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
You mean Apple right? Samsung isnt suing anyone for making a tablet, its the other way around. ********* post i've ever seen.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Erm.... Apple are suing Samsung, not the other way round.
Did you miss that part?
Peace said:
Erm.... Apple are suing Samsung, not the other way round.
Did you miss that part?
No. I didn't miss that part. Sorry you missed the sarcasm.
Sarcasm like that doesnt work very well in a forum like this where people actually say things like what you just said and truly mean it.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ok then, hammer it into my thick British skull (we're normally good at sarcasm).
Why would Samsung sue Paramount/Gene Roddenberry for trade dress on the PADD when they've not sued Apple for that?
If your were being sarcastic, it makes more sense switching Apple and Samsung in my view. "oh apple thinks they own the design, perhaps they should go back in time and sue Paramount for copying the iPad"
Perhaps I don't understand sarcasm... /s
Edit: and with that, I wish you all a wonderful evening! It's sleepy time.
Peace said:ChazUK said:
No. I didn't miss that part. Sorry you missed the sarcasm.
Ok then, hammer it into my thick British skull (we're normally good at sarcasm).
Why would Samsung sue Paramount/Gene Roddenberry for trade dress on the PADD when they've not sued Apple for that?
If your were being sarcastic, it makes more sense switching Apple and Samsung in my view. "oh apple thinks they own the design, perhaps they should go back in time and sue Paramount for copying the iPad"
Perhaps I don't understand sarcasm... /s
Edit: and with that, I wish you all a wonderful evening! It's sleepy time.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ok then, hammer it into my thick British skull (we're normally good at sarcasm).
Why would Samsung sue Paramount/Gene Roddenberry for trade dress on the PADD when they've not sued Apple for that?
If your were being sarcastic, it makes more sense switching Apple and Samsung in my view. "oh apple thinks they own the design, perhaps they should go back in time and sue Paramount for copying the iPad"
Perhaps I don't understand sarcasm... /s
Edit: and with that, I wish you all a wonderful evening! It's sleepy time.
Maybe it's because Samsung counter-sued Apple back in April .
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/22/samsung-counter-sues-apple/
Which part of the PADD infringes on the following? (from your source article)
- Technology to optimize data transmission
- Techniques for reducing power usage during data transmission
- 3G technology for reducing data-transmission errors
- A method of tethering a mobile phone to a PC
That sure makes for an interesting sarcastic jibe there.....
Wow.
What else is a patent? It's a solution to an already existing problem(which sometimes is complex and sometimes not a problem at all).
If Apple's solution is the logical end to the design issue, then Apple deserves the patent for the same.
'Stuff like that shouldn't be able to be patented.' is not up to your discretion. I wonder why Apple had a logical solution and no one else. It only implies that Apple was innovative enough to craft a real-life solution to the design problem, many companies emphasised on, in the early years of tablet computation.
Apple's "solution" to the tablet design is neither new or unique.
This is a requirement for any patent.
Remember... patents get invalidated all the time as anyone can challenge a patent in court.
Apple's community design in the EU will get invalidated as it is far to generic.
The Netherlands court has already stated this to be the case and denied Apple's claim of infringement by Samsung.
Their U.S. patent is very specific, detailed and easily recognized as an iPad.
This is why Apple will likely fail to win any design patents suits in the U.S. against Samsung or Motorola.
Neither of their devices look like the registered design for the iPad.
Similar shape yes, but it ends there. All the other elements are missing.