Excuse me, I was asking the question. That's what question marks mean. Someone tries to answer, not ask another question.
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.
Samsung Cites Kubrick's '2001' Film as Prior Art Defense Against Apple's Injunction Request
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Excuse me, I was asking the question. That's what question marks mean. Someone tries to answer, not ask another question.
You know anything that Apple comes out with is the orginal even if it was 100 years after it was first used. The eariler one was just a copy of an Apple product.You should know that by now.
or they were flawed (thus free for apple to copy), and apple "fixed it" (forbidden for anyone else to use).
----------
US patents are not valid in the EU. You know that right?
May I present:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1358.pdf
"It is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the
subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3s method steps
can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
using a pen and paper."
Am I the only one thinking that basically any design process could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper?
And am I the only thinking that therefore any design is unpatentable?
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1358.pdf
"It is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the
subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3s method steps
can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
using a pen and paper."
Am I the only one thinking that basically any design process could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper?
And am I the only thinking that therefore any design is unpatentable?
Mmmm, no, I they can patent it.
Why you think they can't do it?
Excused.
I don't know if they are artists and I'm asking why they would have to work on a design patent case
Only if Charlton Heston says so, no wait, he's dead. Ate too much Soylent Green I think.
First of all...I just made it up to your answer. I'm happy for myself reading through this blatant pile of blabla that is going on here.
Second - you all don't seem to have a clue what this stuff is about. So once and for all - it is a 'design patent' that should've never been granted in the first place. In case some of you obviously handicapped people regarding reading comprehension don't understand (I just grab out that example):
Yes buddy, you can patent your Warp Engine and your Hoverboard, as this is a TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION. This has nothing to do with design. Learn it by now, will you?
Third: The blatant rip-off icon-myth. Using a green phone button and a red phone button for answering and ending calls is an industry standard. It's been on phones for decades (low and behold - long before the iPhone). So basically you have to use a square or round icon, the color green and a phone. Bummer.
Have I said that Apple blatantly ripped off the "Notepad" icon for their notes? Or like every other contact-list icon? And you really want to tell me Apple invented the speech bubble for use on a messaging system? Oh - the famous coloured 1/8th note for music...could it be any more generic?
Sorry buddy - get your heads out of the Apple cloud and grow up. Your citation of generic icons and attaching them to Apple as innovator just makes me as sick as people defending
a rectangular design with a flat screen and a rounded bezel.
Please do me a favor and read at least this page on Community Designs and maybe then return to the discussion and contribute something useful.
And on topic: Yes, Samsung really has a strong prior art case considering the design here.
But samgung is not targeting how. They are kill apple design patent which is more in common with trademarks than the how patente
So stuff that appears in science fiction isn't patentable?
everyone stop working on teleporters, there's loads of "prior art" (the fly, star trek etc) so you won't be able to earn any money from your invention.
/end facetiousness
If your patent is so broadly worded that your teleporter functions exactly as depicted on Star Trek, then yes, you should probably make some modifications before you go public with your product, and you should apply for some more specific patents.
The patent system is broken, and the patent office is screwed up and political, and this is the inevitable result. patents that should never have been granted are going live all the time. There are dozen, if not hundreds of "valid" US patents for devices that, from the description, a reasonable person would classify broadly as a toaster, most of them less than 20 years old, and incredibly unspecific. Thermal bread refreshment. Seriously.
I'm one of the early posters in that article's comment thread, supporting others who noticed how bad it was.
The article's author is totally incorrect about the main EU injunction case.
He doesn't seem to know the difference between an EU Community Design registration and US utility or design patents.
Its still showing essentially the same thing: i.e. a classic phone, in green. Sure, its overly stylized (to fit with the overall design), but its still just that.
The only explanation i can think of for people bitching about putting a PHONE on an icon that opens THE PHONE is... wait, i cant even think of one.
p.s. the function isnt 100%, so make sure to check if it did the trick or not.
Samsung ain't copying. You just can't see that they use these 30pin connectors on the space ship too
and you can't see but the screen has a dock too
oh here is a pic before the loaded the spaceship up
and you can't see but the screen has a dock too
oh here is a pic before the loaded the spaceship up
Last edited:
Good point. I didn't mean that Samsungs icon is the counterpart of the Apple icon. I meant that a pad is a real world counterpart to a digital notes application so a picture of a pad as an icon just makes sense. Just as a post-it is also a real world counterpart to a notes application and is appropriate as an icon.
Hmm, that almost turned into a A == B, B == C, A != C thing
Yeah, i got your points - i just felt like pointing it out :- ).
Icons are quite cool. Imagine if you'd put Apples icon and Sammys icon on the same system (perhaps turn the pad white as well). More likely than not people would instantly associate Sammys app for "simple, short, notes", and look to Apples offering for taking notes etc. Totally off topic though =)
Sigh, this errenous reasoning has been refuted over and over again.
You can't patent a simple concept or idea of a technology, certainly not a hypothetical technology, what you see in sci-fi movies is just that, ideas. If someone actually invents the technology that allows for those things to happen, that invention can certainly be patented.
This case doesn't deal with the working technology of the iPad, of which 2001 describes nothing about. It's about the design concept, which was clearly established prior to the iPad if you look at 2001 and other, even real world, sources. That is prior art.
Apple has simply used existing (prior art) design concepts, claimed it to be their own and are sueing others that does the same thing.
Apple does, and Apple is tying their Design Patents to actual implementation Patents.
The connector is industry standard (and not the same as apples proprietary solution). Know too little of the dock to comment on that, regardless its not part of the community design Apple is using to wage war vs. Samsung.
You don't need to defend against those who invent only against those who sue you and unless Apple gets into tricorder business you should be safe anyways.
This connector is an ANSI standard, a PDMI, so Samsung isn't copying anything.
No, this is not a dock, this is a quick launcher with a fixed set of apps that doesn't appears on the homescreen. You must launch it if you want to see it.
Ah, Apple invented packaging where you can see the product just putting off the package cover.
The case is about a community design, not a patent. As such, searching a patent database seems a bit dumb.