17 ms·

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 rathe

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
        In the world where he's looking for a reason his patent wasn't completely anticipated by TiVo (or ReplayTV or ...): http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953 http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953
      - wazoox 14y ago
        This is widely recognized as blatant misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art by the jurors. "software compatibility" has absolutely zero relation to the notion of "prior art". This is one of the sorest points in this judgement, which has absolutely no credibility overall.

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
        In the world where he's looking for a reason his patent wasn't completely anticipated by TiVo (or ReplayTV or ...): http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953 http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953
    - wazoox 14y ago
      This is widely recognized as blatant misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art by the jurors. "software compatibility" has absolutely zero relation to the notion of "prior art". This is one of the sorest points in this judgement, which has absolutely no credibility overall.