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,
LOL. Did you even check his link. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
They might be a different industry, however the idea and the implementation is the same. It looks to me that you aren't really getting the simplest things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Exactly. Whatever has been already invented shouldn't be allowed to be patented by someone who claims that they re-invented it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
In teh end it's all about common sense, or lack of it due to never imagined levels of greed combined with unbelievable levels of stupidity in today's society.
Ahem! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Funnily enough I was thinking of Dyson too because he had to go through a legal nightmare to protect his patents and his brand identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
He was on the radio the other day talking about how he had to sue any vacuum cleaner maker that had started to use clear plastic and bold bright colours on their machines to protect his brand. He was pretty blunt about the need to be aggressive in protecting his investment but I guess you could flip it around and say he was trying to monopolise purple, green and yellow....
Its just par for the course.
Try telling that to the patents office. What you or I think is irrelevant. This is how the system works globally.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
This is utterly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
I have an HTC Sensation. This is clearly part of the same family as the Desire before and the One X after. In fact all HTC Android phones share a similar design language so that you know they are from the same family.
Equally Apple have a strong design language for their iPhones. You may not be able to tell which particular model it is at first glance but you'd be lying if you told me you couldn't tell it was an Apple.
Sony have introduced a 'thinner in the middle' design language. Again in the showroom they visibly differ from rivals.
Looking back 15-20 years and there was similar product differentiation. Ericsson used pastel colours. Sony's were predominantly silver/blue. Nokias were wider at the top and had very distinctive button shapes not to mention an instantly recognisable default ringtone. All were instantly recognisable as being from particular brands.
Not only are the differences obvious to the casual observer but they are recognised by trademark offices around the world where designs are submitted months and years before launch (the link Daniel gave for the Apple iPad trademark application predates the actual launch by 5 years) and rejected if too obviously similar to an existing competing product.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I'm surprised some here aren't going nuts about Cadburys vs the Vatican's official chocolate maker that lost a legal case to carry on using Imperial purple to wrap its chocolates used in religious services. Cadburys vs God, surely that should ruffle a few feathers no?
Sure sure. So when did anyone try to patent the general shape of car? Or the number of wheels? Or the number of the doors?! And so on...Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
It's people who think like you who make such nonsense patenting reality.
Well that's just another example of complete lack of common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
So some say that without patents, the whole innovation would thing stop.
So tell me then, who has the patent for:
the wheel?, ladder?, nails(those sharp things made of metal, not the things on your fingers), sail?, rudder?
steering/helms wheel?, mast?, bath?, toilet?, chair?, table?, carriage?, ploughs?, door?,window?
roof?, ski?, shoe?, musket?, bow+arrow?, cannon?, fork?, knife?, spoon?, glass?, plate?, road?, oar?,boat?
As Henners said all this displays is a total lack of understanding of the most basic principles of the patenting process.Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
Name a single part of your computer that does not have a patent. In fact, name a single thing developed in the modern era that doesn't.
Patenting isn't a secret process, the information is out there to educate yourself about it. Why don't you?
Easy there malbec boy... I have a patent for high horses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Oh really? you don't say? But how is that possble?
You and Malbec keeps saying that without patent there would be no inventing.
Guess what? I just proved you wrong. As these objects clearly were invented without patent.
Likewise I find it impossible to discuss this subject with someone so unfamiliar with this basic concept. Nor have I claimed that no patents means no invention. Patenting protects and promotes innovation but there are no absolutes in economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I'm sure I will again be attacked for being condescending but Bleiavano we're talking about a basic concept of economics that should be taught at the age of 16 or so. It is merely an extension of the most fundamental principle in economics, that people should be justly rewarded for their labour.
Read this wikipedia article about the principle of intellectual property:
Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone who understands patents and design patents surely also knows that they're not necessarily only used to protect one's own inventions or designs.
Often enough, they can be used solely for the purpose of preventing others from using them (stimie their innovation ;) ), as "swaps" for patents in a competitor's hand, or as ways to send competitors on wild goose chases.
Yes I also have a couple to my name :andrea: :dozey:
The really important stuff often goes unpatented as that would give others a hint at your secrets and the possibility of a workaround.
I wonder how much the system is abused by the likes of both Apple and Samsung, and (their) patent lawyers :)
BBC News - US Apple bounce-back patents ruled invalid
Apple just launched the iPad Mini. Looks nice and IMO the proper size and weight for a tablet. The proper iPad has always been far too big.
Hefty price tag at £269 for a 16gb model but that was to be expected!
I don't have an iPad.
:(
Yet! :)
I just ordered a SIII, and am still thinking about an iPad for Christmas... 24 Month contract for ~900€ over the 2 years for the 16GB model (costs ~550€ ;) with a 3GB flat internet rate :dozey:
Whereas I've always thought the iPad is too big and too heavy so the Mini looks about right for me.
hmm... looks like I'll be waiting for quotes on the iPad 4 :p
I'll be interested to see how the iPad Mini does. I was far more interested in the new iMacs, which seem to be the big leap forward in today's Apple Keynote. I'm very much looking forward to playing with one of those.
Yep, absolutely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
In fact Innovation should be used to steal a step on the competition and cash in on it, and not to patent old ideas and then try to keep others from re-inventing the same old idea in a slightly different way.
Anyway, Apple likes to take people for idiots and in many cases they manage to do it successfully and their patent war approach and semi-success is built on all the bad attributes of our society: lack of common sense and hyper-idiocy.
I didn't even know here was an iPad 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Lucky you. You still have the choice to get something better. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Finally a glimpse of common sense. I've had already given up on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
I actually have an example for that.
In Sweden we have a soft drink called (jul)must. The exact recipe are a well guarded secret by the family who owns it.
They have opted to not "patent" the recipe since that would mean that they would have to reveal the exact content of the recipe.
The iPad 4 is out!Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Wi-Fi
16GB £399
32GB £479
64GB £559
Wi-Fi + Cellular
16GB £499
32GB £579
64GB £659
That is of course different :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
If you patent something then when the patent expires, your product is more or less worthless as everyone will be able to make it the same way. Not a problem for the technology industry as things will have moved on by then, but if you're Heinz and you make zillions a year from your tomato sauce then you want it to carry on for as long as possible.
There's a difference though. I'm sure there were patents for when the optical sensor for mice was developed and also the laser mouse. The thing that Apple seem to be able to do is get patents for silly things like the general shape of something and anyone who makes something similar gets their butts kicked in a US court (note that it generally seems to be US courts where these sort of rulings take place)Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Crap like this needs to stop and Apple needs to let its product do the talking. Logitech are famous for their kidney bean shaped mice which fit well in your hand. Other companies are free to roughly imitate the shape of a logitech mouse (it's the sensible shape for a mouse!) if they want to and they do, anyone caught releasing a carbon copy would of course be sued, but Logitech products stand up by virtue of them being quality products which do their job well.
Apple should start making products that make people not want to buy competitors products :)