Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on.

So far, every time someone has actually identified one of these patents and we've examined it, it's been clear that the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest.

The problem I've encountered is, even after explaining to some people that "the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest", they still insist the patents are overly broad.

 

[Horatius]

I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device", as if that is innovation deserving of patent protection.

Which patent are you talking about?

 

[WildCat]

which patent are you talking about?

7,966,578

 

[Sideroxylon]

Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares."

They actually tried and failed with the mouse and GUI in their 1994 "look and feel" case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

 

[Horatius]

7,966,578

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...7,966,578.PN.&OS=PN/7,966,578&RS=PN/7,966,578


This patent? With the main independent claims:

What is claimed is:

1. 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.

2. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display: displaying a portion of page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the page; detecting an N-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the N-finger translation gesture, translating the page content to display a new portion of page content in the stationary application window, on the touch screen display, wherein translating the page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page; detecting an M-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N; and in response to detecting the M-finger translation gesture, translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display without translating the other content of the page.

Yep, a pretty good working example of what AvalonXQ was talking about above.


ETA: and one we've discussed previously:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7486315

 

[AvalonXQ]

I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device",

... except they didn't.

It's just exactly what I was talking about -- people make ridiculous claims about patents that have no relationship to the facts.

 

[AvalonXQ]

They actually tried and failed with the mouse and GUI in their 1994 "look and feel" case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

... which was a copyright case, not a patent case. And, yet again, it was an issue of how close the Microsoft GUI was to specific Apple GUI's, not some vague reference to owning the concept of GUI itself.

It's so easy to bash caricatures of IP cases while ignoring their actual facts.

 

[BenBurch]

I think they have Samsung on the ropes here.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...msung-copied-the-iphone-and-ipad-in-pictures/

Article with pictures for the patent challenged

 

[Darat]

This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on.

...snip...

That would be an impossible standard to achieve whilst a case is ongoing. However much of the evidence in the current wide reaching case is being released and is available to read.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That would be an impossible standard to achieve whilst a case is ongoing.

Posting patent claims or trademark registrations is hardly "an impossible standard to achieve," as both are publically available.

Plaintiff's briefs are often public, too, once filed.

But why bother with solid facts that will disprove the naive descriptions when we can stick with baseless speculations, right?

 

[AvalonXQ]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...msung-copied-the-iphone-and-ipad-in-pictures/

Article with pictures for the patent challenged

The actual utility patent coverage in that article is really frustrating.

They act like claims 9 and 18 are just the elements listed on the chart. To infringe either claim, you'd also have to infringe claim 1 -- which is substantially longer and more complicated, which is why Ars Technica didn't include it in the article. But it makes it sound like Apple has claimed just the elements listed, which isn't true.

 

[Darat]

Posting patent claims or trademark registrations is hardly "an impossible standard to achieve," as both are publically available.

Plaintiff's briefs are often public, too, once filed.

I suggest you reread what you seemed to be claiming was necessary before any discussion could take place.

But why bother with solid facts that will disprove the naive descriptions when we can stick with baseless speculations, right?

Is the portion quoted above meant to be sarcasm?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I suggest you reread what you seemed to be claiming was necessary before any discussion could take place.

What are you talking about?

Patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs -- all three available publicly before/during trial. What impossible standard are you trying to imply I'm imposing?

 

[Belz...]

If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side

what court judgement ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

what court judgement ?

http://gigaom.com/europe/apples-tablets-are-cooler-than-samsungs-uk-judge-rules/

Samsung’s tablets are “not as cool” as Apple’s, a senior British judge ruled today. No, I’m not making that up – it’s a real judicial quote and, believe it or not, it should come as music to Samsung’s ears.

 

[Belz...]

I was hoping DrDave had made that up.

 

[Darat]

What are you talking about?

Patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs -- all three available publicly before/during trial. What impossible standard are you trying to imply I'm imposing?

Not really interested in exploring your standards for being able to discuss this matter any further. Do you have any comments to make about the trail?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not really interested in exploring your standards for being able to discuss this matter any further.

Hey, you're the one who brought it up.

My comments stand: Specifically, people who claim to know what's going on with a patent without actually reviewing and posting the claims have no clue what they're talking about. And people who describe that a given company is claiming something broad or vague without providing evidence, are just blowing smoke.

Patents are public record, people. Look up the patents, read the claim, and then decide how much of the "moon" Apple has actually claimed.

 

[carlvs]

Not really interested in exploring your standards for being able to discuss this matter any further. Do you have any comments to make about the trail?

Don't bother - most likely you're communicating with a person who would not be happy until ALL Android devices are banned, and one would only be able to buy iPhones and iPads.

And as for those on Apple's side - please don't insult my intelligence by saying this is not their ultimate goal - if they win this case, they'll most likely use it to block products that use the Android OS from other companies.

At least when there have been patent disputes with Microsoft, that company has been willing to enter into licensing agreements, and not have their (then) CEO rant about going "thermonuclear" on them...