Replies

In the long running Court Room Drama of Apple v. Samsung in the Samsung patent infringement case, the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington DC has weighed in with an interesting decision, affirming most of the $930 million judgment on the Utility patents but reversing the Design patent infringements on the grounds that much of the design is actually functional and therefore not merely ornamental. . . and has returned it to the lower court for further infringement adjudication under Apple's Utility Patents on the iPhone, which may be more effective than the Design Patents, according to some analysts! — PING!

Apple v. Samsung Patent Case Decision
Ping!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

Let's get the Freepathon over the top! I challenge the members of the Apple ping list to each donate at least $10 each to the latest Freepathon. I HAVE donated $100. Many members of the Apple Ping list are already rising to the challenge. Join them. Let's show the power of the Apple Ping list in supporting Freerepublic!

If you have ordered an Apple Watch,
MAKE A DONATION TO THE FREEPATHON!

U.S. federal court rules anyone can copy the iPhone’s design
Monday, May 18, 2015 · 4:28 pm
“Apple did such a good job designing its iPhone that it now can’t protect itself from copycats,” Hope King reports for CNNMoney.
“A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that Apple could not seek damages from Samsung for copying the basic design of the iPhone, overturning a lower court’s ruling,” King reports. “Apple had argued that Samsung’s smartphones violated the company’s design patents, because they looked so remarkably similar: a rectangular body, rounded edges, and even the placement of apps and dots on the screen.”
King reports, “Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the overall ‘look’ of the iPhone is so integral to the way other touchscreen smartphones work that Apple can’t prevent Samsung (and probably other companies) from using the same general designs.”

This is actually not quite what the Appellate Court did. . . the court ruled that the designs were not ornamental in nature but were actually functional and therefore were possibly part of the overall utility patent on the iPhone because Apple did indeed patent all of that as well as get a design patent for the ornamental look and feel. It sent the case back for further evaluation and/or litigation.