Showing posts with label Samsung. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samsung. Show all posts

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.

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.


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 ... 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."
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 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.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Top 50 Mobile Phones According to FOCUS Online News in Germany

These are the top 50 mobile phones viz. smartphones in the world according to a ranking of mobile phones just published by the widely read German FOCUS magazine online.

The rankings of course are based on factual examinations and tests conducted with German thoroughness (see this page -- one of seven - about the top-ranked Samsung Gaxay SIII). Detailed specifications and test results are available for every one of these mobile phones at FOCUS online pages.

FOCUS published the mobile phone rankings as of June 23, 2012, and it is easy to see why Apple has been suing Samsung and HTC in the USA to keep the better phones of those competitors off American retail shelves and out of consumers' hands so that buyers are forced to settle for lower-ranked Apple products, thinking they have no better alternatives -- which are in fact available elsewhere throughout the world:
  1. Samsung Galaxy S III
  2. HTC One X
  3. Samsung Galaxy Note
  4. HTC One S
  5. LG P940 Prada 3
  6. Apple iPhone 4S
  7. Samsung Galaxy S II
  8. HTC Velocity 4G
  9. HTC Sensation
  10. Sony Xperia S
  11. HTC Sensation XE
  12. HTC Rhyme
  13. LG P990 Optimus Speed
  14. HTC Sensation XL
  15. Apple iPhone 4
  16. HTC Evo 3D
  17. HTC Desire HD
  18. LG P920 Optimus 3D
  19. Sony Xperia P
  20. HTC Desire Z
  21. Samsung Galaxy Nexus
  22. Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc
  23. HTC Incredible S
  24. Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc S
  25. HTC Desire S
  26. Samsung Galaxy S
  27. HTC One V
  28. Nokia N8-00
  29. Nokia C7-00
  30. HTC Titan
  31. Sony Ericsson Xperia Active
  32. Sony Ericsson Xperia Pro
  33. Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo
  34. Nokia N900
  35. Samsung Wave 3
  36. Huawei Honour
  37. Sony Ericsson Xperia Ray
  38. Motorola Atrix
  39. HTC Desire
  40. Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo V
  41. Motorola Razr
  42. Apple iPhone 3G S
  43. HTC HD2
  44. HTC Salsa
  45. Nokia E6-00
  46. Samsung Nexus S
  47. LG P970 Optimus Black
  48. HTC Touch Pro 2 (T-Mobile MDA Vario V)
  49. Sony Ericsson Xperia X10
  50. RIM Blackberry Bold 9790

Thursday, June 07, 2012

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:
"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.