iΠατέντες

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Θερμό το καλοκαίρι για τους δικηγόρους της Apple...

Apple vs. Kodak

Eastman Kodak Co. (EKDKQ) won a partial victory against Apple Inc. over patents, defeating Apple’s ownership claims to two of 10 patents that Kodak plans to sell as part of its bankruptcy restructuring.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper in Manhattan ruled in favor of Kodak on the patents, saying the iPhone maker waited too long to assert its claims, according to a decision filed today.
Kodak sued Apple in June over the assets, accusing Apple of trying to disrupt the patent auction planned for next week. Kodak asked Gropper to rule in its favor in a pretrial decision known as summary judgment.
Kodak, based in Rochester, New York, filed for bankruptcy in January and is selling more than 1,000 patents related to the capture, manipulation and sharing of digital images. An auction is scheduled for Aug. 8.
Gropper said Kodak’s ability to sell the assets would be “cut off” if “unreasonably late claims” by Apple aren’t barred. The judge rejected inventorship and state law ownership claims by Apple to the two patents.
“If Apple’s claims proceed despite their unreasonably delayed commencement, Kodak might have to go back to the drawing board for ways to fund its case,” the judge wrote.
On the eight other patents, Gropper denied Kodak’s motion for summary judgment. The judge said Kodak could renew the request based on “a more complete record.”

Τα καλά όμως συμβαίνουν στην δίκη εναντίων της Samsung.... τελικά δεν θύμωσε απλά με την διαρροή των εγγράφων που παρουσίασε η Samsung και απέρριψε ο δικαστής αλλά ζήτησε να κλείσει η υπόθεση υπέρ της...

Apple believes it deserves a default win in its legal battle with Samsung over Samsung's leaking of evidence to the press. The company filed a request on Thursday with the US District Court asking that Judge Lucy Koh dismiss the case and rule in favor of Apple in order to "fully rectify the harm that Samsung and [Samsung attorney] Mr. Quinn have caused."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/0...ng-verdict-in-samsung-case-for-evidence-leak/

κάπου μάλιστα διάβασα, αλλά δεν μπορώ να το ξαναβρώ, ότι ο δικαστής έκοψε κι' άλλα στοιχεία που είχε παρουσιάσει η Samsung, το ένα από αυτά είναι το tablet της HP

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Το βρήκα....

In an order today, Koh rejected Samsung's arguments that it should be able to introduce footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the UK television show Tomorrow People, both of which feature characters using tablet devices, as "prior art": pre-existing creations the would call into question the originality and validity of Apple's design patents.

Έκοψε την γνωστή ταινία 2001: A Space Odyssey και μια Αγγλική τηλεοπτική σειρά στις οποίες εμφανίζονται διάφορα tablets...

και το HP (Compaq) που έγραψα πιο πάνω

Samsung had also introduced a 1994 tablet designed by Roger Fidler and the Compaq TC1000 as part of its patent invalidity case, but after the close of discovery changed its mind again and wanted to use them to argue that it hadn't infringed in the first place. Grewal had ruled against the change for the same timeline issues, a decision Koh upheld. Also off the table is Samsung's "blue glow" design-around for the iOS bounce-back feature, as well as the much-discussed "Sony style" iPhone design experiment (an email discussing the prototype will be allowed, however).

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/2/3215953/samsung-2001-uk-television-show-dispute-apple-ipad-patents

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

75.000$ έχει κοστίσει στην Apple μέχρι στιγμής ένας ειδικός στην τεχνολογία μάρτυρας στην δίκη εναντίον της Samsung.
Δεν είναι πολλά, εξάλλου η Apple έχει χρήμα, το πως το χρησιμοποιεί είναι άλλο θέμα.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/06/ho...2~unknown~1344304423242~98~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~9~3~

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Τώρα η Apple λέει ότι τις έκλεψαν και τα εικονίδια, ας βάλω πάλι την εικόνα του Nokia

Δείτε εδώ για πια εικονίδια διαμαρτύρεται....

π.χ. κατά τύχη και η Nokia χρησιμοποιούσε μια νότα και έναν δίσκο CD....

 

[xfader]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Γιατί δεν πας στο team με τους δικηγόρους υπεράσπισης της Samsung; :136:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

είναι τσιφούτηδες οι Κορεάτες, δεν θα πληρώνουν τόσο καλά όσο η Apple.. :137:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

φρέσκα νέα...

μου άρεσε η λεζάντα της παραπάνω φωτογραφίας: βλέπετε την ομοιότητα; Οι δικηγόροι της Apple την βλέπουν. :137:

Ακόμη και τα tablets μοιάζουν σαν δυο σταγόνες νερό, αυτό υποστηρίζουν οι δικηγόροι της Apple

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...msung-copied-the-iphone-and-ipad-in-pictures/

 

[rose.athens]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Δεν κλέβει και η Apple από τη Samsung την αναλογία πλευρών, μπας και δούμε κάνα iPad 16:9? :114:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον άρθρο, μου θύμισε και το iPaq που έχω κάπου παραπεταμένο :137:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Τελικά μόνο στην Καλιφόρνια η Apple κέρδισε δίκη εναντίον της Samsung.
Αγγλικό δικαστήριο αποφάσισε ότι η Samsung δεν αντέγραψε τα προϊόντα της Apple.

Apple has lost its appeal against a UK ruling that Samsung had not infringed its design rights.
A judge at the High Court in London had originally ruled in July that the look of Samsung's Galaxy Tab computers was not too similar to designs registered in connection with the iPad.
He said at the time that Samsung's devices were not as "cool" because they lacked Apple's "extreme simplicity".

Apple still needs to run ads saying Samsung had not infringed its rights.:405:

Apple has now lost a series of lawsuits against Samsung based on the design of their tablets.
These include cases in the Netherlands, Australia and US - despite sometimes winning temporary sales bans.
However, the California-based company has been more successful with other claims.
Most notably a US jury proposed Samsung should pay Apple a $1.05bn (£650m) fine for infringing several software patents, and the look and feel of the iPhone. Samsung is appealing the verdict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Ενδιαφέροντα είναι τα νέα από τη μάχη για τις πατέντες, ο οργανισμός στις ΗΠΑ αποφάσισε προσωρινά ότι πολλές από τις πατέντες που η Apple υποστηρίζει ότι της ανήκουν και τις έχει χρησιμοποιήσει σε δίκες δεν είναι δικές της.
Η νίκη της Apple εναντίον της Samsung πριν λίγο καιρό έχει στηριχτεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό στις πατέντες αυτές, επίσης με τις ίδιες πατέντες έχει κυνηγήσει τις HTC, Motorola και άλλους....
Δεν μπορώ να ξέρω πια θα είναι η τελική κατάληξη της υπόθεσης αλλά έτσι και η απόφαση γίνει οριστική η Apple θα αποκτήσει τεράστιο πρόβλημα....

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has good news for Samsung, and Samsung has already shared it with Judge Koh in a late-night filing. In a non-final Office action the USPTO has declared all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding patent (U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 invalid, including claim 19, which Apple successfully asserted against Samsung in the summer trial in California. In fact, claim 19 is one of several claims to be deemed invalid for two reasons, either one of which would be sufficient on its own. Here's the part of the Office communication that summarizes the rejections.


"Lira":

PCT Publication No. WO 03/081458 on "controlling content display", by AOL/Luigi Lira, published on October 2, 2003

"Ording":

U.S. Patent No. 7,786,975 on a "continuous scrolling list with acceleration"; this is an Apple patent that I've never seen asserted in litigation; the named inventors are Bas Ording, Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, Stephen O. Lemay and Imran Chaudhri

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html

Υ.Γ.
H Samsung τα ανέφερε αυτά στο δικαστήριο αλλά ο δικαστής τα εξαίρεσε μαζί με άλλα στοιχεία.
Πολλοί ειδικοί υποστήριζαν από την αρχή ότι δεν πρέπει να παρθούν σαν δεδομένες οι πατέντες που χρησιμοποιεί η Apple αλλά και αυτούς τους έκραξαν.

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Στην Apple είναι πολύ αργοί στον σχεδιασμό και την υλοποίηση μιας ιστοσελίδας, μια απλή αλλαγή μπορεί να τους πάρει 14 μέρες.... :405:
Νέο επεισόδιο στη διαμάχη Samsung και Apple στην Αγγλία, η περίφημη δήλωση που έχει αναγκαστεί να αναρτήσει η Apple καταχωνιάστηκε στο κάτω μέρος δίπλα στα "Terms of use", "Privacy Policy" και "Use of Cookies".

The UK court of appeal has reprimanded Apple over the wording of the statement on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe the iPad tablet's registered design, and ordered it to put an altered statement on its homepage – rather than tucked away in a linked page – until 14 December.

The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.

At a hearing in the court in London on Thursday morning, the judge told Apple that it had to change the wording of the statement within 48 hours, carry it on its home page, and use at least 11-point font.

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".

Darren Smyth of EIP Partners said: "The objection was that Apple had added to the statement that the court of appeal had ordered, so did not comply with the original order, and furthermore that the additions were not accurate.

"Apple must now within 48 hours publish a correction on their homepage with a link to the corrected statement in not less than 11-point font."

The tech giant was originally ordered by the court of appeal to correct the statement carried on its website relating to its tablet battle with Samsung, in which it was ordered to acknowledge that its rival did not copy the iPad's design.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Φτου να μην το ματιάζω το νήμα και μείνει από νέα.... :137:

Ζόρια τραβάει η Apple με την υπόθεση του "App Store", είχε μηνύσει την Amazon για την χρήση της παρεμφερούς έκφρασης "AppStore" σε αντίστοιχη υπηρεσίας της για συσκευές Android.

OAKLAND, California—Apple is a litigious company, most famously for its multi-billion dollar patent crusade against Samsung. The Cupertino company has a more quixotic legal battle going on against its competitors, however, that has also become a bit of a war against the English language. Since last year, Apple lawyers have been arguing that "App Store" is a trademarked phrase, and it has the right to stop others from using similar phrases. That includes Amazon, which was sued by Apple in March 2011, shortly after it opened the Amazon Appstore for Android.

Now, some of those issues are finally coming to a head in public. At a hearing today in an Oakland federal court, it became clear that while Apple may have a lot of fury and passion behind this lawsuit, it has run into trouble in the form of a very skeptical judge. US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton showed great doubt that Apple will be able to prove that consumers were confused or deceived by Amazon's use of the word "Appstore." At this point, it's somewhat remarkable that the company hasn't dropped this suit, since Hamilton indicated a year ago that she was unimpressed by Apple's arguments and denied a preliminary injunction.

Still, Apple continues to claim its "App Store" trademark is infringed, and separately that Amazon's promotion of its Appstore amounts to false advertising. Today's hearing was only concerning the false advertising claim, which Amazon wants thrown out without a trial. Amazon also contends the phrase "app store" is generic and can't be trademarked; that issue is currently scheduled to be tried by a jury in fall 2013.

Hamilton repeatedly questioned Apple's lawyer, David Eberhart, about what kind of evidence he had that Amazon had deceived customers with its advertising.

"They [Amazon employees] admit they targeted Apple customers, because Apple set the benchmark for what consumers expected," said Eberhart. "When you combine that with our evidence consumers associate the term 'app store' with Apple," it's enough evidence to warrant a trial.

"Everyone who uses a smartphone knows the difference between the Apple iOS system and the Android system," responded Hamilton. "Where's the confusion? There's some suggestion [by Apple] that if Amazon is using the 'Appstore' term someone might think they have as many apps as Apple does. Well, why? And how, in fact, does that contribute to any deception on the part of Amazon?"

In response, Eberhart showed a page from Amazon's store offering various smartphones. On the Android models, the page noted that software was available through the Amazon Appstore, while it noted that iPhones could get their software at the Apple App Store. "Consumers will see this kind of advertising and import their associations with Apple service. They understand what the App Store by Apple entails—hundreds of thousands of apps, and an ease of service unmatched by any others," said Eberhart. "When a consumer sees something like this they will be deceived into thinking the Amazon store has the same types of qualities."

Hamilton was even less impressed by the sheet of paper. "I don't see it," she said flatly. "I don't look at this and make that determination. I just don't understand the whole idea that people would misunderstand and blend these two different products and services."

This litigation may not have enormous business impact. If anything, Apple's vigorous litigation over "app store" phrase shows how strongly the company's top brass must believe its brand to be anointed, deserving to beat competitors not only in the marketplace but in court as well. The company touted its "revolutionary" products and glowing press reviews to a jury trial 40 miles south of here, and may end up a billion dollars richer for it; in this suit, it's essentially arguing that its App Store was so "pioneering" in 2008 that it needs a chunk of the English language as damages. After App Store, it seems, there's no room in the world for mere "app stores."

"A pioneering brand—the first successful brand in a new market—plays a unique role in educating consumers about the product category as a whole while simultaneously building consumer affiliation between the product and the pioneer," wrote Apple in its brief.

Eberhart echoed that language at the hearing today, saying that Apple was a "pioneering brand" that had "educated" consumers, and then that Amazon was somehow deceiving those consumers. The reasoning seems to go that Apple set consumer expectations so high when it created its App Store in 2008 that it is now uniquely capable of fulfilling those expectations.

Hamilton also seemed skeptical about Apple's trademark surveys even being able to show confusion. The surveys show that consumers tended to associate the phrase "App Store" with their company, a correlation that Hamilton called out as not being particularly meaningful. "I don't believe any consumers were directly asked whether they were deceived," she noted.

"That is a different survey, and I don't believe one that was required," responded Eberhart.

It's hard to see Apple's false advertising case going anywhere, and its chances of winning a trademark victory don't seem much better—although if it went to a jury, it's impossible to predict. Amazon was represented at the hearing today by Martin Glick, who really didn't have to say much, as Apple seemed quite capable of digging its own hole deeper. He did note that over the many months of litigation Apple hadn't produced much in the way of allegedly false ads.

"No accused ads were put forth," Glick told the judge at one point. "Today, I'm given a piece of paper that's not an ad for any app store. It's an ad for smartphones, and it's not even in the record before Your Honor."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ourt-clash-apple-runs-into-a-skeptical-judge/

 

[rose.athens]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Δεν ξέρω για το δημιουργικό τμήμα, αλλά το νομικό δουλεύει υπερωρίες.

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Η αλλαγμένη απολογία στην υπόθεση με την Samsung στην Αγγλία...

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of
the High Court is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

σας έχω κι' άλλο...από το Μεξικό αυτή τη φορά...

iFone or iPhone

News broke all over the web today that Apple had lost a "major" trademark case against a company called iFone that might prevent it from selling the iPhone in Mexico. The story seemed almost too good to be true, especially since Apple was the first to bring the suit against iFone, a small call center company that filed for its mark in 2003, four years before the iPhone came out. The tech media, in love with the idea that Apple's litigious ways had backfired, took the story and ran with it.

Unfortunately, it just isn't accurate — while Apple did lose an appeal over the iFone trademark in Mexico, it has no bearing on its ability to sell the iPhone in that country, and sources tell The Verge that there is no injunction in place. Indeed, the iPhone 5 is already available unlocked on Apple Mexico's website, and the launch with Telcel, Movistar, and Iusacell appears to be unaffected. So what's really going on here?

Trademarks are filed in classes — internationally-recognized categories that describe what a trademark is for. So Apple has a trademark for the word "Apple" in Class 9, which includes computers, software, cameras, and mobile phones, and Apple Vacations* has a trademark on "Apple" in class 39, which includes travel arrangement. As you'd expect, companies like Apple file to protect ultra valuable trademarks like "iPhone" in every class they can come up with an argument for, since it protects against infringement and brand dilution. That's where iFone comes in — it has a single Mexican trademark on the word "iFone" in Class 38, which covers telecommunication services. Apple runs a few of those, like iMessage and FaceTime, and indeed, it has a Class 38 US trademark on "iPhone."

Apple already owns two iPhone trademarks in Mexico in Class 9 and Class 28, which covers electronic game devices. But in 2009, Apple's lawyers decided iFone's Mexican Class 38 mark wasn't being actively used, and they filed a lawsuit to try and get it canceled so they could register their own pending Class 38 mark on "iPhone." iFone obviously disagreed and convinced the Mexican courts that they were still using the mark in commerce, which is where today's ruling comes from — Apple lost another round of appeals trying to cancel the iFone mark in Class 38. iFone attorney Eduardo Gallastegui was obviously happy about it, telling wire service Efe that "iFone is fully entitled to the use of its brand name."

The confusion appears to come from what Gallastegui told El Universal, which details iFone's trademark infringement countersuit and demands against Apple. Garbled through Google Translate, it sounds like the court ordered Apple to pay substantial fines and perhaps even pull the iPhone from market — a big deal since the iPhone 5 just launched with Mexican carrier partners. But those are just the demands, and iFone's case doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. We'll obviously update if we learn otherwise, but I would guess Apple and iFone will eventually settle this one and we'll never hear about it again.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3...mexican-trademark-standoff-whats-really-going

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Apple vs Motorola

http://hexus.net/business/news/legal/47669-judge-throws-spanner-apples-works-case-vs-motorola/

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Σήμερα σας έχω ένα παιχνίδι, βρείτε τις διαφορές και κερδίστε...

1. http://www.apple.com/ US site
2. http://www.apple.com/uk/?cid=oas-emeia-domains-apple.co.uk UK site
3. http://www.apple.com/jp/ Japan site


:137:

 

[Zizik]

Τι κερδίζουμε?


Στο Αγγλικό η εικόνα είναι auto fit γιά να μη φαίνεται το κάτω τμήμα της αν δεν κάνεις scroll.