Yes, because you can prove the deep fryers were created prior to the patent. If that design was just sitting in some guy's basement, then it would be difficult for that guy to prove he created it before the patent was filed.

Or else EVERYONE would just claim they invented shit. You have to be able to prove you created something before a patent. In the example given above where my name is scribbled on a time machine or whatever, that really wouldn't count unless I could prove I invented it before the patent was filed.

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&RS=PN/7311526

That's the MagSafe patent. It references previous magnetic power plugs so I'm guessing there's something marginally different between MagSafe and whatever deep fryers you mentioned had in them.

Deep fryers with magnetic plugs have been sold for decades and are still sold by companies like Rival and T-fal. If you don't believe me go check out futureshop.

T-Fal EZ Clean Deep Fryer (FR7008) : Deep Fryers - Future Shop

Safety features: Cool-touch handles on the sides and lid, an external handle that raises and lowers the basket with the lid closed, a sealed locking lid to prevent splatters, and a detachable magnetic safety plug.




http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

My old 9900 came like this too.

...I wasn't disagreeing with you.

But your example isn't the same as the one given above by...whoever said that. LOL I can't be bothered to scroll down.

Sorry if this contributes nothing to the discussion but this is what I look like as I'm reading this thread: :facepalm:

Just saw Samsung patented a perfume spraying phone...so they're definitely out-innovating Apple.

i can not be the only person recognizing this guy aka logan from the old tigerdirect videos on youtube where he open boxed tons of computer parts :joy:

You're missing the point. Apple has a patent that's different from the deep-fryer versions. As I already mentioned, there are hundreds of patents for light bulbs, with each patent having some unique aspect different from others.

Is it really too hard to comprehend that Apple's Magsafe is implemented differently from the deep fryers, which is why they were granted a patent?

How is it different? It's a magnet that holds the plug in place.

That's now how it works. The biggest misconception out there is that Apple has patented a rectangle, which is not true. Apple has a trade dress patent which describes shapes, colors and so on. But the logical flow of Apple's patent is something like this:

If you have A along with color B and shaped like C, while also including D and E, but not in combination with F or G, then you're infringing. "A" represents the rectangle shape of an iPhone with rounded corners. It's only one part of the entire trade dress patent.

You can't patent the shape of tailights, chrome on your grill, curves on the body or other individual items. But you could get a trade dress patent for a unique automobile that combined a bunch of elements into on overall design. So if someone else borrowed one or two of your ideas, but used them in conjunction with others of their own, then there would not be enough to sue someone for infringement.

Go ahead and read the link I posted and see how many different variations on "magnetic plug" there are.

Apple is in the wrong for suing their competitors over minuscule things like multi-touch and rounded corners on device, while at the same time, utilizing them as working business partners. Sure, Apple has patents for it; however, the U.S. Patent system is flawed, as they grant patents irresponsibly without due diligence. It will be reformed. If this case sides with Apple, it will cripple the entire mobile industry. 99% of today's modern mobile devices have multi-touch displays. The court will not side with Apple just for their sake.

On the other hand, Samsung has patents that Apple has infringed on; but you don't see them initiating.

I never suggested that Samsung Semiconductor should stop selling to Apple. They were never in the wrong. Apple is, for the reasons I stated above.

Like one poster mentioned, Samsung makes $12 billion dollars by sourcing semiconductors to Apple.

How is my analysis one-sided?

Apple is also infringing on other's patents, yet they don't take Apple to court. That's the BIGGEST difference. Essentially, you have one big bully on the playground that loves to harass smaller kids.

if Apple wins, they are only a small problem to the already shitty mobile industry in North America

It is the rest of the world that doesn't have to deal with this bullshit

some of you guys are saying it as if other companies are all high and mighty for not suing Apple when Apple infringes on their patents. think about WHY they dont do it. it has nothing to do with "because they aren't bullies or douchebags". if it was a viable option for them, they would absolutely do it.

if the board is having a meeting and someone suggests "Hey, if we sue Apple for infringing X patent, we could potentially get a $X million/billion settlement", do you really think that they're going to say "No. we can't compromise our high and mighty ways. I don't care if that settlement earns us billions, we just won't do it"?

why don't they do it? because in the end they dont want to fall out of favor with Apple. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. if they didn't need Apple, they'd sue the shit out of them. Apple, on the other hand, has absolutely NOTHING to lose. It has a business advantage and it's making use of it. Apple doesn't care if there is bad blood, because it can just find someone else to source from. Maybe Apple is already shooting itself in the foot with this, but we won't know for years to come. It has already determined that doing this NOW is beneficial.

it's a business. EACH business operates for its OWN best interests. just because the majority of companies don't engage in certain actions because it isn't in their best interests, doesnt mean it isn't in the best interest for others to do it and that those companies shouldn't be allowed to do it.

if it's legal, it's fair play. you can frown upon it all you like, but Apple is playing within the rules. If the system is flawed (and no system is ever perfect) then we find ways to improve it, and the system will correct itself over time.

Most Apple patents have stood up in court. So your comment that the USPTO is granting stupid patents is simply false. And Apple is not suing for "rounded corners". Did you even read Apple's trade dress patents or my description above of how they are applied?

The mobile industry will not be crippled if Apple wins. Manufacturers will have to change a few things on their devices, but you'll still be able to get your Samsung GS3 and it's still going to do all of the things it does now. It might lose a few small features here and there, but now that Samsung will have to create workarounds maybe they'll come up with a better way to do things.

Samsung has initiated several lawsuits against Apple. They tried to block the 4S in Europe in several countries. They were denied all 3 times and all they have left to show for it is an EU antitrust investigation. You see, Samsung has lots of patents, but nothing useful in their fight against Apple. They are all FRAND patents, and it's a big no-no to abuse FRAND patents (like seeking a sales ban).

Can you list the companies Apple is infringing patents on? Do you have the list of patents they're infringing? I'm curious who all these companies are whose IP is being used by Apple while they just stand by and do nothing.

Oh really?
An insanely stupid patent for building a snowman shows how broken the system is

^ While it may sound stupid, it's a perfectly valid patent. He came up with the idea of a device to build snowmen. It's no different than someone patenting a new kind of toy that kids might to use to mold clay or make sand castles.

Yet in reading articles on his patent you see all sorts of idiots saying "how can he patent snowmen" or "will I get sued if I make a snowman?" He doesn't own any patent on snowmen - he owns a patent on a machine to make one.

a lot of you guys need to judge this case with logic and not emotion.

True, but their claim is more like: We have a design patent that is A) multitouch screen, B) Rectangular shape, C) rounded edges, D) Button at the top and side, E) built-in-cameras, and without F) keypads.

All these stuffs are still pretty fucking generic if you ask me!

What do you want the competitors to do?? Make a round shaped phone?? Do sharp square edge?? (It won't be practical coz that square edge will get damaged much easier)
Multi-touch screen is the trend. Do you see TV manufacturers start suing each other when the trend switched from 4:3 TV to 16:9 TV??

Are there actually some people in this thread defending patent laws? Come fucking on it's pretty widely accepted at this point that the current patent laws in the US are ass fucking backwards, and are in dire need of an overhaul. There have been recent bills put forward to make such changes. The way patent laws are structured currently totally stifles innovation, how can that be argued? There is no other side to the damn argument.

They defend patent laws because apple

^ Have you read the patent? That's nothing like how it's worded. If you're going to criticize the patent, at least understand it first.

There are countless smartphones out there that look nothing like the original iPhone. Manufacturers seem to have no problems making devices that don't infringe. Even internal Samsung prototypes of smartphones dating back to 2006 showed numerous designs that would all steer well clear of Apple's trade dress.

Yet when Samsung finally decides to release the Galaxy, they ignored all their different in-house designs and decided to make one that resembled an iPhone.

Multitouch may be the trend, but it wasn't when the iPhone came out. And like with other patents, Apple doesn't own multitouch. They have patents on very specific implementations of multitouch. There's nothing preventing others from creating their own IP regarding multitouch.

Oh I see, so your position is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong? Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

Patents are what drives innovation. Not sure how anyone could claim that patent laws somehow "stifle" innovation. Without protection of IP through patents companies would never spend billions on research since after they develop something anyone can come along and use it.

I would like to hear your reasoning as to what specific changes need to be made to the patent system and how those changes are going to increase innovation.

Just like all the people asking for reform because of Apple. But not because reform is needed - but simply because they dislike Apple and Apple is benefitting from their patents.

Frivolous patent suits existed long before Apple started doing it at a multi billion dollar scale.

^ If it's so "frivolous" then why didn't Samsung simply remove those "minor features" from their devices and avoid the lawsuit altogether? Instead of spending millions on something so "frivolous".