Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:05 UTC
Legal Yes, I'm hearing you guys - time to tone down a bit on the patent news. Hence, a summary here of recent developments concerning the various legal cases between Samsung and Apple. Today in The Netherlands, the judge ruled [Dutch] that Samsung will not be able to block the iPhone/iPad from the Dutch market. In the meantime, the Australian courts upheld the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, while the American courts ruled that while the Tab indeed infringes upon Apple's design patents, Apple has not yet convinced the judge that that actually matters. Tying this all together with earlier rulings we already covered - it seems like judges across the world are really, really willy-nilly. Update: DailyTech has some detailed visual comparisons between Samsung's and Apple's devices, as well with the various design patents. Huh. You don't say.
Permalink for comment 493102
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The real loser...
by Jennimc on Sat 15th Oct 2011 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Member since:

You miss the point. It is impossible, today, to build a product without reproducing someone else's design somewhere*.

Then you have an issue with a need to reform patent laws. You ought not take issue with the litigating company. It's not as if Apple's iPad was an unknown entity. With that said, any company who goes to the effort of creating a product to the degree that Samsung did they ought to also become familiar with the laws that may restrict them. When you consider that Samsung specifically used Apple's product as the model to duplicate their risk was known beforehand.

Strong innovation can only exist when people are building their stuff on top of each other's work.

Agreed yet Samsung didn't need to mimic so exactly their competitor.

should Apple have kept their ridiculous modal notification system in iOS 5, instead of copying Android's superior non-obtrusive notification system ?

That question assume that copying an end-goal is the same as duplicating a product or service. Apple created a service that results in the same task achieved as that which google provides. They didn't infringe on software patents or interface concepts etc.

And, for the mandatory car analogy : if a car manufacturer patented round wheels, should all other cars do with polygonal ones to avoid IP infringement ?

Your analogy is far off the deep end in an effort to make my position look far off the deep end but yes they should create a different shape of wheel is a circular one is patented. Unlike wheels, tablets can be built in SEVERAL ways to differentiate themselves. The wheel's circular shape is the optimal design however the design of Apple's tablet isn't necessarily optimal. Why couldn't it's shape or color be optimized beyond that which APple created?

Reply Parent Score: 0