
Better headline: "Engadget says something disparaging of Apple, Samsung wounded by stray bullet"
 
2012-08-27 07:36:42 PM

Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.


Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.
 
2012-08-27 07:39:58 PM

Nem Wan: Theaetetus: fluffy2097: lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.

Anyone who watched star trek ever.

For christ sake Apple took the name iPad from it.

I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

Besides, the PADD is fake. The interface of the PADD was such that anything the actor does is how you use it.


That doesn't matter to design, though. The PADD is relevant prior art for all that it shows... It just doesn't look like an iPad.

... Not that fluffy will ever admit that he can tell them apart at a glance. No, he's far too busy calling me a troll.
 
2012-08-27 07:51:23 PM

Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.


So your trying to tell me patents can ONLY be based on if they look similar? Never based on how they work?

Notice I did not say NEVER based on that like you seem to be implying I did. Sorry you linked to a different case. Just because one case uses one justification for that case doesn't mean every case has to that same justification.

You are taking one thing you know about and trying to pretend everything is the same case. That is stupid.
 
2012-08-27 07:54:38 PM

Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.


Hmm this doesn't look like an iPad to me:

danfingerman.com

And don't give me the "You don't understand precedent" because I DO. I understand that just because precedent gets sets or not (in an appeals court) set for one case it's not the be all end all for every ruling.
 
2012-08-27 07:56:55 PM

Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.


I kind of think a case about an iPhone might have a little different circumstances then footware.
 
2012-08-27 08:00:25 PM
I've been told that most patent examiners are actually larval lawyers. Graduate from law school, go to work at the patent office 20 years so you can collect a pension for the rest of your life, then cycle over to an "Intellectual Property" law practice so you can rake in money from that as well.

If this is true, it implies patent examiners not only don't care about "prior art" or "obviousness" but have a strong incentive to actively ignore it, since it results in more "intellectual property" lawsuits later for which they and their fellow lawyers will continue to get paid handsomely for.

In other words, yet another revolving door from government to industry with obvious conflict-of-interest issues.
 
2012-08-27 08:08:21 PM

Corvus: Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.

So your trying to tell me patents can ONLY be based on if they look similar? Never based on how they work?


Well, yes, unless you're getting confused. We're talking about design patents. They can ONLY be based on how they look and never on how they work, by definition.

Notice I did not say NEVER based on that like you seem to be implying I did. Sorry you linked to a different case. Just because one case uses one justification for that case doesn't mean every case has to that same justification.

You are taking one thing you know about and trying to pretend everything is the same case. That is stupid.


I imply nothing. You said: "The law isn't "people will get confused"" I pointed out that yes, it is. And I cited the case which made that the law, and even quoted the paragraph. That IS the law, and no matter how much you protest that that was about a design patent (about shoes) and this was about a design patent (about phones), the law isn't different for each industry. There isn't a test for invalidity for design patents on shoes and a different test for invalidity for design patents on phones. It's a legal test and it applies, by definition, to EVERY industry that raises that legal question.

The legal test is different for a shoe than for a phone? I mean, really... Wtf?
 
2012-08-27 08:26:33 PM
Of course you patent everything that comes up in a brainstorming session. The other guys are doing it also.

It's a patent arms race. Someday we'll have to sort this shiat out. It'll probably be the technological singularity, when a self reprogramming computer patents everything using a brute force hack of the possibility space of objects and ideas.
 
2012-08-27 08:50:06 PM

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.

Anyone who watched star trek ever.

For christ sake Apple took the name iPad from it.

I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?


I worked for the software company that created the original IChat, and apple bought the name for an obscene amount of money, then for a few years had to give us credit for the name and a link back to our site.

So much for originality. ..
 
2012-08-27 09:09:40 PM

Epicanis: I've been told that most patent examiners are actually larval lawyers. Graduate from law school, go to work at the patent office 20 years so you can collect a pension for the rest of your life, then cycle over to an "Intellectual Property" law practice so you can rake in money from that as well.

If this is true, it implies patent examiners not only don't care about "prior art" or "obviousness" but have a strong incentive to actively ignore it, since it results in more "intellectual property" lawsuits later for which they and their fellow lawyers will continue to get paid handsomely for.

In other words, yet another revolving door from government to industry with obvious conflict-of-interest issues.


I seriously doubt that patent examiners rub their hands together thinking of the patent wars they can earn money off of in the private sector.

I think they are dedicated and hard working but are overwhelmed with the amount of work they have to do on sone of these patents with many many claims. With companies fighting tooth and nail on every claim, it must be easy to miss an inadequate prior art search and to allow some bad claims.

You can blame this in part on the Bush-Obama federal spending behemoth, which has resulted in unsustainable debt, and freezing of expenditures on many essential federal services, including patent examiners, whi are understaffed and underpaid I'm sure.
 
2012-08-27 09:21:40 PM
zapp5.staticworld.net

The Jeff Bezos cell phone retro thruster enclosure, unavailable for comment.
 
2012-08-27 09:46:32 PM

Epicanis: I've been told that most patent examiners are actually larval lawyers. Graduate from law school, go to work at the patent office 20 years so you can collect a pension for the rest of your life, then cycle over to an "Intellectual Property" law practice so you can rake in money from that as well.

If this is true, it implies patent examiners not only don't care about "prior art" or "obviousness" but have a strong incentive to actively ignore it, since it results in more "intellectual property" lawsuits later for which they and their fellow lawyers will continue to get paid handsomely for.

In other words, yet another revolving door from government to industry with obvious conflict-of-interest issues.


Well, it's better than that. Graduate from law school, but in an environment where you've grown up with the iPod (Apple's gift to music, inventer of the mp3 player) and with your sweet MacBook Air (the most innovative laptop ever). Then go to work at the patent office, and start seeing patents filed by Apple (oooh, new shiny future toys by the most innovative company who makes the products I love).

And then if you ding them, Steve Jobs flies out to discuss with you why Apple's patent is valid and they a the most innovative comapny ever.

I've seen this kind of thing go tihrough before. If you don't like the results of the patent examiner you are assigned, then you can go out and request a new one. And so you keep churning through examiners until you find a friendly one, who then becomes the guy who handles all of your stuff.

//at least this is pretty much how things seemed to work a few back
 
2012-08-27 10:39:34 PM
I think the auto industry should start using patents like the software and phone industry have been.
 
2012-08-27 11:00:41 PM
Ugh.

There's no indication you guys even understand the distinctions between patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms of intellectual property protection. So why is your opinion worth anything?
 
2012-08-28 12:09:09 AM

Satanic_Hamster: I think the auto industry should start using patents like the software and phone industry have been.


About intermittent windshield wiper system
 
2012-08-28 12:26:55 AM
Interesting? What, did the OBVIOUS tag get DMCAed?
 
2012-08-28 12:58:07 AM

Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.

So your trying to tell me patents can ONLY be based on if they look similar? Never based on how they work?

Well, yes, unless you're getting confused. We're talking about design patents. They can ONLY be based on how they look and never on how they work, by definition.

Notice I did not say NEVER based on that like you seem to be implying I did. Sorry you linked to a different case. Just because one case uses one justification for that case doesn't mean every case has to that same justification.

You are taking one thing you know about and trying to pretend everything is the same case. That is stupid.

I imply nothing. You said: "The law isn't "people will get confused"" I pointed out that yes, it is. And ...


Your telling me "Pinch to zoom" is something that people looking at it will be confused about?
That is based on "how it looks"?

DId you read the ruling?
 
2012-08-28 01:01:34 AM

Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.

So your trying to tell me patents can ONLY be based on if they look similar? Never based on how they work?

Well, yes, unless you're getting confused. We're talking about design patents. They can ONLY be based on how they look and never on how they work, by definition.

Notice I did not say NEVER based on that like you seem to be implying I did. Sorry you linked to a different case. Just because one case uses one justification for that case doesn't mean every case has to that same justification.

You are taking one thing you know about and trying to pretend everything is the same case. That is stupid.

I imply nothing. You said: "The law isn't "people will get confused"" I pointed out that yes, it is. And ...


And the actual ruling:


If the swipe is the essential gesture of the smartphone revolution, the pinch is a close second....Friday's $1 billion court ruling for Apple, which upheld patents for what manufacturers call "pinch to zoom," among other popular features, has clouded the future of the gesture for anyone inclined to buy mobile devices from other companies. Apple made clear its determination to press its advantage Monday, announcing plans to seek preliminary injunctions on eight phones made by Samsung, the loser in the case.

IT wasn't just the look of the device!! It wasn't only the design patents.


You are telling me if I have a processor chip the only way I can be sued for copying another processor chips is if people looking at it will get confused?


How is pinch to zoom a physical not functional characteristic? Please explain because you are the expert right??
 
2012-08-28 01:06:23 AM

lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.


The designers(or by proxy, anyone even thinking about designing), by noting what the public wants and delivering. Small form factor, easy to carry, lightweight, easy to clean, long battery life, easy interface, etc.

There comes a point, when the next stage of technology is a matter of course. A patent on a gesture or a pocketable shape, is ridiculous.
 
2012-08-28 01:11:47 AM

Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.

Not at all. And, rather than condescendingly suggest you are confused, I'll simply quote the Federal Circuit: "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other... In light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well."

I'm not confused... Rather, I'm cognizant of the different tests, and the substantial overlap between design patents and trade dress.

So your trying to tell me patents can ONLY be based on if they look similar? Never based on how they work?

Well, yes, unless you're getting confused. We're talking about design patents. They can ONLY be based on how they look and never on how they work, by definition.

Notice I did not say NEVER based on that like you seem to be implying I did. Sorry you linked to a different case. Just because one case uses one justification for that case doesn't mean every case has to that same justification.

You are taking one thing you know about and trying to pretend everything is the same case. That is stupid.

I imply nothing. You said: "The law isn't "people will get confused"" I pointed out that yes, it is. And ...


One last thing have you ever seen a UI design for hardware or software? I do every day.

It's no where farking close as one for a shoe. hardware and software have interactions, shoes not so farking much. The concept you have that everything no matter how complex is treated like a shoe is idiotic. Design for hardware or software go way past only what is there physically. And that's what was in the the actual ruling. Not if it just had some buttons similar BUT HOW THE UI WORKED TOO.
 
2012-08-28 03:29:05 AM
Funny how Apple has become the 800lb gorilla in the market and is exhibiting anti-competitive behavior, yet they're still the good guys. Reminds of the pic I saw floating around with pics of Gates and Jobs and captions that read something along the lines of: "has dedicated billions of dollars to eliminating disease in third world countries" and "vowed to spend billions to kill android". Jobs was great at marketing, but he was a vindictive asshole. It was fine for him to copy and use elements of other designs in his products, but woe to anyone that wants to build on or improve an element of an apple product.

/hypocrites, the fan boys are all flaming hypocrites
 
2012-08-28 04:16:50 AM

Corvus: Your telling me "Pinch to zoom" is something that people looking at it will be confused about? That is based on "how it looks"?


Go back and read the thread. We're not talking about pinch to zoom or the other utility patents at issue:
Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: Corvus: Theaetetus: I'm really curious as to who these people are who look at a Star Trek PADD and an iPad and are confused as to which is which. Are you one? You'dhonestly have a tough time telling them apart if I showed you two still pictures?

You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.


Did the PADD have pinch to zoom? No. Fluffy mentioned it's prior art for the design.
I explained why it wasn't anticipatory prior art for the design.
You claimed I was confused and that that wasn't the test for invalidity of a design patent.
I cited the decision and quoted the test on design patents.
So don't be a douche and pretend that we were really all discussing pinch to zoom and the utility patents at issue.

DId you read the ruling?

No, but neither did you. Since, y'know, it hasn't been issued yet. So far, we've got the filled out jury form. The ruling will come in a week or two.
Like, for example, what you "quoted" as the ruling? That's a news article.
 
2012-08-28 07:24:38 AM

Mantour: Satanic_Hamster: I think the auto industry should start using patents like the software and phone industry have been.

About intermittent windshield wiper system


That's not stupid enough. I'm talking about stuff like having turn signals that are red or having cup holders. Or a patent on a car WITHOUT a cup holder.
 
2012-08-28 09:19:42 AM

lordargent: Marcus Aurelius : It also seems like the patent office has no concept of "obvious" or "prior art"

And when you say "obvious", the next question should be "obvious to whom?"

// like oracle v google where oracle was trying to claim copyright on an API.


Obvious to someone that has a background in tech. This whole trial shows a breakdown at every step of the process. The patent office has no one that is really scrutinizing patents. You have an ip lawyer, with no schooling in tech, that now is a judge overseeing matters in tech. You have a jury that is lead by a patent holder, that was scorned in the process of getting a patent that was obvious in the first place.
 
2012-08-28 01:39:02 PM

Theaetetus: Did the PADD have pinch to zoom? No. Fluffy mentioned it's prior art for the design.
I explained why it wasn't anticipatory prior art for the design.
You claimed I was confused and that that wasn't the test for invalidity of a design patent.
I cited the decision and quoted the test on design patents.


Actually NO, I said PATENT LAW in general:

Corvus: You're confused. The law isn't "people will get confused" it's not trademark law. it's patent law. They aren't the same thing.


You are being dumb pretending that this narrow ruling on design patent is how all patent law works. That was my point in the first place. Your not paying attention and you conveniently ignored my point that in the case dealt with things far beyond the small scope you are pretending it had.
 
2012-08-28 01:43:05 PM

Theaetetus: You claimed I was confused and that that wasn't the test for invalidity of a design patent


No My point is you are confused what this case is actually about. what you are siting might be true for that case but it's not applicable for this case. IT'S NOT A farkING SHOE! It's not remotely close. You are confused by the term "Design". Design in software and hardware usually means how it INTERACTS!!! Not what it just looks like.
 
2012-08-28 02:12:54 PM

Corvus: Your not paying attention and you conveniently ignored my point that in the case dealt with things far beyond the small scope you are pretending it had.


Ah, so you do have theatestuess number then. I was begining to wonder.

Renowned troll, contrarian, and all around ground standing zealot.
 
2012-08-29 01:08:20 PM

omeganuepsilon: Corvus: Your not paying attention and you conveniently ignored my point that in the case dealt with things far beyond the small scope you are pretending it had.

Ah, so you do have theatestuess number then. I was begining to wonder.

Renowned troll, contrarian, and all around ground standing zealot.


Isn't it a good thing he's here to save Apple though? What would they do without him?
 
2012-08-29 01:59:38 PM

Dissociater: omeganuepsilon: Corvus: Your not paying attention and you conveniently ignored my point that in the case dealt with things far beyond the small scope you are pretending it had.

Ah, so you do have theatestuess number then. I was begining to wonder.

Renowned troll, contrarian, and all around ground standing zealot.

Isn't it a good thing he's here to save Apple though? What would they do without him?


I don't know, I just think Theae should come with some sort of warning, people deserve to know they're being had, whether or not Theae is a believer, troll still applies.

/apple sucks
 
2012-08-30 07:50:16 AM

Corvus: Theaetetus: You claimed I was confused and that that wasn't the test for invalidity of a design patent

No My point is you are confused what this case is actually about. what you are siting might be true for that case but it's not applicable for this case. IT'S NOT A farkING SHOE! It's not remotely close. You are confused by the term "Design". Design in software and hardware usually means how it INTERACTS!!! Not what it just looks like.


... You think "Design patents" mean different things for shoes and software? Like, with the former, they cover how it looks, and with the latter, they cover how it interacts? The law changes based on how a term is commonly used in the industry?

/hotels don't pay income tax, because why would they pay for people coming in, right?
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report