I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...
I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....
Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL
Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL
It is good for that Apple got it banned on a real patent, it is bad that it has probably invalidated the vast majority of their look and feel crap and that the fix will be very easy to make.
Also, I doubt that very many customers who would be swayed by this will even find out about it. You have to read forms like this one to know anything about it. If you do read forums like this one, you probably already know enough of the facts that this would not have any effect on your smartphone decision one way or the other....
No reason for Samsung to continue to do this. They just need to make peace with Apple and tweak their designs a bit. Samsung should never have let it go this far.
Agree. There's something about the Samsung mentality. Maybe a holdover from the Korean war. North and South Korea still don't have a peace treaty. Just a cease-fire. Neither side wants to back down first.
I hope, for Samsung's shareholders' sake, that Samsung *does* back down. That they'll innovate and stop copying. Otherwise, it's time to uninstall the current top management.
". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.
Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.
Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.
If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.
If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.
The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.
As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.
As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.
If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.
It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.
Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.
This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.
Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
By the way it was written, I thought he was implying that there was a great underground desire for Coors in Europe. I can see how what I said makes no sense if that's not what was meant.
It was clear what you thought. And that's not what he meant. HTH.
so, in summary, apple patented a bunch of stuff that other people already did, i.e. apple copied/stole other's ideas and then claimed them as it's own
then apple takes samsung to court, claiming it copied/stole apple's ideas
pot, kettle
as for swiping images, pretty much how i remember moving stuff in/out from under the magnifier on a light table in ye olde days, it's intuitive/obvious, and so shouldn't be patentable, from memory i think i also wiggled a few back and forth
in fact i feel a law coming on...
my law:
intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable
". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
It sounds to me like the judge was just "throwing a bone" to Apple rather than invalidating every one of their specious claims and telling them to go take a hike.
It is distressing that the AI article is so twisted as to ignore the major substantive portions of the ruling, and instead, focuses on a minor matter, presenting it as some sort of huge win for Apple. Putting on a good face is one thing - ignoring the most important aspects of the story is quite another. Seemingly, AI cannot be trusted to fairly report the facts. Very sad.
Comments
Well,
I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...
I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....
Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL
Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL
It is good for that Apple got it banned on a real patent, it is bad that it has probably invalidated the vast majority of their look and feel crap and that the fix will be very easy to make.
Also, I doubt that very many customers who would be swayed by this will even find out about it. You have to read forms like this one to know anything about it. If you do read forums like this one, you probably already know enough of the facts that this would not have any effect on your smartphone decision one way or the other....
What if Galaxy phones became the new Coors and were highly coveted as irresistable forbidden contraband delivered by smugglers?
That would be awesome! They could remake Smokey and the Bandit!
-kpluck
Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?
Seriously, it was way ahead of its time.
No reason for Samsung to continue to do this. They just need to make peace with Apple and tweak their designs a bit. Samsung should never have let it go this far.
Agree. There's something about the Samsung mentality. Maybe a holdover from the Korean war. North and South Korea still don't have a peace treaty. Just a cease-fire. Neither side wants to back down first.
I hope, for Samsung's shareholders' sake, that Samsung *does* back down. That they'll innovate and stop copying. Otherwise, it's time to uninstall the current top management.
". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.
Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.
Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone
And the Nokia 7710?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.
If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.
Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.
Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone
And the Nokia 7710?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.
If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.
The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
"A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008."
"It was first announced on December 12, 2006."
Why don't you try reading the article first next time.....
The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.
Sounds spot on to me.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/t...ble-chocolate/
Note the part were it says the Internation Design Forum was probably aware of the design for a while before anyone else.
Is that a chromed metalic band I see on the sides?
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.
As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.
Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.
As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
lol the prada was not released after the G1.
Also since when were you a judge?
You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.
So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg
As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.
If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:
". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.
It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.
Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.
This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.
Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
By the way it was written, I thought he was implying that there was a great underground desire for Coors in Europe. I can see how what I said makes no sense if that's not what was meant.
It was clear what you thought. And that's not what he meant. HTH.
then apple takes samsung to court, claiming it copied/stole apple's ideas
pot, kettle
as for swiping images, pretty much how i remember moving stuff in/out from under the magnifier on a light table in ye olde days, it's intuitive/obvious, and so shouldn't be patentable, from memory i think i also wiggled a few back and forth
in fact i feel a law coming on...
my law:
intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable
From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:
". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.
The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.
The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
It sounds to me like the judge was just "throwing a bone" to Apple rather than invalidating every one of their specious claims and telling them to go take a hike.
It is distressing that the AI article is so twisted as to ignore the major substantive portions of the ruling, and instead, focuses on a minor matter, presenting it as some sort of huge win for Apple. Putting on a good face is one thing - ignoring the most important aspects of the story is quite another. Seemingly, AI cannot be trusted to fairly report the facts. Very sad.
my law:
intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable
What an asinine statement.