Apple Awarded Major Patent Protection For Smart Phones And Tablets

OnlyTellsTruths said:
That is called toggling, and there is much precedent for it.
Click to expand...

Great! If there's plenty of "precedent" out there, then Apple's competitors will present it as soon as Apple goes to sue, and the patent will be invalidated.

Heck, if you feel the existing prior art is strong enough, why not dig up the specific references and challenge the patent yourself in reexam?
 
AvalonXQ said:
And why wouldn't that be patentable if you were the first person to figure out how to implement doing it that way?
Click to expand...

Sony would have already patented it if it were possible to patent that :). Answer only partially serious, hence the smiley.


I don't see much different between patenting using 1 button to do something, than patenting using 2 buttons to do something...
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
I don't see much different between patenting using 1 button to do something, than patenting using 2 buttons to do something...
Click to expand...

And again, if you were the first person to figure out how to do something with 1 button, and it wasn't obvious how to get it to do the thing with 1 button, then you could get a patent by showing how to do it.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Great! If there's plenty of "precedent" out there, then Apple's competitors will present it as soon as Apple goes to sue, and the patent will be invalidated.

Heck, if you feel the existing prior art is strong enough, why not dig up the specific references and challenge the patent yourself in reexam?
Click to expand...

Hey Avalon I like you! Have you not had your coffee or something! :)

...I wouldn't want to help any of these big companies in a (reexam?), they're all shady!

I was just bringing up that this is used all the time with buttons, so I don't see how with touchscreen would be any different.
 
AvalonXQ said:
And again, if you were the first person to figure out how to do something with 1 button, and it wasn't obvious how to get it to do the thing with 1 button, then you could get a patent by showing how to do it.
Click to expand...

Well I guess that would hinge on the 'wasn't obvious' part now wouldn't it.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Surely that isn't patentable. That would be like patenting 'pushing a button', 'turning a knob', or 'flipping a switch'.
Click to expand...
You would think, but such is the idiocy of patent laws these days. Apple is suing Samsung now because their smart phone looks like Apple's smart phone, as if the shape of a smart phone has nothing to do with the standard screen ratio...
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Well I guess that would hinge on the 'wasn't obvious' part now wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
Do you think the programming required to get gestures to work as intended "is obvious"?

It really sounds as if your entire objection to the patent is an argument from incredulity, and not based on anything factual whatsoever.
 
WildCat said:
You would think, but such is the idiocy of patent laws these days. Apple is suing Samsung now because their smart phone looks like Apple's smart phone, as if the shape of a smart phone has nothing to do with the standard screen ratio...
Click to expand...

... which is a trade dress case that has nothing to do with patent law.
 
AvalonXQ said:
... which is a trade dress case that has nothing to do with patent law.
Click to expand...
Except that it's equally stupid.

The laws that should be encouraging innovation are being used to suppress it.
 
WildCat said:
I would have no problem with patenting the programming, but that's not what the patent says, is it?
Click to expand...

"Patenting the programming"? What?
I don't mean to be a snob, but how much to you actually know about patent law?
 
WildCat said:
You would think, but such is the idiocy of patent laws these days. Apple is suing Samsung now because their smart phone looks like Apple's smart phone, as if the shape of a smart phone has nothing to do with the standard screen ratio...
Click to expand...

AvalonXQ said:
... which is a trade dress case that has nothing to do with patent law.
Click to expand...
^^ This.

It's a trade dress case about creating "market confusion" (among other things). Such lawsuits cannot be a commentary on patent law, as they've nothing to do with patents.
 
WildCat said:
I would have no problem with patenting the programming, but that's not what the patent says, is it?
Click to expand...
Um. What?

That's nonsensical.

Please cite an example of how one could patent the programming...
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Except that it's equally stupid.
Click to expand...
Wait, so your unreasonable conflation of two entirely different bodies of law, which don't even have the same constitutional basis for existing, is that they're both stupid?

The laws that should be encouraging innovation are being used to suppress it.
Click to expand...

I entirely disagree. Apple claims that consumers will be confused into thinking that Samsung phones are iPhones because of how Samsung designed their phones. Either that's true or it's not; if it's true, then Apple reasonably wants Samsung to change the look of their phones. There's nothing "stupid" about it; consumer confusion is the basis of trademark law and will either convict or vindicate Samsung. The law's working exactly as intended.

...including encouraging companies like Apple to make very successful devices safe in the knowledge that others are prohibited from coming along and pretending to sell Apple products.
 
AvalonXQ said:
"Patenting the programming"? What?
I don't mean to be a snob, but how much to you actually know about patent law?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the mechanisms to make a gesture have a certain result.

Not the gestures themselves, which seems to be what Apple is trying to do.

And frankly, none of this is new tech. From what I can tell Apple is just taking existing tech and using it in "a portable multifunction device". Huh? How is that patentable?
 
WildCat said:
I'm talking about the mechanisms to make a gesture have a certain result.

Not the gestures themselves, which seems to be what Apple is trying to do.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Could you please take a moment to either read the claims or at least someone's description of them?

I think you'll find that what Apple actually patented was what you're saying they should have patented. Specifically...

Claim 1 of the Apple patent said:
A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page; detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.
Click to expand...
 
AvalonXQ said:
I entirely disagree. Apple claims that consumers will be confused into thinking that Samsung phones are iPhones because of how Samsung designed their phones. Either that's true or it's not; if it's true, then Apple reasonably wants Samsung to change the look of their phones. There's nothing "stupid" about it; consumer confusion is the basis of trademark law and will either convict or vindicate Samsung. The law's working exactly as intended.
Click to expand...
Oh please, it's frivolous on its face and only a lawyer could pretend to be confused. This is simply form following function. No one with a Samsung phone is being tricked into thinking they have an iPhone.

This law is working as intended only if the intent is to increase entrance barriers for tech devices so high as to stifle all potential competition.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I think you'll find that what Apple actually patented was what you're saying they should have patented. Specifically...
Click to expand...
And what is the new innovation there? Putting it in "a portable multifunction device"?

It's like if Henry Ford patented having 4 wheels on a "self-propelled vehicle". Obvious uses for existing tech shouldn't be patentable.
 
AvalonXQ said:
:D
I figured we'd get there soon enough. "I don't need to know anything; anyone can see that..." is the usual response of the uninformed.
Which, I'm sorry to say, you are in this case.
Click to expand...
So you really think there's consumers out there who would buy a Samsung phone thinking they had bought an iPhone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom