or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Dutch judge says Apple's 'slide to unlock' patent is likely invalid
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch judge says Apple's 'slide to unlock' patent is likely invalid - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Idea: A substance to which stuff can't stick...

WHOOPS, THERE GOES TEFLON.


BULLSHIT. Get real. If you can create another non-stick material, then you can name and patent it. You are not patenting the idea of non-stick, but the molecule combination used to make Teflon.
post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameldrum1 View Post

If you know better (as you generally seem to), there is a shortage of judges in many jurisdictions. All you'd need to do is study law for 7 years or so, do a clerkship, pass some more exams, practise law for 20 years or so, then get appointed (or elected).

At that point your legal opinion will be valid.

Until then, why don't we go with the guy who knows what he is talking about eh?

The German judge or the Australian one?

Those guys that also know what they are talking about?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The German judge or the Australian one?

Those guys that also know what they are talking about?

They also need to work withing those laws that apply to the jurisdiction and the case at hand. The Netherlands case was much more extensive than the one the German Court is handling. And IMO the German laws appear pretty restrictive as to the types of testimony and evidence that accepted at this stage in the proceedings. It's pretty much Samsung's responsibility to prove Apple's design patent invalid, and/or their right to even file for an emergency injunction, but without being able to ask them any questions.

It's a completely different and much more narrow effort from Apple in Germany than it was in the Netherlands.

EDIT: BTW, we'll all know more about the Australian status within a few days. A "directions hearing", which is more or less a somewhat informal get-together with the Judge and involved parties to discuss how they wish to proceed, is scheduled for the 29th.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

It's funny isn't it? Any patent troll that sues Apple, and we have endless posts about how crap the patent system is, how people/companies are being handed out bullshit patents left right and centre, and how the whole system needs a major overhaul.

Oh, but if someone suggests that Apple has been awarded a patent when they shouldn't have been, because the idea is obvious, we have the opposite outcry. Post after post about how "innovative" a slide-to-unlock gesture is.

Sorry, can't have it both ways. It is utterly ludicrous that Apple was awarded a patent for the slide to unlock gesture. It's pretty obvious and not very clever - Android's gesture unlock is more innovative but I'm not sure even that warrants a patent.

There is no necessary logical inconsistency in holding both positions, as superficially portrayed by you, so, actually, one could have it both ways.
post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

BULLSHIT. Get real. If you can create another non-stick material, then you can name and patent it. You are not patenting the idea of non-stick, but the molecule combination used to make Teflon.

If teflon is so non-stick, how the hell does it stick to the pan?
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

BULLSHIT. Get real. If you can create another non-stick material, then you can name and patent it. You are not patenting the idea of non-stick, but the molecule combination used to make Teflon.

And I suppose you could enlighten us as to some more ideas that have been patented that shouldn't be patented. Would you be so kind?

Because all I see here is

Idea: means by which to lock the device
Implementation: slide to unlock

Slide to unlock isn't an idea, it's an implementation thereof. So by your rules, it should be fine.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #47 of 80
One off this may be invalid but when you look at Apple products as a whole, (iPhone, iPad) there is some serious copying going on.
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason this makes me so mad is that even though it's a bit trivial, it's one of the truly original things about the iPhone and multi-touch when it came out.

If Apple can't get protection for stuff like this then there doesn't seem to be much point to patents at all. You might as well just take the China attitude of letting anyone copy anyone else whenever they want.

Whatever you hear to the contrary, the fact is that multi-touch was a truly original breakthrough as was it's application to the iPhone UI and almost everything about it. Apple dutifully recorded everything they were doing and patented it to the hilt.

If all of that end up meaning nothing at all, then truly ... what is the point?

The world would be in a horrible place if not for the creatives and the geniuses that invent things like this. It's the core of what makes us different from the other animals. Yet capitalism and the legal system treats creatives like so much cannon fodder for the most part.

I think it's just sad.

Well... I don't mean to trivialize the importance of protecting one's inventions or, ideas. I'm just expressing a little surprise this whole cat fight boils down to something, while I suppose neat, but to me, is far from some of the real innovations of apple. Something so easily worked around by samsung.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Cite all the locks you swipe to unlock in your home, your car, or any other apparatus you own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The two slide locks on my storage building?

EDIT: Forgot the one drop down door in the utility room. It has a slide lock too.

Touche. Funny how a bit of common sense can put an irrational fanboy in his place.
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

It's funny isn't it? Any patent troll that sues Apple, and we have endless posts about how crap the patent system is, how people/companies are being handed out bullshit patents left right and centre, and how the whole system needs a major overhaul.

Oh, but if someone suggests that Apple has been awarded a patent when they shouldn't have been, because the idea is obvious, we have the opposite outcry. Post after post about how "innovative" a slide-to-unlock gesture is.

Sorry, can't have it both ways. It is utterly ludicrous that Apple was awarded a patent for the slide to unlock gesture. It's pretty obvious and not very clever - Android's gesture unlock is more innovative but I'm not sure even that warrants a patent.


Ehhh, I wouldn't worry about it. You're correct point for point. But you're not going to convince hypocrites. The linchpin of a hypocrite's way of thinking is a distorted reality.
post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason this makes me so mad is that even though it's a bit trivial, it's one of the truly original things about the iPhone and multi-touch when it came out.

Slide to unlock doesn't use multi touch and the judge thinks it can be invalid because prior art.

The phone presented doesn't use a long press but slide

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Idea: A substance to which stuff can't stick...

WHOOPS, THERE GOES TEFLON.


No, is not the idea of non sticking what is patented but the method
post #52 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Despite its army of lawyers and despite its litigious tendencies, it looks like Apple is losing big time. Innovatioins need patent protection. But copies of prior art, and obvious inventions need to be bounced before they can be used to stifle innovations by others.

The patent system needs a HUGE overhaul when crap can receive a patent, and then those invalid patents can be used to hurt others.

In the fifties, Boris Vian, well known writer, engineer from the best-breed-school École Centrale Paris, political activist and otherwise genius, registered an invention in the French patenting system, consisting of a torus of elastic material filled with air used to protect wheels against shocks. Yeah, a pneumatic. Invented half a century earlier in France and already registered there. He did this to prove that the system was broken. This is the year 2012.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

Ehhh, I wouldn't worry about it. You're correct point for point. But you're not going to convince hypocrites. The linchpin of a hypocrite's way of thinking is a distorted reality.

You are, Sir, mistaken.
1- They are hypocrites: then they do not live in distorted reality
2- They are not hypocrites and believe what they say: then they do live in distorted reality
3- They are right and you wrong
4- They are right, and you are right too, but your points of view are irreconcilable nonetheless

Any of these may be true. It's however not yours to decide which is right, unless God talks to you...

Note: I'm not trying to judge who's right here, just pointing out a logical fallacy

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

If teflon is so non-stick, how the hell does it stick to the pan?

Let me guess.

1- Because it's manufactured in conditions it won't be used in, very high temperatures or pressure.
2- Because it's manufactured with a one-time process, like cooked bricks are since 5000BC.

Not sure which is right, but both would answer your question. If you want to know more, ask a nanomechanics engineer.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The German judge or the Australian one?

Those guys that also know what they are talking about?

Those guys who apply differing laws and jurisprudence? I don't quite see why you people get so heated up anyway. Our opinion won't change the decision, and the decision won't affect our air, drinks or ability to get laid. So, what's the fuss...

Well, if your ability to get laid lies in commenting on Ai... I don't wanna know who's your partner

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

So the judge will end up supporting part of Apple's patents, but not all of them...so it is sad. Sorry dude, but once this goes to court it is up to the judge. No use in complaining that Apple won't win 100% of the time.

Of course, people call "FOUL FOUL FOUL" at Android, but have you seen iOS 5. It's notification system has the "Look and Feel" of Android. So why is that okay? Because Apple did it and not Google?

Has Google patented it? If not, then it's fine, isn't it? In the end, one thing is sure: the more ruckus all this makes, the more public awareness is raised about Software Patents. Maybe the best thing possible would be a transition to a pure Capitalistic Service & Social Society, where all software is Open Source, cannot be patented, and what companies sell is hardware and technical expertise...

I dream of the Apple iRobot, an Apple-made robot that cares for elderly people, young children,disabled people, very beautiful and reliable, so easy to operate even a child can... and with cybernetic opensource software to run it. People would buy it for the looks and reliability...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #57 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

Ehhh, I wouldn't worry about it. You're correct point for point. But you're not going to convince hypocrites. The linchpin of a hypocrite's way of thinking is a distorted reality.


I don't see is as hypocrisy as much as it is cognitive dissonance. Citing facts just causes discomfort to those who suffer from CD. Facts cause them to have to shift their denial into high gear, which, in turn, often causes them to lash out at the person causing them discomfort.

I think it explains much of the nastiness we see here by the more rabid posters.
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason this makes me so mad is that even though it's a bit trivial, it's one of the truly original things about the iPhone and multi-touch when it came out.

If Apple can't get protection for stuff like this then there doesn't seem to be much point to patents at all. You might as well just take the China attitude of letting anyone copy anyone else whenever they want.

Whatever you hear to the contrary, the fact is that multi-touch was a truly original breakthrough as was it's application to the iPhone UI and almost everything about it. Apple dutifully recorded everything they were doing and patented it to the hilt.

If all of that end up meaning nothing at all, then truly ... what is the point?

The world would be in a horrible place if not for the creatives and the geniuses that invent things like this. It's the core of what makes us different from the other animals. Yet capitalism and the legal system treats creatives like so much cannon fodder for the most part.

I think it's just sad.

I disagree - I love Apple but don't think they should be able to get a patent for "slide to unlock" (aside from perhaps a copyright on the art). Do you think that in a videogame, someone should be able to get a patent for a virtual opening of a door or window? How about opening a file cabinet? Likewise, I don't think Amazon should have been able to get a patent for "one-click" which Apple had to license from them.

Multi-touch overall? Maybe the specific implementation. But no one should get a patent for emulating virtually what people do in real life as a concept. The technology behind it? Sure.
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Idea: A substance to which stuff can't stick...

WHOOPS, THERE GOES TEFLON.



No, TEFLON is a particular implementation of that idea. You can't/shouldn't patent "substance to which stuff can't stick" based on TEFLON, but only "substance, which we call TEFLON, with molecular structure as described, to which stuff can't stick".
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

No, TEFLON is a particular implementation of that idea. You can't/shouldn't patent "substance to which stuff can't stick" based on TEFLON, but only "substance, which we call TEFLON, with molecular structure as described, to which stuff can't stick".

And since THIS is all people seem to quote or care about and I've already expressed I understand your point now, I'll post this AGAIN to see if I can have some light shed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And I suppose you could enlighten us as to some more ideas that have been patented that shouldn't be patented. Would you be so kind?

Because all I see here is

Idea: means by which to lock the device
Implementation: slide to unlock

Slide to unlock isn't an idea, it's an implementation thereof. So by your rules, it should be fine.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #61 of 80
To go a step further, a recent court ruling may cause a few more software patents to be challenged. In a nutshell, a procedure or computation that can be performed "purely mentally is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even if computer hardware or processes is tied to the patent claim. To quote from the judgement, "application of [only] human intelligence to the solution of practical problems is no more than a claim to a fundamental principle."

So as an example, a software patent for an iPhone procedure that computes the proper tip based on the amount of the restaurant tab would not be valid. You can do that computation (or should be able to) in your head, so the fact it uses a mobile phone to display the input keyboard doesn't matter at all. That same reasoning would apply to the display and use of a calculator on a desktop computer or mobile device screen.

In plain language, if a process like mathematics or spelling or any other underlying process isn't patentable by itself, then using a computer or similar device to achieve the same result would not yield a valid software patent either.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...le-medium.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Let me guess.

1- Because it's manufactured in conditions it won't be used in, very high temperatures or pressure.
2- Because it's manufactured with a one-time process, like cooked bricks are since 5000BC.

Not sure which is right, but both would answer your question. If you want to know more, ask a nanomechanics engineer.

afaik, it's a bit of both, it's sticking to the surface by mechanical grip (like velcro), rather than chemical bonds (like glue)

so you paint the 'raw' coating on a roughened surface, it seeps into all the surface irregularities, then cure it at high temperature, maybe 350-400 celcius, solvent evaporates, the rest melts into all the little crevices, and it sets in place as it cools

maximum operating temperature is far lower, maybe <250 celcius, the coating will degrade if used above this temperature - maybe they do it in a protective atmosphere when curing?
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parttimer View Post

Yep, Apple's patent bubble seems close to popping!
Then heads will roll.

Ummm. . .
The court decision may affect every U.S tech/software company in one way or another. It's not an Apple-specific issue. I have no idea if any of Apple's patents were awarded under similar circumstances. (EDIT: Yes there may be some based on a search of Apple patents that include the phrase "computer-readable medium") Google may find some of their software patents invalidated if anyone makes the effort to challenge certain ones on the basis of this ruling.

In any event, it certainly seems like a common-sense decision.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And since THIS is all people seem to quote or care about and I've already expressed I understand your point now, I'll post this AGAIN to see if I can have some light shed.

you say...

Idea: means by which to lock the device
Implementation: slide to unlock

i say...

cause, what a human does, or some other occurence, external to the device/invention, such as an atom undergoing alpha decay, or a cat going "meow"

implementation, what the device, the invention, does in response to the cause, i.e. how cause is acted upon to bring about 'effect'

effect, the result of the implementation acting upon the cause

example:

cause: finger makes sliding motion across screen
implementation: touchscreen, some electronics, etc. embodied in a phone
effect: phone locks/unlocks

you cannot patent the cause, nor the effect, only the implementation, assuming it is non-trivial and not copying a prior implementation

allowing causes to be patented would be really bad for all of us:

i)it means you would allow patenting the actions of a human, that's inherently objectionable
ii)it means every device would have to have it's own, unique, way in which humans interacted with it, because the most trivial of causes would be patented, otherwise innovation would stagnate in the quagmire of cross licensing and endless litigation
iii) we would end up with bad products, with terrible interfaces, at high prices due to the swarms of lawyers and patent trolls each raking off their cut

allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no

developing efficient, reliable ways, to recognize the word "open" and act upon it, is implementation, is creative, and rightly patentable

the use of the word "open" to trigger the effect "open", is not implementation, is not creative, and is not patentable

equally, the use of the motion "slide" to trigger the effect "open", is not implementation, is not creative, and is not patentable
post #65 of 80
>>allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no

I don't think the 'dial a number' is a good example for your argument; the rotary telephone dial was definitely a patented invention.

from: http://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-histori...elephone/13134
The most dramatic contribution of the Ericksons in telephony is associated with the invention and development of the dial telephone. Application for the patent was made by Keith and the Ericksons on August 20, 1896, and Patent No. 597,062 was granted on January 11, 1898. The dial method was based upon a finger wheel dial instead of the push buttons, which were cumbersome and impractical. The dial method, with the switching and trunk systems, provided full access to the vast resources of a telephone exchange. R. B. Hill, an authority in telephony, has described this important development as follows: "Dialing a number wound up a spring whose tension, when the finger was withdrawn, caused the dial to return to its normal position. The return rotation was limited to a moderate speed by an escapement mechanism, and, during the return, the required number of circuit interruptions took place to control the movement of the central office apparatus." [14] C. M. Candy, chief patent attorney for Associated Electric Laboratories, Inc., at a testimonial dinner for Charles in Chicago in December, 1939, described the invention: "This dial was circular like the present dial but instead of holes, it had lugs on a finger plate, which were finger 'holds' rather than holes." [15] This invention was a distinctive and unique development; the principle has not been superceded. The inventors from the Smoky valley, who had always placed themselves on the line of discovery, saw a further realization of their hopes and dreams.
post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

you cannot patent the cause, nor the effect

And Apple is patenting neither locking nor unlocking of the device.

Quote:
only the implementation

Which is the concept of moving a finger sideways to perform the aforementioned action.

This isn't difficult to grasp.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you'll listen and obey to what one guy says that applies to every person on the planet, eh?

I'm sorry, I can't even understand what you are saying now.
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameldrum1 View Post

I'm sorry, I can't even understand what you are saying now.

You reject what I'm saying because I'm not a judge and this judge apparently knows everything he needs to know about computer industry law.

Then I asked if you'd be okay with one person dictating to the entire planet what's legal and what isn't. Because that's what's happening here.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #69 of 80
I've come across another detailed description of the patents that Apple claimed against Samsung in the Dutch court, and the reasons that Samsung was found not to infringe 2 of them.

The biggest news was the initial ruling that Android (since the ruling specified the OS) does not infringe Apple's multi-touch patent (EP 2 098 948) as it's described in the EU patent filing.

As FOSSPatents has pointed out, companies normally bring their biggest guns to the fight. (see his comments re Motorola vs Apple). If these were really the Apple "big guns", Then IMO (not that it's probably worth much) that doesn't bode well for strong cases against Samsung or other competitors in Europe if it relies on anything other than Design Patents in a German court.

Of course they only need one good win to attain their goal of keeping Samsung and other competitors out of Europe. But on the surface it looks like Apple may have misjudged the strength of their IP they planned to flail their enemies with.

http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw...v-samsung.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. . .
The court decision may affect every U.S tech/software company in one way or another. It's not an Apple-specific issue. I have no idea if any of Apple's patents were awarded under similar circumstances. (EDIT: Yes there may be some based on a search of Apple patents that include the phrase "computer-readable medium") Google may find some of their software patents invalidated if anyone makes the effort to challenge certain ones on the basis of this ruling.

In any event, it certainly seems like a common-sense decision.

The patents haven't been ruled on, an opinion was given that due to the possibility they MAY not stand, a judge in the Netherlands would not issue an injunction based on them, HOWEVER he granted an injunction based on another patent anyway.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The patents haven't been ruled on, an opinion was given that due to the possibility they MAY not stand, a judge in the Netherlands would not issue an injunction based on them, HOWEVER he granted an injunction based on another patent anyway.

The text you quoted has to do with a US case

As for the Dutch court, "According to the Judge, Samsung had not infringed EP 2 098 948 either, however, which relates to a multi-touch touchscreen. "
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And Apple is patenting neither locking nor unlocking of the device.



Which is the concept of moving a finger sideways to perform the aforementioned action.

This isn't difficult to grasp.

there is difference between cause and implementation

cause is *external* to the invention, it cannot be patented

my finger is mine, no one, samsung, google, apple, ibm, or anyone else, not even me, can patent my finger, or what i do with it

perhaps this will make it clear:

a fire detector...

cause: fire
implementation: ionisation detector, buffer amplifier, filter, reference voltage, threshold comparator, relay driver, relay
effect: close alarm contacts

if you hold that a sliding finger can be patented, then you must also hold that you can patent fire, if you believe that, then i can make you a great deal on a bridge
post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLurker View Post

>>allowing 'slide to unlock' to be patented, is no different to allowing "say 'dial' to dial a number" to be patented, do we really allow such a thing? would it benefit the consumer? would it encourage/reward innovation? no, no, no

I don't think the 'dial a number' is a good example for your argument; the rotary telephone dial was definitely a patented invention.

from: http://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-histori...elephone/13134
The most dramatic contribution of the Ericksons in telephony is associated with the invention and development of the dial telephone. Application for the patent was made by Keith and the Ericksons on August 20, 1896, and Patent No. 597,062 was granted on January 11, 1898. The dial method was based upon a finger wheel dial instead of the push buttons, which were cumbersome and impractical. The dial method, with the switching and trunk systems, provided full access to the vast resources of a telephone exchange. R. B. Hill, an authority in telephony, has described this important development as follows: "Dialing a number wound up a spring whose tension, when the finger was withdrawn, caused the dial to return to its normal position. The return rotation was limited to a moderate speed by an escapement mechanism, and, during the return, the required number of circuit interruptions took place to control the movement of the central office apparatus." [14] C. M. Candy, chief patent attorney for Associated Electric Laboratories, Inc., at a testimonial dinner for Charles in Chicago in December, 1939, described the invention: "This dial was circular like the present dial but instead of holes, it had lugs on a finger plate, which were finger 'holds' rather than holes." [15] This invention was a distinctive and unique development; the principle has not been superceded. The inventors from the Smoky valley, who had always placed themselves on the line of discovery, saw a further realization of their hopes and dreams.

nope, my example is fine...

the *dial* you refer to is absolutely patentable, it's an implementation

the *cause*, a finger (or pen, or whatever), moving in an arc, is not being patented here

if i created an implementation of the dial using components including (together with my cunning and inventive motion analysis and decision logic) a matrix of pressure pads, or a graphics tablet, or a touchscreen, or an array of microswitches, or an array of pneumatic sensors, all of which i could do, all of which would recognize the finger moving in an arc, i would not be violating that patent, and all of my creations would be patentable

*none* of these patents will prevent others creating ways to act upon the dialing motion, the dialing motion of the finger is not patentable
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You reject what I'm saying because I'm not a judge and this judge apparently knows everything he needs to know about computer industry law.

Then I asked if you'd be okay with one person dictating to the entire planet what's legal and what isn't. Because that's what's happening here.

You are just citing and complaining about it because he ruled against Apple. You did not complain when they banned the Galaxy Tab from Europe! When one judge made the decision for the whole world then! If this one judge had ruled in Apple's favor and banned the Tab and Galaxy S phones and ruled in Apples favor you would be here posting how great he is and see how the system works........you know that is a fact.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

You are just citing and complaining about it because he ruled against Apple. You did not complain when they banned the Galaxy Tab from Europe!

Because they're breaking the law

And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.

Quote:
If this one judge had ruled in Apple's favor and banned the Tab and Galaxy S phones and ruled in Apples favor you would be here posting how great he is and see how the system works........you know that is a fact.....

No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because they're breaking the law

And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.



No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.

Oh but I can...and will. The next time one of these stories appear where the ruling is pro Apple......we will see what your comments are then....and I will copy and post them here.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Oh but I can...and will. The next time one of these stories appear where the ruling is pro Apple......we will see what your comments are then....and I will copy and post them here.....

Sure you will.

And people call me arrogant! Ha!

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure you will.

And people call me arrogant! Ha!

How is that arrogant? Being able to view your past posts to keep you honest about a current topic/opinion? That sounds like being factual......

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because they're breaking the law

And I continue to have my questions unanswered and my points unrefuted.



No, not really. You can't possibly say that. Don't presume to know what I would and would not do.

the facts is that i answered your question and refuted your points
post #80 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The German judge or the Australian one?

Those guys that also know what they are talking about?

Yes, they know, we will see when they judge the case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Dutch judge says Apple's 'slide to unlock' patent is likely invalid