1. timmy t's Avatar
    How does BB10's tile look differ from WP8 and why is this not a concern for litigation?
    08-26-12 10:46 AM
  2. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    The Look of the tiles wont be a cause for litigation if they methods in which they are created are different,
    08-26-12 10:48 AM
  3. timmy t's Avatar
    OK thanks.
    08-26-12 10:51 AM
  4. hootyhoo's Avatar
    The Look of the tiles wont be a cause for litigation if they methods in which they are created are different,
    Doesn't the Apple vs Samsung case also involve the similarity of icons?
    08-26-12 11:02 AM
  5. simu31's Avatar
    I guess it could be argued that the BB10 "Tiles" are somewhat similar to the live tiles on Windows Phone, but the live tiles on Windows Phone are exactly that, "tiles". BB10 will actually have miniturised views of active apps, so it shouldn't be a reason for litigation.

    Si.
    08-26-12 11:17 AM
  6. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    Doesn't the Apple vs Samsung case also involve the similarity of icons?
    Yes, but as a package of Samsung emulating many features to give a similar look,
    Samsung packaged their devices to look similar to Apple, they put images of the Grid of icons which looked like Apples gird of icons on packaging,

    The Lot of it was about getting people to buy the device, and Apples Case was based on the fact that they believe that people were stupid enough to look at a Box that said Samsung on it that had pictures similar to the box that said Apple on it, and think they were buying the same thing.
    Apparently the Jury also felt that the Public was so stupid and awarded Apple the win.

    The Live Tile vs Active Frames, would have to be argued that they were elements that confused the public on their similarity, OR that one used the others code to create the tile/frame.
    I am sure RIM isn't using WP7/8 code to develop their ActiveFrames, and I'm also sure ActiveFrames wont be a marketing image that will cause confusion with WP8's Live tiles when packaged and put on display.
    08-26-12 11:20 AM
  7. hootyhoo's Avatar
    Yes, but as a package of Samsung emulating many features to give a similar look,
    Samsung packaged their devices to look similar to Apple, they put images of the Grid of icons which looked like Apples gird of icons on packaging,

    The Lot of it was about getting people to buy the device, and Apples Case was based on the fact that they believe that people were stupid enough to look at a Box that said Samsung on it that had pictures similar to the box that said Apple on it, and think they were buying the same thing.
    Apparently the Jury also felt that the Public was so stupid and awarded Apple the win.

    The Live Tile vs Active Frames, would have to be argued that they were elements that confused the public on their similarity, OR that one used the others code to create the tile/frame.
    I am sure RIM isn't using WP7/8 code to develop their ActiveFrames, and I'm also sure ActiveFrames wont be a marketing image that will cause confusion with WP8's Live tiles when packaged and put on display.
    I understand these points and can't wait to see these devices side by side. It should be very interesting.
    08-26-12 11:32 AM
  8. timmy t's Avatar
    So was pinch/zoom also a patent violation because RIM uses that?
    08-26-12 02:58 PM
  9. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    So was pinch/zoom also a patent violation because RIM uses that?
    I don't recall reading that pinchzoom was indeed in the filing
    I believe that Apple Argued for slide to unlock though.
    08-26-12 03:02 PM
  10. mikeo007's Avatar
    I don't recall reading that pinchzoom was indeed in the filing
    I believe that Apple Argued for slide to unlock though.
    This patent: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7469381.pdf covers pinch-zoom and other touchscreen events. Apple was somewhat successful with the lawsuit in regards to this patent. It also covers touchscreen scrolling which all touchscreen phones "infringe" upon to some degree.
    08-26-12 03:09 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD