Of course not, but how would you feel if I patented lungs and then didn't allow you to use yours? You'd probably do anything you could to get back at me.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Printable View
Of course not, but how would you feel if I patented lungs and then didn't allow you to use yours? You'd probably do anything you could to get back at me.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Your opinion is fine. Now get a court to believe the same thing and you've got a proper case on your hands. Good luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Henners is right by the way. Ricecookers and computers are different industries and therefore the use of the magnet would represent a different useage.
Likewise for drug patents using the very same drug for an entirely new purpose requires a completely fresh patent reapplication.
How you want things to be and how the legal system is set up are two entirely different things.
So let me get this straight and correct me if I'm wrong here. You want me to understand what you feel is essentially a trademark dispute which in the US worked out in favour of Apple, by reading an article about patents (which you quite rightly distinguish from trademarking) and you feel that the courts in the UK were right to deny Apple..... I'm sorry but that just makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
You'd be quite upset if a company did that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
So why aren't you upset that thats what Samsung is doing as part of its case against Apple? Or Motorola against Microsoft?
Is it really a different industry? One could argue that they're both products which stop your electrical device being pulled off a table or worktop......Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
The thing you don't get is this, Apple started this big bunfight. It wasn't nice of the US to drop atomic weapons on Japan, but Japan started it and the US was merely using what was available to them to win the conflict. If I was Samsung I'd use any legal action to defend myself from Apple and/or attack Apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
It makes no sense to you because you're viewing everything I write in terms of pro/anti-Apple. You think I'm pro-Apple as do CR, Bleivano etc etc which is why you find it confusing I'm glad that Apple had its knuckles rapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I posted the article because its a genuinely informative piece explaining the process involved between the many companies using patents as a tool with which to hit each other. My points against you are that you seem to believe in a very simplified version of whats going on, essentially that its Apple thats at fault or being trivial. I'm suggesting you look at the bigger picture. Thats all.
Ricecookers are domestic appliances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Computers are computers.
These are entirely different industrial sectors....
Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Apple are just one party. The majority of litigation globally in this field doesn't even involve Apple. Nor was Apple the first to sue over smartphones (That was Nokia successfully suing Apple in a very clever case where they acted slowly and asked for compensation per unit sold rather than blocking iPhone sales. Apple delayed settling then had to pay a much much higher fee as they had sold millions of iPhones in the interval).
I do think Apple is being far too aggressive which is why the UK ruling is good, but they are hardly the only party. Try getting some perspective. As the article I linked to points out though, Apple is starting to realise the negative implications of their court cases on PR and promoting Samsung as a primary competing brand so hopefully they will calm down a bit.
BTW your references to genuinely horrific events like the Holocaust and the A-bombs in this discussion are pretty tasteless and demeaning. These are just multinationals suing each other for a quick buck, not the killing of hundreds of thousands, millions of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Who ever said that "nothing" would be able to be patented?. The discussions is about that some things are not innovative enough
to warrant a patent, especially if you did not invent it in the first place. The slide to unlock is such a thing.
The trademark is the same thing basically. You cannot trademark/copyright basic shapes like a rectangular piece of metallic or plastic with a rectangular
or quadratic display since that is how mobile phones have looked like the past 15-20 years or so. Not to mention TVs.
However something like the apple logo is what should be trademarked. Because its an unique design. a rectangular surf pad is not unique
Because there are a allot of other products that looks just like it,
The latest couple of years screens have grown in size and the physical keys have been removed but apart from that the phones look pretty much the same,