iΠατέντες

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

θα ζητήσω από τον Λεωνίδα ένα αυτοκόλλητο της Apple να σου δώσω :138:

 

[abcd]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Δεν πρέπει να έχει άλλα!

Τα έχει κολλήσει όλα στη ''μπέμπα''! :119:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

1 δις $ θα εισπράξει η Apple από την Samsung αλλά θα πρέπει να δώσει 368 εκατομμύρια $ στην VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC).
Δικαστήριο έκρινε ότι το πρόγραμμα FaceTime χρησιμοποιεί παράνομα πατέντες της VirnetX.
Το 2010 η ίδια εταιρία πήρε 200 εκ. $ από την Microsoft.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-2-million-to-virnetx-in-patent-trial-1-.html

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Τελικά πόσο χαμηλά θα πέσει η Apple;
Οι πρακτικές που εφαρμόζει στην διάταξη της Αγγλικής κεντρικής ιστοσελίδας της θυμίζουν πρακτικές μικρών παιδιών που προσπαθούν να κρύψουν τη ζημιά που έχουν κάνει.
Η απολογία που διατάχθηκε από το δικαστήριο εξακολουθεί να βρίσκεται στο κάτω μέρος, θες οθόνη με ανάλυση τουλάχιστον 1440p για να φανεί.
Οι χρήστες των νέων macbook pro με retina display το βλέπουν μια χαρά :405:

Less than a week after Apple was rumbled by Reddit users for including code to hide a court-ordered apology to Samsung on its U.K. Web site, the code has now been removed.
The code forced visitors to scroll down the page in order to see an apology that Apple was ordered to display on its U.K. Web site for one month, by resizing the central image of the new iPad mini and "sticking" four separate product advertisements at the bottom of the browser window.
This meant that no matter how tall their browser window is or how dense their screen resolution, visitors to the site had to forcibly scroll down the page to view the apology to Samsung.
The Apple U.K. Web site now displays two alternating fixed-sized images of the iPad Mini and the new iPad with Retina display -- refreshing the page cycles between the two recently launched products -- while the four boxes underneath are no longer fixed to the bottom of the display. Although the central images are still large and many displays require the user to scroll down, the forced-scrolling "resize" code is no longer loaded into the Web site's code.
Though the code still exists on Apple's servers (it can be found here), it is no longer called upon when the U.K. Web site loads up. It was also uploaded to code-sharing site Pastebin as a "backup" by one Reddit user in case it vanished into the online ether.
Reddit users and Hacker News readers erupted after the "resize" code was discovered on Apple's U.K. Web site, and they lambasted the technology giant for trying to once again circumvent the court order by attempting to hide the apology off-screen.
While one commenter said it was "far more likely" that the resize code was "just related to new product announcements than any nefarious scheme," another reader called it "plausible deniability in action."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57546830-37/apple-quietly-pulls-apology-hiding-code-from-u.k-site/

 

[rose.athens]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Η απολογία που διατάχθηκε από το δικαστήριο εξακολουθεί να βρίσκεται στο κάτω μέρος, θες οθόνη με ανάλυση τουλάχιστον 1440p για να φανεί.

Και μετά με κράζετε που θέλω full HD ανάλυση στο tablet...:405:

 

[Zizik]

Δεν αρκει ρε θειο.

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

έλα βρε zizik μην τον αποπαίρνεις...

Spoiler

σε portrait mode είναι οκ... :144:

 

[rose.athens]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Δεν αρκει ρε θειο.

έλα βρε zizik μην τον αποπαίρνεις...

Τι να αποπάρει μωρέ ο αετομάτης, που για να βλέπει την οθόνη του κινητού, το βάζει δίπλα στην οθόνη του hc...

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

:204:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Απίστευτο κι' όμως αληθινό....
Ορθογώνια συσκευή με κυκλικές γωνίες, αυτή είναι η νέα πατέντα της Apple που εγκρίθηκε από το αρμόδιο όργανο στις ΗΠΑ...

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf (pdf file)

 

[Gebreselassie]

Γελάει όλος ο πλανήτης με τη σχέση apple και αμερικανικού δημοσίου.

...

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Οι διαμάχες μεταξύ Apple και HTC τελειώνουν

TAIPEI, Taiwan and CUPERTINO, California—November 10, 2012—HTC and Apple® have reached a global settlement that includes the dismissal of all current lawsuits and a ten-year license agreement. The license extends to current and future patents held by both parties. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

“HTC is pleased to have resolved its dispute with Apple, so HTC can focus on innovation instead of litigation,” said Peter Chou, CEO of HTC.

“We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC,” said Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. “We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation.”

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/11/11HTC-and-Apple-Settle-Patent-Dispute.html

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Η υπόθεση στην Αγγλία έχει συνέχεια, το δικαστήριο τα "πήρε" με τα καμώματα της Apple και αποφάσισε να πληρώσει αυτή όλα τα δικαστικά έξοδα.
όποιος έχει χρόνο ας διαβάσει όλη την δικαστική απόφαση στο παρακάτω link, έχει αρκετό ενδιαφέρον(5-10 λεπτά είναι αρκετά)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Το αρμόδιο γραφείο καταχώρησης ευρεσιτεχνιών στις ΗΠΑ κάνει επανέλεγχο σε μια πατέντα της Apple για το αν έχει κατοχυρωθεί νόμιμα και αν πρέπει να είναι σε ισχύ.

For the second time in less than two months, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a first Office action tentatively declaring a key Apple multitouch patent invalid. In late October, a first Office action in a reexamination proceeding stated the preliminary conclusion that all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll bounce) patent are invalid. Back in August, a California jury held Samsung to infringe that patent, and according to interviews jurors gave later didn't make much of an effort to ascertain its validity. This week, the USPTO issued a first Office action rejecting all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 on a "touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics", which has been referred to by many people, including Apple's own lawyers, as "the Steve Jobs patent".
Once again, a first Office action tentatively invalidating a patent comes shortly after an infringement finding against Samsung: in late October a preliminary ruling by an ITC judge deemed this patent valid and held Samsung to infringe it (as well as three other patents). The ITC staff supports the judge's initial determination.

The touchscreen heuristics '949 patent has also been asserted against Motorola. Judge Posner declared large parts of the patent invalid and identified only some minor potential infringement on Motorola's part that he decided would not warrant injunctive relief even if Apple prevailed on whatever little was left of its related claims.

In the build-up to the ultimately canceled trial, Judge Posner had barred Apple from referring to the '949 patent as "the [Steve] Jobs patent". Steve Jobs is the first named inventor (of many) of this patent. Many of his 300+ patents are design patents, but among software patents, the '949 patent is probably the most famous one. The USPTO held an exhibition relating to Steve Jobs's patents, but now it's apparently having second thoughts about the most prominent one of them.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Η διάσημη πλέον δικαστής Lucy Koh αποφάσισε να απορρίψει το αίτημα της Apple για απαγόρευση των πωλήσεων προϊόντων της Samsung που σύμφωνα με δική της απόφαση πριν από λίγους μήνες βρέθηκαν να χρησιμοποιούν πατέντες της Apple.
Παράλληλα όμως αποφάσισε να απορρίψει και το αίτημα της Samsung για νέα δίκη λόγω αλλαγής των δεδομένων.

Judge denies Apple permanent injunction, throws out Samsung's jury misconduct claims



Judge Lucy Koh, the federal judge presiding over the Apple v. Samsung litigation in the Northern District of California, just entered two important post-trial orders. Within minutes of each other, the first order denied Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung despite a multiplicity of infringement findings by a federal jury in August and the second order denied Samsung a new trial on the grounds of alleged jury misconduct (the court won't even hold an evidentiary hearing on that issue, which most observers considered a long shot).
AppleInsider has published the ruling on injunctive relief.
There is not even the slightest doubt that Apple will appeal the ruling on injunctive relief. When Judge Koh previously ruled on Apple motions for injunctive relief (one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and one against the Galaxy Nexus smartphone), she was also rather reluctant to order sales bans: she did order them, but in each case over only one of several intellectual property rights deemed valid and infringed, a fact that few people noticed. But this time around, at the most important juncture of the district court proceedings, Judge Koh has denied Apple's motion in its entirety.
It may be unprecedented in the legal history of the United States for an injunction motion to be denied across the board despite such a large number of infringement findings (roughly half a dozen) by a jury and, especially, in light of the competitive situation between the two as well as the jury's findings of willful infringement. If no injunction is ordered in such a case, it is hard to see how any patent holder could ever prevail on such a motion, and I doubt that this is what the appeals court will consider the right outcome. But the appeal will take a year or more, and in the meantime, this is a huge defensive success for Samsung's lawyers.
Even a billion-dollar damages award would be strategically far less useful to Apple than a permanent injunction would have been, or could still be if it is granted after the appeal. A damages award doesn't give Apple major leverage against Samsung. At this point, the August jury verdict has little more than symbolic value. For most companies, a billion dollars would be a key objective. But not between these two cash-rich giants, and not at a time when both are fighting for market share more than anything else. It doesn't matter much that the products against which Apple was seeking this particular injunction have mostly become obsolete by now: there would have been different ways, through enforcement proceedings as well as (if necessary at all) new lawsuits, to extend the ruling to new products having the same infringing characteristics. Samsung would have had to modify all of its products in order to work around an injunction.
The order mentions an internal "Samsung presentation describing the US market as a 'two horse race between Apple and Samsung'", and the fact that Samsung did not refute Apple's claims of the competitive situation between the two. Judge Koh acknowledges that "[t]his finding increases the likelihood of harm from continued infringement", which is an understatement. So is the conclusion that "Apple has suffered some irreparable harm in the form of loss of downstream sales". Some? Samsung had a strategy and continues to execute a strategy that is all about taking market share away from Apple.
The outcome-determinative part here is called "causal nexus" (meaning that irreparable harm, a requirement for injunctive relief, must be proven to be specifically attributable to infringements as opposed to non-infringing commercial activity), and it's a rather new development in U.S. case law concerning injunctive relief. It came up in connection with Apple's two preliminary injunctions against Samsung, particularly on appeal. By coincidence, in my previous post, a few hours before Judge Koh's order denying a sales ban, I mentioned that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appears to be giving serious consideration to Apple's request for a rehearing en banc (full-bench review) of the reversal of the Galaxy Nexus injunction, and the "causal nexus" issue is the central legal question in that context. Apple asked for reconsideration because it believes that the bar has now been set too high for patent holders seeking to stop infringement of their rights by competitors. But it's not clearwhether the Federal Circuit will reconsider (it's just more likely now than it used to be), and if it does reconsider, it's hard to predict the outcome. In the meantime, Judge Koh has decided to base her ruling on the requirements established by the Federal Circuit's previous Apple-Samsung decisions, and has found (what follows is my summary, not a quote) that Apple failed to show that the harm it suffers is caused by Samsung's infringement as opposed to Samsung's overall competitive activity. More specifically, Judge Koh interprets the Federal Circuit's ruling as having established "that customer demand for a general feature of the type covered by a patent was not sufficient; Apple must instead show that consumers buy the infringing product specifically because it is equipped with the patented feature."
As Apple basically told the Federal Circuit in its petition for a rehearing, it's hard to see how anyone can win a sales ban in U.S. federal court against a multifunctional smartphone or tablet computer if a single feature has to be shown to be a driver of demand.
For the infringed design patents, Judge Koh found that Apple presented evidence of this being key to customers' decisions, but Samsung presented evidence that it's less important than Apple claims, which in her view makes a "mixed record". And Judge Koh felt that Apple's design-related allegations lacked particularity and referred to "such isolated characteristics as glossiness, reinforced glass, black color, metal edges, and reflective screen", but "Apple does not have a patent on, for example, glossiness, or on black color". In other words, Apple would have had to show that the particular combination of design elements that each of its design patents protected was key. However, it's difficult to prove the impact of a whole without discussing impact for each part.
With respect to the utility (technical) patents, Judge Koh's order is a ringing endorsement of Samsung's position that Apple cannot meet the requirements for an injunction by proving the importance of "fun" and "ease of use" to customers. When Ireported on Samsung's opposition to Apple's motion, I highlighted the statement that "Apple can claim no patent on 'fun' and no monopoly over 'ease of use'". Apple could have convinced Judge Koh only if it had proven for specific features such as rubber-banding that Samsung's continued infringement (or resumed infringement after temporary workarounds) would cause irreparable harm. And it's not just about specific features: Apple would have had to prove irreparable harm for its particular patented methods relating to those features. Even a company with Apple's resources can hardly prove causation at such an extremely high level of granularity. What was unfortunate for Apple is that the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Galaxy Nexus injunction was handed down only after Apple had filed its motion for a permanent injunction. Samsung, however, had the benefit of the Federal Circuit ruling when filing its opposition.
The circumstance of willful infringement did not save the day for Apple:

"Evidence of copying, like the evidence of Samsung employees' beliefs that this Court previously considered, also proves what Samsung thought would attract purchasers, not what actually attracted purchasers. Here, as at the preliminary injunction phase, Samsung’s impressions of what might lure customers, while relevant, are not dispositive. Accordingly, though evidence that Samsung attempted to copy certain Apple features may offer some limited support for Apple's theory, it does not establish that those features actually drove consumer demand."
​

While the "causal nexus" part is the key one, Judge Koh also held against Apple that it has extended licenses covering (among others) the patents-in-suit to third parties: "Apple has also licensed the precise utility patents at issue here, in agreements with Nokia ('381 patent), IBM ('915 patent; '163 patent), and HTC ('381 patent; '915 patent; '163 patent)", which in Judge Koh's opinion shows that monetary compensation is sufficient. In my opinion, her reference to the HTC agreement is clearly erroneous considering that HTC does not have an unrestricted license to those patents: HTC's license comes with an anti-cloning provision. I don't know about the Nokia and IBM deals because those agreements weren't published to the extent that the Apple-HTC agreement has been. It's astounding that Judge Koh does not even mention the anti-cloning part of the agreement and calls into question whether she fully appreciated its commercial significance. Also, if all U.S. judges held its license agreements (irrespectively of any anti-cloning provisions) against Apple, other patent holders might be discouraged from settling litigation and extending licenses while pursuing injunctive relief against multiple infringers.
Finally, Judge Koh also appeared to buy some of Samsung's public interest arguments, but those did not carry much weight. What really mattered here more than anything else was the "causal nexus" question, and the Federal Circuit's decision on whether to grant a rehearing on the reversal of the Galaxy Nexus injunction is now going to be even more important.

Under the current circumstances, prior to some kind of correction or clarification by the Federal Circuit, patent holders are increasingly going to choose jurisdictions such as Germany, where injunctive relief is a given once infringement has been proven (except under certain circumstances specific to standard-essential patents).

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/judge-denies-apple-permanent-injunction.html

Υ.Γ. η δικαστής πρέπει να πάει σπίτι της ή να ασχολείται με άλλες υποθέσεις γιατί έχει εκτεθεί ανεπανόρθωτα με την διαδικασία της δίκης και την τελική απόφαση...

 

[xfader]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Υ.Γ. η δικαστής πρέπει να πάει σπίτι της ή να ασχολείται με άλλες υποθέσεις γιατί έχει εκτεθεί ανεπανόρθωτα με την διαδικασία της δίκης και την τελική απόφαση...

Όχι θα αφήσει τους Κορεάτες να το παίζουν μάγκες... Δεν είναι όλοι ίσα κι όμοια! :116:

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

The Brazilian.... iPhone

Βρε Apple σε έχουν κατακλέψει...:405:

Brazilian consumer electronics maker IGB Eletronica SA said on Tuesday that it would begin selling its line of smartphones in Brazil under the brand "IPHONE," a name to which it has exclusive rights in the local market.
The first model will be called "Neo One," IGB said in a securities filing. The company was formed this year after the restructuring of Gradiente Eletronica SA, which had applied for exclusive rights in Brazil to register its products under the name IPHONE in 2000.
The filing said Gradiente had foreseen the revolution in the convergence of voice and data over the Internet at the time, before Apple Inc's iPhone existed. In 2008, the company secured rights to the name from a local regulator of patents.

http://www.hardware.com.br/noticias/2012-12/iphone-gradiente.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/snippet-idUSL1E8NI2BR20121218

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Μα τι κακό είναι αυτό που έχει βρει την Apple μετά την νίκη της επί της Samsung τον Αύγουστο.
Αυτή τη φορά το γραφείο U.S. Patent and Trademark αποφάσισε προσωρινά ότι η πατέντα της "Pinch to Zoom" δεν είναι έγκυρη, η υπόθεση έχει ακόμη δρόμο μέχρι την τελική απόφαση ή οποία αν είναι αρνητική για την Apple θα αντιμετωπίσει πολύ σοβαρά προβλήματα.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323277504578189891418492784.html

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Δεν της μπήκε καλά το 2013 της Apple, έχασε την υπόθεση εναντίον του Amazon Appstore για το κομμάτι της παραπλανητικής διαφήμισης.

Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) won dismissal of Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s claim that the online retailer’s use of the term “app store” for Android device software is false advertising.
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland, California, today granted Amazon’s request to throw out one claim in Apple’s lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition over the Amazon Appstore for Android, a service begun in March that sells applications for the Kindle Fire and devices running Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android software.
Apple is seeking a court order to block Amazon from using the term. Amazon has argued the words are a generic term that Apple doesn’t have exclusive rights to use. A trial is scheduled for Aug. 19.
The iPhone maker, which started its APP STORE in 2008, said Amazon’s use of the term was false advertising because it deceives customers into believing that Amazon’s service has the qualities of Apple’s applications store, Hamilton said in her ruling. Apple maintained this could divert its revenue to Amazon.
Apple hasn’t shown that Amazon’s advertising attempt to mimic Apple’s, failed to show that Amazon made any false statement, and presented no evidence that customers were misled by Amazon’s use of the term, Hamilton said.
“The court finds no support for the proposition that Amazon has expressly or impliedly communicated that its Appstore for Android possesses the characteristics and qualities that the public has come to expect from the Apple APP Store and/or Apple products,” Hamilton said.
She ruled only on Amazon’s request to eliminate the false advertising claim.
In 2008, Apple applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to register APP STORE, according to the order. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) opposed the registration, saying the term is generic. Last year the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board put an opposition proceeding on hold pending the outcome of the lawsuit before Hamilton.
Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Cupertino, California- based Apple, declined to comment on the ruling. A call to Seattle-based Amazon’s media line seeking comment on the ruling wasn’t immediately returned.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., 11-01327, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...issal-of-apple-s-false-advertising-claim.html

 

[gkontoletas]

Απάντηση: iΠατέντες

Χωρίς σχόλια.....

A filing published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday reveals that Apple is looking to patent the iOS Notification Center, a feature similar to Google's Notification Bar which allows mobile device users to keep tabs on a multitude of apps from a central hub.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...r-patent-years-after-googles-notification-bar