I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out Stella.
(and to think I owned a sonyerricsoon with a touch screen and stylus... I AM growing old indeed...)
Perhaps Samsung invented the iPhone after all.
Oh, and I managed to find this image... Wasn't Steve who stole from Picasso who said that good artists steal? Well he was right.
Image
I smell a few lawsuits from some very unhappy companies that have been bullied by Apple...
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
And then every other design in any other product. Everyone should be able to copy everyone. Sounds like a great idea!
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
You can steal all you want... just make sure the people you steal from don't have copyrights or trademarks on a particular design.
Guess what happened when Apple stole the design of the Swiss clock... the Swiss owned the rights and Apple was forced to pay.
I guess Braun did not trademark their designs in the 1960s.
I think people don't realize how the phone landscape was back in 2007. People thought Apple was going to introduce a phone with a click wheel. That shows how "obvious" the iPhone was.
Apple shouldn't tout themselves, and pat themselves in the back as some kind of design uber innovator when they are not, that's what it boils down to, they 've ripped others as much, or maybe even much more so than anyone else.
Their patents for the iphone are at best dubious and the court decision in the states, jury member with an agenda notwithstanding, was a political one. It couldn't have played out any other way.
As an aside besides the swiss clock they paid creative around 200 million for a patent on the ipod. That's when Steve went ballistic and had every apple designer and engineer spending a few hours a month with a lawyer and started patenting everything. Of course from that understandable move to have come to a point where your legal dept. is more costly than your r&d one is, in my mind, a downhill trajectory.
Best. Reply. Ever.
Wonderfully biting on so many levels
That's probably true.
I think software is unique, though, in the ease of creating a process. Probably the closest activity is writing music or a book. Incredibly easy to plink or type away and come up with something novel... yet with an overall theme that could be invented just as easily by someone else. That's why copyrights still make more sense than patents for software.
I'm especially against the gesture patents that Apple tries to get, such as using two fingers to do something. To someone like me, who's been doing touch for decades, that's like patenting a music chord. Just because no one else tried to patent it, or it's something an examiner has never seen, does not make it worthy of sole ownership.
Are you sure you didn't mean inertial scrolling? Because I highly doubt that most people bought an iPhone because of bounce back at the end of a page. Heck, more people buy Android phones today without it, so what does that say about its draw?
In the recent California trial, Apple themselves set a top hoped-for value of only about $2 per phone for use of that patent. That's just three thousandths of the iPhone's retail price. Hardly a major piece in their eyes.
Why the "bounce back effect" (elastic scrolling)? That is an ingenious part of the iOS user interface. Any app that doesn't implement it feels like it's broken.
Who knows. Most of the tablets/laptops/netbooks are designed Asus. Nexus 10 is by Samsung, Nexus 4 is by LG.
Apple probably just wrote the air tight contract.
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
you're silly
From Wired:
"It is simply too early to make any sweeping conclusions at this point," Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, said. "Office action rejections during re-examination are common and rarely are fatal to the entire patent.
So yeah... Apple was ahead of pretty much every other phone manufacturer in 2007.
The sad thing is... all those other companies have been making phones for years.
Good points...
I guess the next question is... since Apple is guilty of copying Braun... does that make it OK for Samsung to copy Apple?
Or...
Since Apple was so unimaginative and had to copy Braun... does that mean that Samsung is also unimaginative because they had to copy Apple?
I'd rather watch the Gangnam Style music video on repeat for hours than hear or read another word about patents, lawsuits, litigation, or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
Speaking of jumping to denounce, you should probably actually, you know read the article and not just parrot what an effusive anti-Apple troll spouts as fact. The patent was not invalidated for prior art, it was invalidated because the USPTO thought it was obvious.
Are you trying to say that Steve Jobs would not allow a ruling by an independent body? Or are you speaking in irony?