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 2

post #41 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsebrech View Post

If you can't see pinch to zoom in that video, try this one from february 2006:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

 

2:36 shows one-handed pinch to zoom out, a few seconds later it's a two-handed pull to zoom in.

 

[sarcasm]Oh, but apple did it on a phone, that's true innovation.[/sarcasm]

 

 

Ok THAT example is potentially relevant (depending on whether it was truly "prior") but not those lame examples in the main story that Samsung introduced.

 

This reminds me of another SJ quote: real artists ship.  Give Apple credit for doing something like this and turning it into a real product and getting it into the hands of millions of people.

post #42 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

If you think that the iPhone revolutionized the mobile phone industry on this then you're a bigger fool than your memory makes you out to to be.

Show us some evidence that the iPhone revolutionized the mobile phone industry based on 'pinch-to-zoom' alone.
Mobile safari stats say otherwise
post #43 of 156
From what I know @ patents, the implementation is what can differentiate 2 seemingly similar approaches. It's possible to have 2 patents that accomplish the same task, if they both rely on different approaches. In the TED demo, it appears that one finger is stationary, while the other drags the image to zoom in. With Apple's approach both fingers move for zoom. That could be a sufficient change in variance. Also, that presentation table is not a mobile phone. Patents don't necessarily apply to every conceivable device. Timing might also play into this since this demo & Apple's original patent filing are both in 2006. This does show that Apple was patenting what they considered original concepts well before the iPhone was released; the US Patent Office didn't publish this patent until 2010
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #44 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Mobile safari stats say otherwise

I think Apple's tremendous efforts with WebKit to make it work on a mobile device whilst showing you are a standard webpage -and- making the app/APIs intelligent enough so that when you double tap on a section it scale to exactly what you want are lot more important to the success of the iPhone's browser than pinch-and-zoom. That said, pinch-and-zoom are still very important. That that said said, GTR's comment is about that feature alone not being responsible for its success.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #45 of 156

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. 

post #46 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsebrech View Post

If you can't see pinch to zoom in that video, try this one from february 2006:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

 

2:36 shows one-handed pinch to zoom out, a few seconds later it's a two-handed pull to zoom in.

 

[sarcasm]Oh, but apple did it on a phone, that's true innovation.[/sarcasm]

 

That sarcasm makes you out to look like quite the fool.

 

So implementing something that has only been demoed in prototype fashion in labs, etc, and on multi million dollar machines, powered by God knows what custom hardware, and never in any shipping products- and integrating this deeply into a brand new phone OS, then shipping this in mass scale to hundreds of millions of consumers, the 1st of its kind,  is not considered innovation to you? Yeah, they 'just did it on a phone', not a big deal. You clearly have utterly no grasp how technology works, and the challenges, hardships, and innovation needed to take a technology from a 'holy shit thats cool' demo, into an actual shipping product. There's a ton of companies that have shown off a lot of impressive shit (Microsoft included) which have never, ever made it into any of their shipping products. Why do you think that is, if its so easy? Also, that video is LESS THAN A YEAR before Apple showed off a fully functional, complete iPhone, which clearly means they had it running internally at that time. The fact is that when Apple demoed the iPhone, this is the 1st time that most people saw any of this stuff on any kind of product, which is why it was so impressive. Your post is utterly pointless and shows the depths of your ignorance and Apple hatred. If you so quickly mock and deride this kind of innovation coming from Apple, and can't handle giving them a shred of credit,  I wonder what you think of the rest of the mobile companies out there, who have done little the past few years except to follow Apple's lead and template. Oh I know, you're probably utterly hypocritical and have much lower standards when considering innovations from any other companies. 


Edited by Slurpy - 8/13/12 at 11:47pm
post #47 of 156

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

 

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)

 

700

 


Video upload date : 2006.4.8

Video record date : 2004. 5

700

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

post #48 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ward View Post

I was under the impression that the patent office does not research whether the item being patented is unique, only whether it can be patented under the patent rules.  It is up to the applicant to research whether the thing being patented is truly a unique invention and then if there is a dispute, it is handled in the courts.  If the patent office took responsibility for the validity of a patented item being a unique invention, then these trials would not be needed.

No. The argument back and forth with the patent office ("office actions" from the patent office and "responses" from the applicants) is mostly about prior art. Applicants have the advantage here since they can keep responding and adjusting the claims until they get some sort of patent issued, whereas examiners have much more limited time and resources. So the examiners do try to rule on novelty, but a lot slips through, especially in the broadest claims.

You're right in one point, though. If the applicant researches and brings a piece of prior art to the attention of the examiner, and the examiner rules that the patent claims are novel anyways, that makes it hard to later use the same prior art in court to invalidate the patent.
post #49 of 156
post #50 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

Sorry to have awoken you from your eight month slumber. As per usual, you can have the last word.

 

Then, here it is.

 

The last...

 

700

 

 


Edited by GTR - 8/14/12 at 12:37am
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #51 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


Maybe you're looking at it wrong?
Anyway: Looks like this may well be a case of... Prior Art = Invalid Patent.

Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.

 

Prior of the image of the tablet in Star Trek is lame because it is just an image and nothing more. If it needs to be relevant it has to be mainstream and proved to be a working model, not just some make believe.

 

Prior art is too widely abuse today. Sad

post #52 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC View Post

Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.

 

Prior of the image of the tablet in Star Trek is lame because it is just an image and nothing more. If it needs to be relevant it has to be mainstream and proved to be a working model, not just some make believe.

 

Prior art is too widely abuse today. Sad

 


"DiamondTouch's primary gesture was called FractalZoom which used a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom. Interestingly, Bogue claims he demoed the multitouch tech to Apple hardware engineers in 2003, though the meeting was fruitless. Samsung did, however, submit a number of e-mails Bogue kept concerning the Apple demo as evidence."

 

 

 

"DiamondTouch has been available commercially since 2006."

http://www.merl.com/areas/DiamondTouch/

 

 

700

700

 

 

"pinch-to-zoom" video from Diamond Touch (2004.5)
http://youtu.be/JAgbjBOK1bk
(time : 1:27 ~ 1:40)


Edited by 845032 - 8/14/12 at 12:52am
post #53 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

 

 

Ok THAT example is potentially relevant (depending on whether it was truly "prior") but not those lame examples in the main story that Samsung introduced.

 

This reminds me of another SJ quote: real artists ship.  Give Apple credit for doing something like this and turning it into a real product and getting it into the hands of millions of people.

 

I agree, that seems relevant.

And Apple does deserve credit creating a great product.

But not via an patent.

Apples hard work, the actual software that implements the assembly of hardware, is protected by copyright.

Another party that wants to implement this has to go through all the pain and hardship again even if they know what the end result should look like and 'that it can be done'.

This is actually exactly the way it turned out to be, the android implementation took a few years to get it right.

And even now its implementation isn't as good as Apples. 

 

J.

post #54 of 156
 
mcrs really? fanbois?
Another attempt be rude to all Apple users? We teach the kids in school not do do this.
Bois the plural or boi  use here, which you know the meaning of to spell it the way you did,  Anyone can look the definition up, referencing a persons orientation with a broad label, ugh trying not to post offensive terms, is uncalled for -applying the term to any Apple user. You insult those who the term might apply to and those who it does not. We're all people and devices are things.  There is no need to be rude or unkind, or try to insult others at all over their choice of a device.  You really can say something without doing that. 
post #55 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

All this proves is how horrible mobile interfaces were until Apple arrived on the scene.

Exactly.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #56 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

"DiamondTouch's primary gesture was called FractalZoom which used a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom. Interestingly, Bogue claims he demoed the multitouch tech to Apple hardware engineers in 2003, though the meeting was fruitless. Samsung did, however, submit a number of e-mails Bogue kept concerning the Apple demo as evidence."

 

"DiamondTouch has been available commercially since 2006."

http://www.merl.com/areas/DiamondTouch/

 

700

700

 

"pinch-to-zoom" video from Diamond Touch (2004.5)
http://youtu.be/JAgbjBOK1bk
(time : 1:27 ~ 1:40)

I have watched the videos about the DiamondTouch and read the discussions and I've noticed something that I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned. In the DiamondTouch videos, to zoom a rectangular object seems to require the user to hold one or more points on the edge of the rectangle. For example, holding two opposing corners. Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge. The pinching action occurs anywhere inside the rectangle. That, I believe, is a very important difference…and a patentable one too.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #57 of 156

 

 

Sigh.

 

Once upon a time there was a company called FingerWorks who developed mutitouch devices since 1998. But then they were bought buy a big company. Let's see, what was that big company called ... oh, yeah: Apple.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

 

"FingerWorks was a gesture recognition company based in the United States, known mainly for itsTouchStream multi-touch keyboard. Founded by John Elias and Wayne Westerman of the University of Delaware in 1998, it produced a line of multi-touch products including the iGesture Pad and the TouchStream keyboard, which were particularly helpful for people suffering from RSI and other medical conditions. The keyboards were immediately discontinued when the company's assets were acquired byApple Inc. in early 2005."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

 

"Apple filed patents for in 2005-2007 and was awarded with in 2009-2010"

 

About Jeff Han:

 

http://multi-touchscreen.com

 

(scroll to headline: "iPhone and Multi Touch?")

 

"The iPhone uses Multi-Touch technology. FingerWorks has been bought by Apple in June 2006. Jeff Han has not been hired by Apple to work on the iPhone. There were rumors that Apple had tried (unsuccessfully) to hire Jeff at one point to work on the launch of the iphone. NY Times techie David Pogue even asked Steve Jobs about him on the day of the launch. Here's Jeff Hans' response on the iPhone: "The iPhone is absolutely gorgeous, and I've always said, if there ever were a company to bring this kind of technology to the consumer market, it's Apple. I just wish it were a bit bigger so I could really use both of my hands." Check Apple's patent for its Apple iTablet and Touch-screen iPod, iTouch, and iPhone."

 

Read all about Apples patents:

 

http://multi-touchscreen.com/iphone.html

 

IIRC Microsoft as well has multi-touch patents from the 2005/2006 era, but they and Apple have cross licensing agreement:

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning/in/2971889

 

We can finally read the once secret agreement here:

 

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1292505/584.pdf

 

And if you have too much time on your hands, good old Eran has a long ass article on his site:

 

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/01/23/inside-the-multitouch-fingerworks-tech-in-apples-tablet/

post #58 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post

I have watched the videos about the DiamondTouch and read the discussions and I've noticed something that I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned. In the DiamondTouch videos, to zoom a rectangular object seems to require the user to hold one or more points on the edge of the rectangle. For example, holding two opposing corners. Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge. The pinching action occurs anywhere inside the rectangle. That, I believe, is a very important difference…and a patentable one too.

 

Correct. I was having fun watching the twink make a fool of himself.

post #59 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC View Post

Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.

 

what?

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #60 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post

I have watched the videos about the DiamondTouch and read the discussions and I've noticed something that I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned. In the DiamondTouch videos, to zoom a rectangular object seems to require the user to hold one or more points on the edge of the rectangle. For example, holding two opposing corners. Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge. The pinching action occurs anywhere inside the rectangle. That, I believe, is a very important difference…and a patentable one too.

Apple patent is here, along with the claims it makes. 

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=7,479,949.PN.&OS=PN/7,479,949&RS=PN/7,479,949

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

First of all, that LaunchTile is the most lame, stupid and poorly devised method for navigating anything that I have ever seen!  That's a clusterbleep of epic proportions.  I think that professor needs to spend more time teaching and less time smoking pot.  Further, I see no correlation with any patent that Apple is asserting.

 

Secondly, in the DiamondTouch video was a perfect example of wasted R+D money. Oh look, I can circle a word, and then you can circle the word too!  Ooohhh!!! We can circle the word together!  STARS!!! Seriously, is this some kind of kinky computer nerd foreplay?  An exhibit in the Crayola factory tour?  WTF is it?  Oh, and 1991 called and they want their Christmas-themed sweater back.  Again, how is this pinch to zoom? The only thing that was vaguely, almost, not-at-all pinch-to-zoom was resizing a window with two fingers as if you had two mouse pointers. Pinch uses a thumb and forefinger.  Ask the girl in the sweater to tell you about how that's done properly after all that touch lovin.

 

Thirdly, Samsung... stick out your right hand.. extend your forefinger and thumb. Now place that on your forehead. That's what you are... you may need to find a mirror, and an English translator.


Insulting. Racist. Arrogant. Series of unrelated ad hominem attacks.

 

Wow. By the way, Crayola, nerds, academics and much anyone trying to create something instead of sitting behind a computer spewing hate like that post you did would like to point out they are not associated in any way to this line of "thought"....

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 #62 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsebrech View Post

If you can't see pinch to zoom in that video, try this one from february 2006:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

 

2:36 shows one-handed pinch to zoom out, a few seconds later it's a two-handed pull to zoom in.

 

[sarcasm]Oh, but apple did it on a phone, that's true innovation.[/sarcasm]

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

 

 

Ok THAT example is potentially relevant (depending on whether it was truly "prior") but not those lame examples in the main story that Samsung introduced.

 

This reminds me of another SJ quote: real artists ship.  Give Apple credit for doing something like this and turning it into a real product and getting it into the hands of millions of people.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

From what I know @ patents, the implementation is what can differentiate 2 seemingly similar approaches. It's possible to have 2 patents that accomplish the same task, if they both rely on different approaches. In the TED demo, it appears that one finger is stationary, while the other drags the image to zoom in. With Apple's approach both fingers move for zoom. That could be a sufficient change in variance. Also, that presentation table is not a mobile phone. Patents don't necessarily apply to every conceivable device. Timing might also play into this since this demo & Apple's original patent filing are both in 2006. This does show that Apple was patenting what they considered original concepts well before the iPhone was released; the US Patent Office didn't publish this patent until 2010

 

I was aware of the Han video. I am also aware that Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005,  Fingerworks has a multitouch history going back to 1998 -- and I suspect that their IP may include patents.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

 

Here are some questions to consider:

 

  1. What prior art does Fingerworks bring to the table?
  2. If the Han video illustrates valid "prior art" -- why didn't Sammy's lawyers use it?
  3. Does Han have a basis for a lawsuit against Apple and any others for illegally using his IP?
  4. If so, why didn't Apple buy/license Han's IP?
  5. Is the hardware implementation of Apple's pinch different enough from other implementations to constitute a valid patent?

  6. Is the software implementation of Apple's pinch different enough from other implementations to constitute a valid patent?

  7. Is the UI implementation of Apple's pinch different enough from other implementations to constitute a valid patent?

 

Watching the Han video and comparing it to the way the iPhone and iPad works, it is apparent that there are subtle differences in the way pinch works and the UI is different.  The Han approach appears to be less consistent -- more modal and application-dependent... Though this may just be a resutt of demoing several different possible UIs.

 

I think the Apple lawyers should do a side-by-side presentation of Apple's pinch and other implementations.  I suspect they are prepared to do this.

 

 

Then there's this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aXV-yaFmQNk


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/14/12 at 3:47am
"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 #63 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

That sarcasm makes you out to look like quite the fool.

 

So implementing something that has only been demoed in prototype fashion in labs, etc, and on multi million dollar machines, powered by God knows what custom hardware, and never in any shipping products- and integrating this deeply into a brand new phone OS, then shipping this in mass scale to hundreds of millions of consumers, the 1st of its kind,  is not considered innovation to you? Yeah, they 'just did it on a phone', not a big deal. You clearly have utterly no grasp how technology works, and the challenges, hardships, and innovation needed to take a technology from a 'holy shit thats cool' demo, into an actual shipping product. There's a ton of companies that have shown off a lot of impressive shit (Microsoft included) which have never, ever made it into any of their shipping products. Why do you think that is, if its so easy? Also, that video is LESS THAN A YEAR before Apple showed off a fully functional, complete iPhone, which clearly means they had it running internally at that time. The fact is that when Apple demoed the iPhone, this is the 1st time that most people saw any of this stuff on any kind of product, which is why it was so impressive. Your post is utterly pointless and shows the depths of your ignorance and Apple hatred. If you so quickly mock and deride this kind of innovation coming from Apple, and can't handle giving them a shred of credit,  I wonder what you think of the rest of the mobile companies out there, who have done little the past few years except to follow Apple's lead and template. Oh I know, you're probably utterly hypocritical and have much lower standards when considering innovations from any other companies. 


That's a good point. Still, innovation starts in research labs... that's how the whole Western world works.

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 #64 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This will get demolished by Apple.

 

Is Samsung claiming that these guys were their inspiration? Seriously? Even fandroids -- except DaHarder, of course -- have to be chuckling.

 

I don't think they have to show that Apple was "inspired" by prior art but merely that prior art existed at all, which would invalidate their patent. That said, I see no similarity between the UIs that were demoed here and Apple's contested patents, neither pinch to zoom nor the rubber band effects. The fact that these UIs are horrendous to use and look at is just icing on the cake.

 
post #65 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

 

 

I was aware of the Han video. I am also aware that Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005,  Fingerworks has a multitouch history going back to 1998 -- and I suspect that their IP may include patents.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

 

Here are some questions to consider:

 

  1. What prior art does Fingerworks bring to the table?
  2. If the Han video illustrates valid "prior art" -- why didn't Sammy use it?
  3. Does Han have a basis for a lawsuit against Apple and any others for illegally using his IP?
  4. If so, why didn't Apple buy/license Han's IP?
  5. Is the hardware implementation of Apple's pinch different enough from other implementations to constitute a valid patent?

  6. Is the software implementation of Apple's pinch different enough from other implementations to constitute a valid patent?

  7. Is the UI implementation of Apple's pinch different enough from other implementations to constitute a valid patent?

 

Watching the Han video and comparing it to the way the iPhone and iPad works, it is apparent that there are subtle differences in the way pinch works and the UI is different.  The Han approach appears to be less consistent -- more modal and application-dependent... Though this may just be a resutt of demoing several different possible UIs.

 

I think the Apple lawyers should do a side-by-side presentation of Apple's pinch and other implementations.  I suspect they are prepared to do this.

The two sides have some different reasons for addressing that patent. For Samsung, they want it to be found invalid. It doesn't matter much how Apple implements it on an iPhone or iPad. It's the specific claims in the patent that count. So don't put much stock in Han or Fingerworks or how you use pinch-to-zoom on an iPhone.

 

In Apple's case that patent is a means to an end. It's more "proof" that Samsung is illegally copying features that should be unique to Apple. Having a valid patent to features that Samsung is using helps to make their case. Those utility patents combined with the design patents are supposed to paint a picture of Samsung's blatant theft of the overall "look and feel". If any of those are tossed as not being valid then the picture becomes less clear with a real risk that Apple comes away with little to show for it other than a little money. So Samsung's going to try and chip away at the individual pieces to show the iPhone and iPad weren't as unique as Apple is making them appear.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/14/12 at 3:58am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 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¡

 

Excellent post sensei! You teach young grasshopper now!

post #67 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post

Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge.

 

 

 

700

 

700

 

It does not require contact with the edge.

post #68 of 156
Zoom in folks, Apple pinched it.
post #69 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

I don't think they have to show that Apple was "inspired" by prior art but merely that prior art existed at all, which would invalidate their patent.

On a separate note... why haven't the makers of this prior art gone after Apple by now?
post #70 of 156

Then, you should look at this one, also introduced prior to Apple's patents. Some stuff 

are not even "implemeted" by IOS just yet. Should we wait until Jeff Han and his team to 

sue Apple for the latter's  "inspirations" based on the former's ideas?

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Correct. I was having fun watching the twink make a fool of himself.

post #71 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

Then, you should look at this one, also introduced prior to Apple's patents. Some stuff 

are not even "implemeted" by IOS just yet. Should we wait until Jeff Han and his team to 

sue Apple for the latter's  "inspirations" based on the former's ideas?

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

 

If Han has a valid claim (or even the appearance of one), don't you think that patent-trolling lawyers would have brought a case years ago?

 

BTW, Han's implementation is closer to MS's Big-Assed Table (original Surface) -- Apparently, neither Apple or MS IP experts see any conflict with each other or with Han.

"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 #72 of 156

Here's something even more strange. Knowing Apple's behavior of patenting all the wet dreams that their designers and engineers ever have way before even the technology was even there, why Apple wait until 2007 to patent their "ooooh-sooooo-coooool-and-revolutionary" pinch to zoom gesture? I think you should know the answer to that question. 

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¡
post #73 of 156

I think in most patent cases the complainants will wait for mass adoption before they start their moves. In other words, they are, or should I say, the patent lawyers, are waiting for the right time to claim the prize money. Based on what can bee seen on his demo, he has a strong case and a big pile of money waiting for him. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

If Han has a valid claim (or even the appearance of one), don't you think that patent-trolling lawyers would have brought a case years ago?


Edited by mcrs - 8/14/12 at 4:43am
post #74 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?

 

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 ;) 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 ;)

post #75 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015 View Post

Okay, well first off the Pinch to zoom is clearly nothing like Samsungs LaunchTile.

 

Second off, Samsung's "DiamondTouch" is the exact opposite of pinch to zoom, in Samsung's system, you use it to change window size, in Apple's you use it to actually make objects appear larger onscreen, without affecting the size of the window.

 

Both of Samsung's bullshit patents don't cover Apple's tech.

Apple and others don't always reference every prior patent or bit of prior art when applying for their own patents. Obviously there is research, but there's just no way to discover every bit of what is out there. It shouldn't surprise you that this comes up even if it's used to accomplish something different. This is the kind of thing where you'd actually need some background in patent law to determine if such a thing is relevant based on how the laws cover such things. It's not always clear.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Good arguments don't misuse this quote. Bad arguments do.


What is amusing is that both Steve Jobs and the users quoting him are using that quote out of context without any understanding of its meaning. It's meaningless in the way it is presented.

post #76 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

"Good artists copy great artists steal" -- SJ

 

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

 

 

 

Contrast this with Samsung's modus operandi, which is to blatantly copy [often poorly] their direct competitors' designs without adding any value.

 
 
 

Edited by freediverx - 8/14/12 at 5:03am
post #77 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

I think in most patent cases, the complainants will wait for mass adoption before they start their moves. In other words, they are, or should I say, the patent lawyers, are waiting for the right time to claim the prize money. Based on what can bee seen on his demo, he has a strong case and a big pile of money waiting for him. 

 

Gee!  Apple has sold approximately 400 million iOS devices, worth $200 Billion -- when does the time get any righter?

 

I am no patent expert, but, you, apparently have little understanding or experience in how the world works... especially business and lawyers.

 

Possibly, the lawyers should follow the advice:  "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em" -- Tammany Hall politician George Washington Plunkitt.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/14/12 at 5:05am
"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 #78 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 it's not prior art. Samsung is grasping at straws here.

 
post #79 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

 

Contrast this with what Samsung does, which is to blatantly copy (often poorly) their direct competitors' designs without adding any value.

 

 

It might not be what you want, but adding AMOLED, >3.5" displays, removable battery, Android (notification/widgets), consumer choice, low price point etc.etc. to me constitues as adding value for the consumer.

post #80 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleShare View Post

This is their best effort at providing 'evidence' of prior art? Very weak. LaunchTile is painful to even watch. Maybe Samsung should be ordered to use this interface as a punishment.

 

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.


Edited by yakovlev - 8/14/12 at 5:27am
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