Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

Exactly. Also there are other losses as iPhone owners buy their music and etc from Apple. So in your example, Ford will not get any parts business from that Ford clone.

And there's other follow on sales. Someone who buys an iPhone, and buys music and apps on iTunes, might turn around and buy an iPod Touch for a family member so they can share their music and app libraries.

 

[chulbert]

Yea, right. Too bad the jury decided to skip the issue of previous art because they thought it bogged them down and the foreman happily led them to his own conclusions.

Funny that a company, whose owner proudly boasts about stealing ideas from others, is suddenly all up in arms if allegedly others have stolen ideas from them. Which, by the way, isn't really that proven at all, given the fact that the jury decided to skip things.

Here's a more recent interview with the foreman. He explains that they skipped things to avoid bogging them down, then came back and had an easier time making decisions.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274094/apple-vs-samsung-jury-foreman-interview/in/3030480

 

[Christian Klippel]

Here's a more recent interview with the foreman. He explains that they skipped things to avoid bogging them down, then came back and had an easier time making decisions.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274094/apple-vs-samsung-jury-foreman-interview/in/3030480

Thanks for that link. This guy is really good at digging himself a comfy hole.

From the article:

This was on the first day, after which Hogan said he had "an a-ha moment" in which he decided "I could defend this if it was my patent." From there, Hogan laid out his story for the jury and then the group proceeded to go "patent by patent, claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us."

He decided that he could defend it, if it was his patent? Bias much?

From the interview:

... that moment that I had I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vise versa and that means that they’re not interchangeable and that just that just changed everything right there ...

Fantastic. I'm wondering how it comes that a lot of patent suits are around patents designed on/for device X while device Y, on a completely different platform (read: incombatible), is said to infringe on that? By his logic that shouldn't happen.

So, now the processor decides whether some prior art is valid or not? Wow. Just wow.

I'm sure that Samsung's lawyers will have a field day with what this guy says in the public.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[chulbert]

Thanks for that link. This guy is really good at digging himself a comfy hole.

So we can put to bed the "jury skipped it" nonsense?

He decided that he could defend it, if it was his patent? Bias much?

Given that by his own account he started out against the patent, your claim of bias is wildly unfounded. He merely described his thinking. He even explained how he was against these patents in principle but was persuaded otherwise. Just where the hell do you see bias?

Fantastic. I'm wondering how it comes that a lot of patent suits are around patents designed on/for device X while device Y, on a completely different platform (read: incombatible), is said to infringe on that? By his logic that shouldn't happen.

So, now the processor decides whether some prior art is valid or not? Wow. Just wow.

I will admit I didn't quite follow where he was going. His use of terms may not have been completely accurate and if I were in the room I would have asked for clarification. Here's where I'm sure you will rail, "He has a technical background! It's impossible for him to use technical terms incorrectly! He said exactly what he meant and there's no room for error!"

You thought the same about the skipping stuff too.

I'm sure that Samsung's lawyers will have a field day with what this guy says in the public.

I hate to break it to you but what jurors say in public after the verdict almost always irrelevant. Unless it's an admission of tampering, how the jury reached the verdict is not important. Lawyers agree on jurors and if they screw up voir dire that's not a reason to invalidate the verdict. The "no reasonable jury" argument must judge the verdict on its own merits, not how it was determined.

 

[chulbert]

http://www.consideringapple.com/samsung-v-apple-clarity-amongst-fud/

 

[This is The End]

As we've said before, yes, those are just horrible summaries. If you want to know what was actually patented, you need to look at the actual patents.

Ugh, what does that have to do with my question.... If the two self proclaimed experts can't tell someone in layman's terms what someone should look at specifically on a Galaxy S II then there is something wrong.

Excuse me for trying to be helpful but apparently not being quite helpful enough.

Your response reminds me of a joke:

Not as much of a joke as your link was if it was to be a response to my question. It was also considerably less helpful. It was a link to inaccurate summaries, something that you yourself admonished earlier in the thread.

 

[This is The End]

"Alice's dealership sells the Ford, but Bill's dealership only sells the Ford-clone. Since I went to Bill's dealership and didn't even look at a Ford, buying the Ford-clone didn't take any business from Ford!"

That would only make sense if the Samsung was an exact copy of the iPhone and not just having a few features in dispute. Which Samsung has good evidence of doing most of them first themselves, or of other companies besides Apple doing them first. Evidence that was not allowed in this case.

You try and make it sound like it is a Chinese black market iPhone clone or something...

Not. Even. Close.

 

[This is The End]

This is an inaccurate summary right?

The sad news is that every smartphone and tablet that has a full glass screen looks like an iPad or an iPhone. Apple's design patent portfolio is pretty complete and, if your smart device looks like an iDevice, you're going to be in trouble. What's worse is that Apple obviously has defensible patents around finger gestures and Apple is very unlikely to license any of its IP. Why should it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shelly-palmer/apple-samsung-good-bad_b_1834733.html

 

[AvalonXQ]

That would only make sense if the Samsung was an exact copy of the iPhone and not just having a few features in dispute.

No, it makes sense in any case where someone is arguing "Apple shouldn't get any damages from Samsung sales on networks without the iPhone."

 

[This is The End]

No, it makes sense in any case where someone is arguing "Apple shouldn't get any damages from Samsung sales on networks without the iPhone."

In support of that argument you made it sound like it was a black market Chinese exact clone of an iPhone.

It's not even close.

It's like trying to say that Ford lost a sale because a Chevy has the same car stereo or any other specific feature.

All that is true is that Apple is trying to prevent lost sales. They want to stop Android phones from consistently selling more. They have been losing ground and they want to stop that in any way possible.

 

[Horatius]

Ugh, what does that have to do with my question.... If the two self proclaimed experts can't tell someone in layman's terms what someone should look at specifically on a Galaxy S II then there is something wrong.

Considering I was responding directly to your query about the summaries of what the patents cover, this complaint is a bit out there. I've never claimed to be an expert on what a Samsung phone does, or doesn't act like.

If you want to know what the patents cover, read the patents. Get one of the Samsung fan boys to explain the rest to you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Here's my attempt to answer OTT's questions regarding the utility patents. Note that these are not legally precise descriptions. I don't want to lose any patent prosecuting cred over writing up something this imprecise.

7,469,381: Use your finger to scroll to the bottom of a webpage or other scrolling document screen, then keep moving your finger in the same direction to get past the end of the page. The page keeps moving with your finger, showing a blank area (or a background or somesuch) in the region past the end of the page. It bounces back to line up the edge of the page with the edge of the display when you remove your finger.

7864163: Navigate to a web page with multiple boxes of content. Select (on the iPhone this is a "double tap;" the claim doesn't specify) one of the boxes. The display centers on the box and enlarges the page so that the text in the box is legible and the box takes up most of the screen. While enlarged, select a different box. The display re-centers on the second box.

7,844,915: The phone interprets one finger dragging as a scroll command. Two or more fingers dragging separately are interpreted as a zoom command instead.

 

[This is The End]

Thanks for examples, I'll check them out on a friends phone.

7,844,915: The phone interprets one finger dragging as a scroll command. Two or more fingers dragging separately are interpreted as a zoom command instead.

Surely that one is a bad summary right? If a device's only input is a touchscreen, and one finger tap is a click, and one finger drag moves things, then of course other types of input are going to require more than one finger...

Are other phone companies not allowed to have zoom?

For another phone company to have zoom do they have to use 3 fingers or something?? Or perhaps only Apple is allowed to have zoom without a toggle...

Maybe just 10 phone companies are allowed to have zoom, 1 for each finger...

The touchscreen is the input device, and humans have fingers, it doesn't make any sense at all to allow that.

 

[WildCat]

The touchscreen is the input device, and humans have fingers, it doesn't make any sense at all to allow that.

Yes, it amazes me that there are people who think manipulating a touch screen with finger(s) gestures is an innovation worthy of a patent.

 

[Horatius]

Are other phone companies not allowed to have zoom?

No, they just have to do it differently.


You know, innovate. That thing they all claim they want to be doing, while copying each other.

For another phone company to have zoom do they have to use 3 fingers or something?? Or perhaps only Apple is allowed to have zoom without a toggle...

Or, maybe they'll actually come up with a new control scheme that's even better than just dragging your finger on the screen, which will impress everybody except those who insist that everything is obvious, even though they themselves never suggested such a scheme.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thanks for examples, I'll check them out on a friends phone.



Surely that one is a bad summary right? If a device's only input is a touchscreen, and one finger tap is a click, and one finger drag moves things, then of course other types of input are going to require more than one finger...

And yet, earlier touchscreens didn't.

Multi-touch is so intuitive that it seems obvious now - how could your device not have this? And yet it appears nobody did until Apple pioneered it. It really did make a huge difference in the intuitive use of the device.

 

[Christian Klippel]

You know, innovate. That thing they all claim they want to be doing, while copying each other.

Multi-touch is so intuitive that it seems obvious now - how could your device not have this? And yet it appears nobody did until Apple pioneered it.

Yea, right.

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Apple copying something = innovation, pioneered
Copying something, when Apple does it = So good that one, Steve Jobs, can boast about shameless stealing of ideas
Some stuff that runs on completely different (=incompatible) device but not an Apple device, while Apple has it too = infringement

Someone else doing what Apple does = stealing
Copying ideas that Apple may (!) have had = reason to go thermonuclear
Something that runs on an Apple device, but that someone had implemented on a completely different (=incompatible) device first = not infringing, because, uh, you know, you simply cant run that on that CPU

All i see is lots of "wanting to have the cake and eating it too", and even more tap dancing around the issue that such patents better should never be granted in the first place.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

Yea, right.

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Thanks. Reading through that, I've found an absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. This guy was obviously quite knowledgeable in the state of touch screen technology at the time that was written (2007 or there about). At one point he says this:

With an all touch-screen interface you generally cannot start, stop, or pause your MP3 player, for example, by reaching into your pocket/purse/briefcase. Likewise, unless you augment the touch screen with speech recognition for all functions, you risk a serious accident trying to operate it while driving. On the other hand, MP3 players and mobile phones mechanical keys can to a certain degree be operated eyes free – the extreme case being some 12-17 year old kids who can text without looking!

But, but, but, just touching the screen is obvious! So why did this guy not realize you could do exactly what he says you can't do?

http://flicktunes.com/FlickTunes/Welcome.html

That's an iPhone app, that does exactly what he said you can't do: Control your MP3 playback entirely via gestures, without looking. It's specifically designed to be used eyes-free, while driving. I use it almost every day.

But some would have us believe that using any gestures, to do anything, is automatically obvious, because "It's all just touching!"


Beautiful example. Thanks.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Thanks. Reading through that, I've found an absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. This guy was obviously quite knowledgeable in the state of touch screen technology at the time that was written (2007 or there about). At one point he says this:

But, but, but, just touching the screen is obvious! So why did this guy not realize you could do exactly what he says you can't do?

http://flicktunes.com/FlickTunes/Welcome.html

That's an iPhone app, that does exactly what he said you can't do: Control your MP3 playback entirely via gestures, without looking. It's specifically designed to be used eyes-free, while driving. I use it almost every day.

But some would have us believe that using any gestures, to do anything, is automatically obvious, because "It's all just touching!"


Beautiful example. Thanks.

You do recognize the difference between the parts that i bolded, right? It's strange to see that someone who is so adamant about context when it comes to patents (i.e. "read the whole patent to see what it covers and what not"), all of a sudden doesn't care about the context in this case.

In what you cited he talks about touch only, and what he says is correct in that context. You can feel a physical button, and by relating to where you feel other buttons/edges/whatever, you can find and use the start, stop or pause button and press it.

When all you have is a flat touch surface that you can't see at all, you simply can not do that by simply touching it, because you don't know where you are on the surface.

With gestures, however, it becomes a completely different thing. I have a hard time believing that you can't or won't see the difference between merely touching and using gestures.

But besides that, do you still think that Apple innovated anything when it comes to using touch, multitouch and gestures on a flat surface? Do you at least acknowledge that there is plenty of prior art for these methods, reaching (in time) far before Apple used it on any of their devices?

As i already said in this thread: I have no problem with someone patenting a new touchscreen technology. For example one that is more transparent, more reliable, cheaper to produce, whatever. Like, for example, the stuff that Toshiba came up with in 2005 and which is presented on that page i linked to.

But patenting stuff that already, provably existed, like gestures on a touch surface, is just stupid. Not only because it previously existed, but also because using gestures to show what one means is pretty damn obvious. We all do it every day when interacting with people. "That AA cell is about that long...", and using a gesture with thumb & index-finger to show it. ".. and appears that long from one meter away", closing the gap between thumb and index-finger. And there you have "pinch zooming".

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

You do recognize the difference between the parts that i bolded, right? It's strange to see that someone who is so adamant about context when it comes to patents (i.e. "read the whole patent to see what it covers and what not"), all of a sudden doesn't care about the context in this case.

Did you miss the part where his only suggestion for overcoming this problem was "Likewise, unless you augment the touch screen with speech recognition for all functions"? No suggestion at all that gestures vs. just touching could solve the problem. He says you have to augment the system with speech recognition.

You are the one who is reading too much into what he says, based on your current knowledge of how these systems have evolved since 2007. Spin it all you want, but in 2007, this guy, who clearly knows a ******** about touch screens, completely failed to predict Flicktunes, which came out about 2 years later.

But patenting stuff that already, provably existed, like gestures on a touch surface, is just stupid. Not only because it previously existed, but also because using gestures to show what one means is pretty damn obvious.

And again we have someone who clearly hasn't read the patents, and figured out what was actually patented.