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 3

post #81 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

 

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

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I respect your position and opinions because you actually did make a reasonable argument, unlike lots of others here.

post #82 of 120
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.

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.

Good post, a little long winded but nonetheless good, except for the fact that none of that really matters. Samsung will never come close to Apple and my guess is that they're fine with that. Nothing wrong with being number 2 especially since #3,4,5....are so far behind. Rubber banding has been long gone from Android so I don't see how it's a 'big win'.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #83 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I respect your position and opinions because you actually did make a reasonable argument, unlike lots of others here.

Sure made the end of my work day fly by.
post #84 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

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.

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.
post #85 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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

 

Don't blame me for misinterpreting your vague usage.  It seems like you must have meant (sarcastically of course) that touch screen responses should not be patentable.  I agree with that (not your sarcasm).  I don't think that interactions should be patented, only the technologies that allow for those interactions.

post #86 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Google doesn't hold the patents to some of its most important algorithms. Stanford University, where Google was born, does. Google holds a license.

 

Hmm... It was my understanding that their most important code has never been patented so it would not be revealed, which seems pretty smart to me.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #87 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

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.

 

Point out your arguments (the ones that aren't an utter waste of time), then we'll discuss further.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #88 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

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

 

I see.  You have just enough time to make useless jabs but no time to form any sort of argument, not even a bad one.

post #89 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Hmm... Its my understanding that their most important code has never been patented so it would not be revealed, which seems pretty smart to me.

It's an old tactic. Many companies have never patented their great ideas so that the competition will never get their hands on it. The Coca-Cola and KFC recipes being the best examples.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #90 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Point out your arguments (the ones that aren't an utter waste of time), then we'll discuss further.

 

1.  The UI acts as a virtual object to be acted upon by the virtualized impetus of your finger.

2.  This virtual object can interact with other virtual objects in the environment, such as virtual bounds and barriers.

3.  One possible interaction between virtual objects, like real objects, is rebound when two objects collide.

4.  Rebound, being a physical phenomenon that exists without reason and existed before our ability to describe it mathematically, cannot be patented.

5.  The virtual world being a mimic of the real world, a patent cannot be granted for rebound or any other virtualized physical interaction between objects.

post #91 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.

 

I'm not embarrassed at all.  I appreciate your concern.

post #92 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

1.  The UI acts as a virtual object to be acted upon by the virtualized impetus of your finger.
2.  This virtual object can interact with other virtual objects in the environment, such as virtual bounds and barriers.
3.  One possible interaction between virtual objects, like real objects, is rebound when two objects collide.

4.  Rebound, being a physical phenomenon that exists without reason and existed before our ability to describe it mathematically, cannot be patented.

5.  The virtual world being a mimic of the real world, a patent cannot be granted for rebound or any other virtualized physical interaction between objects.

You were doing well until number 4. Rebounding does have a reason for happening. It's the simple physics law of action and reaction.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #93 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You were doing well until number 4. Rebounding does have a reason for happening. It's the simple physics law of action and reaction.

 

I understand why rebound occurs.  I don't know why rebound (i.e. the physics that governs our universe) exists.

post #94 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnbiasedDave View Post

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/02/25/1747201/lg-acquires-webos-source-code-and-patents-from-hp

 

I would imagine HP held onto them and only recently sold them to LG.


Anyway, the task switching system is the same as Windows Phone 8, just with the additional ability to close apps. What'll be interesting to see is if in iOS 7 apps can still run in the background, or whether or not they'll be tombstoned.

Actually, the iOS 7 feature was seen before in the first version of iOS with regards to how web history was handled & to view multiple webpages in Safari - before webOS. It also is an extention of expose. What I see on windows phone is expose with scrolling or the safari history idea first the first version of iOS. Seems to me Apple is just using it's own UI ideas for other areas of the OSX & iOS.

post #95 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I see.  You have just enough time to make useless jabs but no time to form any sort of argument, not even a bad one.

No. You've misunderstood again.

I'm saying that you're not cool enough to do.

1wink.gif
post #96 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.

By that logic... Chemicals and pharmaceuticals shouldn't be patentable because all the engineers do is put things together a certain way, but the actual reactions are defined by nature.
post #97 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

I understand why rebound occurs.  I don't know why rebound (i.e. the physics that governs our universe) exists.

 

Oh I think you understand. You're just being intentionally obtuse.

 

This is not physics. If it were as simple as something hitting the edge of your screen and bouncing back then maybe (like the game of Pong). If you actually read Apple's patent you'd understand there's more going on here. Like the content of the document, how fast the user is scrolling, what is to be displayed behind the document when the user goes beyond the limits and so on.

 

Further, if you were talking about about collisions in the real world, then the objects would continue on their paths until they hit something else or friction eventually slows them down. This is not what happens in iOS where there are specific actions as to when the page should "stop" and how fast it should take to get to that point. In other words, iOS has its own set of rules which do not involve the laws of physics. Since it has nothing to do with physics (a natural, real-world phenomenom), then it can be patented.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #98 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post


By that logic... Chemicals and pharmaceuticals shouldn't be patentable because all the engineers do is put things together a certain way, but the actual reactions are defined by nature.

 

I see a distinction there because pharmaceutical companies usually aren't recreating natural substances when they develop medicines.  If they do, then those compounds shouldn't be patentable.

post #99 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Oh I think you understand. You're just being intentionally obtuse.

 

This is not physics. If it were as simple as something hitting the edge of your screen and bouncing back then maybe (like the game of Pong). If you actually read Apple's patent you'd understand there's more going on here. Like the content of the document, how fast the user is scrolling, what is to be displayed behind the document when the user goes beyond the limits and so on.

 

Further, if you were talking about about collisions in the real world, then the objects would continue on their paths until they hit something else or friction eventually slows them down. This is not what happens in iOS where there are specific actions as to when the page should "stop" and how fast it should take to get to that point. In other words, iOS has its own set of rules which do not involve the laws of physics. Since it has nothing to do with physics (a natural, real-world phenomenom), then it can be patented.

 

All of those rules you so rudely talk about came from physics.  Just because Apple put parameters or limits doesn't mean that the ideas and equations didn't come directly from physics.  Those equations are full of variables, and Apple only allows those variables to vary within certain ranges.  Apple didn't have to rewrite physics to make those animations work.  They applied physics.  Don't be obtuse.

post #100 of 120
post #101 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Android would not even exist if it weren't for the iPhone.

Android existed before the iphone but their direction before was to copy windows then when blackberry got on top they shifted and went blackberry then the iphone came. As Google would put it, Android is a very inspired OS. Google doesn't really care, they would preffer everything to be open as they are advocating not just because it is good for the consumers but first of all because it would be good for their business. Limitless ideas and innovations at google's hand means limitless services and products to treat people. More services makes more users, more advertising and more money for google.
post #102 of 120

It's good news for Apple, but calling it a "huge win" and "major victory" seems a bit dramatic, since it doesn't affect anything yet.

 

On the upside, claims 14, 17, 18, 19 were confirmed.   However, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20 were canceled.  

 

Again on the upside, claim 19 is the one Apple won with last summer.   However, that doesn't mean the retrial jury will attach as much importance to it as the first jury might have.  (We don't even know how much they did.  That's one reason for the retrial.)
 
Especially as bounce back has been proved to not be critical to marketplace success.  Samsung stopped using it long ago, and yet their sales increased afterwards.

 

At most, Apple can win some reward for the older infringing devices which are no longer sold.

post #103 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


You should have just written "What is a patent?" for your post. You'd be saying the same thing.

 

Honestly - I don't know how long it's been since I laughed out loud hysterically.

 

Thank you.

 

:)

post #104 of 120

This seems rather irrelevant. Android hasn't used rubber banding since gingerbread 3 years ago. Google recognized that Apple's patent was going to be enforced (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong Google chose to take the high ground) and changed how Android works. No rubber banding.

I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.

post #105 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Android would not even exist if it weren't for the iPhone.

Actually that's not true, Google was working on Android the same time Apple was on iOS. Would it look the same, probably not but Android would defiantly be around.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #106 of 120
Any bets on when the first (non-Apple) cylindrical PC is gonna hit the shelves?
post #107 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

This seems rather irrelevant. Android hasn't used rubber banding since gingerbread 3 years ago. Google recognized that Apple's patent was going to be enforced (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong Google chose to take the high ground) and changed how Android works. No rubber banding.

I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.

It's possible is a "huge win" because Samsung did use it after vanilla Android stopped long ago. Especially seeing as Apple & Samsung have a lawsuit going atm. 

To be honest I wish they would all just call a truce and let technology roll. iOS7 has some balant copying of Android/Windows/WebOS functions and lord knows there is just going to be more useless lawsuits over it.

post #108 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjapk View Post

Any bets on when the first (non-Apple) cylindrical PC is gonna hit the shelves?

They already had cylindrical PC's. Along with cubes, rectangles, etc lol. 

post #109 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjapk View Post

Any bets on when the first (non-Apple) cylindrical PC is gonna hit the shelves?

Sammy is waiting for the Pro to be shipped first.
post #110 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

^ Oh look, a new uninformed troll. What else is new at AI? 1hmm.gif

The usernames. The posts remain the same though.
post #111 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.

 

It's huge because this patent is involved in the Billion Dollar case Apple won against Samsung. They've used its review as a reason to delay, delay, delay but now it should go to trial and the damages will be redetermined.  Redetermined at a stronger position for Apple since the patent is reaffirmed but perhaps not to the original $$$.

post #112 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post

 

It's huge because this patent is involved in the Billion Dollar case Apple won against Samsung. They've used its review as a reason to delay, delay, delay but now it should go to trial and the damages will be redetermined.  Redetermined at a stronger position for Apple since the patent is reaffirmed but perhaps not to the original $$$.

 

Actually, Judge Koh had refused to allow pending patent reviews to delay the trial.

 

"For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED without prejudice Samsung's Request for a Stay pending reexamination of the ’381 and 915 patents at issue in the new damages trial."
 

She wants everything to move forward, and if a patent is found invalid later on, then its related awards can be appealed at that time.

post #113 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

1.  The UI acts as a virtual object to be acted upon by the virtualized impetus of your finger.

2.  This virtual object can interact with other virtual objects in the environment, such as virtual bounds and barriers.

3.  One possible interaction between virtual objects, like real objects, is rebound when two objects collide.

4.  Rebound, being a physical phenomenon that exists without reason and existed before our ability to describe it mathematically, cannot be patented.

5.  The virtual world being a mimic of the real world, a patent cannot be granted for rebound or any other virtualized physical interaction between objects.

 

Computer-generated representations of real world phenomena are mathematical and programming language creations by human beings, therefore they are not natural. Your points are all moot.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #114 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjapk View Post

Any bets on when the first (non-Apple) cylindrical PC is gonna hit the shelves?

 

One month?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #115 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Actually that's not true, Google was working on Android the same time Apple was on iOS. Would it look the same, probably not but Android would defiantly be around.

How do you know that? Blackberry is barely around & that's the OS Google was copying back then. I would say odds are they would barely be around, if at all.

post #116 of 120

Here's a great little essay by Patton Oswalt regarding stealing of ideas that is weirdly parallel to the patent discussion our little thread:

 

A CLOSED LETTER TO MYSELF ABOUT THIEVERY, HECKLING AND RAPE JOKES

post #117 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnbiasedDave View Post
...

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Once more, all together now... "IDEAS" ARE NOT PATENTS.

 

Ideas like having the Control Centre as a quickly accessible overlay have been implemented in many ways and many places, and probably started life in the Jail-breaking Developer Community; Android was probably the first mobile OS to add it to their default system - big deal, it was being used well before that by jail-breakers on many platforms, including JavaME, Symbian, WinCE and yes, iOS (albeit illegally).

 

Similarly the concept of multitasking using cards had been around well before it was implemented in WebOS, whose chief architect actually worked for Apple in a previous life.

 

Ideas become patents when:

§ They are IMPLEMENTED in a certain. particular way or method;

§ This method is recorded and registered with an IP standards body e.g. USPTO;

 

This is what many commenters fail to appreciate - copying does not have to lead to infringement of others' IP, except when it's SLAVISH, which points to laziness and a tendency to feed off others without putting in any effort of ones' own. Then comes the time to litigate.

post #118 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Here's a great little essay by Patton Oswalt regarding stealing of ideas that is weirdly parallel to the patent discussion our little thread:

 

A CLOSED LETTER TO MYSELF ABOUT THIEVERY, HECKLING AND RAPE JOKES

 

Cool story, 'bro. And I mean it on several levels.

 

§ Kid Thief got what was coming to him - I wish the same on all unapologetic, ambitious, wilful, shameless copiers in all walks of human creativity.

 

§ Don’t musicians play other musicians’ songs? - Yes they do, and sometimes theirs become the definitive version: I Will Always Love You is a Dolly Parton original (I bet many people reading this will not know that fact) and Joe Cocker absolutely killed With a Little Help From My Friends, a Beatles original. Fact is, his and Whitney Houston's management paid for the privilege of covering those tunes - to do otherwise would bring punitive charges down on them, followed by the appropriate royalties thereafter

 

§ Like the comedian said, there will always be those who think that slavishly copying stuff and passing it off as one's own isn't wrong. The law disagrees.

 

Thanks for sharing that - it is relevant and parallel to this discussion.

post #119 of 120
To confirm, this patent is about bouncing icons (?) Is there any actual TECH involved? Anything related to, I don't know, processors, touchscreens, memory, or GSM tech similar to the Samsung patent that the US ITC ruled Apple infringed, before ordering a ban on older iPhones and iPads?
post #120 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sympa View Post

To confirm, this patent is about bouncing icons (?) Is there any actual TECH involved? Anything related to, I don't know, processors, touchscreens, memory, or GSM tech similar to the Samsung patent that the US ITC ruled Apple infringed, before ordering a ban on older iPhones and iPads?

Would that Samsung patent involve SOFTWARE that encodes and decodes data for transmission over a network?
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
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