Apple "rubber-banding," "pinch-to-zoom" patents challenged by Samsung witnesses

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 157
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,772member
    gtr wrote: »
    If you think that the iPhone revolutionized the mobile phone industry on this then you're a bigger fool than your memory makes you out to to be.

    Show us some evidence that the iPhone revolutionized the mobile phone industry based on 'pinch-to-zoom' alone.
    Mobile safari stats say otherwise
  • Reply 42 of 157
    From what I know @ patents, the implementation is what can differentiate 2 seemingly similar approaches. It's possible to have 2 patents that accomplish the same task, if they both rely on different approaches. In the TED demo, it appears that one finger is stationary, while the other drags the image to zoom in. With Apple's approach both fingers move for zoom. That could be a sufficient change in variance. Also, that presentation table is not a mobile phone. Patents don't necessarily apply to every conceivable device. Timing might also play into this since this demo & Apple's original patent filing are both in 2006. This does show that Apple was patenting what they considered original concepts well before the iPhone was released; the US Patent Office didn't publish this patent until 2010
  • Reply 43 of 157
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    adonissmu wrote: »
    Mobile safari stats say otherwise

    I think Apple's tremendous efforts with WebKit to make it work on a mobile device whilst showing you are a standard webpage -and- making the app/APIs intelligent enough so that when you double tap on a section it scale to exactly what you want are lot more important to the success of the iPhone's browser than pinch-and-zoom. That said, pinch-and-zoom are still very important. That that said said, GTR's comment is about that feature alone not being responsible for its success.
  • Reply 44 of 157
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,195member


    This is more desperate than the F700 horse-shit. Amazing. I watched the videos, the launchtile thing is just painful in how little it has to do with Apple's multitouch implementation. I mean, not even close. This trial has proven just how little Samsung has to stand on, going by this pathetic shit they're digging up, and also just hammers home the point of how much the iPhone changed this in UI and interaction. 

  • Reply 45 of 157
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,195member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jsebrech View Post


    If you can't see pinch to zoom in that video, try this one from february 2006:


     


    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html


     


    2:36 shows one-handed pinch to zoom out, a few seconds later it's a two-handed pull to zoom in.


     


    [sarcasm]Oh, but apple did it on a phone, that's true innovation.[/sarcasm]



     


    That sarcasm makes you out to look like quite the fool.


     


    So implementing something that has only been demoed in prototype fashion in labs, etc, and on multi million dollar machines, powered by God knows what custom hardware, and never in any shipping products- and integrating this deeply into a brand new phone OS, then shipping this in mass scale to hundreds of millions of consumers, the 1st of its kind,  is not considered innovation to you? Yeah, they 'just did it on a phone', not a big deal. You clearly have utterly no grasp how technology works, and the challenges, hardships, and innovation needed to take a technology from a 'holy shit thats cool' demo, into an actual shipping product. There's a ton of companies that have shown off a lot of impressive shit (Microsoft included) which have never, ever made it into any of their shipping products. Why do you think that is, if its so easy? Also, that video is LESS THAN A YEAR before Apple showed off a fully functional, complete iPhone, which clearly means they had it running internally at that time. The fact is that when Apple demoed the iPhone, this is the 1st time that most people saw any of this stuff on any kind of product, which is why it was so impressive. Your post is utterly pointless and shows the depths of your ignorance and Apple hatred. If you so quickly mock and deride this kind of innovation coming from Apple, and can't handle giving them a shred of credit,  I wonder what you think of the rest of the mobile companies out there, who have done little the past few years except to follow Apple's lead and template. Oh I know, you're probably utterly hypocritical and have much lower standards when considering innovations from any other companies. 

  • Reply 46 of 157
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member


    Based on that youtube video alone. IT IS A GAME OVER FOR APPLE.   And, say fanbois...??


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    Apple's '915 Apple's '915 "pinch-to-zoom"



    Filed Date: 2007.1.7



    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,844,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,844,915&RS=PN/7,844,915


     


    --------------------------------


     


    "pinch-to-zoom" video from Diamond Table



    (time : 1:27 ~ 1:40)


     


    image


     




    Video upload date : 2006.4.8


    Video record date : 2004. 5


    image


    : It looks like a "Game Over" to "pinch-to-zoom" patent


  • Reply 47 of 157
    normmnormm Posts: 575member
    brian ward wrote: »
    I was under the impression that the patent office does not research whether the item being patented is unique, only whether it can be patented under the patent rules.  It is up to the applicant to research whether the thing being patented is truly a unique invention and then if there is a dispute, it is handled in the courts.  If the patent office took responsibility for the validity of a patented item being a unique invention, then these trials would not be needed.

    No. The argument back and forth with the patent office ("office actions" from the patent office and "responses" from the applicants) is mostly about prior art. Applicants have the advantage here since they can keep responding and adjusting the claims until they get some sort of patent issued, whereas examiners have much more limited time and resources. So the examiners do try to rule on novelty, but a lot slips through, especially in the broadest claims.

    You're right in one point, though. If the applicant researches and brings a piece of prior art to the attention of the examiner, and the examiner rules that the patent claims are novel anyways, that makes it hard to later use the same prior art in court to invalidate the patent.
  • Reply 48 of 157
    Ha ha! Like this:
  • Reply 49 of 157
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by diplication View Post



    Sorry to have awoken you from your eight month slumber. As per usual, you can have the last word.


     


    Then, here it is.


     


    The last...


     


    image


     


     

  • Reply 50 of 157
    adamcadamc Posts: 580member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post





    Maybe you're looking at it wrong?

    Anyway: Looks like this may well be a case of... Prior Art = Invalid Patent.


    Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.


     


    Prior of the image of the tablet in Star Trek is lame because it is just an image and nothing more. If it needs to be relevant it has to be mainstream and proved to be a working model, not just some make believe.


     


    Prior art is too widely abuse today. Sad

  • Reply 51 of 157
    845032845032 Posts: 76member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdamC View Post


    Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.


     


    Prior of the image of the tablet in Star Trek is lame because it is just an image and nothing more. If it needs to be relevant it has to be mainstream and proved to be a working model, not just some make believe.


     


    Prior art is too widely abuse today. Sad



     




    "DiamondTouch's primary gesture was called FractalZoom which used a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom. Interestingly, Bogue claims he demoed the multitouch tech to Apple hardware engineers in 2003, though the meeting was fruitless. Samsung did, however, submit a number of e-mails Bogue kept concerning the Apple demo as evidence."


     


     


     


    "DiamondTouch has been available commercially since 2006."


    http://www.merl.com/areas/DiamondTouch/


     


     


    image


    image


     


     


    "pinch-to-zoom" video from Diamond Touch (2004.5)

    http://youtu.be/JAgbjBOK1bk

    (time : 1:27 ~ 1:40)

  • Reply 52 of 157
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


     


     


    Ok THAT example is potentially relevant (depending on whether it was truly "prior") but not those lame examples in the main story that Samsung introduced.


     


    This reminds me of another SJ quote: real artists ship.  Give Apple credit for doing something like this and turning it into a real product and getting it into the hands of millions of people.



     


    I agree, that seems relevant.


    And Apple does deserve credit creating a great product.


    But not via an patent.


    Apples hard work, the actual software that implements the assembly of hardware, is protected by copyright.


    Another party that wants to implement this has to go through all the pain and hardship again even if they know what the end result should look like and 'that it can be done'.


    This is actually exactly the way it turned out to be, the android implementation took a few years to get it right.


    And even now its implementation isn't as good as Apples. 


     


    J.

  • Reply 53 of 157

     


    mcrs really? fanbois?


    Another attempt be rude to all Apple users? We teach the kids in school not do do this.


    Bois the plural or boi  use here, which you know the meaning of to spell it the way you did,  Anyone can look the definition up, referencing a persons orientation with a broad label, ugh trying not to post offensive terms, is uncalled for -applying the term to any Apple user. You insult those who the term might apply to and those who it does not. We're all people and devices are things.  There is no need to be rude or unkind, or try to insult others at all over their choice of a device.  You really can say something without doing that. 
  • Reply 54 of 157
    kkerst wrote: »
    All this proves is how horrible mobile interfaces were until Apple arrived on the scene.

    Exactly.
  • Reply 55 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    "DiamondTouch's primary gesture was called FractalZoom which used a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom. Interestingly, Bogue claims he demoed the multitouch tech to Apple hardware engineers in 2003, though the meeting was fruitless. Samsung did, however, submit a number of e-mails Bogue kept concerning the Apple demo as evidence."


     


    "DiamondTouch has been available commercially since 2006."


    http://www.merl.com/areas/DiamondTouch/


     


    image


    image


     


    "pinch-to-zoom" video from Diamond Touch (2004.5)

    http://youtu.be/JAgbjBOK1bk

    (time : 1:27 ~ 1:40)



    I have watched the videos about the DiamondTouch and read the discussions and I've noticed something that I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned. In the DiamondTouch videos, to zoom a rectangular object seems to require the user to hold one or more points on the edge of the rectangle. For example, holding two opposing corners. Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge. The pinching action occurs anywhere inside the rectangle. That, I believe, is a very important difference…and a patentable one too.

  • Reply 56 of 157
    udosudos Posts: 3member


     


    Sigh.


     


    Once upon a time there was a company called FingerWorks who developed mutitouch devices since 1998. But then they were bought buy a big company. Let's see, what was that big company called ... oh, yeah: Apple.


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks


     


    "FingerWorks was a gesture recognition company based in the United States, known mainly for itsTouchStream multi-touch keyboard. Founded by John Elias and Wayne Westerman of the University of Delaware in 1998, it produced a line of multi-touch products including the iGesture Pad and the TouchStream keyboard, which were particularly helpful for people suffering from RSI and other medical conditions. The keyboards were immediately discontinued when the company's assets were acquired byApple Inc. in early 2005."


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch


     


    "Apple filed patents for in 2005-2007 and was awarded with in 2009-2010"


     


    About Jeff Han:


     


    http://multi-touchscreen.com


     


    (scroll to headline: "iPhone and Multi Touch?")


     


    "The iPhone uses Multi-Touch technology. FingerWorks has been bought by Apple in June 2006. Jeff Han has not been hired by Apple to work on the iPhone. There were rumors that Apple had tried (unsuccessfully) to hire Jeff at one point to work on the launch of the iphone. NY Times techie David Pogue even asked Steve Jobs about him on the day of the launch. Here's Jeff Hans' response on the iPhone: "The iPhone is absolutely gorgeous, and I've always said, if there ever were a company to bring this kind of technology to the consumer market, it's Apple. I just wish it were a bit bigger so I could really use both of my hands." Check Apple's patent for its Apple iTablet and Touch-screen iPod, iTouch, and iPhone."


     


    Read all about Apples patents:


     


    http://multi-touchscreen.com/iphone.html


     


    IIRC Microsoft as well has multi-touch patents from the 2005/2006 era, but they and Apple have cross licensing agreement:


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning/in/2971889


     


    We can finally read the once secret agreement here:


     


    http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1292505/584.pdf


     


    And if you have too much time on your hands, good old Eran has a long ass article on his site:


     


    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/01/23/inside-the-multitouch-fingerworks-tech-in-apples-tablet/

  • Reply 57 of 157
    udosudos Posts: 3member


     


     


    Sigh.


     


    Once upon a time there was a company called FingerWorks who developed mutitouch devices since 1998. But then they were bought buy a big company. Let's see, what was that big company called ... oh, yeah: Apple.


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks


     


    "FingerWorks was a gesture recognition company based in the United States, known mainly for itsTouchStream multi-touch keyboard. Founded by John Elias and Wayne Westerman of the University of Delaware in 1998, it produced a line of multi-touch products including the iGesture Pad and the TouchStream keyboard, which were particularly helpful for people suffering from RSI and other medical conditions. The keyboards were immediately discontinued when the company's assets were acquired byApple Inc. in early 2005."


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch


     


    "Apple filed patents for in 2005-2007 and was awarded with in 2009-2010"


     


    About Jeff Han:


     


    http://multi-touchscreen.com


     


    (scroll to headline: "iPhone and Multi Touch?")


     


    "The iPhone uses Multi-Touch technology. FingerWorks has been bought by Apple in June 2006. Jeff Han has not been hired by Apple to work on the iPhone. There were rumors that Apple had tried (unsuccessfully) to hire Jeff at one point to work on the launch of the iphone. NY Times techie David Pogue even asked Steve Jobs about him on the day of the launch. Here's Jeff Hans' response on the iPhone: "The iPhone is absolutely gorgeous, and I've always said, if there ever were a company to bring this kind of technology to the consumer market, it's Apple. I just wish it were a bit bigger so I could really use both of my hands." Check Apple's patent for its Apple iTablet and Touch-screen iPod, iTouch, and iPhone."


     


    Read all about Apples patents:


     


    http://multi-touchscreen.com/iphone.html


     


    IIRC Microsoft as well has multi-touch patents from the 2005/2006 era, but they and Apple have cross licensing agreement:


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning/in/2971889


     


    We can finally read the once secret agreement here:


     


    http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1292505/584.pdf


     


    And if you have too much time on your hands, good old Eran has a long ass article on his site:


     


    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/01/23/inside-the-multitouch-fingerworks-tech-in-apples-tablet/

  • Reply 58 of 157
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,323member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post


    I have watched the videos about the DiamondTouch and read the discussions and I've noticed something that I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned. In the DiamondTouch videos, to zoom a rectangular object seems to require the user to hold one or more points on the edge of the rectangle. For example, holding two opposing corners. Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge. The pinching action occurs anywhere inside the rectangle. That, I believe, is a very important difference…and a patentable one too.



     


    Correct. I was having fun watching the twink make a fool of himself.

  • Reply 59 of 157
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdamC View Post


    Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.



     


    what?

  • Reply 60 of 157
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post


    I have watched the videos about the DiamondTouch and read the discussions and I've noticed something that I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned. In the DiamondTouch videos, to zoom a rectangular object seems to require the user to hold one or more points on the edge of the rectangle. For example, holding two opposing corners. Even the apparent one-handed zoom on the DT seemed to require one finger on the edge of the rectangle. In contrast, Apple's pinch&zoom does not require contact with the edge. The pinching action occurs anywhere inside the rectangle. That, I believe, is a very important difference…and a patentable one too.



    Apple patent is here, along with the claims it makes. 


    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,479,949.PN.&OS=PN/7,479,949&RS=PN/7,479,949

Sign In or Register to comment.