|
Authored by: nsomos on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
A summary in posts title may be helpful.
Before suggesting a correction to any brief or transcript,
please check against the PDF, as errors in the original source
are not to be corrected here.
Thnk U -> Thank You[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
I have a Kindle DX and people see me reading it and ask if it's a iPad, or ask
me how I like my iPad.
the Kindle looks vastly different than the iPad, but some people assume that any
tablet is an iPad.
I sure hope that the fact that there are people stupid enough to think this
doesn't mean that all tablets infringe on the iPad "Trade Dress"
does anyone really think that the following picture could be confused with an
iPad by anyone who knows anything about an iPad?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://reviews.cnet.com/i/bto/20090506/Kindl
e_DX_horizontal.JPG&imgrefurl=http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10235053-
82.html&h=361&w=540&sz=195&tbnid=9hXmBjtTrHSGNM:&tbnh=90&
;tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__zHzBIsid_lwiwPP7Fopw25NK9JU=&docid=fWlhZ9RdrC
hleM&sa=X&ei=MzgfULCuBcHuigKpgIGgDg&ved=0CG4Q9QEwBA&dur=5835[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yup, I know - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
- Trade Dress idiocy - Authored by: calris74 on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT
- I concur - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- Trade Dress idiocy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:54 AM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- act against what court order??? - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Samsung have clearly copied these physical designs - Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: nuthead on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
- Same old whine, new bottle - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- Oh, and - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:10 PM EDT
- According to UK courts ... - Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Well argued, sorry PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: calris74 on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT
- Engineers can spell. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:11 AM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:53 AM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- PJ - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT
- You are wrong - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT
- I'm sorry Apple, I'm afraid you can't do that. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- Trade Dress idiocy - Authored by: belboz on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:53 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
Off tropic too
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is Surface Microsoft's confession that Windows 8 isn't really cut out for tablets? - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT
- 352M Miles Off Topic: mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- NASA's Own Video of Curiosity Landing Crashes Into a DMCA Takedown - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Scripps Local News does a Takedown on NASA - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- Common Desktop Environment released as LGPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Curiosity project == Damages Apple is claiming - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- SCO filed for chapter 7 - Authored by: Baud on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT
- Treo phone icon - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 04:40 AM EDT
- Did Apple try to kill an old lady? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- PJ... a patent idocy article from tech republic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT
- US House to ITU: Hands Off the Internet - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Off Topic thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
When will the first news of Curiosity break or will Curiosity break?
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News Picks - Authored by: BobDowling on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:09 AM EDT
- News Picks - Authored by: BobDowling on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- A Windows type solution to slow Nokia sales. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- Day 3: Witness revoked statement and Apple copied Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:22 AM EDT
- The dangers of 'the cloud' - Authored by: complex_number on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- (BGR) Microsoft’s patent pressure pays off: $800M in fees from Samsung, HTC ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- Apple: Samsung even lifted our icons (pictures) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- Apple: Samsung even lifted our icons - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Amazing! NASA photographs split second when Curiosity enters Mars - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Google records show book scanning was aimed at Amazon - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
"There are a lot of variables, including the inclinations of a
judge."
Judges claim vehemently that they rule on the law and the law alone. If what
you say above is true, then they are either self-deluded or liars, or both.
Either way, it is not good for the law.
I would much prefer a judge that knew she could be swayed emotionally than the
corrupt fools we currently have on the bench that think they are immune.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
The correct response is to issue an injunction for Apple against Samsung for its
claims and an injunction for Samsung against Apple for the counterclaims. No
Galaxy... No Iphone... everyone loses![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reiisi on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
PJ quotes this in Apple's filings:
"Samsung's position is based on self-serving, hypothetical testimony from
its own engineers, as translated by Samsung's in-house litigation
attorneys."
It occurs to me that Samsung is fighting the language/culture barrier in
addition while trying to fight Apple. That will create a delay in turnaround
between management and counsel on important decisions like where to use what
evidence.
That said, even if there were no such barrier, if suits always proceeded
according to choreography, there would indeed be no point. Evidence is evidence,
whether it's late or not. Unless there is reason for the judge to believe the
late party is deliberately engaging in ambush tactics, there should be a bit of
leniency.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 02:47 AM EDT |
From Apple:-
Likely confusion can occur before a purchase, at the
moment of the purchase ("point of sale"), or "post-sale," such as when a
consumer sees somebody using a Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a cafe and wrongly assumes
that person is using an iPad. Apple relies on both point-of-sale and post-sale
confusion.
Prior to sale, you will be looking at ads, brochures,
and so on. iPad material will have the Apple logo all over it. Galaxy Tab
material will have Samsung's logo all over it. Confusion is impossible.
At
the point of sale, again, logos will destroy any confusion. Is the sales
assistant going to plonk down a Galaxy Tab instead of an iPad and you are not
going to realise until you get home?
Post sale is an interesting one. There
are 6 scenarios.
Scenario 1. You see someone in a cafe using a Galaxy Tab and
think "That's a Galaxy Tab - I'll buy one." No confusion.
Scenario 2. You see
someone in a cafe using a Galaxy Tab and think "That's an iPad - I'll buy one."
You buy an iPad and decide it is rubbish. Is it Samsung's fault they set the bar
too high for Apple to reach? Would you have felt better if you had seen an iPad
in the cafe?
Scenario 3. You see someone in a cafe using a Galaxy Tab and
think "That's an iPad - I'll buy one." You buy an iPad and decide it is
brilliant. A win for Apple. What are they complaining about?
Scenario 4. You
see someone in a cafe using an iPad and think "That's an iPad - I'll buy one."
No confusion.
Scenario 5. You see someone in a cafe using an iPad and think
"That's a Galaxy Tab - I'll buy one." You buy a Galaxy Tab and decide it is
rubbish. Well, Apple set the bar pretty high and Samsung couldn't reach it. Good
for Apple, but you are not going to blame the iPad for being rubbish if you
bought the Galaxy Tab.
Scenario 6. You see someone in a cafe using an iPad
and think "That's a Galaxy Tab - I'll buy one." You buy a Galaxy Tab and decide
it is brilliant. Confusion, but the only way it can be a problem for Apple is if
the Galaxy Tab is a good product. Otherwise, we are back at Scenario 5.
There
are so many makes of tablet around now, no one is going to notice the
rectangular shape with rounded corners and assume an iPad. The train left that
station long ago. It is like seeing someone with a device with a hinged screen
and keyboard and deciding that it is a Dell laptop rather than another brand. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 02:53 AM EDT |
Is it possible that a seperate entity could step in and present the
evidence to the judge? My Motorola Droid (yes, the first one, and I'm
still having a blast with it) has rounded corners (at least, I haven't cut or
stabbed myself on them)... this is just ludicrous.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
Why go on and on about ad campaigns and how much money they spend
on it? It may be interesting. But what does it prove? Why should the jury hear
about that? Why does the lawyer ask about ad campaigns in a trial about patents,
design patents, and trade dress?
...
I told you when we posted Samsung's
trial brief as text that parties file their trial briefs just as the trial is
about to begin, and it has the purpose of letting the judge know what each side
plans to present, what it hopes to prove, and what the contested legal issues
are likely to be.
Does the Jury get a copy of the trial briefs so
that they can understand why all these apparently irrelevant questions are
asked?
Or is this what the opening statements are for - to let the Jury know
what is going to be proved, etc, ie [a summary of] the trial briefs? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
In the recent UK judgement
(http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf
), the UK judge, while concluding that the Samsung product wasn't as cool as
Apple's, considered whether an **informed user** could confuse the two. I
haven't seen any mention about that in the present case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
This isn't good under any measure...not good at all.
Samsung has almost 80%
of its requests denied while Apple has
at least 80% of its requests
accepted.
I now see why Samsung's attorneys did what they did. Whether
it
will help, I really doubt. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
This is 21st century trade protectionism in action. The injunctions and
sanctions that the court is so desperately eager to award to Apple are just
tariffs and quotas pretending to be something else. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
If one of the factors for the jury to consider is post-sale
confusion by "ordinary observers", do we not have to ask a
couple of questions about the underlying principle?
1. Is this evidence of Apple being harmed or helped?
Suppose someone sees me peering at my Android phone and
(being only an "ordinary observer") says to themselves that
it must be an "iPhone" (because Apple's brand prominence is
so much greater than any specific Android brand). Does this
hurt Apple somehow? Or does it in fact benefit Apple by
(falsely) reinforcing their branding?
2. If the basis for confusion as to the brand of phone is
due primarily to Apple's marketing success, is Samsung (or
Motorola/Google, etc.) liable because of the confusion? If
Apple has received a "design patent" for a product, but that
product itself never had recognition except as to naming, is
there protection for something more than the naming?
I believe marketing studies would easily show the iPhone
name is better known than the product, and that "ordinary
observers" are confused as to distinguishing iPhones, iPads,
and iPods. Are we harming Apple by the confusion that
arises from their own branding strategy?
iNquiring iMinds want to know...
---
Hate the math. Don't hate the mathematician![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
Samsung could put a leaflet inside the box so that when the consumer opens the
box they can read the following:
"Thank you for buying a SAMSUNG product.
We'd like to take the time to make sure that you are aware that this product is
NOT an APPLE product and therefore it is NOT an iPad/iPhone/iWhatever.
If you purchased this product thinking it was an APPLE iPad/iPhone/iWhatever
then you are an idiot and your demonstrated lack of intelligence means that we'd
like to ask you to return this product back to the place of purchase and ask for
a refund.
If you purchased this product knowing that it is not an APPLE
iPad/iPhone/iWhatever then you have adequately proven to us that you are not an
idiot and we hope you enjoy using our product."
j[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Meh. - Authored by: pem on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
It looks to me like Samsung's lawyers aren't exactly covering themselves in
glory here.
If you fight hard and lose the case on its merits, well - that's just how the
game goes sometimes. But to lose a case because you weren't allowed to put your
best evidence into the record - to me that looks like a failure of lawyering.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Samsung's lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- Strange - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- Samsung's lawyers - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
|
Authored by: cbc on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
I found the C
licks vs Sixshooters decicion helpful in understanding "protectable trade
dress" and "confusion" issues. Also noted that it is a Ninth Circuit decision. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
This whole entire thing is utterly ridiculous to me about confusion. Can anyone
actually buy a new Samsung or iPhone product and not see the logo/company OEM
information when it boots? Do any retailers actually misrepresent the devices
from one OEM as devices from the other? My Samsung devices clearly display the
company logo (the Galaxy Tab has the logo on the back in fairly large letters
and the logo comes up every time it boots, as do my phones). Can a stupid
individual be confused by looking at a photo of each device? I'm not, but I
don't put anything beyond terminally ignorant people. Yet, how does that
translate into a confused purchase and profit for a competitor? Are there really
phone stores selling Samsung phones as iPhones?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Much of what has been said here, is what concerns me about
this trial and the reason why I wrote a post of what
Samsung's scorched earth appeal approach is.
Last I looked no one replied to that trhread, probably
because I posted when interest waned. But I would really
like to know. What is the approach if Samsung has to decide
it needs to get some of these rulings in front of the
appeals court right now. Interlocutory appeals/writs of
mandameus/etc what is the procedure.
Also what is the procedure for getting a judge recuded for
bias?
----------------------------------------------------
MouseTheLuckyDog who cannot gfet a groklaw account :([ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
Since the CAFC hasn't met a patent it doesn't like, we know
how they well rule.
What do you expect SCOTUS to rule on "recvtangular with
rounded corners and ? ( And if the CAFC upholds these
patents, I'm fairly sure that they will grant certiorari. In
view of Bilski, Mayo and the remand of Myriad?
Apple's strategy may simple be to get out as much as they can
now before they get ridiculed in the SCOTUS oral arguments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
Simple three step method for understanding trials, no matter what they are:
#1 - The system is corrupt
#2 - The judges are corrupt
#3 - The lawyers are scum
Nothing I've read on this site since 2003 has done anything but reinforce these
beliefs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Who's following who? Apples evidence pictures of before and after i-pad could be
interpreted as Apple copied Samsung. The progression from Apple's Newton to
Apple's i-pad is nearly the same progression as the whole industries. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- History... - Authored by: Jamis on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT
- History... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- History... - Authored by: Jamis on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- In the US Yup - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
I wonder if this quote
Likely confusion can occur before a
purchase, at
the moment of the purchase ("point of sale"), or "post-
sale,"
such as when a consumer sees somebody using a Galaxy
Tab 10.1 in a cafe and
wrongly assumes that person is using
an iPad. Apple relies on both
point-of-sale and post-sale
confusion.
says it all? Not that
Apple is afraid that people will buy
a Galaxy instead of an iPad, but that
they'll buy an iPad
after seeing all the things that the other person was doing
on the Galaxy, and realize that they got screwed.
Have a great day:)
Patrick.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
You can let others use it, but you have to license it to them if you don't want
to lose it for being generic.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
Let me suggest that Apple's approach is motivated by the mid-80s
when their
platform partner suddenly had a me-too product. That partner
was Microsoft who
was invited to write applications for the Mac while it was
an unreleased
project. Apple sued Microsoft, but lost badly when the court
said look-and-feel
is not protected by copyright. Fast forward
twenty-three years and Steve
Jobs introduces the iPhone that puts a good
browser on a big-screen one-button
phone whose apps are controlled (and
updated) by Apple, not the carriers. "And,
it's patented." he
proclaimed at that MacWorld keynote. And then, within 36
months two
partners go into competition, one having revamped its phone os
interface to
be
iPhone rather than Blackberry-esque. The other, proud of its
ability to get a
phone designed and manufactured in 6 months. Thus the
acrimony
usually found in divorces. We know Apple is moving Google out of the
featured slots on iOS and OS X. Are they looking to find or build up
alternatives to Samsung? On a side note, I've heard two generally
pro-Apple, but independent, journalist say there's a memo from Google to
Samsung warning it of a too similar design and there's another item where
a
big reason for returns at retail of a Samsung tablet was "It wasn't an
iPad."
Obviously this is a rumor being propagated by some anonymous guy
and hardly any
thing close to evidence. I suppose if it was going to be
presented to the jury,
it'd be in a trial brief. As a satisfied Apple
customer, this competition
by litigation and Apple's way of taking things
personally is embarrassing. That
said, the company takes risks in putting
out products that redefine our
relationship with computing and loses it when
it sees knock-offs. As I said,
embarrassed but understanding. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 03:57 AM EDT |
Look at the chart associated with this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/apple-swallowed-77-mobile-industry-profits-q2-005049394.ht
ml
Apple currently takes 77% of all cell phone profits, and Samsung most of the
remainder. If Samsung is removed then Apple will be taking something like 95%
of ALL profits in the mobile industry. Talk about being a monopoly and the
ability to price gouge! Do consumers win??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
Watching a commercial. Shows people taking pictures, sharing among large
number of people, sharing gps info, and so on. There is no clear
identification of the device being used. Thought to myself, what is that? An
iPhone commercial. At the end, it identifies it as a Samsun Galixy. Oops...
While I think that a patent on a rectangular phone with rounded corners is very
stupid, airing commercials where you don't make it clear at the very beginning
that this is the Android phone, instead of these "upscale"
commercials, (could almost have been advertising American Express advertisement
for example), is under the circumstances, a foolish thing to do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 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 - 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
- Good advertising ,,, - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- iPad - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- Not only should all others use sharp corners... - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
I've had to deal with outrageous accusations made in court filings, where, if
the defendant is lucky, a judge might, emphasize *might*, grant a motion to
strike the most unsubstantiated, heinous accusations. YouTube, Twitter,
Facebook, while they are indeed private companies, they are not court rooms, not
legal arenas.
To accuse or even hint, in these days and times, that an individual has engaged
in any violation of civil and/or criminal law, there needs to be a redress with
teeth, a strong penalty to false accusations. Corporations take it very
seriously when corp. reputation takes an unfair hit because of false
accusations.
Somehow, after who knows how much of the total readership of these sites has
seen a public accusation of IP theft or misappropriation by an individual, a
simple "oops, we made a mistake" just doesn't cover it.
The more these companies insist on people using their real names and identities,
the more serious should be the repercussions for making false accusations
against real people. Of course, in a day when companies such as Microsoft can
sandbag shareholders by earmarking legal slush funds of billions of dollars (M$
at $4.1 billion two years ago, all just for paying legal fines and fees), fines
mean next to nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 07:04 AM EDT |
132-page document shows full extent of iPhone's influence on Samsung
interface design.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui-
interface-improvement#add-comment.
Word-for-word. Samsung copied Apple's iPhone design.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Careful - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
I notice one thing that I would think would sink Apple's claims.
Every Samsung phone has "Samsung" in big letters on the front and
back.
The iPhone has nothing on the front and the Apple logo on the back.
How can the two be confused? How can stamping your company name on a product to
distinguish it from other products dilute trade dress?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|