



I. A Bitter Battle



The court battle has been fierce.  

Judge Koh


The case currently dangles in the realm of subjectivity.  




II. One Last Effort at Peace


Tim Cook and Kwon Oh-hyun




III. Samsung Presents Quandary for War-maker Apple 

The Samsung case is made unique by two factors.



Samsung iPhone 4S




Source: Bloomberg

Comments     Threshold


RE: Apple WANTS a fight, not a settlement
By Tony Swash on 8/20/2012 8:08:32 PM , Rating: -1
I find it funny that people call Apple's copying of Sci-fi concepts

You actually wrote that? In Public? Clearly your ability to cope with appearing foolish is very high.

So when somebody invents a warp drive that actually works they won't be able to patent it because there was a cardboard pretend warp drive in Star Trek?

Jeez - iPhobia really does rot the brain.


RE: Apple WANTS a fight, not a settlement
By Iketh on 8/20/2012 10:27:08 PM , Rating: 1
lol, of course someone can invent a warp drive... you can begin your debate after someone invents it and then sues someone else that does the same thing...

THAT is the analogy, please try to think

RE: Apple WANTS a fight, not a settlement
By Tony Swash on 8/21/12, Rating: 0
By Iketh on 8/22/2012 11:35:48 AM , Rating: 2
No one said you're not allowed to patent a warp drive..... What is wrong with your head?

RE: Apple WANTS a fight, not a settlement
By dgingerich on 8/21/2012 1:41:08 PM , Rating: 1
The moment someone invents a warp drive that uses anti-matter and "dilithium crystals" to generate a warp plasma, send that through mysterious "warp coils", and generate a "warp field", yeah, they won't be able to patent that. (Don't get on me about warp drive, I was a Star Trek expert back in my younger years, and I'm not ashamed of it.) However, the current patent system would allow someone to patent a "warp drive" based on the basic concept of altering the space around an object, regardless of how it is performed, and that is specifically what is broken.

The fact of the matter is that certain things are completely made up, like Star Trek's warp drive. There is no foundation in science for how those work. The basic concept is there, but the mechanics is what matters.

Yes, Apple should be allowed to patent the specific way they built their iPad and iPhone, as far as battery construction, circuit layout, and screen layout, if they invented it. (They didn't invent the layout of their touchscreen, though, as that was invented far earlier, and they just copied Mitsubishi's layout, under license.) They should be allowed to patent their way of detecting a finger slide across the screen, or multi-touch gestures even, if they invented it. (In case you were wondering, they didn't, as that was invented back in the mid-90's.)

No, they shouldn't be able to patent a simple flat rectangle, as that has been in science fiction for decades, and they did nothing to innovate that. They should not be allowed to patent anything general, like multi-touch gestures or finger sliding in general, only the technique on how they detect and manage it. There is nothing innovative on general concepts, only on how to do it.

Edison didn't get a patent on electrically generating light, only using certain filaments to do so. If he had been able to patent that, as he would under the current system, we would all be paying $100 for a lightbulb these days, and most of us would be in the dark.

Don't get on me about the particulars. I know exactly what's wrong with the system: lawyers.


