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.

(All Things D)   Google said it like it is. "We weren't patenting things as aggressively as we should have been. We didn't really believe rounded corners were patentable." Neither did we, Google. Neither did we   (allthingsd.com) divider line 90
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

3668 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Sep 2012 at 8:16 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 12:50:56 PM  

Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Theaetetus: wmoonfox: acanuck: Fact:

Fact: Due to numerous juror improprieties, including consideration of punitive damages in direct violation of instructions and awarding damages for points found to be non-infringing, on top of the widely-supported assertion that a group of laypeople could in no way have faithfully addressed all of the points in the verdict questionnaire given the time they took... it is completely unimaginable that an appeal would result in anything other than a new trial.

To overturn the jury findings, the appeals court has to hold that no reasonable jury could have found the way they did. The punitive damages part is a reasonable argument, but the typo in the response was corrected so that's moot, and the idea that the jury didn't take long enough deliberating doesn't actually address whether a reasonable jury could have found the same thing. They did spend three days, after all, so it's not a clear cut "one-hour in and out" issue. I mean, they're within an order of magnitude of what even the naysayers would have expected, so how is the appeals court supposed to reverse that? "You spent 3 days rather than 5, so therefore you didn't consider everything"? I don't see it.

More likely, the appeals court could overturn the damages award based on the punitive comments, and remand for a new trial, but just on damages.

to be fair to Samsung, this exact same lawsuit was thrown out by a judge in Japan for being complete crap. They had to go the united states to get a jury to convict.

But, to be fair to Apple, this exact same lawsuit was won by Apple in Germany, and appears to be going well for them in Australia.

Your claims of bias may just be projection.

/also, San Francisco isn't within a block or two of Cupertino.


I don't think I would classify me as bias. I'm an iphone user afterall. The lawsuit has turned me off apple, but I'm not going to be throwing away my iphone any time soon. I probably will not get a new iphone when the time comes for me to ditch my 4, but who knows.
 
2012-09-12 12:52:43 PM  
Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.
 
2012-09-12 12:53:03 PM  

Theaetetus: rugman11: Just look at any television or computer monitor from the last fifteen years.

Oh, and:
[www.monitorgalaxy.com image 300x298]
The color of the bezel is an aesthetic choice, not a functional one.


As a completely tangential comment, the finch image on the ViewSonic brings back the wonderful nostalgia of my very first computer with sVGA and just how awesome it looked compared to my previous one with CGA.

Good times...good times.
 
2012-09-12 12:55:04 PM  

DVDave: That looks like a Rio PMP300 in the "Agreed. Patentable" image. I was working for Diamond Multimedia when those things came out.


Yah, I remember those... Similar, but they had extra buttons:
www.thebrag.tv
 
2012-09-12 12:58:01 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: The question you want is whether it's non-obvious enough. And there, the test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer would identify any substantial differences between the claimed design and the prior art. It's a 2D icon with a phone, so an ordinary observer would identify it as different from a 3D actual phone. Or it's a 2D icon with two eighth notes enclosed in a rounded border on a particular color background, so an ordinary observer would identify it as different from musical notes on a page. So, yeah, it's not obvious based on just those. You'd have to find other icons.

No, if that's an actual proper justifiable legal ruling what you have to do is scrap the system entirely and rebuild from scratch something that makes sense.


And what doesn't make sense about that? Conclusion = evidence + logic. As opposed to this:
Both of those examples are obvious to a third grader.
Conclusion = ... conclusion.

Patents are subject to due process. You have to use evidence to support a finding that something is obvious. Without evidence - just saying "pff, a third grader would find it obvious" - is like saying "pff, he must be guilty of murder. I mean, look at him!"

Include in this list email icons that look like paper envelopes, charging icons that look like plugs, calendar icons that look like a paper calendar, etc. Good interface design is predicated on making functionality obvious since no one reads manuals (nor should they have to read a manual to determine which icon on their phone stands for "phone call") so naturally everyone will trend towards the same pictures of recognizable objects.

Not at all - as shown above, there are many, many, many pictures that can be used to signify a particular object. Naturally, people trend to their own picture of the recognizable object. There's no need for them to trend towards the same picture... unless they're actually trying to copy the first person on the scene.
 
2012-09-12 01:02:22 PM  

RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.


No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.
 
2012-09-12 01:13:50 PM  
Theaetetus:
Agreed. Patentable:
[www.leadformix.com image 430x528]

Not patentable:
[www.enfoportals.com image 471x332]

You obviously missed Fig 1 and Fig 2 on the bottom left. Certainly look like rectangles with rounded they look pretty much like an isometric view of what you yourself agree, isn't patentable............................................................ ..........................
 
2012-09-12 01:16:55 PM  

Theaetetus: (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge).


She was born in Washington, DC.
 
2012-09-12 01:21:04 PM  

Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.


Are you implying that he was not an American?
 
2012-09-12 01:21:51 PM  

bingethinker: Looks like Google is trying to win their case in the media instead of the courtroom. That worked out really well for Samsung, right?


I know you're probably really bad with numbers and math and logic, but... the Samsung case was nearly meaningless in terms of punishment.

Samsung makes $2B PROFIT a year on just the components it sells to Apple. The iPhone and iPad are primarily Samsung devices after all.

For supposedly copying Apple for 2007 to 2012, it cost them half of one year's profit on their component sales to Apple. That is getting away pretty clean,
 
2012-09-12 01:23:27 PM  

JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.


That isn't even a Galaxy S2 phone, idiot.
 
2012-09-12 01:27:01 PM  

StrangeQ: PadreScout: JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

I don't get it, are you being sarcastic? That actually looks NOTHING like an iPhone.

Yeah, but see, it's a bunch of icons laid out in a grid, which is clearly what is in use on an iPhone. Therefore, copy. QED


Yeah, but see, it's a bunch of icons laid out in a grid, which is clearly what is in use in Windows 3.1. Therefore, copy. QED.
 
2012-09-12 01:32:36 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?


He?
 
2012-09-12 01:34:06 PM  

DieAchtung: You obviously missed Fig 1 and Fig 2 on the bottom left. Certainly look like rectangles with rounded they look pretty much like an isometric view of what you yourself agree, isn't patentable............................................................ ..........................


So you agree, the figures in the bottom left are not the same as the one I showed? Then the thing I showed - "a rounded rectangle" - does not render the patent invalid.
 
2012-09-12 01:34:06 PM  

Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?


Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.
 
2012-09-12 01:34:31 PM  

Bullseyed: For supposedly copying Apple for 2007 to 2012, it cost them half of one year's profit on their component sales to Apple. That is getting away pretty clean,


$1B is a very large, very painful number, any way you slice it. It is by no means "meaningless". You were docked half of your net income for a year, you would definitely feel it.
 
2012-09-12 01:34:39 PM  

RealDisagreer: to be fair to Samsung, this exact same lawsuit was thrown out by a judge in Japan for being complete crap. They had to go the united states to get a jury to convict. They had to go to court that was within a block or two of the apple headquarters to find a jury that would convict. If the appellate courts were truly non-bias they would at least demand a retrial be done in a location that isn't so influenced by one of the parties involved. There is a specific reason why this applies to online phones in the united states and not the rest of the world.


Not just Japan, every other country in the entire world threw the case out. In England it was ruled to be so asinine that Apple had to post an apology as the front page for their web site for 6 weeks.
 
2012-09-12 01:36:11 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?

Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.


Suuuure, it was a typo, and not just an incorrect assumption.
But, you're right - it doesn't change the substance of what I said: that anyone who claims that bias accounted for the decision is just grasping at unsupported straws.
 
2012-09-12 01:39:22 PM  

Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?

Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.

Suuuure, it was a typo, and not just an incorrect assumption.
But, you're right - it doesn't change the substance of what I said: that anyone who claims that bias accounted for the decision is just grasping at unsupported straws.



You sure are a smug bastard. Also the substance of my post was your assumption that the judge was Korean, and that influenced the decision. The judge was an American citizen, not a Korean citizen. Before you accuse people of grasping at straws, please stop doing it yourself.
 
2012-09-12 01:39:48 PM  

Bullseyed: RealDisagreer: to be fair to Samsung, this exact same lawsuit was thrown out by a judge in Japan for being complete crap. They had to go the united states to get a jury to convict. They had to go to court that was within a block or two of the apple headquarters to find a jury that would convict. If the appellate courts were truly non-bias they would at least demand a retrial be done in a location that isn't so influenced by one of the parties involved. There is a specific reason why this applies to online phones in the united states and not the rest of the world.

Not just Japan, every other country in the entire world threw the case out. In England it was ruled to be so asinine that Apple had to post an apology as the front page for their web site for 6 weeks.


Sorry, that's simply incorrect. Not only has the English order been stayed, it's blatantly false to say that "every other country in the entire world threw the case out."
I mean, heck...
1) the Japan case was on different patents.
2) there was a Korean case that had a split decision.
3) there was a German case that Samsung lost.
4) there's an Australian case that's still going on.

Where exactly are you getting your information from?
 
2012-09-12 01:41:44 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?

Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.

Suuuure, it was a typo, and not just an incorrect assumption.
But, you're right - it doesn't change the substance of what I said: that anyone who claims that bias accounted for the decision is just grasping at unsupported straws.


You sure are a smug bastard. Also the substance of my post was your assumption that the judge was Korean, and that influenced the decision. The judge was an American citizen, not a Korean citizen. Before you accuse people of grasping at straws, please stop doing it yourself.


Yes, because when I repeatedly say "there wasn't any bias that influenced the decision," clearly I'm really saying, "there's bias that influenced the decision."
Maybe it only looks like I'm a smug bastard because you're reading everything I say through a Bizarro-lens.
 
2012-09-12 01:42:56 PM  

Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?

Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.

Suuuure, it was a typo, and not just an incorrect assumption.
But, you're right - it doesn't change the substance of what I said: that anyone who claims that bias accounted for the decision is just grasping at unsupported straws.


You sure are a smug bastard. Also the substance of my post was your assumption that the judge was Korean, and that influenced the decision. The judge was an American citizen, not a Korean citizen. Before you accuse people of grasping at straws, please stop doing it yourself.

Yes, because when I repeatedly say "there wasn't any bias that influenced the decision," clearly I'm really saying, "there's bias that influenced the decision."
Maybe it only looks like I'm a smug bastard because you're reading everything I say through a Bizarro-lens.


Or maybe it is your childish jabs at everyone you debate with.
 
2012-09-12 01:46:30 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?

Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.

Suuuure, it was a typo, and not just an incorrect assumption.
But, you're right - it doesn't change the substance of what I said: that anyone who claims that bias accounted for the decision is just grasping at unsupported straws.


You sure are a smug bastard. Also the substance of my post was your assumption that the judge was Korean, and that influenced the decision. The judge was an American citizen, not a Korean citizen. Before you accuse people of grasping at straws, please stop doing it yourself.

Yes, because when I repeatedly say "there wasn't any bias that influenced the decision," clearly I'm really saying, "there's bias that influenced the decision."
Maybe it only looks like I'm a smug bastard because you're reading everything I say through a Bizarro-lens.

Or maybe it is your childish jabs at everyone you debate with.


Get over it. Doesn't change the fact that I've been arguing that there wasn't bias, contrary to the words you've been trying to put in my mouth.
 
2012-09-12 01:49:04 PM  

BullBearMS: Design patents cover the shape of products.


Only when the shape is novel and not-obvious.

wmoonfox: $1B is a very large, very painful number, any way you slice it. It is by no means "meaningless". You were docked half of your net income for a year, you would definitely feel it.


And nothing will be paid until after the appeals are done.
 
2012-09-12 01:52:51 PM  

Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: machodonkeywrestler: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that he was not an American?

He?

Typo. Get over it. Doesn't change substance of the conversation in any way.

Suuuure, it was a typo, and not just an incorrect assumption.
But, you're right - it doesn't change the substance of what I said: that anyone who claims that bias accounted for the decision is just grasping at unsupported straws.


You sure are a smug bastard. Also the substance of my post was your assumption that the judge was Korean, and that influenced the decision. The judge was an American citizen, not a Korean citizen. Before you accuse people of grasping at straws, please stop doing it yourself.

Yes, because when I repeatedly say "there wasn't any bias that influenced the decision," clearly I'm really saying, "there's bias that influenced the decision."
Maybe it only looks like I'm a smug bastard because you're reading everything I say through a Bizarro-lens.

Or maybe it is your childish jabs at everyone you debate with.

Get over it. Doesn't change the fact that I've been arguing that there wasn't bias, contrary to the words you've been trying ...


But your defense against this was "I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge" which makes no sense to bring up unless you are suggesting there was bias (for one of the two sides).

Also, I'll get over it when you start acting like an adult and stop pretending my point is invalid because of a typo (which you also questioned). You are not special, you make typos, you do not see me questioning your entire premise due to your grammar.
 
2012-09-12 02:02:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Patents are subject to due process. You have to use evidence to support a finding that something is obvious.


Ask a bunch of third graders to draw a .5" x .5" picture of a phone. Give them 10 minutes. Anything they come up with is "obvious" and you can't patent it. The difficulty might be finding 3rd graders old enough to remember what a corded phone looks like.

Not at all - as shown above, there are many, many, many pictures that can be used to signify a particular object. Naturally, people trend to their own picture of the recognizable object. There's no need for them to trend towards the same picture... unless they're actually trying to copy the first person on the scene.

i.istockimg.com

Look at your picture again. #1 is not recognizable when shrunk to icon size and #2 might not be either (it looks, to me, like it indicates a hands-free device. Ambiguity is an interface flaw). #3 and #5 are good, though #3 is the same type of receiver Apple uses, except two of them. #4 is different though fairly similar to #6. A very near variation of that is used on a bunch of phones from a bunch of different manufacturers and has been for at least a decade and I've never heard of a lawsuit over it. #7 and #8 are the same thing, recolored and rotated (also the old corded receiver plus a dot and an arc... novelty), and #9 is the same as the Apple icon except recolored. There really aren't that many ways to draw common objects recognizably in a very small area. Phones at least a few different standard models over the years, some things don't even have that. A drawing of an existing product should IMO not qualify as different enough from the original product to be patentable, even if it's 2D and digital instead of 3D and analog. Maybe "scrap the system and start from scratch" is too harsh, but the standards for "non-obvious" aught to be reevaluated.

That said I'm sure if all that Samsung had done was copied a recolored call button icon they would not have lost a lawsuit over it.
 
2012-09-12 02:06:00 PM  

WhyteRaven74: And nothing will be paid until after the appeals are done.


Of course. It's still an influential number, far from the realm of "meaningless".
 
2012-09-12 02:07:27 PM  

Bullseyed: StrangeQ: PadreScout: JosephFinn: steamingpile: Yet they also applied the same ruling to the Galaxy SII which looks nothing like the iphone, except for the rounded corners.

[i.i.com.com image 610x458]

Oh yeah, NOTHING like an iPhone. My favorite parts are how Samsung simply copied the Phone icon and the iTunes icon from around iTunes 9 and just changed the note color to pink and made it slightly smaller.

I don't get it, are you being sarcastic? That actually looks NOTHING like an iPhone.

Yeah, but see, it's a bunch of icons laid out in a grid, which is clearly what is in use on an iPhone. Therefore, copy. QED

Yeah, but see, it's a bunch of icons laid out in a grid, which is clearly what is in use in Windows 3.1. Therefore, copy. QED.


Clearly Microsoft retroactively copied Apple.

Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.


Are you implying that the judge was biased against Apple because she's Korean?
 
2012-09-12 02:24:37 PM  

you have pee hands: Look at your picture again. #1 is not recognizable when shrunk to icon size and #2 might not be either (it looks, to me, like it indicates a hands-free device. Ambiguity is an interface flaw). #3 and #5 are good, though #3 is the same type of receiver Apple uses, except two of them. #4 is different though fairly similar to #6. A very near variation of that is used on a bunch of phones from a bunch of different manufacturers and has been for at least a decade and I've never heard of a lawsuit over it. #7 and #8 are the same thing, recolored and rotated (also the old corded receiver plus a dot and an arc... novelty), and #9 is the same as the Apple icon except recolored.


Yes, exactly... each of them is different and distinct. And, with the exception of #1 where I agree it's too small to be useful, there's nothing that requires a manufacturer to disregard all of these and do an icon that's confusingly similar to Apple's.

Maybe "scrap the system and start from scratch" is too harsh, but the standards for "non-obvious" aught to be reevaluated.

What would you suggest be a test for obviousness?
 
2012-09-12 02:26:50 PM  

change1211: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that the judge was biased against Apple because she's Korean?


Not at all. In fact, I've said the opposite.
 
2012-09-12 02:33:10 PM  

Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that the judge was biased against Apple because she's Korean?

Not at all. In fact, I've said the opposite.


Seems you're having trouble getting people to agree with you on that point.
 
2012-09-12 02:44:08 PM  
Prior art for tablets:

thumbs.dreamstime.com
 
2012-09-12 03:00:11 PM  

change1211: Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that the judge was biased against Apple because she's Korean?

Not at all. In fact, I've said the opposite.

Seems you're having trouble getting people to agree with you on that point.


I'm in good company. People still think Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet.
 
2012-09-12 03:13:25 PM  

Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: RealDisagreer: Sorry I didn't read your comment slowly enough. I thought you were calling me bias against apple.

No, I'm saying that any claims that "Apple only won because it was an American jury" are unsupported (I also notice those same people quietly overlook the fact that it was a Korean judge). Plus, it flies in the face of logic... Samsung's attorneys were also American, and local, so it's not like a San Francisco-Texas accent fight or something. Additionally, they got the opportunity to interview the jury members and could reject ones that showed bias. Most of the experts on both sides were American, so it's not like racism interfered with credibility. And finally, Samsung has a factory in Texas. It's not like they're some completely foreign company.

Are you implying that the judge was biased against Apple because she's Korean?

Not at all. In fact, I've said the opposite.

Seems you're having trouble getting people to agree with you on that point.

I'm in good company. People still think Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet.


Well that's because he did, duh.
 
2012-09-12 03:36:28 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, exactly... each of them is different and distinct. And, with the exception of #1 where I agree it's too small to be useful, there's nothing that requires a manufacturer to disregard all of these and do an icon that's confusingly similar to Apple's.


Why is recolored and rotated sufficiently distinct while simply recolored isn't? A phone is still a phone if I cock my head to the side. The icon similarity isn't confusing, anyway, because Apple isn't identified by interface icon for "call". If someone were to try to slap one of these on all their phones, that's different.

edibleapple.com

What would you suggest be a test for obviousness?

What is currently used? There's no such thing as a perfect test, and the line is always going to be a little fuzzy.
 
2012-09-12 04:41:53 PM  

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: Yes, exactly... each of them is different and distinct. And, with the exception of #1 where I agree it's too small to be useful, there's nothing that requires a manufacturer to disregard all of these and do an icon that's confusingly similar to Apple's.

Why is recolored and rotated sufficiently distinct while simply recolored isn't? A phone is still a phone if I cock my head to the side.


Sorry, should have been clearer - 7 and 8 are probably aren't sufficiently distinct from each other, but are distinct from Apple's icon.

The icon similarity isn't confusing, anyway, because Apple isn't identified by interface icon for "call".

But Apple's phone application is.

What would you suggest be a test for obviousness?

What is currently used? There's no such thing as a perfect test, and the line is always going to be a little fuzzy.


As I said above, the test is currently whether one of ordinary skill in the art of design of the articles involved would have combined teachings of the prior art to create the same overall visual appearances as the claimed design. So, find one or more prior art references that teach all of the elements in the design, and then show that a person of ordinary skill would have combined them to result in the claimed design.
This avoids hindsight, because it requires prior art that was in existence at the time of filing of the application.
 
2012-09-12 07:57:09 PM  
I'm no fan of Apple and wanted Samsung to win, but I have come to realize that Apple's competitors (including Samsung) really are stealing Apple's ideas. What drove this point home for me was when I was wandering through the Domain in Austin. The Apple store had been there for a while and I went in there and wandered around. A new Windows store recently appeared and I went in there. Except for the logos, it was like being in an Apple store. Similar setup, similar products similar "geniuses" walking around. The degree of similarity was staggering to me. If they don't have the creativity to design someting as simple as their own store, have to copy Apple, how can we possibly be expected to believe thet are the innovators in product development.
 
2012-09-12 11:23:52 PM  

acanuck: Idiots proliferating Internet lore. Maybe they should have Googled it before opening their pie-holes.

Fact:

"As for the design patents, it's a mistake to think that Apple won a patent for "rounded corners." What they showed wasn't a single infringement, but that Samsung had slavishly copied the physical design, icon design, home page design, and packaging design of the iPhone - and then left behind an email trail showing what they'd done. That's why Samsung lost, not because their phones have rounded corners."



http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/final-apple-vs-samsung-po s t-theres-no-patent-pinch-zoom


Came here to post the same thing. All the haters keep biatching about "b-b-but rounded corners!!!", but that isn't it. It's the sum total of the infringement.

/idiots
 
2012-09-13 03:32:42 PM  
It`s simple, Apple are just trying to stop people making devices similar to theirs to stop competition because whilst they have about 20% of sales, they have 70% of the profit. If people realise they are the same as the other phones, maybe not even as good then that markup goes out of the window.
 
2012-09-13 07:19:31 PM  
STOP IT GUYS!! STOP IT! YOU'VE BUSTED MY SARCASM DETECTOR IN THIS THREAD!
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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