Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In light of the jury verdict in Apple vs. Samsung, the one-liners and jokes flew back and forth. One in particular, by Dan Frakes, has been copied and pasted all over the web, and it goes like this: "When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious'." This is a very common trend in this entire debate that saddens me to no end: the iPhone is being compared to simple feature phones, while in fact, it should be compared to its true predecessor: the PDA. PDAs have always done with few buttons.
Thread beginning with comment 532466
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Problem
by jared_wilkes on Sun 26th Aug 2012 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Problem"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

And? The devices don't have to have only one button to be found infringing.

The problem is: people are sometimes making arguments based on their own logic, sometimes making argument based on what they think is the law, sometimes making arguments that are actually consistent with the law, and often mixing and matching and getting confused.

Thom thinks the iPhone was "obvious". I'm unsure if he thinks this personally or if he thinks legally in a court of the US as well. I disagree both personally and legally.

What I do know is: Samsung had an opportunity to prove it was obvious and failed to do so. They are represented (and so are almost all Android licensees and Google) by Quinn Emmanual, the Mighty Quinn. And they failed hard.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Problem
by some1 on Sun 26th Aug 2012 19:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Problem"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

And?

OP said that non-obvious part is specifically having one simple button. My point is that Apple complained about many devices with multiple buttons, so this is clearly not their view.

The devices don't have to have only one button to be found infringing.

Infringing what exactly? You are aware that there were many separate claims, are you?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Problem
by jared_wilkes on Sun 26th Aug 2012 19:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Problem"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

OP said that non-obvious part is specifically having one simple button.


And your argument was the jury found devices with more than one button infringing.

But you can't use some forum poster's personal logic for non-obviousness as an argument against why devices can be found infringing.

Invalidity of patent because of obviousness and/or your personal opinion of what is obvious is not determined in the same manner that a court determines if someone is infringing a valid patent.

Since the utility patents cover software, and the design patents of the iPhone form relate to hardware -- which patent do YOU think I'm talking about?

Edited 2012-08-26 19:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2