An effective argument?

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Melab, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. Melab, Sep 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2012

    Melab macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #1
    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.

    1. Create a rectangular prism with the dimensions 80x40x5.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    [​IMG]
     
  2. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
  3. Melab thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #3
    An effective argument or effective evidence against any claim by Apple to "rectangles with round corners".
     
  4. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #4
    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.
     
  5. Melab, Sep 19, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012

    Melab thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #5
    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.
     
  6. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Melab thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #7
    Are you saying that this is an ineffective argument against Apple's exclusive rights?
     
  8. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Daf**k did I just read?
     
  9. Melab thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #9
    My apologies. My phraseology is affected by mathematical sentences.
     
  10. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #10
    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
     
  11. boss.king macrumors 68040

    boss.king

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Melab thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Melab thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    #13
    Does anyone else want to comment? I created this thread because I wanted to express my reasoning and see if anyone shares my perspective.
     

Share This Page