The court is not supposed to have ANY position on the issue at the outset.
Where does he says the Court took a position? He says merely the Court seems convinced that Motorola is violating Apple's patent. More so at the end of the Hearing than before. Prior to the Hearing the Court has already likely been briefed on the matter through extensive legal pleadings. It would be highly unusual for a Judge to not form an opinion on something after reading the parties' briefs on the matter. Sometimes Judges don't even need a Hearing after reading the briefs because one party is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
Based on the second link, Apple does indeed have the patent on 'pinch to zoom' as used on pretty much every mobile device I've seen demoed in the last few years. Even with the limitations on the patent, how could anyone else's mobile device not pinch to zoom in almost exactly the way described in that patent?
You asked if anyone cared to post evidence of prior art, not whether Apple had been successful in obtaining a patent on some of the features of it, right? I don't think anyone claimed they didn't have one.
You asked if anyone cared to post evidence of prior art, not whether Apple had been successful in obtaining a patent on some of the features of it, right? I don't think anyone claimed they didn't have one.
The first linked article only mentions mention pinch to zoom in passing that Apple doesn't have a patent on multi-touch features, and the second article says that within a limited scope Apple was granted a patent on pinch to zoom.
Where in either article is an example of prior art brought up? My original request not being fulfilled, I was speculating on how other manufacturers' devices used pinch to zoom without it falling under Apple's patent.
The first linked article only mentions mention pinch to zoom in passing that Apple doesn't have a patent on multi-touch features, and the second article says that within a limited scope Apple was granted a patent on pinch to zoom.
Where in either article is an example of prior art brought up? My original request not being fulfilled, I was speculating on how other manufacturers' devices used pinch to zoom without it falling under Apple's patent.
Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough as I thought it also involved Palm's claims. I'll go back and look, finding a better link if that one didn't offer what you wanted to know.
EDIT: You're correct that there's not a specific mention of pinch-to-zoom gesture prior claims in my linked articles. I find reference to WebOS offering it, and Apple's failure to assert any claim that they were using Apple's IP without permission. In addition the limits that Apple put on the claim would indicate that some others might have a right to use a similar pinch gesture. Apple isn't claiming pinch-to-zoom in of of itself as unique and patented. All in all it's a somewhat odd patent:
"Apple doesn't have a patent on "pinch-to-zoom" generally, but rather pinching to zoom, and then pinching to zoom again within some fixed period of time. How long that period lasts is totally up in the air, but it has to be defined somewhere -- this patent doesn't really apply unless there's a clock running and a second gesture takes place."
Where does he says the Court took a position? He says merely the Court seems convinced that Motorola is violating Apple's patent. More so at the end of the Hearing than before. Prior to the Hearing the Court has already likely been briefed on the matter through extensive legal pleadings. It would be highly unusual for a Judge to not form an opinion on something after reading the parties' briefs on the matter. Sometimes Judges don't even need a Hearing after reading the briefs because one party is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
Now Mueller has swung the other direction with his opinion. He's pretty convinced the photo scrolling patent will be invalidated since a stay ordered yesterday.
According to FOSSPatents a stay (in this case benefiting Samsung)) would be ordered "only if a defendant shows a high probability (80%+) of the patent being invalidated.".
Comments
That's rather inane - even for Mueller.
The court is not supposed to have ANY position on the issue at the outset.
Where does he says the Court took a position? He says merely the Court seems convinced that Motorola is violating Apple's patent. More so at the end of the Hearing than before. Prior to the Hearing the Court has already likely been briefed on the matter through extensive legal pleadings. It would be highly unusual for a Judge to not form an opinion on something after reading the parties' briefs on the matter. Sometimes Judges don't even need a Hearing after reading the briefs because one party is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
Based on the second link, Apple does indeed have the patent on 'pinch to zoom' as used on pretty much every mobile device I've seen demoed in the last few years. Even with the limitations on the patent, how could anyone else's mobile device not pinch to zoom in almost exactly the way described in that patent?
You asked if anyone cared to post evidence of prior art, not whether Apple had been successful in obtaining a patent on some of the features of it, right? I don't think anyone claimed they didn't have one.
You asked if anyone cared to post evidence of prior art, not whether Apple had been successful in obtaining a patent on some of the features of it, right? I don't think anyone claimed they didn't have one.
The first linked article only mentions mention pinch to zoom in passing that Apple doesn't have a patent on multi-touch features, and the second article says that within a limited scope Apple was granted a patent on pinch to zoom.
Where in either article is an example of prior art brought up? My original request not being fulfilled, I was speculating on how other manufacturers' devices used pinch to zoom without it falling under Apple's patent.
The first linked article only mentions mention pinch to zoom in passing that Apple doesn't have a patent on multi-touch features, and the second article says that within a limited scope Apple was granted a patent on pinch to zoom.
Where in either article is an example of prior art brought up? My original request not being fulfilled, I was speculating on how other manufacturers' devices used pinch to zoom without it falling under Apple's patent.
Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough as I thought it also involved Palm's claims. I'll go back and look, finding a better link if that one didn't offer what you wanted to know.
EDIT: You're correct that there's not a specific mention of pinch-to-zoom gesture prior claims in my linked articles. I find reference to WebOS offering it, and Apple's failure to assert any claim that they were using Apple's IP without permission. In addition the limits that Apple put on the claim would indicate that some others might have a right to use a similar pinch gesture. Apple isn't claiming pinch-to-zoom in of of itself as unique and patented. All in all it's a somewhat odd patent:
"Apple doesn't have a patent on "pinch-to-zoom" generally, but rather pinching to zoom, and then pinching to zoom again within some fixed period of time. How long that period lasts is totally up in the air, but it has to be defined somewhere -- this patent doesn't really apply unless there's a clock running and a second gesture takes place."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Where does he says the Court took a position? He says merely the Court seems convinced that Motorola is violating Apple's patent. More so at the end of the Hearing than before. Prior to the Hearing the Court has already likely been briefed on the matter through extensive legal pleadings. It would be highly unusual for a Judge to not form an opinion on something after reading the parties' briefs on the matter. Sometimes Judges don't even need a Hearing after reading the briefs because one party is clearly right and the other is clearly wrong.
Now Mueller has swung the other direction with his opinion. He's pretty convinced the photo scrolling patent will be invalidated since a stay ordered yesterday.
According to FOSSPatents a stay (in this case benefiting Samsung)) would be ordered "only if a defendant shows a high probability (80%+) of the patent being invalidated.".
So much for that.
Apple has frightened everyone with their patents
Regards, developing android applications