On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:40:39 +0300, Rimas wrote:

> Tokia patentų sistema 100% yra ydinga. Patentų sistemos reikia, bet ne
> tokios absurdiškos. Buvo rinkoj kvadratinis telefonas su užapvalintais
> kampais prieš pasirodant iphone? Buvo. Teismas tokį apple'o patentą
> turėtų mest į šiukšlių dėžę. Bet nemeta.

Vieni meta kiti nemeta, apple cia apskritai isrado dar viena buda kaip 
isprievartaut patentu sistema.

_Dizaino_ patentai buvo sukurti specialiai tam, kad ginti _dizaina_. T.y. 
visa tai, kas su funkcionalumu neturi jokio rysio ir daroma grynai del 
grozio. O apple sugebejo uzpatentuot dizaino _nebuvima_, pvz visi ten 
isvardinti iphone ar ipad 'skiriamieji dizaino bruozai' yra grynai 
funkcionalus.

Apskritai, ironija tame, kad pvz europoje tai apskritai nera patentai ir 
nereikalauja jokio tikrinimo. Nunesei, uzdejo stampa ir vualia. 

Su ta mintim, kad jei kada bus teisiamasi, tai bus daroma su sveiku 
protu. Bet jei sveikas protas kazkur isgaruoja tada gaunasi tokios 
diskusijos:

http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/design-protection-
utility-patents-and-the-apple-v-samsung-foodfight/

====================================

In defending the validity of its sweeping design patents (which are the 
origin of the middle panel, above), Apple is in the bizarre position of 
having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone 
desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely 
ornamental, and not useful at all.  This fact led to ridiculous expert 
testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available 
for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — 
alternatives such as:

    “front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without 
rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or 
not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the 
front surface of the phone…”

and

    “overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that 
do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely 
flat or clear… and profiles that are not thin”.

Of course.  Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, 
sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head.  They’ll no doubt 
appreciate the different “ornamental” approach while reading through 
their opaque screen.  No functional drawbacks there.

Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your 
pants?   Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a 
functional feature, not an ornamental design choice.  One is not going 
out on a limb in concluding that if the object design increases your 
likelihood of getting strip-searched at the airport, those are functional 
drawbacks, and foreclosing functional features is not the purpose of 
design protection.

-- 
kthxbai.