or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple "rubber-banding," "pinch-to-zoom" patents challenged by Samsung witnesses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple "rubber-banding," "pinch-to-zoom" patents challenged by Samsung witnesses - Page 4

post #121 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

This is more desperate than the F700 horse-shit. Amazing. I watched the videos, the launchtile thing is just painful in how little it has to do with Apple's multitouch implementation. I mean, not even close. This trial has proven just how little Samsung has to stand on, going by this pathetic shit they're digging up, and also just hammers home the point of how much the iPhone changed this in UI and interaction. 

 

Well the F700 does show that Samsung was going down the same design route that Apple did.

 

But Samsung failed to get that into the trial due to what I can only describe as utter incompetence - surely they knew what products they released in the past!

 

This *could* invalidate the pinch-to-zoom patent, which is part of Apple's suit.

 

In addition the bounceback patent *could* be invalidated.

 

I'm not in the court, so I'm not getting the full story. We'll find out soon enough what happens. Popcorn at the ready.

 

If Apple loses both patents, then their case is weakened, and potential damages could be greatly reduced over what they were claiming. Again, that's down to what the court decides.

post #122 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

This small detail seems to be the most potentially damning for Apple.

 

Funny that Bogue kept e-mails from 2003 when Samsung can't even keep e-mails from 2 weeks ago.

 

Has Apple showed anything from Fingerworks yet? They were around since 1998 and Apple bought them in 2005.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #123 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

 

Well the F700 does show that Samsung was going down the same design route that Apple did.

 

But Samsung failed to get that into the trial due to what I can only describe as utter incompetence - surely they knew what products they released in the past!

 

This *could* invalidate the pinch-to-zoom patent, which is part of Apple's suit.

 

In addition the bounceback patent *could* be invalidated.

 

I'm not in the court, so I'm not getting the full story. We'll find out soon enough what happens. Popcorn at the ready.

 

If Apple loses both patents, then their case is weakened, and potential damages could be greatly reduced over what they were claiming. Again, that's down to what the court decides.

 

No they won't. These patents represent a small portion of the damages. The big $$$ is from the outright copying of the trade dress.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #124 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

As Han states in his presentation, he is merely building upon the work did before him (20 years), so maybe he did not think it was patentable.

When developing new software you constantly perform micro-innovations (if you would like to call it innovation at all, you're finding solutions to technical/procedural/user interface problems). These should not even be patentable, but as software patents have been possible for the last couple of decennia you get all these patents which are now being discussed. I develop software for a living, all completely custom built but I'm sure if all patent holders were to examine my software I would have 100+ infringements. Of those maybe 20 I would know about myself (because I implemented user interface elements like my customers wanted, and they said : have that list perform as all other lists on my iPad, oh and make the back button blue), but the other 80 I came up with myself because they were simply solutions to problems.

I always have to remember that when I was ~13 I developed an integer based line drawing algorithm using 2 8 bit integers (6502 1wink.gif in a vacuum (it was 1984, so no internet, no dial-up bbs etc.). 11 years later I graduated university on 3d computer graphics. My professor got his title around 1984 based on an 'algorithm for drawing angled lines using discrete arithmetic'...

Not really related but still wanted to post it 1wink.gif

Similar sentiments here.
I developed paint and drawing programs including fill and copying algorithms and even added icon libraries with a floppy drive 'database' and graphic printer driver for a matrix printer. I also made a game generator and music synthesizer. And I did that in 1980.
Later at the university I saw similar line drawing and fill algorithm when I had a computer graphics course.
But I 'invented' it all by myself.
According to the current patent law I would probably be liable for all the work I did myself.
I'am very sure this is completely wrong.

J.
post #125 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


On a separate note... why haven't the makers of this prior art gone after Apple by now?

 

Because not everyone believes in patenting everything? Or they wish for the idea to be freely available?

 

Not really a relevant question anyway.

post #126 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakovlev View Post

 

Punishment? But why?

 

Since Samsung holds a view that pinch-to-zoom and LaunchTile are identical, they would surely be happy to change their products to use LaunchTile. By their own logic, it won’t make any difference.

 

Samsung used LaunchTile against the concept of having a regular 2D array of icons for apps is unique. See also UIQ, PalmOS and even Apple's Newton OS, and I'm sure there's a load of other prior examples.

 

The other video show's the pinch-to-zoom claim, and that looks fairly strong, although the details will surely get picked apart in the days to come.

 

All of this is part of the trade dress aspect of the Apple lawsuit.

post #127 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Apple's '915 Apple's '915 "pinch-to-zoom"

Filed Date: 2007.1.7

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,844,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,844,915&RS=PN/7,844,915

 

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

 

"pinch-to-zoom" video from Diamond Table
http://youtu.be/JAgbjBOK1bk
(time : 1:27 ~ 1:40)

 

 


Video upload date : 2006.4.8

Video record date : 2004. 5

 

: It looks like a "Game Over" to "pinch-to-zoom" patent

Not so fast. These all are corner-pull, window-resizing gestures. Watch carefully and you will notice the squares don't start resizing up until at least one finger passes over a corner.

 

They just extended the use of a mouse to multi-touch.

 

Lame.

post #128 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Note to Samsung:

Apple owns the patent.

That's how the U.S. protects inventors from copycats.

Get over it.

 

Seriously, what's the use of getting a patent if everyone says "but I don't believe they should have that."

Samsung is officially a joke.

i will not fund their business practices with my money.

i currently own a Samsung HDTV.  It is the only Samsung product I own. It will be the last.

The obvious nature of their knockoff style and the extent which they will go to shamelessly steal and then defend their theft is beyond appaling.  Perhaps this is Ok in Korea.  Not here.

Can you imagine if apple did this to Samsing in Korea?  it simply would not be tolerated there.  To quote the criminal Don King and his ability to get rich off crime: "Only in America."

 

Learn to think.

 

Some patents are invalid, and that's discovered after the fact. The patent could have been applied for in good faith as well. That doesn't stop if from being found to be invalid (and if the U.S. system does invalidate it, then that's part of the process that you're so proud of).

 

"shamelessly steal"? In this case with the pinch-to-zoom it's looking like Apple stole it, as the guy demoed it to them a long time in advance of Apple patenting it and using it, and he has the email proof that has been submitted to the court.

 

Samsung makes some extremely good products, and you shouldn't let some corporate shenanigans cloud your future purchases.

post #129 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Let me get this straight. Apple's efforts are invalidated in your mind because the year before Apple releases a full fledged product they spent many years developing and have patents on multitouch capacitance gestures are null and void because they didn't demo an unfinished concept that wasn't part of an actual product first? Makes perfect sense¡

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 this too, as it's no longer in their new products.

The trade dress claims are a mixed bag. I think some models will infringe, but not all.

For the record, i have 3 ipods, 2 macs, an ipad, and only one galaxy s2 phone. I like apple's products, i just don't like their arrogant "we invented it all" attitude. As a software developer i also am fundamentally opposed to software patents, all of them, which is why i'm rooting for android on the patent front. I'm not rooting for samsung, they knew what they were getting into when they copied the design. My next phone won't be a samsung, but it will be android.
post #130 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Note to Samsung:

Apple owns the patent.

That's how the U.S. protects inventors from copycats.

Get over it.

 

Seriously, what's the use of getting a patent if everyone says "but I don't believe they should have that."

Samsung is officially a joke.

i will not fund their business practices with my money.

i currently own a Samsung HDTV.  It is the only Samsung product I own. It will be the last.

The obvious nature of their knockoff style and the extent which they will go to shamelessly steal and then defend their theft is beyond appaling.  Perhaps this is Ok in Korea.  Not here.

Can you imagine if apple did this to Samsing in Korea?  it simply would not be tolerated there.  To quote the criminal Don King and his ability to get rich off crime: "Only in America."

 

Learn to think.

 

Some patents are invalid, and that's discovered after the fact. The patent could have been applied for in good faith as well. That doesn't stop if from being found to be invalid (and if the U.S. system does invalidate it, then that's part of the process that you're so proud of).

 

"shamelessly steal"? In this case with the pinch-to-zoom it's looking like Apple stole it, as the guy demoed it to them a long time in advance of Apple patenting it and using it, and he has the email proof that has been submitted to the court.

 

Samsung makes some extremely good products, and you shouldn't let some corporate shenanigans cloud your future purchases.

 

The concept or idea of pinch to zoom is not the issue (and, likely, is not patentable).  What is at issue is Apple's patent on the method and implementation of pinch to zoom -- it is up to the court to decide if the patent is invalid based on information provided by both sides of the litigation.

 

Often, when a Company such as Apple or Sammy is developing a new "method or implementation" -- they will do an exhaustive search to see if their efforts will be hampered by prior art or existing patents.  The demos to Apple of an existing implementation, apparently, lead Apple to believe that their method and implementation was different enough (or non-conflicted enough) to be validly patentable.

 

Also, sometimes, a company will knowingly introduce a product that appears to violate an existing patent to see if it will be challenged and upheld in court.

 

In the 1960s, Xerox held all the patents for Xerography copiers.  IBM, introduced a competitive copier that appeared to violate at least one of the Xerox patents.  AIR, IBM decided that this was the path of least resistance -- let the lawyers resolve the issues.  The copier was even nicknamed the "patent buster".


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/14/12 at 12:35pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #131 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

"Good artists copy great artists steal" -- SJ

http://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU

 

SJ did say that. And it's a true statement. I think it goes well with the phrase, "you snooze, you lose" especially in the business patent world. Besides, before Apple did the "pinch and zoom" correctly, it was butt ugly from the other guys.

 

Anyway, Samsung just needs to learn how to be creative. 

post #132 of 156

We have a proverb: when you point a finger, the other four point at yourself. You are basing your supicions on what again? All, I know they all weren't based on facts. You can speculate all you want, and your speculations [or in your case your "suspicion"] can't be proven right or wrong. It's much the same way with what I believe to have happened. You can't disprove it either. 

 

Fact 1: Apple had contacted Jeff Han about what it's been doing with the "multi touch" technology. 

Fact 2: Nothing is being disclosed as to the agreement between Microsoft and Jeff Han surrounding its purchase of Perceptive Pixel.

Fact 3: The technology employed behind Apple's and Perceptive Pixel's touch screens are two very fundamentally different technology. PP used something called light driven FTIR technology while Apple uses the widely used projected capacitance technology. These differing technology will also force different coding to address the hardware,  for instance for the "pinch and zoom" gesture. . 

 

 

Jeffrey Han's /Perceptive Pixel's re: Multi Touch Patents: 

-Graphical user interface for large-scale, multi-user, multi-touch systems

-Multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection

-Liquid multi-touch sensor and display device

-Touch Sensing

-Pressure-sensitive manipulation of displayed objects

-Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls

-Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls

-Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls

-Touch-Based Annotation System with Temporary Modes

-Systems for an Electrostatic Stylus Within a Capacitive Touch Sensor

-Projected Capacitive Touch Sensing

-Capacitive Touch Sensor Having Code-Divided and Time-Divided Transmit Waveforms

-FORCE AND TRUE CAPACITIVE TOUCH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR CAPACITIVE TOUCH

-Capacitive Touch Sensor Having Correlation with a Receiver

-Techniques for Locally Improving Signal to Noise in a Capacitive Touch Sensor

-Localizing an Electrostatic Stylus Within a Capacitive Touch Sensor

 

Those are the facts. Yet, you still can speculate all you want. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

suspectverb |səˈspekt| [ with obj. ]have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (somethingwithout certain proof: if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light | [ with clause ] she suspected that he might be bluffing | (as adj.suspecteda suspected heart condition.• believe or feel that (someone) is guilty of an illegal, dishonest, or unpleasant act, without certain proof: parents suspected of child abuse.

 
Above is the dictionary definition of suspect!
 
People often make statements that they think are true, but cannot verify them as certain fact.  In polite conversation, these statements are usually qualified with "I suspect" or "I think".  This places the topics into discussion with proper emphasis on their veracity.
 
You should try it -- you might find that people are more likely to reason with you than challenge your indefensible statements of ideas or feelings as facts.

Edited by mcrs - 8/14/12 at 4:39pm
post #133 of 156
post #134 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they did use the Chewbacca Defense.
One: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense
And two:

Not that I wish to encourage the silliness too much, but I'm surprised you didn't use the Lebron James defense reference on one of the prior threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

This line originally dates back not to Jobs or Picasso, but to T.S Eliot, and the original quote sheds some light into the intended meaning, which is often misinterpreted by the clueless as a license to steal other's work and ideas.

 


"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."


 

The quote is from an essay Eliot wrote on a playwright named Philip Massinger. He's basically saying that good poets borrow from other's works in a way that contributes something entirely new to the medium. He is not suggesting that merely imitating someone's work without added value is justified.

 

Eliot's comment on borrowing "from authors remote in time, alien in language, or diverse in interest" meshes brilliantly with many of Apple's design influences, such as Dieter Rams's transistor radio designs' influence on the original iPod. Another great example is the iPad's Smart Cover, which bears an uncanny resemblance to an obscure Japanese bathtub cover.

 

 

I was wondering how far back that quote went. It was obvious in the old Jobs interview he was taking it out of context and lacking any sense of how to interpret its original meaning. It was just execu-speak, which always annoys me. Your reference is much cooler.

post #135 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

We have a proverb: when you point a finger, the other four point at yourself. You are basing your supicions on what again? All, I know they all weren't based on facts. You can speculate all you want, and your speculations [or in your case your "suspicion"] can't be proven right or wrong. It's much the same way with what I believe to have happened. You can't disprove it either. 

 

Fact 1: Apple had contacted Jeff Han about what it's been doing with the "multi touch" technology. 

Fact 2: Nothing is being disclosed as to the agreement between Microsoft and Jeff Han surrounding its purchase of Perceptive Pixel.

Fact 3: The technology employed behind Apple's and Perceptive Pixel's touch screens are two very fundamentally different technology. PP used something called light driven FTIR technology while Apple uses the widely used projected capacitance technology. These differing technology will also force different coding to address the hardware,  for instance for the "pinch and zoom" gesture. . 

 

 

Jeffrey Han's /Perceptive Pixel's re: Multi Touch Patents: 

*SNIP*

Those are the facts. Yet, you still can speculate all you want. 

 

 

 

 

Fact 3 would seem to help indicate that it is likely that Apple's patents could be valid, as they are very different implementations and methods to achieve the results.  You have a nice list of facts here, but they don't exactly say that Apple is stealing anything either.

post #136 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

 

No. It looks like real pinch to zoom in.

 

 

 

700

 

700

 

700

 

 

700

 

Diamond Touch demo video

http://youtu.be/il3cjnmt4MU

Using giant fonts doesn't make your point any more effective, nor valid. It's usually the sign of someone who lacks enough persuasive evidence beyond their own personal opinion to get someone else to see their point of view.

post #137 of 156

Time out!

 

All this talk about patents and inventions reminds me of a Friden mechanical calculator my dad owned in the 1950s... AIR it cost over $1,000... and it was a mechanical marvel.   You could key in some numbers and the machine would dutifully perform for several minutes -- I think it performed multiplication and division by doing repetitive additions or subtractions.  

 

 

 

The crowning glory, however, was that if you pressed the correct keys, you could this beauty to automatically "play" drum cadences such as:

  • the Campbells are coming
  • the Irish Washerwoman
  • several others I can't recall

 

I surfed (in vain) for a video playing cadences -- the closest I could get was about 6 minutes, then 7:20 into:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S0BETniokI&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Anyway you get the idea!

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #138 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Time out!

 

All this talk about patents and inventions reminds me of a Friden mechanical calculator my dad owned in the 1950s... AIR it cost over $1,000... and it was a mechanical marvel.   You could key in some numbers and the machine would dutifully perform for several minutes -- I think it performed multiplication and division by doing repetitive additions or subtractions.  

 

 

 

The crowning glory, however, was that if you pressed the correct keys, you could this beauty to automatically "play" drum cadences such as:

  • the Campbells are coming
  • the Irish Washerwoman
  • several others I can't recall

 

I surfed (in vain) for a video playing cadences -- the closest I could get was about 6 minutes, then 7:20 into:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S0BETniokI&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Anyway you get the idea!

That's VERY cool! Thanks for that bit of history - I'm a sucker for facts like this :)

 

On an even more unrelated note, did you know that one form of computer memory relied upon standing waves in tubes of mercury? It was called Delay Line Memory. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory

post #139 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

Based on that youtube video alone. IT IS A GAME OVER FOR APPLE.   And, say fanbois...??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

1. It proves Han DOES have a case; otherwise, he would not be informed as to what Apple's doing with Iphone etc...Apple must've pre-empted him with something of his liking.

2. He is brilliant. Otherwise his technology wouldn't be "paid homage to" by Apple. 

3. His company Perceptive Pixel was bought by Microsoft. Knowing how "lovely" the relationship of Apple and Microsoft is, we can surmise a cross licensing is in the work. How much dough Jeff Han is getting for his 6 years old company we just don't know. I am sure the amount will surpass the pile of dough he would've gotten had he gone after Apple.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

We have a proverb: when you point a finger, the other four point at yourself. You are basing your supicions on what again? All, I know they all weren't based on facts. You can speculate all you want, and your speculations [or in your case your "suspicion"] can't be proven right or wrong. It's much the same way with what I believe to have happened. You can't disprove it either. 

 

Fact 1: Apple had contacted Jeff Han about what it's been doing with the "multi touch" technology. 

Fact 2: Nothing is being disclosed as to the agreement between Microsoft and Jeff Han surrounding its purchase of Perceptive Pixel.

Fact 3: The technology employed behind Apple's and Perceptive Pixel's touch screens are two very fundamentally different technology. PP used something called light driven FTIR technology while Apple uses the widely used projected capacitance technology. These differing technology will also force different coding to address the hardware,  for instance for the "pinch and zoom" gesture. . 

 

 

Jeffrey Han's /Perceptive Pixel's re: Multi Touch Patents: 

-Graphical user interface for large-scale, multi-user, multi-touch systems

-Multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection

-Liquid multi-touch sensor and display device

-Touch Sensing

-Pressure-sensitive manipulation of displayed objects

-Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls

-Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls

-Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls

-Touch-Based Annotation System with Temporary Modes

 

Those are the facts. Yet, you still can speculate all you want. 

 

 

Are the items above, in red, facts?  You certainly posted them as facts -- no qualifiers, no apparent doubt in your posts... also no citations to back up your claims!

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #140 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Samsung makes some extremely good products, and you shouldn't let some corporate shenanigans cloud your future purchases.

 

yes.

 

being vendor neutral is the only way to really appreciate and enjoy the marvels of human ingenuity.  i do not and will never limit myself to any one brand; there's some really great stuff out there from Apple and other companies.

post #141 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsebrech View Post

... i just don't like their arrogant "we invented it all" attitude. As a software developer i also am fundamentally opposed to software patents, all of them, which is why i'm rooting for android on the patent front.

 

Are you rooting for Google's patent application for a software implementation of drop down notifications in Android, do you like it?

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 #142 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAdComics View Post

That's VERY cool! Thanks for that bit of history - I'm a sucker for facts like this :)

 

On an even more unrelated note, did you know that one form of computer memory relied upon standing waves in tubes of mercury? It was called Delay Line Memory. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory

 

I wasn't aware of the tubes of mercury -- but was aware of magnetorestrictive delay lines -- where, essentially, you successively twist a coil of wire and the bits flow down the wire and are read at the other end, rinse and repeat.  AIR, it was used in an NCR computer of the early 1950-1960s.

 

In 1958 I went to work for the company (Consolidated Electrodynamics Corporation) that developed the Datatron computer and sold the rights to Burrourghs.

 

 1000

 

http://tjsawyer.com/B205Home.htm

 

 

The guy that hired me at CEC, left and went to work for Alwac -- Maker of the Alwac III-e.   I think, that computer was the first to use the 8-bit byte... and to use this weird numbering system called hexadecimal.

 

1000

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alwac_III_computer,_1959.jpg

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #143 of 156

It's not zooming. It's resizing. There's a difference.  Also, it's not a pinch gesture as indicated in the Apple filing using the thumb and forefinger. This screenshot uses two fingers.

post #144 of 156

 

 

 

 

By the way, Did Apple paid license royalty to Jeff Han ?

 

Of course, Apple is not inventor this this.


Edited by 845032 - 8/14/12 at 3:45pm
post #145 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

It's not zooming. It's resizing. There's a difference.

 

It cleary zooming.

 

700

 

700

 

700

 

700

post #146 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

 

 

By the way, Did Apple paid license royalty to Jeff Han ?

 

Of course, Apple is not inventor this this.

 

You are over-simplifying... then jumping to conclusions!

 

In these videos, Han shows:

  1. at least three different uses of the pinch gesture -- only one is pinch-zoom
  2. several ways to do a zoom -- only one is a pinch

 

While Han may have shown this publicly before Apple showed the iPhone:

  1. there is no information to suggest that this was developed prior to the iPhone
  2. there is no infermation to suggest that Han has any patents that Apple would be interested in licensing

 

As I, and others have posted, these involve totally different:

  1. hardware
  2. software
  3. UIs
  4. target audiences
  5. use cases

 

It is not clear that either the iOS or the Han implementations conflict with each other -- any more than the MS [original] Surface and iOS implementations conflicted with each other.

 

 

Consider:  Han could do a pinch gesture with: 2 elbows;  the heels of 2 hands;  2 feet;  2 heads...  None of these is possible with an iPhone.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/14/12 at 4:07pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #147 of 156

SO...Samsung are great artists then.

post #148 of 156

Quote:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

This line originally dates back not to Jobs or Picasso, but to T.S Eliot, and the original quote sheds some light into the intended meaning, which is often misinterpreted by the clueless as a license to steal other's work and ideas.

 


"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."


 

The quote is from an essay Eliot wrote on a playwright named Philip Massinger. He's basically saying that good poets borrow from other's works in a way that contributes something entirely new to the medium. He is not suggesting that merely imitating someone's work without added value is justified.

 

Eliot's comment on borrowing "from authors remote in time, alien in language, or diverse in interest" meshes brilliantly with many of Apple's design influences, such as Dieter Rams's transistor radio designs' influence on the original iPod. Another great example is the iPad's Smart Cover, which bears an uncanny resemblance to an obscure Japanese bathtub cover.

 

 

700

700
 

 

Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I was wondering how far back that quote went. It was obvious in the old Jobs interview he was taking it out of context and lacking any sense of how to interpret its original meaning. It was just execu-speak, which always annoys me. Your reference is much cooler.

 

What do you mean? I don't know if Jobs knew this originally came from TS Eliot but it's quite obvious he was crystal clear on its meaning. In fact, the Apple design examples I provided suggest they fanatically followed this philosophy in all their product designs. I can't think of any other consumer electronics maker today that brings this much art into their product development.
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #149 of 156
Quote:
Are the items above, in red, facts? You certainly posted them as facts...

I didn't say that they were factuals. I made those statement to show to you the alternate possibility, the direct opposites of your assessments. You might have read the stated facts and come up with different interpretations, and thus by stating what you believe in by embedding " I 'suspect'..." doesn't make it more valid. It's the same difference. 

 

You also said these: 

1.  Why do you assume that "no comment" has more implied meaning than no action?  

It has meaning that he was satisfied with whatever Apple  presented to him. Apple knows fully well Jeff Han and his company have arsenals of patents in the pipeline or already issued. The problem here is not the possible infringement on the hardware but rather the possibility of software infringement on Apple's part. 


2.If Han's company gets onto mobile -- he better be careful about Apple's IP 
Again, here your four fingers actually pointing at yourself. Sans your trademark "I Suspect", you must be so certain of yourself that "you are stating the fact that" Han will be infringing while at the same time you have no clues about the differing technology employed by PP and PP's Intellectual Property. Yet there is no citation.

3. The fact that Han has known about the iPhone for over 5 years, and has done nothing...
See the point (1) above. it is not Jeff Han or PP on the defense, it was Apple playing a defensive posture.

 

4. I suspect that Han sold his company and IP for a lump sum and won't receive any royalties or license fees. MS plays hardball and I suspect what Han received is rather lower than what a valid claim against Apple would have brought.
The deal wasn't disclosed. You can speculate all you want. And, in return I will say this: Han sold his company and make tons of money and also royalties, and Han received enough money to make the next four to five generations of Han happy. He is already listed on Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in The World for 2008, and his products have been adopted by many organizations. Why would he sell his company and its IP for less than what they're worth?   

5.Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Han's offering resembles MS' big-assed [Surface] table more that any of Apple's offerings. I suspect MS bought Han's company because of the nuisance factor, rather than the potential for cross-licensing the IP to Apple.

Microsoft bought Perceptive Pixel with its strong IP employing an alternative technology, if esoteric, IS NOT DUE TO NUISANCE FACTOR. It is because the technology is so unique, and as such it has enormous potential and a worthy addition to the already impressive MS patent arsenal.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Are the items above, in red, facts?  You certainly posted them as facts -- no qualifiers, no apparent doubt in your posts... also no citations to back up your claims!


What is this? I am not aware that I am actually writing and publishing a research paper on a respected technical journal? This is AI iwth a tagline "Apple news and rumors since 1997",  please..., you are taking this forum way too seriously. 


Edited by mcrs - 8/14/12 at 9:47pm
post #150 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post


Quite good first post. I'm actually here for the humor, so thanks.
"AppleShare"? I guess we can assume you are over 40?

I am a long time reader of AI and finally had something to post. Thanks for the encouragement. Maybe more posts to follow.

Spot on with your guess. I am also a long time Apple user, as if that wasn't apparent as well.

post #151 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleShare View Post

I am a long time reader of AI and finally had something to post. Thanks for the encouragement. Maybe more posts to follow.
Spot on with your guess. I am also a long time Apple user, as if that wasn't apparent as well.
Anyone who knows what AppleShare is has been around a while. Of course my favorite would have to be the "Chooser". I can also remember as a relatively new user, looking into the System Folder and wondering, "There are 36 items in my System Folder, where did all these things come from?" If I only knew where we were headed...

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #152 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post


Anyone who knows what AppleShare is has been around a while. Of course my favorite would have to be the "Chooser". I can also remember as a relatively new user, looking into the System Folder and wondering, "There are 36 items in my System Folder, where did all these things come from?" If I only knew where we were headed...

Oh yeah, the good old 'chooser'. The name sure sounds funny now though. But no stranger than 'finder'. I imagine the good old 'finder' will a distant memory in a little while too. I remember how easy it was once you knew a couple of things about the System Folder to go in and fix something, or try to anyway. I don't find myself in the system folder too much anymore. I think Apple doesn't want us trying to 'clean up' the system folder and ending up with a system that won't boot.

post #153 of 156

I found another prior-art of pinch-to-zoom patent.

 

Here is the Sony's smartskin demo in 2002

 

 

 

 

Sony demo  (year 2002)

 

http://youtu.be/waSXkJBKT1s

(Video Time  2: 20~)

 

 

"Game Over" to pinch-to-zoom patent.

There are so many prior-art of this.

post #154 of 156
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post
I found another prior-art of pinch-to-zoom patent.

There are so many prior-art of this.

 

And you'd think that if these public YouTube videos proved anything of any sort that Samsung or anyone else would have included them in their cases… Maybe they know something you don't.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #155 of 156

As it appears, in the case of  "rubber banding" effect, the USPTO didn't do its homework before granting that patent to Apple. Or, worse still, Apple tried to obfuscate the fact that there was prior art to this by failing to cite DiamondTouch Table computer when Apple applied for the patent. Either way, it confirms my suspicion about the way USPTO works. It works on a set of quotas every single year, so that it can collect fees and produce nice graphical Powerpoint presentation for the continuing upward trends of both patent applications and USPTO's revenues. 

 

Of course, as any other government sanctioned offices, USPTO will come up with the same generic complaint when things like this show up on the radar. It would say the system is not broken. But it happens because USPTO is overworked and understaffed. You gotta love those civil servants. They got paid top dollars but had done very little for the right to earn that much money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And you'd think that if these public YouTube videos proved anything of any sort that Samsung or anyone else would have included them in their cases… Maybe they know something you don't.

post #156 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

I wasn't aware of the tubes of mercury -- but was aware of magnetorestrictive delay lines -- where, essentially, you successively twist a coil of wire and the bits flow down the wire and are read at the other end, rinse and repeat.  AIR, it was used in an NCR computer of the early 1950-1960s.

 

In 1958 I went to work for the company (Consolidated Electrodynamics Corporation) that developed the Datatron computer and sold the rights to Burrourghs.

 

 1000

 

http://tjsawyer.com/B205Home.htm

 

 

The guy that hired me at CEC, left and went to work for Alwac -- Maker of the Alwac III-e.   I think, that computer was the first to use the 8-bit byte... and to use this weird numbering system called hexadecimal.

 

1000

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alwac_III_computer,_1959.jpg

Was that similar to the wire logic that was used during the Apollo program? Where the computer programming consisted of stringing wires with magnets that would switch on and off according the patterns. Took months to write a program, wire it and test it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple "rubber-banding," "pinch-to-zoom" patents challenged by Samsung witnesses