Samsung lawyer couldn't tell iPad and Galaxy Tab apart from 10 feet away

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 194
    In deference to MacRulez, I think Bill Buxton summed things up nicely with this phrase:
    Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee



    Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf
    Note the FACT that Wayne Westerman and his company FingerWorks were acquired by Apple in 2005. In regards to the Knight-Rider think tank. It went belly up more than 10 years before the Apple Multi-Touch patent was filed for. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/03/bu...earch-lab.html So much for any prior patents there, as they would have expired if there were any. As to Microsoft's "Competing" patent, they have not sued Apple for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be that they are the ones trying to run patent interference. Would a company that has been accused and convicted of anticompetitive business practices in more than one country possibly be the guilty party? Maybe this "patent" is part of the reason why Microsoft chose to strong-arm Android licensees rather than actually challenge Google directly.



    Leave it to the FanDroids to use specious logic to defend IP theft. Like product like consumer.
  • Reply 102 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by csmith123 View Post


    In deference to MacRulez, I think Bill Buxton summed things up nicely with this phrase:
    Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touchin 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee



    Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf
    Note the FACT that Wayne Westerman and his company FingerWorks were acquired by Apple in 2005. In regards to the Knight-Rider think tank. It went belly up more than 10 years before the Apple Multi-Touch patent was filed for. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/03/bu...earch-lab.html So much for any prior patents there, as they would have expired if there were any. As to Microsoft's "Competing" patent, they have not sued Apple for some reason. I wonder why? Could it be that they are the ones trying to run patent interference. Would a company that has been accused and convicted of anticompetitive business practices in more than one country possibly be the guilty party? Maybe this "patent" is part of the reason why Microsoft chose to strong-arm Android licensees rather than actually challenge Google directly.



    Leave it to the FanDroids to use specious logic to defend IP theft. Like product like consumer.



    You just pretty much pointed out that multi-touch screens should be unpatentable as well as some gestures....then you somehow saw that as something bad and pro Apple because the company went under? If the patents expired aren't they open to all at that point?
  • Reply 103 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Well jump in a time machine and go back and help Samsung's lawyer to do that.



    Tough luck, you can't.



    Could have, would have, should have, the lawyers blew it.



    The lawyers blew it, get over it, move on.



    Samsung slavishly copied Apple and everyone except a few diehards knows that.



    if Samsung slavishly copied Apple they would've made a 4:3 device with a single button on the front and an iOS like modification of Android on it.



    What samsung did was take a few too many design cues from Apple and SHOULD pay for that. However what Apple is going for sets a negative precedent for the entire industry.



    IN



    MY



    OPINION.
  • Reply 104 of 194
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by j1h15233 View Post


    This lawyer should have at least guessed. She had a 50/50 shot haha.



    And if the lawyer guessed and got it wrong, it would be ten times the story. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing the rule to follow in court is "Don't bullshit the judge. It'll bite you."
  • Reply 105 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    that Apple's patent might be invalid



    A little logic for you...



    The fact that it MIGHT be invalid is the same as saying it MIGHT NOT be invalid.



    If you allow for the possibility that something might be true, it's corollary is also true.
  • Reply 106 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    Yep,



    You simply have to turn them on and realize that they are completely different...



    I hate the look and feel patents.... The patents should be banned not the hardware....



    I don't mind look and feel patents...but they should be a LOT more specific.
  • Reply 107 of 194
    IF you can't tell a 16:9 screen apart from at 4:3 screen you shouldn't be ab;e to be a lawyer.
  • Reply 108 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


    well, i probably can't tell samsung tv and sony tv apart from 10 feet away.



    Well... that's the point of these lawsuits. Sammy copies everyone's popular products!
  • Reply 109 of 194
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    This will all blow over eventually. I really don't think Apple will lose much business to Samsung regardless of the outcome here. The huge pool of apps alone justifies buying the ipad.
  • Reply 110 of 194
    The ability of human beings to miss the point can be astonishing.



    When this case started, Apple had to prove that Samsung violated patents. The judge has agreed that Samsung did violate Apple's patents. To pretend that isn't a huge victory or that now they won't be able to prove that those violations are valid is silly. Apple has been winning these cases.



    In fact, isn't this the fourth time a judge in a court of law has said or ruled that Samsung violated Apple's patents?



    How many times does this have to happen before Samsung buckles? Plus, Samsung hasn't won any of their countersuits. It's getting worse for them.



    To miss the overall point that yet another judge has said that Samsung violated patents, and to miss how Samsung keeps losing, and instead focus on one narrow point, that doesn't even go against Apple really, shows that one has a myopic viewpoint concerning this case.
  • Reply 111 of 194
    This article was written to be fanboy flame bait \

    *saying that and not arguing gives me a special feeling of superiority*
  • Reply 112 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post


    I think this whole lawsuit is just a warning shot to Samsung. They obviously copy the style, which, no coincidentally, is what most of Apple's and Steve's patents are for: design.



    They must have been off because Android does not look like iOS.



    Most of Apple's patents aren't on design. But those design patents often tie in with non-design patents.
  • Reply 113 of 194
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 114 of 194
    eluardeluard Posts: 319member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iamme73 View Post


    The ability of human beings to miss the point can be astonishing.



    When this case started, Apple had to prove that Samsung violated patents. The judge has agreed that Samsung did violate Apple's patents. To pretend that isn't a huge victory or that now they won't be able to prove that those violations are valid is silly. Apple has been winning these cases.



    In fact, isn't this the fourth time a judge in a court of law has said or ruled that Samsung violated Apple's patents?



    How many times does this have to happen before Samsung buckles? Plus, Samsung hasn't won any of their countersuits. It's getting worse for them.



    To miss the overall point that yet another judge has said that Samsung violated patents, and to miss how Samsung keeps losing, and instead focus on one narrow point, that doesn't even go against Apple really, shows that one has a myopic viewpoint concerning this case.





    Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.
  • Reply 115 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eluard View Post


    Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.



    No kidding. I was reading Ars and a poster asked, "How is copying uncompetitive?" I almost spat out my coffee. It makes me wonder if some of the people who says/writes this stuff have jobs or have business dealings in day-to-day life in any meaningful way.
  • Reply 116 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eluard View Post


    Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.



    What people are saying at least here is that no one should have a patent on the general concept of a minimal tablet. The specific design? Hell yes (and Apple has the specific iPad design patent and rightfully so) a general drawing of a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad and resembles tablets prior to the filing? No.



    As far as the more technical software patents go I and apparently s lot of judges feel some of them are too broad and basic for a legal monopoly to be upheld.



    Those who feel Samsung should be allowed to continue its copying are misguided yes, but as I see here most of the opposers are against some of the most general of patents.



    Opinions on these cases aren't a zero sum game. I don't like Samsungs non Nexus devices. In some iterations the subpar ripping off is so blatant Samsung should be forced to recall. The docks and connector similarity as well.



    But rounded rectangles? No.



    And I'm not really sure what the multi touch patents are specifically so I can't comment on those but if I'm reading them correctly then they are ridiculously general and in some cases nullified (it seems) by prior art.
  • Reply 117 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    No kidding. I was reading Ars and a poster asked, "How is copying uncompetitive?" I almost spat out my coffee. It makes me wonder if some of the people who says/writes this stuff have jobs or have business dealings in day-to-day life in any meaningful way.



    Whoever said that is probably too anti Apple to think clearly.



    Or picked their words poorly.



    I feel if company A causes a paradigm shift in a market then others should be allowed to modify business and tech accordingly to compete in this new or modified market. As long as enough differentiation exists it should be allowed (iOS and Android post iOS).
  • Reply 118 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    What people are saying at least here is that no one should have a patent on the general concept of a minimal tablet. The specific design? Hell yes (and Apple has the specific iPad design patent and rightfully so) a general drawing of a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad and resembles tablets prior to the filing? No.



    As far as the more technical software patents go I and apparently s lot of judges feel some of them are too broad and basic for a legal monopoly to be upheld.



    Those who feel Samsung should be allowed to continue its copying are misguided yes, but as I see here most of the opposers are against some of the most general of patents.



    Opinions on these cases aren't a zero sum game. I don't like Samsungs non Nexus devices. In some iterations the subpar ripping off is so blatant Samsung should be forced to recall. The docks and connector similarity as well.



    But rounded rectangles? No.



    And I'm not really sure what the multi touch patents are specifically so I can't comment on those but if I'm reading them correctly then they are ridiculously general and in some cases nullified (it seems) by prior art.



    I would understand (and even agree) with much of your post except the "rounded rectangle" argument. In that particular case, there were six (6) criteria which included rounded edges and Samsung's product had ALL six (6). There are tons of products that are "rounded rectangles" sold every year and Apple isn't suing those companies. The fact of the matter is there is an amalgamation of design elements that must be used in a product before it is deemed a "copy" and Samsung crossed that line. Boohoo, reap the consequences.
  • Reply 119 of 194
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I would understand (and even agree) with much of your post except the "rounded rectangle" argument. In that particular case, there were six (6) criteria which included rounded edges and Samsung's product had ALL six (6). There are tons of products that are "rounded rectangles" sold every year and Apple isn't suing those companies. The fact of the matter is there is an amalgamation of design elements that must be used in a product before it is deemed a "copy" and Samsung crossed that line. Boohoo, reap the consequences.



    But the Tab 10.1 really doesn't look like an iPad though.



    Do you know what the six criteria were? Because all I could find was that the ban was based on a drawing.
  • Reply 120 of 194
    The lawyer should have said "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me".
Sign In or Register to comment.