View Single Post
Old 08-27-2012, 10:42 AM   #46
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 62,764
Karma: 40390405
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: PW2, iPad Retina Mini, iPhone 4, MS Surface Pro, Onyx T68, N7,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
What company do you think spent large sums of money developing innovative new features? It certainly was not Apple. They simply combined the best of ideas from prior art at other companies. There is nothing wrong with that when Apple does it, so why should it be wrong for other companies? The point is not to just copy, but to create an improved copy, that is progress. Apple and Samsung and many others have been doing just that. Apple just hates to be outdone in copying from the past to create the future.
Considerations of "prior art" are the remit of the patent office in deciding whether or not to grant a patent, not a court in deciding whether or not a patent has been infringed. Apple has these patents; the court decided that Samsung had infringed them. Eg, Samsung had simply copied Apple's patented "bouncing list" that rebound if the user tries to drag beyond the end of the list. That's a simple and straightforward case of patent infringement.
HarryT is online now