or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns 'huge win' against Samsung on rubber banding patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple earns 'huge win' against Samsung on rubber banding patent - Page 2

post #41 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental View Post

Exactly. Because everyone knows how much credibility the USPTO has had in recent years...  /s

 

Have you seen the copious amounts of news about US patent reform, coming straight from the top?

 

By "top" I assume you mean "the president"?

 

Look up the definition of the word "corporatism" and you'll begin to understand who is best served by "patent reform".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Doesn't really matter since Google would be highly unlikely to initiate a lawsuit over any of them. They studiously avoid IP lawsuits, having only filed one so far in their 15 years.

Thieves, as a general rule, are not in the habit of calling the police...
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 #43 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

Not a stretch at all.  The UI is a virtual sheet inside a virtual box, reacting to a virtual wall with a virtual rebound.

 

You're manufacturing a "real-world" example to back up your assertion. As I mentioned in my edit to my other post, why would I be reading a letter in a box again?

 

Oh, I get it, because the iOS device is the "box". /s  1rolleyes.gif

post #44 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

I think you're missing the point.  Apple software engineers made code of their own to cause the rebound effect, but the idea was not novel.  The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago.  Making a virtual copy of something that is a natural phenomenon is not now and never will be novel.

 

IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.

 

IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.

 

IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #45 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.

 

IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.

 

IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.

 

You're still missing the point.  Our ideas about the rebound effect didn't bring it into existence.  The effect simply exists.  Just like nothing was invented when we realized that we could describe rebound mathematically, nothing was invented when those equations were applied to software.

post #46 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

You're manufacturing a "real-world" example to back up your assertion. As I mentioned in my edit to my other post, why would I be reading a letter in a box again?

 

Oh, I get it, because the iOS device is the "box". /s  1rolleyes.gif

 

You're right that I'm using a real world example, but I'm not making it up to describe Apple's software.  It's the other way around.  Apple software engineers mimicked that real world phenomenon in software.

 

And you don't have to read a letter in a box.  You brought up the letter, so I showed you when that letter would rebound in a way analogous to the software rebound.

post #47 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago.

Teleportation's not going to impress you too much when it happens after watching Star Trek, eh?
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 #48 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


Teleportation's not going to impress you too much when it happens after watching Star Trek, eh?

 

Star Trek didn't discover the math behind it, so yes I'll be impressed.

 

Still waiting on you to explain why this should be patentable.

post #49 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

You're right that I'm using a real world example, but I'm not making it up to describe Apple's software.  It's the other way around.  Apple software engineers mimicked that real world phenomenon in software.

 

And you don't have to read a letter in a box.  You brought up the letter, so I showed you when that letter would rebound in a way analogous to the software rebound.

 

Ok, let's think about what rebounds with the rubber-band effect in iOS. An email message (hence why I used a letter as a real-world example), an article on a webpage (hence my newspaper example) or just a list in a menu or something. When I used to read letters from my brother when he was in the army, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reach the end. When I read the newspaper article, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reached the end. When I reach the end of the menu at the restaurant, it likewise doesn't bounce back no matter how hard I try to look for one more page hoping my favorite meal will be on it.

 

You "manufactured" the letter in the box (see bold section above) to fit your assertion. I was trying to use real-world examples of things we do on our iOS devices that don't rebound in the real, physical world.

 

The rubber-band effect in real life, in and of itself, is not novel. The way Apple's software engineers use the effect to indicate the end of a document or page, etc. is. The latest ruling by the USPTO would seem to agree.

post #50 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

Ok, let's think about what rebounds with the rubber-band effect in iOS. An email message (hence why I used a letter as a real-world example), an article on a webpage (hence my newspaper example) or just a list in a menu or something. When I used to read letters from my brother when he was in the army, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reach the end. When I read the newspaper article, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reached the end. When I reach the end of the menu at the restaurant, it likewise doesn't bounce back no matter how hard I try to look for one more page hoping my favorite meal will be on it.

 

You "manufactured" the letter in the box to fit your assertion. I was trying to use real-world examples of things we do on our iOS devices that don't rebound in the real, physical world.

 

The rubber-band effect in real life in and of itself is not novel, the way Apple's software engineers use the effect to indicate the end of a document or page, etc. is. The latest ruling by the USPTO would seem to agree.

 

I won't dispute what you're saying about reading a letter, but reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound.  Let's move away from the reading part since the UI wouldn't rebound when you finished reading the page unless you were flicking it.  Just think of the on-screen image as an object, any object will do (including a letter!).  When any object is moving and hits another object, it rebounds.  Absolutely anything will rebound unless it converts all of its energy into something other than kinetic energy upon impact

 

The UI is a virtual object that Apple has designed to rebound off another virtual object.

post #51 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

They're not going to answer my question.  

Then you kinda have to stew in your own juice, don'tcha...

post #52 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Then you kinda have to stew in your own juice, don'tcha...

 

Looks like it since you can't seem to explain it to me.

post #53 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

The effect simply exists.  

Yep. Let's not patent 'touch' on a glass screen, since it's nothing more than what our fingers do anyway....

 

/s (just in case you missed it).

post #54 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yep. Let's not patent 'touch' on a glass screen, since it's nothing more than what our fingers do anyway....

 

/s (just in case you missed it).

 

Nobody patented touching a screen.  A screen with a touch-sensitive layer was something novel and patentable, however.

post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

I won't dispute what you're saying about reading a letter, but reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound.  Let's move away from the reading part to make the argument clear.  Just think of the on-screen image as an object, any object will do (including a letter!).  When any object is moving and hits another object, it rebounds.  Absolutely anything will rebound unless it converts all of its energy into something other than kinetic energy upon impact

 

The UI is a virtual object that Apple has designed to rebound off another virtual object.

 

Hey, you just proved my point! Reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. This is exactly why the application of the rubber-band effect is novel. Generalizing it by making it into an object that rebounds off another object proves nothing and misses the point. That is not how a letter behaves when you read it. 

 

For it to fit your original assertion that Apple engineers were just emulating the real world by using the rebound effect, the things that rebound in iOS would have to do the same in the physical world. You have yet to demonstrated this, despite your physics lesson.

post #56 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

Not a stretch at all.  The UI is a virtual sheet inside a virtual box, reacting to a virtual wall with a virtual rebound.

 

Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.

 

But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.

 

Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)

post #57 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

Hey, you just proved my point! Reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. This is exactly why the application of the rubber-band effect is novel. Generalizing it by making it into an object that rebounds off another object proves nothing and misses the point. That is not how a letter behaves when you read it. 

 

For it to fit your original assertion that Apple engineers were just emulating the real world by using the rebound effect, the things that rebound in iOS would have to do the same in the physical world. You have yet to demonstrated this, despite your physics lesson.

 

You missed the part about reading your screen not causing a rebound.  Try it.  Read to the bottom of your screen and see if the image rebounds.  Now flick the UI object and see if it rebounds.

post #58 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

 

Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.

 

But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.

 

Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)

 

Perhaps your explanation will get through. I don't seem to be having much success. 1wink.gif

post #59 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

 

Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.

 

But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.

 

Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)

 

You can describe the effect in whatever terms you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a virtual copy of a real phenomenon, described by abstract equations that apply equally well in the real world and the software world.

post #60 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

Nobody patented touching a screen.  A screen with a touch-sensitive layer was something novel and patentable, however.

 

Do you also believe because the sun is a natural phenomena, lightbulbs were never novel and patentable?


Edited by SpamSandwich - 6/13/13 at 2:05pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #61 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Do you also believe because the sun is a natural phenomena, lightbulbs were not novel and patentable?

 

A lightbulb is not the sun, and nobody patented light.  Until lightbulbs were invented, there was nothing that would produce light using a regulated electric current.  When lightbulbs were invented, and they were novel, unique, and unnatural.

post #62 of 120

Rubber-banding does not apply to just reading, it applies to general viewing (i.e. pictures). 

2010 MacBook Pro (13") Lion, iPad 2, Nokia Lumina 822, Ubuntu HTPC.

Reply

2010 MacBook Pro (13") Lion, iPad 2, Nokia Lumina 822, Ubuntu HTPC.

Reply
post #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Still waiting on you to explain why this should be patentable.

 

Dude what’s your point anyways??

 

 

All of your argumentation is moot... The patent system exists (if you haven’t lost contact with reality - i.e. if you don’t live in dreamland). Apple applied for a patent... and it got it. Should Apple have done this? Turns out they were right about it!! Should this be patentable? Not for us to decide!!

 

 

So either put up with it or do something about it where it matters - talk about it to your political representative, patent offices, the U.S president or Apple themselves...

post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

You missed the part about reading your screen not causing a rebound.  Try it.  Read to the bottom of your screen and see if the image rebounds.  Now flick the UI object and see if it rebounds.

 

You're missing the forest for the trees. You're so fixed on one virtual object bouncing off another that you're missing the whole point. I'll spell it out one more time and then I'm going home. The things that rebound in iOS DO NOT in the real world. Thus, the virtualizaton of a real physical effect to indicate that you've reached the end of whatever you've reach the end of is novel and (successfully) patentable.

post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juil View Post

 

Dude what’s your point anyways??

 

 

All of your argumentation is moot... The patent system exists (if you haven’t lost contact with reality - i.e. if you don’t live in dreamland). Apple applied for a patent... and it got it. Should Apple have done this? Turns out they were right about it!! Should this be patentable? Not for us to decide!!

 

 

So either put up with it or do something about it where it matters - talk about it to your political representative, patent offices, the U.S president or Apple themselves...

 

Point well taken, but if people only argued when it mattered there wouldn't be much discussion on the internet at all.

 

To answer your question, my point is simply that patents like this one should not be granted.

post #66 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

You can describe the effect in whatever terms you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a virtual copy of a real phenomenon, described by abstract equations that apply equally well in the real world and the software world.

 

The argument isn't about the physics that they're emulating, it's about what they're using it indicate.

post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

To answer your question, my point is simply that patents like this one should not be granted.

 

You still haven't managed to make a cogent, defensible argument as to why you believe such a thing.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #68 of 120
Prior to Apple, nobody else used this rubber-banding technique. It's easy now, in hindsight, to say oh that is just so obvious. Well, apparently it wasn't because in all of written history, nobody utilized this technique until Apple. So yes, they should get the spoils and be able to protect this most unique idea. It is, after all, an important part of the OS and an integral part of the UI.

Samsung is a sack of horse s**t for having no creative ideas of their own prior to the introduction of the iPhone. They literally copied everything from the iPhone down to the corner radii of the case. There is physical duplication of patented designs, then the blatant copying of elements of iOS either in Android itself or in Samsung's UI overlay.

Apple designs a brand new mobile OS from the ground up. Google, through its position on Apple's board via Eric Schmidt, gets a sneak peak at the future and quickly puts its own mobile OS plans into motion, a la Android, and gives it away. A company like Samsung comes along and does not have to invest a dime in OS development, copies Apple's physical design to the letter, and has an instant product with absolutely no risk of its own and without any skin in the game. Then all the d-bags come to Samsung's defense and claim Apple is being a bully?

American consumers should be bending over backwards to reward an innovative American company, not a thieving Asian company that does nothing but funnel dollars away from our continent. Apple is bringing Mac assembly back to the US, and they should be celebrated and rewarded for that. I think it's time we start taking a longer view of our purchases and look at who the dollars are benefitting and where they are going.

When was the last time Samsung had a developer's conference? When did they sell it out in 71 seconds? Which developers do you see getting passionate about developing for Samsung? I saw a lot of passion at WWDC and a few standing ovations. I also saw almost every major network's video cameras in there. I don't remember seeing that at any Samsung event. There is excitement on the Apple side, there is no excitement of the sort with Samsung. I mean my god, even the name sounds ridiculous - how is anyone going to get excited by such a lame brand?

Apple's got this.
post #69 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yep. Let's not patent 'touch' on a glass screen, since it's nothing more than what our fingers do anyway....

 

/s (just in case you missed it).

 

Nobody patented touching a screen.  A screen with a touch-sensitive layer was something novel and patentable, however.

Should have guessed. You couldn't tell the difference between touch and 'touch.'

post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Doesn't really matter since Google would be highly unlikely to initiate a lawsuit over any of them. They studiously avoid IP lawsuits, having only filed one so far in their 15 years. Apple isn't in any danger of attracting one from treading a little too close to Google IP IMO.

Really? Lets all copy Google's search algorithm. If Google is so noble, release the source code!
post #71 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Star Trek didn't discover the math behind it, so yes I'll be impressed.

 

Still waiting on you to explain why this should be patentable.

 

You may be waiting a while.

 

There's an awfully large amount of cool shit to spend my time on in this world, and I have zero interest in trying to convince you of anything.

 

Maybe you should be directing your concerns towards the U.S. Patent and Trademark office?

 

lol.gif


Edited by GTR - 6/13/13 at 2:40pm
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 #72 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnbiasedDave View Post

I don't mind the biased accusation, I own an iPhone 5, a Android HTC One, A BB Q10 and a Lumia 920 (benefits of writing software for multiple platforms).

 

They all have good points, and bad points. They have ideas from other platforms, and some are original. 

 

My response was based on the statement that a sizeable set of Apple fans seem to think Samsung/Android have stolen *everything* from iOS. While there's certainly some truth in that accusation, it's also true that in technology everyone's as bad as each other.

 

iOS just shows that Apple aren't above using other ideas and making them better. It's just hypocritical to complain and sue on one side, but also take good ideas and pass them as yours on the other.

 

...and I handle Nokia Lumia 610, 720, 820 and HTC 8X on a daily basis and I can tell you they are NOTHING like what I've seen of iOS 7.

 

Where are the three little dots which indicate further menu settings, for example?

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 #73 of 120

See my responses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

Prior to Apple, nobody else used this rubber-banding technique. It's easy now, in hindsight, to say oh that is just so obvious. Well, apparently it wasn't because in all of written history, nobody utilized this technique until Apple. So yes, they should get the spoils and be able to protect this most unique idea. It is, after all, an important part of the OS and an integral part of the UI. I disagree. It's merely an aesthetic. Though, Apple has the right to defend this effect if it has been copied to exact spec. I've seen lovely aesthetics in all mobile OSes, released before and after this one. This one does not stand out but is a nice touch.

Samsung is a sack of horse s**t for having no creative ideas of their own prior to the introduction of the iPhone. They literally copied everything from the iPhone down to the corner radii of the case. There is physical duplication of patented designs, then the blatant copying of elements of iOS either in Android itself or in Samsung's UI overlay. I don't want to defend Samsung here because I am no fan of theirs, but they did not copy Apple. I think there may have been inspirations, but not blatant copying. In 2007, technology got to the point where you could feasibly have an all-screen phone (capacitive). This was around the time that the iPhone came out. Apple didn't start this trend, technology advancement did. There were even a few unpopular phones before the iPhone that looked very similar, and had the all-screen, capacitive format (i.e. LG Prada). Granted, Apple capitalized on this idea by thinking out of the box, and creating an entirely new UI. I just think people give Apple too much credit, where credit is also due in other technological areas in which Apple relied on, and pieced all together.

Apple designs a brand new mobile OS from the ground up. Google, through its position on Apple's board via Eric Schmidt, gets a sneak peak at the future and quickly puts its own mobile OS plans into motion, a la Android, and gives it away. A company like Samsung comes along and does not have to invest a dime in OS development, copies Apple's physical design to the letter, and has an instant product with absolutely no risk of its own and without any skin in the game. Then all the d-bags come to Samsung's defense and claim Apple is being a bully? I agree to a point. Samsung had such an easy path. I just wish Apple wasn't such a patent-troll on trivial patents. Some of Apple's more trivial lawsuits have put them in negative light many times before.

American consumers should be bending over backwards to reward an innovative American company, not a thieving Asian company that does nothing but funnel dollars away from our continent. Apple is bringing Mac assembly back to the US, and they should be celebrated and rewarded for that. I think it's time we start taking a longer view of our purchases and look at who the dollars are benefitting and where they are going. Don't even begin with 'funneling dollars from our continent'. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost by Apple having manufacturing overseas. Further tax dollars are lost by Apple having most of their cash overseas in sheltered accounts, avoiding US corporate taxes. Saying that, I still respect Apple as a US-headquarted company and buy their products whenever it meets my needs, over foreign competition.

When was the last time Samsung had a developer's conference? Samsung is almost completely a hardware company, with a minimal software presence. Apple is hardware, but has a solid native software enviornment to support.  When did they sell it out in 71 seconds? Which developers do you see getting passionate about developing for Samsung? I saw a lot of passion at WWDC and a few standing ovations. Probably because WWDC is full of Apple-fans? Honestly, who waits for Apple to open event ticket sales to open up and buy out in minutes? Apple-fanatics of course!! Also the number of tickets were VERY limited to the public, 5000 I believe, which is extremely low amount considering the large ecosystem. I also saw almost every major network's video cameras in there. I don't remember seeing that at any Samsung event. There is excitement on the Apple side, there is no excitement of the sort with Samsung. I mean my god, even the name sounds ridiculous - how is anyone going to get excited by such a lame brand? Apple has always had a large following by the media, for many reasons, their age and prominence in the US to name a couple. If Samsung was a US company, you would probably see much more US media following their products consistently. If you saw the Galaxy S4 reveal, there was a moshpit of South Korean media in there. It was a ginormous event. 

Apple's got this.

Edited by Accidental - 6/13/13 at 2:53pm

2010 MacBook Pro (13") Lion, iPad 2, Nokia Lumina 822, Ubuntu HTPC.

Reply

2010 MacBook Pro (13") Lion, iPad 2, Nokia Lumina 822, Ubuntu HTPC.

Reply
post #74 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I remember discussing how messed up these sorts of patents (at the time, mostly software patents in general) were back in the day on Slashdot (when it was a real site, as opposed to ... 1frown.gif ).

If they are going to enforce these things, which they obviously are, then good for Apple. From my limited understanding of the case, it seems like they should have won.

But the world would be a much easier place if you couldn't patent stuff like this.

This is exactly the type of thing that should be patented. Real thought went into what happens when you get to the bottom of a page. The bounce back was not found in other interfaces. Most people would have probably just made the page stop, which is less elegant.
post #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Really? Lets all copy Google's search algorithm. If Google is so noble, release the source code!

Google doesn't hold the patents to some of its most important algorithms. Stanford University, where Google was born, does. Google holds a license.
post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

Apple bought a boatload of PalmOS patents in April. I wonder if they included the task switcher.

A lot of WebOS is similar to Apple's Newton OS. The task switcher resembles Apple's HyperCard, which it killed and seemingly is bring back in iOs.

Some other Android features that Apple is supposedly borrowing did not appear first on Android. For instance, on the Mac you used to be able to have a live desktop picture either in the form of a QuickTime movie or gif file. Google borrowed that concept, and Apple is bringing it back.

Google may be first in implementing some features on a phone, but many of the ideas are taken from the Mac OS and the Newton.

When it makes sense Apple is going to bring those features back.
post #77 of 120

So much hurt and pain in the Android/Samsung world today.

 

Better get used to it - 2013 is shaping up to be a horrible year for Android, Google/Motorola and Samsung. They've suffered so many losses already this year I've lost track.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #78 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So much hurt and pain in the Android/Samsung world today.

 

Better get used to it - 2013 is shaping up to be a horrible year for Android, Google/Motorola and Samsung. They've suffered so many losses already this year I've lost track.

 

Of course! We all know how terrible Google/Android and Samsung are doing thus far in 2013 [rolls eyes]  1bugeye.gif

 

Look, I know this is an Apple website, but that doesn't mean you have to be completely ignorant. 


Edited by Accidental - 6/13/13 at 3:25pm

2010 MacBook Pro (13") Lion, iPad 2, Nokia Lumina 822, Ubuntu HTPC.

Reply

2010 MacBook Pro (13") Lion, iPad 2, Nokia Lumina 822, Ubuntu HTPC.

Reply
post #79 of 120
^ Oh look, a new uninformed troll. What else is new at AI? 1hmm.gif

Troll harder next time, your ignorance is showing through. There's no way anyone who's followed patent issues this year could come to any conclusion other than Google and friends getting their asses handed to them. Even Microsoft is getting in on the action making a fool of Motorola. Not to mention getting royalties from that "free" OS Google gives away that's not really free.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #80 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

You still haven't managed to make a cogent, defensible argument as to why you believe such a thing.

 

No, I've made plenty of cogent arguments that you must not have read.  I didn't see your explanation for why this is patentable, though.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple earns 'huge win' against Samsung on rubber banding patent