Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[DuvalHMFIC]

This all still seems ridiculous to me. Should the corner grocery store patent having 60" wide aisles in their store? Better yet, should they patent having SHELVES to place the products on? Baskets to put the products in? How about having a sign out front?

Should they patent having angled parking spaces too? This is what these lawsuits seem the equivalent of to me.

 

[AvalonXQ]

This all still seems ridiculous to me. Should the corner grocery store patent having 60" wide aisles in their store? Better yet, should they patent having SHELVES to place the products on? Baskets to put the products in? How about having a sign out front?

They're welcome to try. All we have to do is find one grocery store that had each of these things in it before the patent was filed, or a document of someone describing how groceries stores work dated from before the patent was filed, and they can't get a patent on it.

On the other hand, assume for a second that every grocery store had at least 50" aisles, everyone knows you must have 50" aisles, and all the grocery store literature assumes 50" aisles. Now, lets says somebody comes up with a way to feasibly make grocery products available to consumers in 30" aisles -- something nobody else has done before. Why shouldn't they have the option to get a patent on it?

Remember, utility patents are only available to the first person that makes a useful invention actually work. You need to keep that limitation in your mind. That's really the most basic requirement.

 

[This is The End]

Trade dress complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53458125/Complaint-iPhone-Trade-Dress

Love one of the first parts: "...before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with keypads for dialling and small passive display screens that did not allow for touch control....".

Yeah apart from of course phones like the P800 or the XDA - and the XDA (1 & 2) is one of the best prior art arguments about Apple's claims.

And about a dozen other phones. At least.

 

[This is The End]

They're welcome to try. All we have to do is find one grocery store that had each of these things in it before the patent was filed,

That's odd, because the Judge in this case told Samsung they could not present their earlier phones that had these features as evidence.

Also, as I already pointed out, sometimes tech can arrive at a point where something is possible. It can be both obvious at that time and obviously not been done before. Just because it wasn't done before does not mean it isn't obvious! It's because it only just became possible ! That flat out makes that part of patent law ridiculous. Sure, that can be a good way to sometimes tell if something is obvious. But there are clearly situations where it is not.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's odd, because the Judge in this case told Samsung they could not present their earlier phones that had these features as evidence.

And yet again, no citation or quotation.

Which, if I had to guess, means that that's not what went down with the patent features at all.

 

[This is The End]

And yet again, no citation or quotation.

Which, if I had to guess, means that that's not what went down with the patent features at all.

It was huge news last week when Samsung leaked that? Did you seriously miss it?

 

[This is The End]

Judge Koh Lets Samsung Slide For Publishing Rejected Evidence

Judge Koh rejected Quinn’s request to include several pieces of evidence — including pictures of old Samsung phones which looked like the iPhone before the iPhone began to ship — for the third time on Tuesday, sending Mr. Quinn to “beg” to have the evidence included. When Koh once again rejected their requests, Samsung sent out this evidence, including interviews, drawings and memos, to select members of the press.

“The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone,” wrote Samsung in their evidence dump.

“The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”

Here's an interesting new article:

Apple Should Have Followed the Bouncing Srcoll to Prior Art; How Apple's Case Is Starting To Crumble

 

[This is The End]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112667331/apple-vs-samsung-day-2-roundup/

Samsung’s lawyer, John Quinn, then asked Judge Koh once more if they could include drawings of older Samsung designs which predate the first iPhone as evidence. This isn’t the first time Samsung has asked Judge Koh to consider these drawings as evidence, and today she once more denied the request. Much to her chagrin, Quinn decided to press the matter, saying he was — for the first time in his 30 years of courtroom experience — begging that this evidence be included.

“You’ve made your record for appeal,” said the judge. “Don’t make me sanction you, please.”

 

[This is The End]

Apple Should Have Followed the Bouncing Srcoll to Prior Art; How Apple's Case Is Starting To Crumble

We have noticed this from the beginning when Apple asked to have details about the F700 phone and the “Sony” prototype kept out of court. Judge Lucy Koh originally prevented the evidence from being entered claiming it was too late in the discovery process to be allowed. We asked about this and many IP lawyers were a little surprised that it was not allowed since the F700 is a phone that Apple claims infringes on their patents. They felt that Judge Koh should have allowed the original brief and all evidence related to it. Even now Apple is still trying to block evidence that can show the origin and design concept for the F700 by asking that the original developer for the F700 not be allowed to testify.

When a company or person repeatedly asks for evidence to be excluded it is because they know that it weakens their case. We are fairly certain that Apple is aware of the impact bringing in the original designer of the F700 will have.

 

[BenBurch]

They'd need to innovate, then?

Absolutely.

Who knows, if they try, they might some day have Apple by the balls.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Absolutely.

Who knows, if they try, they might some day have Apple by the balls.

They already do innovate. The Super AMOLED screens, for example, which Samsung invented and builds (unlike Apple which just buys components from companies like Samsung) is far more innovative and worthy of patents than the idea of scrolling with two fingers or whatever.

Consequently, they are the number one smartphone maker in the world. Which is why Apple is trying to bring them down in court.

 

[This is The End]

Absolutely.

Who knows, if they try, they might some day have Apple by the balls.

I know you are referring to patents with that comment, but I don't think Samsung is very worried either way. Samsung is killing them in smartphone market share. That is why Apple is using patent law to try and get Samsung products off shelves.

Android has nearly 70% of the smartphone market, half of which are Samsung phones. Apple has like 15% smartphone market share. So, AFAIK, Samsung already has more than twice the smartphone market share.

 

[This is The End]

Hey The Dark Lord, why do you have to ninja me!

Anyway I wanted to check my numbers before someone tries to say:

And yet again, no citation or quotation.

Here's an article from 3 days ago. I was very nearly spot on:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/08/technology/smartphone-market-share/

Google's Android surged to a whopping 68% share of the global smartphone market last quarter. That's four times the 17% market share held by Apple, according to a Wednesday report from research firm IDC.

More specifically, IDC pegged Android's gain "directly" to Samsung, which represented 44% of all Android phones shipped during the quarter. That's more than the next seven Android vendors combined, IDC said. Samsung's Galaxy S III debuted late in the quarter to favorable reviews.

 

[This is The End]

I know that Apple is one of, if not the, most profitable companies, and people on the internet love to talk about them. But you wouldn't know it from market shares.

I very rarely even see people with Apple phones or computers.

Apple doesn't even have 5% of the worldwide PC OS market share, and are lucky if they have over single digit in the US, compared to nearly Microsofts nearly 90% PC OS domination.

AFAIK the only thing Apple has a majority OS market share in is tablets and that's just barely. They have 54% compared to 44.6% of tablets running Android. With the Android % rising, and the Apple % falling.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/14/2869858/apple-54-7-percent-tablet-market-q4-11-kindle-fire-idc

 

[AvalonXQ]

It was huge news last week when Samsung leaked that? Did you seriously miss it?

Yeah, so it didn't have anything to do with excluding prior art regarding the features of sold Samsung phones. It doesn't have anything to do with the utility patents at all.

It's excluding the internal (unreleased) designs Samsung had allegedly been working on prior to the Apple release to rebut the allegations that Samsung copied the iPhone's design.

In other words, it has nothing to do with the points being made back and forth about claiming inventive features in patents versus finding those features in the prior art.

After repeated calls for pre-2007 technology that actually reproduces the claimed multi-touch feature and failure to produce same, can we infer that none of the posters here actually have any?

 

[This is The End]

Wow it's like you only read the article until you saw a weakness and jumped on it.

The F700 is a real phone, just because they reference the design schematics doesn't mean it's not real....

Why do you think Apple is trying to block the developer and designer of the F700 form testifying?

 

[Wangler]

After repeated calls for pre-2007 technology that actually reproduces the claimed multi-touch feature and failure to produce same, can we infer that none of the posters here actually have any?

I don't know; it seems as if this 2003 patent might be considered prior art to the Apple patent.

It may be too general in it's input specifics, though.

 

[Ferguson]

I very rarely even see people with Apple phones or computers.

Apple doesn't even have 5% of the worldwide PC OS market share, and are lucky if they have over single digit in the US, compared to nearly Microsofts nearly 90% PC OS domination.

Yep, they've always been fighting for survival with a tiny percent of market share, but still the internet loves to vilify them as the big bullies on the block.

 

[Horatius]

I don't know; it seems as if this 2003 patent might be considered prior art to the Apple patent.

It may be too general in it's input specifics, though.

Here's a better link where you can read the full text:

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2003081458

Implementations may include one or more of the following features and one or more of the features noted above. For example, the input tool may be a pen stylus or a finger, and tracking motion of the input tool may include tracking the pen or finger on the display surface.
The display may include a touch screen and tracking motion of the input tool may include tracking motion of the input tool on the touch screen. The touch screen may include, for example, a resistive sensor, a capacitive sensor, an acoustic wave sensor, or an infrared sensor. The touch screen may include a sensor activated by a touch activation force by the input tool on the display.
The motion may be separated into a horizontal component and a vertical component relative to the display, the horizontal component may be compared to the threshold, and horizontal movement of the visible portion of the page of information on the display may be constrained if the horizontal component does not exceed the threshold. Vertical motion may be left uncompared and unconstrained or comparing the motion also may include comparing the vertical component and constraining the vertical movement of the visible portion of the page of information on the display. Comparing the motion of the input tool to the threshold may include comparing the motion of the input tool to a user-defined threshold or to a system-defined threshold.

Implementations may include one or more following features and one or more of the features described above. For example, the input tool may include a stylus, a mouse, or a finger. The display may include a touchscreen on which the input tool may be tracked. The touchscreen may include, for example, a resistive sensor, a capacitive sensor, an acoustic wave sensor, or an infrared sensor.

I'd say that this actually "teaches away" from the one finger vs. two fingers control of the Apple patent. Note that they consider a finger to be functionally equivalent to a stylus or mouse. It's likely no one would have two mice or styluses, and there's no suggestion that you could use multiple fingers in any way. Also, the control scheme is entirely based on the direction in which you move the stylus/finger, not on how many you're using. A very different style of control.

Also note, the information they're scrolling is formatted differently as well - there's no suggestion of a frame-within-a-frame, which is scrolled differently based on the different control inputs.

And that's a key point, which all the "Ohh, touch is obvious" types keep missing: you have to consider all elements of the claim before you can judge obviousness. The frames formatting is just as much a part of the invention as the one vs. two finger scrolling. As is the fact that the one finger vs two finger control is applied regardless of where on the screen you touch - as opposed to scrolling the inner frame only when the touch is within that frame, as you'd see in most web browsers, for instance.

So, a different touch control scheme, with no discussion of the allegedly "obvious" use of two fingers, that uses differently formatted page layouts, and controls those page layouts in a completely different way. Yeah, I think AvalonXQ would Bitch Slap me severely if I tried to apply a reference like that!

 

[Horatius]

A few quotes from the thread we had last time we went back and forth over this:

The iPhone and iPad use it as described, to scroll frames within pages. Some sites, like facebook, will have a page (the news feed) that you scroll through, with one finger, then you click something, like '17 friends like this' which pops up a frame with the list of friends that liked it. How do you scroll through that list without scrolling the whole page? With two fingers. I discovered it by accident a few months ago, and its saved my *** a few times on various sites.

I agree that as written I dont believe it covers zooming, just scrolling frames within scrolling pages.

I can't speak for others to the obviousness of it, but when I discovered it by accident on my phone a few months ago, I was surprised, and thought it was a pretty brilliant solution to that problem (how to scroll interior frames on a website without a mouse).

When we wrote My Word Coach DS (the DS has a touch screen), one minigame had a swipe interface. There was a 3x3 grid of papers, and you looked at one.

Some people preferred swiping up to move the camera up, which moved the papers down.

Some people felt like they were grabbing the paper, so swiping down moved the camera up.

In the end, playtests showed people didn't even understand how to swipe, let alone which direction did what. So we put arrows on the screen, and you touched those to move the camera.

Swipe to move is not necessarily obvious.

So here we have two actual, live people, who have real-world experience that suggests that this control scheme was not obvious. Not personally, and not to the group of play testers they used.