4 ms·

Let me give you some examples from the current post that strike me as BS: "But, in contrast, here's the Apple design patent, D504889, about those rounded corne

Let me give you some examples from the current post that strike me as BS: "But, in contrast, here's the Apple design patent, D504889, about those rounded corners -- how do you code around it? A tablet in the shape of a parallelogram?" But the jury found Samsung's actual tablets, which are rectangles with rounded corners, do not infringe this patent. So her analysis that it's impossible to design around this is false. Here's one from another recent post: "Apple's lawyers are still clueless that the public is for the most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression." This isn't supported by any evidence and is almost certainly made up. I'm not aware of any survey supporting this claim. At this point, I'm unable to tell which information about the case on Groklaw is factual and which is made up. As far as I can tell, the quotes from actual court documents are accurate, but I can't really tell about the rest.

vacri 14y ago
Her point was that the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place. It shouldn't take the expense of big enterprise teams of corporate lawyers taking it to a jury trial to say that the patent wasn't infringed (I take it that's all it was, and that the patent hasn't actually been invalidated, either). Copy-and-pasting from a comment I just made in another thread about how merely having an obvious patent does cause problems: You don't have to contest the patent for it to be suppressing others' design. I once worked for a company that made a humidifying air pump. We had to have the water tank held in with a removable flap rather than a door because our main competitor had patented 'holding the tank in with a hinged flap/door'. Sure, you could fight it in court, down the track, after hardware design (which is much more expensive than people realise). Or you could move onto the next problem and have a slightly inferior product.
- othermaciej 14y ago
  Her apparent point was that there is no way to design around it, which is false. The claim was not about obviousness or validity of the design patent, but rather that it's really dangerous because there is no way to design around it. Which is clearly false. You may well have a valid point, but it's not what the Groklaw post said.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    How do you code around it? A tablet in the shape of a parallelogram? - She got you | Rhetorical questions != Not False Statements. [Edit: Agree she could have been more informative.]
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      It's worth noting that Apple won on "rounded rectangles" as they applied to the iPhone (instead of the iPad). That certainly complicates any attempted workarounds.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Did Samsung not cite the Domino in the Prior Art? WTF "a hand-held computing device with a rectangular shape, rounded corners, and devoid of buttons" etc. "it has a touch-enabled surface communication technology called "Braille..."and"infite power supply"[1] <pls excuse: sarcasm> [but if anyone knows?] [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Dominoes.jpg/220px-Dominoes.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Dom...
        conroe64 14y ago
        The Domino can be disregarded. Only prior art that can run software compatible with Apple hardware can be considered. The Jury foreman explained it better than I could as follows: The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        How can that restriction be applied to prior art but not the Samsung device?
        fpgeek 14y ago
Gigablah 14y ago
Apple's own expert witness suggested a "shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners": http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apple-and-oranges-apples-tablet-design-suggestions/9950 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apple-and-oranges-appl...

vacri 14y ago

Her point was that the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place. It shouldn't take the expense of big enterprise teams of corporate lawyers taking it to a jury trial to say that the patent wasn't infringed (I take it that's all it was, and that the patent hasn't actually been invalidated, either). Copy-and-pasting from a comment I just made in another thread about how merely having an obvious patent does cause problems: You don't have to contest the patent for it to be suppressing others' design. I once worked for a company that made a humidifying air pump. We had to have the water tank held in with a removable flap rather than a door because our main competitor had patented 'holding the tank in with a hinged flap/door'. Sure, you could fight it in court, down the track, after hardware design (which is much more expensive than people realise). Or you could move onto the next problem and have a slightly inferior product.

othermaciej 14y ago
Her apparent point was that there is no way to design around it, which is false. The claim was not about obviousness or validity of the design patent, but rather that it's really dangerous because there is no way to design around it. Which is clearly false. You may well have a valid point, but it's not what the Groklaw post said.
- 001sky 14y ago
  How do you code around it? A tablet in the shape of a parallelogram? - She got you | Rhetorical questions != Not False Statements. [Edit: Agree she could have been more informative.]
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    It's worth noting that Apple won on "rounded rectangles" as they applied to the iPhone (instead of the iPad). That certainly complicates any attempted workarounds.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Did Samsung not cite the Domino in the Prior Art? WTF "a hand-held computing device with a rectangular shape, rounded corners, and devoid of buttons" etc. "it has a touch-enabled surface communication technology called "Braille..."and"infite power supply"[1] <pls excuse: sarcasm> [but if anyone knows?] [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Dominoes.jpg/220px-Dominoes.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Dom...
      - conroe64 14y ago
        The Domino can be disregarded. Only prior art that can run software compatible with Apple hardware can be considered. The Jury foreman explained it better than I could as follows: The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        How can that restriction be applied to prior art but not the Samsung device?
        fpgeek 14y ago

Gigablah 14y ago

Apple's own expert witness suggested a "shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners": http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apple-and-oranges-apples-tablet-design-suggestions/9950 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apple-and-oranges-appl...