Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 532476
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.
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




Member since:
2010-10-05
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.
Infringing what exactly? You are aware that there were many separate claims, are you?