Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[ConspicuousCarl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Apple is arguing based on the similarity of specific icons. I think they're arguing based on the similarity of all the icons collectively --

They are arguing a handful of specific icons in the document I was looking at. Besides, the "collective evidence" concept doesn't work if each individual piece leans toward absurdity.

Also, my point is not that Apple can't possibly have legitimate complaints about something. Maybe some other things do amount to Samsung being wholly unoriginal (such as using a yellow flower for the image gallery--more stuff like that is suggestive). My point is that Apple's own design is quite unoriginal in some ways as well, and that makes some of their claims completely nuts. It appears that they are willing to say almost anything to pile up as much paper as possible.

and also based on the use of transparency and other specific details that we know from Samsung's design documents that they literally did alter away from an old design to copy Apple.

I have no doubt that Samsung chose designs because of Apple, but that is less relevant based on the originality of what they "copied" as well as how much they actually "copied" vs "made similar". In the small sample available, notice how Samsung almost completely copied the almost completely unoriginal Apple phone icon, but used a generic gear where Apple had an actual unique design. I do think they might be something like half guilty because they didn't have to use a gear at all, but then the aspect they copied is extremely generic (when it comes to that sort of symbol, it's either a gear or a wrench).

 

[Horatius]

eta: I agree with Richard Posner that such rapidly developing technologies shouldn't be patentable at all.

If that's the case you want to make, then make that case. Don't just continue spouting the same ignorant straw man arguments you've been making about the patents that are being issued.

 

[WildCat]

If that's the case you want to make, then make that case. Don't just continue spouting the same ignorant straw man arguments you've been making about the patents that are being issued.

I'm free to make whatever case I'd like. The patent system is completely broken, and the Apple lawsuits are Exhibit A.

Touchscreens weren't invented by Apple, and Apple didn't make the innovations that allowed them to be cheap enough to finally put in smartphones. Apple didn't design the first rectangular phone with rounded corners, and numerous examples have been cited in this thread. Indeed, rounded corners are simply an arch that makes damage less likely if the phone is dropped and have been used in portable devices for many years. I'm surprised Apple doesn't lay claim to owning the rights to arches as well. Rectangular shape is merely form following function, of course the phone will be shaped like the screen.

In this and other threads you demand examples of prior art, those examples are shown to you, then you pop up later demanding more evidence of prior art as if it hasn't been done already. It gets old.

 

[WildCat]

...which no one seems willing to cite. If they exist, they'll knock this patent right out. If they exist, why hasn't Samsung cited them? demonstrating existing, publicly available, prior art is step #1 is defending yourself against a charge of patent infringement.

http://www.billbuxton.com/leebuxtonsmith.pdf

What's the date of that paper Horatius? And there's older ones out there...

 

[WildCat]

Imagine of automakers used Apple's tactics. We'd have patents for putting a radio in a car, then a cassette player, then cd and bluetooth folllowed by lawsuits if any other automaker dared put such devices in their autos. Because this is somehow "innovation" deserving of patent protection.

"You can't put a GPS in an automobile, we have a patent for that!" and other such nonsense.

 

[Horatius]

I'm free to make whatever case I'd like. The patent system is completely broken, and the Apple lawsuits are Exhibit A.

Touchscreens weren't invented by Apple, and Apple didn't make the innovations that allowed them to be cheap enough to finally put in smartphones. Apple didn't design the first rectangular phone with rounded corners, and numerous examples have been cited in this thread. Indeed, rounded corners are simply an arch that makes damage less likely if the phone is dropped and have been used in portable devices for many years. I'm surprised Apple doesn't lay claim to owning the rights to arches as well. Rectangular shape is merely form following function, of course the phone will be shaped like the screen.

In this and other threads you demand examples of prior art, those examples are shown to you, then you pop up later demanding more evidence of prior art as if it hasn't been done already. It gets old.

Yes, and none of those features are patented, are they?

http://www.billbuxton.com/leebuxtonsmith.pdf

What's the date of that paper Horatius? And there's older ones out there...

Yes, the date is 1985. Now, cite the page and line number where they discuss using one- and two-finger touches to control a frame, or a frame-within-that-frame, differently.

Hint: they don't. This is yet another example of you ignoring 90% of the claim. You're still doing exactly what I'm complaining about you doing.


The cited patent IS NOT FOR A MULTI-TOUCH SCREEEN.

How much louder must I say that before you'll hear it, and understand?

 

[WildCat]

Yes, and none of those features are patented, are they?






Yes, the date is 1985. Now, cite the page and line number where they discuss using one- and two-finger touches to control a frame, or a frame-within-that-frame, differently.

Hint: they don't. This is yet another example of you ignoring 90% of the claim. You're still doing exactly what I'm complaining about you doing.


The cited patent IS NOT FOR A MULTI-TOUCH SCREEEN.

How much louder must I say that before you'll hear it, and understand?

What the hell difference does it make whether or not they were patented? The invention was out there, it was being widely used prior to Apple using them. And that has been shown beyond any doubt.

Big letters don't make your case stronger you know...

It appears you think it's ok for some company to get patents for things that they didn't invent and were in wide industry use prior to the patent application? This is why we have patents?

Do you think it would be legitimate for an automaker to patent putting GPS navigation in cars? Because that's what Apple is doing with smartphones and tablets. Take existing tech they didn't invent, and patent it for use in a particular device. It's absurd.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What the hell difference does it make whether or not they were patented?

He's saying the features you are referring to in the prior art (like touch screens on a phone) are not features that Apple patented.

He's saying you're beating up a straw man and ignoring the actual patented features.

He's right.

 

[The Dark Lord]

That Apple was able to patent multi-touch gestures in the first place is absurd. If I was on the jury and I found that Samsung violated this absurd patent, I would vote to give them "damages" of $1.

 

[BenBurch]

Apple was the first company to make all of this stuff just work.

And the exact way it works cost money to develop.

Why is it OK to steal that?

 

[The Dark Lord]

Nobody used the exact way that Apple did unless you think they somehow got the source code.

 

[Horatius]

He's saying the features you are referring to in the prior art (like touch screens on a phone) are not features that Apple patented.

He's saying you're beating up a straw man and ignoring the actual patented features.

He's right.

This. This! A thousand times this! It's clear that WildCat doesn't have even the first clue about what he's talking about, despite repeated efforts to explain it to him.

Well, WildCat, enjoy wallowing in your own willful ignorance.

That Apple was able to patent multi-touch gestures in the first place is absurd. If I was on the jury and I found that Samsung violated this absurd patent, I would vote to give them "damages" of $1.

Christ, you too?

Please, would someone other that AvalonXQ tell me they actually understand the issues here? I'm beginning to despair of any having any useful effect it trying to teach people what patents actually are, and what they actually do.

 

[Horatius]

Nobody used the exact way that Apple did unless you think they somehow got the source code.

Source code would be copyright. Copyright, not patents.

Patents =/= Copyright.

Patents =/= Trademarks.

Patents =/= Trade Dress.

Patents =/= Industrial Design.

Patents = Patents.


If you don't know the differences between the types of intellectual property, you can't even begin commenting on cases like this. Well, not commenting in any useful way, at least.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Christ, you too?

Please, would someone other that AvalonXQ tell me they actually understand the issues here? I'm beginning to despair of any having any useful effect it trying to teach people what patents actually are, and what they actually do.

Save the sanctimonious BS. I just don't think that a multi-touch gesture should be worthy of a patent.

 

[BenBurch]

Look, I engineered one of the world's first wireless touchscreen PDAs.

I was intimately involved in the hardware/software integration, hardware design, design qualification, and touchscreen development.

So I know a bit about how much work it is to design something, and how easy it is for somebody else to copy that exactly.

You do not need the source code.

You do not need the hardware design.

You can do all this from a black box inspection of a prototype or retail item.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Source code would be copyright. Copyright, not patents.

Patents =/= Copyright.

Patents =/= Trademarks.

Patents =/= Trade Dress.

Patents =/= Industrial Design.

Patents = Patents.


If you don't know the differences between the types of intellectual property, you can't even begin commenting on cases like this. Well, not commenting in any useful way, at least.

Please learn to follow the conversation. Ben said that the exact way that (ie the code) that Apple used to make things work cost a lot of money and asked if others should be able to copy it. I said that unless they got the code they in fact did not do that.

 

[Horatius]

Save the sanctimonious BS. I just don't think that a multi-touch gesture should be worthy of a patent.

The point is, once again, "a multi-touch gesture" didn't get a patent.

That's what I'm on about.

 

[Horatius]

Please learn to follow the conversation. Ben said that the exact way that (ie the code) that Apple used to make things work cost a lot of money and asked if others should be able to copy it. I said that unless they got the code they in fact did not do that.

Oh, yes, of course, sure, except...that's not what he was talking about:

Look, I engineered one of the world's first wireless touchscreen PDAs.

I was intimately involved in the hardware/software integration, hardware design, design qualification, and touchscreen development.

So I know a bit about how much work it is to design something, and how easy it is for somebody else to copy that exactly.

You do not need the source code.

You do not need the hardware design.

You can do all this from a black box inspection of a prototype or retail item.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Look, I engineered one of the world's first wireless touchscreen PDAs.

I was intimately involved in the hardware/software integration, hardware design, design qualification, and touchscreen development.

So I know a bit about how much work it is to design something, and how easy it is for somebody else to copy that exactly.

You do not need the source code.

You do not need the hardware design.

You can do all this from a black box inspection of a prototype or retail item.

How exactly would Samsung engineers copy what Apple did "exactly" without the code?

They could look at the product, think it had good ideas and try to implement them in their own ways. Assuming they "copied" the iPhone that is exactly what they did. And I fail to see the problem. This is how technology progresses. In other industries, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[Wangler]

I think that the point is, yes there was prior art for touch-screen interfaces, even multi-touch and mobile/portable types of the same.

But, when we look at previous patents or demos of such prior art, can it be assumed that such demonstrations or descriptions covered every conceivable future tweak to such systems?

Just because someone demonstrated a capacitive multi-touch interface years ago, which showed one, two or multiple touch interactions with a GUI, does that cover every single conceivable swype, tap or drag action that could be performed with a normal human appendage?

I am starting to think not.

However does it make sense for this to be more of a copyright vs. a patent issue; perhaps the original patent should not have been issued to Apple.