Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

AvalonXQ said:
I guess one fix would be to actually require applicants to submit a working model.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't that lead to situations where someone could come up with a genuinely unique & brilliant invention on paper deserving of a patent, who are then denied that patent because its prohibitively expensive to build a working prototype? Seems unfair for hardware patents at least.
 
That's one reason why I said CK's was a better fix:


Christian Klippel said:
I think it would help a great deal when the actual patent examiners would be required to have extensive training as well as sufficiently long job experience in the fields of the patents they examine. But of course it would be much better to get rid of these stupid software patents altogether.
Click to expand...

I doubt having a few actual experts would get too expensive considering it covers the entire country and that it is for the good.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Well put. AvalonXQ could not have picked a worse (or better) example to supposedly prove the judge was the person being obtuse. It is also a good parallel to the entire argument in this thread.
Click to expand...


There's something more that's fishy with his argument. He linked to a page for MPEP, and said that section 2111.03 is relevant there. Now there are quite some funny facts to note about that. Right in the first paragraph of that section it states:

The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.
Click to expand...

So while yes, they give some guidelines there, they also say not only it can, but must be decided on a case-by-case basis as well. Exactly what the good judge has done, who would have thought that!

But wait. He also said that the judge was blatantly wrong. And that judges are wrong so often. But what is this? Reading further into that section one can see that in the end it was the judges who decided what these words mean! A meaning, again, that must be decided on a case-by-case basis anyways. But if judges are wrong so often, doesn't that also mean they probably were wrong in in giving "comprising" only a single meaning, as opposed to the two it normally has?

And in any case. Why is it that the judges had to decide on that anyways? Well, because the examiners (or patent office at large) simply didn't do their job properly. They allowed to have those ambiguities slip into the patents in the first place, causing a mess that judges had to untangle then. Why didn't the examiners just reject the patents containing those ambiguities and told the applicants to be precise in what they mean?

After all, patents are a temporary monopoly granted by the state. It should be up to them to give clear rules in the first place. Instead they opted to let the courts decide later on, at great expense to the inventors who had go to these courts.

Really, what would have been so hard to tell the applicants "Hey, you wrote something about comprising something. What do you mean with that exactly? You know, that word has two different meanings. Clear that up and then come back to us." But no. They let that in and made others pay to clear it up later. And the result of that is just a mess, where words are basically redefined instead of having them replaced with the ones that already carry that single meaning.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Obviously the patent office didn't read the patent. Bunch of amateurs.

/iApologist
Click to expand...



Interesting that you imply that I'm an "iApologist" for expecting you to read and understand the patents at issue here, when I posted quite some time ago that this patent did seem to be invalid based on the prior art that was shown in the trial, and that prior art searching is in fact one of the major areas in which the patent profession needs improvement.


Nice to see you still willfully ignoring what people are really saying, and simply dismissing us as "iApologists". Says volumes about what really motivates your hatred here.
 
Apple publishes the UK judgement, as required, for no less than 6 months:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

"
...
The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.

..."
 
Of course the Apple marketing department finagled it into an advertisement. Would you really expect any less of them?
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Just as long as they don't upset the judge.
Click to expand...

oops...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664

Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement
Apple was forced on 18 October to publish a message making it clear that Samsung had not infringed the iPad's registered design.

However Samsung complained the statement Apple had posted did not comply with the court order.

Judges agreed and have told Apple it must be removed within 24 hours.

A new, compliant version must then be posted.
 
That was really shooting themselves in the foot with bad publicity. If they had just done as requested, the whole thing would have blown over, and not many people would have noticed.

As it is, now it is front page news, so now more people than ever will learn that the UK ruling (and by extension European courts ruling) is that Samsung didn't copy them.

What were they thinking of? Just assumed they could get away with it?
 
"Samsung complained that the notice posted by Apple was "inaccurate and misleading" because it added comments about other rulings in Germany and the US that had gone in the iPad-maker's favour."

"This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue," a Samsung lawyer said in a written statement to judges.

"It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts."


But isn't the UK out of step with the outer courts ?

*shrugs* I think Apple followed the letter of the order, perhaps not the spirit:

"Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design.

"The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth."

I thought that's what their statement did.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
But isn't the UK out of step with the outer courts ?
Click to expand...

Define "other courts". As far as the EU is concerned, the matter at hand was first brought up in the UK court. That means that the UK court also is to set the precedent in this case, which was about design crap of tablets.

In fact, the German court was wrong to even accept the case about that design silliness, since the UK court was already handling it. It also means that as far as the EU is concerned, the UK ruling supersedes whatever the German court ruled, because the case was first brought in the UK.

TheL8Elvis said:
*shrugs* I think Apple followed the letter of the order, perhaps not the spirit:
Click to expand...

No, they did not. Apple tried to bring in completely unrelated stuff, like rulings that were about other issues. They also mislead by omission, making it appear as if the UK judges agreed with them.

In short, they acted _really_ silly, and were caught in the act.

In other news: Apple now made the offer (after a court forced them to at least do an offer at all) to pay 1$ for the FRAND patents they use. Compare that to the really, really silly amount of money they demand from others (i.e.: Android manufacturers) for their (pretty much non-genuine) patent crap licenses. Like, uh, 30$ per smartphone and 40$ per tablet:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954

They are nothing more than admitted thieves (as per Steve Jobs own words) who have gone insanely hypocritical about that silly software patents. Let's face it: they didn't really invent anything new at all in this sector. What they use existed before and/or was pretty much obvious anyways.

Not to mention that the process of their silly patents being revoked already started. They want to act like a bully but fail at that.

Quite some time ago i really liked Apple computers. They used to use a different CPU architecture, the PowerPC, which meant to have diversity in the PC field. I had an Apple Lisa once, because it was a nice machine. Heck, their Apple II was awesome for it's time. Meant to be extensible by 3rd party hardware, etc.

Nowdays they are nothing more than just another x86 based computer with just a fancy OS on top, but crippled of the ability to extend it. Just look at their latest laptops. Their smartphones and tablets are bog-standard ARM cores with some extra hardware-on-chip plugged on top of it, like pretty much any other ARM based SOC is nowdays. All they have is their OS to differentiate them.

You see, design might be a nice point to say "we are different". But now they are fighting over crap standard and obvious stuff, claiming to have come up first with it, because they simply can't compete w.r.t. innovation anymore. They are just an x86 and ARM box-pusher now, with their own fancy enclosures thrown in on top of that.

They now act like silly children on the playground, complaining that another child stole their shovel, but completely missing the fact that neither their shovel nor their use of it are unique anymore.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
"
But isn't the UK out of step with the outer courts ?
Click to expand...


As Christian says, the original decision was binding across the EU, and the statement was supposed to reflect that. They and their lawyers were perfectly aware of that, but chose to try to dilute the effect of the required wording by adding extra comments which were in incorrect.

In addition:

http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/beloff-baked-apple-roasted-britons.html

"The Court was particularly unimpressed with the fact that, in its view, the paragraphs which had been added were clearly wrong. In particular it will be noted that, in the final paragraph, Apple had said “in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design” [Emphasis added]. The Court took exception to the use of the words “the same patent” since the British action did not involve any patent, being solely concerned with registered design. Similarly, the Court did not like the statement that the Judge Birss had "made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung product" [Emphasis added]. As the Court pointed out, Judge Birss made no findings in relation to the Apple PRODUCT – his findings were in relation to the Apple REGISTERED DESIGN."

They also failed to run the required 5 print adverts by the 25th October. They really aren't doing themselves any favours with the judiciary!


More bad news for Apple, another lawsuit they filed has backfired, they just lost the use of the iPhone trademark in Mexico, shortly before the iPhone 5 is due to launch.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/02/iphone_ifone_mexico_trademark/

".. Apple's habit of launching aggressive lawsuits is starting to bite it on the bum"
 
Oops!

As a result Apple lost the right to trade using the iPhone brand, and the ruling could be applied retroactively: iFone may be able to claim a cut of the profits Apple has made using the iPhone name in Mexico since it launched five years ago.
Click to expand...


What were they thinking filing that lawsuit??
 
Christian Klippel said:
Define "other courts". As far as the EU is concerned, the matter at hand was first brought up in the UK court. That means that the UK court also is to set the precedent in this case, which was about design crap of tablets.

In fact, the German court was wrong to even accept the case about that design silliness, since the UK court was already handling it. It also means that as far as the EU is concerned, the UK ruling supersedes whatever the German court ruled, because the case was first brought in the UK.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Apple filed lawsuits involving exactly the same patent(s) with two separate courts in the EU? For what you say to be true, both Apple AND the courts screwed up. Or you're mistaken.

No, they did not. Apple tried to bring in completely unrelated stuff, like rulings that were about other issues. They also mislead by omission, making it appear as if the UK judges agreed with them.
Click to expand...

You have quite the unique interpretation on this. Apple was ordered to issue a statement acknowledging the court found Samsung products did not infringe. Apple did exactly that. Adding superfluous information doesn't change the fact they did as they were told.

It's a textbook case of following the letter of the law, not the spirit.

In short, they acted _really_ silly, and were caught in the act.
Click to expand...

I do agree it was silly and a gamble. They got caught and I feel no pity for them; they're big boys.

In other news: Apple now made the offer (after a court forced them to at least do an offer at all) to pay 1$ for the FRAND patents they use. Compare that to the really, really silly amount of money they demand from others (i.e.: Android manufacturers) for their (pretty much non-genuine) patent crap licenses. Like, uh, 30$ per smartphone and 40$ per tablet:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954

They are nothing more than admitted thieves (as per Steve Jobs own words) who have gone insanely hypocritical about that silly software patents. Let's face it: they didn't really invent anything new at all in this sector. What they use existed before and/or was pretty much obvious anyways.
Click to expand...

There are differences between FRAND and non-FRAND patents. I would not expect them to be licensed in similar ways, for similar amounts.

Not to mention that the process of their silly patents being revoked already started. They want to act like a bully but fail at that.

Nowdays they are nothing more than just another x86 based computer with just a fancy OS on top, but crippled of the ability to extend it. Just look at their latest laptops. Their smartphones and tablets are bog-standard ARM cores with some extra hardware-on-chip plugged on top of it, like pretty much any other ARM based SOC is nowdays. All they have is their OS to differentiate them.
Click to expand...

This is comical and out-of-touch.

You see, design might be a nice point to say "we are different". But now they are fighting over crap standard and obvious stuff, claiming to have come up first with it, because they simply can't compete w.r.t. innovation anymore. They are just an x86 and ARM box-pusher now, with their own fancy enclosures thrown in on top of that.
Click to expand...

You are right. Everything they do is so obvious that there are countless dozens of products on the market that match each of their offerings. :rolleyes: Is everything they do novel, fundamental research? No, but it's easy to call things obvious in hindsight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom