or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple unlocks new Copy Cat docs as evidence Samsung pilfered iPhone unlock
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unlocks new Copy Cat docs as evidence Samsung pilfered iPhone unlock - Page 2

post #41 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

This is getting pretty silly. All of these guys borrow from each other, which is nothing new.

I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center. Even microsoft finally came out with their own copycat version of androids windowshade at this years build.

I don't see how slide to unlock is any different than the windowshade. Nothing to see here, just companies borrowing ideas from each other. Move along.

The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.
Edited by RadarTheKat - 4/6/14 at 3:03pm
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #42 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

This is getting pretty silly. All of these guys borrow from each other, which is nothing new.

I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center. Even microsoft finally came out with their own copycat version of androids windowshade at this years build.

I don't see how slide to unlock is any different than the windowshade. Nothing to see here, just companies borrowing ideas from each other. Move along.

Yeah, ScamScum just "borrowed" all of Apple's hours of R&D to figure out how to lock a device so the battery wouldn't go dead but innovate and invent an intuative process and easy wasy for this to be done. If it's no big deal then why don't you just share all of your hard earned (doubt it) with me you imbecile.
post #43 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

The patent system is critical to invention and innovation.  That is why patents are enshrined in the Constitution.

Now, that doesn't mean that the USTPO doesn't make some poor decisions.  They do.  Personally, I believe that software patents as a whole should not be allowed.  But the fact is, the legal system is there to enforce the decisions which are made, whether or not they are good decisions in the first place.

Now, all that being said, Apple and Samsung are loved in battle because they don't like each other.  That's something different.  But that in no way implies that Apple should just throw up their arms and say, "Oh well.  Forget it."

I must admit, as a holder of two software methodology patents myself, I just don't get the argument as to why software patents should not be allowed. What a patent protects, at the most basic level, is the hard work and resources that go into creating a new idea. Back in the Industrial Age, machines incorporated logic in mechanical workings. Today, that logic is called software and some of the most ingenious advances of the modern world are software advances. If IBM and others (Tibco comes to mind) couldn't protect their ideas around big data analysis, if Oracle couldn't protect ideas around super fast sorting or database mirroring, would they be motivated to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advancing the state of the art? Not so much if anyone could simply come along and steal those technologies. And patents are linear and proportional in their protection of ideas. Consider those who would argue that something like slide to unlock is silly to protect with a patent. That it's an idea that isn't worthy of patent protection. But that's a fallacious argument; if it's not worth much, then surely those who would infringe such a patent could simply apply a different method to solve the same problem. If you think a patented idea has no value then you should have no difficulty coming up with an equal or better idea. I think someone who sits at a desk and designs a novel software method to, say, vary the timing on an automobile engine, which can make an engine run more efficiently and produce more power without having to redesign the engine should be offered the same protection for her idea as the same person using a CAD program to design a new and novel engine architecture that yields the same efficiency and performance boosts, the only difference being the novel engine design actually gets turned into a physical device (an engine) and therefore satisfies the notion of a utility patent better in the mind of a person who is stuck in the Industrial Age.
Edited by RadarTheKat - 4/5/14 at 10:45pm
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #44 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

I must admit, as a holder of two software methodology patents myself, I just don't get the argument as to why software patents should not be allowed. What a patent protects, at the most basic level, is the hard work and resources that go into creating a new idea. Back in the Industrial Age, machines incorporated logic in mechanical workings. Today, that logic is called software and some of the most ingenious advances of the modern world are software advances. If IBM and others (Tibco comes to mind) couldn't protect their ideas around big data analysis, if Oracle couldn't protect ideas around super fast sorting or database mirroring, would they be motivated to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advancing the state of the art? Not so much if anyone could simply come along and steal those technologies. And patents are linear and proportional in their protection of ideas. Consider those who would argue that something like slide to unlock is silly to protect with a patent. That it's an idea that isn't worthy of patent protection. But that's a fallacious argument; if its not worth much, then surely those who would infringe such a patent could simply apply a different method to solve the same problem. If you think a patented idea has no value then you should have no difficulty coming up with an equal or better idea. I think someone who sits at a desk and designs a novel software method to, say, vary the timing on an automobile engine, which can make an engine run more efficiently and produce more power without having to redesign the engine should be offered the same protection for her idea as the same person using a CAD program to design a new and novel engine architecture that yields the same efficiency and performance boosts, the only difference being the novel engine design actually gets turned into a physical device (an engine) and therefore satisfies the notion of a utility patent better in the mind of a person who is stuck in the Industrial Age.

I'm torn on SW patents. I think there needs to be a new category for protecting SW ideas that bridges aspects of both patens and copyrights with its own set of rules.

"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 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?

The answer to your question resides within the law. It states, not in these exact words (I'm too lazy tonight to go look it up) that if you publish before filing your patent application, you have, in effect, placed your invention into the public domain for all to freely use. So if you release a product with some innovation in it and you haven't previously applied for a patent on that innovation, you have just given it to your competition and they would be foolish not to adopt it unless they have an even better idea. I ran into this myself in the software industry. In a start-up company you are quick to get something out there in order to begin generating revenue or proving out an idea so that you can raise a round of investment. Inevitably there's a conversation between the product development guy (that would be me as co-founder and VP Product Development) and the CEO and CFO and marketing folks. You make your case to wait to file and they say, we don't even know if it has value until we test the market, so Go! And you go and you hope you remain more fleet of foot than the next guy who will have free access to your IP.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #46 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm torn on SW patents. I think there needs to be a new category for protecting SW ideas that bridges aspects of both patens and copyrights with its own set of rules.

Trademark law and design patents do that pretty well. Here's a write-up I did back in the days of the first big Apple/Samsung trial that explains this:

Apple's assertion in its lawsuits is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents.  These particular patents are known as design patents.  It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist.  There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law.  Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark.  By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger.  Why?  For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores.  The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal.  This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.

Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law.  This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas.  Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively.  Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement. 

Here's what this case was about:  After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law.  Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand.  After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products.  Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand.  Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari.  Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari.  The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.

But how does this relate to design patent law? 

The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers.  Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.

This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #47 of 231
To me, this article shows that something that in the final product and it's use is perceived as simple, natural and intuitive can indeed require intensive research to develop and design. Obviously, the engineering team at samsung can be assumed to own decent capabilities. Still, after many different approaches they finally hone in on the iPhone design solution. Just for this alone I would consider Apple's solution patent worthy. I don't know how many cues they took from the alleged prior art, however.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #48 of 231
Wow

I remember phones before the iPhone ! Have people forgotten what Phones were like ,

iPhone has changed what we do with our phones

It took lots of innovation and investments !

Thank you apple for making a incredible phone which everybody copied

People who steal should be punished !

Hopefully justice will prevail
post #49 of 231
People like to claim Apple has borrowed (or stolen) many deals from Android, to which. Have two questiions:

1. Why hasn't Apple been sued (or counter sued) for their "stealing"?

2. Are you sure Android actually had the idea first?
post #50 of 231

I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here:  Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs.  Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful.  I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu.  I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.

post #51 of 231
Willful infringement has nevervbeen so easy to prove, those dimwits carefully accumulated all the needed documentation -- which also proves how they either are incredibly clueless about the law, or that it was a calculated move where they expected to gain sufficient market dominance that it would be worth paying the triple damages that go with it.
Either way, I hope they're severely punished. I wiuldn't be sad to see their arrogant business of shitty copycat phones go belly up.
post #52 of 231
Seriously guys i've watched Steve Jobs introduction to new iPhone the first one
Watch it from start to end and then you can talk shit !! http://www.youtube.com/embed/ftf4riVJyqw?autoplay=1

We seem to forget very easily

I apologise but I can't believe some of the comments
post #53 of 231
Sorry for the gratuitous comment, but I just noticed that DED has written a weekend editorial. It's a grey, wet day here in London, and this is just the tonic. I haven't yet read it, but am looking forward to it. Thanks, Mr. Dilger!
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #54 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Daniel is educating people with cold hard facts, not throwing out rumors like other sites.

I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
post #55 of 231
We now see what happens when Samsung stopped copying every Apple idea. They release their fingerprint scanner that you have to actually laugh at when compared alongside Touch ID. Just look at what Samsung came up with for their S5, when they know Apple's lawyers will be filing complaint after complaint if the copycats continued. I think Samsung learned their lesson after the first verdict, and decided to copy, but just make the copy a little bit different to avoid being sued.

Case and point, the swipe to unlock was similar to Apple's but the test groups favored Apple's overwhelmingly. Now Samsung copied Touch ID, but not fully, and because if this, they have a very poor fingerprint scanner relative to Apple's.

I see Samsung struggling to innovate in the future. So, these lawsuits served their purpose, even if Apple doesn't collect a red cent. The lawsuit have had a tremendous effect just on the S5. Without them, Samsung might have, might, released an almost identical version of Touch ID.
post #56 of 231

DED for testimony !

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #57 of 231

I think you are a bit over optimistic here : Samsung does not care about the possible legal implications of copying. In this particular case , they were just unable to match the elegance and efficiency of Apple implementation ....

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #58 of 231
I'm not worried about Apple. I've noticed that other companies just can't stop themselves from making hard to understand UIs. They try but can never keep for long. It's in their genes.
I tried the S5 a few days ago. I tried to be objective in my head and...well... I didn't like it. First thing I did is open the news feed and amazingly it lagged swiping to the feed and scrolling through it.
post #59 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric38 View Post

We now see what happens when Samsung stopped copying every Apple idea. They release their fingerprint scanner that you have to actually laugh at when compared alongside Touch ID. Just look at what Samsung came up with for their S5, when they know Apple's lawyers will be filing complaint after complaint if the copycats continued. I think Samsung learned their lesson after the first verdict, and decided to copy, but just make the copy a little bit different to avoid being sued.

Case and point, the swipe to unlock was similar to Apple's but the test groups favored Apple's overwhelmingly. Now Samsung copied Touch ID, but not fully, and because if this, they have a very poor fingerprint scanner relative to Apple's.

I see Samsung struggling to innovate in the future. So, these lawsuits served their purpose, even if Apple doesn't collect a red cent. The lawsuit have had a tremendous effect just on the S5. Without them, Samsung might have, might, released an almost identical version of Touch ID.

Their incompetence with coming up with a sensor like on the iPhone has nothing to do with them avoiding to copy. Touch sensors are also produced by Validity, maybe on par to those Authentec did. They didn't put one because they couldn't implement it properly, while the old tech they used they know pretty well, even if it sucks compared to Touch ID.
post #60 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.

But it was one of the things that made the iPhone an iPhone.
post #61 of 231

I notice Florian Mueller refers to Samsung's documenta as "benchmarking"...

 

...don't forget that Samsung cheats on benchmarks too.

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 #62 of 231

There are more people reading this site than you may think.

Please keep posting.

post #63 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post


The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.

 

Yes, they did and the thing that differentiates it from the drop downs Apple first introduced with the Lisa is the presence of persistent icons in the notification bar across the top of the screen to indicate the presence of notifications.

 

This forms part 1 of Google's patent, everything else builds on that.

 

So no, Google can't sue because Apple doesn't infringe.

 


Edited by hill60 - 4/6/14 at 3:49am
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 #64 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

This is getting pretty silly. All of these guys borrow from each other, which is nothing new.

I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center. Even microsoft finally came out with their own copycat version of androids windowshade at this years build.

I don't see how slide to unlock is any different than the windowshade. Nothing to see here, just companies borrowing ideas from each other. Move along.

What hell are you talking about? Android is complete rip off osx/ios.
Widgets notification Center where all on osx before android.
post #65 of 231
Are current Samsung phones still ripping off slide to unlock or the rubber banding patent? What's the end result? That Samsung pays Apple for what they infringed and then life goes on? I don't think anything in this trial is going to stop Samsung from being a fast follower.
post #66 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here:  Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs.  Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful.  I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu.  I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.

Please at least read the comments that came before yours. It's just common courtesy to read other people's views if you expect us to read yours. Several of us have already made the case about companies adopting ideas that are in the public domain (a McDonald's food item would certainly qualify) versus inventions that a company has patented and therefore legally owns as part of its intellectual property. Are we required to continue to make that same point? I guess maybe so. Sheesh!
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #67 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydrogen View Post

DED for testimony !

DED's articles
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.

Customers are influenced by the overall experience and recommendations from friends and associates. You'll note that Apple and Samsung already went to trial on a handful of other patents in which Apple won $920 million in damages. And now we're back for a new trial on five more Apple patents, which was initially more but the court required Apple to reduce the number. That's because the court doesn't want to have an overly long trial that ties up jurors and costs more taxpayers dollars. You have to take these facts into account, plus the fact that each patent must be contested individually during each trial. If Apple could bring to suit all of the patents it claims Samsung infringed in a single trial, you and others with the opinion you hold might see more clearly the significant injustice done to Apple by Samsung stealing its intellectual property. Eventually, after three or four more trials, perhaps it will become more clear the extent to which Samsung has done damage to Apple's business.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #68 of 231
post #69 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yes, they did and the thing that differentiates it from the drop downs Apple first introduced with the Lisa is the presence of persistent icons in the notification bar across the top of the screen to indicate the presence of notifications.

This forms part 1 of Google's patent, everything else builds on that.

So no, Google can't sue because Apple doesn't infringe.



Absolutely correct. Let me expand on that. From Claim 1 in Google's patent,

"displaying, in a status area near a perimeter of a graphical interface for a mobile device, a notification of a recent alert event for the mobile device, wherein the alert event corresponds to a change in status of an application operating on the mobile device or of an account associated with the mobile device;"

Any company that wishes to avoid infringement with this patent would simply avoid displaying, in the status area near a perimeter of a graphical display, a notification of a recent alert event. You'll note that in Apple's iPhone and iPad status area there exist the device identifier, a signal strength icon, screen rotation lock status (on the iPad), Bluetooth status, battery status, etc, but never anything related to notification of a recent event. Instead, Apple temporarily displays a drop down alert window, which after a moment recedes back off the display. That temporary alert window covers the status area but is not part of it, thus Apple's alert notification method is different from what Google describes in the referenced patent. If a product, such as the iPhone or iPad, does not infringe claim 1, then it automatically does not infringe any claims that reference back to (incorporate and build upon) claim 1, which, in this patent are claims 2 - 12. Claim 13 recapitulates claim 1 under a different instance of the invention, with claims 14 - 17 referencing claim 13, as does claim 18 with claims 19 - 20. Claim 21 and 22 speak to the displaying of the alerts and represent claims that are very broad and general and so would be very unlikely to hold up in a patent re-examination in light on prior art in the public domain, in my opinion.
Edited by RadarTheKat - 4/6/14 at 5:37am
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #70 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.
Even if Google obtains a patent for Windowshade, their difficulty comes in showing damages. The question would/must evolve into what monetary damages did Google suffer. That will be super difficult for Google in as much as they don't sell Android and drive no revenue from the software. And, they can't give/sell it (the patent) to Samsung to litigate because that would put every other phone vendor at risk.

As for Swipe to Lock: Samsung's own internal documents about Swipe to Lock make a pretty good case for the importance they place on the feature, and thus, the first step to establishing value. One only needs to look at incremental sales (difference between Samsung non-swipe and swipe unit sales) units to quantify the damages.
Edited by macaholic_1948 - 4/6/14 at 5:54am
post #71 of 231
Quote:

And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:

Apple and others use on/off toggles everywhere (just go into settings on any Smartphone). These are not patented and couldn't be given this video's existence from 1991. Slide to unlock certainly builds upon the sliding to change state metaphor, but patents express inventions in very specific terms where context and intent are paramount. In this case, Apple has not patented a slider that toggles (allows a user movement back and forth between) two separate states. Stated simply, Slide to unlock doesn't remain on your display after you've entered unlock mode so that you can slide it back to return to the locked mode. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #72 of 231
What Samsung thinks of it's own phone design:
"The document concluded that Samsung's own Amethyst phone "has weakness compare to iPhone in task success rate and satisfaction," noting "80 usability issues among 104 items" and the admission, "it is weak at aesthetic integrity, error tolerance, efficiency, simplicity." "

Priceless.
post #73 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:

Apple and others use on/off toggles everywhere (just go into settings on any Smartphone). These are not patented and couldn't be given this video's existence from 1991. Slide to unlock certainly builds upon the sliding to change state metaphor, but patents express inventions in very specific terms where context and intent are paramount. In this case, Apple has not patented a slider that toggles (allows a user movement back and forth between) two separate states. Stated simply, Slide to unlock doesn't remain on your display after you've entered unlock mode so that you can slide it back to return to the locked mode. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.
Now that you explain it that way it makes total sense. I still think the trouble Apple runs into (at least in the PR or media meme sense) is people will say slide to unlock is something completely obvious that should never have been granted a patent. So even if the jury decided Samsung violated that patent the public at large will say it was ridiculous that it ever received a patent in the first place and ridiculous that Apple sued over it. I'm not saying I agree, but that's what will happen IMO.
post #74 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:

. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.

Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?

EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today. 1biggrin.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/6/14 at 6:34am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?

EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today. 1biggrin.gif

My comment wasn't on the validity of Apple's slide to unlock patent. It was a comment on the applicability of the 1991 video as prior art. I am not aware of what countries Outside the U.S.have tested Apple's slide to unlock patent other than Germany where the patent rules differ. Not sure what your point is. Samsung needs to follow the rules of each country in which they sell their Sam-kit. This patent trial will determine whether they broke the rules here in the U.S.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #76 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


How exactly does Apple win? So Samsung pays a fine. It's a drop in the bucket. And doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile the media meme/public mindshare is that Apple is spending all their time on silly lawsuits over things that should never have been granted a patent in the first place. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing for Apple to win at this point and and all these confidential memos/emails being leaked do more harm than good.

Except the public sans a few fanboys on various sides of the issue doesn't care about, and largely isn't even aware of, ongoing litigation.

 

Every time Apple wins, it paints the adversary as an unsavory copyist, and maintains the publics perception that Apple products are uniquely consumer friendly by design.

post #77 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Even if Google obtains a patent for Windowshade, their difficulty comes in showing damages. The question would/must evolve into what monetary damages did Google suffer.
.

Google wouldn't proactively sue Apple anyway, That's the easiest explanation why it doesn't legally matter whether Apple might infringe on some Google IP.

FWIW logically they almost certainly do infringe on some Google owned intellectual property particularly since they have one of the largest patent portfolios in the world. No big tech can completely avoid infringement. Software patents are worded as broadly as the patent office will let them get away with so it's often not clear just what a specific one covers. Google is not one to initiate a lawsuit with Apple over a patent (or copyright) claim.. It's not something they have any history of doing with anyone else either. On the contrary they've demonstrated over and over their belief that technology should be made as widely available as possible, something that's hindered by aggressive patent enforcement They may own a lot of IP, a lot more than even Apple, but Google doesn't use it to sue competitors out the markets they'd like to lead.

MHO, and shared by others, they have so many patents simply because if they did not they'd be an easy target for several techs who would love some of Google's billions. There's zero evidence that Google plans to deploy them as offensive weapons or use the courts assistance to maintain or expand their market status, one of several areas where they differ from Apple and Microsoft.

And no, I'm not claiming a benevolent Google with clean hands. They're driven by profit just like all the others and may not always be the best neighbor, That has nothing to do with Google's aversion to neighborhood lawsuits.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/6/14 at 7:14am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay View Post

Except the public sans a few fanboys on various sides of the issue doesn't care about, and largely isn't even aware of, ongoing litigation.

Every time Apple wins, it paints the adversary as an unsavory copyist, and maintains the publics perception that Apple products are uniquely consumer friendly by design.
I disagree. If anything the media paints Apple as a bully and Samsung gets off scott free.
post #79 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Recent phones are pretty differentiated, at least enough so to make litigation more difficult, and Apple's phones have as much 'borrowed' features as other phones if not more (notifications, swiped the Swype keyboard, almost blatant holo UI knockoff in iOS7 etc).  I do think the big difference is Apple had 'Swipe to unlock' patented and Samsung pretty blatantly ripped it off.  

 

Wait, are we talking about the older Samsung implementations that used an iOS style left-to-right slider, or the current implementation of slide-to-unlock as found in, say, the Galaxy Nexus? Since ICS, Android's slide-to-unlock has allowed the user to swipe along any path from the center of a circle to any point on the circle; neither the endpoint nor the path are "predefined." 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/6/14 at 7:23am
post #80 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?

EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today. 1biggrin.gif

argumentum ad populum

Or in other words why protect what you don't have
and do not even believe in.

Good fishing here,
everyone crowd around,
and keep a weather eye out for our next "discovery".

Foss"s new chum was bound to attract new eye's,
but not mine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple unlocks new Copy Cat docs as evidence Samsung pilfered iPhone unlock
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple unlocks new Copy Cat docs as evidence Samsung pilfered iPhone unlock