Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by dpark on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:44AM
(#3334074)
The original galaxy tablet looks about as much like an iPad as the second one, with the exception of the case color. The other major physical difference is that the buttons moved on-screen, which doesn't make it more iPad-like.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by drivebyacct2 on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:45AM
(#3333837)
In my opinion, the second looks like an obvious progression of the first.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by jsnk on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:50AM
(#3333854)
After reading the article, I was all I was doing was wondering how could these trivial things possibly get patents that supposedly claims to be new innovation.
Re:The Crunchpad is proof of obviousness in iPad design
by jeswin on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:18AM
(#3333959)
Just today morning, I was talking to someone who is getting a patent. He was telling me that you outline the idea, and then the patent lawyers come in to phrase it. I don't know how far this is true, but if true just shows how broken the system is.
Apple didn't patent "rounded corners". Apple v Samsung is more than that repeating mantra about rounded corners.
Why would Apple sue Samsung after GalaxyTab 10.1 and not when the original Galaxy Tab arrived?
* original galaxytab http://www.ebooksytablets.com/68-224-thickbox/protector-pant...
* second galaxytab http://messenger.com.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/galaxy-ta...
I suggest you to read early Nilay Patel analysis for more understanding about trade dressing and the reasons behind Apple's requirements.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...