Omg! Stop saying the one looks like the iphone 5!!!!!!

[adriandb]

It's pretty clear you have no idea how patents work.
Patents are there to help protect IP which cost money to research and develop this protection was afforded mostly to help innovation and to protect the little guy, NOT to patent something as silly as a screen, speaker, and button combination.
Lastly patents do not have to be enforced and used in a manner to inhibit innovation or progress in a market place. In other words you shouldn't hog the patents for your own use, they should be licensed. This falls under unfair business practices for the most part specially for something as silly as a simple design concept, how Apple has been able to avoid getting charged for unfair business practices reeks of bureaucracy and very expensive legal departments. (This is evident in their lawyers quitting- lawyers DON'T quit unless unsavory practices are going on).

And to answer your question: No they honestly wouldn't for something as silly as a design. Most of the times they want royalties, not to impede sales.

We can all agree that the patent system is broken, but it really isn't apples fault for playing e game by the rules they were given. If the patent office would grow a pair and educate themselves maybe they wouldn't be approving patents for ridiculous ****. As it stands now they rubber stamp everything and let the courts figure it out.

 

[AngelArs]

It's pretty clear you have no idea how patents work.
Patents are there to help protect IP which cost money to research and develop this protection was afforded mostly to help innovation and to protect the little guy.

THANK YOU for publicly PROVING that you have no clue what patents are, or even how they work. Here, this might help you. LOL...

Simply put, a patent is "an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something." It DOESN'T have ANYTHING to do with how elementary an idea is or isn't. If someone creative comes up with an idea and patents it before you, oh well.. to bad for you that you weren't more cleaver, or didn't think of it first. That's how the system works. Sometimes the most basic ideas are the most useful.

The WHOLE point for patents is to be an incentive to individuals by offering them recognition for their creativity.

NOT to patent something as silly as a screen, speaker, and button combination.

Again you publicly prove that you know nothing about the patent process. Here's a question for you, if Apple shouldn't have been granted a patent for their "screen, speaker, and button combination" then tell me, why didn't samsung or any other company revoke the patent by applying to the Registrar? LOL. Cat got your tongue?

 

[carraser891]

It's clear that you don't understand how patients work. There's not a single android fanboy who wouldn't do exactly as Apple has IF they actually had a patient to protect. LOL....

Oh I understand. I understand that patient law is the biggest hindrance of innovation in the industry. Especially when Apple bullies everyone with their lawyers...

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Gathomblipoob]

Oh I understand. I understand that patient law is the biggest hindrance of innovation in the industry. Especially when Apple bullies everyone with their lawyers...

Posted via Android Central App

Now admit it - if HTC (or your favorite phone manufacturer) was bullying everyone with their stable of lawyers you'd be all for it. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[AngelArs]

Oh I understand. I understand that patient law is the biggest hindrance of innovation in the industry.

Thank you for posting your OPINION. Too bad for you iit's not fact.

Everyone here also noticed that you had no answer for why samsung, or any other company, didn't try to revoke Apples patent for, how did you put it? Oh yeah, "something as silly as a screen, speaker, and button combination" by applying to the patent Registrar. Noted.

 

[gollum18]

Actually patent law exists to protect inventors from other people stealing their creations. Ip law, of which forms the majority of apples lawsuits is an entirely different matter (and the biggest headache to deal with).

Sprint GS3 Running TN's Msg and Chubbs

 

[AngelArs]

Actually patent law exists to protect inventors from other people stealing their creations.

Yes, that would be the incentive

 

[JHBThree]

We can all agree that the patent system is broken, but it really isn't apples fault for playing e game by the rules they were given. If the patent office would grow a pair and educate themselves maybe they wouldn't be approving patents for ridiculous ****. As it stands now they rubber stamp everything and let the courts figure it out.

Your last sentence is undermined by the fact that they DON'T rubber stamp everything, and that they thoroughly review all of the patents that are being argued about here and elsewhere.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

It's pretty clear you have no idea how patents work.
Patents are there to help protect IP which cost money to research and develop this protection was afforded mostly to help innovation and to protect the little guy, NOT to patent something as silly as a screen, speaker, and button combination.
Lastly patents do not have to be enforced and used in a manner to inhibit innovation or progress in a market place. In other words you shouldn't hog the patents for your own use, they should be licensed. This falls under unfair business practices for the most part specially for something as silly as a simple design concept, how Apple has been able to avoid getting charged for unfair business practices reeks of bureaucracy and very expensive legal departments. (This is evident in their lawyers quitting- lawyers DON'T quit unless unsavory practices are going on).

And to answer your question: No they honestly wouldn't for something as silly as a design. Most of the times they want royalties, not to impede sales.

You clearly don't know the difference between design patents and utility patents, and the standards required to claim infringement under them. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the differences before you continue to post.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Surprised Apple hasn't sued HTC for "infringing" on their rounded corners patient.... Lmao Apple is a joke

Posted via Android Central App

Apple doesn't have a patent on rounded corners. They have a patent on a very specific design, which the One doesn't infringe.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[adriandb]

Your last sentence is undermined by the fact that they DON'T rubber stamp everything, and that they thoroughly review all of the patents that are being argued about here and elsewhere.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Really? Look at some of the BS patents that have been awarded in the tech industry alone and tell me if you think they're being thorough.

 

[JHBThree]

Really? Look at some of the BS patents that have been awarded in the tech industry alone and tell me if you think they're being thorough.

They are. If they were just rubber stamping, they wouldn't actually review patents. They also wouldn't require patents to be altered before they're granted. (Both situations apple and Google have faced)

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[asanatheist]

We can all agree that the patent system is broken, but it really isn't apples fault for playing e game by the rules they were given. If the patent office would grow a pair and educate themselves maybe they wouldn't be approving patents for ridiculous ****. As it stands now they rubber stamp everything and let the courts figure it out.

It's called having a moral compass. Some companies would rather do the right and fair thing than to find a loophole, or a sham.

THANK YOU for publicly PROVING that you have no clue what patents are, or even how they work. Here, this might help you. LOL...

Simply put, a patent is "an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something." It DOESN'T have ANYTHING to do with how elementary an idea is or isn't. If someone creative comes up with an idea and patents it before you, oh well.. to bad for you that you weren't more cleaver, or didn't think of it first. That's how the system works. Sometimes the most basic ideas are the most useful.

The WHOLE point for patents is to be an incentive to individuals by offering them recognition for their creativity.

[/COLOR]
Again you publicly prove that you know nothing about the patent process. Here's a question for you, if Apple shouldn't have been granted a patent for their "screen, speaker, and button combination" then tell me, why didn't samsung or any other company revoke the patent by applying to the Registrar? LOL. Cat got your tongue?

What did you say in your post that wasn't said in mine but with different words?
Because the patent system and namely the US Court system is prehistoric, and broken?
I've been privy to several cases in the multitude of millions. Money wins in court most of the time, simple as that.

Just because it's legal or in a grey area, doesn't mean it's constructive nor is it beneficial to an industry.

Good luck getting a patent overturned in a system that believes holes in clothing, buttons on a watch, switches instead of buttons, Speakers on a phone, screens on a phone are a technology.

Google could stomp Apple (and anyone) with the patents they received as part of Motorola. Motorola holds and or held or is going to hold patents which have made phones possible (particularly in the communications/network department). They have the capital for a legal department to match Apple's while putting nothing at risk, which is what matters.
If they were serious about it, they could open cases to every single phone company in the world that does business in the USA and make it impossible for people to make phones, period. Of course if this happened, they'd be charged with monopoly.

Why doesn't Google do it? Because they're in the business of making things, not destroying them. Difference between Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, and many others and Google? Google has something resembling a moral compass. Whether it's there from ego, or actual good intent I don't know.

 

[AngelArs]

If they were just rubber stamping, they wouldn't actually review patents. They also wouldn't require patents to be altered before they're granted.

Well stated.

 

[asanatheist]

Apple doesn't have a patent on rounded corners. They have a patent on a very specific design, which the One doesn't infringe.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Not going to get into it. Design and utility patents can lead to very serious and very erroneous trademark or brand identity arguments which can lead to things like trademarking a hole used as a function.

They do have a patent for rounded corners on a rectangular screen. They also hold a similar patent for their Iphone.

 

[AngelArs]

Money wins in court most of the time, simple as that.

Great. Unfortunately for you we're talking about the patent process. Try to focus.

Good luck getting a patent overturned in a system that believes holes in clothing, buttons on a watch, switches instead of buttons, Speakers on a phone, screens on a phone are a technology.

Todays your lucky day. If you really believe what you just said then you can apply to the Registrar to have Apples patent(s) revoked. Just think of it, a real David and Goliath, and you'll be on the cover of Time magazine. Now all you have to do is prove what you said is true and not nonsensical.

If they were serious about it, they could open cases to every single phone company in the world that does business in the USA and make it impossible for people to make phones, period.

And yet we hear nothing but the sound of crickets. Weird. I'm guessing there's probably a pretty good (legal) reason for that.

Google has something resembling a moral compass.

Yep, and it was their "moral compass" that helped them to decide to rip off the iPhone. LOL...

Clickity-Click

 

[AngelArs]

They do have a patent for rounded corners on a rectangular screen.

And what is wrong with that?

 

[asanatheist]

Yep, and it was their "moral compass" that helped them to decide to rip off the iPhone. LOL...

Must be easy being you. Don't think for your self. Hand off that responsibility to others to work out.
For your arguments to be valid you most postulate that the government is the sole source of truth, and morality as well as that current patent systems/court system are perfectly flawless.
Same court system that allowed for slavery, abolishment of slavery, upheld segregation, then abolished segregation, upheld women inferiority in the workforce, then worked to bring equality to the workplace.
Same patent system that: Read up on cases, and current granted patents.

And what is wrong with that?

That the same patents would not be granted for clothing in that vague of terms, that's what. They'd require degrees of curvature, lengths, materials, etc.

Edit: I think I am done with this thread. Holy smokes.

Also made some corrections.

 

[JHBThree]

Not going to get into it. Design and utility patents can lead to very serious and very erroneous trademark or brand identity arguments which can lead to things like trademarking a hole used as a function.

They do have a patent for rounded corners on a rectangular screen. They also hold a similar patent for their Iphone.

They do not have a patent for rounded corners on a rectangular screen. They have a very specific design patent on both the iPhone and iPad that include something like 20 different claims, one of which happens to be rounded corners. If they had a blanket rounded corners patent, as you are trying to claim, the galaxy tab would have been found to infringe, but it didn't.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

It's called having a moral compass. Some companies would rather do the right and fair thing than to find a loophole, or a sham.



What did you say in your post that wasn't said in mine but with different words?
Because the patent system and namely the US Court system is prehistoric, and broken?
I've been privy to several cases in the multitude of millions. Money wins in court most of the time, simple as that.

Just because it's legal or in a grey area, doesn't mean it's constructive nor is it beneficial to an industry.

Good luck getting a patent overturned in a system that believes holes in clothing, buttons on a watch, switches instead of buttons, Speakers on a phone, screens on a phone are a technology.

Google could stomp Apple (and anyone) with the patents they received as part of Motorola. Motorola holds and or held or is going to hold patents which have made phones possible (particularly in the communications/network department). They have the capital for a legal department to match Apple's while putting nothing at risk, which is what matters.
If they were serious about it, they could open cases to every single phone company in the world that does business in the USA and make it impossible for people to make phones, period. Of course if this happened, they'd be charged with monopoly.

Why doesn't Google do it? Because they're in the business of making things, not destroying them. Difference between Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, and many others and Google? Google has something resembling a moral compass. Whether it's there from ego, or actual good intent I don't know.

Actually, Google couldn't, because they were forced to sign an agreement stating that they wouldn't. In addition, Motorola is also under antitrust investigation for abusing their patents. Google is impotent when it comes to patents, and they know it.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2