The newest patentability assessment tool from Google is referenced at Out-Law.com, which refers to Google's new EPO Prior Art Finder for the European Union, as described by Jon Orwant, Google engineering manager.
The new tool continues a patent finding tradition at Google that started with Google Patent Search in 2006 for USPTO patents.
Showing posts with label Patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patents. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Saturday, August 04, 2012
First Standardized License Plate 1957 in Massachusetts USA as Nearly Identical Prior Art for the Apple Phone in Information Display on a Rectangular Surface with Rounded Corners
Who invented the iPhone image display form? -- definitely not Apple.
The ubiquitous and generic US license plate is absolute prior art for rectangular display of text and image graphics with rounded edges in a bezel prior to more modern information apparatus. Let us look at the website
Massachusetts RMV - History of the License Plate
for a good example.
The first standardized motor vehicle license plate in Massachusetts out of the year 1957 -- more than 3 decades prior to the iPhone -- is shown below (original graphic found at http://www.mass.gov/rmv/history/):
It is virtually identical to the over-hyped "prize-winning" design of the Apple iPhone (image thumb in actual dimensions below),
and shows how the masses, legislatures, courts and judges can be duped and still are being duped -- just look at currently ongoing litigation in California and elsewhere.
An Apple iPhone is a banal license plate copy, at least in terms of design.
The point here is that the design display to which Apple claims proprietary rights is not their invention or design whatsoever. Ubiquitous generic license plates already used that very same design to display information long before the iPhone, and that phone does nothing else than to use this same format to display its information digitally - that difference does not justify special IP rights.
There is NO INVENTIVE STEP and nothing unique has been created.
The ubiquitous and generic US license plate is absolute prior art for rectangular display of text and image graphics with rounded edges in a bezel prior to more modern information apparatus. Let us look at the website
Massachusetts RMV - History of the License Plate
for a good example.
The first standardized motor vehicle license plate in Massachusetts out of the year 1957 -- more than 3 decades prior to the iPhone -- is shown below (original graphic found at http://www.mass.gov/rmv/history/):
It is virtually identical to the over-hyped "prize-winning" design of the Apple iPhone (image thumb in actual dimensions below),
and shows how the masses, legislatures, courts and judges can be duped and still are being duped -- just look at currently ongoing litigation in California and elsewhere.
An Apple iPhone is a banal license plate copy, at least in terms of design.
The point here is that the design display to which Apple claims proprietary rights is not their invention or design whatsoever. Ubiquitous generic license plates already used that very same design to display information long before the iPhone, and that phone does nothing else than to use this same format to display its information digitally - that difference does not justify special IP rights.
There is NO INVENTIVE STEP and nothing unique has been created.
Old California Speed Limit Sign Virtually Identical in Design to Apple iPad: No Inventive Step in Information Display of Digital Material
We studied law in California and at that time had a convertible to drive to boot, which brings back fond memories of driving in the Bay area.
As a special treat for patent-savvy car drivers
and also as CLE for judges judging patent and design matters,
we have looked at old California speed limit signs in the same grand State that is now hosting the Apple and Samsung design infringement case
and have found that the iPad is a virtual rectangular design replica of the old California speed limit sign (also having rounded corners and a border), photographic examples of which we found at classicdriver.com (photo of speed limit sign by Bonhams) and at the AARoads Blog, which we used as the basis for our illustration below
(the outline of the "acclaimed" minimalist iPad "design" is at the left and the old California speed limit sign is at the right, by which we have changed the original sizes of the two but have retained the relative actual height and width dimensions of each)
We see then that the iPad rectangular design is a direct rip-off of the old California speed limit sign. A conscious or subconscious causal design influence is in fact not excludable.
The iPad is essentially a familiar old California speed limit sign as far as its design is concerned.
Again, as in our previous posting, the point here is that the design display to which Apple claims proprietary rights is not their invention or design whatsoever. A ubiquitous generic speed limit sign IN CALIFORNIA already used that very same design to display information long before the iPad, and that pad or tablet does nothing else than to use this same format to display its information digitally - that difference does not justify special IP rights.
There is NO INVENTIVE STEP and nothing unique has been created.
As a special treat for patent-savvy car drivers
and also as CLE for judges judging patent and design matters,
we have looked at old California speed limit signs in the same grand State that is now hosting the Apple and Samsung design infringement case
and have found that the iPad is a virtual rectangular design replica of the old California speed limit sign (also having rounded corners and a border), photographic examples of which we found at classicdriver.com (photo of speed limit sign by Bonhams) and at the AARoads Blog, which we used as the basis for our illustration below
(the outline of the "acclaimed" minimalist iPad "design" is at the left and the old California speed limit sign is at the right, by which we have changed the original sizes of the two but have retained the relative actual height and width dimensions of each)
We see then that the iPad rectangular design is a direct rip-off of the old California speed limit sign. A conscious or subconscious causal design influence is in fact not excludable.
The iPad is essentially a familiar old California speed limit sign as far as its design is concerned.
Again, as in our previous posting, the point here is that the design display to which Apple claims proprietary rights is not their invention or design whatsoever. A ubiquitous generic speed limit sign IN CALIFORNIA already used that very same design to display information long before the iPad, and that pad or tablet does nothing else than to use this same format to display its information digitally - that difference does not justify special IP rights.
There is NO INVENTIVE STEP and nothing unique has been created.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Patent Wars, Apple, Samsung, Koh's Court & Jury, Poker and the Sucker: Guess Who?
Patent trial of the century upcoming in the USA?
"LAW at its worst" would be a better title.
And there are ramifications for Europe, too.
We are repeating below a previous posting because it shows that the current patent wars have a sucker, true to the poker adage that "If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then YOU are the sucker."
In the current litigation between Apple and Samsung, neither of these two gigantic world high-tech multis is the sucker, and neither is the court or its apparently overwhelmed judge, who are profiting greatly from the publicity, and neither is the sucker the legal system, which is reaping vast monetary profits in the pockets of myriad legal professionals.
The SUCKER is YOU, the consumer. Congratulations.
In court
OTHER people are deciding
what YOU can buy or not.
Never mind the market.
You have over the past years asked for this development by inertia, although we warned you here at LawPundit 10 years ago that this was coming.
You payed no attention.
You have not clamored for change to a rotten and currupted patent system.
You have continued to elect unqualified people to legislatures,
both on the State as well as Congressional level, where beauty queens, veterinarians, wrestlers and gynecologists, etc. are legislating for you, rather than competent men of the law, predicatably, with disastrous results.
You have bought all the hype thrown at you by evil, monopolistic and labor-abusing companies like Apple, by purchasing their overhyped products at exorbitant prices and playing "elitist" while you were at it,
and now in a finishing scenario you find many grown men and women seriously litigating intellectual property rights to a generic rounded rectangular design -- as old as the hills --
as overwhelmed courts and judges decide these issues without sending those claiming such absurd rights into the wilderness, where they belong.
Rather, a JURY will now decide the case as a bunch of laymen having no technical conception of what they are deciding have been left holding the bag.
This is absurdity in law taken to its extreme.
So who really invented bordered rectangles with rounded corners as a means of "imaging" information?
Not Apple, you can be sure.
Here is our past posting repeated.
__________________________
User interfaces on modern machines such as televisions, mobile phones and digital tablets present IMAGES on the plane surface of a display panel enclosed by a frame or bezel (retaining outer rim) of some kind.
When we talk about prior art for the design of mobile phones or tablets, we need to look at how images have generally been presented on a plane surface in the past, not just to similar modern devices.
We already posted that the Apple iPhone is almost identical in basic design to an ancient Pharaonic cartouche as a means of enclosing symbols, and that is definitely one aspect of icon presentation on the iPhone -- see The Apple iPhone as a Design Copy of the First Pharaonic Cartouche of the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt: A Design in the Public Domain as Prior Art for 4500 Years.
The same holds true for the iPad as a device that presents images on a plane surface. As shown already in the previous posting, the Apple iPad is virtually identical in its basic design to a rectangular mirror with rounded corners used in modern correctional facilities. Such a mirror is also a device that displays images on its surface, just like the iPad, and it has the same design.
There is virtually NOTHING unique about the iPad in its design and the Apple company registration of an EU "design" on a rectangle with rounded corners is a legal abomination that can not be allowed to stand unchallenged and should never have been accepted by the German courts in their recent foolish limited-jurisdiction injunction against the Galaxy Tab on the grounds of an alleged infringement of an alleged Apple design which has prior art reaching back thousands of years.
The human "invention" of the mirror may have begun with the observation of image reflection in water, followed by the observation that images were also reflected on fixed surfaces as well, such as stones, the flatter and more polished the better. That led to the development of the first stone mirrors, followed by metal, and then glass -- the latter still being a common display surface for many electronic devices.
For example, a "cosmetic palette" (viz. tablet) made of polished stone is a basic human "imaging" tool that goes back thousands of years and its basic design is not an invention of the company Apple.
As written at MirrorHistory.com:
The stone palettes of old were essentially ancient "tablets", here framed by multiple lines at the top, bottom and sides. The general design of the iPad has not changed much. The ancient Egyptians even had a stone plektron of sorts, a cosmetic stone brush, and note the rounded corners. Nothing new.
Below is the back of a mirror, today in the Louvre, in framed four-sided shape with symbols in rows of 4, just as on the iPad or the iPhone. Note the rounded corners. The mirror is dated to Seljuq, Iran in the 12th century:
Four columns of symbols, emphasized by Apple as a "design" future for its products, have been used "as prior art" since antiquity because that permits symbols or "icons" to be a size which can easily be discerned by the human eye while making optimal use of the space available on a plane surface. I.e this "design" has been "pleasing to the eye" since antiquity.
The only thing that Apple has done is to apply ancient designs to its electronic products and that is neither an invention nor an original design of any kind. It is merely commercial exploitation of the designs of antiquity for modern selfish monopolistic profit.
That legislators and courts support this kind of intellectual property theft from the legacy of mankind is something we do not understand.
Why should ONE company profit from designs that were actually created long ago by "humanity"?
Crossposted from LawPundit.
"LAW at its worst" would be a better title.
And there are ramifications for Europe, too.
We are repeating below a previous posting because it shows that the current patent wars have a sucker, true to the poker adage that "If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then YOU are the sucker."
In the current litigation between Apple and Samsung, neither of these two gigantic world high-tech multis is the sucker, and neither is the court or its apparently overwhelmed judge, who are profiting greatly from the publicity, and neither is the sucker the legal system, which is reaping vast monetary profits in the pockets of myriad legal professionals.
The SUCKER is YOU, the consumer. Congratulations.
In court
OTHER people are deciding
what YOU can buy or not.
Never mind the market.
You have over the past years asked for this development by inertia, although we warned you here at LawPundit 10 years ago that this was coming.
You payed no attention.
You have not clamored for change to a rotten and currupted patent system.
You have continued to elect unqualified people to legislatures,
both on the State as well as Congressional level, where beauty queens, veterinarians, wrestlers and gynecologists, etc. are legislating for you, rather than competent men of the law, predicatably, with disastrous results.
You have bought all the hype thrown at you by evil, monopolistic and labor-abusing companies like Apple, by purchasing their overhyped products at exorbitant prices and playing "elitist" while you were at it,
and now in a finishing scenario you find many grown men and women seriously litigating intellectual property rights to a generic rounded rectangular design -- as old as the hills --
as overwhelmed courts and judges decide these issues without sending those claiming such absurd rights into the wilderness, where they belong.
Rather, a JURY will now decide the case as a bunch of laymen having no technical conception of what they are deciding have been left holding the bag.
This is absurdity in law taken to its extreme.
So who really invented bordered rectangles with rounded corners as a means of "imaging" information?
Not Apple, you can be sure.
Here is our past posting repeated.
__________________________
User interfaces on modern machines such as televisions, mobile phones and digital tablets present IMAGES on the plane surface of a display panel enclosed by a frame or bezel (retaining outer rim) of some kind.
When we talk about prior art for the design of mobile phones or tablets, we need to look at how images have generally been presented on a plane surface in the past, not just to similar modern devices.
We already posted that the Apple iPhone is almost identical in basic design to an ancient Pharaonic cartouche as a means of enclosing symbols, and that is definitely one aspect of icon presentation on the iPhone -- see The Apple iPhone as a Design Copy of the First Pharaonic Cartouche of the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt: A Design in the Public Domain as Prior Art for 4500 Years.
The same holds true for the iPad as a device that presents images on a plane surface. As shown already in the previous posting, the Apple iPad is virtually identical in its basic design to a rectangular mirror with rounded corners used in modern correctional facilities. Such a mirror is also a device that displays images on its surface, just like the iPad, and it has the same design.
There is virtually NOTHING unique about the iPad in its design and the Apple company registration of an EU "design" on a rectangle with rounded corners is a legal abomination that can not be allowed to stand unchallenged and should never have been accepted by the German courts in their recent foolish limited-jurisdiction injunction against the Galaxy Tab on the grounds of an alleged infringement of an alleged Apple design which has prior art reaching back thousands of years.
The human "invention" of the mirror may have begun with the observation of image reflection in water, followed by the observation that images were also reflected on fixed surfaces as well, such as stones, the flatter and more polished the better. That led to the development of the first stone mirrors, followed by metal, and then glass -- the latter still being a common display surface for many electronic devices.
For example, a "cosmetic palette" (viz. tablet) made of polished stone is a basic human "imaging" tool that goes back thousands of years and its basic design is not an invention of the company Apple.
As written at MirrorHistory.com:
In Egypt, as written by Barbara O’Neill in Reflections of Eternity: The Mirror in Ancient Egypt: An Overview from Prehistory to the New Kingdom, as published on Egyptological, June 30th 2011, Edition 1:"The ... earliest manufactured mirrors ... found in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) have been dated to around 6000 BC. Polished stone mirrors made in Central and South America date from 2000 BC onwards. Mesopotamians crafted mirrors of polished cooper from 4000 BC, and ancient Egyptians made this kind of mirrors from around 3000 BC. Chinese manufactured bronze mirrors from around 2000 BC."
"The term most often used for ‘mirror’, “ankh”, also means “life”, with perhaps a play on words ‘reflected’ in the mirror’s role in preserving the image in a state of continual existence, (Bird, 1986)."The first mirrors were cosmetic stone palettes like this one currently on sale at Christies.com (here enlarged) and dating to the Predynastic days of Egypt ca. 3200 B.C.:
The stone palettes of old were essentially ancient "tablets", here framed by multiple lines at the top, bottom and sides. The general design of the iPad has not changed much. The ancient Egyptians even had a stone plektron of sorts, a cosmetic stone brush, and note the rounded corners. Nothing new.
Below is the back of a mirror, today in the Louvre, in framed four-sided shape with symbols in rows of 4, just as on the iPad or the iPhone. Note the rounded corners. The mirror is dated to Seljuq, Iran in the 12th century:
12 Zodiac symbols around the perimeter and four identical squares in the middle
Four columns of symbols, emphasized by Apple as a "design" future for its products, have been used "as prior art" since antiquity because that permits symbols or "icons" to be a size which can easily be discerned by the human eye while making optimal use of the space available on a plane surface. I.e this "design" has been "pleasing to the eye" since antiquity.
The only thing that Apple has done is to apply ancient designs to its electronic products and that is neither an invention nor an original design of any kind. It is merely commercial exploitation of the designs of antiquity for modern selfish monopolistic profit.
That legislators and courts support this kind of intellectual property theft from the legacy of mankind is something we do not understand.
Why should ONE company profit from designs that were actually created long ago by "humanity"?
Crossposted from LawPundit.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Unified Patents in the EU, nearly: Unified Patent Court to be located in Paris, London and Munich for 25 EU Member States as Italy and Spain Opt Out
Owen Bowcott, the legal affairs correspondent at the Guardian, reports that a new European Union EU Unified Patent Court will be split between Paris, London and Munich as the European Council Summit OKd the new unified court
-- except for Spain and Italy, who opted out.
The agreement of the European leaders means that a single patent at some time in the future -- perhaps by 2014 when the court has been set up -- will be valid across the other 25 European Union Member States.
Advocates of States' Rights in the USA should examine the disconcerting Spanish and Italian opt out. That kind of undesired development is what happens when federalism is too weak and legal authority is watered down by local action.
-- except for Spain and Italy, who opted out.
The agreement of the European leaders means that a single patent at some time in the future -- perhaps by 2014 when the court has been set up -- will be valid across the other 25 European Union Member States.
Advocates of States' Rights in the USA should examine the disconcerting Spanish and Italian opt out. That kind of undesired development is what happens when federalism is too weak and legal authority is watered down by local action.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
EU Cookie Law, Patent Lobbying and Business Compliance: An Evidence-Based Approach is Needed
We already warned everyone about the coming problem of the EU Cookie Law one year ago (at EUPUndit here) and then recently (at EUPundit here) as well.
Unfortunately for them, too few people read LawPundit or EUPundit, preferring blogs and websites that concentrate on quirky off-beat legal questions of little practical value or that focus on politically sensational ephemeral events.
So now, there you have it. The problem is on everyone's doorstep. What to do? We ourselves have adopted the free SilkTide solution (EUPundit here).
We might point out in the context of solving problems raised by the EU Cookie Law that an "evidence-based" approach should be preferred. "Evidence-based" is the new watchword in law, politics, science and humanities -- at least so we allege, because we have been at the forefront of this development in our postings for years -- indeed, we have even started the first Pinterest board to be titled "Evidence-Based".
Specifically, on point, at Out-Law.com at Cookie law disaster should force companies to emulate patent world lobbying, says expert we find written:
"Businesses must engage the media and arms of government more effectively. Like the patent lobbyists they must make clear evidence-based connections between the value of innovative technologies dependent on the use of personal information and the benefits these technologies bring to society."We would pin that article to our Pinterest board but Out-Law.com, for all of its pioneer posting efforts, is still behind the times and has no Pinterest-capable image that represents its website.
By the way, we do not agree at all -- in many cases -- that patent lobbyists have established evidence-based connections for the overly broad patent protection that the law mistakenly grants today, but there is no doubt that the evidence-based approach must find increasing application at all levels of policymaking and rulemaking in a world dominated by hype that often has little or no actual evidence-based support.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Internet and More Invented 1934 by Lawyer Paul Otlet, Belgian Entrepreneur and Bibliographer
A "Televised Book", in 1934?
The video below is an absolute must for anyone involved in making policies and laws in the patent field, or adjudicating patents.
Why have we created legally enforced totally absurd patent monopolies for ideas and inventions on paper already thrown into the public domain nearly 80 years ago?
More grist for the mill regarding prior art and the obviousness of many erroneously granted modern patents is this article at the Huffington Post by Sean Captain, TechNewsDaily Managing Editor via LiveScience:
Did Paul Otlet [Lawyer] Invent The Internet In 1934? (VIDEO).
See also Paul Otlet at the Wikipedia.
The video below is an absolute must for anyone involved in making policies and laws in the patent field, or adjudicating patents.
Why have we created legally enforced totally absurd patent monopolies for ideas and inventions on paper already thrown into the public domain nearly 80 years ago?
More grist for the mill regarding prior art and the obviousness of many erroneously granted modern patents is this article at the Huffington Post by Sean Captain, TechNewsDaily Managing Editor via LiveScience:
Did Paul Otlet [Lawyer] Invent The Internet In 1934? (VIDEO).
See also Paul Otlet at the Wikipedia.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
CNET News Writes that Apple wants to keep Samsung's Galaxy S3 out of U.S
Why are sensible minds against software patents in Europe?
Why are intelligent observers against overly broad patents of any kind?
Because they see what is coming and wish to avoid these kinds of monopolistic charades....but first,
a small look back at history in a short video of Steve Jobs (40 seconds)
Josh Lowensohn has the current story at CNET News in Apple wants to keep Samsung's Galaxy S3 out of U.S. because it allegedly infringes two Apple patents for "unified search" and "links for structures."
Patents for "unified search" and "links for structures"?
U.S. patent law says that obvious, overly broad claims can not be patented, and yet that is the Apple patent strategy, aided by its handmaiden USPTO: essentially invent nothing, steal what you can from prior art, make overly broad patent claims, and then play patent troll against competitors while selling overhyped and overpriced products to consumers.
That has in fact proven to be a very successful strategy, especially in the USA. Just read the Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs for lessons on how to sell $10 of cheap materials at 50 times that price to the brainwashed masses. See Steve Jobs' angry quotes from biography can be used in Apple-Motorola trial, judge rules. As one can see in the video above: "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs, Triumph of the Nerds (1996). Exactly that.
Apple invented neither search nor links. It is absolutely absurd that the USPTO has patented some kind of trivial patents for search or linking, all using the same basic prior art search and hyperlink technology that has been used since the digital era started and long before that.
A patented method to search? Forbidding others to search the way YOU do? Absurd! A patented method to link? Forbidding others to link the way YOU do? Absurd! That the courts tolerate this kind of primitive monopolistic sophistry is a scandal.
We own neither Apple nor Samsung smartphones -- finding both to be overhyped and overpriced -- but we can spot patent trolling scams when we see them.
And we can also see how essentially trivial patents are being shamelessly misused in the courts to delay product rollouts in international trade by competitors.
We are not involved personally in whether Apple or Samsung triumphs in these matters, but it is a scandal that legal systems are permitting these charades, whether in the USA or elsewhere. It is a development which reduces respect for the law -- everywhere -- and that is a dangerous thing.
Why are intelligent observers against overly broad patents of any kind?
Because they see what is coming and wish to avoid these kinds of monopolistic charades....but first,
a small look back at history in a short video of Steve Jobs (40 seconds)
Josh Lowensohn has the current story at CNET News in Apple wants to keep Samsung's Galaxy S3 out of U.S. because it allegedly infringes two Apple patents for "unified search" and "links for structures."
Patents for "unified search" and "links for structures"?
U.S. patent law says that obvious, overly broad claims can not be patented, and yet that is the Apple patent strategy, aided by its handmaiden USPTO: essentially invent nothing, steal what you can from prior art, make overly broad patent claims, and then play patent troll against competitors while selling overhyped and overpriced products to consumers.
That has in fact proven to be a very successful strategy, especially in the USA. Just read the Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs for lessons on how to sell $10 of cheap materials at 50 times that price to the brainwashed masses. See Steve Jobs' angry quotes from biography can be used in Apple-Motorola trial, judge rules. As one can see in the video above: "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs, Triumph of the Nerds (1996). Exactly that.
Apple invented neither search nor links. It is absolutely absurd that the USPTO has patented some kind of trivial patents for search or linking, all using the same basic prior art search and hyperlink technology that has been used since the digital era started and long before that.
A patented method to search? Forbidding others to search the way YOU do? Absurd! A patented method to link? Forbidding others to link the way YOU do? Absurd! That the courts tolerate this kind of primitive monopolistic sophistry is a scandal.
We own neither Apple nor Samsung smartphones -- finding both to be overhyped and overpriced -- but we can spot patent trolling scams when we see them.
And we can also see how essentially trivial patents are being shamelessly misused in the courts to delay product rollouts in international trade by competitors.
We are not involved personally in whether Apple or Samsung triumphs in these matters, but it is a scandal that legal systems are permitting these charades, whether in the USA or elsewhere. It is a development which reduces respect for the law -- everywhere -- and that is a dangerous thing.
Samsung Galaxy S3 Launches in Europe but in the USA Frivolous Use of Trivial Patents to Avoid Market Competition as Apple Sues to have the Smartphone Banned in the USA
The frivolous use of patents to try to keep companies from facing free market competition continues....
Dante D'Orazio has the story at the Verge in Apple asks judge for ban on Galaxy S III before US launch because of alleged patent infringing "similarities".
The reason for the patent law suit actually has a lot to do with the fact that Samsung on Tuesday launched the Galaxy S III in Europe, where the entire Galaxy line has been rightly leaving overpriced and overhyped Apple products in the dust, as savvy and informed Europeans are making smartphone purchase choices based on educated and informed decisions.
Miyoung Kim and Paul Sandle have the story for Reuters, writing inter alia in Samsung Galaxy S3 gets head start on rival iPhone:
Crossposted at LawPundit.
Dante D'Orazio has the story at the Verge in Apple asks judge for ban on Galaxy S III before US launch because of alleged patent infringing "similarities".
The reason for the patent law suit actually has a lot to do with the fact that Samsung on Tuesday launched the Galaxy S III in Europe, where the entire Galaxy line has been rightly leaving overpriced and overhyped Apple products in the dust, as savvy and informed Europeans are making smartphone purchase choices based on educated and informed decisions.
Miyoung Kim and Paul Sandle have the story for Reuters, writing inter alia in Samsung Galaxy S3 gets head start on rival iPhone:
"The smartphone, running on Google's Android operating system, boasts a 4.8-inch screen, one of the largest on smartphones ever, and much bigger than the 3.5-inch display on the iPhone 4S."Similar? Perhaps to the deluded.
Crossposted at LawPundit.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Hotelling's Law, Patents and Politics: The Principle of Minimum Differentiation is Stronger Than Ever
One of the major problems that modern -- stupidly drafted -- patent laws present is that they conflict with Hotelling's Law (we quote from the Wikipedia):
"Hotelling's law is an observation in economics that in many markets it is rational for producers to make their products as similar as possible. This is also referred to as the principle of minimum differentiation as well as Hotelling's "linear city model". The observation was made by Harold Hotelling (1895–1973) in the article "Stability in Competition" in Economic Journal in 1929."One can surely find querulant economists who dispute this law and there are surely exceptions to Hotelling's Law, but Hotelling's core idea is most certainly correct, as the subsequent TV example demonstrates.
Go down to your local megastore and look at all the TV sets, whose almost universal modern minimalist design consists of a large flat screen held by a thin bezel, and, if mounted on a stand, mounted on a simple stand, with predominant colors of black and silver. This is the "middle" of the TV market.
The inherent idea of Harold Hotelling's law (do not confuse with Hotelling's rule) is that the more differentiated you make your products from "the norm", the more you move away from the middle viz. center of consumer interest, thus hurting your chances of sale.
Just imagine consumer buying behavior as a bell curve. The more you move to the left or the righ on the bell curve, the more you limit and reduce your potential market. You can of course also concentrate on "niche" markets, but by and large, big sellers go after the broad masses. For example, I wear a large shoe size and have trouble finding a good selection of shoes in that size at shoe stores, where the mass of shoes are in "average" sizes. Indeed, if shoe stores do have my size, it is always in very basic "sellable" models, nothing fancy. The variety of selection is much greater in the middle sizes.
Politicians are faced with what we view to be a political variant of Hotelling's Law, i.e. the further that any politician removes himself or herself from the center, the more he limits his voter base. Hence, "successful" politicians invariably adopt positions which reflect the majority view of their constituents -- or - they face the prospect of losing elections.
The perfidy of stupidly granted minimalist design patents to monopolists like the Apple company is that patents are not being given for any real invention or discovery at all, but rather, quite the contrary, stupid government agencies like the USPTO and their handmaiden courts and judges are helping smart companies like Apple to lay claim to the middle center market for certain products by giving them patents on patent and design claims that represent nothing more than recognition of Hotelling's Law, i.e. the more minimalistic that designs are, the more they are likely to represent the undifferentiated, simple tastes of the majority of consumers.
Hence, as in the case of the Apple company -- who itself stole its name from the public domain especially because of the broad familiarity of people with the world Apple (why not simply Wozniak-Jobs, Inc.) -- granting design rights to THEM on rectangles with rounded corners, e.g. is idiotic beyond measure -- yet mainstream law is doing this.
Worse, instead of throwing Apple company design claims out the courtroom door as frivolous, courts have been lending a serious ear to claims that competitors for certain products could not use the same product color (black, the simplest design alternative), could not have symmetrical bezel edges (the simplest design alternative), could not place control features in the middle of bezel edges (the simplest design alternative), could not have the same logical number of icons on the display (the simplest design alternative), etc.
Clueless judges have permitted such absurd claims, showing that some form of CLE should be developed for judges (schooled by INTELLIGENT instructors) to get them into the 21st century and to try to get them to develop some understanding for the fact that monopolistic companies -- under the guise of intellectual property law -- are claiming patent, trademark and copyright rights not to protect those rights, but rather to carve out age-old monopolistic market niches, while denying competitors middle market access in violation of a recognition of Hotelling's Law.
Minimalism and minimum differentiation are economic necessities -- not designs invented by companies like Apple. That is why there are so many similar designs in many other product fields, as we have posted AT LENGTH over the years on this blog.
Crossposted at LawPundit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
