The samsung galaxy tablet does not claim to be an ipad. It is visually different from an ipad. If it were packaged in a similar box, it would be a trade dress violation, but it is not a counterfiet ipad. It is a fully competing product that appeals to the same aesthetic design class.
Holy shiat, dude. You're the most transparent concern troll in history. Do you think ANYONE will fall for this? And come on, with the way you keep emphasizing "judge LUCY," are we really supposed to take you seriously at all?
I do not know where you learn (incorrect usage of a past participle -know- (and I assume here the person you are referring to has already been to an institution and has since left?, correct is to say 'I do not know where you learned') your logic (where implies from, chop it.), the sentence "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" and the word "BIAS" has no co-relationship (Made up word, relationship explains here what you mean just fine minus the co-, or you could restructure to use correlation) at all (No Period)
Often the burden of proof for obviousness is "the opinion of a lay person of that field." I am not a patent lawyers, but I have dealt with framing images and prints, and have been for years.
Ever heard of anyone who bought a picture frame thinking it was a tablet, or bought a tablet thinking it was a picture frame? Who are these lay people you're talking about?
My concern was if the judge Lucy Koh could be fair in this case
Oh, so are you afraid she might be fair? Well in that case you should be concerned, because given her track record that's very likely... If that's not what you meant, then you are concerned about she being biased. So, which is it?
I do not know where you learn your logic from, the sentence "I am concerned with is the conduct of the judge Lucy Koh" and the word "BIAS" has no co-relationship at all
That's because you are a retard. You implied bias the moment you demonstrated concerns about the judge and pointed out a previous ruling as a reason for your concern. If you were not implying bias, you would not be concerned.
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one first thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Samsung. Samsung is a electronics maker from the country Japan. But Samsung markets in the country America. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Both Samsung and Lucy Koh (the judge) are Korean, and after reading the article I have full trust in her competence.
It's the players that created this game and perpetuate it, and Apple is (at the moment) the worst of the bunch.
I disagree, the worst of them are the patent trolls and the patent cartels. Apple is straightforward, you always know what to expect from them, but you never know what to expect from people who threaten with "235 patent infringements" without ever telling you what those patents are in attempt to practice extortion. I'm very glad to see someone actually play the game, force other layers to put their money where their mouth is, and expose potentially anti-competitive behavior (Microsoft and IBM being scared of their patent licensing deals with Samsung being exposed and all). You hate Apple because they are the only ones playing an open game that you can actually see.
The most effective way to end the game is to get the players to stop playing.
And how do you accomplish that without demonstrating that the game is flawed in the real world (precisely what Apple is doing, intentionally or not)? Also, should the game cease to exist, what alternatives would you suggest to promote innovation? Say everyone in the market could suddenly make iPhone clones: how would Apple be rewarded for their innovation? Why would Apple even enter the game in the first place?
Except this law is restricting what you can say based on ambiguous terms rather than actually protecting people from harassment or threats, which have much less ambiguous definitions and cover more than speech. Since the choice of whether to be offended or not is entirely yours, you are perfectly capable of defending yourself without requiring intervention from the state.
Naturally people generally don't want the government to have the power to suppress political speech and the like, but at some point you have to decide things like if it's reasonable to have some right to privacy (like in your own home), and how far these other rights extend when in conflict with each other.
Freedom of speech and privacy do not overlap. Anyone entering your property by their self determination is explicitly waiving their freedom of speech in exchange for access to confidential information about you. There is absolutely no overlap here, your loss of freedom is a result of your actions, nothing else.
This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.
I would like to see your definition of "intimidation" and "harassment", because this is not a case of either, and even if it was, as long as it was only spoken, there would be no harm. People who take offense should be purposefully offended until they learn because these people are essentially telling the rest of the world that due to being totally incapable of controlling their emotions we should do that for them.
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical justification for such a retarded law. Only in a country without a constitution would this kind of idiocy be possible.
It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.
Your sources are outdated. Project Purple's prototypes from 2005 are being used to refute Samsung's claim that Apple copied SONY. Guess LG wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they sued Apple after all, and the whole LG Prada bullshit can now be put to rest...
"Everything"? "Unrelated subject"? Existence of Samsung's own similar design released at almost same time with iPhone and registered before iPhone was demoed points in direction of Samsung copying Apple?
The fact that Samsung was aware of the SONY design mockup from 2006, does. Everything else you mentioned is irrelevant.
This, Apple's mockups, Samsung's claims fo Sony influence and others are in current round of hearings.
Not anymore, that's already being refuted. News of the day is that Apple had iPhone 4 designs in 2005 that Samsung wasn't aware of. Keep up!
Also, "Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items,[8] even those of different utility than the patented object. An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized." (source: Wikipedia, lol).
I accept being wrong in that regard, but that argument has no relevance anymore.
Also, good job bringing "possibly industrial espionage" in there.
How else would Samsung be aware of Apple's designs from 2006 in order to make the "Apple copied SONY" claim?
Also, I think feeding time is nearly over.
Yes, because claiming that I'm a troll will validate all your arguments, right?
You start by mixing up two issues: a) did Samsung copy Apple and b) can Samsung invalidate Apple's patent based on their own patent. While b) is a "no", because their design patent is on a phone with slide-out keyboard, you somehow assume that it follows that a) is a "yes".
I was not the one who introduced an unrelated subject to the discussion. Did Samsung copy Apple? Everything points in that direction! At least now it is known that they were aware of it and did nothing to prevent the situation. How long they've been aware of it is a different story altogether, but judging by the (now refuted) evidence that they've provided in their defense, they've been aware of Apple's designs for quite some time...
Also, you are again disconnected from reality, because Samsung indeed points out F700 in their arguments.
Perhaps that's already been refuted and that's why Samsung accused Apple of copying SONY with an old design that was not known to the public, and perhaps that's why Apple is now shooting back with iPhone 4 design mockups from 2005 which Samsung was not aware of...
Then you mix up "making a product" and "getting a design patent". While you might be able to get out a product based on design from other domain, getting your own design patent on someone else's design from other area and forbidding others from producing the same is a different matter. You might be allowed to produce it, but you can't claim you created it.
If the design patent has no application in a particular domain, others can patent the same design since there's no prior art in that domain. Not that any of this matters, Apple is owning the stage in every possible way right now, there's no way Samsung can get out of this mess now, they can only do damage control now. It is being demonstrated that they violated patents in bad faith and possibly with aid from industrial espionage. Samsung is doing a pretty good job shooting themselves in the feet by keeping this up, and Google will go down along with them!
Living inside RDF must be fun, eh? Too bad none of your arguments are based in reality.
Samsung was showin this working phone a month after iPhone, they also got UI design award for its purely touchscreen interface, and keyboard was there only for text input, as its display's resolution wasn't enough for onscreen keyboard.
Oh, and domain isn't relevant for design patents' prior art. You can't just take a design from someone and claim it as your own because "it wasn't actual item" or "it was in other domain".
Samsung was showin this working phone a month after iPhone, they also got UI design award for its purely touchscreen interface, and keyboard was there only for text input, as its display's resolution wasn't enough for onscreen keyboard.
Strange then that they aren't using this claim in court... Don't bring that bullshit about Korean patterns again either, because even though the patents themselves wouldn't be valid in the US, their filing documents would constitute prior art thus making it retarded for Samsung to not have used this to defend themselves already.
Oh, and domain isn't relevant for design patents' prior art. You can't just take a design from someone and claim it as your own because "it wasn't actual item" or "it was in other domain".
Designing a cell phone similar to a remote control does not violate any design patterns because the designs are applied to different domains. You could legally make an iSoap or an iToyPhone modeled after an iPhone 4S, and Apple wouldn't be able to sue you for violating design patterns, and while they could still sue you for damaging their image by misrepresenting their products, this requires an actual implementation.
The company doesn't want to sell food to Blacks. They are forced to sell something they don't want to sell. And yes, companies are forced to sell all the time. One of the reasons the EV1 was never "sold" in the US is because of the regulations requiring spare parts and such be for sale for minimum periods of time. GM didn't want to, so they only leased them, then destroyed them all when the leases ended. Because selling one requires they sell other related things for years to come.
A vendor is not necessarily a retailer, and an author is not necessarily a publisher. While retailers can not discriminate against customers unless regulation states otherwise, they are perfectly fine to discriminate against vendors. Likewise, while publishers can not discriminate against customers unless regulation states otherwise, they are perfectly fine to discriminate against authors, so all your points are moot.
There are not and there should never be laws requiring retailers or publishers to sell wares from anyone, that would open a huge can of worms where retailers and publishers would get constantly abused and forced to auction their shelves or publishing resources with huge negative consequences to the consumers, who would only witness product costs skyrocket.
And yes, there should be laws against public companies censoring information. This doesn't mean every bookstore has to carry Debbie Does Dallas. What it means is that a public company can't overtly censor material, like what Apple just did.
Why should these laws exist? Why should your freedom to publish be any more important than a publisher's freedom to deny your crap? What is legally stopping you from starting your own publisher and publishing whatever you wish?
A broad law stating that sellers can not censor content without any exceptions would "expect" that, since that's within its scope. There's no straw man argument anywhere in there, the position of the AC is not being misrepresented, that's the scope that they defined.
Actually that is still very much a strass man argument. The point being raised is selective censorship, your example would be only applicable if said religious bookseller was happy to show other sex related manuals but then reject the Karma Sutra because it is sex related. No one is asking Amazon to show the type of content that they don't consider acceptable.
You have an incorrect definition for a straw man fallacy. A strawman fallacy happens when party A misrepresents party B's position in order to subvert the discussion, and this is not what's happening here. Party B (the AC who suggested a law that would prevent sellers from selecting the content that they sell) made an extremely broad suggestion, and other people (party A) are correctly inferring from the general to the particular in order to demonstrate the consequences of the application of such a broad law. There is absolutely no straw man fallacy here, these applications are perfectly within the scope of party B's position and thus perfectly valid logic deductions.
Wow, talk about blaming the victim. Don't pretend this isn't Apple's fault, in fact I don't even think this was planned, otherwise she would have complained from the moment the links were blamed.
Denied once? OK, I'll try again! Denied twice? Fuck it, I''ll just run to the press, twist the facts, generate free publicity, and hopefully Apple will approach me accept my crap in the end!
In a way I think this is a great opportunity to illustrate why monopolies, even popular ones are bad. Talking about popular monopolies, are you a fan of Apple? Because that was some nice brand loyalty there.
So far we've only heard one side of the story, and not even a well written one at that: the article is missing a double quote, so it's impossible to tell whether ""No, no. The problem is the CONTENT." was Apple's actual reply or a made up reply in an attempt to blame and shame while at the same time hiding the actual reason for the denial. It is very easy to blame a big company that never addresses single cases like this in public and take advantage of the publicity that it generates.
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's lawyers don't think so...
Ad hominem requires that the attack to the poster be used to subvert the discussion, which is not what I did. I addressed your post directly.
No, and formal logic does not require me to (see above).
God damn man, I was having fun with the trolls!
Please, retry with proper grammar.
Ever heard of anyone who bought a picture frame thinking it was a tablet, or bought a tablet thinking it was a picture frame? Who are these lay people you're talking about?
Except you have to take all design patents into account at the same time, not individually.
Oh, so are you afraid she might be fair? Well in that case you should be concerned, because given her track record that's very likely... If that's not what you meant, then you are concerned about she being biased. So, which is it?
That's because you are a retard. You implied bias the moment you demonstrated concerns about the judge and pointed out a previous ruling as a reason for your concern. If you were not implying bias, you would not be concerned.
Except you can not confuse a totally different product with an iPad, but you can confuse a tablet with an iPad if it shares a similar design.
Also the same judge who found Apple and a bunch of other companies to be guilty of engaging in non-poaching deals.
Both Samsung and Lucy Koh (the judge) are Korean, and after reading the article I have full trust in her competence.
I disagree, the worst of them are the patent trolls and the patent cartels. Apple is straightforward, you always know what to expect from them, but you never know what to expect from people who threaten with "235 patent infringements" without ever telling you what those patents are in attempt to practice extortion. I'm very glad to see someone actually play the game, force other layers to put their money where their mouth is, and expose potentially anti-competitive behavior (Microsoft and IBM being scared of their patent licensing deals with Samsung being exposed and all). You hate Apple because they are the only ones playing an open game that you can actually see.
And how do you accomplish that without demonstrating that the game is flawed in the real world (precisely what Apple is doing, intentionally or not)? Also, should the game cease to exist, what alternatives would you suggest to promote innovation? Say everyone in the market could suddenly make iPhone clones: how would Apple be rewarded for their innovation? Why would Apple even enter the game in the first place?
Except this law is restricting what you can say based on ambiguous terms rather than actually protecting people from harassment or threats, which have much less ambiguous definitions and cover more than speech. Since the choice of whether to be offended or not is entirely yours, you are perfectly capable of defending yourself without requiring intervention from the state.
Freedom of speech and privacy do not overlap. Anyone entering your property by their self determination is explicitly waiving their freedom of speech in exchange for access to confidential information about you. There is absolutely no overlap here, your loss of freedom is a result of your actions, nothing else.
I would like to see your definition of "intimidation" and "harassment", because this is not a case of either, and even if it was, as long as it was only spoken, there would be no harm. People who take offense should be purposefully offended until they learn because these people are essentially telling the rest of the world that due to being totally incapable of controlling their emotions we should do that for them.
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical justification for such a retarded law. Only in a country without a constitution would this kind of idiocy be possible.
It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.
Your sources are outdated. Project Purple's prototypes from 2005 are being used to refute Samsung's claim that Apple copied SONY. Guess LG wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if they sued Apple after all, and the whole LG Prada bullshit can now be put to rest...
How's this relevant? Apple is not a public company... A public company would be government owned; Apple is privately owned.
The fact that Samsung was aware of the SONY design mockup from 2006, does. Everything else you mentioned is irrelevant.
Not anymore, that's already being refuted. News of the day is that Apple had iPhone 4 designs in 2005 that Samsung wasn't aware of. Keep up!
I accept being wrong in that regard, but that argument has no relevance anymore.
How else would Samsung be aware of Apple's designs from 2006 in order to make the "Apple copied SONY" claim?
Yes, because claiming that I'm a troll will validate all your arguments, right?
I was not the one who introduced an unrelated subject to the discussion. Did Samsung copy Apple? Everything points in that direction! At least now it is known that they were aware of it and did nothing to prevent the situation. How long they've been aware of it is a different story altogether, but judging by the (now refuted) evidence that they've provided in their defense, they've been aware of Apple's designs for quite some time...
Perhaps that's already been refuted and that's why Samsung accused Apple of copying SONY with an old design that was not known to the public, and perhaps that's why Apple is now shooting back with iPhone 4 design mockups from 2005 which Samsung was not aware of...
If the design patent has no application in a particular domain, others can patent the same design since there's no prior art in that domain. Not that any of this matters, Apple is owning the stage in every possible way right now, there's no way Samsung can get out of this mess now, they can only do damage control now. It is being demonstrated that they violated patents in bad faith and possibly with aid from industrial espionage. Samsung is doing a pretty good job shooting themselves in the feet by keeping this up, and Google will go down along with them!
Living inside RDF must be fun, eh? Too bad none of your arguments are based in reality.
Samsung was showin this working phone a month after iPhone, they also got UI design award for its purely touchscreen interface, and keyboard was there only for text input, as its display's resolution wasn't enough for onscreen keyboard.
Oh, and domain isn't relevant for design patents' prior art. You can't just take a design from someone and claim it as your own because "it wasn't actual item" or "it was in other domain".
Strange then that they aren't using this claim in court... Don't bring that bullshit about Korean patterns again either, because even though the patents themselves wouldn't be valid in the US, their filing documents would constitute prior art thus making it retarded for Samsung to not have used this to defend themselves already.
Designing a cell phone similar to a remote control does not violate any design patterns because the designs are applied to different domains. You could legally make an iSoap or an iToyPhone modeled after an iPhone 4S, and Apple wouldn't be able to sue you for violating design patterns, and while they could still sue you for damaging their image by misrepresenting their products, this requires an actual implementation.
A vendor is not necessarily a retailer, and an author is not necessarily a publisher. While retailers can not discriminate against customers unless regulation states otherwise, they are perfectly fine to discriminate against vendors. Likewise, while publishers can not discriminate against customers unless regulation states otherwise, they are perfectly fine to discriminate against authors, so all your points are moot.
There are not and there should never be laws requiring retailers or publishers to sell wares from anyone, that would open a huge can of worms where retailers and publishers would get constantly abused and forced to auction their shelves or publishing resources with huge negative consequences to the consumers, who would only witness product costs skyrocket.
Why should these laws exist? Why should your freedom to publish be any more important than a publisher's freedom to deny your crap? What is legally stopping you from starting your own publisher and publishing whatever you wish?
A broad law stating that sellers can not censor content without any exceptions would "expect" that, since that's within its scope. There's no straw man argument anywhere in there, the position of the AC is not being misrepresented, that's the scope that they defined.
You have an incorrect definition for a straw man fallacy. A strawman fallacy happens when party A misrepresents party B's position in order to subvert the discussion, and this is not what's happening here. Party B (the AC who suggested a law that would prevent sellers from selecting the content that they sell) made an extremely broad suggestion, and other people (party A) are correctly inferring from the general to the particular in order to demonstrate the consequences of the application of such a broad law. There is absolutely no straw man fallacy here, these applications are perfectly within the scope of party B's position and thus perfectly valid logic deductions.
Denied once? OK, I'll try again! Denied twice? Fuck it, I''ll just run to the press, twist the facts, generate free publicity, and hopefully Apple will approach me accept my crap in the end!
So far we've only heard one side of the story, and not even a well written one at that: the article is missing a double quote, so it's impossible to tell whether ""No, no. The problem is the CONTENT." was Apple's actual reply or a made up reply in an attempt to blame and shame while at the same time hiding the actual reason for the denial. It is very easy to blame a big company that never addresses single cases like this in public and take advantage of the publicity that it generates.