An effective argument?

Melab · Sep 14, 2012

Saying that Apple is suing Samsung over rectangles with rounded corners is a simplification, but it certainly defines the most prominent aspects of their claims of infringement. I came up with an experiment to determine whether Apple should have an exclusive claim to this shape. A rule for the construction of this shape is that it cannot have much added to it beyond what I specify in my instructions for its construction.

Create a rectangular prism with the dimensions 80x40x5.
With a 90º circular arc of radius 2, cut off the corners of the largest facet by aligning the arc's endpoints with the edges and have the convex side point to each corners' respective vertex.
Create a rectangle with the dimensions 60x36 centered on the surface of one of the largest facets.

Here is what the shape should look when finished.

MacDawg · Sep 14, 2012

An effective argument for what??

Melab · Sep 14, 2012

MacDawg said:
An effective argument for what??

An effective argument or effective evidence against any claim by Apple to "rectangles with round corners".

chown33 · Sep 14, 2012

MacDawg said:
An effective argument for what??

Studying geometry.

----------

Melab said:
Saying that Apple is suing Samsung over rectangles with rounded corners is a simplification, but it certainly defines the most prominent aspects of their claims of infringement.

It defines one aspect. Trade-dress infringement claims are based on combined aspects. That is, A and B and C, not just A or B or C, or any one of them in isolation.

Your statement is an over-simplification. It over-simplifies to the point of being inaccurate, and irrelevant to the actual claims and suit, IMNSHO.

Melab · Sep 19, 2012

chown33 said:
Studying geometry.

----------

It defines one aspect. Trade-dress infringement claims are based on combined aspects. That is, A and B and C, not just A or B or C, or any one of them in isolation.

Your statement is an over-simplification. It over-simplifies to the point of being inaccurate, and irrelevant to the actual claims and suit, IMNSHO.

And I maintain that the particular combination of elements that Samsung has been found to infringe on should not be exclusive to anyone at all in the first place.

It might be better for me to say that the inclusion of some features are inappropriate grounds on which a device's design warrants exclusive rights.

GoCubsGo · Sep 19, 2012

I do not think you can say that there is a possible effective argument in terms of a shape. Apple did not coin the rectangle.

Melab · Sep 19, 2012

jessica. said:
I do not think you can say that there is a possible effective argument in terms of a shape. Apple did not coin the rectangle.

Are you saying that this is an ineffective argument against Apple's exclusive rights?

roadbloc · Sep 19, 2012

Melab said:
Create a rectangular prism with the dimensions 80x40x5.

With a 90º circular arc of radius 2, cut off the corners of the largest facet by aligning the arc's endpoints with the edges and have the convex side point to each corners' respective vertex.

Create a rectangle with the dimensions 60x36 centered on the surface of one of the largest facets.

Daf**k did I just read?

Melab · Sep 19, 2012

roadbloc said:
Daf**k did I just read?

My apologies. My phraseology is affected by mathematical sentences.

chown33 · Sep 19, 2012

Melab said:
And I maintain that the particular combination of elements that Samsung has been found to infringe on should not be exclusive to anyone at all in the first place.

It might be better for me to say that the inclusion of some features are inappropriate grounds on which a device's design warrants exclusive rights.

Try writing the "mathematical sentences" for the Coca-Cola "swirl", or the Nike "swoosh", or the Adidas "three bands". Does the fact that you can write such sentences mean that the resulting shape can't be trademarked or receive a design patent, especially in combination with other elements, such as colors, words, or a field of use?

There are any number of other corporate logos, designs, etc. which can have such sentences written for them. Even something as simple as the letter T in a particular color (magenta) can be construed as a trademark design (e.g. T-mobile).

I don't see any particular relevance for a "mathematical sentence", so I'd have to say no, being able to write mathematical sentences for a shape is not an effective argument. If the argument is somehow about the simplicity or complexity of such sentences, I'd like to know where you'd draw the line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_stripes

boss.king · Sep 19, 2012

The main reason I think it's not an effective argument is that it isn't an argument in any way, shape or form. It's a set of instructions to make an iPhone shape. It's made no point one way or the other.

Melab · Sep 20, 2012

boss.king said:
The main reason I think it's not an effective argument is that it isn't an argument in any way, shape or form. It's a set of instructions to make an iPhone shape. It's made no point one way or the other.

I said it was an experiment. The number of instructions is evidence for the argument that the most superficial aspects of the iPhone should not be owned exclusively by anyone.

Melab · Sep 28, 2012

Does anyone else want to comment? I created this thread because I wanted to express my reasoning and see if anyone shares my perspective.

Search

Search

An effective argument?

Melab

macrumors regular

MacDawg

Moderator emeritus

Melab

macrumors regular

chown33

Moderator

Melab

macrumors regular

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem

Melab

macrumors regular

roadbloc

macrumors G3

Melab

macrumors regular

chown33

Moderator

boss.king

macrumors 603

Melab

macrumors regular

Melab

macrumors regular

Our Staff