| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 119982 | 2011-08-19 13:38:00 | Apples Underhanded Tactics Wont Keep Samsung Down As Ban On Galaxy Tablet Gets Lift | Geek4414 (12000) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1224559 | 2011-08-22 21:32:00 | Yes small computers have been out fro years and years. All Apple did was to make them look good and add a touch screen. The touch screen has been out for years. |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1224560 | 2011-08-22 21:43:00 | This may interest you Geek4414: phandroid.com | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1224561 | 2011-08-23 03:17:00 | This may interest you Geek4414: phandroid.com Thanks Chill, that's an interesting article, especially this comment by blaque_prince ... "THIS is why they bought Moto. What took everybody so long to figure this out. As soon as they announced it I remembered that Moto lawsuit against Apple that everybody seems to have forgotten about. I basically wrote my own article in a comment on Engadget explaining it. If people believe Android is in trouble for possible injunctions at the hands of Oracle and Apple with the tablet suits then Apple is in trouble because that Moto suit covers almost their entire product line." |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1224562 | 2011-08-23 03:29:00 | More interesting articles ... Google's Moto Mobility deal may have had Microsoft roots, comes with $2.5 billion break-up fee www.engadget.com Interesting comment by dman977 4 days ago ... Here is what I see the future holds.... For those handset manufacturers Google approves to use Android (those in the Open Handset Alliance), Google will 'give' licensing rights to those manufacturers just as they gave money to manufacturers to use Android in the beginning. I say 'give' as in literally give those rights to approved manufacturers for protection against litigation. This is what I see happening, that is if the FTC does not force Google to distribute those patents around like they did with the Nortel patents. Google has a business model like no other software company out there. This is because Google's income is from ads, not the selling of physical products. The more manufacturers they have using their products, the more ad revenue they have coming in. Because of this, the only way they will use these Motorola Mobility patents will be for the protection of Android and those who use Android to make their money (ie. Samsung, HTC, LG, etc). This is also why they refused to join in with Apple, MS, Oracle, etc. They wanted sole rights to patents for the purpose described above. Google bid on the Nortel patents merely to drive up the cost in order for those involved in the winning bid to expel enough assets to eliminate them from contention for purchasing Motorola Mobility. This is also the reason for such a high opening bid. |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1224563 | 2011-08-23 04:50:00 | These comments ( . engadget . com/2011/08/15/did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/#disqus_thread" target="_blank">www . engadget . com) are so funny . . . DeePo 6 days ago Since I wanted to buy myself a Galaxy Tab but I couldn't just because a Judge was misleaded in his judgement by Apple's providing faux evidence , I think it's time for a huge EU class action against the Troll!!! I want Steve to go personally and buy me a SG Tab 10 . 1!!! Alienfreak 6 days ago in reply to JamesKlingenberg Apple will most likely loose that thing . Looking at how the NL judge takes on that thing I am not confident it will stand there . And if doesn't stand in the NL even without altered photos we will soon see it fall in the whole EU . And Apple will be entitled to pay for all the losses Samsung has . I guess :P Abbadabaddodoo 6 days ago in reply to shaunhey I had an advent calendar when I was younger that had a grid of icons on it too . Damn, people stole so much from Apple! Wansai Ounkeo 6 days ago in reply to szpete1 It was pretty low down dude . The ban was made based on what evidence Apple provided (the pictures) . Their law states quite clearly that even an honest mistake in representation is not acceptable; and in this case, this being Apple, there is no way in hell they accidentally "got the aspect ratio wrong" when placing the image . It was intentional . |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1224564 | 2011-08-23 04:52:00 | Apple hits setbacks in blocking Galaxy Tab sales www.infoworld.com ... Whether Apple intentionally provided a misleading visual comparison between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab is not clear; also unclear is whether it will have any impact on future decisions to be rendered by the court. Florian Müller, a consultant in intellectual property cases, told Webwereld that there was likely no malicious intent on the part of Apple's lawyers: The image may have been an outdated picture of a Galaxy Tab prototype from last April, he said. However, the real Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been available to testers and reviewers since May, and the date on Apple's subpoena was Aug. 4, so Apple's lawyers should have had time to acquire and supply an accurate image. "Even if the image they presented was only outdated rather than forged, there is a chance that things tilt in favor of Samsung," Müller said. |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1224565 | 2011-08-24 00:57:00 | More Hilarious read on this blog post ... www.phonearena.com A tablet from 1994, way before the ipad was ever conceived ... Tablet Newspaper (1994) (www.youtube.com) So funny ... Sun Beats Apple Tablet ... www.youtube.com Actually, I vaguely remember a movie call "Runaway" from 1984/85 and in one scene a cop was using a "tablet" by a car, and I thought that was so cool! Can someone confirm that? en.wikipedia.org(1984_film) www.imdb.com |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1224566 | 2011-08-24 01:44:00 | Scary . . . The Community Design: . . . and you Thought the USPTO Was Bad ( . osnews . com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_you_Thought_the_USPTO_Was" target="_blank">www . osnews . com _Bad) . . . However, there are several reasons why the Community Design - as it stands today - is basically a tool which companies can use to receive free preliminary injunctions . The way that the Community Design is set up favours large companies heavily, allowing them to use it as a club to ban each other's products from entering the European Union . . . . . . . First, a filing does not contain any description . Only a general product category, and that's it . No description of what certain parts are for, no explanations of what buttons do, no nothing; just a few small, low-resolution photos (if you're lucky) or a few general lines (most cases) . Second, the registration process . The key problem here is that the drawings and/or photos in a Community Design are not actually reviewed . While a patent at the USPTO receives a review to check for obviousness and prior art, no such review process has been put in place for the Community Design . The only thing the governing body of the Community Design, the OHIM, checks for is that the paperwork is in order, and that the names on the filing are correct . If those two conditions are met, the Community Design is granted, no questions asked . This lack of a review process is established in EC 06/2002 (Title V, Articles 45 and 47), and clearly mentioned on the OHIM website . This is problematic because of Section 2, Article 85 of EC 06/2002 . Article 85 states that a Community Design is always, by definition, valid . This explains why the German court in Düsseldorf granted the injunction . He did not grant it because he made an informed decision based on the contents of the Community Design; he granted it because he has no choice but to accept the Community Design as valid . So when Apple showed him all the necessary documentation and paperwork was in order, and that the Galaxy Tab 10 . 1 has roughly the same shape as Community Design 003781832 (which was filed in 2004, and as such, doesn't even cover the iPad to begin with, but we'll get to that later), the injunction was granted automatically . Apple chose Düsseldorf specifically because of how injunctions work in Germany . You do not have to notify the defendant, and there's no need for a hearing . By law, the court has to assume the Community Design - which has not received any prior art or obviousness test of any kind - is valid, and since the Galaxy Tab is roughly of the same shape as Apple's Community Design, the judge grants the injunction . Because of how these Community Design courts are set up, the ruling by the German court now automatically applies to the entire EU . So what is going on here is that companies can simply select the most favourable court system - the German one, in this case - file their injunction request there, and no matter how obvious their Community Design is, no matter how much prior art there is, the court has to accept it as valid, and rule with this presumed validity in mind . Samsung now has the opportunity to contest this injunction, and the burden of proof lies entirely on Samsung's shoulders . They can try and prove that the Community Design is invalid because of, say, prior art; or they can argue that the Galaxy Tab doesn't look like the Community Design at all (my guess is they're going to try and do both) . If Samsung manages to get the injunction lifted, Apple has to pay damages . And so, a design that has never been reviewed by anyone turns into a weapon which can deal serious damage to a company . Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10 . 1 has been delayed at least by a few weeks, but that isn't all . This ruling also causes serious damage to Samsung's image, as people without any knowledge of how this Community Design thing works are now assuming that a court has ruled that Samsung is copying Apple's designs - even though no such ruling has taken place . I doubt this reputation damage can be expressed in a monetary value . So, the filing process is broken, the court procedure is broken - and that isn't even all . The lack of proper review procedures leads to unbridled filing and wildgrowth of Community Designs . What you are about to see will make you laugh and cry at the same time . Skipping over to the conclusion . . . Conclusion I never expected this Community Design to be implemented this badly . As bad as US software patents are, at least infringement has to be proven (even for a preliminary injunction), and while marginal, at least the USPTO does some form of review before granting them . In addition, patents have to be worded, so there is the ability to write or design around them (to a degree) . The Community Designs are not reviewed, by definition valid once granted, and by filing in a country like Germany, you can be served with a preliminary injunction without ever knowing you've done something wrong . This injunction is possible to lift, of course, by convincing the courts of the invalidity of the Community Design in question - but this requires lengthy court cases, lots of funds, and at the end of the day, larger companies can always dig up another Community Design for you to invalidate . Rinse and repeat . This means the Community Design is basically a mostly unknown (to the public) tool for large companies to pummel each other as well as small, innovative start-ups to death with . All this only to the detriment of competition, and thus, to the detriment of consumers and mankind in general . The Community Design needs to be overhauled considerably to better fulfill its indented function . A start would be to, in this day and age, only allow Community Designs based on actual, high-quality photographs of all sides of the device . In addition, only shipping devices may be granted - it is very detrimental to competition that large companies can just file endless variations of the same basic design . Is this competition? Does this foster innovation? Is this good for the marketplace? Does this benefit consumers? Is this in any way conducive to a properly functioning market? Is this good for technological development? I think the United States Patent and Trademark Office has just met its match when it comes to incompetence . Amazing . |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1224567 | 2011-08-25 02:46:00 | ..... Michael? |
Jams (1051) | ||
| 1224568 | 2011-08-26 03:25:00 | Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal (jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com) March 9, 2010 · 10:48 am I feel for Google – Steve Jobs threatened to sue me, too. In 2003, after I unveiled a prototype Linux desktop called Project Looking Glass*, Steve called my office to let me know the graphical effects were “stepping all over Apple’s IP.” (IP = Intellectual Property = patents, trademarks and copyrights.) If we moved forward to commercialize it, “I’ll just sue you.” My response was simple. “Steve, I was just watching your last presentation, and Keynote looks identical to Concurrence – do you own that IP?” Concurrence was a presentation product built by Lighthouse Design, a company I’d help to found and which Sun acquired in 1996. Lighthouse built applications for NeXTSTEP, the Unix based operating system whose core would become the foundation for all Mac products after Apple acquired NeXT in 1996. Steve had used Concurrence for years, and as Apple built their own presentation tool, it was obvious where they’d found inspiration. “And last I checked, MacOS is now built on Unix. I think Sun has a few OS patents, too.” Steve was silent. ... [read more (jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com)] |
Geek4414 (12000) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||