decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Not only should all others use sharp corners... | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oops - A Trick For Understanding Trials - Apple's Trial Brief as text, and Trade Dress ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:47 AM EDT
Oops - again. It does say Samung Galixy 5 S in the upper left hand corner,
kind of lost in the images, easy to overlook. It looks like it is supposed to
demonstrate a soccer player hitting a gong with a soccer ball, streaming it live
all around the world.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oops - A Trick For Understanding Trials - Apple's Trial Brief as text, and Trade Dress ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:15 AM EDT
Why is it foolish?

You seemed to think that the ad was for iPhone but right at the end it was for a

What was it about the ad that made you think that it was going to be for the

The physical design of the phone? (you clearly mistook the design?)
Or the features of things it could do?

Were you hooked in watching it, or bored in watching it just waiting for the
next program [segment]?

From your description of the ad, it wasn't clear the physical phone was shown
much or easily identifiable - you describe the action in the ad and the things
being done, but not the actual physical phone and its design: your guess about
the product must have been based on the features described.

But your confusion that it was for the iPhone makes it a useful ad: it shows
that people have been brainwashed into thinking that the only smart phone that
can do those things must be an Apple iPhone and the fact that there are other
phones (in this case a Samsung Galaxy) that can do similar things may surprise

Is it foolish to challenge the base held beliefs which may be wrong?

It also slightly undermines Apple's assertions that it must be the physical
designs of Samsungs products being so similar to Apples that causes confusion
and people to buy Samsung devices thinking its an Apple device.

Out of curiosity, did the ad at any point (especially near the end) ever
mention, or explicitly compare the Galaxy to, the iPhone?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Good advertising ,,,
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT
I find MOST adverts that grab my attention are deliberately vague about what the
product is until the last second.

If it's obvious what's being advertised, I switch off.

So if the ad did what you said it should, it wouldn't work. When you watched
that "1984 Big Brother" Apple ad, how much did you have to watch
before you knew what it was advertising? (I've never seen that ad.)


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Here in the UK I saw two series of adverts for tablet devices. The sequence in
both cases was flashy and the screen content drew the attention away from the
shape of the device. I think it might have been on a dark background to
concentrate the attention on the flashy images.

One had an e-reader app. It had a slick paging metaphor that turned over the
corner of the page and then dragged the sheet over to the next page. The other
also had an e-reader app. It was nowhere near as realistic a metaphor, but it
changed the page just as easily. The first was declared to be an iPad and the
second was a Galaxy somethingorother (would that be the Tab?), but both only
revealed the information at the end of the advert.

Neither the Apple device nor the Samsung device majored on the trade dress. In
fact, they both used cinematic techniques to conceal what the device was and who
made it until the very end of the ads at which point they gave the device name,
but with no picture.

I wanted both of them because they both looked cool. I bought neither and
carried on reading paperbacks and surfing the net on my nettop. I knew they
would both end up at the back of the kitchen cupboard along with the lemon
zest-er, the hot-sandwich maker, the cheese fondue machine and the Sodastream.

Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not only should all others use sharp corners...
Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
Apple pointedly suggested that Android manufacturers might
better use sharp corners on their products to avoid
infringing on their designs!

Perhaps you feel that everyone else in the world is obliged
to spend resources on clarifying they are not Apple, before
saying anything interesting.

Sorry to arrange things backwards here, but to be clear, I'm
expressing my own opinions, not those of Apple, which appear
to be be cloyingly self-serving and stupid to boot.

Hate the math. Don't hate the mathematician!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )