4 ms·
Isn't this the same Apple that patented rounded corners? Fuck em. Live by the sword etc...
by swayvil 10y ago
Isn't this the same Apple that patented rounded corners?
Fuck em. Live by the sword etc...
- skummetmaelk 10y agoetc... being code for "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ffggvv 10y agoSo by your logic everyone should be blind except apple? Fuck them. They must sacrifice their eye and pay their due taxes.
- gareim 10y agoSure, reduce history to a single liner that doesn't truly represent the patent and apply it in a sweeping manner. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/claim-check-if-apple-patented-rounded.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/claim-check-if-apple-pate...
- piyush_soni 10y agoWell, the actual design patent (670286) was really only about a device with rounded rectangles (if you look at the solid lines in their drawing as declared by them). And it was one of the points in their litigation. People remember history incidences with one lines that made them famous, but that doesn't make the fact incorrect. Also, the other points were almost equally ludicrous. There is no sweeping generalization here.
- moogly 10y agoFlorian Mueller isn't the greatest source to quote, mind you.
- camillomiller 10y agoIf you're asking yourself why your comment is being downvoted: - no, it's not because you attacked Apple. - yes, it's because you wrote a shallow comment that was factually inaccurate.
- paulddraper 10y agoWhat part was inaccurate?
- piyush_soni 10y agoWell, it might be 'inaccurate', but it's broadly true that they did patent the design in which one of the major elements was a device with rounded rectangles. http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rect... You can interpret it in your own way and might not like it that people remember it the way they do, but it's ludicrous nevertheless.
- lightedman 10y agoUhh, what part is factually inaccurate? In the 2012 trial against Samsung, Apple most certainly did point out that a rectangular device with rounded corners was an essential part of the design patent. Seems like people voting things down have a very bad memory regarding history. I suggest they take a trip to 2012 Memory Lane and read up on the entire year.
- jwatte 10y agoNote that design patents are totally different from method patents. If there is a physical/method reason to infringe a design patent to achieve functionality (say, "not eat through pants pocket cloth") then a design patent can, theoretically, not protect that feature. Monster Cable used to use a design patent to threaten other cable manufacturers, too, seemingly largely without actual standing.
- glenndebacker 10y agoSeems you have a case of a selective memory because the case in question had some more arguments than round corners. It's intellectual dishonest to reduce it to only that. Samsung was being caught having a 155 manual (http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui-interface-improvement http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui...) of how to copy the iOS UI. That alone is so clear that it's not even funny. That's a fact the iHaters always seem to left out, but the round corners on the other hand... I find it very hard to believe they won that case on the pure fact another device had round corners.