21–27 of 27 posts
The actual case covered far more phones than this ban list, they seem to only be interested in banning the top selling phones. Though that'll just drive more sales to the Galaxy S3, I assume.
These all seem to be such frivolous things in relation to the function of a computing device. They have nothing to do with capabilities or performance. Gimmicks. Just my personal opinion.
Yes, "gimmicks" that make billions upon billions of dollars.
Could marketing play a role in consumer decisions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Design patent '305: Icon interface and grid layout Design patent '677: iPhone design, edge-to-edge glass and display borders, front speaker" Some part of me just wants to scream.
Please keep in mind the difference between the title of a patent, and the claims of a patent. The title is inconsequential (and in fact, there's some incentive to make it as unhelpful as possible). The claims are the important part of a patent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Design patent '305: Icon interface and grid layout Design patent '677: iPhone design, edge-to-edge glass and display borders, front speaker" Some part of me just wants to scream.
Please keep in mind the difference between the title of a patent, and the claims of a patent. The title is inconsequential (and in fact, there's some incentive to make it as unhelpful as possible). The claims are the important part of a patent.
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel."