28 Aug
2012
28 Aug
'12
4:23 p.m.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote: on Mon, 27 Aug 2012 22:33:37 -0700
(PDT)
With all the articles talking about this affair, it sounds like they were
squaring off over the look of the devices. Would someone please post a
link to something that clearly states exactly what the snit is about?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Tothwolf wrote:
Not part - they are the very essence of the case. Did you see the big
deal people were making of the fact that when the two devices are turned
off and held at a distance they are hard to tell apart?
Any discussion in which trademarks, copyrights, utility patents and
design patents are not clearly distinguished is doomed to be pointless.
The Apple vs Samsung case is not about any of the first three, but about
design patents. Here is what the US Patent Office has to say about the
differences between utility patents (inventions) and design patents
(what things look like):
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1500_1502_01.htm
For a utility patent, the fact that some device had been faked years
earlier in some sci fi movie does not matter at all (the creators of
"Back to the Future" don't really know how to build a Flux Capacitor,
for example). For a design pattern, on the other hand, old movies can
indeed be valid prior art. Indeed. Kubrick and Roddenberry did it first.
Flat surface, round corners
and all.
Is flat surface, rounded corners part of the intellectual property at
stake??