A new era for retarded patent/copyright legislation

For everything that's not in any way related to PureBasic. General chat etc...
Zach
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1677
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:36 am
Location: Somewhere in the midwest
Contact:

A new era for retarded patent/copyright legislation

Post by Zach »

The Community Design: ...and you Thought the USPTO Was Bad
First, a filing does not contain any description. Only a general product category, and that's it. No description of what certain parts are for, no explanations of what buttons do, no nothing; just a few small, low-resolution photos (if you're lucky) or a few general lines (most cases).

Second, the registration process. The key problem here is that the drawings and/or photos in a Community Design are not actually reviewed. While a patent at the USPTO receives a review to check for obviousness and prior art, no such review process has been put in place for the Community Design. The only thing the governing body of the Community Design, the OHIM, checks for is that the paperwork is in order, and that the names on the filing are correct. If those two conditions are met, the Community Design is granted, no questions asked. This lack of a review process is established in EC 06/2002 (Title V, Articles 45 and 47), and clearly mentioned on the OHIM website.

This is problematic because of Section 2, Article 85 of EC 06/2002. Article 85 states that a Community Design is always, by definition, valid. This explains why the German court in Düsseldorf granted the injunction. He did not grant it because he made an informed decision based on the contents of the Community Design; he granted it because he has no choice but to accept the Community Design as valid. So when Apple showed him all the necessary documentation and paperwork was in order, and that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has roughly the same shape as Community Design 003781832 (which was filed in 2004, and as such, doesn't even cover the iPad to begin with, but we'll get to that later), the injunction was granted automatically.

Further Reading:
Apple chose Düsseldorf specifically because of how injunctions work in Germany. You do not have to notify the defendant, and there's no need for a hearing. By law, the court has to assume the Community Design - which has not received any prior art or obviousness test of any kind - is valid, and since the Galaxy Tab is roughly of the same shape as Apple's Community Design, the judge grants the injunction.
Other gems from the site

Samsung Launches Offensive Against Apple
So, after a bunch of attacks from Apple, Samsung seems to have gone on the offensive against the gadget maker from Cupertino - and big time, too. In three countries, France, Australia, and South Korea, Samsung has filed patent infringement lawsuits against Apple - with the South Korea suit being the weird one. Unlike Apple's software patents and *(napkin scribbles) community designs, Samsung is using actual hardware patents.
*phpbb has no strike-through tag.