You're right - and it's also about US law not having an understanding of the difference between design and innovation. Adding narrow speakers to a portable device is not innovation, it is just designing a product to the shape that works. It is absolutely as lamentable as patenting a rectangular screen. The system is truly broken, and is rewarding rent-collectors at the expense of engineers. We need leadership from the very top to fix it, but will we get it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
THX Sues Apple Over Alleged 'Narrow Profile Speaker' Patent Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're right - and it's also about US law not having an understanding of the difference between design and innovation. Adding narrow speakers to a portable device is not innovation, it is just designing a product to the shape that works. It is absolutely as lamentable as patenting a rectangular screen. The system is truly broken, and is rewarding rent-collectors at the expense of engineers. We need leadership from the very top to fix it, but will we get it?
Oh no, not at all, I proclaim that Apple abused a broken and corrupt patent system and also to an extent a corrupt court system due to this. The US patent office has SERIOUS issues but I have read recently it seems to have acknowledged this? I think maybe the Apple V others cases have helped to highlight how bad it has become.
I'm sure the Apple v. Samsung case played a good part, but I'd think it's mostly all the patent trolls running around extorting the hell out of people for using a scanner in an office environment that really kicked things off.
LucasFilm hasn't had anything to do with THX since 2001. Creative Labs owns about 60% of it now and since then have made the certification a total joke.
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.
Yep. Different people have different opinions. Shocking, I know.
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:
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
----------
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.
Hmmm.
First you stat this:
This this:
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!
First you stat this:
This this:
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!