or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple - Page 8

post #281 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

The one issue with this is that the patent Apple has just says "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image". The picture on the patent shows the left-to-right, but the wording is extremely broad.

No, it's relatively specific: The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gestures is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined locations and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined part.

Basically, the patent hinges on dragging an unlock "image" to a predefined location. Every single embodiment and figure in the patent states the user drags an image to a predefined location. That's specific enough.

Quote:
Lets say HTC (or any other developer) uses the other Android lock screen where you trace dots on a 3x3 grid to unlock it. That's drastically different than the simple left-to-right swipe, but yet the way the patent is worded, Apple can still sue for that. As the patent is worded, as long as it involves a touchscreen and some type of gesture on that touchscreen, it would be a violation of the patent. Drastically limits that "gazillion other ways", doesn't it?

This unlock method, similar to earlier and existing versions of Android, would not infringe upon the patent. Just read the patent. I can't see how what you are describing (dot/pattern tracing) would infringe upon the patent or how the patent would cover it. It's really a different design with different UI concepts.

Apple's design for gesture unlocking is likely the quickest and easiest way; hence, why Android started using it. The curve in the trajectory was what, the minimum necessary to copy Apple's design without looking blatant about it. Google/HTC (and Moto) didn't have to do this and could have kept the pattern tracing or some other design to unlock the screen.
post #282 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Mmm, undervoltiing CPU's was used by Pocket PC's and it's one of the alleged patent violations.

The patent in question involves powering down the CPU execution units (Fetch, Decode, ALUs, FPUs, VPUs, Load/Store) while maintaining power to the cache snooping circuitry, while also determined when the optimal times that it should be done.

Voltage and clock scaling were likely patented by Intel in the 90s. Apple's patent builds upon that with more granularity. Voltage and clock scaling are nice, but it essentially applies to the whole CPU. Apple's method basically powers down the instruction portion of the processor and maintains cache memory state with circuitry to determine when to do this.
post #283 of 285
I'm not alleging anything, Apple is.

Apple are alleging that HTC is in violation of their patents.

As the patent holder Appled is entitled to take action against whoever they want, whenever they want if they believe that their technology is being used without permission.

It is up to a court to decide and HTC has the right to defend themselves from the allegations.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #284 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

At least you point out your bias. I would also not agree that Apple exists because of what they copied from Xerox. Woz certainly had plenty of good ideas on his own and Jobs is the best salesman in the world. However, as the Xerox case clearly pointed out, Apple and Microsoft clearly stole Xerox's designs - they had built an actual system, so it wasn't an "idea", but Xerox exercised their copyright and trademarks too late to pursue them and they hadn't patented the technology.

1) Woz was already out of the picture by the time the Lisa project rolled around
2) Apple stole nothing - they paid Xerox for the ideas they saw
3) You did at least get the Microsoft theft right

If you want to understand where the Mac came from, start with the Lisa:

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/apple-lisa-history.html

The only real fault I can find with the above article is some obscure trivia about the round rectangles - despite that it appears to be one of the better summations of the time.
post #285 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Sorry, "stole" is too strong a description, but they definitely copied elements of Xerox's design:

for which they paid the right to do so...

Xerox didn't know how to capitalize on what they had so they showed others what they created in exchange for money.

So, how exactly do you steal something you paid for? Must be some new alternative definition of "stole" I'm not yet familiar with...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google backs HTC in what could be 'long and bloody battle' with Apple