No such thing as punitive damages here. In any event, they did register them. I posted on this earlier. They registered three trade dresses too.
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.
Analysis of Apple's Lawsuit Against Samsung, Includes iOS Device Sales Numbers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No such thing as punitive damages here. In any event, they did register them. I posted on this earlier. They registered three trade dresses too.
Let's not forget that big companies file lawsuits not only when they think they have a rock solid case.
Lawsuits are also filed to 1) deter competitors (not only the specific one that gets sued) and 2) raise a point in the media (in this case the point being Apple invents, competitors are copycats).
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
Conversely, solid lawsuits are not brought forward because of the bad impact sueing might have in the media.
In this case Apple might have sued not necessarily because they think they'll win, but also, and maybe most importantly, to reinstate their position in the market. Even though some might read this as a crazy action from Apple, it is also likely that people with no particular tech interest (and still potential customers) will hear about it and get the message that Apple is defending what they have invented against a copycat.
Lawsuits are also filed to 1) deter competitors (not only the specific one that gets sued) and 2) raise a point in the media (in this case the point being Apple invents, competitors are copycats).
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
Conversely, solid lawsuits are not brought forward because of the bad impact sueing might have in the media.
In this case Apple might have sued not necessarily because they think they'll win, but also, and maybe most importantly, to reinstate their position in the market. Even though some might read this as a crazy action from Apple, it is also likely that people with no particular tech interest (and still potential customers) will hear about it and get the message that Apple is defending what they have invented against a copycat.
LG prada was shown before iphone was shown. And it shares lenty of things with the iphone that was released later.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win.
I thought Samsung went too far when they included little white stickers in the shape of apples inside the box.
Apple filed similar suits again HTC and Nokia last spring. You'll notice that the ITC is not favoring Apple's claims.
They're similar enough that an average person should be able to make a connection. Apple is filing a lawsuit against Samsung that doesn't have much chance of sticking, but that's not even the point, they want to scare Samsung into a settlement in all likelihood.
Think deeper. They're more similar than you think they are.
What makes you say it has no chance of sticking? Have you read the complaint? I have. I also read the ITC filings. They're not alike at all. The claims cover different IP, and even different TYPES of IP.
And the Samsung adds many trademark and state law unfair competition claims.
Arguing that they're the same because Apple will lose them both is bootstrapping.
Copying is not copying when you don't even know about what was done before...and we know the story about what influenced Apple, the alphabet. And the logo isn't even the same - it's the name that the suit was over, not the logo. Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
It did matter back then, when the best you could do was apply for a trademark in the US and be approved or not be approved. Apple is a global company, trademarked all over the world...not in the 70's.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
And the co-creator of that product is a UI Designer working on the iPad. Nice work.
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then
I am talking about lg prada among others if you bothered to read my post you would see that .
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then
You're right, but I don't even know why I'm arguing this point - using a logo from a record label for a computer company is not nearly the same thing as using another computer company's designs to make products that compete with it.
ooh i was just waiting for that magical term 'generic' that we always hear about after another 'copy' comes along. 'Style choices' is a classic, are you a politician?
"Hey look at how well designed that iPhone is I think I'll make a few 'style choices' and copy every single one of their icons..then have my lawyers deem them all generic".