Writing Slate. Basically the exact dimensions and even corner shape of an iPad for the most common models in the US in mass production in the 18th-20th centuries
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
The court in the Netherlands has ruled that Samsung Galaxy class of phones infringe and must be pulled from shelves by Oct. 13. But it is very much a mixed result for Apple.
Quote:
That follows a German ruling from two weeks ago granting Apple a similar preliminary injunction against Samsung’s products, but Dutch ruling is critical for two reasons: one, it’s being reported that Samsung’s European supply channels all go through the Netherlands, so the ruling could effectively halt sales across the EU, and second, the Dutch court actually granted a ruling on the merits and found just a single infringed patent in Android 2.3, which covers the behavior of Apple’s iOS photos app. Android 3.0 devices like the Galaxy Tab 10.1 are unaffected.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
No doubt the patent system needs vast improvements. Looking at the current lawsuit mess gives me a headache.
Anyways Reuter's has a good summary diagram of who's suing who. No surprise at who's at the center of all the litigation mess as I've previously mentioned.
Source: http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index...ic-of-the-day/
Unless you're going to provide a chronolgy of the suits we have no idea who initiated the actions listed in blue, a good chart for getting a completely half assed idea of the situation though.
Btw, Apple and Microsoft have the same number of suits attributed to them per this graphic. So who's at the center of all this mess?
A little off topic but does anybody know when the 32 GB Galaxy Tab 10.1 is going to be available in Canada?
I see that Best Buy and Future Shop have the 16 GB listed for August 26th but there is no mention of a 32 GB.
I bought a 16GB at Staples yesterday (Staples and the Source have them now; Best Buy and Future Shop say they won't be getting them until Sept. 9 - price seems to be the same at all 4 chains) and they said the 32 GB is also available now but only by special order.
I don't think Apple ever paid royalties to the inventor of the qwerty keyboard or the typewriter either. The point is that things like tablets and phones and computers and keyboards and screens will all have similar if not identical appearances and functionality and those things should not be patentable. At most, they should fall under trademark legislation as causing brand confusion if that is arguable.
Basically, issues of appearance should fall under the same umbrella as the famous guitar headstock design lawsuits of the 1970s with Fender and Gibson guitars suing other guitar manufacturers for having a headstock that too closely resembled their famous models. At the same time, they could not sue other guitar makers for having things like 6 strings or cutaways or necks, etc. that all guitars have and are common features.
I don't think Apple is getting injunctions based on this however, but rather claiming that they have patented the concept of a rectangular tablet with a screen entirely.
Or perhaps there should be changes to patent and trademark law that protect the first company to produce and bring a concept to market. Apple didn't invent the gui with icons, Xerox did, but Xerox didn't successfully bring it to market. IBM and Microsoft thought nothing of it until the Macintosh was a successful proof of concept that also succeeded in the marketplace.
I don't think Apple ever paid royalties to the inventor of the qwerty keyboard or the typewriter either. The point is that things like tablets and phones and computers and keyboards and screens will all have similar if not identical appearances and functionality and those things should not be patentable. At most, they should fall under trademark legislation as causing brand confusion if that is arguable.
Basically, issues of appearance should fall under the same umbrella as the famous guitar headstock design lawsuits of the 1970s with Fender and Gibson guitars suing other guitar manufacturers for having a headstock that too closely resembled their famous models. At the same time, they could not sue other guitar makers for having things like 6 strings or cutaways or necks, etc. that all guitars have and are common features.
I don't think Apple is getting injunctions based on this however, but rather claiming that they have patented the concept of a rectangular tablet with a screen entirely.
There are hundreds of phones out there that do not look, feel or work like iphones. Same for tablets. It's not just about the shape of the case, it's the whole thing that's being immitated.
Samsung is ripping Apple's and RIM's (as seen above) designs, this is not even a debate anymore.
You'd think in court they would actually compare the physical devices and their function rather than look at something the summer student at Apple whipped up in photoshop?
There are hundreds of phones out there that do not look, feel or work like iphones. Same for tablets. It's not just about the shape of the case, it's the whole thing that's being immitated.
Samsung is ripping Apple's and RIM's (as seen above) designs, this is not even a debate anymore.
Samsung could clone the entire iOS and it would still be legal if they did not include any code from Apple and the two teams of engineers reversed engineered it, with one being quarantined from the other like Compaq did to IBM to create the first PC compatible in the 1980s that was perfectly legal.
Issues of appearance and functionality come down to trademark and product confusion, not patents and copyright law unless there is direct copying of technology and code.
You'd think in court they would actually compare the physical devices and their function rather than look at something the summer student at Apple whipped up in photoshop?
Both devices were present in court and the judge looked at them.
Both devices were present in court and the judge looked at them.
Which is exactly the problem.
He 'looked' at them. Big deal. Looks should mean absolutely nothing. Nevermind that the judge is more than likely not qualified to inspect both devices and determine the differences.
It should be what is inside that counts, not the outside look. At some point every design is going to be the same.
Samsung could clone the entire iOS and it would still be legal if they did not include any code from Apple and the two teams of engineers reversed engineered it, with one being quarantined from the other like Compaq did to IBM to create the first PC compatible in the 1980s that was perfectly legal.
Issues of appearance and functionality come down to trademark and product confusion, not patents and copyright law unless there is direct copying of technology and code.
This is untrue. Patents protect functionality and to prove patent infringement it is not required to prove copying. Appearances like UI elements can be copyrighted and ux can be patented.
This is untrue. Patents protect functionality and to prove patent infringement it is not required to prove copying. Appearances like UI elements can be copyrighted and ux can be patented.
Well hopefully it'll be true soon and maybe they throw out software patents at some point. US is trying to reclassify software patents as "mental processes" instead of actual invention. One less thing people can patent that companies can sue each other over
guess Apple should learn not to throw stones from a glass house
Predictable, and will almost certainly result in a settlement. Good on Samsung for pushing back, but it's risky seeing as Apple is such a big client. Ultimately you'd have to think that they'll compromise to avoid both of them losing out on some pretty substantial revenues.
Well considering Apple is such a big client, you would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to sue in the first place for what are ridiculous claims of patent infringement.
