quote: 1) Patents are a quid pro quo. You invest in research and disclose your invention to the public, then the government gives you a 20 year monopoly on that invention if it is new and inventive. This is huge incentive for research. Without patents research investment would plummet because it would be more difficult to profit from the fruits of that investment.
quote: 2) In the US, Apple bears the burden of proving the likelihood of validity and infringement to get a preliminary injunction. Samsung need only show a substantial question about validity of the patent to avoid a preliminary injunction. It should be noted that there are other factors at play that also must be satisfied for a preliminary injunction.
quote: 3) In Germany, and likely other foreign countries, the legality of Apple's design patent is legally presumed for adjudicating a preliminary injunction. This may be challenged, but then Samsung would bear the burden of proof (much more difficult to challenge validity than in the US where Apple bears the burden). Furthermore, it is more likely that design patents will be subject of preliminary injunctions than utility patents in Germany since courts apparently think that irreparable harm is more likely in design patent cases.
quote: In summary, I dislike Apple's products and practices as much as the next man, but in this case substantial blame for the preliminary injunction in Germany should be on the laws of Germany and its courts.
quote: Regarding #1, not directed at the article, more of a general comment. Basically anything under the sun made by man is patentable. Sweat of the brow isn't a requirement for patentability if the invention is new and inventive. It's hard to legislate to protect the complicated machine taking years to design if you aren't also protecting the 5 second conception of a new GUI design. Both should be equally patentable imo.
quote: Regarding #3, Here is the statute: http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/RC... Check out article 85.Here is an article written by a German patent attorney:http://patlit.blogspot.com/2011/10/industrial-desi...Here is more commentary: http://mobile.osnews.com/story.php/25056/The-Commu...Germany litigates utlity patent infringement and validity in two separate proceedings. For instance, you can win on infringement and two years later find out you actually lost because the patent was invalid. Not sure if that is the same for designs. In the US it is done all at once for both utility patents and designs.
quote: Bad patents get granted due to the limited time a patent office can invest in examining each one, bad examiner training, etc. It's inevitable. That's why we have the courts to hopefully clear these things up.
quote: If you don't like it, don't read or comment, it's that fucking simple.
quote: There was a bit of court room drama that's gathered much attention in which Judge Koh held up the Tab and iPad and asked Samsung's lawyer Kathleen Sullivan to identify her company's product. Ms. Sullivan reportedly could not tell them apart at that distance (it was unclear if Judge Koh was covering the iPad's home screen button).At that point Judge Koh asked, "Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?"At that point one of Samsung's other lawyers finally coughed up the correct response.While the incident was certainly humorous, it's important to not put too much weight in such court room drama, lest it leads one to misleading conclusions. One need only remember the controversial O.J. Simpson/Johnny Cochrane "if the glove doesn't fit" showmanship to realize that.
quote: Meanwhile Samsung's attempt to pervert the industry wide FRAND framework to try a desperate counterattack against Apple has bombed. Which is a good thing because without FRAND there would be utter chaos.seehttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/samsung-lo...and for more background on FRAND seehttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/10/study-on-w...
quote: Florian Mueller's pro-Apple anti-Google stance has been made abundantly clear so I would take his commentary with a grain of salt.
quote: This patent seems relatively obvious in that it basically covers an animation and if GUI animations were broadly patentable video games as we know them couldn't exist today, software would be litigated into oblivion, and the web would be a ghost town. That said Samsung will need to follow the path of obviousness and invalidate Apple's patent in court, as it clearly does use the animation technique covered in this patent.
quote: Once invented many things seem obvious, that doesn't mean there was not a process of invention.
quote: Apple believes, rightly in my opinion, that one of the key differentiators between it's products and those of it's competitors is it's user experience and the the way the OS and software interacts with and is integrated with the hardware.
quote: Scrolling and rubber-banding on a UI was invented long before iOS. Again you don't seem to understand. Apple seems to think just because they do things on a touch screen, that makes them unique and revolutionary. It's NOT.
quote: Tough. You can't patent an "experience". It's time for Apple to grow up and let the products compete on their own merits. If a tangible piece of tech is infringed on, hey, by all means. But all this touching and feeling and experiences and happy thoughts with rainbows crap just doesn't cut it.Jobs knew he was dying so he didn't care if his company poured billions into a legal black hole just to further his legacy. Maybe now that he's gone, cooler heads can prevail.
quote: Suppose I start market a clone of Microsoft's operating system, including features like identical scrolling and window controls, a start menu with the same functionality in the bottom left corner, with a logo that looks pretty similar to the Windows logo, with the same names and structure for the menu system, etc, etc and I call that product 'MyWindows' would anybody be surprised if Microsoft sued.
quote: The purpose of the legal action is not to permanently stop the selling of competing products, such a thing is obviously impossible, but rather to use the threat and actuality of product bans and injunctions as a lever to get competitors to remove the various features they have copied from Apple.
quote: debilitating phobia
quote: You keep repeating that, I don't think people are phobic. I think you are just insane and it's quite obvious.
quote: To argue that Samsung would have developed its tablet or phone offerings to look and function as they do without the iPhone and the iPad is just silly.
quote: The question is this: is the degree of copying, or emulation or trend following or whatever you want to call it that Samsung has done in relation to Apple products legitimate or not?