Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Jul 2012 17:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 527361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
mrstep,
Your right, the patent system sucks.
"Anyway, I saw this ruling and thought it was a joke: The backs of the devices are distinguishable. Really? That's from a supposedly educated judge?"
I didn't see that actual claim, per say. He said it wasn't copied, not "the backs of devices are distinguishable". Take for example two brands of toilet paper, they may not be distinguishable, but being so generic there's no implication they were "copied" either.
If you took a dozen product designers in seclusion, and had them develop tablet form factors given the same specs, I bet you as many as half of them would be indistinguishable from the back without some kind of additional differential marking. But so what? Generic designs shouldn't be exclusive. Apple likes "simplicity", but that often happens to also be very generic looking as well. There'd have to be something truly unique to warrant giving it any kind of protection, frankly it'd have to be more complex than anything apple has put out in the tablet space.