Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[DrDave]

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...

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.

There are a lot ways you could have a zoom, even with just one finger.

E.g. 1 - tap center and then draw circle round where you tapped. Clockwise for zoom in

E.g. 2 - tap bottom corner and then drag finger up to zoom. Same with top corner and down for zoom out

If I can come up with 2 in 2 minutes I'm sure actual product designers can come up with others

 

[Christian Klippel]

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.

Did you miss the part in the document where he says:

The problem is, I can't take the time to give a detailed reply to each question. So I have done the next best thing (I hope). That is, start compiling my would-be answer in this document

...

As I said, it is incomplete and a work in progress (so if you come back a second time, chances are there will be more and better information). I apologize to those that I have missed.

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.

And you are the one who conveniently only selectively answers to my posts. So, again, do you admit that Apple did in no way come up with using touch/multitouch/gestures on a flat screen/surface/display? Why is that so hard to answer for you?

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

...said the one who clearly hasn't read the document i linked to and figured out that it is an incomplete work in progress.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Oh, and before you again start to ramble on about how that patent about, for example, the pich-zooming stuff is all fine and dandy because, while that method clearly existed before, it is for a different device: Do you really think it is fine to do that, given the prior art? And how do you match that with the reason the foreman gave to deny infringement for something simply because it couldn't be just popped onto the other CPU and run there? Can you just drop the code that a Samsung handy uses onto an iPhone and have it run there? How comes that sometimes prior art is valid even if it is on completely different things, and sometimes it isn't because it is on completely different things? Do you see the problem with that?

 

[Horatius]

And you are the one who conveniently only selectively answers to my posts. So, again, do you admit that Apple did in no way come up with using touch/multitouch/gestures on a flat screen/surface/display? Why is that so hard to answer for you?

I'll answer that question once you explain why it has any relevance to the patents that Apple actually received, rather than being just another stupid strawman version of their patents.

ETA: Oh, and before you again start to ramble on about how that patent about, for example, the pich-zooming stuff is all fine and dandy because, while that method clearly existed before, it is for a different device: Do you really think it is fine to do that, given the prior art? And how do you match that with the reason the foreman gave to deny infringement for something simply because it couldn't be just popped onto the other CPU and run there? Can you just drop the code that a Samsung handy uses onto an iPhone and have it run there? How comes that sometimes prior art is valid even if it is on completely different things, and sometimes it isn't because it is on completely different things? Do you see the problem with that?

Show any ability to actually understand what has been patented, what the prior art actually shows, and how that prior art is applied to patent claims, and I'll spend my time discussing it with you. so far, you've shown no understanding of any of this.

 

[chulbert]

And you are the one who conveniently only selectively answers to my posts. So, again, do you admit that Apple did in no way come up with using touch/multitouch/gestures on a flat screen/surface/display? Why is that so hard to answer for you?

In no way? I read the history you posted and watched the relevant videos but I didn't see anything prior to the iPhone that did exactly the same thing. I saw the following:

• Two pinch gestures that scaled an object (a selection rectangle and a little man) but not the entire canvas.
• A two-handed gesture that resized a window but did not scale anything.
• A two-handed gesture scaled the entire canvas.

Admittedly, these are spiritual predecessors to what Apple eventually patented.

However, they are different in numerous ways. Many used a separate camera system for the hands and superimposed that representation on top of the display, so on a technical level nothing was touched. These systems based their behaviors on what the hands were projected to be hovering over, not what they touched. Some had input devices that were separate from the display. Some used two hands on each side of the screen.

Do they meet the technical definition of prior art in Patentland? A jury felt not.

ETA: Oh, and before you again start to ramble on about how that patent about, for example, the pich-zooming stuff is all fine and dandy because, while that method clearly existed before, it is for a different device: Do you really think it is fine to do that, given the prior art? And how do you match that with the reason the foreman gave to deny infringement for something simply because it couldn't be just popped onto the other CPU and run there? Can you just drop the code that a Samsung handy uses onto an iPhone and have it run there? How comes that sometimes prior art is valid even if it is on completely different things, and sometimes it isn't because it is on completely different things? Do you see the problem with that?

The more I thought about the foreman's "processor" comment, the more I started thinking like above. What he may have been saying was something like, "How can a system that doesn't even recognize touch be prior art for a multitouch patent?"

 

[Christian Klippel]

I'll answer that question once you explain why it has any relevance to the patents that Apple actually received, rather than being just another stupid strawman version of their patents.

Show any ability to actually understand what has been patented, what the prior art actually shows, and how that prior art is applied to patent claims, and I'll spend my time discussing it with you. so far, you've shown no understanding of any of this.

I see. You continue refuse to answer these questions and instead reverted back to your "read the patent, read the patent, ..." broken record mode.

Have fun with that.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

Well, at least I'm not the only one who sees this....


http://techpinions.com/pinch-to-zoom-and-rounded-rectangles-what-the-jury-didnt-say/9465

How did so many get this so wrong? I fear it betrays something ugly about the way tech reporting works–and doesn’t work–these days. Depth, expertise, and reflection are all lacking. So is serious research. If you are going to write about a patent case, it’s a good idea to read the patents in dispute. Reading patents is not a particularly pleasant business. The language is tedious, legalistic, and often deliberately obfuscatory; you want to give the Patent Office the required information while giving away as little as possible to your competitors. But reading the claims, the critical section of the patent, isn’t all that difficult. There are a total of 101 claims for the three patents and they fill about five printed pages. Yet I suspect very few of the people who wrote about the trial actually made the effort. If they had, they would have known that the range of gestures covered was much narrower than has generally been reported.

I’m not sure where the idea that pinch and stretch was at stake originated. It seems to have crept into the trial coverage at some point and become part of the folklore of the case. And when the jury announced that it had found infringement by Samsung on all three utility patents, a large number of writers seemingly assumed that one of those covered the gesture. In the case of rounded rectangles, Samsung’s obfuscation certainly contributed. So did a general hostility toward the entire patent system in the tech community, including tech writers, which created a readiness to believe in the most absurd interpretation of the outcome.

 

[Horatius]

I see. You continue refuse to answer these questions and instead reverted back to your "read the patent, read the patent, ..." broken record mode.

Have fun with that.

Greetings,

Chris

Yes, god forbid we should actually be talking about reality, and not your fantasy version of the world.

And again, it's fascinating that this is the one area on this forum where insisting on discussing reality is considered a problem. Stop and think about that for a minute.

 

[Christian Klippel]

In no way? I read the history you posted and watched the relevant videos but I didn't see anything prior to the iPhone that did exactly the same thing. I saw the following:

• Two pinch gestures that scaled an object (a selection rectangle and a little man) but not the entire canvas.
• A two-handed gesture that resized a window but did not scale anything.
• A two-handed gesture scaled the entire canvas.

Admittedly, these are spiritual predecessors to what Apple eventually patented.

This looks like an attempt to make out differences that don't really exist. There is basically no difference between an object on a canvas, or the canvas itself. Both are actually objects. If you look for example into the QT toolkit, you will see that.

The fact is that the use of gestures, and sometimes even particular gestures like that pinching or moving a finger to move an object (which translates into scrolling a page just fine) were known of way before Apple came up with it.

Also, the use of flat surfaces to do so, as well as using screen-overlays to have a touch input existed before. So, it _is_ pretty damn obvious to someone trained in the arts, which is one point that decides whether a patent should be granted or not.

However, they are different in numerous ways. Many used a separate camera system for the hands and superimposed that representation on top of the display, so on a technical level nothing was touched. These systems based their behaviors on what the hands were projected to be hovering over, not what they touched. Some had input devices that were separate from the display. Some used two hands on each side of the screen.

Do they meet the technical definition of prior art in Patentland? A jury felt not.

Well, and some did indeed have a touch surface on a screen. The point, as said, is that all these things were thought of and built much earlier. Even using a touch screen on a phone was done in 1992 already.

The only thing "new" to what we have now since a few years is that the actual touchscreens became more advanced. Which just makes it obvious to use them in the way their predecessors were used, just on mobile devices.

ETA: And which is why i said that i'm perfectly fine with having the technology of those touchscreens patented, but not the way they are used. I mean, really. These things are created to be used for exactly that purpose.

The more I thought about the foreman's "processor" comment, the more I started thinking like above. What he may have been saying was something like, "How can a system that doesn't even recognize touch be prior art for a multitouch patent?"

Be careful or you will soon be accused of reading more into it than there is!

But i disagree. His statements were quite specific on that. And i have to say that his recent interviews strengthen my suspicions of how/what went wrong with the jury deliberations, namely that he decided to lead them into his own conclusions. Sorry to say that, but this is what i get from it.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Aidoneus]

I see. You continue refuse to answer these questions and instead reverted back to your "read the patent, read the patent, ..." broken record mode.

Have fun with that.

Greetings,

Chris

That you refuse to address what has actually been patented is hardly Horatius' problem.

 

[chulbert]

Well, at least I'm not the only one who sees this....

I fear even I fell pray to this and began to debate Christian based on his interpretation. It's clear upon reading the '915 patent that it isn't about pinch-and-zoom, in spite of how the tech reporting industry has characterized it. It doesn't even mention zooming, scaling, or even pinching.

 

[Horatius]

I fear even I fell pray to this and began to debate Christian based on his interpretation. It's clear upon reading the '915 patent that it isn't about pinch-and-zoom, in spite of how the tech reporting industry has characterized it. It doesn't even mention zooming, scaling, or even pinching.

It gets worse than that....from the earlier link:

Apple only has a limited patent (US 7,812,826) on the pinch to shrink, stretch to zoom gesture that is a core element of touch interfaces. And the ’826 patent wasn’t in dispute in the Samsung case because Apple never asserted it. In fact, this particular patent does not seem to be in dispute in any litigation.

So, not only are a lot of people misunderstanding what was actually patented, they're arguing about a patent that wasn't even in dispute.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I fear even I fell pray to this and began to debate Christian based on his interpretation. It's clear upon reading the '915 patent that it isn't about pinch-and-zoom, in spite of how the tech reporting industry has characterized it. It doesn't even mention zooming, scaling, or even pinching.

Sorry, but that's just not the case.

[QUOTE='915 Patent claims]1. A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; creating an event object in response to the user input; determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation; issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation; responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the scroll stopped at a predetermined position in relation to the user input; and responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.[/QUOTE]

It's pinch-to-zoom; or more precisely, it's [two or more input points]-to-scale. It's true that the word "pinch" does not appear but the concept definitely includes that.

 

[BenBurch]

There are a lot ways you could have a zoom, even with just one finger.

E.g. 1 - tap center and then draw circle round where you tapped. Clockwise for zoom in

E.g. 2 - tap bottom corner and then drag finger up to zoom. Same with top corner and down for zoom out

If I can come up with 2 in 2 minutes I'm sure actual product designers can come up with others

We did it back in 1995 by having a zoom icon on the screen. It was ugly.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I fear even I fell pray to this and began to debate Christian based on his interpretation. It's clear upon reading the '915 patent that it isn't about pinch-and-zoom, in spite of how the tech reporting industry has characterized it. It doesn't even mention zooming, scaling, or even pinching.

Page 17, figure 14, for example. On page 40 in the "background of this disclosure" it also says "The gesture operations include performing a scaling transform such as a zoom in or zoom out in response to a user input having two or more input points."

On page 41 it goes on: "The present disclosure can relate to an apparatus for performing one or more of the operations described herein." On page 46 is an explanation of figure 14, the scaling.

Also try the '381, for example on page 17ff, figure 9ff, the pinch-zoom gesture is shown there as well.

But i guess those patents have absolutely nothing to do with that, and they included that stuff just to increase the page numbers...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

That you refuse to address what has actually been patented is hardly Horatius' problem.

And it isn't my problem that he refuses to answer my questions or commented on the points i made, all of that before he sprang back into the broken-record-mode of "read the patent, read the patent, ..."

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

Page 17, figure 14, for example. On page 40 in the "background of this disclosure" it also says "The gesture operations include performing a scaling transform such as a zoom in or zoom out in response to a user input having two or more input points."

On page 41 it goes on: "The present disclosure can relate to an apparatus for performing one or more of the operations described herein." On page 46 is an explanation of figure 14, the scaling.

Also try the '381, for example on page 17ff, figure 9ff, the pinch-zoom gesture is shown there as well.

But i guess those patents have absolutely nothing to do with that, and they included that stuff just to increase the page numbers...

Greetings,

Chris

And it isn't my problem that he refuses to answer my questions or commented on the points i made, all of that before he sprang back into the broken-record-mode of "read the patent, read the patent, ..."

Greetings,

Chris

Well, as seen above, you've finally started reading the patent.

Now you need to start reading the parts that actually define the legal monopoly.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yay! He's actually reading the patent!

Now if only we could get these kneejerk "Apple is the devil" glasses off of him...

 

[Jaynbob42]

I have just seen a post on google+ saying that Samsung are paying Apple 1billion in 5 cent coins. Find that kind of hard to believe.

At work so shouldn't even be on the net at all, hence not checking this further. Would be funny if true :-D

 

[chulbert]

Sorry, but that's just not the case.

It's pinch-to-zoom; or more precisely, it's [two or more input points]-to-scale. It's true that the word "pinch" does not appear but the concept definitely includes that.

I clearly overstated matters when I said the patent didn't even mention a few terms and I'm sorry for that; however, that doesn't make the patent about pinch-to-zoom. It's a method for distinguishing between a single finger touch and a "gesture" of multiple fingers, an example of which could be pinch-to-zoom.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Well, as seen above, you've finally started reading the patent.

And what misled you to the assumption that i "finally started" reading them?

Now you need to start reading the parts that actually define the legal monopoly.

You mean the parts that actually include the gestures to zoom in/out, hmm? You really should try to get off your high horse some day and respond to what people ask you, instead of continuously playing back that broken record.

You know, like my question if you now accept that Apple did not invent the use of gestures on flat screens/surfaces, as i have shown with my previous link to Buxton's article. And mind you, that is what i asked. I did not ask you that in connection with any of the patents in the Apple/Samsung case, otherwise i would have mentioned that.

Remember that this particular line of the discussion started with you saying "You know, innovate. That thing they all claim they want to be doing, while copying each other.", to which i replied with said link to show that Apple did _not_ innovate the use of gestures.

It was you who then sprang back into the "read the paten, read the patent, ..." mode, even while that wasn't the point. It really starts to look as if you are proudly wearing blinders, just so that you can avoid the issues that people bring up, and are only capable of pointing to patents whenever people say that patenting such thing in general is silly.

And yes, Apple did indeed patent pinch-zooming, among other ridiculously obvious gestures, as you can see in the '826 patent. Yes, i know that this one wasn't part of this case. But still they patent stuff that is not only bloody obvious, but that has been done before.

And before someone says "but those early systems used a projector/camera/table/whatever". Especially the '826 only talks about "...detecting at least two first contacts on a display surface of a multi-touch-sensitive display device" in the very first claim (page 20 in that document). It says nothing about a capacitive multitouch overlay on a LCD screen. A "display surface" can be just about everything, and there are multitudes of ways to make a "display device's" "display surface" "multi-touch-sensitive". It's just not specified in that patent and kept in the broadest terms possible.

Apple did innovate exactly zilch there. They just did what Jobs proudly boasted about: shamelessly stealing ideas. And then they had patent lawyers write up those stolen ideas and get a patent on that.

And make no mistake: If it were the other way round, i.e. Samsung (or for that matter, anyone else) getting patents on that stuff, and suing others with them, i would say the exact same. Just with the name "Apple" replaced by whatever that companies name would be.

Greetings,

Chris