Apple fails to ban Samsung phones

[Archbob]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/12/18/judge-tosses-apple-injunction-bid-vs-samsung/

So the judges got some sense in them and decided that Apple could not trademark or patent a square with rounded corners while Samsung continues to gain Marketshare.

 

[Quackers]

Didn't Apple try and patent the "home" button?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't know if I really believe in patents, although I don't really know what they cover. I understand why you can patent specific characters or fictional worlds or whatnot, but being able to patent a square phone seems a lot like being able to patent a novel. (Not a specific novel, but the concept of the novel.) That seems a little ridiculous.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm no expert, but I'm starting to feel like patents are less about their original purpose ( protecting creative people from vultures ) and more about protecting stagnant companies from competition.

 

[Disgustipated]

haha, I love this.

I'm not actually an Apple hater. I just find it funny liberals love Apple, even though Jobs seemed to be a conservative duesch who never gave any money to charity. It's hilarious they give him all their money when he was alive. That said, Apple is an American company, and I should support American companies.

Better the money stay here, instead of go to Japan.

 

[Gucumatz]

Good for Samsung. Have an uncle who is a regional VP for Samsung - he was awaiting this decision for a while, I think I may call him now

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Better the money stay here, instead of go to Japan.

Samsung is one of the South Korean chaebols. Also, it's not like Apple's manufacturing plants are in the US either.

 

[warpus]

I'm no expert, but I'm starting to feel like patents are less about their original purpose ( protecting creative people from vultures ) and more about protecting stagnant companies from competition.

Patents are a huge problem and a barrier to market place entry in many cases. You are totally right that they aren't really used for their original purpose anymore. In some cases they are, but the whole patent system needs to be turned upside down and totally rebuilt. It's a huge mess. Companies are getting patents for silly things they should never get them for - there is just too little oversight.. Patents are being handed out for wanking with your left hand.

 

[aelf]

haha, I love this.

I'm not actually an Apple hater. I just find it funny liberals love Apple, even though Jobs seemed to be a conservative duesch who never gave any money to charity. It's hilarious they give him all their money when he was alive. That said, Apple is an American company, and I should support American companies.

Better the money stay here, instead of go to Japan.

What are you talking about? I despise Apple. It's not a lefty thing to love Apple.

 

[Arwon]

I just find it funny liberals love Apple

Is this a thing people think?

Incidentally, my very informal sample of Left Labor and Green types suggests that Greens prefer apple while Left Labor prefer Android. The correlation isn't 100% though.

 

[Archbob]

Is this a thing people think?

Incidentally, my very informal sample of Left Labor and Green types suggests that Greens prefer apple while Left Labor prefer Android. The correlation isn't 100% though.

Greens are probably richer, thats probably why.

 

[Antilogic]

Patents are a huge problem and a barrier to market place entry in many cases. You are totally right that they aren't really used for their original purpose anymore. In some cases they are, but the whole patent system needs to be turned upside down and totally rebuilt. It's a huge mess. Companies are getting patents for silly things they should never get them for - there is just too little oversight.. Patents are being handed out for wanking with your left hand.

Intellectual property is a difficult field, and it's being made all the more complicated by people trying to expand what patents do.

The "rounded square/rectangle" design that Apple patented falls under the "design patent" category, which is a somewhat new idea that covers nonfunctional aesthetic properties of a product. I think this kind of stuff used to be thought of as a trademark or a service mark and thus it fell under a different (and perceived less rigorous) intellectual property laws.

Is this a thing people think?

Also, this was my first reaction.

 

[Arwon]

Greens are probably richer, thats probably why.

Nah we're all similar types.