引用:
|
作者KKao
是因為官司的關係才沒繼續做下去吧，而且外觀本來就有專利，
如果廠商真的完全自己開發，提出相關文件如研發記錄等資料，
相信頂多就是庭外和解，不置於敗訴。提不出來另當別論。
在網路上批評時事應該不涉及辱罵，廠商應該注意自己的行為，
而不是在論壇上警告網友，如有任何疑問，歡迎請貴公司律師來聯絡
|
1. 本人與 茂嘉 無絲毫瓜葛. 上述文句來自轉貼引用
http://yuyulaw.info/wordpress/科技�.../#comment-39352
2 外觀本來就有專利 !? 您看過福特汽車的汽車外形專利或是固特異輪胎的輪胎外形專利嗎? 您有看過三角形或是六角形....等等非圓形的輪胎嗎?
3. iPod 專利本身就有問題, 法官未加細查. 判決似有草率疏忽之疑!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/0...t_apple_patent/
Microsoft, Apple 'spar over iPod patent'
Apple's rotation application, we discover, received its first NFR on September 29, 2004 and was bounced again on June 13 this year.
But Platt's playlist application also has a rejection history. It received an NFR on 17 November 2002, and a more serious Final Rejection on 14 June 2004. After further documentation was received, and extension granted, the application received another NFR on 11 December last year.
Apple has filed a number of applications to protect the iPod and iTunes user interfaces, including 60/359,551 ("Touch Pad for Handheld Device") and 60/387,692 ("Method and Apparatus for Use of Rotational User Inputs").
Apple is facing two infringement suits claiming the iPod violates existing IP.
http://www.news.com/Microsoft,-Appl..._3-5830435.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._interface.html
Apple fails to patent iPod interface
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4510044.stm
Apple faces iPod patent dispute