You should try reading the links in your own posts:
"Security firm Sophos doesn't agree with Kaspersky that the app is actually malware. In its blog it points to the fact that the app has the same name across both stores, it has functionality and the Find and Call website is also not malicious. "It would probably be more accurate to say that the "Find and Call" app is "spammy".
The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.
Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.
Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!
So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forger about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.
If you are honest with your self, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.
We seem to occupy different dimensions. In mine smart phones had touch screens, most were so small that you needed to use a stylus but there were some, eg. the (pre-iPhone) 2007 HTC Athena, that had screens large enough to navigate with your finger. These smartphones had icons, unlike the 2007 iPhone they even had apps. Incidentally, even symbian (feature) phones from the turn of the century had icons arranged in a grid.
An in my dimension there were even tablets with capacitive screens in 2007....
Exactly. Most of the people commenting on Apple's patents and prior art don't have any clue what they're talking about.
Apple's patent involves a specific mechanism which includes icons, following a path on the screen, and the icon moving with the swipe. The Neonode phone doesn't do that. Patents are VERY specific.
Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.
Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.
What Apple's lawyers attempt to do doesn't change what the patent says. The patent was issue with very specific wording and that's what applies. The fact that the attorneys attempted to broaden it doesn't change what the patent says.
As for prior art, you might want to learn what prior art means. Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Every patent lists prior art that is related. The point of prior art is to show the examiner what the state of the industry was before your new invention. The fact that it was listed as prior art doesn't mean anything.
Now, if the courts had ruled that it was prior art which actually demonstrated the invention, that would be a different story. I believe the UK decision did that, but not the others. However, we'll have to wait to see if the UK decision is thrown out on appeal.
As for prior art, you might want to learn what prior art means. Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Every patent lists prior art that is related. The point of prior art is to show the examiner what the state of the industry was before your new invention. The fact that it was listed as prior art doesn't mean anything.
Now, if the courts had ruled that it was prior art which actually demonstrated the invention, that would be a different story. I believe the UK decision did that, but not the others. However, we'll have to wait to see if the UK decision is thrown out on appeal.
I very clearly said the court deemed the Neonode prior art, not listed it.
EDIT: ,,,And with that said I'll rat myself out since being right is less important than being honest.
In re-checking, only the British Court has so far deemed the Neonode prior art, usiig it as one of the deciding factors in finding Apple's patent invalid. In the Netherlands case the court only accepted the Neonode for consideration but made no ruling on that basis since the patent was already invalid as obvious. In Germany there's not yet been a decision on the Neonode as prior art in a uniquely-German utility patent case. So I am incorrect that it's deemed prior art in two EU cases so far, tho Apple's patent on swipe-to-unlock was ruled invalid by two different courts.
For anyone who would like to see what that old Neonode phone was all about, there's a video review link here. Swipe-to-unlock is demoed at around the 3:59 mark.
For anyone who would like to see what that old Neonode phone was all about, there's a video review link here. Swipe-to-unlock is demoed at around the 3:59 mark.
GatorGuy just punched a hole in tgolly's time fabric continum... a touch screen smart phone from 2005 that had apps, icons and no stylus... must be a fake </S>
So like the Google/Stanford patents for "finding things" you used as your example?
I see 0_o
Apparently you need to re-read that post again. I was very clear on how that patent was not a blanket generalized patent like Apple's 'Universal Search' patent.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I said that patents should be "non-obvious", and some vague, indescript patent for "finding things" does not qualify as such.
There's a grey area regarding patents when they say a patent has to be "non-obvious". All great ideas are "obvious" - after you've seen them. That's why people always go "why didn't I think of that" when they see something new.
The clause "non-obvious" as used by the USPTO doesn't mean what most people online interpret it to mean.
Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.
Whenever a patent case goes to court you often see things like "the court finds the defendant guilty of infringing claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 of the patent.....". Apple could very easily prevail on appeal, but have certain portions of their patent invalidated (like a tap or swipe in any direction) but have other portions deemed valid (like a swipe along a specific path inidicated by a graphical element).
Apple is obviously trying to cover all the bases of their patent. I don't think the final result will be so black and white as to say the entire patent is valid or invalid.
GatorGuy just punched a hole in tgolly's time fabric continum... a touch screen smart phone from 2005 that had apps, icons and no stylus... must be a fake </S>
There were lots of phones with touchscreens before the iPhone. And they all sucked. The screens had terrible response to inputs and they all lacked multitouch and the ability to understand complex gestures. This is why you have to swipe in very specific ways on the Neonode to initiate an action. The LG Prada and F700 were just as crappy with their handling of gestures.
I very clearly said the court deemed the Neonode prior art, not listed it.
EDIT: ,,,And with that said I'll rat myself out since being right is less important than being honest.
In re-checking, only the British Court has so far deemed the Neonode prior art, usiig it as one of the deciding factors in finding Apple's patent invalid. In the Netherlands case the court only accepted the Neonode for consideration but made no ruling on that basis since the patent was already invalid as obvious. In Germany there's not yet been a decision on the Neonode as prior art in a uniquely-German utility patent case. So I am incorrect that it's deemed prior art in two EU cases so far, tho Apple's patent on swipe-to-unlock was ruled invalid by two different courts.
Prior art is listed on patents to show a progression of innovation. It's not declaration that you stole an idea from everyone listed otherwise it would make the process pointless, wouldn't it? Apple not listed Neonode is as relevant as Apple not listing the inventor of the night latch door chain.
Note that Neonode is neither using a capacitance touchscreen (it's optical) nor any visual representation of the slide on screen. They don't even show what you have to on-screen! I know you are smart enough to know that Neonode's design is flawed on countless levels that the only reason we know their name is because the anti-Apple crowd is looking for any slight similarity to disparage Apple.
On top of that, not that the person mentions the iPhone. That's because it's a pre-release of the Neonode N1m, not the original N1 which has a UI that is dramatically different. It still has a swipe feature, something that certainly makes sense with an optical grid, but I don't recall it have swipe to unlock, just swipe to achieve forward and backwards maneuvers the way the simple back and forward buttons work on phones with number pads. So how exactly could Apple have put on a patent something that wasn't even available until after the iPhone launched?
Huh? Who even brought up a heuristic algorithm from Google? Last comment I made was referring to a very specific algorithm patented by Standford University compared to the very vague and general 'Universal Search' patent granted to Apple. The patent granted to Apple doesn't even identify any unique algorithm, but just describes a general ability to search for different types of assets on a device. I hardly consider the idea of searching for items and data on a device to be a "nonobvious" as required for being granted a patent.
IMO, the patent will be invalidated for exactly that reason. Prior art may form an independent basis.
There were lots of phones with touchscreens before the iPhone. And they all sucked. The screens had terrible response to inputs and they all lacked multitouch and the ability to understand complex gestures. This is why you have to swipe in very specific ways on the Neonode to initiate an action. The LG Prada and F700 were just as crappy with their handling of gestures.
Yes the iphone was the first phone to adopt the existing mutitouch capacitive screens.
The suggestion that all other phones sucked is just a matter of personal preference.
Had you read my earlier post you would see that I was correcting a fellow member who thought that Apple invented the smartphone in 2007.
[quote name="hungover" url="/t/151272/court-grants-samsung-request-to-expedite-galaxy-nexus-injunction-appeal/80#post_2147216"] Yes the iphone was the first phone to adopt the existing mutitouch capacitive screens.[/QUOTE]
The existing multitouch capacitance displays? And what consumer devices had this before the iPhone?
[QUOTE]The suggestion that all other phones sucked is just a matter of personal preference.[/QUOTE]
You could say it was a preference in 2007 but considering that all quality smartphones are not multitouch, capacitance touchscreens without tiny physical keys shows that Apple was right which makes it a personal bias on your part.
The existing multitouch capacitance displays? And what consumer devices had this before the iPhone?
"I think 2006 was a big year in development. People don't realise this but the first capacitive touchscreen phone to market wasn't the iPhone, it was in the LG Prada which we provided. Obviously then came the iPhone in the middle of the year though and it spun the industry around. {Apple} had a very clever campaign, it didn't emphasize the technology, it just showed users the benefits."
"I think 2006 was a big year in development. People don't realise this but the first capacitive touchscreen phone to market wasn't the iPhone, it was in the LG Prada which we provided. Obviously then came the iPhone in the middle of the year though and it spun the industry around. {Apple} had a very clever campaign, it didn't emphasize the technology, it just showed users the benefits."
That wasn't multitouch. If the first iPhone had shipped with only register point it would have failed because it's utility and therefore user experience would have been severely crippled.
That wasn't multitouch. If the first iPhone had shipped with only register point it would have failed because it's utility and therefore user experience would have been severely crippled.
In my mind, in order for that to be relevant, Apple would have had to have invented multitouch. That's just my personal opinion- The technicalities of how the law is set up, etc, might disagree. I think Apple's value isn't in inventing (which is the result of the continuous contributions of many people and organizations, including Apple), but in recognizing what is great, focusing on it, and delivering it in an excellent way. If I walk into a mess of objects and pick out the gems, wipe off some of the dirt, and show the world why they are gems, can I claim I created these gems?
Prior art is listed on patents to show a progression of innovation. It's not declaration that you stole an idea from everyone listed otherwise it would make the process pointless, wouldn't it?
I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that explaining things to googleguy is a waste of time. He's not even remotely interested in facts.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom
Oh cool. I tried download some iOS malware and it didn't work
http://www.csoonline.com/article/710834/apple-app-store-gets-first-malware-app
iOS malware?
You should try reading the links in your own posts:
"Security firm Sophos doesn't agree with Kaspersky that the app is actually malware. In its blog it points to the fact that the app has the same name across both stores, it has functionality and the Find and Call website is also not malicious. "It would probably be more accurate to say that the "Find and Call" app is "spammy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgolly
The Galaxy Nexus is not exactly "identical" to the iPhone, but it is very close.
Take a step back 5 years ago. Before Apple invented the iPhone there was nothing like it. All other phones were alike in that they were just feature phones except maybe the BB with its push email function.
Apple created a whole new type of phone. A phone with a touch screen, icons and apps. Now tell me before that did Samsung have anything even remotely close to that? The answer is a definitive NO!
So unless you are living on another planet, in another galaxy, no pun intended, the Nexus is a total copy. No it is not "identical" but I think you get my point unless you are totally brain dead. It is the entire phone, the idea for the phone type, that is a copy. Forger about a few software details. Look at the entire forest instead of a single tree.
If you are honest with your self, and not just an Android fan boy, you will agree.
We seem to occupy different dimensions. In mine smart phones had touch screens, most were so small that you needed to use a stylus but there were some, eg. the (pre-iPhone) 2007 HTC Athena, that had screens large enough to navigate with your finger. These smartphones had icons, unlike the 2007 iPhone they even had apps. Incidentally, even symbian (feature) phones from the turn of the century had icons arranged in a grid.
An in my dimension there were even tablets with capacitive screens in 2007....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Exactly. Most of the people commenting on Apple's patents and prior art don't have any clue what they're talking about.
Apple's patent involves a specific mechanism which includes icons, following a path on the screen, and the icon moving with the swipe. The Neonode phone doesn't do that. Patents are VERY specific.
Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.
What Apple's lawyers attempt to do doesn't change what the patent says. The patent was issue with very specific wording and that's what applies. The fact that the attorneys attempted to broaden it doesn't change what the patent says.
As for prior art, you might want to learn what prior art means. Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Every patent lists prior art that is related. The point of prior art is to show the examiner what the state of the industry was before your new invention. The fact that it was listed as prior art doesn't mean anything.
Now, if the courts had ruled that it was prior art which actually demonstrated the invention, that would be a different story. I believe the UK decision did that, but not the others. However, we'll have to wait to see if the UK decision is thrown out on appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As for prior art, you might want to learn what prior art means. Prior art does not invalidate a patent. Every patent lists prior art that is related. The point of prior art is to show the examiner what the state of the industry was before your new invention. The fact that it was listed as prior art doesn't mean anything.
Now, if the courts had ruled that it was prior art which actually demonstrated the invention, that would be a different story. I believe the UK decision did that, but not the others. However, we'll have to wait to see if the UK decision is thrown out on appeal.
I very clearly said the court deemed the Neonode prior art, not listed it.
EDIT: ,,,And with that said I'll rat myself out since being right is less important than being honest.
In re-checking, only the British Court has so far deemed the Neonode prior art, usiig it as one of the deciding factors in finding Apple's patent invalid. In the Netherlands case the court only accepted the Neonode for consideration but made no ruling on that basis since the patent was already invalid as obvious. In Germany there's not yet been a decision on the Neonode as prior art in a uniquely-German utility patent case. So I am incorrect that it's deemed prior art in two EU cases so far, tho Apple's patent on swipe-to-unlock was ruled invalid by two different courts.
For anyone who would like to see what that old Neonode phone was all about, there's a video review link here. Swipe-to-unlock is demoed at around the 3:59 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
For anyone who would like to see what that old Neonode phone was all about, there's a video review link here. Swipe-to-unlock is demoed at around the 3:59 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
Whoopsie!!!
GatorGuy just punched a hole in tgolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What Apple's lawyers attempt to do doesn't change what the patent says.
So Apple's lawyers are wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So like the Google/Stanford patents for "finding things" you used as your example?
I see 0_o
Apparently you need to re-read that post again. I was very clear on how that patent was not a blanket generalized patent like Apple's 'Universal Search' patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
No, that is not what I'm saying. I said that patents should be "non-obvious", and some vague, indescript patent for "finding things" does not qualify as such.
There's a grey area regarding patents when they say a patent has to be "non-obvious". All great ideas are "obvious" - after you've seen them. That's why people always go "why didn't I think of that" when they see something new.
The clause "non-obvious" as used by the USPTO doesn't mean what most people online interpret it to mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apparently "VERY specific" wasn't Apple's intent. They've attempted to convince courts that it really includes a swipe in any direction rather than any specific path (HTC circle unlock) or even a tap instead of a moving swipe. Then add the Neonode phone being deemed prior art by at least two different EU courts, a factor in their decisions that the "swipe-to-unlock" patent is invalid and unenforceable.
Whenever a patent case goes to court you often see things like "the court finds the defendant guilty of infringing claims 2, 4, 5 and 9 of the patent.....". Apple could very easily prevail on appeal, but have certain portions of their patent invalidated (like a tap or swipe in any direction) but have other portions deemed valid (like a swipe along a specific path inidicated by a graphical element).
Apple is obviously trying to cover all the bases of their patent. I don't think the final result will be so black and white as to say the entire patent is valid or invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
Whoopsie!!!
GatorGuy just punched a hole in tgolly
There were lots of phones with touchscreens before the iPhone. And they all sucked. The screens had terrible response to inputs and they all lacked multitouch and the ability to understand complex gestures. This is why you have to swipe in very specific ways on the Neonode to initiate an action. The LG Prada and F700 were just as crappy with their handling of gestures.
Prior art is listed on patents to show a progression of innovation. It's not declaration that you stole an idea from everyone listed otherwise it would make the process pointless, wouldn't it? Apple not listed Neonode is as relevant as Apple not listing the inventor of the night latch door chain.
Note that Neonode is neither using a capacitance touchscreen (it's optical) nor any visual representation of the slide on screen. They don't even show what you have to on-screen! I know you are smart enough to know that Neonode's design is flawed on countless levels that the only reason we know their name is because the anti-Apple crowd is looking for any slight similarity to disparage Apple.
On top of that, not that the person mentions the iPhone. That's because it's a pre-release of the Neonode N1m, not the original N1 which has a UI that is dramatically different. It still has a swipe feature, something that certainly makes sense with an optical grid, but I don't recall it have swipe to unlock, just swipe to achieve forward and backwards maneuvers the way the simple back and forward buttons work on phones with number pads. So how exactly could Apple have put on a patent something that wasn't even available until after the iPhone launched?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Huh? Who even brought up a heuristic algorithm from Google? Last comment I made was referring to a very specific algorithm patented by Standford University compared to the very vague and general 'Universal Search' patent granted to Apple. The patent granted to Apple doesn't even identify any unique algorithm, but just describes a general ability to search for different types of assets on a device. I hardly consider the idea of searching for items and data on a device to be a "nonobvious" as required for being granted a patent.
IMO, the patent will be invalidated for exactly that reason. Prior art may form an independent basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan
So Apple's lawyers are wrong?
According to many, many experienced and distinguished judges, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
There were lots of phones with touchscreens before the iPhone. And they all sucked. The screens had terrible response to inputs and they all lacked multitouch and the ability to understand complex gestures. This is why you have to swipe in very specific ways on the Neonode to initiate an action. The LG Prada and F700 were just as crappy with their handling of gestures.
Yes the iphone was the first phone to adopt the existing mutitouch capacitive screens.
The suggestion that all other phones sucked is just a matter of personal preference.
Had you read my earlier post you would see that I was correcting a fellow member who thought that Apple invented the smartphone in 2007.
The existing multitouch capacitance displays? And what consumer devices had this before the iPhone?
[QUOTE]The suggestion that all other phones sucked is just a matter of personal preference.[/QUOTE]
You could say it was a preference in 2007 but considering that all quality smartphones are not multitouch, capacitance touchscreens without tiny physical keys shows that Apple was right which makes it a personal bias on your part.
Quote:
The existing multitouch capacitance displays? And what consumer devices had this before the iPhone?
"I think 2006 was a big year in development. People don't realise this but the first capacitive touchscreen phone to market wasn't the iPhone, it was in the LG Prada which we provided. Obviously then came the iPhone in the middle of the year though and it spun the industry around. {Apple} had a very clever campaign, it didn't emphasize the technology, it just showed users the benefits."
Dr. Andrew Hsu, Synaptics
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/Interview--Synaptics-Talks-Capacitive-Touchscreens
That wasn't multitouch. If the first iPhone had shipped with only register point it would have failed because it's utility and therefore user experience would have been severely crippled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That wasn't multitouch. If the first iPhone had shipped with only register point it would have failed because it's utility and therefore user experience would have been severely crippled.
In my mind, in order for that to be relevant, Apple would have had to have invented multitouch. That's just my personal opinion- The technicalities of how the law is set up, etc, might disagree. I think Apple's value isn't in inventing (which is the result of the continuous contributions of many people and organizations, including Apple), but in recognizing what is great, focusing on it, and delivering it in an excellent way. If I walk into a mess of objects and pick out the gems, wipe off some of the dirt, and show the world why they are gems, can I claim I created these gems?
Sometimes. So?
At least Apple's attorneys recognize their own products.
I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that explaining things to googleguy is a waste of time. He's not even remotely interested in facts.