Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

carlvs said:
Don't bother - most likely you're communicating with a person who would not be happy until ALL Android devices are banned, and one would only be able to buy iPhones and iPads. :(
Click to expand...


Or, you know, he's trying to explain to you how patents, and their use in court cases, actually work, as opposed to the ridiculously ill-informed interpretations used by anti-patent crusaders.

But that is clearly an uphill battle for some.


And as for those on Apple's side - please don't insult my intelligence by saying this is not their ultimate goal - if they win this case, they'll most likely use it to block products that use the Android OS from other companies.:mad:
Click to expand...


Sure, it is clearly their ultimate goal - but you can't evaluate how likely they are to succeed at that goal via patent lawsuits until you understand how patents actually work - something that lots of people posting here demonstrably don't understand.
 
carlvs said:
And as for those on Apple's side
Click to expand...

I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly.

That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts.

People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.
 
If you don't like how Apple defends it's IP, just don't support them.

It's easy to not buy anything that Apple puts out, ever.

Just ask me how.

:)
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly.

That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts.

People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.
Click to expand...

It's a kind of religious dogma, isn't it.
 
BenBurch said:
I think they have Samsung on the ropes here.
Click to expand...
Very unlikely. The judgement Apple is asking for would buy millions of hours of prior-art searches, and their patents simply aren't that novel.

Samsung may settle, but there is no chance Apple will get what they are asking for.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly.

That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts.

People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.
Click to expand...

What about those that criticise others even though they show that they have not read the up about what the case they are commenting on on? This case is not only about patent violations......
 
DrDave said:
It doesn't sound like the sort of thing judges should be ruling on does it?!
Click to expand...

There have been a few of these types of legal tussles in which the judge has been very clear that the courts really shouldn't be involved (and that includes cases not involving Apple)
 
Horatius said:
Or, you know, he's trying to explain to you how patents, and their use in court cases, actually work,
Click to expand...
I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that's how it actually works. The problem is the sytem "actually working" that way shows the sytem is broken and is actually stifling innovation and competition.
 
WildCat said:
What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display".
Click to expand...

The claim is for selective scrolling of a page with frames. It scrolls the whole page if you use one finger, or it scrolls just the frame if you use two fingers.

What device did this prior to the filing date of the Apple patent?
 
WildCat said:
I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that's how it actually works. The problem is the sytem "actually working" that way shows the sytem is broken and is actually stifling innovation and competition.
Click to expand...

That the patent system may be broken and in need of change is not relevant to whether apple currently has valid patents that samsung is infringing on.
 
WildCat said:
What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display".

It's absurd.
Click to expand...


What's absurd is that you are once again ignoring about 90% of body of the claims, which is something I and AvalonXQ have told you repeatedly you simply can't do. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything about patents. It's really just that simple.


First off, you say they "took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"". Well, no they didn't.

The line "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display" is the introductory portion of the claim, which merely sets up the environment in which their invention (which is actually embodied in a method of using that device) operates. Had they simply tried to patent "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display", they'd have been laughed out of the patent office.


Horatius said:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...7,966,578.PN.&OS=PN/7,966,578&RS=PN/7,966,578


This patent? With the main independent claims:

What is claimed is:

1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page; detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

2. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display: displaying a portion of page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the page; detecting an N-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the N-finger translation gesture, translating the page content to display a new portion of page content in the stationary application window, on the touch screen display, wherein translating the page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page; detecting an M-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N; and in response to detecting the M-finger translation gesture, translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display without translating the other content of the page.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



As AvalonQX says above, show us any system anywhere prior to this patent's filing date that taught a method that involves all (or even most) of these major steps, which each include several sub-steps:


1) displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content;

2) detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page;

3) detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.



THIS is what they have patented. Show us evidence that THIS was known prior to the filing date and you'd have something to argue about. But until you understand and acknowledge that the patent is not simply directed to "existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"", you'll never make any progress.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
That the patent system may be broken and in need of change is not relevant to whether apple currently has valid patents that samsung is infringing on.
Click to expand...



I've said before that there are real problems with patents, particularly in the US, but those real problems won't be solved by people who demonstrably don't know what they're talking about, and go out of their way to make up fake problems like we see here.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
What's absurd is that you are once again ignoring about 90% of body of the claims, which is something I and AvalonXQ have told you repeatedly you simply can't do. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything about patents. It's really just that simple.


First off, you say they "took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"". Well, no they didn't.

The line "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display" is the introductory portion of the claim, which merely sets up the environment in which their invention (which is actually embodied in a method of using that device) operates.
Click to expand...
Why on earth should the platform matter?

Horatius said:
Had they simply tried to patent "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display", they'd have been laughed out of the patent office.
Click to expand...
Seeing as the patent office fairly regularly allows patents for perpetual motion devices and other such nonsense I doubt anything has ever been laughed out of it.

Horatius said:
As AvalonQX says above, show us any system anywhere prior to this patent's filing date that taught a method that involves all (or even most) of these major steps, which each include several sub-steps:


1) displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content;

2) detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page;

3) detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, again, they're just taking existing tech and combining them in a uwithout translating the other content of the web page.
Click to expand...
Right, once again they just took existing tech and combinmed them in a unique but obvious way.

Horatius said:
THIS is what they have patented. Show us evidence that THIS was known prior to the filing date and you'd have something to argue about. But until you understand and acknowledge that the patent is not simply directed to "existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"", you'll never make any progress.
Click to expand...
I guess you have to be an entrenched bureaucrat with turf to protect to see the merits in such a patent.
 
US Circuit judge, University of Chicago lecturer and intellectuial property expert Richard Posner sounds off:
The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple Inc's smartphone technology battle is questioning whether patents should cover software or most other industries at all.

Richard Posner, a prolific jurist who sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, told Reuters this week that the technology industry's high profits and volatility made patent litigation attractive for companies looking to wound competitors.

...Posner, who teaches at the University of Chicago, effectively ended Apple's lawsuit against Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit last month. He canceled a closely anticipated trial between the two and rejected the iPhone maker's request for an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products using Apple's patented technology.

Apple is in a pitched battle with its competitors over patents, as technology companies joust globally for consumers in the fast-growing markets for smartphones and tablet computers.

Posner said some industries, like pharmaceuticals, had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.

Advances in software and other industries cost much less, he said, and the companies benefit tremendously from being first in the market with gadgets - a benefit they would still get if there were no software patents.

"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," he said.

Also, devices like smartphones have thousands of component features, and they all receive legal protection.

"You just have this proliferation of patents," Posner said. "It's a problem."
Click to expand...
When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom