or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jsebrech

I didn't say that.I said two things: (1) pinch to zoom wasn't patent-worthy by apple, and (2) you need to separate invention from execution (admittedly, the wording was unlucky). Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom, they just perfectly executed it. That means their patent is likely invalid because patents are awarded to the original inventor, regardless of who executed what.I think apple will win the rubber banding patent, that seems an apple original. I think samsung knows...
If you can't see pinch to zoom in that video, try this one from february 2006:   http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html   2:36 shows one-handed pinch to zoom out, a few seconds later it's a two-handed pull to zoom in.   [sarcasm]Oh, but apple did it on a phone, that's true innovation.[/sarcasm]
Actually, I think samsung's "leadership" were really genuine idiots for getting themselves into this situation. They were warned time and time again, in-house and by apple, to visually distinguish their products. They chose not to. They'll probably get hammered by the jury over it.   But ... I still believe apple's "licensing terms" are more like damages claims. It's quite possible that samsung will come off owing less if the court orders them to pay damages than if they...
250 million total for 2010 would amount to 20% of what apple spent on R&D that year, across all its divisions and its entire product lineup. The iphone is rumored to have cost 150 million to develop, so they're asking for more money per year than the iphone cost in total. Who could call that a fair price? Does apple really expect samsung to fund all of apple's R&D on phones and tablets? These are not license terms, these are punishment terms. Besides, $30 on products...
Enforcing privacy requires government intervention, like what the FTC did. We need laws like the EU data directive, which gives a person editorial control over their data. We need laws that go even further. Market forces cannot secure privacy, only government intervention can.But right now, under the current laws, privacy doesn't exist. The government, regardless of your country of origin, knows everything about you, and you have no recourse against what they do with that...
The rubber banding patent is a red herring. Apple originally sued Nokia, RIM and Samsung over it, and Nokia and RIM settled out of court and paid for a license. Samsung refused to pay for a license, so they went to court, and they lost (different trial). They've already pushed an update replacing the bounce scroll with a "blue haze". It looks way uglier than the bounce scroll, but it performs the same...
  Except it doesn't look and feel exactly like it. There's no icon that's an exact copy. They're all "similar to". The same applies to the design. Is it a crime to make "similar to" products intentionally? Should it be? It's certainly not a nice thing to do, but courts seem divided on whether it's actually illegal, especially in this case since the products are still visually distinctive from each other. Apple has been here before with the windows 2.0 trial, but they...
Thought I'd mention this: [sarcasm]So, it's clear that samsung were copying skype here, you can tell by the angle of the handset.[/sarcasm]   Now, I DO think samsung copied apple's icons (too much coincidence). However, I do NOT think apple has a any legitimate claim to many of the icons they are laying a claim to, because they weren't "first".
New Posts  All Forums: