|
|
|
Giggs: NZ also has non-use provisions for trademarks. Three years i think is the limit.
Also I have seen a lot of comments abput patenting ideas. You cannot patent an idea, but only an invention that carries out the idea. So for example you could not patent colour photography but only the method used to create colour photos. If someone comes up with another different method to do the same thing then your patent is not infringed.
On a completely different note, this is hilarious...
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple-patents-destroy-the-starship-enterprise-video.php
Regards,
Old3eyes
Giggs: NZ also has non-use provisions for trademarks. Three years i think is the limit.
Also I have seen a lot of comments abput patenting ideas. You cannot patent an idea, but only an invention that carries out the idea. So for example you could not patent colour photography but only the method used to create colour photos. If someone comes up with another different method to do the same thing then your patent is not infringed.
On a completely different note, this is hilarious...
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple-patents-destroy-the-starship-enterprise-video.php
Giggs: NZ also has non-use provisions for trademarks.? Three years i think is the limit.
Also?I have seen a lot of comments?abput patenting ideas.? You cannot patent an idea, but only?an invention that carries out the idea.? So for example you could not patent colour photography but only the method used to create colour photos.? If someone comes up with another different method to do the same thing then your patent is not infringed.?
On a completely different note, this is hilarious...
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple-patents-destroy-the-starship-enterprise-video.php
“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996
Giggs:
On a completely different note, this is hilarious...
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple-patents-destroy-the-starship-enterprise-video.php
qwerty7: Have not read through the last 15 pages to see if this has been mentioned but..
I wonder if apple has somewhat shot themselves in the shot for future development by making such claims (personally i think this damages healthy competition and apple should not have the rights to something which is so 'common').
So let's say the asus padfone takes off has apple ruled themselves out of producing any sort of tablet with Incorporated phone by opening this can of worms ?
Regards,
Old3eyes
old3eyes: I guess when Apple brings out the iCamera they will be suing Samsung again..
http://www.mobilekiwi.co.nz./android/item/1599-samsung-galaxy-camera-officially-announced
blair003: [sarcasm]Hmm, a camera with phone functionality. Obviously that is different to a phone with camera functionality. It no doubt meets the definition of a novel idea, they should patent the hell out of it[/sarcasm]
On a serious note - interesting. It does 3G or 4G, wifi and bluetooth.. so I assume this mean you could connect a Bluetooth headset and use it as a phone?
qwerty7: that is how stupid the whole thing is but who are the idiot judges behind these cases.
Same with the whole mcdonalds hot coffee thing the judge behind that case does not deserve to be a judge they are total #$!% la la la la la !!! screwing up the world.
edit: surely something fishy is going on with these cases, i do not beleive they are judging fairly, they must be involved in other ways, shares? secret payments?
“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”After this, he effectively got the jury to ignore prior art on the patents, which led the jury to say that all of the patents had to be valid. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.
|
|
|