PDA

View Full Version : Apple's newest legal loop



ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 12:42 AM
This story is from:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apples-patent-could-prevent-all-oems-from-building-tablets/14175?tag=nl.e550



Summary: Apple gets an injunction against the Galaxy Tab in Europe based on some very generic line drawings.

<snip>

IWantFroyo
August 11th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Wow. I admit my HP TouchPad looks a bit like the first-gen iPad, but this is just overkill.

If Apple was really being honest about patent infringement, they would've taken HP down.
This is just desperate competition bashing.

Apple is also being accused of "conspiring" with publishers to rise Kindle ebook prices.

BeRoot ReBoot
August 11th, 2011, 12:49 AM
This is the free market in all its Darwinian glory. This is what happens when you're allowed to claim property of an intellectual process. This is what happens when information isn't Free.

This isn't good for the consumer, it isn't good for the market and it isn't good for science. It's suppressing innovation on all fronts, for the sole purpose of inflating Apple's (and all the other corporations' who pull this kind of crap) giant piles of cash.

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 12:52 AM
This is the free market in all its Darwinian glory. This is what happens when you're allowed to claim property of an intellectual process. This is what happens when information isn't Free.

This isn't good for the consumer, it isn't good for the market and it isn't good for science. It's suppressing innovation on all fronts, for the sole purpose of inflating Apple's (and all the other corporations' who pull this kind of crap) giant piles of cash.

I believe in copyrights and patents, but not this general. I mean, as the article said, half + of the tablets in existence use this design. It's too general of a drawing.

reyfer
August 11th, 2011, 12:56 AM
If Apple keeps going on with these kind of stuff, soon we will be calling that red fruit that has the same name FKAA (Formerly Known as Apple)....can you imagine asking for a piece of FKAA pie?

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 01:01 AM
If Apple keeps going on with these kind of stuff, soon we will be calling that red fruit that has the same name FKAA (Formerly Known as Apple)....can you imagine asking for a piece of FKAA pie?

That's one thing we have over them. Thank God it's impossible to copyright something that's commonly used to describe something. That's how the elevator lost it's patent. Everyone started calling all moving stairs elevators. . . Maybe if we start calling all tablets Apples???

EDIT: * ESCALATORS ROTFLMBO :-)

KiwiNZ
August 11th, 2011, 01:03 AM
This is the free market in all its Darwinian glory. This is what happens when you're allowed to claim property of an intellectual process. This is what happens when information isn't Free.

This isn't good for the consumer, it isn't good for the market and it isn't good for science. It's suppressing innovation on all fronts, for the sole purpose of inflating Apple's (and all the other corporations' who pull this kind of crap) giant piles of cash.

It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.

BeRoot ReBoot
August 11th, 2011, 01:14 AM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development?

What motivates innovation in the Free Software movement? Whatever it is, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job. If a world-wide Information Freedom act were magically passed tomorrow, I don't see why it couldn't be applied to the rest of the industry. Ridding the market of the "innovators" who only invest in R&D out of their own greed and ride success on an army of rabid lawyers would be a positive side effect, in any case.

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 01:15 AM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.

I have no issue with patents that have validity... the tablet / pad / slate concept was not an original Apple idea. It should not, in a general sense, been granted a patent. This would be similar to saying any flat service with four legs holding it off the floor is a patentable idea.

Apple should not be defended in this instance and I find the company to have become exactly what it railed against in 1984.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-NDl7J10JmHg/Tjc5-1I_bCI/AAAAAAAAADM/wUg1_K7IIcE/s635/stevejobs1984-a.png

matt_symes
August 11th, 2011, 01:18 AM
I believe in copyrights and patents, but not this general. I mean, as the article said, half + of the tablets in existence use this design. It's too general of a drawing.

+1 to this. Copyrights and patents, when fair, protect me (as a software developer). It feeds my family and pays for my mortgage. However, sometimes it can be too generic......

I'm off to patent the lung. I'll make a fortune out of breathing.

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 01:22 AM
I have no issue with patents that have validity... the tablet / pad / slate concept was not an original Apple idea. It should not, in a general sense, been granted a patent. This would be similar to saying any flat service with four legs holding it off the floor is a patentable idea.

Apple should not be defended in this instance and I find the company to have become exactly what it railed against in 1984.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-NDl7J10JmHg/Tjc5-1I_bCI/AAAAAAAAADM/wUg1_K7IIcE/s635/stevejobs1984-a.png

I don't think he was defending, as much as informing the user above him that there needs to be patents, not as general as in this case, but in a world which thrives on money, even the dedicated need cash at their disposal, unless they want to wait on every person in the world to dispose of their old technology, and then risk using outdated equipment. You have to have cash, and to get cash, you must patent something and make money from it. BTW, have you got a video copy of that? I haven't saw that commercial in forever.

Bachstelze
August 11th, 2011, 01:25 AM
You have to have cash, and to get cash, you must patent something and make money from it.

Rubbish. A lot of people have never patented anything, and still make money.

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 01:25 AM
I'm off to patent the lung. I'll make a fortune out of breathing.

I just patented the business process for filing a patent and I deny you the right to do so. :D

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 01:27 AM
BTW, have you got a video copy of that? I haven't saw that commercial in forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4

I didn't think anyone actually is defending Apple... I apologize if it was implied.

PhillyPhil
August 11th, 2011, 01:36 AM
I think extreme action by Apple (trying to ban all tablets) would actually turn out to be a good thing in the end. It would push the absurdity of current patent laws into the faces of millions of people, and might actually be a catalyst for reform.

Is there really no prior art available to invalidate this very broad and general patent?

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 01:37 AM
Rubbish. A lot of people have never patented anything, and still make money.

True, but they don't get to spend their life doing what they want to do, b/c they have to work their butts off for someone else. Ubuntu itself is even copyrighted. Canonical can't spend 24/7 working on it, when someone else could just claim the name Ubuntu. Because of copyrights, Ubuntu can say, Hey, I'm the official Ubuntu. Canonical can then sit around on their butts (working hard of course :-) ) and dedicate time to the project, instead of standing on their feet all day flipping burgers and then when they get home, barely have 20 minutes to work on the OS. Not to mention they can offer support to companies under that official name (which is where they make the money) Because they have the copyright, companies trust them, more than all the other computer gurus and are more apt to hire them.

Bachstelze
August 11th, 2011, 01:38 AM
True, but they don't get to spend their life doing what they want to do, b/c they have to work their butts off for someone else. Ubuntu itself is even copyrighted. Canonical can't spend 24/7 working on it, when someone else could just claim the name Ubuntu. Because of copyrights,

You are confusing patents, copyright and trademarks. In case you didn't know, those are different things.

PhillyPhil
August 11th, 2011, 01:39 AM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.

Closing down competition is good for consumers? No it's not, ever.

As for "needing" patents and patent lawsuits, see the fashion industry, and software outside the US for counter-examples.

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 01:43 AM
You are confusing patents, copyright and trademarks. In case you didn't know, those are different things.

I know they're different, but the laws are basically setup for the same reasons. They're all three neeeded. I can say that the laws need to be rewritten which govern them though, but I can't say that the world would get anywhere if we didn't have all three.

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 01:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4

I didn't think anyone actually is defending Apple... I apologize if it was implied.


Apple should not be defended in this instance and I find the company to have become exactly what it railed against in 1984.

My mistake. . . misinterpretation.

PhillyPhil
August 11th, 2011, 01:47 AM
I know they're different, but the laws are basically setup for the same reasons. They're all three neeeded. I can say that the laws need to be rewritten which govern them though, but I can't say that the world would get anywhere if we didn't have all three.
The fashion idustry is thriving with nothing more than trademarks.
The software industry is getting by just fine without patents outside the US.

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 01:50 AM
My mistake. . . misinterpretation.

It perhaps was not written the best...

I certainly do not feel Apple deserves defense in this case... I do not think anyone in this thread is defending them...

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 01:53 AM
Is there really no prior art available to invalidate this very broad and general patent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers


1888: U.S. Patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Patent) granted to Elisha Gray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray) on electrical stylus device for capturing handwriting.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-Gray-0)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-4)
1915: U.S. Patent on handwriting recognition user interface with a stylus.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-Goldberg-1)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-5)
1942: U.S. Patent on touchscreen for handwriting input.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-7)
1945: Vannevar Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush) proposes the Memex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex), a data archiving device including handwriting input, in an essay As We May Think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_We_May_Think).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-8)

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 01:59 AM
The fashion idustry is thriving with nothing more than trademarks.
The software industry is getting by just fine without patents outside the US.

Although I agree, patents are needed. They keep balance on the entire system. . .

Example: how do you think these companies got to where they are today? They established a name for themselves. How did they establish a name for themselves? They had to develop something, which was brand new. Without patents, smaller companies can't establish names for themselves, b/c when larger ones get the information, the smaller ones would be overrun by larger corporation's wealth and resources. It's Ok for larger companies to use trademarks and copyrights, but without patents, smaller companies can't get funding. Meaning, they have to go to a larger company and seek funding, which results in them losing over half of the ownership in their own company.

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 02:05 AM
ki4jgt:

I agree with patents as long as there is some sanity to them. If they are overly general that is an issue.

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 02:09 AM
ki4jgt:

I agree with patents as long as there is some sanity to them. If they are overly general that is an issue.

+ 1

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 02:22 AM
In even more alarming news...


Apple is most valuable US company (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iPads-trump-oil-Apple-is-most-apf-3276362092.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=)



It doesn't take a visit to the Genius Bar to figure out how Apple became the most valuable company in America.

Its lineup of sleek phones, computers and iPods, irresistible to customers even in tough economic times, propelled it to the No. 1 position by market value Wednesday, surpassing Exxon Mobil. Apple's stock on the open market is now worth more than any other company's.


Apple's stock fell for the day, but Exxon's fell more. Apple finished with a market value of $337 billion, beating Exxon's $331 billion. A single share of Apple stock now costs $363.

cgroza
August 11th, 2011, 02:26 AM
I have a gut feeling that Apple will take over the world...

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 02:35 AM
In even more alarming news...


Apple is most valuable US company (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iPads-trump-oil-Apple-is-most-apf-3276362092.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=)

I remember when Walmart was the most valuable company. . . What happened? LOL :-)

I'm sorry to say this, but most apple customer (I've talked to anyways) are brainwashed, ignorant is a better word. Apple doesn't try to brainwash them, the customer does it to themselves. I had a friend the other day tell me that he had a computer I could never get. . . (He saw Ubuntu on my Facebook profile) Then he started talking about his apple and how great it was. How many things it could do. Come to find out, he had 16 gigs of memory (I'm running 1 on Linux) I actually told him that every company has it's ups and downs. Every OS has it's vulnerabilities. Told him about where Apple had sent computers with weak cases which literally broke when they reached the customer's house. I told him about how people had to reset the headphone jack b/c of them being unejected properly. Then I got into the whole no virus doesn't mean no infections debate. Needless to say, computers 101. That really drives me insane though, people think, they get the best of the best just by watching a commercial on TV. They don't even look around for better options, then they decide to have a peeing contest and say, my machine is better than yours. :-) This is how Apple has become #1 in America. The worst part is, everyone believes it.

b2zeldafreak
August 11th, 2011, 02:46 AM
From the drawing it looks like Apple also holds the patent for my LCD TV, my laptops screen, the cutting board in my kitchen, my dry erase boards, portable hand mirrors, etc.

And don't say that this it to protect R&D costs... Today for the first time Apple closed out as the most valuable US company (ahead of oil to).


** That being said I really like the design of Apple's hardware alot, and find OS X to be the best operating system for a laptop. If I want to restore Windows on a laptop it's going to take me 6 hours of Windows, 2 hours of obscure drivers, and then 6 more hours to reinstall software. OS X I just pop in the DVD that came with the system and restore, most of the applications I need are already installed, and the other few are easy to install (drag and drop).

The hardware on Macbooks is hard to beat as well. I don't know of any other laptops with 7-8 hour battery life, and a notebook form factor. If anyone does please PM it to me :)

That being said I hate corporate Apple and it's policies. Good hardware/software, bad company.

Dr. C
August 11th, 2011, 03:33 AM
I have no issue with patents that have validity... the tablet / pad / slate concept was not an original Apple idea. It should not, in a general sense, been granted a patent. This would be similar to saying any flat service with four legs holding it off the floor is a patentable idea.

Apple should not be defended in this instance and I find the company to have become exactly what it railed against in 1984.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-NDl7J10JmHg/Tjc5-1I_bCI/AAAAAAAAADM/wUg1_K7IIcE/s635/stevejobs1984-a.png

This is image is not from the original 1984 Apple commercial. It is from a protest commercial against Apple over religious censorship by Apple.

Bandit
August 11th, 2011, 03:34 AM
The iPhone, iPod and iPad lines have been their most successful money makers since their original computers years back. This has made them overly greedy and this injunction is a prime example of the legal system getting paid off. I dont care what anyone here says, that design could be anything and tablets have been out for many years before Apples version was released. Any sane and fare court system would have known this. I cant wait for MS to release theirs, they had baled out Apple so many times in the past and have the money to squash any of Apples lawsuits if it will make MS money.

cprofitt
August 11th, 2011, 04:37 AM
This is image is not from the original 1984 Apple commercial. It is from a protest commercial against Apple over religious censorship by Apple.

Actually you are incorrect. The image is from the original commercial with some GIMP editing to put Steve Jobs in the place of the original IBM drone.

Dr. C
August 11th, 2011, 06:09 AM
Actually you are incorrect. The image is from the original commercial with some GIMP editing to put Steve Jobs in the place of the original IBM drone.

Fair enough. So depending on when the GIMP editing was done one gets to determine who get to "patent" Steve Jobs portrayed as Big Brother.

3rdalbum
August 11th, 2011, 10:47 AM
I don't believe in patents, full-stop.

If you've come up with an original idea, you should make your money from building the product and marketing it correctly, not through simply having had an idea.

It's anti-competitive. For example, the company Easycook had a patent on their benchtop ovens. They charged $250 for these ovens. Now the patent has expired, competitors are building and selling the same ovens for closer to what they're worth: $100. Generic brands sell for less, but a good quality one might cost you $100.

The patent caused price gouging, basically. For a product that was merely a glass bowl with a heating element and fan on top.

Grenage
August 11th, 2011, 10:57 AM
I hate patents, but I find it hard to believe that a court would make a ruling based on those line drawings.

Either way, you can't blame Apple for being as anti-competitive as possible. They're a business, they want to make money, and they're playing by the rules that have been set; it just a shame that the rules are idiotic.

zekopeko
August 11th, 2011, 11:29 AM
I think that people need to step back and reexamine this whole Galaxy Tab case.

If you look at the design of the Galaxy Tab it is extremely similar to the iPad in the front. Even the USB cable looks like a copy of Apple's.

The back is different but still the shape look pretty similar to the iPad.

The community design does look rather general but I'm more interested in what legal standard was used to judge this preliminary injunction. Simply by looking at the community design it looks like it shouldn't have been granted as is since it's so spartan and general.

8_Bit
August 11th, 2011, 11:37 AM
This is the free market in all its Darwinian glory. This is what happens when you're allowed to claim property of an intellectual process. This is what happens when information isn't Free.

This isn't good for the consumer, it isn't good for the market and it isn't good for science. It's suppressing innovation on all fronts, for the sole purpose of inflating Apple's (and all the other corporations' who pull this kind of crap) giant piles of cash.

This is not the free market at all. This is government getting in bed with corporations, ie fascism. Far from a true free market. Remember it was the judge and the court (= the STATE) that made this decision to grant the injunction. It's just another example of corporations using government as their tools to destroy the free market, by eliminating competition. This wouldn't happen in a true free market, where government would have no power to grant such injunctions and meddle in business affairs.

zekopeko
August 11th, 2011, 12:02 PM
This is not the free market at all. This is government getting in bed with corporations, ie fascism. Far from a true free market. Remember it was the judge and the court (= the STATE) that made this decision to grant the injunction. It's just another example of corporations using government as their tools to destroy the free market, by eliminating competition. This wouldn't happen in a true free market, where government would have no power to grant such injunctions and meddle in business affairs.

You have very little understanding of an ideal free market. It is purely a model of classical economic theory which will most likely never be achieved. The state doesn't even factor into that model.

This case is at its base about correcting a free market failure. The failure in question is a positive externality.

In this case it means that Apple, by designing the iPad, allowed other manufactures to more cheaply create the design of their products by copying Apple's design. Design patents are a way for that to be corrected.

dniMretsaM
August 11th, 2011, 04:51 PM
I think extreme action by Apple (trying to ban all tablets) would actually turn out to be a good thing in the end. It would push the absurdity of current patent laws into the faces of millions of people, and might actually be a catalyst for reform.

Is there really no prior art available to invalidate this very broad and general patent?

I would have to agree with that. The world needs to know the extent to which patents are being pushed. Something major like this would be perfect for that. I believe in patents (not software patents), but this is just absolutely ridiculous!

johnnybgoode83
August 11th, 2011, 05:05 PM
Careful, they will sue just for using the word 'Apple' in the title of this thread.

whatthefunk
August 11th, 2011, 05:09 PM
Samsung is a Korean company. Korean companies have been shamelessly copying designs for years. Maybe there is some truth to the claims.

dniMretsaM
August 11th, 2011, 05:31 PM
Samsung is a Korean company. Korean companies have been shamelessly copying designs for years. Maybe there is some truth to the claims.

I think you missed the point of this thread. It's not whether or not Samsung copied Apple. It's the fact that Apple's patent is so ridiculously broad that it would cover a large percentage of the tablets on the market.

unknownPoster
August 11th, 2011, 06:20 PM
What motivates innovation in the Free Software movement?

If by innovation, you mean imitation, then I'll agree.

XubuRoxMySox
August 11th, 2011, 06:27 PM
If by innovation, you mean imitation, then I'll agree.

LOL, Imitation (http://robinsrantsandraves.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/crossing-the-line-a-public-service-announcement/)

-Robin

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 07:17 PM
LOL, Imitation (http://robinsrantsandraves.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/crossing-the-line-a-public-service-announcement/)

-Robin

And that my friends, is why I use my FCC callsign for everything online. Impersonation is illegal if you own the name behind it. Had a case a while back where someone was using my callsign on a website. Emailed the site, sent a URL to the FCC's database entry of my callsign, and the site shut them down.

forrestcupp
August 11th, 2011, 07:29 PM
The line drawings look a lot like some picture frames and windows I've seen. I guess we won't be able to buy picture frames and windows, either.

They could make those line drawings be a lot of things.

markp1989
August 11th, 2011, 09:21 PM
that line drawing could be anything:

lcd tv or monitor
digital photo frames
Tupperware lid
baking tray
chopping board
any tablet pc or modern phone (LG Cookie, and many others) on the market

to name a few, im sure you could think of many things

tbh Im getting sick of apple pretending they invented everything


also looks like they are going after the Xoom

http://www.pdfdevices.com/apple-sues-motorola-over-motorola-xoom-design/

Looks to me like apple are getting scared of the competition

nec207
August 11th, 2011, 09:22 PM
I find Apple is becoming too much like Microsoft now.

First before going on to saying any thing , I find apple is abandoning Mac users in fevor of people using the iPhone ,iPad and the iPod the general public that do not have a Mac computers.I also feel Apple is becoming more like Bill Gates now ''this is the way we do it'' like it or leave it.And more lockdown and closed OS to get more profit ie Blu ray and iTunes , white Macbook discontinued despite fan base.

Before apple was about bringing over PC users to the Mac world.They put all their money in deign ,testing and more testing to make OS bug free and computer of better built quality.But in past years the white Macbook and Macbook pro have been riddle with problems.

I find Apple is slow at going to latest technology when it comes to removable devices do to they feel you do not need it , do to iTunes store and iCloud that sounds nice it really does but you all know will be controlled by Apple and profit is the big thing why they are doing it .No it will not be free.

When OS X came out it was one thing that's make a OS that is very very very very easy to use ,bug free ,very attractive and forcessing on the young people and people in school and the public .Where Microsoft was forcessing on one thing the older people and businessess.

A other think I do not like is Apple is moving away of so called ''hey that looks cute'' ''look at the eye candy OS'' ''it just works'' ''better built quality''


I feel Apple like Microsoft when they get big they do not care about people and become very much so that the typical saying of ''like it or leave it mentality''

KiwiNZ
August 11th, 2011, 09:30 PM
I find Apple is slow at going to latest technology when it comes to removable devices do to they feel you do not need it , do to iTunes store and iCloud that sounds nice it really does but you all know will be controlled by Apple and profit is the big thing why they are doing it .No it will not be free.



Thunderbolt is slow up take?
New MacBook Air?

Of course they will be doing it for profit, they are not UNICEF , Profit = Employment

ki4jgt
August 11th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Any engineers want to build their own tablets here? It'd be really cool, if you could build a tablet like a computer. Put this or that in it, if you didn't want a certain thing, then you removed it. Of course, it would probably cost an arm and a leg to do so.

jtarin
August 12th, 2011, 01:40 AM
OMG!! The Ipad looks exactly like my Etch-a-Sketch (http://www.etch-a-sketch.com/) from childhood.:lolflag:
I'm contacting Ohio Art now!

coolglobal
August 12th, 2011, 02:39 AM
Those pictures could pretty much be anything. What a joke! The court that sided with these pictures is mega-dodgy... MEGA. It's a generic sketch, vague and all encompassing. This just looks like wealthy self important twits scratching preening their reptillian scales. I hope this decision is able to be overturned. Apple has revealed it's true colors, by submitting these drawings in the first place. It looks like it's underhand plan has succeeded.

ScionicSpectre
August 12th, 2011, 02:49 AM
Apple needs to realize that they don't have a monopoly on good ideas and be willing to sacrifice some of its 'divine' image. Apple has done a lot of good, but they've done a lot of selfish things, even when it's not necessary for business. It's bad enough that people think they invented the tablet without them forcing people not to make them.

I don't care how legal what you're doing is- if it's obviously evil, I'm not obligated to support your position. This kind of childish behavior isn't going to help people trust Apple.

Thewhistlingwind
August 12th, 2011, 03:25 AM
This just looks like wealthy self important twits scratching preening their reptillian scales. I hope this decision is able to be overturned. Apple has revealed it's true colors, by submitting these drawings in the first place. It looks like it's underhand plan has succeeded.

Oh my god, your right..........Apple is really:

THE SECOND FOUNDATION!!!

THE NINETY SECOND CONGRESS!

THE FREEMASONS!

THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI!!!

coolglobal
August 12th, 2011, 04:10 AM
pure gold...


Oh my god, your right..........Apple is really:

THE SECOND FOUNDATION!!!

THE NINETY SECOND CONGRESS!

THE FREEMASONS!

THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI!!!

QUETZALCOATL!

cprofitt
August 12th, 2011, 05:37 PM
I posted this yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers





1888: U.S. Patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Patent) granted to Elisha Gray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray) on electrical stylus device for capturing handwriting.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-Gray-0)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-4)
1915: U.S. Patent on handwriting recognition user interface with a stylus.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-Goldberg-1)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-5)
1942: U.S. Patent on touchscreen for handwriting input.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-7)
1945: Vannevar Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush) proposes the Memex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex), a data archiving device including handwriting input, in an essay As We May Think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_We_May_Think).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers#cite_note-8)

There is prior art... lots of it. Apple has always stolen from others... they just do not like anyone else doing it. Steve even admits the stealing part in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

jasonrisenburg
August 12th, 2011, 05:44 PM
Stephen B. Dobbs = Satan!!!

Merk42
August 12th, 2011, 06:15 PM
I don't believe in patents, full-stop.
You should probably read up on why patents were created in the first place.

el_koraco
August 12th, 2011, 06:27 PM
pure gold...



THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI!!!

QUETZALCOATL!

The Fifth International!

PhillyPhil
August 13th, 2011, 03:16 AM
I posted this yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers

There is prior art... lots of it. Apple has always stolen from others... they just do not like anyone else doing it. Steve even admits the stealing part in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

I don't think stealing is the right word, but I agree. *Every* company uses ideas from others *all*the*time*.
And that's a (very) good thing.

I don't think you can blame Apple for competing as hard as they possibly can within the laws that constrain their actions (although I think companies like Google who don't use patents offensively are to be admired) - I think the blame should fall on the laws that make litigation like this possible.

cprofitt
August 13th, 2011, 05:33 AM
I don't think stealing is the right word, but I agree. *Every* company uses ideas from others *all*the*time*.
And that's a (very) good thing.

I don't think you can blame Apple for competing as hard as they possibly can within the laws that constrain their actions (although I think companies like Google who don't use patents offensively are to be admired) - I think the blame should fall on the laws that make litigation like this possible.

Steve, himself, admits to stealing... so I have no reason to think it is not the right word.

I am not sure if it is the overall patent law or the stupidity of the process that grants patents to generic ideas with 40-50 years of prior art.

PhillyPhil
August 13th, 2011, 06:58 AM
Steve, himself, admits to stealing... so I have no reason to think it is not the right word.

I am not sure if it is the overall patent law or the stupidity of the process that grants patents to generic ideas with 40-50 years of prior art.

Even the almighty Jobs isn't right all the time. I'm not talking about Apple in particular, but everyone: using other people's ideas should never be called stealing (it doesn't meet the definition of stealing for a start, and also 'stealing' carries a strong negative connotation that, IMHO, this doesn't deserve)

3rdalbum
August 13th, 2011, 10:36 AM
You should probably read up on why patents were created in the first place.

I know why. It was a laudable goal, and the patent system worked alright for a while, but in today's world patents just stifle competition.

Merk42
August 13th, 2011, 06:06 PM
I know why. It was a laudable goal, and the patent system worked alright for a while, but in today's world patents just stifle competition.Sure I agree today's use of patents is horrible, but I don't think going back to trade secrets is good either.
Without patents at all, there is of course the other scenario where some 'little guy' makes some really innovative and some conglomo sees it and out markets the 'little guy' so he doesn't see any return from his hard work.

jtarin
August 13th, 2011, 11:50 PM
Even the almighty Jobs isn't right all the time. I'm not talking about Apple in particular, but everyone: using other people's ideas should never be called stealing (it doesn't meet the definition of stealing for a start, and also 'stealing' carries a strong negative connotation that, IMHO, this doesn't deserve)If you take something that doesn't belong to you, without permission of the owner, it's stealing. Intellectual property while not a tangible asset...is an asset with value, and if the owner is the first unique owner, they should be awarded and recognized with ownership accordingly. Don't try to justify stealing.

dniMretsaM
August 14th, 2011, 12:38 AM
If you take something that doesn't belong to you, without permission of the owner, it's stealing. Intellectual property while not a tangible asset...is an asset with value, and if the owner is the first unique owner, they should be awarded and recognized with ownership accordingly. Don't try to justify stealing.

That depends on whether or not you consider ideas to be property.

PhillyPhil
August 14th, 2011, 01:49 AM
If you take something that doesn't belong to you, without permission of the owner, it's stealing. Intellectual property while not a tangible asset...is an asset with value, and if the owner is the first unique owner, they should be awarded and recognized with ownership accordingly. Don't try to justify stealing.

Not even close.
1.) Theft (stealing) means you deprive someone of the possession or use of whatever you stole.
When the (so-called) "possession" is IP, theft is not possible.

2.) Ideas are not (and cannot be) IP.
Patents are for inventions, copyright is for a particular expression (of an idea). Both deliberately exclude ideas from protection.
You cannot own an idea, you cannot 'protect' an idea.

I have no interest whatsoever in justifying stealing. Don't try to pervert the meaning of "stealing".

jtarin
August 14th, 2011, 03:36 AM
Not even close.
1.) Theft (stealing) means you deprive someone of the possession or use of whatever you stole.
When the (so-called) "possession" is IP, theft is not possible.Not attributing it to the original author and allowing people to assume it is your own is depriving the original author of his merit of which you have taken without his permission.



I have no interest whatsoever in justifying stealing. Don't try to pervert the meaning of "stealing".Prevert the meaning of stealing???? You have just done that very thing.:P

PhillyPhil
August 14th, 2011, 03:49 AM
Not attributing it to the original author and allowing people to assume it is your own is depriving the original author of his merit of which you have taken without his permission.
Depriving someone of "merit" is not depriving them of possession of something you have taken. It is not theft.


Prevert the meaning of stealing???? You have just done that very thing.:P
I've done nothing of the sort. Stealing has a well established definition, and it doesn't include your personal use of the word.

jtarin
August 14th, 2011, 06:43 AM
Depriving someone of "merit" is not depriving them of possession of something you have taken. It is not theft.


I've done nothing of the sort. Stealing has a well established definition, and it doesn't include your personal use of the word.We have different values.

PhillyPhil
August 14th, 2011, 07:32 AM
We have different values.

It's not a matter of values. "Stealing" has a definition, and you are using it outside that definition.

jtarin
August 14th, 2011, 08:43 AM
It's not a matter of values. "Stealing" has a definition, and you are using it outside that definition.You keep refering to "definition", yet you provide none. Quite possibly I am using it outside of "your" definition. You define your own values and I'll define mine. Disagreement is a common and accepted fact when more than one is involved.


As long as we're defining.

Values

Definition

Important and enduring beliefs or ideals shared by the members of a culture about what is good or desirable and what is not. Values exert major influence on the behavior of an individual and serve as broad guidelines in all situations.

PhillyPhil
August 14th, 2011, 09:05 AM
You keep refering to "definition", yet you provide none. Quite possibly I am using it outside of "your" definition. You define your own values and I'll define mine. Disagreement is a common and accepted fact when more than one is involved.
I don't have a personal definition - it would be rather silly for everyone to have their own definitions of words.
As already I've said, there is a well established, widely accepted definition, and you are using the word beyond the boundaries of that definition.



As long as we're defining.
I repeat: not even remotely interested in values.
I'm perfectly happy to accept your opinion that using other's ideas is not good or desirable (although I vehemently disagree - can you imagine what the world would be like today if use of other's ideas wasn't extremely commonplace?).
What is not acceptable is your use of the word "stealing": it is wrong.

jtarin
August 14th, 2011, 09:42 AM
I don't have a personal definition - it would be rather silly for everyone to have their own definitions of words.
As already I've said, there is a well established, widely accepted definition, and you are using the word beyond the boundaries of that definition.
Your narrowly alluding to a definition that everyone in every culture can only have a sense of.[/QUOTE]




I repeat: not even remotely interested in values.
I wouldn't admit that in a discussion such as this.



I'm perfectly happy to accept your opinion that using other's ideas is not good or desirable (although I vehemently disagree - can you imagine what the world would be like today if use of other's ideas wasn't extremely commonplace?).
What is not acceptable is your use of the word "stealing": it is wrong.Only as you see it....if everyone chimed in on this.....on this board there would be as many definitions of stealing as posters. I don't even disagree with what you are purposing....only your insistence there is a right and wrong.

sffvba[e0rt
August 14th, 2011, 11:47 AM
"Samsung vs Apple in Europe" for dummies


The judge in Duesseldorf has not researched the case yet, but pending research, it has blocked Samsung GmbH from distributing / selling the devices in the EU. As far as I understand, this preliminary injunction is only valid in Germany. Other judges in the EU may use the decision of the court in Duesseldorf without further contemplating the case as per the "Brussels Regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_Regime)". However, European patent law is not the same in each EU country, so I think that means Apple may have to sue Samsung in each EU country separately if they want to ban the device in all countries. Remember: This is a preliminary injunction, the German judge has not decided anything as of yet. Thus Ken Hess' statement (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-is-right-to-protect-its-ipad-design-patent/54538) "Apparently Apple believes that Samsung got too close and the European Union agreed." seems totally premature. As first of all the European Union is not involved in any way, and there's no pan-European decision whatsoever. Until the ECJ speaks out about the topic, appealing is possible I guess. Moreover, it remains to be seen if there's a pan-European decision as there's no pan-European patent law, and even more, even the German court didn't make any decision whatsoever yet. If the German court decides against Apple, Apple will have to pay Samsung for the damages of banning the Galaxy Tab it seems.

Source (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/154628/)

A little bit more background on what is happening... In a way that is more understandable...


404

zekopeko
August 14th, 2011, 01:29 PM
Your narrowly alluding to a definition that everyone in every culture can only have a sense of.

I wouldn't admit that in a discussion such as this.

Only as you see it....if everyone chimed in on this.....on this board there would be as many definitions of stealing as posters. I don't even disagree with what you are purposing....only your insistence there is a right and wrong.

He is right you know. In a legal sense that is. Stealing in legal terms involves depriving someone of a physical thing. This is actually an infringement since Apple can still use their design, that is they haven't been deprived of it.

zekopeko
August 14th, 2011, 01:31 PM
"Samsung vs Apple in Europe" for dummies



Source (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/154628/)

A little bit more background on what is happening... In a way that is more understandable...


404

Apparently for the court to grant a preliminary injunction in Germany there has to be a high probability of the court believing Apple would have prevailed in the lawsuit.

ki4jgt
August 14th, 2011, 06:20 PM
"Samsung vs Apple in Europe" for dummies



Source (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/154628/)

A little bit more background on what is happening... In a way that is more understandable...


404

But you're forgetting the halt in sales. If Apple wanted to halt sales, then all they have to do is claim copyright?

And definitions are always spotty at best. I can go to one dictionary and find a definition, and find a totally different definition in another dictionary. Stealing at it's basic form is taking something that doesn't belong to you. It doesn't even hinge on the idea that it has to be tangible. Ever heard of the phrase "stealing the show"? It's just taking something that wasn't given to you, without permission. So technically, if the law says you own an idea then legally, you are stealing.
Personally, I believe ideas aren't copyrightable, but the expression of those ideas are, and rightfully should be.

Example: If you come up with the idea for a brand new operating system which is designed completely for privacy and a company steals the idea. They should have to give you credit. It was your idea. It was you who spent your brain power on the idea when you could've been doing something else.

PhillyPhil
August 15th, 2011, 04:48 AM
Your narrowly alluding to a definition that everyone in every culture can only have a sense of.

Certainly am not. "stealing" is defined for a language, not a culture, and yes, it has a narrow definition.



I wouldn't admit that in a discussion such as this.
Values are irrelevant to the definition of stealing.


Only as you see it....if everyone chimed in on this.....on this board there would be as many definitions of stealing as posters. I don't even disagree with what you are purposing....only your insistence there is a right and wrong.

Opinions are not definitions.
There is a definition, and so use outside the definition is wrong.

Merk42
August 15th, 2011, 05:43 AM
Stealing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing)
intransitive verb

: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
: to steal or attempt to steal a base

transitive verb


: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>
: to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty>
: to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss>
: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>


: to move, convey, or introduce secretly : smuggle
: to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>


: to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election>
of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

PhillyPhil
August 15th, 2011, 05:51 AM
Stealing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing)
intransitive verb

: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

Correct. If you haven't taken it, you haven't stolen it. If it's still in the owner's possession you haven't taken it.

Merk42
August 15th, 2011, 05:55 AM
take (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/take)
to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control

PhillyPhil
August 15th, 2011, 06:11 AM
or: Take - to transfer into one's own keeping

The merriam-webster isn't going hold water in a court.

Courtesy of Wikipedia (theft):

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

It's no coincidence that file sharers taken to court are NOT charged with theft/larceny/etc.

ki4jgt
August 15th, 2011, 06:25 AM
Reference post #79. The concept of stealing is definable only as taking something which does not belong to you, without permission. This is the basic idea. Definitions must be kept very general, yet honed in. If not, then you get all kinds of technicalities. Never the less, the legal system gets to decide what you own. It decides what is rightfully yours, so it gets to decide what is stealing.

Also, An idea is something. If you steal the show/spotlight, you are not literally taking anything. Yet, you are still stealing. At least that's what they teach us in English class. Person, place, or thing. Ideas fall under the thing category, therefore, they are some. . . thing. Though ideas can not be patented, the expression of those ideas can be. The expression of those ideas take a physical tangible form. If you want the idea for yourself. Express it in a different manner/form.

PhillyPhil
August 15th, 2011, 06:32 AM
Reference post #79. The concept of stealing is definable only as taking something which does not belong to you, without permission. This is the basic idea. Definitions must be kept very general, yet honed in. If not, then you get all kinds of technicalities. Never the less, the legal system gets to decide what you own. It decides what is rightfully yours, so it gets to decide what is stealing.
"Stealing the show" is an idiom, it doesn't use 'steal' literally.


Though ideas can not be patented, the expression of those ideas can be. The expression of those ideas take a physical tangible form. If you want the idea for yourself. Express it in a different manner/form.

You can patent inventions, not expressions (or ideas, obviously).

jtarin
August 15th, 2011, 07:36 AM
or: Take - to transfer into one's own keeping

The merriam-webster isn't going hold water in a court.

Courtesy of Wikipedia (theft):

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

It's no coincidence that file sharers taken to court are NOT charged with theft/larceny/etc.

Gee! Judge...I accidentally stole it. I was going to give it back when I was through with it.:lolflag:

PhillyPhil
August 15th, 2011, 08:01 AM
Aristotle
(384—322 B.C.)

It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims.
1. I didn't utter any maxims.
2. I suspect I'm considerably older (decades) than you think.


Gee! Judge...I accidentally stole it. I was going to give it back when I was through with it.:lolflag:

No idea what this is about, but it isn't about the definition of stealing.

beew
August 15th, 2011, 08:32 AM
You can't steal something unless it is legally recognised as ownable. If the law doesn't allow ownership of say, mathematical theorems, that they cannot be stolen. Now plagerism is a different matter, it has to do with acknowledgement, not ownership. On the other hand if the law says that one can own air, then it will be stealing if you breath without paying the person or entity that owns the air. So accusation of "stealing" in and of itself merely says that a law has been broken, it doesn't say anything about the moral foundation of the law itself.

KiwiNZ
August 15th, 2011, 09:47 AM
Off topic posts removed. Please stay on topic

Merk42
August 15th, 2011, 02:58 PM
or: Take - to transfer into one's own keeping

The merriam-webster isn't going hold water in a court.

Courtesy of Wikipedia (theft):

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

It's no coincidence that file sharers taken to court are NOT charged with theft/larceny/etc.

I thought we were defining stealing not theft?

cprofitt
August 15th, 2011, 04:04 PM
Regardless of the 'word' or the 'meaning' the issue is really about Apple using a patent to stifle competition.

There are two questions:

1. Are patents a 'good' thing in the tech industry? (ie., do they protect the little guy and allow for innovation, or do they inhibit innovation.)

2. Is this particular patent overly broad? (ie., patents serve a purpose when they are no so loosely constructed as to allow people to patent a general shape or concept.)

That is really the subject, not the debate on syntax.

dniMretsaM
August 15th, 2011, 06:24 PM
Regardless of the 'word' or the 'meaning' the issue is really about Apple using a patent to stifle competition.

There are two questions:

1. Are patents a 'good' thing in the tech industry? (ie., do they protect the little guy and allow for innovation, or do they inhibit innovation.)

2. Is this particular patent overly broad? (ie., patents serve a purpose when they are no so loosely constructed as to allow people to patent a general shape or concept.)

That is really the subject, not the debate on syntax.

1) Yes, if patents are used in the way they were originally intended, they are good in the tech world (hardware, not software. software patents are another story).

2) Yes, very! Patents were to be for specific things, not a rectangle with a headphone jack.

ki4jgt
August 15th, 2011, 06:24 PM
"Stealing the show" is an idiom, it doesn't use 'steal' literally.



You can patent inventions, not expressions (or ideas, obviously).

According to English grammar, the show is something b/c it's a person place or thing. So, it can also be stolen.

I like to think of idioms as a little less literal. Like rocking your world. You can't literally rock someone's world without rocking your own. However, stealing a show is possible. It involves everyone in and watching the show. It's a thing and it belongs to someone for a limited time.

EDIT: The argument that stealing can be defined differently, is valid to the conversation, but it's pretty much defined the same everywhere, thus it's invalid. The real problem is not how you define stealing (same everywhere) it's how you define what gets stolen. IE. . . Can an idea be owned. If so, then it can be stolen. The law decides what is owned. Therefore, the law decides what can be stolen. If you want to pick something, don't try to disprove a definition which has been around for decades. Try to disprove the validity of a law, which decides who owns what.

dniMretsaM
August 15th, 2011, 06:36 PM
EDIT: The argument that stealing can be defined differently, is valid to the conversation, but it's pretty much defined the same everywhere, thus it's invalid. The real problem is not how you define stealing (same everywhere) it's how you define what gets stolen. IE. . . Can an idea be owned. If so, then it can be stolen. The law decides what is owned. Therefore, the law decides what can be stolen. If you want to pick something, don't try to disprove a definition which has been around for decades. Try to disprove the validity of a law, which decides who owns what.

In my opinion, ideas can not be owned.

ki4jgt
August 15th, 2011, 07:09 PM
In my opinion, ideas can not be owned.

Now the next question: Can expression of ideas (not the idea itself) be owned? If so, how vague can those concepts be? If you write a book on the idea, your book can be owned. The idea of your book, came from you, and the way you expressed the idea came from you. Someone else may get the idea, but they can NEVER IN 1000 YEARS express it the same way you did.

If you express an idea, and someone comes along and works with that idea, how do you make your money?

Example: You start a lawn mowing/lawn care company. You take pride in your client's lawns. You kill the weeds. You develop a special blend of mulch which will allow their plants to grow 10 times faster, and be fully matured.

Bob, who has 200 clients already (he has a chain of lawn care services) decides after seeing how prideful you are, he wants to start showing pride too. He soon realizes, that his clients' plants still aren't growing as fast as your clients'. He decides to steal some of your mulch, and analyze it. Then starts using it with all his clients. Because Bob has a bigger operation, he can afford even more billboards than you can. Therefore, because he's in every aspect of his customer's lives, they begin to trust him more than you. . . 90% of your customer base leave you, for Bob.

Should you be able to patent the pride for your customer's lawns? No, pride is too general of a concept. It is felt by every human being at one time or another. Should you be able to patent your mulch which you broke your back developing? IMH(UMBLE)O, Yes. Bob stole your customers away from you, b/c you had nothing to offer them. Bob, had everything to offer them. Trust, Brand Name, and YOUR mulch.

Of course, this is all my Humble opinion.

EDIT: However, if Bob comes along behind you and says, OK, this plant needs these nutrients to accomplish this, and developed a formula close to yours, he has expressed the idea in a totally different manner and has allowed the plants to get the same nutrients.

dniMretsaM
August 15th, 2011, 07:49 PM
Now the next question: Can expression of ideas (not the idea itself) be owned? If so, how vague can those concepts be? If you write a book on the idea, your book can be owned. The idea of your book, came from you, and the way you expressed the idea came from you. Someone else may get the idea, but they can NEVER IN 1000 YEARS express it the same way you did.

If you express an idea, and someone comes along and works with that idea, how do you make your money?

Example: You start a lawn mowing/lawn care company. You take pride in your client's lawns. You kill the weeds. You develop a special blend of mulch which will allow their plants to grow 10 times faster, and be fully matured.

Bob, who has 200 clients already (he has a chain of lawn care services) decides after seeing how prideful you are, he wants to start showing pride too. He soon realizes, that his clients' plants still aren't growing as fast as your clients'. He decides to steal some of your mulch, and analyze it. Then starts using it with all his clients. Because Bob has a bigger operation, he can afford even more billboards than you can. Therefore, because he's in every aspect of his customer's lives, they begin to trust him more than you. . . 90% of your customer base leave you, for Bob.

Should you be able to patent the pride for your customer's lawns? No, pride is too general of a concept. It is felt by every human being at one time or another. Should you be able to patent your mulch which you broke your back developing? IMH(UMBLE)O, Yes. Bob stole your customers away from you, b/c you had nothing to offer them. Bob, had everything to offer them. Trust, Brand Name, and YOUR mulch.

Of course, this is all my Humble opinion.

EDIT: However, if Bob comes along behind you and says, OK, this plant needs these nutrients to accomplish this, and developed a formula close to yours, he has expressed the idea in a totally different manner and has allowed the plants to get the same nutrients.

From what I understand, if Bob steals the mulch from me and starts making/using it, that's stealing the expression (which is patentable). If he knows that a plant needs X to grow and makes his own mulch, that's fine. Because the Idea is plants need x to grow, the expression of the idea is the mulch. That's how I see this example.

ki4jgt
August 15th, 2011, 10:50 PM
From what I understand, if Bob steals the mulch from me and starts making/using it, that's stealing the expression (which is patentable). If he knows that a plant needs X to grow and makes his own mulch, that's fine. Because the Idea is plants need x to grow, the expression of the idea is the mulch. That's how I see this example.

That's exactly what I meant. Patent laws should not be setup to cover broad ideas, but should allow non broad ideas to be patented.

PhillyPhil
August 16th, 2011, 12:41 AM
I thought we were defining stealing not theft?
Do you know the definition of theft? Refer to your favourite online dictionary: "the act of stealing"


According to English grammar, the show is something b/c it's a person place or thing. So, it can also be stolen.
No, a show cannot literally be stolen.
In fact it doesn't even have a person in possession of it to steal it from.


Can an idea be owned. If so, then it can be stolen. The law decides what is owned. Therefore, the law decides what can be stolen. If you want to pick something, don't try to disprove a definition which has been around for decades. Try to disprove the validity of a law, which decides who owns what.
Ideas cannot be owned, or protected by law. Copyright and patents both deliberately exclude ideas from protection.



Now the next question: Can (a specific) expression of ideas (not the idea itself) be owned?
Yes, this is the purpose of copyright (patents are for inventions, not expressions).
(Bold words by me)



Should you be able to patent the pride for your customer's lawns? No, pride is too general of a concept. It is felt by every human being at one time or another. Should you be able to patent your mulch which you broke your back developing? IMH(UMBLE)O, Yes. Bob stole your customers away from you, b/c you had nothing to offer them. Bob, had everything to offer them. Trust, Brand Name, and YOUR mulch.
Yes, you should be able to patent it. (Bob stealing your customers is irrelevant to this)



EDIT: However, if Bob comes along behind you and says, OK, this plant needs these nutrients to accomplish this, and developed a formula close to yours, he has expressed the idea in a totally different manner and has allowed the plants to get the same nutrients.
Right. You have no rights to the idea of a special mulch.
Of course, if you act like most companies do these days you would sue him anyway.

ki4jgt
August 16th, 2011, 01:39 AM
Do you know the definition of theft? Refer to your favourite online dictionary: "the act of stealing"


No, a show cannot literally be stolen.
In fact it doesn't even have a person in possession of it to steal it from.


Ideas cannot be owned, or protected by law. Copyright and patents both deliberately exclude ideas from protection.



Yes, this is the purpose of copyright (patents are for inventions, not expressions).
(Bold words by me)



Yes, you should be able to patent it. (Bob stealing your customers is irrelevant to this)



Right. You have no rights to the idea of a special mulch.
Of course, if you act like most companies do these days you would sue him anyway.

All agreed except for the show not being able to be stolen part. . . it takes up time. It takes up space. It interacts with the audience. If you put on a sad show, your audience will cry. If you put on a happy show, your audience will laugh. It has characteristics all it's own. If your show is interrupted by another actor who walks in and says that there's a bomb in the theater, the audience will act another way. They're stealing the attention of your audience, which your audience gave to you for however long the show is to go on. That, is the show. The audience did not give their attention to him. He took it, but I guess we can both agree to disagree on this issue.

PhillyPhil
August 16th, 2011, 01:43 AM
All agreed except for the show not being able to be stolen part. . . it takes up time. It takes up space. It interacts with the audience. If you put on a sad show, your audience will cry. If you put on a happy show, your audience will laugh. It has characteristics all it's own. If your show is interrupted by another actor who walks in and says that there's a bomb in the theater, the audience will act another way. They're stealing the attention of your audience, which your audience gave to you for however long the show is to go on. That, is the show. The audience did not give their attention to him. He took it, but I guess we can both agree to disagree on this issue.
You don't *literally* steal it. What you actually do is draw the bulk of the attention to yourself with a great performance.

ki4jgt
August 16th, 2011, 02:51 AM
Without permission. Although it could be argued that the audience has willingly given you their attention. Sorry, but I still believe it to be a literal phrase. Just gonna have to agree to disagree here. In my mind anything is able to be stolen. In yours, only tangible things.

dniMretsaM
August 16th, 2011, 04:22 PM
Although it could be argued that the audience has willingly given you their attention.

You kind of just ruined your own argument there. As I see it, the audience has their attention and is free to /give/ it to anybody they like. Just because they decide to give it to Josh instead of Jake doesn't mean Josh stole anything from Jake. It was given to him willingly and thus was not stolen.

Ozor Mox
August 16th, 2011, 05:31 PM
Did Apple fake some of the evidence that led to the injunction?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14542200

neu5eeCh
August 16th, 2011, 05:48 PM
jay-Zus-uh! Is it really that simple?

I have got to get off my lazy behind, get me a #2 pencil, sharpen it, and draw every possible geometric shape I can think of (with screen), then send them all off to be patented. You laugh. Go ahead. Sneer. Dismiss me.

I will hastily draw controllers, mice, dogs, rabbits, and call them electronic devices. I will draw and patent until my little toe cramps. My patent portfolio will be biblical.

Call me mad.

But I will own all of you. Mark my words.

All. Of. You.

HappinessNow
August 16th, 2011, 10:42 PM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.spoken like a true Apple stock owner.

In other news, Apple has joined with Microsoft to openly attack Google by forming a consortium to buy up other companies for there patents.

NO THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER! THERE IS NO INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT HERE! THIS IS BLATANT PATENT ABUSE AND MISUSE! AND KILLING ANY TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION THAT WOULD INEVITABLE BE GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER!

Apple and Microsoft in bed together is nothing new, Microsoft invested in Apple very early on.

The best thing any consumer can do is Boycott both Apple and Microsoft and ban buying any new products from either one of them.

KiwiNZ
August 16th, 2011, 10:45 PM
spoken like a true Apple stock owner.

In other news, Apple has joined with Microsoft to openly attack Google by forming a consortium to buy up other companies for there patents.

NO THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER! THERE IS NO INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT HERE! THIS IS BLATANT PATENT ABUSE AND MISUSE! AND KILLING ANY TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION THAT WOULD INEVITABLE BE GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER!

Apple and Microsoft in bed together is nothing new, Microsoft invested in Apple very early on.

The best thing any consumer can do is Boycott both Apple and Microsoft and ban buying any new products from either one of them.

I sold my Apple stocks

HappinessNow
August 16th, 2011, 10:48 PM
I have a gut feeling that Apple will take over the world...That would be a sad day since Apple makes it's profits off the backs of Chinese Slave-like labor, where people are killing themselves to get out.

Steve Jobs is one the biggest Human Rights violators in the world and belongs in prison.

People who support Apple are simply inauthentic and have blood on there hands.

HappinessNow
August 16th, 2011, 10:49 PM
I sold my Apple stocksGood to hear, I hope you got a decent profit for them.

KiwiNZ
August 16th, 2011, 10:56 PM
That would be a sad day since Apple makes it's profits off the backs of Chinese Slave-like labor, where people are killing themselves to get out.

Steve Jobs is one the biggest Human Rights violators in the world and belongs in prison.

People who support Apple are simply inauthentic and have blood on there hands.

You would be hard pressed to find any TV, Stereo, Computer, Microwave, ............ that does not have Chinese components.

If the "West" stopped purchasing these those workers would be worse off. An income of $10,000 is a lot better than zero income.

KiwiNZ
August 16th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Good to hear, I hope you got a decent profit for them.

I only had a relatively small holding

beew
August 16th, 2011, 11:04 PM
If the "West" stopped purchasing these those workers would be worse off. An income of $10,000 is a lot better than zero income.

Same argument can be used for slavery, child labour and sex tourism.

Thewhistlingwind
August 16th, 2011, 11:10 PM
Same argument can be used for slavery, child labour and sex tourism.

Obviously one must weigh the utility value of the money versus the damage(s) incurred performing the job. (Emotional, physical, etc.)

Of course, theres other factors too, like voluntary versus involuntary work.

KiwiNZ
August 16th, 2011, 11:20 PM
Same argument can be used for slavery, child labour and sex tourism.


So I take it you don't own any post 1970's electrical goods, car, clothing.

beew
August 16th, 2011, 11:55 PM
So I take it you don't own any post 1970's electrical goods, car, clothing.

But I wouldn't pretend that I am performing a charity and try to rationalize it as such, that is just despicable. I would rather see some international labour standard being enforced.

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2011, 12:13 AM
But I wouldn't pretend that I am performing a charity and try to rationalize it as such, that is just despicable. I would rather see some international labour standard being enforced.

Salaries are increasing in China at around 20% per annum. If salaries increase to fast competitiveness is lost and workers will lose their incomes as jobs losses will occur.

beew
August 17th, 2011, 12:16 AM
Salaries are increasing in China at around 20% per annum. If salaries increase to fast competitiveness is lost and workers will lose their incomes as jobs losses will occur.

Salaries (and profit) for SOME people are growing fast and you are saying the solution is to suppress the lowest income groups to maintain "competitiveness"? What for?

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2011, 12:24 AM
Salaries (and profit) for SOME people are growing fast and you are saying the solution is to suppress the lowest income groups to maintain "competitiveness"? What for?

No I am not. What I am saying is great care needs to be taken with the process or the Chinese economy will be damaged creating far greater hardship for the more vulnerable.

What they do not need is interference from western do gooders with little knowledge of economics.

beew
August 17th, 2011, 12:32 AM
No I am not. What I am saying is great care needs to be taken with the process or the Chinese economy will be damaged creating far greater hardship for the more vulnerable.

What they do not need is interference from western do gooders with little knowledge of economics.

Well the Westerners(should say Westerners with money and clout) don't hesitate to interfere when it is in their interest (like WTO requirements which proctect the interests of Western companies at the expense of local economies, e.g. farmers) but when it comes to labour and human rights stuffs the opinions of the corporate types is that the status quo apparently is the best of all universes, of course without a shred of evidence.

I see that kind of double speak enough even in the West, I am sure many would too if they pay attentions (like how minimal wage would hurt the working poor, all based on sophistry and pseudoscience if you strip apart the rhetoric) so you don't have to be a China expert to see something is wrong. BTW, I am from China so I do know a bit bout its economics and other stuffs.

BTW Whatever you do it is "interference" unless you completely isolate China and ignore its existence, so "non interference" is unattainable. So why single out only interference from "do gooders"? Presumably "do badders" are OK then?

rich52x
August 17th, 2011, 12:55 AM
So they've pretty much claimed ownership of the idea of the 10 inch tablet.

Great

falonyn
August 17th, 2011, 01:32 AM
This is the free market in all its Darwinian glory. This is what happens when you're allowed to claim property of an intellectual process. This is what happens when information isn't Free.

This isn't good for the consumer, it isn't good for the market and it isn't good for science. It's suppressing innovation on all fronts, for the sole purpose of inflating Apple's (and all the other corporations' who pull this kind of crap) giant piles of cash.


Isn't this the opposite of the free market? Last I checked, patent laws come as sort of regulations from the government. And If I am correct, that would then be something that is restricting the free market. Besides, the markets in Europe are much more regulated than in the U.S.

I agree. This is why I agree with my brother when he says that Apple is a lot less innovative and a lot more sue happy. I read this story and wonder how it is that the EU can seriously rule that this design is too close?

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e498bd369beddfe17000017/doctored-galaxy-tab-photo.jpg

falonyn
August 17th, 2011, 01:49 AM
You would be hard pressed to find any TV, Stereo, Computer, Microwave, ............ that does not have Chinese components.

If the "West" stopped purchasing these those workers would be worse off. An income of $10,000 is a lot better than zero income.

In addition, the financial and working situations these Chinese people find themselves in are usually better than the destitute, agrarian situations they were in before. One can blame the company that relocates to a country like China for cheap labor, but look at the converse. There is very little manufacturing here in the U.S. There is a higher cost because we do not allow for the mining of the "rare earth" materials that are needed to construct high tech products, and because we have the second highest corporate tax rate on the globe. This is in addition to labor unions that increase the wages and benefits of workers, and a poor education system.

I agree, don't blame apple for that, and don't feel super sorry for the workers. Technically, they are better off than they were. Otherwise I don't think they would choose to go work in those factories.

zekopeko
August 17th, 2011, 01:58 AM
Isn't this the opposite of the free market? Last I checked, patent laws come as sort of regulations from the government. And If I am correct, that would then be something that is restricting the free market. Besides, the markets in Europe are much more regulated than in the U.S.

I agree. This is why I agree with my brother when he says that Apple is a lot less innovative and a lot more sue happy. I read this story and wonder how it is that the EU can seriously rule that this design is too close?

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e498bd369beddfe17000017/doctored-galaxy-tab-photo.jpg

You are comparing the iPad2 to Galaxy Tab 10.1.

You should be comparing the iPad1 to Galaxy Tab 10.1.

EDIT: Just read the complaint. Apple is comparing the iPad2 with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 but they could have compared it to iPad1 since it has a metal bezel as does the Tab from the photos.

ki4jgt
August 17th, 2011, 04:03 AM
In other news; I'm getting an Archos tablet.

falonyn
August 17th, 2011, 04:41 AM
You are comparing the iPad2 to Galaxy Tab 10.1.

You should be comparing the iPad1 to Galaxy Tab 10.1.

EDIT: Just read the complaint. Apple is comparing the iPad2 with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 but they could have compared it to iPad1 since it has a metal bezel as does the Tab from the photos.

I merely grabbed an image from a google search. But you are correct. Though I think a physical design problem verse an OS copy is a huge difference.

jtarin
August 18th, 2011, 12:14 AM
Another Apple difficulty. (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/south-korean-consumers-band-together-to-sue-apple/55254?tag=nl.e550)

akand074
August 18th, 2011, 02:08 AM
I don't know if it's been mentioned here before. But HTC has fired back with suing Apple for infringing 3 patents that don't just include iOS/iPhone but Macs too. Let me see if I can find a article on it... here (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20092936-94/htc-sues-apple-again/).

coolglobal
August 18th, 2011, 02:17 AM
indeed... reap what you sow

Dr. C
August 25th, 2011, 12:21 AM
There is an interesting claim of prior art on the part of Samsung. FOSS Patents: Samsung cites Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' movie as prior art against iPad design patent (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-cites-stanley-kubricks-2001.html).

whiskeylover
August 29th, 2011, 02:25 PM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.

This is the best example of patent abuse there is. There is no justifying it... even if you're a mod, I'm sorry.

aysiu
August 29th, 2011, 02:53 PM
It doesn't take that much "R&D" to come up with most of the ridiculous software patents out there. These ideas are not original. The implementations may be good, but a big screen with some icons and a thin border... not terribly original or creative.

zekopeko
August 29th, 2011, 05:35 PM
It doesn't take that much "R&D" to come up with most of the ridiculous software patents out there. These ideas are not original. The implementations may be good, but a big screen with some icons and a thin border... not terribly original or creative.

If we are talking about the Germany case AFAIK there are no "software" patents there. Apple is enforcing community design aka design patent (as known in the US).

Apple's registered design might be broad but Apple isn't suing them simply because of that design but is actually trying to show how Samsung copied the design of iPad2.

Here is what the judge from that case said (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/apple-s-samsung-tablet-ban-may-be-limited-to-germany-judge-says.html):


“In the court’s view, Apple has a case to keep” the German ban, Brueckner-Hofmann said at the hearing today. “There are a lot of alternative ways to design a tablet device, as the market amply shows. We think Apple’s EU design rights grant a medium range of protection, if not a broad one.”

johnnybgoode83
August 29th, 2011, 06:01 PM
The design of tablet devices are always going to be similar (or is that just me?). The only real differences are going to be in the individual specs and software installed on them.

zekopeko
August 29th, 2011, 07:26 PM
The design of tablet devices are always going to be similar (or is that just me?). The only real differences are going to be in the individual specs and software installed on them.

Considering how many tablets are hitting the market I would say there is plenty of space to differentiate on design.

Merk42
August 29th, 2011, 07:35 PM
Considering how many tablets are hitting the market I would say there is plenty of space to differentiate on design.Is there a tablet that isn't black, with beveled edges and glass that extends past the screen so as to be flush across the device?

BlacqWolf
August 29th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I heard that Apple also sued Samsung for having tablets with round corners.

disabledaccount
August 29th, 2011, 07:37 PM
Considering how many tablets are hitting the market I would say there is plenty of space to differentiate on design.
It's not that simple. It's like someone would draw a box with 4 circles - and put restricions on developing "boxes with 4 wheels" - cars. Tablet is supposed to be flat surface with screen taking as much area as possible - what would You change to avoid infringement of Apple's "patent"?


I heard that Apple also sued Samsung for having tablets with round corners.
:LOL: ... and what corner radius is supposed to be Apple's patented idea? If any, I would like to know how much time and money they have spent to "develop" such "innovative" corner :LOL:

zekopeko
August 29th, 2011, 07:59 PM
Is there a tablet that isn't black, with beveled edges and glass that extends past the screen so as to be flush across the device?

When you put it that broadly it would be hard to not infringe on that. Then again every current smartphone has a speaker on the top, screen in the middle and usually buttons below. All this with round corners and yet they still manage to make them sufficiently different.


I heard that Apple also sued Samsung for having tablets with round corners.

They sued them for copying the iPad2 on various grounds. If the case was as simple as "tablets with round corners" the German court wouldn't uphold the preliminary injunction.


It's not that simple. It's like someone would draw a box with 4 circles - and put restricions on developing "boxes with 4 wheels" - cars. Tablet is supposed to be flat surface with screen taking as much area as possible - what would You change to avoid infringement of Apple's "patent"?

It's silly to make such broad analogies. The current lawsuit exists in a context. Apple is accusing Samsung of copying iPad2's design. This include the entire look of the device, how it is packaged, how the packaging looks etc. It's not only about the registered design (which is rather broad).

The court doesn't just go and look at round corners and says "aha an infringement!". It looks at the entire device, the general look and feel of the device, how Samsung is packaging the device etc.

The community design Apple has does look rather broad and I doubt that the court would find every single tablet out there to be infringing. But when you take the iPad2, the design, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 you start seeing similarities.

KiwiNZ
August 29th, 2011, 08:00 PM
This is the best example of patent abuse there is. There is no justifying it... even if you're a mod, I'm sorry.

So, an inventor is not allowed a return on investment?:rolleyes:

BlacqWolf
August 29th, 2011, 08:08 PM
They sued them for copying the iPad2 on various grounds. If the case was as simple as "tablets with round corners" the German court wouldn't uphold the preliminary injunction.


I know, but I found it being one of their specific reasons to be round corners to be very funny.

Merk42
August 29th, 2011, 08:20 PM
When you put it that broadly it would be hard to not infringe on that. Then again every current smartphone has a speaker on the top, screen in the middle and usually buttons below. All this with round corners and yet they still manage to make them sufficiently different.Isn't that the design patent Apple is arguing?

dniMretsaM
August 29th, 2011, 08:50 PM
When you put it that broadly it would be hard to not infringe on that. Then again every current smartphone has a speaker on the top, screen in the middle and usually buttons below. All this with round corners and yet they still manage to make them sufficiently different.



They sued them for copying the iPad2 on various grounds. If the case was as simple as "tablets with round corners" the German court wouldn't uphold the preliminary injunction.



It's silly to make such broad analogies. The current lawsuit exists in a context. Apple is accusing Samsung of copying iPad2's design. This include the entire look of the device, how it is packaged, how the packaging looks etc. It's not only about the registered design (which is rather broad).

The court doesn't just go and look at round corners and says "aha an infringement!". It looks at the entire device, the general look and feel of the device, how Samsung is packaging the device etc.

The community design Apple has does look rather broad and I doubt that the court would find every single tablet out there to be infringing. But when you take the iPad2, the design, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 you start seeing similarities.

In my opinion, some of this is why patents today are ridiculous. The packaging? I mean really? Who cares what kind of box it's in. And anyway, if you look at the Galaxy Tab box and the iPad 2 box, they are different. Size, orientation, amount of decoration, etc. The feel of the device is also different. The size of the GT10.1 tablet is different. It's taller and thinner. To me, that gives it a much different feel as well as various other things (like the fact that there is no button whereas the iPad has the Apple signature "home" button).

zekopeko
August 29th, 2011, 10:49 PM
In my opinion, some of this is why patents today are ridiculous. The packaging? I mean really? Who cares what kind of box it's in.

I never said that packaging was covered via patents. That is covered via trade dress IIRC. Apple cares about packaging because Samsung's is pretty similar to iPad2's. Especially when you open the box. The placement of the device is virtually the same.


And anyway, if you look at the Galaxy Tab box and the iPad 2 box, they are different. Size, orientation, amount of decoration, etc. The feel of the device is also different. The size of the GT10.1 tablet is different. It's taller and thinner. To me, that gives it a much different feel as well as various other things (like the fact that there is no button whereas the iPad has the Apple signature "home" button).

The judge doesn't agree with you. IIRC the Galaxy Tab was going to look different before Apple released iPad2. After the release of iPad2 Samsung's CEO (or some executive) said publicly they will have to redesign the Tab.

zekopeko
August 29th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Isn't that the design patent Apple is arguing?

Apple is arguing the design in conjunction with an actual product, iPad2.

AFAIK the purpose of protecting design is to avoid customer confusion and your competitors getting a free ride on your marketing.

IANAL but I think that if Apple went only with the design in court (without an actual product they ship) the court would just throw the lawsuit out.

I quoted the judge who said that there are plenty of alternate tablet designs on the market. That means the judge thinks there are tablet designs that aren't infringing Apple's design. So apparently the design in question isn't being viewed simply as a flat slab with round corners which pretty much every tablet is going to infringe.

dniMretsaM
August 30th, 2011, 02:35 AM
I never said that packaging was covered via patents. That is covered via trade dress IIRC. Apple cares about packaging because Samsung's is pretty similar to iPad2's. Especially when you open the box. The placement of the device is virtually the same.

Ok, even if it's not covered by patents. The placement of the device inside the package should not matter. That's ridiculous. I want my device to be safe in the package, If it's in the same spot inside the package, it's is good for the consumer and it doesn't affect the company that is selling the product at all.


The judge doesn't agree with you.

Obviously.


IIRC the Galaxy Tab was going to look different before Apple released iPad2. After the release of iPad2 Samsung's CEO (or some executive) said publicly they will have to redesign the Tab.

So? Just because they changed it to look more like the iPad doesn't mean they were infringing. It just means they were looking to use the best design (which, in my opinion, is still not that close to the iPad).

jasonrisenburg
August 30th, 2011, 02:42 AM
In my opinion at least windows has enough money to fight them in court. Im not a mac or really a windows fan. I want a tablet and I want to put ubuntu (when I can afford this fictitious tablet...lol) on it.

PhillyPhil
August 30th, 2011, 03:31 AM
Especially when you open the box. The placement of the device is virtually the same.
O no, hang them all from the nearest tree.




After the release of iPad2 Samsung's CEO (or some executive) said publicly they will have to redesign the Tab.

Apple is undisputed market leader here - it's no surprise at all to see competitors reacting to every Apple move.

whiskeylover
August 30th, 2011, 02:38 PM
This is the best example of patent abuse there is. There is no justifying it... even if you're a mod, I'm sorry.



So, an inventor is not allowed a return on investment?:rolleyes:



You're putting words in my mouth. I was clearly referring to Apple pushing the limits of the patent system to the verge of abuse.

If you think that the rectangular box with a glass screen is patent-able, then you're clearly not thinking without bias.

rg4w
August 30th, 2011, 03:47 PM
Scorecard from the Dutch court:

http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/dutch-court.jpg
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/08/dutch-court-says-no-infringement-of-9-out-of-10-ip-rights/

Merk42
August 30th, 2011, 04:42 PM
Scorecard from the Dutch court:

http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/dutch-court.jpg
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/08/dutch-court-says-no-infringement-of-9-out-of-10-ip-rights/
See that first one? Major win for Apple protecting its heavily researched IP</fanboi> (no really look at the majority of articles about this. They focus on the one 'win' and not the 10 'losses').

In reality Samsung will just remove the Photo Flicking/Bouncing from its Gallery or just use Android's default Gallery in an update they'll roll out long before October (the actual court date).

Roasted
August 30th, 2011, 05:59 PM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.

I'm not sure I fully understand your angle. Are you indicating you think Apple is right in what they are doing? If so, absolutely disagree, as there is literally zero doubt the degree in which they take these law suits hinders innovation in every way shape and form.

On the flip side, I get it. You make a product/idea/whatever and you want to protect it. But Apple's law suits they keep firing up are way over the top and extremely questionable. It makes about as much sense as Ford suing Chevy for making a similar 4 wheeled competing vehicle.

Oh wait, Ford never did that.

KiwiNZ
August 30th, 2011, 08:19 PM
I'm not sure I fully understand your angle. Are you indicating you think Apple is right in what they are doing? If so, absolutely disagree, as there is literally zero doubt the degree in which they take these law suits hinders innovation in every way shape and form.

On the flip side, I get it. You make a product/idea/whatever and you want to protect it. But Apple's law suits they keep firing up are way over the top and extremely questionable. It makes about as much sense as Ford suing Chevy for making a similar 4 wheeled competing vehicle.

Oh wait, Ford never did that.

In order to keep a Patent they must defend a Patent.

snip3r8
August 30th, 2011, 08:42 PM
The thing here is that samsung make the hardware for the ipad for Apple.The fact that samsung just slapped on their logo and android and sold it as the galaxy tab ticked Apple off and im sure it would tick anyone off.

How would you feel if you hired someone to make something for you and they stuck their name on it and sold it for their own profit?

Merk42
August 30th, 2011, 09:10 PM
The thing here is that samsung make the hardware for the ipad for Apple.The fact that samsung just slapped on their logo and android and sold it as the galaxy tab ticked Apple off and im sure it would tick anyone off.

How would you feel if you hired someone to make something for you and they stuck their name on it and sold it for their own profit?
Hhaha, no.

Samsung only makes the processor, Foxconn makes most of the iPad.

zekopeko
August 30th, 2011, 09:26 PM
In order to keep a Patent they must defend a Patent.

Not true. You are talking about trademarks.

KiwiNZ
August 30th, 2011, 09:39 PM
Not true. You are talking about trademarks.

I am not talking , "legally" lose it, I am talking that if they do not fight to protect their patent
they will lose the benefit and protection by virtue of the infringes being allowed to steal their ideas.

Just like if you have a break in at home and do not report the burglary to the Police or your Insurance company
the chances of recouping the loss is next to zero.

zekopeko
August 30th, 2011, 10:05 PM
I am not talking , "legally" lose it, I am talking that if they do not fight to protect their patent
they will lose the benefit and protection by virtue of the infringes being allowed to steal their ideas.

Just like if you have a break in at home and do not report the burglary to the Police or your Insurance company
the chances of recouping the loss is next to zero.

This isn't what you wrote. The patent owner can sue as long as she is holding a patent unless promises (explicit or implicit) were made.

KiwiNZ
August 30th, 2011, 10:54 PM
This isn't what you wrote. The patent owner can sue as long as she is holding a patent unless promises (explicit or implicit) were made.

Maybe it's a language thing, but what I said is what I meant in my extrapolation post.

KUU
August 31st, 2011, 12:43 AM
http://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg

PhillyPhil
August 31st, 2011, 12:54 AM
http://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg

@KUU

Love how the pre-iPads are all shown horizontally, and the post-iPads are all shown vertically, even if the images had to be rotated to be like that...;)

Not to scale.

Cherry-picked: there are literally dozens(hundreds?) of other tablets available.

So what we're talking about is the black border around modern tablets then? Really not something I think deserves legal protection.


I am not talking , "legally" lose it, I am talking that if they do not fight to protect their patent
they will lose the benefit and protection by virtue of the infringes being allowed to steal their ideas.

Just like if you have a break in at home and do not report the burglary to the Police or your Insurance company
the chances of recouping the loss is next to zero.

Google manages to benefit from their patents (and spends a couple of years profit buying more) without suing except in defense/retaliation to force cross-licencing.

spynappels
August 31st, 2011, 09:36 AM
The thing here is that samsung make the hardware for the ipad for Apple.The fact that samsung just slapped on their logo and android and sold it as the galaxy tab ticked Apple off and im sure it would tick anyone off.

How would you feel if you hired someone to make something for you and they stuck their name on it and sold it for their own profit?

Any suggestion that the Galaxy tab is a simple rip-off of the iPad is ridiculous. They are differently ratio'd rectangles, which meant Apple had to doctor the images of the Galaxy Tab in their court papers to make it look MORE like the iPad.

Like Apple products much????

jtarin
August 31st, 2011, 10:01 AM
The thing here is that samsung make the hardware for the ipad for Apple.The fact that samsung just slapped on their logo and android and sold it as the galaxy tab ticked Apple off and im sure it would tick anyone off.

How would you feel if you hired someone to make something for you and they stuck their name on it and sold it for their own profit?Slightly out of context, I think.....http://www.itnews.com.au/News/254917,apple-sues-samsung-over-ipad.aspx

zekopeko
August 31st, 2011, 12:26 PM
Any suggestion that the Galaxy tab is a simple rip-off of the iPad is ridiculous. They are differently ratio'd rectangles, which meant Apple had to doctor the images of the Galaxy Tab in their court papers to make it look MORE like the iPad.

Like Apple products much????

AFAIK different ratios don't really matter. That would mean by simply altering aspect ratios one could copy other products.

And about does supposedly doctored images: there is only one image that people are claiming has been doctored. Guess what? It is the only image using marketing material from Apple and apparently Samsung. The rest are photos of the iPad2 and the Tab made by the lawyers.

Samsung claimed in a hearing on 25th Aug. that there are 27 instances of Apple's lawyers distorting images. The judge didn't find that persuasive and still upheld the preliminary injunction in Germany.

Why? Well because it got to look at both devices first hand.

rg4w
August 31st, 2011, 02:56 PM
Hhaha, no.

Samsung only makes the processor, Foxconn makes most of the iPad.
I believe Samsung also makes the NAND flash, RAM, and some of the displays for the iPad:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/01/30/report_details_ipad_2_components_5_million_unit_su pply.html

Ironically, Apple has experienced problems with LG's manufacturing quality, requiring them to order more displays from their lawsuit target, Samsung:
http://www.edibleapple.com/quality-issues-with-lgs-ipad-displays-prompt-apple-to-turn-to-samsung/

rg4w
August 31st, 2011, 03:10 PM
Cherry-picked: there are literally dozens(hundreds?) of other tablets available.
So many Apple-centric fan sites keep posting that one highly selective image over and over that someone finally took the time to provide a bit of balance to the discussion:

rg4w
August 31st, 2011, 03:13 PM
Any suggestion that the Galaxy tab is a simple rip-off of the iPad is ridiculous. They are differently ratio'd rectangles, which meant Apple had to doctor the images of the Galaxy Tab in their court papers to make it look MORE like the iPad.
The Galaxy Tab looks far more like this Samsung product - from 2006:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/03/samsungpictureframe.jpg
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

spynappels
August 31st, 2011, 03:53 PM
AFAIK different ratios don't really matter. That would mean by simply altering aspect ratios one could copy other products.

And about does supposedly doctored images: there is only one image that people are claiming has been doctored. Guess what? It is the only image using marketing material from Apple and apparently Samsung. The rest are photos of the iPad2 and the Tab made by the lawyers.

Samsung claimed in a hearing on 25th Aug. that there are 27 instances of Apple's lawyers distorting images. The judge didn't find that persuasive and still upheld the preliminary injunction in Germany.

Why? Well because it got to look at both devices first hand.

I think it is clear that the Galaxy Tab is only the same as the iPad in the same way that a Handspring was the same as the Newton, similar form factors, but with enough differences to be a completely different product. Come on, how many different ways are there of creating a tablet like device?

This is and remains a stupid frivolous lawsuit with the only aim of stifling sales of a rival product, there is no basis for suggesting this stems from anything else.

PhillyPhil
August 31st, 2011, 04:01 PM
AFAIK different ratios don't really matter. That would mean by simply altering aspect ratios one could copy other products.

Yes, they could "copy" things by altering them. Hmm...


And about does supposedly doctored images: there is only one image that people are claiming has been doctored. Guess what? It is the only image using marketing material from Apple and apparently Samsung. The rest are photos of the iPad2 and the Tab made by the lawyers.

Er, so? They took the Samsung image, rotated it and changed the dimensions to suit. Don't see how the origin is relevant.


Samsung claimed in a hearing on 25th Aug. that there are 27 instances of Apple's lawyers distorting images. The judge didn't find that persuasive and still upheld the preliminary injunction in Germany.

Why? Well because it got to look at both devices first hand.
That doesn't mean images weren't doctored, does it?

zekopeko
August 31st, 2011, 05:44 PM
The Galaxy Tab looks far more like this Samsung product - from 2006:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

You might want to look at the filling date on Apple's design. Hint: it is way before 2006.

Not to mention that the back of this photo frame is going to be completely different to the any tablet.

zekopeko
August 31st, 2011, 05:48 PM
I think it is clear that the Galaxy Tab is only the same as the iPad in the same way that a Handspring was the same as the Newton, similar form factors, but with enough differences to be a completely different product. Come on, how many different ways are there of creating a tablet like device?

The German judge though there are plenty of other tablet designs on the market that didn't infringe iPad design.


This is and remains a stupid frivolous lawsuit with the only aim of stifling sales of a rival product, there is no basis for suggesting this stems from anything else.

You do understand that "stifling sales of a rival product" is kinda the whole point of suing somebody for copying your products?

zekopeko
August 31st, 2011, 06:01 PM
Yes, they could "copy" things by altering them. Hmm...

So if someone creates a copy of, lets say, a Macbook Air and uses a 15" 16:9 screen it wouldn't be a copy? Because they altered it by using a larger screen?

There is a threshold at what point something stops being a copy but it doesn't stop simply by making size or minor details different.



Er, so? They took the Samsung image, rotated it and changed the dimensions to suit. Don't see how the origin is relevant.

You don't see how marketing material, which has already been Photoshopped to make the product look better is relevant to accusations of doctoring the same image?



That doesn't mean images weren't doctored, does it?

Claiming images were doctored without showing originals also doesn't prove they were doctored beyond what Apple's and Samsung's marketing departments already did.

rg4w
August 31st, 2011, 06:50 PM
You might want to look at the filling date on Apple's design. Hint: it is way before 2006.
That earliest filing I could find is this one from 2004, which applies to pretty much any rectangular blob:
http://www.greatandlittle.com/ebooks/public/blowup-images/tablets/.Apple-iPad-Community-Design_m.jpg
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

That design looks nothing like either Samsung's Galaxy Tab or even Apple's iPad.

Is hashish so readily accessible in Europe that such things get awarded? What else could explain granting any official stamp to such vagary?

spynappels
August 31st, 2011, 10:17 PM
The German judge though there are plenty of other tablet designs on the market that didn't infringe iPad design.

But is that not only one person's opinion?


You do understand that "stifling sales of a rival product" is kinda the whole point of suing somebody for copying your products?

No, the point of a patent is to protect intellectual property and to allow the patent holder to get a return on investment. This is anti-competitive behaviour based on a ridiculously broad patent which is seriously flawed.

Can Apple do anything wrong in your opinion?

zekopeko
August 31st, 2011, 10:28 PM
That earliest filing I could find is this one from 2004, which applies to pretty much any rectangular blob:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

That design looks nothing like either Samsung's Galaxy Tab or even Apple's iPad.

Perhaps to you. Courts don't demand perfect reproduction of the design. There is some space for interpretation. I'm also glad that you can see that Samsung photo frame was made way later than the design in question.


Is hashish so readily accessible in Europe that such things get awarded? What else could explain granting any official stamp to such vagary?

I have no knowledge as to the accessibility of hashish in Europe nor why this design was approved.

zekopeko
August 31st, 2011, 10:41 PM
But is that not only one person's opinion?

That person is the only one qualified to make a legally binding decision in this case. You or I might not like it but that is how it is.


No, the point of a patent is to protect intellectual property and to allow the patent holder to get a return on investment.

Protecting IP and getting a ROI are possible secondary effects of a patent. The point of a patent is to encourage inventors to document publicly their invention instead of using trade secrets.


This is anti-competitive behaviour based on a ridiculously broad patent which is seriously flawed.

From Apple's view it is pro-competitive behavior since they want to force their competitor to innovate instead of copying them.


Can Apple do anything wrong in your opinion?

I agree that the design is pretty broad but it is not the only part of the lawsuit. I think that Apple has a pretty good case of trade dress violations by Samsung.

jtarin
September 1st, 2011, 04:22 AM
From Apple's view it is pro-competitive behavior since they want to force their competitor to innovate instead of copying them.
I don't think anyone seriously wants their competitor to innovate and certainly not Steve.

Roasted
September 1st, 2011, 04:31 AM
In order to keep a Patent they must defend a Patent.

Like I said, I get it. But there's only so much justification you can grant Apple before you have to sit back and think... wow... really?

Even a few sources from within the US software patent system have notated some of Apple's patents should have never been granted in the first place.

Chronon
September 1st, 2011, 06:47 AM
It is good for the consumer, if individuals or Corporations are not able to protect their creations what is the motivation to invest in research and development? R&D costs a lot of money therefore it is vital to secure interest to allow a reasonable return on the investment.

That is a fair point, but a general patent is a powerful patent. I do not think that overly general patents (like this one seems to be) should be granted.

PhillyPhil
September 1st, 2011, 11:01 AM
So if someone creates a copy of, lets say, a Macbook Air and uses a 15" 16:9 screen it wouldn't be a copy? Because they altered it by using a larger screen?

There is a threshold at what point something stops being a copy but it doesn't stop simply by making size or minor details different.

"Copy" stops being the correct term when you change something.




You don't see how marketing material, which has already been Photoshopped to make the product look better is relevant to accusations of doctoring the same image?
!? Of course not! How does the fact that Samsung may or may not have manipulated the image before hand have any bearing at all on Apple manipulating it afterwards?



Claiming images were doctored without showing originals also doesn't prove they were doctored beyond what Apple's and Samsung's marketing departments already did.

Seriously?
I'm sure you're aware that it's not possible to prove the non-existence of something. If Apple didn't alter the aspect ratio it should be a matter of extreme simplicity to point out the Samsung original with the same aspect ratio, but of course they didn't do that...

zekopeko
September 1st, 2011, 01:39 PM
"Copy" stops being the correct term when you change something.

Semantic nitpicking isn't addressing my argument.


!? Of course not! How does the fact that Samsung may or may not have manipulated the image before hand have any bearing at all on Apple manipulating it afterwards?

Because we don't know what the image looked like before. There are apparently 3 Galaxy Tab 10.1 designs floating around: the original which they didn't make but apparently showed some marketing pics, 10.1v and 10.1.



Seriously?
I'm sure you're aware that it's not possible to prove the non-existence of something. If Apple didn't alter the aspect ratio it should be a matter of extreme simplicity to point out the Samsung original with the same aspect ratio, but of course they didn't do that...

One making the claims is supposed to prove them.

rg4w
September 1st, 2011, 03:18 PM
Perhaps to you. Courts don't demand perfect reproduction of the design. There is some space for interpretation.
True, and in the Dutch court every one of Apple's device design claims was dismissed, so it seems those of us who laugh at the rectangular blob are in good company.