Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

Christian Klippel said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said, those read to me as examples of possible operations that result from possible gestures. The meat of the patent - what it actually claims - is distinguishing between touches and gestures servicing those events.
 
Christian Klippel said:
And what misled you to the assumption that i "finally started" reading them?
Click to expand...


The fact that you showed absolutely no understanding of what the patents cover, for one.

Of course, now that it's clear that you have read them, and are still making the same mistakes, it's clear that you need to do is start understanding them.


You know, like my question if you now accept that Apple did not invent the use of gestures on flat screens/surfaces,
Click to expand...


When did I ever say they had invented something that broad? Quote the post.


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.
Click to expand...


...and you complain about me not understanding you?


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.
Click to expand...



No. They. Didn't.

Quote the part of the patent that gives them a monopoly on "pinch-zooming". I guarantee you cannot do that, without completely misunderstanding what was actually patented.
 
Yet another example of not understanding the patent:

Christian Klippel said:
But i guess those patents have absolutely nothing to do with that, and they included that stuff just to increase the page numbers...
Click to expand...


Virtually every patent ever issued describes more than it claims. There are several reasons for that, which I'll explain if you really want me to, but this fact is indisputable.


If you only read the description, you have no idea what the patent actually protects. All of your quotes come from the description.
 
chulbert said:
As I said, those read to me as examples of possible operations that result from possible gestures. The meat of the patent - what it actually claims - is distinguishing between touches and gestures servicing those events.
Click to expand...

So implementing pinch zooming would not violate that previous patent, but it's still described in an existing patent, so it is prior art as it would be if it were described in any publication.
 
DrDave said:
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
Click to expand...

Was the first example an original idea you just thought up?

Because it seems exactly like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Je-5UFXCEc
 
Modified said:
So implementing pinch zooming would not violate that previous patent, but it's still described in an existing patent, so it is prior art as it would be if it were described in any publication.
Click to expand...

Apple does not have a patent on anything as broad as mapping a pinch gesture to a zooming operation.
 
Regarding the issue about jurors talking about it afterwards, someone compiled a nice list of cases in the comment section here on Groklaw.
(hope that link works, otherwise search for the comment "I seem to recall a case where a Juror spoke in a bar - Authored by: eric76" on this page)

Looks like it isn't that clear-cut that it doesn't matter what jurors say afterwards. Some of the listed cases seem to match what happened here quite well.

Greetings,

Chris
 
AvalonXQ said:
Multi-touch is so intuitive that it seems obvious now - how could your device not have this?
Click to expand...

It just absolutely stuns me that you believe that and are spreading it. Touching a touchscreen with more than one finger, who would have thought of that??

Again, as I said earlier. One finger tap would obviously be click. One finger drag would obviously move something. So therefore, other inputs would logically require more than one finger click or drag. To try and say that isn't obvious?? Please...
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Again, as I said earlier. One finger tap would obviously be click. One finger drag would obviously move something. So therefore, other inputs would logically require more than one finger click or drag. To try and say that isn't obvious?? Please...
Click to expand...

I feel like I need to post that "The Tick" clip again.

It's all "obvious" once everybody's doing it. That's not how "obvious" works.
 
Horatius said:
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.
Click to expand...


I quote Bill Buxtons reply to me here, regarding the above, with his permission:

Bill Buxton said:
Thanks for taking the time to write, and also for pointing out a place where my writing could be improved in order to better reflect my intent. I will certainly update the passage to reduce the chance of what I was saying being misinterpreted.

The key word in the first sentence that the reader seems to have not paid enough attention to is the word "generally". In the second sentence I gave an example. But, of course, it is not the only example, nor a general one. Using gestures on a touch screen to operate an MP3 player increases the risk of an accident, compared to other options (one of which is speech), even if one is using gestures. Furthermore, the person making the statement makes an incorrect assumption that my statement indicates that I had not thought about, or did not take into consideration, the use of gestures on a touch screen or touch pad, much less the distinction between the use of gestures on a touch screen/pad, compared to touch key-presses.

I just did not go into that example at this location. That is not the same thing as teaching/advocating any lack of knowledge. My work with touch devices for music performance in the late 1970s and in the 1980s very much made use of gestures. Furthermore, I was shipping a product, Alias|Wavefront's Portfolio Wall, in 2000 (i.e., 9 years before Flicktunes) which may have been the first commercial product to use lateral finger-swipes (i.e., gestures) to transition forward and backward through a sequence of images or a slide-show, as well as using directional gestures to control video playback. The flicking through images with the original iPhone is direct reimplementation of what we were shipping 7 years earlier. There are 3 different videos, I believe, demonstrating the Portfolio Wall on my YouTube Channel (wasbuxton).

The challenge in writing about all of this is how to get the key points across in a short space, that is, without writing a book. :-)

Anyhow, it is easy to address the issue at play here, and, if I look at it objectively, I can easily see how the person got the wrong impression, given how and what I wrote. This is easy to fix.

So, thanks a million for your help and note. I really appreciate it. And, the only reason to write something like that page is to try and capture, and share, some of what I have learned over the years with such systems. No point in all of us reinventing the wheel :-)

Thanks again.
bill
Click to expand...

Still so sure that i try to spin it, hmmm?

Greetings,

Chris
 
AvalonXQ said:
It's all "obvious" once everybody's doing it. That's not how "obvious" works.
Click to expand...

At least one exception, the one that applies, was explained to you in detail in this thread. Yet you still don't get it.

The phrase "It's all "obvious" once everybody's doing it." is so ingrained into your head that you are blinded to exceptions to the rule.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I feel like I need to post that "The Tick" clip again.

It's all "obvious" once everybody's doing it. That's not how "obvious" works.
Click to expand...

It's obvious in so far that gestures are used that people have used for a very, very long time before any computer stuff, like indicating the size of something by using the thumb and index-finger. Or motions that people use to manipulate real objects, like rotating things that are placed on a surface.

Or "slide to unlock". Dunno about the Americas, or even other parts of the world, but over here in Germany we have things like this in common use for hundreds of years already. You will find them on many sheds, storage compartments, etc. So, yes, "slide to unlock" is friggin obvious.

One could get the impression that you guys think everyone must be a moron, except someone who comes up with a patent, and that only then we know about things and consider them obvious. Or why else are you always harping on about "Well, of course it's obvious now that everyone does it"? Do you think that patent examiners are some kind of demi-gods who know everything, and if something isn't obvious to a particular examiner it can never ever have been (or still be) obvious to others?

It's also pretty obvious that people thought of using such gestures on touch screens way before Apple implemented them on their iDevices, or did you miss the link to Bill Buxtons page that i gave?

Greetings,

Chris
 
A picture is worth...

7894241064_1fe9c64c34.jpg
 
What is your point? That some 20-year-old interview should have some bearing on the company some years later? Where are you really going with this?

What do you think Apple has "stolen" and then patented? Be specific and cite patent numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom