Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 19, 2013, 02:08 PM   #201
linkgx1
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
I really hope THX wins this. They spend a lot of time and money into their designs for a big company like Apple to just steal it. Justice needs to be served.
__________________
iPad mini 2 with Retina Display, iPhone 6 Plus, Custom built Windows 8 Desktop with i5-3570K 3.0GHZ processor/GTX 770.
linkgx1 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2013, 03:11 PM   #202
apolloa
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrinkma View Post
Yep. Different people have different opinions. Shocking, I know. (Oh, and if you're going to get busy calling people "ignorant" later on in your post, it would behove you to make sure you've used their/there/they're correctly.)



You included my entire post above, *and* the bolded, underlined, italicized IF in your little, inline quote. That's called a conditional statement.

As for your claim that Apple *HAS* breached the patent, because otherwise THX wouldn't sue. That's an outright logical failure. The true statement is that THX *believes* Apple has breached the patent, because otherwise they wouldn't sue. Whether the breach has occurred is up to the courts to decide. The fact that someone decides to sue you does *NOT* mean that you must be guilty.



No, despite the similarity of names, a Design Patent is a *very* different legal animal than a Patent. Design patents have more in common with trade dress and trademarks than they have in common with patents. If you're going to call other people ignorant, it would be best to make sure you're properly informed first.
haha, ALL you can do is pick holes with my comment like how I posted it twice?? Man your argument IS weak isn't it. A patent is a patent when Apple uses it to sue a competitors product in court, you can argue the differences as much as you want, it is still a patent and Apple still used it in it's court case. And i called you ignorant because you called me ignorant, don't you like to take it but you can give it?

But nice attempt to twist your words and comments using my words, your the one that is the armchair patent lawyer and made a comment that Apple hasn't breached the patent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrinkma View Post
Actually, no. They're not *obliged* to do so, though they are certainly within their rights to do so. But, IF the summary is accurate and their patent is actually for a speaker system that can be *attached* to a computer or flat-screen monitor, then the speaker system built into the iMac is probably ok, because it is not designed to be attached to anything.

Beyond that, it'll come down to whether the specifics of the implementation are covered by the patent. There have been slot-style speakers since long before 2008, but the mechanics behind them aren't necessarily what is covered by the THX patent.
And now you turned your argument around to what THX believe and that it's up to the courts to decide?? No, you think you know everything abut this patent already and have already concluded Apple are not guilty as stated already, even though THX are suing them I look forward to your next spinning of words...
apolloa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2013, 12:51 AM   #203
benji888
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by selva View Post
THX applied for their pipe speaker patent in 2003. Here is the Bose pipe speaker article from 1986. THX has ZERO chance of winning this IMO.

http://tinyurl.com/cr58cx7
I remember this ad! Yeah, Bose started the sound pipe in small enclosures thing.

1) There may be something behind the scenes we don't/won't know about (THX approached Apple, Apple didn't want to license or put THX logo on computers, or some kind of cross-office politics (former THX employee now works at apple....?).)

2) (actually this is #1) The THX patent is for an external speaker enclosure that ATTACHES TO monitors/TVs. The Apple sound pipes are BUILT-IN to the computer. THX won't win this.
__________________
MBP 13" (mid2010), 4GB, DIY Fusion drive , OS X 10.10 Yo. Viewsonic VX2370SMH 23" IPS
iPhone 6 iPad Mini iPhone 5 (touch) iOS 8
Macs since 1998
benji888 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2013, 11:05 AM   #204
rjohnstone
macrumors 68030
 
rjohnstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PHX, AZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benji888 View Post
I remember this ad! Yeah, Bose started the sound pipe in small enclosures thing.

1) There may be something behind the scenes we don't/won't know about (THX approached Apple, Apple didn't want to license or put THX logo on computers, or some kind of cross-office politics (former THX employee now works at apple....?).)

2) (actually this is #1) The THX patent is for an external speaker enclosure that ATTACHES TO monitors/TVs. The Apple sound pipes are BUILT-IN to the computer. THX won't win this.
It's the chamber design that is patented.
Internal or external enclosures are not relevant to the argument.

Also, the THX patent is sufficiently different from Bose.
They compete in the same industry.
Bose would have sued THX a long time ago if it weren't.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit" - Nigel Tuffnel
Some Apple *****, some Android ***** and some Windows based *****.
rjohnstone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2013, 04:26 PM   #205
gnasher729
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post
haha you lot can't decide if their is a patent or not for round corners etc! Well Apple do have it, and patents put a date to when someone thought of something? haha no I think they are supposed to protect intellectual property and enable you to charge for people to use that property.
And I'm ignorant because you lot are 'trying' oh so hard to defend Apples round corners patent haha. right. Yet tbrinkma posted a comment:
It seems you are not a troll, but you are indeed truly ignorant.

Apple has design patents on the design of iPads, iPhones and so on. A design patent is not a utility patent. It is not for an invention, it is for a design. Apple's design patents describe the design for example of an iPad. There is a long description, and part of it is "rounded corners". To infringe on the patent, you need to copy the whole or most of the design. A tablet that has a shape of a rectangle with rounded corners does _not_ infringe on this design patent. A tablet that copies the rectangle, the rounded corners, _and everything else_ in the design patent, that infringes.

And if you want to see some more "patents on rounded corners", please do us and your education a favour and have a look here at one of many Samsung design patents:
gnasher729 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2013, 05:59 AM   #206
theanimaster
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Premium1 View Post
What comes around, goes around apple.
Sometimes they need a dose of their own medicine.

I wonder though -- is there a SURE-FIRE way for ANYONE to look up a particular patent? Like, if I invented or designed something of my own, what would be the best way to search for the relevant existing patent, if any?

I think that's the problem with patents these days.
theanimaster is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2013, 01:31 PM   #207
tbrinkma
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post
haha, ALL you can do is pick holes with my comment like how I posted it twice?? Man your argument IS weak isn't it.
No, I simply pointed out that you had, earlier in the same post, quoted the entire statement which included a conditional statement, which you then proceeded to ignore in your haste to demonstrate your own ignorance on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post
A patent is a patent when Apple uses it to sue a competitors product in court, you can argue the differences as much as you want, it is still a patent and Apple still used it in it's court case. And i called you ignorant because you called me ignorant, don't you like to take it but you can give it?
I called you ignorant because you have your facts wrong. A patent is a patent, yes, and a design patent is a design patent, and a trademark is a trademark, and a copyright is a copyright. The fact that two things share a common word in their names does not make them the same thing. Any more than a "cat" and "pole cat" (aka: skunk) are the same thing, or a "Mac" and a "Mac Truck" are the same thing.

You called me ignorant because you don't understand the facts well enough to distinguish between two significantly different sets of law that share a similar name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post
But nice attempt to twist your words and comments using my words, your the one that is the armchair patent lawyer and made a comment that Apple hasn't breached the patent:
Yep, that would have been my conditional statement that *IF* the summary in the article (which speciufically stated that the patented invention was a set of speakers which could attach to another device) was accurate, then a set of speakers which are integral to the device (and therefore cannot be attached to another device) would not violate the patent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post
And now you turned your argument around to what THX believe and that it's up to the courts to decide?? No, you think you know everything abut this patent already and have already concluded Apple are not guilty as stated already, even though THX are suing them I look forward to your next spinning of words...
I didn't turn my argument around at all. That statement simply answers your assumption that Apple *must* be guilty if someone sues them. The decision of guilt is up to the courts, and will be rendered based on a *lot* of information that we (the public) don't have access to at this juncture.

Must be interesting living where an accusation is the same as a finding of guilt. Here in the U.S., those are two different things, and one does not necessarily follow from the other.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
It seems you are not a troll, but you are indeed truly ignorant.
Ignorance and trolling aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, over the years I've noticed that quite a few trolls fall into the category of "willfully ignorant". That way they don't have to be bothered with learning anything new when their unfounded claims are countered with facts.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2013, 11:25 PM   #208
apolloa
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Hmmm.
First you stat this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
There is no such patent as you claim, but I suppose you know that yourself. Mods, is "patent for rectangle with rounded corners" considered trolling nowadays?
This this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
It seems you are not a troll, but you are indeed truly ignorant.

Apple has design patents on the design of iPads, iPhones and so on. A design patent is not a utility patent. It is not for an invention, it is for a design. Apple's design patents describe the design for example of an iPad. There is a long description, and part of it is "rounded corners". To infringe on the patent, you need to copy the whole or most of the design. A tablet that has a shape of a rectangle with rounded corners does _not_ infringe on this design patent. A tablet that copies the rectangle, the rounded corners, _and everything else_ in the design patent, that infringes.

And if you want to see some more "patents on rounded corners", please do us and your education a favour and have a look here at one of many Samsung design patents:
And you call ME ignorant?? Nice try mate, but your arguments is confusing nobody will understand it, first you tell someone they are ignorant for proclaiming their is a patent for rounded corners, then post an entire comment about how you indeed agree that their is a patent covering just that? You can only offer a very confusing argument that makes no sense at all. To state their is no such patent then state their is?
If you are going to try to correct someone, perhaps you should try to do that from the start in a polite mannor rather then proclaim to the mods that stating facts is trolling!
apolloa is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Asks EU to Limit Injunctions in Patent Infringement Cases MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 21 Feb 27, 2014 08:55 AM
Apple accused of patent infringement in A7 design PollyK Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 4 Feb 5, 2014 04:53 PM
Wi-LAN Loses Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 34 Oct 27, 2013 10:19 AM
Apple and THX Work to Resolve Speaker Patent Dispute Outside Court MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 23 Jun 6, 2013 01:40 PM
Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 332 Aug 1, 2012 11:08 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC