Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[The Dark Lord]

If Samsung violates Apple patents in such a way that a complete redesign is necessary, it is the patent system that is the problem.

Because the GS3 is not a copy of the iPhone. It is a much better device.

 

[This is The End]

"
If it's so "obvious", why can't either you or WildCat ever seem to point to anyone who even hinted at this type of scrolling prior to the filing date of this patent?

What does the first person finding it have anything to do with it? My claim is that it is obvious. If someone just needed to do it now, obviously it wouldn't have been done before!

Advanced touch screens capable of running multiple windows have just recently come into popular use.

If no one needed to do it before then obviously no one would have done it before. Therefore asking for previous examples to prove that it isn't obvious makes zero sense at all.

If that is taking as sensible in the current patent system, then it is more broken than I thought.

 

[Wangler]

Because the GS3 is not a copy of the iPhone. It is a much better device.

And thus Apples' fear, and the true reason behind the lawsuits.

 

[This is The End]

And thus Apples' fear, and the true reason behind the lawsuits.

Ironic that several posters here are telling Samsung to innovate! Apple is the one trying to get competition off store shelves...

 

[AvalonXQ]

What does the first person finding it have anything to do with it? My claim is that it is obvious.

And our challenge is for you to back up that claim with evidence.

You appear to be using "obvious" as synonymous with "known without evidence," rather than "readily apparent from the evidence."

You can claim obviousness all day, but your claims are quite unsupported at this point.

 

[Horatius]

What does the first person finding it have anything to do with it? My claim is that it is obvious. If someone just needed to do it now, obviously it wouldn't have been done before!

Advanced touch screens capable of running multiple windows have just recently come into popular use.

If no one needed to do it before then obviously no one would have done it before. Therefore asking for previous examples to prove that it isn't obvious makes zero sense at all.

If that is taking as sensible in the current patent system, then it is more broken than I thought.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip00154.html

At the Federal Court of Appeal (Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet OY)16, it was held that the evidence of the experts, although admissible, is to be treated with care.

Every invention is obvious after it has been made, and to no one more so than an expert in the field. Where the expert has been hired for the purpose of testifying, his infallible hindsight is even more suspect. It is so easy once the teaching of a patent is known to say, “I could have done that”; before the assertion can be given any weight, one must have a satisfactory answer to the question, “Why didn't you?”

Interesting, isn't it? Various courts and patent offices all over the world have been trying for years to come up with pragmatic definitions of what should be considered "obvious", and yet, here we are, still dealing with the exact same problems, coming from people who've apparently never even looked at any of this discussion. This is not a new question, and your answer to it has be rejected by the courts, repeatedly, for years.

 

[WildCat]

They'd need to innovate, then?

Sure, they just have to make a phone that doesn't have a rectangular touchscreen and no other features that have been around forever but Apple has claimed a patent for "on a mobile device".

 

[WildCat]

And our challenge is for you to back up that claim with evidence.

You appear to be using "obvious" as synonymous with "known without evidence," rather than "readily apparent from the evidence."

You can claim obviousness all day, but your claims are quite unsupported at this point.

Why do you think touchscreens were invented long before Apple even existed, if not to manipulate with the fingers?

 

[WildCat]

Apple claimed in court yesterday that people bought Samsung products thinking they were iPhones or iPads. I'm guessing these people were like my mother, who calls every smart phone an "iPhone" and is completely unaware that only Apple makes them, indeed she probably doesn't even know there is a company called Apple.

That's certainly not the fault of Samsung, just a predictable result of wildly successful Apple marketing. Just like she calls all plastic wrap "Saran wrap" no matter who makes it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sure, they just have to make a phone that doesn't have a rectangular touchscreen and no other features that have been around forever but Apple has claimed a patent for "on a mobile device".

So now your strategy is "keep making the same ridiculous claims and ignore the requests for evidence"?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Apple claimed in court yesterday that people bought Samsung products thinking they were iPhones or iPads.

Yes, that is how a trademark claim works.
Search for "trademark" on Wikipedia and you can find some useful information on the subject.

 

[WildCat]

So now your strategy is "keep making the same ridiculous claims and ignore the requests for evidence"?

Are you still demanding evidence that touch screens invented long before Apple existed were intended to be manipulated by fingers?

And are you completely unaware that Apple is claiming "trade dress" on rectangular phones with rounded corners?

 

[WildCat]

Yes, that is how a trademark claim works.
Search for "trademark" on Wikipedia and you can find some useful information on the subject.

And? Do you think Apple's claim to the rectangular shape with rounded corners is legitimate, and not just convergent design?

Maybe Apple will also claim trade dress on rectangular TVs when they come out with theirs, and get Judge Koh to declare inadmissable all claims of prior art like she did in the current case.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And? Do you think Apple's claim to the rectangular shape with rounded corners is legitimate, and not just convergent design?

Considering your clear misrepresentations of Apple's position in other matters, I'm not going to accept your description of "Apple's claim.". Quote their arguments and cite to their briefs.

 

[WildCat]

Considering your clear misrepresentations of Apple's position in other matters, I'm not going to accept your description of "Apple's claim.". Quote their arguments and cite to their briefs.

Ah, so you don't even have the slightest clue as to what the current lawsuit is about.

I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Ah, so you don't even have the slightest clue as to what the current lawsuit is about.

I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.

In other threads, we call this "making claims without evidence."

This thread is about IP, though - a topic where the uninformed feel they have a particular right to speak without the benefit of either facts or education.

If you're unwilling to actually back up your claims about what Apple is arguing or what their patents say, recognize that we'll keep calling you on that.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

And are you completely unaware that Apple is claiming "trade dress" on rectangular phones with rounded corners?

Well no one had the idea until Steve did - I mean this never existed in 2003...

(Had to use the P900 and not the P800 as my P800 isn't in my desk drawer so couldn't take a quick photo of it - the P800 was 2002.)

 

[Sideroxylon]

Ah, so you don't even have the slightest clue as to what the current lawsuit is about.

I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.

It would make the thread more interesting and informative to lurkers if you could have a bit of a go at answering that question.

 

[Darat]

Trade dress complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53458125/Complaint-iPhone-Trade-Dress

Love one of the first parts: "...before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with keypads for dialling and small passive display screens that did not allow for touch control....".

Yeah apart from of course phones like the P800 or the XDA - and the XDA (1 & 2) is one of the best prior art arguments about Apple's claims.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It would make the thread more interesting and informative to lurkers if you could have a bit of a go at answering that question.

My prediction: if he bothers to answer at all, it will be to an second-hand source, like an article or blog post with a misinformed title like "Apple patents rectangle." Essentially saying, "Hey, I'm not the origin of this fact-free opinion; I'm just passing it along!"