Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
This is a fair comment, and certainly one of the key things
that will be debated.
However, from a functionality standpoint, the inability to
increase (or decrease) the number of buttons - that is,
Apple telling me what is best -- is ridiculous.
Note as well, that Apple would hate your explanation -
because it implies the four across is functional, and if it
is functional, it cannot be protected in the way Apple is
attempting to protect it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
After posting, I realized that I may not have clearly stated that I had no
problem with the key thought, that Apple put four icons at the bottom in order
to strengthen its trademark claims. I don't think I would have had a problem
with the author adding something along the lines of "even though some
customers might have preferred a fifth button and less negative
space."
Let me emphasize that I was sincere in my gratitude for today's
article. I
realize that Apple may be grasping at straws as it pursues these
cases and I
appreciate the background that lets me understand better how the
case is
being
presented and judged. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
Four large buttons with lots of negative space may be a good thing.
but what about four small buttons with even more blank, unresponsive space
around them?
It sounds as if you haven't seen the ipad icons. The icons at the bottom of the
ipad are exactly the same size as they are on the iphone, it's just on a
10" screen instead of a 3.5" screen.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
The fact that it is possible to choose a different number of icons doesn't make
the number of icons non-functional. There are a very limited number of
functional possibilities here. If Apple is allowed a design patent monopoly on 4
... and Nokia grabs 5 ... and HTC grabs 6 ... This isn't like the design of a
corporate logo where there is a massive space of possible choices so claiming
one choice has no impact on functionality. The possible choices here are limited
by functionality to an extent that makes permitting a monopoly on one choice
extremely obstructive.
The mere fact that it is possible to sell drinks in a bottle would not make it
possible to claim a design patent monopoly on the idea of selling drinks in a
can. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2012 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
Errrmmm. Cough.. My Palmpilot has 4 icons across the bottom...
Mac the Unruly
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|