The Apple design from 2004
.. which is used to ban Samsung's tablets in Europe: http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001 Unfortunately I threw my scribbing on the napkin away, in the late 80ies after half a dozen beers, as I remember clearly;-) Chiers Peter
Astounding! It took 14 designers to come up with a few wonky sketches of a Star Trek rip? BW On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de>wrote:
.. which is used to ban Samsung's tablets in Europe:
http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001
Unfortunately I threw my scribbing on the napkin away, in the late 80ies after half a dozen beers, as I remember clearly;-)
Chiers Peter
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Quoting Peter Ross (Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de):
.. which is used to ban Samsung's tablets in Europe: http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001
It's a _preliminary_ injunction. In such situations, I'm pretty sure that courts apply very unskeptical criteria to the question of merit. The main idea is to prevent harm to the litigating parties while the issues get heard in court. So, in this case, the judge has not by any stretch of the imagination ruled that Apple have a valid claim. She has merely ruled that their claim is credible enough on its face to warrant protection while being litigated to determine its merit. That aside, Apple getting an injuction against a 7-month-old product that approaching EOL isn't much of a victory. One might call it almost Pyrrhic. http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/preliminary-injunction-bars-galaxy-nexus-but-... -- Cheers, "Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moen so I lit his beard on fire." -- Kelly Oxford rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80)
They can draw a thin rectangular prism with a rectangle on the front, a circle on the top, and a port on the bottom. Wow. On 25 July 2012 16:00, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Peter Ross (Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de):
.. which is used to ban Samsung's tablets in Europe: http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001
It's a _preliminary_ injunction.
In such situations, I'm pretty sure that courts apply very unskeptical criteria to the question of merit. The main idea is to prevent harm to the litigating parties while the issues get heard in court. So, in this case, the judge has not by any stretch of the imagination ruled that Apple have a valid claim. She has merely ruled that their claim is credible enough on its face to warrant protection while being litigated to determine its merit.
That aside, Apple getting an injuction against a 7-month-old product that approaching EOL isn't much of a victory. One might call it almost Pyrrhic.
http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/preliminary-injunction-bars-galaxy-nexus-but-...
-- Cheers, "Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moen so I lit his beard on fire." -- Kelly Oxford rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Quoting Bianca Gibson (bianca.rachel.gibson@gmail.com):
They can draw a thin rectangular prism with a rectangle on the front, a circle on the top, and a port on the bottom. Wow.
Peter did not mention the actual _claims_ of the patent, which are the substance of what Apple purport to own. Many patents in recent years have been laughably flimsy, but a fair assessment of this one requires looking at more than just the furnished illustrations.
On 26 July 2012 02:10, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Peter did not mention the actual _claims_ of the patent, which are the substance of what Apple purport to own. Many patents in recent years have been laughably flimsy, but a fair assessment of this one requires looking at more than just the furnished illustrations.
Andrew Tridgell gave an excellent talk on how to read patents in LCA2010. http://lwn.net/Articles/379939/ http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/ 2nd link also has links to videos. In summary you do need to read the details, You can't use the title or the summary to tell what the patent covers (as many people do). -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
In summary you do need to read the details, You can't use the title or the summary to tell what the patent covers (as many people do).
Maybe it's my law school background, but I would never claim to know what a document covers or says without reading all of it, or at least without making sure I had found all of the relevant parts. Patent claims tend to move from the most general to the most specific as you read through the paragraphs of the document.
participants (6)
-
Bianca Gibson -
Brent Wallis -
Brian May -
Jason White -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen