dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to cdru

Re: Are any of you guys surprised about this?

said by cdru:

Apple never said they invented the smartphone. Their guff with Samsung is over design patents, how it looks as a whole.

Right... using patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place..... but even having been so, should CLEARLY be invalidated now.

You know, like Apple's patent for the concept of rectangular tablet with rounded edges..... such an innovative idea that NOBODY every thought up before that....

(Ignore this picture from 1994, it would damage Apple's patent case.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
said by KrK:

Right... using patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place..... but even having been so, should CLEARLY be invalidated now.

You know, like Apple's patent for the concept of rectangular tablet with rounded edges..... such an innovative idea that NOBODY every thought up before that....

(Ignore this picture from 1994, it would damage Apple's patent case.)

Part of what they are arguing over are DESIGN patents. ALL parts of the patented design must be included. It's not simply enough to present similar appearing devices but have some aspects not fit. For instance in your picture it appears that the bezel around the LCD screen is raised on the front and no button centered at the bottom. This alone could be enough to set Apple's design as being different since it has smooth screen with no raised surround, as well as the button.

Just finding a bunch of different examples of tablets that fit some but not all of the individual components isn't enough to get the patents invalidated.

I think both sides are at fault. I don't think individual aspects of Apple's design are unique and weren't seen before. But I think that as a whole it was a unique design. And so I think that should retain the design patent. And I do think that Samsung's tablets and phones took some aspects from Apple's design. But I don't think they infringe specifically on the design patents.

I haven't paid enough attention on the utility patents for Apple or Samsung's counter suit to say anything one way or another...and I think that if they are upheld that we'll see a cross licensing agreement for them.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Yes, but it's all examples of prior art which then leads to the failure of the "Obviousness" test.

Apple actually has patents based on how their devices look or are shaped.

This is what I mean by "should be invalidated."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network
Obviousness is strongest when only one or two pieces of prior art are used. Third is sometimes okay. More than that and the argument will usually fail. I had an examiner throw four pieces of prior art at me once. I called him up and we had a discussion. He agreed that four references was probably too many and he withdrew his rejection.
--
I've heard, and I don't know if it's true, that Harry Reid takes it up the kiester from farm animals.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

Apple actually has patents based on how their devices look or are shaped.

ALL design patents are for how an object look or are shaped. For example, Coke's bottle shape. That's what sets them apart from utility patents which covers functionality with no real regard for non-functional design.

I'm not saying that their patents are valid or not, but there are thousands upon thousands of design patents that are "obvious" but aren't really.