BASEBALLPARK

º£À̽ºº¼ÆÄÅ© Àü±¤ÆÇ ³»¿ë
º£ÆÅ ´Ù½Ã Àß Çغ¾½Ã´Ù!

bullpen3

¸ð¹ÙÀÏ URL
http://m.baseballpark.co.kr
´ëÇ¥E-mail
jujak99@hanmail.net

¾ÖÇù®

ÀÛ¼ºÀÏ
12-10-26 14:01
±Û¾´ÀÌ
ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon
IP
123.¢½.¢½.30
±Û¾´ÀÌÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ °Ô½Ã¹° º¸±â
̵̧
0
Á¶È¸
3,350
´ñ±Û
7´Ü°è
½Ã°£º° ¿ª¼ø ´ñ±Û

¾ÖÇÃÀº ¿µ±¹¹ý¿ø ¸í·É¿¡ µû¶ó 1°³¿ù°£ ¿µ±¹È¨ÆäÀÌÁö¿¡ °í½ÃÇϱâ·Î µÇ¾îÀִµ¥

¾Æ·¡´Â ±× °Ô½Ã³»¿ëÀÔ´Ï´Ù. 

------------------------------

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited¡¯s Galaxy Tablet Computer,
namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple¡¯s registered design No. 0000181607-0001.
 A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.


In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass
on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves,
 both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold.
It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."


"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family
which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."


That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012.
A copy of the Court of Appeal¡¯s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html.
There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.


However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
Twitter Facebook Me2day
¹øÈ£ Á¦¸ñ ±Û¾´ÀÌ ³¯Â¥ Á¶È¸ Ãßõ
45 ¼ÖÁ÷È÷ ¸·¸» ¹®È­´Â Á» ÀÚÁ¦ÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. [7] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 11-09 2960 2
44 ¼­¼­È÷ ´ÜÀÏÈ­°è´ÜÀ» ¹â°í Àֳ׿ä [2] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 11-01 2852 0
43 ¾Æ·¡ ebs Å·¸ÞÀÌÄ¿´ÙÅ¥ À̾߱Ⱑ ³ª¿Í¼­... ÇöÀç ¾ß±Ç ´ÜÀÏÈ­ [1] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-30 2802 0
42 ¿äÁò Á¤¸» °¶·°½Ã°¡ ¸¹ÀÌ º¸À̳׿ä;;; [3] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-29 2688 0
41 Áø-°£ Åä·Ð ... [7] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-28 3212 0
40 Çö½ÇÀº °³Ãµµµ ÀÖ°í ¿ëµµ ÀÖ´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. [4] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-27 2939 0
39 ¾ÖÇù® [1] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-26 3351 0
38 ³ª·ÎÈ£ ¹ß»çÁغñ Áß ´Ü [7] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-26 2641 0
37 ±¸±ÛÀÇ µ¶µµÁÖ¼Ò »èÁ¦ ¹× µ¿Çظ¦ ÀϺ»ÇطΠǥ±â.. ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-25 1982 0
36 Àü ±¹¹ÎÀÇ 2/3Àº ½â¾ú´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù [2] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-25 2970 0
35 ÀϺ£.. ´Â »çµµ¿¡¼­ ¸¶µµ·Î ³Ñ¾î°¡´Â ±æÀεí.. [2] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-25 3011 0
34 ÁøÁß±Ç vs ÀϺ£ Åä·ÐÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï³×¿ä [3] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-24 3178 0
33 ¼ö¹ÌĨ ¸ÀÀÖ³ª¿ä? [5] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-24 3333 0
32 Å·´ý À̾߱Ⱑ ³ª¿Í¼­... [8] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-23 3784 0
31 ¼­¿ï ´ã¹è¹ý Çϳª ¸¸µé¾î¾ß°Ú´Âµ¥¿ä ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-20 1696 0
30 ³ªÀÌ µé¸é ¿Ö ²Á´ë°¡ µÇ´Â °É±î¿ä? [4] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-20 3004 0
29 ¾ÈÃø ÁöÁöÀÚµé°ú ¹®Ãø ÁöÁöÀÚµéÀÇ ÀÌÅ» [8] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-19 3054 0
28 ¾È ~ ¹® ´ÜÀÏÈ­ À߸øµÉ°æ¿ì ¶Ç´Â ÅõÇ¥¾ÈÇϰųª / ¹Ú ÅõÇ¥ ÇÑ´Ù.. [2] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-19 2648 0
27 [ »õº®ÈÎ±Û ] Yg¸¶ÄÉÆÃÀÇ ¹¦¼ö [1] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-16 3115 0
26 µ¿¹æ½Å±â ¾Ù¹ü ³ª¿Ô¾ú³×¿ä? Çè [2] ÆÛ½º³ªÄÜ volon 10-14 2726 0
ÀÌÀü°Ë»ö <<  1  2  3  4  5  6  >> ´ÙÀ½°Ë»ö
copyright