Court grants Samsung request to expedite Galaxy Nexus injunction appeal - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom 

Oh cool. I tried download some iOS malware and it didn't work

 

http://www.csoonline.com/article/710834/apple-app-store-gets-first-malware-app

iOS malware?

You should try reading the links in your own posts:

"Security firm Sophos doesn't agree with Kaspersky that the app is actually malware. In its blog it points to the fact that the app has the same name across both stores, it has functionality and the Find and Call website is also not malicious. "It would probably be more accurate to say that the "Find and Call" app is "spammy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgolly 

The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.

 

Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.

 

Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!

 

So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forger about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.

 

If you are honest with your self, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.

 We seem to occupy different dimensions. In mine smart phones had touch screens, most were so small that you needed to use a stylus but there were some, eg. the (pre-iPhone) 2007 HTC Athena, that had screens large enough to navigate with your finger. These smartphones had icons, unlike the 2007 iPhone they even had apps. Incidentally, even symbian (feature) phones from the turn of the century had icons arranged in a grid.

An in my dimension there were even tablets with capacitive screens in 2007....

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Exactly. Most of the people commenting on Apple's patents and prior art don't have any clue what they're talking about.
Apple's patent involves a specific mechanism which includes icons, following a path on the screen, and the icon moving with the swipe. The Neonode phone doesn't do that. Patents are VERY specific.

Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

As for prior art, you might want to learn what prior art means. Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Every patent lists prior art that is related. The point of prior art is to show the examiner what the state of the industry was before your new invention. The fact that it was listed as prior art doesn't mean anything.
Now, if the courts had ruled that it was prior art which actually demonstrated the invention, that would be a different story. I believe the UK decision did that, but not the others. However, we'll have to wait to see if the UK decision is thrown out on appeal.

I very clearly said the court deemed the Neonode prior art, not listed it. 

EDIT: ,,,And with that said I'll rat myself out since being right is less important than being honest.

In re-checking, only the British Court has so far deemed the Neonode prior art, usiig it as one of the deciding factors in finding Apple's patent invalid. In the Netherlands case the court only accepted the Neonode for consideration but made no ruling on that basis since the patent was already invalid as obvious. In Germany there's not yet been a decision on the Neonode as prior art in a uniquely-German utility patent case. So I am incorrect that it's deemed prior art in two EU cases so far, tho Apple's patent on swipe-to-unlock was ruled invalid by two different courts.

For anyone who would like to see what that old Neonode phone was all about, there's a video review link here. Swipe-to-unlock is demoed at around the 3:59 mark.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

 

For anyone who would like to see what that old Neonode phone was all about, there's a video review link here. Swipe-to-unlock is demoed at around the 3:59 mark.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0

 Whoopsie!!!

GatorGuy just punched a hole in tgolly 's time fabric continum... a touch screen smart phone from 2005 that had apps, icons and no stylus... must be a fake </S>

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


What Apple's lawyers attempt to do doesn't change what the patent says.

So Apple's lawyers are wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 


So like the Google/Stanford patents for "finding things" you used as your example?
I see 0_o

Apparently you need to re-read that post again. I was very clear on how that patent was not a blanket generalized patent like Apple's 'Universal Search' patent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e_veritas 

 

No, that is not what I'm saying. I said that patents should be "non-obvious", and some vague, indescript patent for "finding things" does not qualify as such.

There's a grey area regarding patents when they say a patent has to be "non-obvious". All great ideas are "obvious" - after you've seen them. That's why people always go "why didn't I think of that" when they see something new.

The clause "non-obvious" as used by the USPTO doesn't mean what most people online interpret it to mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.

Whenever a patent case goes to court you often see things like "the court finds the defendant guilty of infringing claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 of the patent.....". Apple could very easily prevail on appeal, but have certain portions of their patent invalidated (like a tap or swipe in any direction) but have other portions deemed valid (like a swipe along a specific path inidicated by a graphical element).

Apple is obviously trying to cover all the bases of their patent. I don't think the final result will be so black and white as to say the entire patent is valid or invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

 Whoopsie!!!

 

GatorGuy just punched a hole in tgolly 's time fabric continum... a touch screen smart phone from 2005 that had apps, icons and no stylus... must be a fake </S>

There were lots of phones with touchscreens before the iPhone. And they all sucked. The screens had terrible response to inputs and they all lacked multitouch and the ability to understand complex gestures. This is why you have to swipe in very specific ways on the Neonode to initiate an action. The LG Prada and F700 were just as crappy with their handling of gestures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e_veritas 

 

Huh? Who even brought up a heuristic algorithm from Google? Last comment I made was referring to a very specific algorithm patented by Standford University compared to the very vague and general 'Universal Search' patent granted to Apple. The patent granted to Apple doesn't even identify any unique algorithm, but just describes a general ability to search for different types of assets on a device. I hardly consider the idea of searching for items and data on a device to be a "nonobvious" as required for being granted a patent.

IMO, the patent will be invalidated for exactly that reason.  Prior art may form an independent basis. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwjvan 

 

So Apple's lawyers are wrong?

According to many, many experienced and distinguished judges, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee 

 

There were lots of phones with touchscreens before the iPhone. And they all sucked. The screens had terrible response to inputs and they all lacked multitouch and the ability to understand complex gestures. This is why you have to swipe in very specific ways on the Neonode to initiate an action. The LG Prada and F700 were just as crappy with their handling of gestures.

 Yes the iphone was the first phone to adopt the existing mutitouch capacitive screens.

The suggestion that all other phones sucked is just a matter of personal preference.

Had you read my earlier post you would see that I was correcting a fellow member who thought that Apple invented the smartphone in 2007.

"I think 2006 was a big year in development. People don't realise this but the first capacitive touchscreen phone to market wasn't the iPhone, it was in the LG Prada which we provided. Obviously then came the iPhone in the middle of the year though and it spun the industry around. {Apple} had a very clever campaign, it didn't emphasize the technology, it just showed users the benefits."

Dr. Andrew Hsu, Synaptics

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/Interview--Synaptics-Talks-Capacitive-Touchscreens

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


That wasn't multitouch. If the first iPhone had shipped with only register point it would have failed because it's utility and therefore user experience would have been severely crippled.

In my mind, in order for that to be relevant, Apple would have had to have invented multitouch. That's just my personal opinion- The technicalities of how the law is set up, etc, might disagree. I think Apple's value isn't in inventing (which is the result of the continuous contributions of many people and organizations, including Apple), but in recognizing what is great, focusing on it, and delivering it in an excellent way. If I walk into a mess of objects and pick out the gems, wipe off some of the dirt, and show the world why they are gems, can I claim I created these gems?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


Prior art is listed on patents to show a progression of innovation. It's not declaration that you stole an idea from everyone listed otherwise it would make the process pointless, wouldn't it? Apple not listed Neonode is as relevant as Apple not listing the inventor of the night latch door chain.
Note that Neonode is neither using a capacitance touchscreen (it's optical) nor any visual representation of the slide on screen. They don't even show what you have to on-screen! I know you are smart enough to know that Neonode's design is flawed on countless levels that the only reason we know their name is because the anti-Apple crowd is looking for any slight similarity to disparage Apple.
On top of that, not that the person mentions the iPhone. That's because it's a pre-release of the Neonode N1m, not the original N1 which has a UI that is dramatically different. It still has a swipe feature, something that certainly makes sense with an optical grid, but I don't recall it have swipe to unlock, just swipe to achieve forward and backwards maneuvers the way the simple back and forward buttons work on phones with number pads. So how exactly could Apple have put on a patent something that wasn't even available until after the iPhone launched?

The British court deemed the invention claimed by Apple already practiced by Neonode, whose patent application dates back to 2002. (JrAgosta has argued that companies aren't smart to use someone else's tech described in a patent application, and do so at their own risk, but that's an entirely different discussion.)

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/28/swedish_company_claims_rights_to_slide_to_unlock_with_new_ui_patent.html

In other words Apple didn't invent it, they simply tried to patent the claims using a different description of an invention already in practice. Neonode, offered as prior art, resulted in a finding that all four claims Apple was asserting were "obvious" and not patentable. 

As for what type of screen technology was used it matters not as far as I can see. Where was the screen technology used with the "invention" specified in the patent filing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


You have ONE court which has determined that Apple's patent is invalid. And that hasn't even reached the appeal stage yet (which it almost certainly will).
Meanwhile, other courts have upheld Apple's patents - even after reaching the Appeals court.
Leave it to you to choose the one court that supports your position and ignore the rest of the world.

Which courts have ruled Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent to be valid, not just likely to be in some preliminary injunction hearing? Answer: None AFAIK. The patent hasn't been examined and found to be valid by any court yet, but has been ruled invalid by the UK High Court.

I think you're misreading/misunderstanding a finding of "likely valid and infringed" in a preliminary injunction hearing with a definitive answer on the patent validity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee 

 

There's a grey area regarding patents when they say a patent has to be "non-obvious". All great ideas are "obvious" - after you've seen them. That's why people always go "why didn't I think of that" when they see something new.

 

The clause "non-obvious" as used by the USPTO doesn't mean what most people online interpret it to mean.

Considering how open "obvious" can be to interpretation, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait for a final court ruling like everyone else. Even without debating the "obvious" aspect, the fact still remains that Apple's '604 patent describes Google Desktop to a tee, which came out prior to the patent filing.

IMHO, Apple has sunk to new lows with this litigation. It is one thing to steal someone's bat because you want to play the game too. It is a whole another story to steal the bat, and then turn around and start clubbing your victim with it :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

 Yes the iphone was the first phone to adopt the existing mutitouch capacitive screens.

The existing multitouch capacitance displays? And what consumer devices had this before the iPhone?

Quote:

The suggestion that all other phones sucked is just a matter of personal preference.

You could say it was a preference in 2007 but considering that all quality smartphones are not multitouch, capacitance touchscreens without tiny physical keys shows that Apple was right which makes it a personal bias on your part.

 We both know that there were devices that used capacitive screens and supported multitouch. Why do you, a seemingly intelligent fellow, insist on being so petulant when anyone dares to suggest that Apple didn't invent something. The Lemur music controller had a capacitive screen and supported multitouch before apple showed off its iPhone.

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2006/04/dualing-reviews-of-lemur-multi-touch-control-surface/

I guess that you will now discount it as being invalid because it was a niche product, not main stream enough. Equally I guess that you will discount Jeff Hann and his pinch to zoom  because it wasn't done on a capacitive screen.

If apple really did invent either pinch to zoom or multitouch capacitive screens do you really think that they would allow any one else to use them?

Your last point? All phones have physical buttons...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee 


Google Desktop beta came out Oct 14th, 2004. The '604' patent was filed 6 weeks later on Dec 1st, 2004.
Are you suggesting (like people who claim the LG Prada came out first) that Apple saw something and quickly set about patenting it in a matter of weeks?

Could Apple be stealing ideas and racing the the patent office, I suppose it is always possible, but it is also possible that similar ideas simply emerged at the same time. Without some sort of 'smoking gun', it is simply not possible to tell which is the case, so what is the point of debating it? 

I prefer to leave the game of assumptions, speculation, and sensationalism to the "Samsung Copying Conspiracy Gang" of TS, jragosta, and others....

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


1) For **** sake that is not a consumer device. The fact that you can only find one device that actually hit the market and one that came out right before the iPhone debuted just proves how much farther ahead of the competition it was. Why (as I'm sure you don't understand)? Because expensive device types and components that fill a niche almost always hit a market long before they hit the consumer market. The primary reasons are cost and availability. You can invent something and claim "First!" but if you can't produce it cheaply enough, at a high enough scale, and with decent usability factor it's not going to succeed. Where is Lemur now? That's right, they make an app in the App Store. Seriously, it shouldn't be so fucking hard to understand that Apple changed the market forever and in just one year become the most profitable handset vendor in the world. There is a very simple reason for that, despite your inability to give them any credit for anything.
2) Apple clearly invented methods for pinch and zoom on their HW and OS because they had to. Do you think drivers and software write themselves? Your arguments are like saying that the iPad (3) is no big deal or achievement because other companies have used displays before Apple.

 There you go again with the ranting and toy throwing.

I simply stated that Apple were the first phone maker to adopt and adapt existing technologies and you burst a blood vessel. Kudos to them and their hardware partners for doing so but the suggestion that they invented everything in isolation is patently silly.

With regard to appeasing you and showing due deference to Apple for any credit that they deserve- it is difficult for me to do so. Were I to believe the slight of hand often employed by Jobs or his devotees I might well end up believing that Apple invented the wheel.

Steve Jobs' famous "Boy have we patented it" presentation- Jobs tell us  "We have invented a new technology called multi-touch. It works like magic, you don't need a stylus, far more accurate than any interface ever shipped, it ignores touches, multi-finger gestures, and BOY have we patented it.... it's the internet in your pocket for the first time ever". So when Jobs says he invented multi-touch was he really unaware that Jenn Hann had demoed pinch and zoom, was he unaware that Microsoft's Hilton Locke had already shown multi-touch running on a tablet that could ignore accidental touches,  was he unaware that Lemur already had a capacitive multitouch device, was he unaware that Xerox's EUROPARC had been working on what they called "multi-touch" in the 80's...and even more bizarrely, did he not realise that back in 2002 symbian phones had html browsers?

If one were being generous that might conclude that he means that Apple patented the word "multi-touch". They did indeed apply to patent it and according to the apple site they have exclusive rights over the word, this is in-spite of the fact that the the US Patent and Trademark refused the application. That Apple tried to trademark a word that has been in common usage for years really doesn't surprise me.

So in conclusion if you want me to congratulate apple for being the first to make phones with capactive screens multi-touch capacitve screens then I am happy to do so. If you want to believe everything on the Apple site then more fool you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

  ...did he not realise that back in 2002 symbian phones had html browsers?

 

Makes you wonder why Symbian adopted WebKit for their browser post iPhone.

The browsers on Symbian were absolute garbage compared to the iPhone, the stupid pop up asking if you wanted to open the link that you clicked on with the stupid arrow you painfully moved around with the d-pad etc, etc, etc.

Symbian is dead go join the other post Nokia shipwreck jumpers on the Samsung new bandwagon of crap.

One of the biggest indicators that Nokia was dead was when Samsung stopped copying them in their ruthless quest for domination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

Makes you wonder why Symbian adopted WebKit for their browser post iPhone.

 

The browsers on Symbian were absolute garbage compared to the iPhone, the stupid pop up asking if you wanted to open the link that you clicked on with the stupid arrow you painfully moved around with the d-pad etc, etc, etc.

 

Symbian is dead go join the other post Nokia shipwreck jumpers on the Samsung new bandwagon of crap.

 

One of the biggest indicators that Nokia was dead was when Samsung stopped copying them in their ruthless quest for domination.

 I cannot comment on the latter symbian browsers, I was referring to the first HTML browser on a phone in 2002, the oddly named Doris . Any reasonable person would expect a browser that is 5 years older to be inferior but to suggest that you have just made the internet mobile for the first time is a lie.

I was never a fan of IE on windows mobile but there were very good 3rd party browsers such as Opera long before the iPhone came out..

Not sure if the suggestion to jump on the Samsung bandwagon is aimed at me. I haven't owned a nokia since 2003 and have never owned a Samsung???

Edit_____ Ahh ...I see, because I dare to suggest that a firm has occasional lapses in honesty it follows that I must be a Fandroid. I am happy to pronounce that IMO Google and Microsoft have equally told lies in the past. I guess that this won't placate you though...

"Originally Posted by tgolly 
 

The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.

Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.

Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!

So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forger about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.

If you are honest with your self, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are wrong about the Iphone being the first smart phone.  That goes to the "Simon" put out by bell south in 1994 and developed by IBM in 1992.  It was the first smartphone with a touchscreen.

So hasn't Apple just been copying things others have been putting out and building upon them just like everyone else?

Apple has the most ridiculous patents anyway...  I think it is quite shady the things they have been allowed to patent like "universal search" come on!  I think people in the patent office are on the Apple payroll trying to help them keep their market share because they are very "scared".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


You have ONE court which has determined that Apple's patent is invalid. And that hasn't even reached the appeal stage yet (which it almost certainly will).

 

The Supreme Court too!  Apple is innocent until proven guilty in the Supreme Court.

/s

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androidforever 

You are wrong about the iPhone being the first smart phone.

Phew! It's a good thing he didn't say that, then, isn't it?

You beat me to it. I don't know of anyone in this thread that claimed that, nor anything even similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgolly 

The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.

 

Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.

 

Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!

 

So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forget about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.

 

If you are honest with yourself, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androidforever

You are wrong about the iPhone being the first smart phone.

Phew! It's a good thing he didn't say that, then, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

You beat me to it. I don't know of anyone in this thread that claimed that, nor anything even similar.

 Look up;...then down...

quote "Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.

Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps."

That statement is wrong on so many levels.

Did you not notice that Androidforever quoted the source at the top of his post???