Apple's helpful guidelines for competitors to avoid patent infringement

[emilikins]

There are certainly judges who are corrupt (accepting payment in regards to a ruling - no, not their paycheck), but with the old school slate picture, I think many judges probably aren't all up to snuff on historical devices or user experience/preferences, so they might rule in Apple's favor not because Apple paid them off, but because they didn't do their homework (should they fire the intern/paralegal/slave) or just don't "get it" and let a convincing team of lawyers sway them.

I'm not saying the above scenario is fact, just that a judge not taking the school slate into account isn't a form of corruption.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This isn't a matter of opinion. The design has been around for more than 200 years.

If you honestly believe that the EU patent office was bribed or otherwise influenced into giving Apple a patent that they wouldn't have granted otherwise, then corruption is the right word for you to use.
I don't believe that, and I think it is pretty laughable that anyone would.
I suspect the truth is that almost all design patents that are presented get approved, because there is an extremely low bar for acceptance.
This is true, to a lesser extent, of normal (utility) patents, which are often granted far too easily, and far too widely.
There, as here, the remedy is to challenge them in the courts, which is what is happening.
It might be a crappy system, it might be a huge waste of money all around, but I don't see corruption, just bureaucracy and a poorly thought out and implemented patent system.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by emilikins

There are certainly judges who are corrupt (accepting payment in regards to a ruling - no, not their paycheck), but with the old school slate picture, I think many judges probably aren't all up to snuff on historical devices or user experience/preferences, so they might rule in Apple's favor not because Apple paid them off, but because they didn't do their homework (should they fire the intern/paralegal/slave) or just don't "get it" and let a convincing team of lawyers sway them.

I'm not saying the above scenario is fact, just that a judge not taking the school slate into account isn't a form of corruption.

Do you think that the judge hasn't seen a rectangle with rounded corners before they laid eyes on the iPad?

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If you honestly believe that the EU patent office was bribed or otherwise influenced into giving Apple a patent that they wouldn't have granted otherwise, then corruption is the right word for you to use.
I don't believe that, and I think it is pretty laughable that anyone would.

And I think that it's laughable that anyone would think that a judge that is in charge of making decisions regarding IP rights would be this clueless.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It might be a crappy system, it might be a huge waste of money all around, but I don't see corruption, just bureaucracy and a poorly thought out and implemented patent system.

Bureaucracy slows things down, it doesn't make things move faster.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Do you think that the judge hasn't seen a rectangle with rounded corners before they laid eyes on the iPad?

And I think that it's laughable that anyone would think that a judge that is in charge of making decisions regarding IP rights would be this clueless.

Do you know anything at all about the process of applying for an EU design patent?
Do you know what counts as prior art?
Do you know what the burden of proof of showing something is new is?
Do you know whether judges issue design patents?
Yet you are convinced that the person issuing the patent must have been corrupt.
(Accusing him of a crime)

Bureaucracy slows things down, it doesn't make things move faster.

Um, yes, and?
It takes a long time to revoke a bad patent, because you have to go through a lengthy legal proceedure.
That was sort of my point. What was yours?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The only explanation for a judge deciding to give Apple rights over this design is that they are corrupt.

That is what I thought initially. Ridiculous!

Then I saw Samsung galaxy pad and iPad side to side in shop. It took me a little while to realize that those two were two different devices. Even the aspect ratio difference was not obvious because one of them was displayed in portrait position and the other one in landscape position. Only when I started to play with them I realized that one of then has Android, while the other one iOS.

Besides, the judge in Germany has to adhere to the letter of the law, even if the circumstances make the law seem a bit unfair. The judge wasn't deciding whether that "design patent" or whatever it is protected under was granted rightfully or not.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

That just isn't what the word means.
You can choose to use a word however you wish, but don't expect people to understand you when you do so. Corruption is not a synonym for immorality.
Noone has answered the questions I posed earlier, so I'll ask them again.
Is someone who cheats on their spouse corrupt?
Someone who cheats on a test?
Someone who lies to get elected?
All of these things are immoral.

They also lack integrity, hence corrupt.
if you personally are too illiterate to be able to read and comprehend the definitions Anamardol posted earlier, that is your deficiency and no one elses.

They exhibit a pattern of moral decay.

You may work in an environ where only a narrow use of corrupt is used. That does not negate common usage for everyone else.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Do you know anything at all about the process of applying for an EU design patent?
Do you know what counts as prior art?
Do you know what the burden of proof of showing something is new is?
Do you know whether judges issue design patents?
Yet you are convinced that the person issuing the patent must have been corrupt.
(Accusing him of a crime)

You seem to be talking about what is needed to request a patent while I was talking about the Apple vs Samsung case where the judge decided that despite the prior art that Samsung submitted, rectangle with rounded corners belongs to Apple.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Um, yes, and?
It takes a long time to revoke a bad patent, because you have to go through a lengthy legal proceedure.
That was sort of my point. What was yours?

That as you pointed out the procedure to award the patent is fast and bureaucracy free.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Do you know anything at all about the process of applying for an EU design patent?

It's not a patent, ok? This has nothing to do with EU patent office. It's "community design". And the process is very simple. You can apply for it too. See this doc fo rmore details.

Now imagine what types of checks are done for something, that costs a couple of hundred Euros to register. Applying for visa costs more in some countries.

Oh, and Dutch judge dismissed it, citing "numerous cases... of prior art".

[Sweetpea]

New news about Apple vs Samsung.

They still demand a sales-stop in the Netherlands of Samsung tablets. Apparently, Apple doesn't put much value on functionality, but prefers looks:

(translated from nu.nl)

According to Apple, the company even made concessions on the functionality in favour of the looks of the Ipad. "Apple is a design-first company. The design goes for the functionality. People will stand in line in the middle of the night for the Apple Stores because the products are so beautiful", according to the lawyer in his plea.

Apple decided to not add a border to the tablet, which caused the screen to lay at the same depth as a possible border (??????). This causes the screan to be vulnerable for scratching if the tablet is put down, says Apple.

"The design became a lot more vulnerable and fragile, instead of technical or functional. ..."

So, the Ipad is looks first, and functionality, oh, that's nice, but not important...

[Graham]

Originally Posted by kacir

That is what I thought initially. Ridiculous!

Then I saw Samsung galaxy pad and iPad side to side in shop. It took me a little while to realize that those two were two different devices. Even the aspect ratio difference was not obvious because one of them was displayed in portrait position and the other one in landscape position. Only when I started to play with them I realized that one of then has Android, while the other one iOS.

But the point is you did realise, as soon as you started to play with one. Do you think anyone would accidentally buy the Samsung if they were looking for an iPad?

Looking similar from a short distance away doesn't lose Apple sales.

Graham

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Graham

Do you think anyone would accidentally buy the Samsung if they were looking for an iPad?

I do.
Like parents that are looking for a gift and do not understand what they are buying. It looks like the picture their kid was showing them excitedly.

Many people just go to buy a tablet "like John has". They see absolutely no difference between Android and iOS, and if you wanted to explain they wouldn't be willing to listen.

Disclaimer:
I still think that Apple shouldn't have won, because to begin with, the "Community design" is waaaay to vague, and there are many cases of prior art, and you can't patent "the only obvious way of how to do simple things". What shape are displays supposed to be if not rectangular?!?

I only wanted to say, that the judge didn't have to be bribed or totally ignorant.

[kartu]

kacir
Having compared them myself, I'm quite puzzled on how it took you so long to figure they are different.


In other news, tomshardware keeps showing Motorola Xoom in its articles about Samsung...

Below: ipad (left) motorola xoom (center) samsung galaxy tab (right)

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by kacir

I do.
Like parents that are looking for a gift and do not understand what they are buying. It looks like the picture their kid was showing them excitedly.

Those parents would probably also pick up the Sony and think it's an Ipad... Hey, it's also a tablet, right? Ergo: an Ipad.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by kacir

I do.
Like parents that are looking for a gift and do not understand what they are buying. It looks like the picture their kid was showing them excitedly.

Many people just go to buy a tablet "like John has". They see absolutely no difference between Android and iOS, and if you wanted to explain they wouldn't be willing to listen.

Do you think enough people would make this mistake that it would cause Apple irreparable harm?

While there may be some people out there who are happy to spend $500 without checking for an Apple logo, I don't think there are enough to warrant this sort of legal action.

Graham

[afa]

Originally Posted by kacir

Many people just go to buy a tablet "like John has".

I doubt that. I think it's far more likely that the clueless parents in your example have no idea what a "tablet" is, but they will be more aware of the iPad. They're not going into a store and asking for "a tablet please"; they will specifically ask for iPad. In fact, even if "John" has an Android based tablet, they will probably still ask for an iPad because they'll think that's what John has.

The chances of someone confusing the Galaxy Tab with iPad is somewhere between 0.1 to 1.42%.