The "utility models" are a sort of "patent quickly" with a duration of only 10 years and with an approval process essentially nil, they are a fast and safe method to identify themselves to the resolution of a problem and to "give special effectiveness or ease of application or employment ", as reported by Wikipedia. The main problem, however, is that utility models are not subjected to any kind of control before approval, so this is the date "on trust". For this reason there is "presuzione of validity" that is, instead, with the patents, which have to be invalidated by the prosecution and are supposed to be valid until proven otherwise. The utility models are temporeanei and, for this reason, care is the defense demonstrate that they are valid and have real utility.
Apple in 2007, simultaneously with the launch of the iPhone, a utility model on the "slide to unlock". During the clash in Germany in the Regional Court of Mannheim, Apple has used this model against Samsung, but it is possible that it will remain burned. Infatto The court suspended the trial pending a review by the Deutsches Patent-a Markenamt (German Patent and Trademark Office), which could lead to partial or total removal of the utility model registered by Apple. How risportato FOSS Patents, in fact, the judge Andreas Voss in charge of the case held that the court is not convinced of the validity of intellectual property in all aspects, especially with regard to the wider issues.
For the moment, the process has been put in a stationary phase of waiting for a response by the Patent Office. It may take several months before seeing results, and in the meantime, the process must remain completely still. He'll then be appealed to the two companies based on test results. Meanwhile, given the length of the utility model, its value for both legal and business will continue to fall.
It is right that the court addresses with skepticism about the usefulness of a model which the defense has shown the existence of reasonable doubt on the validity and credibility. Samsung has indeed been very credible and referred to a case of prior art that could lead to cancellation of the model. The Neonode N1m, in fact, had really a function of slide-to-unlock long before the invention of the iPhone. Apple, however, might object that the device did not have a sufficient level of visibility and distribution in Germany, making use of that compartment smartphone as a form of prior art. Judge Voss has made no comment about it, but it is clear that the defense of Samsung is focused primarily on this device and then it depends.
It is not the first time that Apple's patents and their validity is challenged in Germany. It is particularly important, however, that Samsung wins with the invalidation of the model, because virtually every implementation of methods that require dragging to unlock the device may be vulnerable at present. Also the implementation of the Samsung TouchWiz, which is very distant dall'unlock of IOS, could be subject to attacks.
Apple in 2007, simultaneously with the launch of the iPhone, a utility model on the "slide to unlock". During the clash in Germany in the Regional Court of Mannheim, Apple has used this model against Samsung, but it is possible that it will remain burned. Infatto The court suspended the trial pending a review by the Deutsches Patent-a Markenamt (German Patent and Trademark Office), which could lead to partial or total removal of the utility model registered by Apple. How risportato FOSS Patents, in fact, the judge Andreas Voss in charge of the case held that the court is not convinced of the validity of intellectual property in all aspects, especially with regard to the wider issues.
For the moment, the process has been put in a stationary phase of waiting for a response by the Patent Office. It may take several months before seeing results, and in the meantime, the process must remain completely still. He'll then be appealed to the two companies based on test results. Meanwhile, given the length of the utility model, its value for both legal and business will continue to fall.
It is right that the court addresses with skepticism about the usefulness of a model which the defense has shown the existence of reasonable doubt on the validity and credibility. Samsung has indeed been very credible and referred to a case of prior art that could lead to cancellation of the model. The Neonode N1m, in fact, had really a function of slide-to-unlock long before the invention of the iPhone. Apple, however, might object that the device did not have a sufficient level of visibility and distribution in Germany, making use of that compartment smartphone as a form of prior art. Judge Voss has made no comment about it, but it is clear that the defense of Samsung is focused primarily on this device and then it depends.
It is not the first time that Apple's patents and their validity is challenged in Germany. It is particularly important, however, that Samsung wins with the invalidation of the model, because virtually every implementation of methods that require dragging to unlock the device may be vulnerable at present. Also the implementation of the Samsung TouchWiz, which is very distant dall'unlock of IOS, could be subject to attacks.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar