or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung gets a boost with USPTO's 'final' rejection of Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung gets a boost with USPTO's 'final' rejection of Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a "final" rejection of Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent, opening the door for chief rival Samsung to push back even more against its loss in last summer's $1.05 billion patent infringement verdict.



Early Sunday morning, Samsung filed notice with U.S. courts of the USPTO's decision to reject all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, according to FOSS Patents. The ruling rejects claims 1 through 21 of Apple's filing, but holds that they are all subject to reexamination.

The final office action found that Apple's claims in the patent were both anticipated by prior art references and obvious according to the combination of another two other prior art references.

The USPTO had issued a tentative invalidation of Apple's patent back in December, calling into question just how much of Apple's $1.05 billion victory over Samsung could remain intact. The pinch-to-zoom patent, according to Apple's own damages claims, was the most valuable software patent at issue in that case. Foss' Florian Mueller notes that the patents Apple has put forward in its second patent action against Samsung are "on average, considerably more valuable than the ones asserted in the first case."

The pinch-to-zoom patent isn't the only one of Apple's filings to see eventual rejection from the USPTO. In October, the agency invalidated the rubber-banding patent, stating that a number of its claims were anticipated or obvious due to prior art.

The finality of the USPTO's "final" action on the patent is open to interpretation. Apple now has two months to argue the validity of its patent before the invalidation goes into effect. Even following that, there is an appeals process that could see the legal and regulatory action over pinch-to-zoom stretching into mid-2017 or beyond, according to some observers.

In October of last year, a Dutch court found that Samsung had not infringed Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent. Apple has also unsuccessfully asserted that patent in Britain against HTC, as well as in Germany against Samsung and Motorola.
post #2 of 36
Now they need a punch-to-zoom in on what they've done. Or a mirror, and try to not be disgusted by yourself for stealing someone else's innovation.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #3 of 36

Obviously Apple should have never gotten a pinch-to-zoom patent considering pinch-to-zoom had been demonstrated for years before the iPhone. Rubber banding is a different matter.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #4 of 36
The whole idea that some government asshat gets to sit around and say the methods were obvious back then after using an iPhone for 5 years is crap. If they were so damn obvious, others would have used them or at least attempted to patent them.
post #5 of 36
United States Patent Trolling Office is more like it as it seems that's what it's really designed for these days. Prior art? Well there goes my future patents for a time machine, light saber and Mr. Fusion.

I guess what's fair is fair though. P2Z was such a well-known idea at the time that it only took Apple to use it first. Shame on all of the "real" innovators back then.
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexDeafy View Post

USPTO is full of bullshit and a fucking stupid!!! Fcuk Samsung!

 

Hmmm, that is a valid point and one that I presume has not been fully considered. Perhaps you should get in touch with Apple's legal team.

post #7 of 36

This is often is the case, the best solutions are often obvious, once exposed, usually the simplest and often overlooked. Simplicity and elegance itself. Just think about velcro and post it notes.

post #8 of 36
If this is the upshot of any company filing a patent which is granted (I presume by the USPO) only to have it overruled by the same body when it comes to a dispute, then the only thing that does not work properly is the USPO. This must now be evident to everyone no matter what tech you use as all tech companies have had previously passed patterns overturned or watered down. This is now beyond a joke and the US and the tech industry need to grasp the situation before they end up giving all the money they have to solicitors to defend a pattent that should not have been passed in the first place. For industry standard patternts the pattent approval should involve the setting of a fair price per unit before it is granted to avoid the grey areas. IMHO anything invinc voice or data transfer over a mobile network should be classes as an industry standard or what's the point in deploying them, unless you are the pattent holder.
post #9 of 36
In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).

Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- History: www.touchscreencomputers.co.uk/history.html
post #10 of 36
So, Amazon has been able to hold on to 1-click patents for well over a decade....and the USPTO invalidate THESE patents due to prior art?!?!?
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayder View Post

So, Amazon has been able to hold on to 1-click patents for well over a decade....and the USPTO invalidate THESE patents due to prior art?!?!?

Has the Amazon patent's validity been challenged? Honest question. For what it's worth 1-Click got tossed in the EU AFAIK.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual View Post

As a foreigner living in the US, it always amuses me when I see American patriots sticking up for Apple. I can think of a lot of other American tech companies like Microsoft and IBM who are more deserving of praise than Apple.

 

Be honest, how much in R&D did it really take to make pinch-and-zoom? That sounds like a homework project a typical 1st year computer science student would have.

Sony are the most hopeless company I know. Their TVs suck, their laptops suck, their cameras suck, the only good products they make are stereos but I hate their car audio systems with that annoying beep when I turn the car off.

 

And WHY is Microsoft and IBM more deserving of praise than Apple? Let's see. Apple invented the iMac. A colourful computer that changed the way we think about computer design. IBM still makes horrible looking black boxes that should be hidden away out of sight.

 

Apple developed a secure OS built on BSD UNIX, one of the most secure operating systems on the planet, put in some amazing features that make computing easy and fun, and changed the way we think about interacting with computers. Microsoft stole Mac OS code, screwed it up entirely, and then bullied IBM and other PC manufacturers into using their substandard OS. THEN, they ensured they did nothing to it for over 10 years.

 

Yep, Microsoft and IBM are deserving of praise not Apple.

post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

Sony are the most hopeless company I know. Their TVs suck, their laptops suck, their cameras suck, the only good products they make are stereos but I hate their car audio systems with that annoying beep when I turn the car off.

 

And WHY is Microsoft and IBM more deserving of praise than Apple? Let's see. Apple invented the iMac. A colourful computer that changed the way we think about computer design. IBM still makes horrible looking black boxes that should be hidden away out of sight.

 

Apple developed a secure OS built on BSD UNIX, one of the most secure operating systems on the planet, put in some amazing features that make computing easy and fun, and changed the way we think about interacting with computers. Microsoft stole Mac OS code, screwed it up entirely, and then bullied IBM and other PC manufacturers into using their substandard OS. THEN, they ensured they did nothing to it for over 10 years.

 

Yep, Microsoft and IBM are deserving of praise not Apple.

Their TVs suck - Their TV's have (Had?) Samsung panels, so they should be the same picture quality as Samsung TVs. They are pricier than foreign TVs though and that's because of the strong yen (Which is now depreciating in value).

Their laptops suck - Opinion

Their cameras suck - LOL... SONY actually builds the best cameras. Even your precious iPhone and Samsung GS1,2,3, and 4 all had SONY cameras.

 

I get your point. Apple has good design tastes. They products look great. And then what? What else do they have to offer? They don't contribute to the advancement of science and technology. They are trend-setters.

post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual View Post

Apple couldn't even make their own OS kernel without being a gigantic, unstable clusterfuck (OS 9 ring a bell?).

What they have now is a bastardized version of open-source BSD that still has performance and stability issues compared to the superior Windows OS. I'd be happy to show you some code that I've written and show just how terribly Macs run it.

You mean that same OS that is making Microsoft no money? THAT superior operating system?

 

Just because you write terrible code doesn't mean it's the fault of the OS. It's the fault of someone who can't code for crap.

 

OS 9? You do know we're almost at the 9th incarnation of Mac OS X don't you? I mean how long has it been between OS versions for Windows? People still use Windows XP which should have died off years ago.

 

I mean you're telling us about how bad Mac OS 9 is and yet Microsoft released Windows NT 3.51, NT4.0, Windows 2000, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows Vista, and now Windows 8 (although I don't mind 8). They wrote off Windows RT essentially because they were too stupid to make it work with Windows applications. iOS runs the same infrastructure of Mac OS X. The only difference is the UI. Microsoft can't even get their UI done.

post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

You mean that same OS that is making Microsoft no money? THAT superior operating system?

 

Just because you write terrible code doesn't mean it's the fault of the OS. It's the fault of someone who can't code for crap.

Microsoft pulled in $21.6 billion in profit for the last FY. They're a great company with a truly competent engineering team. They're also smart enough to make a search engine rivaling google's. Where's Apple's? Even Apple iCloud service is powered by Microsoft's Azure servers.

 

And of course, you're gonna blame the developers. This feels like some of the mindless SONY fanboys who blamed game developers for not taking advantage of the CELL processor when it was SONY's fault for making a highly complicated architecture.

post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual View Post

Their TVs suck - Their TV's have (Had?) Samsung panels, so they should be the same picture quality as Samsung TVs. They are pricier than foreign TVs though and that's because of the strong yen (Which is now depreciating in value).

Their laptops suck - Opinion

Their cameras suck - LOL... SONY actually builds the best cameras. Even your precious iPhone and Samsung GS1,2,3, and 4 all had SONY cameras.

 

I get your point. Apple has good design tastes. They products look great. And then what? What else do they have to offer? They don't contribute to the advancement of science and technology. They are trend-setters.

I have yet to hear someone rave about their TVs. In fact I've heard numerous complaints about stupid things their TVs do. I know one guy who replaced his TV only to have the replacement do the exact same thing. After the third one I think he went to Panasonic.

 

Not opinion on the laptops. I work as a computer repair agent working on nothing but PCs. The Sonys that come in are all useless. You can't get parts for them easily because the stupid system Sony has in place.

 

Sony cameras SUCK. I had a bottom of the line Panasonic digital video camera and my mate had the middle of the line Sony Digital 8 video camera and the difference in video quality was massive. The Sony had a yellow tinge all the way through it but my Panasonic had amazing crystal clear image with correct colours. I have yet to see a decent image taken with a Carl Zeiss lens. I don't see why people rave about those lenses.

 

Yes they do contribute to the advancement of science and technology. Many science labs use Macs because the power benefits are actually in favour of the Mac. Grand Central allows huge processing advantages for maths applications including the industry standard MathLab.

 

USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.

 

If Microsoft had their way we'd still be using those ridiculous heavy touchscreen laptops that they've been failing to sell for the past 10 years.

post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual View Post

Microsoft pulled in $21.6 billion in profit for the last FY. They're a great company with a truly competent engineering team. They're also smart enough to make a search engine rivaling google's. Where's Apple's? Even Apple iCloud service is powered by Microsoft's Azure servers.

 

And of course, you're gonna blame the developers. This feels like some of the mindless SONY fanboys who blamed game developers for not taking advantage of the CELL processor when it was SONY's fault for making a highly complicated architecture.

You didn't read how much Apple made for last QUARTER did you?

 

Apple doesn't make a search engine and Bing is useless as a search engine compared to Google and Google search sucks.

 

Nice try

post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

I have yet to hear someone rave about their TVs. In fact I've heard numerous complaints about stupid things their TVs do. I know one guy who replaced his TV only to have the replacement do the exact same thing. After the third one I think he went to Panasonic.

 

Not opinion on the laptops. I work as a computer repair agent working on nothing but PCs. The Sonys that come in are all useless. You can't get parts for them easily because the stupid system Sony has in place.

 

Sony cameras SUCK. I had a bottom of the line Panasonic digital video camera and my mate had the middle of the line Sony Digital 8 video camera and the difference in video quality was massive. The Sony had a yellow tinge all the way through it but my Panasonic had amazing crystal clear image with correct colours. I have yet to see a decent image taken with a Carl Zeiss lens. I don't see why people rave about those lenses.

 

Yes they do contribute to the advancement of science and technology. Many science labs use Macs because the power benefits are actually in favour of the Mac. Grand Central allows huge processing advantages for maths applications including the industry standard MathLab.

 

USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.

 

If Microsoft had their way we'd still be using those ridiculous heavy touchscreen laptops that they've been failing to sell for the past 10 years.

USB - Created by M-Systems

Thunderbolt - Intel

Touchscreens - Apple doesn't engineer anything...

 

Just because they use technology created by other companies doesn't mean they invented it They may have pushed and helped make the tech become mainstream, but they didn't advance it. Advancement is done by companies with a real engineering department like IBM and Samsung. Apple is a repackager.

post #19 of 36
Who cares who had the idea first... it's he who gets to the patent office first that wins.

 

This is the same reason writers send a a copy of their book/writings Certified Mail to themselves, then never open the envelope with it. Gives them a "dated" copy for any future need for court or copyright issues.

 

I have seen many super generic patents still remain. One is about controller reacting to something on the screen, i.e. rumble, etc. And it still remains.

 

It's whoever is looking at the patents during the "court time" if they understand or even want to understand it, and then "invalidate" it. Many times if someone challenges a patent they automatically invalidate, and then the whole fun begins on revalidating by the patent holder, or proving it, sort of speak. The same old excuse of "prior art" is always needed. But I bet you that the patent office person who "invalidated" this again has an Android phone on their hip or in their pocket.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice View Post

In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).

Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- History: www.touchscreencomputers.co.uk/history.html

If these examples of prior artwork and this is the method the USPTO is using then I said this before there are plenty of patents which should never been grant since there is plenty of prior artwork examples for lots of patents. Today there is very few example of some totally new or unique designs. If look hard enough and you can fine prior artwork as well as anticipated, which mean to the average person it would be an obviously solution to a problem.

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Obviously Apple should have never gotten a pinch-to-zoom patent considering pinch-to-zoom had been demonstrated for years before the iPhone. 

 

Where? Not arguing as I don't know, so I'm asking. 

post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice View Post

In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).

Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
 

 

So Adobe InDesign was envisioned from SketchPad :P 


Edited by Richard Getz - 7/29/13 at 3:28pm
post #23 of 36

Apple still has 2 months to proof that the pinch to zoom patent is valid. I am sure Apple will be able to proof this, and still get money from Samsung for patent infringement. The people that invented pinch to zoom did not patent it, so the patent should belong to Apple. And I hope Apple (the patent holder) sues every device maker with pinch to zoom on their devices. This feature should only be available on Apple products, and Apple products alone.

post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade View Post

Who cares who had the idea first... it's he who gets to the patent office first that wins.

 

Not when there's prior art.  And there's a lot of it for pinch zoom, going back decades.

 

Which is why Apple does NOT have a patent on pinch-to-zoom itself.   Nobody does.

 

--

 

Instead, this particular patent tries to do an end run, by claiming the combination of looking for one finger for scrolling and two or more fingers for zooming. 

 

Apple will probably attempt to rewrite the claims to salvage the patent.  Usually that works to some extent.  Not sure it's possible this time, though. 

 

For a lot more info on the prior art that the USPTO found towards invalidating this patent, see AI's original story back in December.

post #25 of 36
He lasted a little longer than I expected. . . Thanks Marvin (I think).
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 36
In the battle of Samsung vs Apple, the winner is.....






lawyers
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

...

 

USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.

 

Apple pushed USB??  Sorry, USB was around and growing in the PC arena and Apple was pushing Firewire.  They eventually came over to USB because that was dominating the market. Remember, the iPod launched Firewire only.

 

Thunderbolt?  Apple bought the rights so they could have exclusivity blocking others from using it until 2012.

 

Touchscreens?  Apple made them easy to use and mainstreamed them in phones, that part is right.


Edited by icoco3 - 7/30/13 at 6:08am
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

Sorry, USB was around and growing in the PC arena…

And where's this evidence of "growing USB usage" in 1998 before the iMac was released?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

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

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

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

 

Reply
post #29 of 36

Bizarre. I'm not quite sure what exactly the USPTO / US government has against Apple. Maybe not enough backhanders to those at the top...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice View Post

Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U

 

Anyway, I've watched the linked videos. Can't see that any of them include "Pinch to zoom" functionality. They contain examples of 'zooming' (i.e. scaling) an image, but I'm not aware of Apple seeking to patent the entire concept of graphical scaling.

 

If you think that there are example of "pinch to zoom" in these videos, please could you indicate the relevant timestamps? Thanks.

post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post

Bizarre. I'm not quite sure what exactly the USPTO / US government has against Apple. Maybe not enough backhanders to those at the top...

 

It's not about being "against Apple".  It's about the fact that the USPTO got overwhelmed, and was more concerned with quantity than quality.  Now the mess has to be cleaned up.

 

As for your question about pinch to zoom history, I posted a link above.  However, I see now that it's unlikely people will take the time to click it.  So I'll repeat the info here to make it easier for everyone:

 

Finger pinch zoom on computers dates from at least 1983.
 
It was featured in both a 1993 concept film script, and a very popular 1996 book, from a Sun Microsystems UI developer:
 
 

 

It was demoed to Apple by a Mitsubishi inventor in 2003.  (They had been doing multi-touch research since the 1990s.)
 
And of course everyone remembers Jeff Han showing it off at TED in 2006.  (Han was also the one who stopped Apple from getting a trademark on "Multi-Touch", by pointing out to the USPTO that it was a generic industry term.)
 
 
 
Then there was the first publicly announced multi-touch phone, by the Open Linux movement. (The multi-touch unfortunately didn't come to production right away because of cost.  But the idea was there. )  It was to have a 2.8 inch capacitive touchscreen with 640x480 display.
 
It was announced in Nov 2006, two months before the top secret iPhone was revealed by Steve Jobs.  Note the four icon dock, btw.
 

 

 

Engadget noted it as having "multi-touch gesture recognition", and one of its unique features was to be pinch zoom.  Pictures below are from the original Nov 7, 2006 Gizmodo article that was generally ignored at the time.  It wasn't until the iPhone came out that suddenly they remembered the previous Linux phone. 

 

 

There were even reporters at the time who thought that Apple had copied some of the Linux phone ideas, but I think it was simply more a matter of convergence due to the time being ripe for the technology.   Which is another reason why many of these patents are a bad idea.  Everyone was having the same ideas, but few were trying to patent them.  That's something big companies do the most.


Edited by KDarling - 7/30/13 at 12:19pm
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice View Post

In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).

Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- History: www.touchscreencomputers.co.uk/history.html

So I went to the Starfire and the T3 tablet youtube videos.

 

In the Starfire video, the pinch feature was used to duplicate the video controls, not to do zooming. 

 

The Tandy T3 wasn't really a two finger pinch either but more to do with dual handed mouse click gestures. 

post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

It's not about being "against Apple".  It's about the fact that the USPTO got overwhelmed, and was more concerned with quantity than quality.  Now the mess has to be cleaned up.

 

 

 

As I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent expert), the basis of Samsung's claims is the invalidity of Apple's patents. But back few year ago, when they started implementing the gestures, the Apple's patent had been already issued. They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they? And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?

post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


And where's this evidence of "growing USB usage" in 1998 before the iMac was released?

 

Any evidence it was "growing" after the iMac was released?  Don't remember peripheral manufacturers scrambling to support it until is was becoming widely available on PC's late 2000 and beyond.

post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

The whole idea that some government asshat gets to sit around and say the methods were obvious back then after using an iPhone for 5 years is crap. If they were so damn obvious, others would have used them or at least attempted to patent them.


Yes.  Apple should never have got that and a number of patents in the first place.  With companies like Apple submitting so many rubbish patents, they are completely overwhelmed and just grant all these patents until it ends up in court wasting every one's time and money.  What's crap is that it took them 5 years to invalidate them.

post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

As I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent expert), the basis of Samsung's claims is the invalidity of Apple's patents. But back few year ago, when they started implementing the gestures, the Apple's patent had been already issued. They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they? And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?

 

Good questions, and you actually answered them with your guesses.

 

(The reason this is so late, is that I originally wrote up a long and detailed response.  However, I don't think people read those. So I waited until I had a weekend to cut a much shorter version.)

 

--

 

The common response you see from any infringement defendant (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, et al) is to argue the patent ...

  • is invalid,
  • if valid, it doesn't apply to them,
  • if it does apply, it's covered by a license,
  • if no license, it isn't worth much and/or it's FRAND.

 

Quote:
They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they?

 

Right, they couldn't rely on that happening

 

Quote:
And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?

 

Just as you suggested, Samsung did base their defense on a claim that their code steps were different from Apple's patent.  Figuring this out is sometimes hard for experts, much less for juries.

 

Confusingly, the jury decided that most, but not all, of the accused Samsung phones infringed on this particular Apple patent.  

 

Yet _all_ of the phones used the same code.  Technically, the jury's verdict made no sense.

 

It's this kind of inexplicable result that has made their entire verdict suspect.

post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Good questions, and you actually answered them with your guesses.

 

(The reason this is so late, is that I originally wrote up a long and detailed response.  However, I don't think people read those. So I waited until I had a weekend to cut a much shorter version.)

 

--

 

The common response you see from any infringement defendant (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, et al) is to argue the patent ...

  • is invalid,
  • if valid, it doesn't apply to them,
  • if it does apply, it's covered by a license,
  • if no license, it isn't worth much and/or it's FRAND.

 

 

Right, they couldn't rely on that happening

 

 

Just as you suggested, Samsung did base their defense on a claim that their code steps were different from Apple's patent.  Figuring this out is sometimes hard for experts, much less for juries.

 

Confusingly, the jury decided that most, but not all, of the accused Samsung phones infringed on this particular Apple patent.  

 

Yet _all_ of the phones used the same code.  Technically, the jury's verdict made no sense.

 

It's this kind of inexplicable result that has made their entire verdict suspect

 

Thanks, appreciate it. A long answer would be even better :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung gets a boost with USPTO's 'final' rejection of Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent