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

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 157
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member


    Let's just go to the source, shall we. Jeff Han's "no comment" in this instance is rather interesting. 


     


    http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-multi-touch-screen/


     


    and this one: 


     


    http://allthingsd.com/20101213/multitouch-pioneer-jeff-han-starts-to-think-small-devices/


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    Gee!  Apple has sold approximately 400 million iOS devices, worth $200 Billion -- when does the time get any righter?


     


    I am no patent expert, but, you, apparently have little understanding or experience in how the world works... especially business and lawyers.


     


    Possibly, the lawyers should follow the advice:  "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em" -- Tammany Hall politician George Washington Plunkitt.


  • Reply 82 of 157
    jwdavjwdav Posts: 36member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    "Good artists copy great artists steal" -- SJ




     


    Good artists copy, great artists steal doesn't mean what you think it means.


    To copy a work of art is to duplicate it, adding no value in the process - and is generally illegal. To steal an idea means making the work your own, which is done by creating something new based on or inspired by the stolen idea.


    For example, when Steve Jobs saw the Xerox Star, he didn't make a copy of it and sell that. He was inspired by it and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Macintosh which he did sell.

  • Reply 83 of 157
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,408member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


     


    It might not be what you want, but adding AMOLED, >3.5" displays, removable battery, Android (notification/widgets), consumer choice, low price point etc.etc. to me constitues as adding value for the consumer.



     



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    Those things have nothing to do with design. 


     


    Having said that...


     


    • AMOLED has issues when viewing in a bright environment and the displays lifespan is also shorter than LCD.


    • The value of handheld displays over 3.5" is purely subjective.


    • User replaceable batteries make devices flimsier and bulkier and most people replace their smartphones long before the battery wears out anyway.


    • Consumer choice to buy an inferior product just for the hell of it.


    • Samsung phones that compete directly with the iPhone cost about the same. On the tablet side, wannabe iPad competitors often cost more than the iPad.


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 84 of 157
    mauszmausz Posts: 243member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


    Let's just go to the source, shall we. Jeff Han's "no comment" in this instance is rather interesting. 


     


    http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-multi-touch-screen/


     


    and this one: 


     


    http://allthingsd.com/20101213/multitouch-pioneer-jeff-han-starts-to-think-small-devices/


     



     


    Jeff Han's company Perceptive Pixel was bought by Microsoft earlier this year, so it might be part of the cross-licensing deal Microsoft and Apple have already.

  • Reply 85 of 157
    mauszmausz Posts: 243member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


     



    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    Those things have nothing to do with design. 


     


    Having said that...


     


    • AMOLED has issues when viewing in a bright environment and the displays lifespan is also shorter than LCD.


    • The value of handheld displays over 3.5" is purely subjective.


    • User replaceable batteries make devices flimsier and bulkier and most people replace their smartphones long before the battery wears out anyway.


    • Consumer choice to buy an inferior product just for the hell of it.


    • Samsung phones that compete directly with the iPhone cost about the same. On the tablet side, wannabe iPad competitors often cost more than the iPad.


     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



    As my examples where subjective, so is your evaluation of them.


     


    This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.


     


    My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.

  • Reply 86 of 157
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,267member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post





    On a separate note... why haven't the makers of this prior art gone after Apple by now?


    Some have, with Elan coming to mind right away. I believe there was another more recent one, but perhaps by an NPE. In any event Apple settled with Elan, but in doing so cross-licensed some of their own applicable IP which allowed for manufacturer's to license with Elan and avoid patent suits over simply using a touchscreen. 


     


    http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+is+Forced+Into+MultiTouch+Settlements+Tastes+its+Own+Medicine/article23676.htm

  • Reply 87 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


    Let's just go to the source, shall we. Jeff Han's "no comment" in this instance is rather interesting. 


     


    http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/the-multi-touch-screen/


     


    and this one: 


     


    http://allthingsd.com/20101213/multitouch-pioneer-jeff-han-starts-to-think-small-devices/


     



     


    What do these articles and non-quotes prove?  



    • $200 Billion isn't enough


    • Han doesn't have a case


    • Han is brilliant, but unwise


     


    Why do you assume that "no comment" has more implied meaning than no action?


     


    The fact that Han has known about the iPhone for over 5 years, and has done nothing...


     


     


    If Han's company gets onto mobile -- he better be careful about Apple's IP.


     


     


    AIR, the original iPhone could detect 11 concurrent touches  if not the first iPhone. the capability has been around for several years... I remember asking what you would use to make the 11th touch

  • Reply 88 of 157
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,408member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


    As my examples where subjective, so is your evaluation of them.


     


    This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.


     


    My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    My comments referred to the old "great artists steal" line and it's intended meaning. From an artist's perspective, Samsung is blatantly copying a direct competitor's designs without adding anything new to the design. Tacking on unrelated "features" is a business and marketing tactic, not a design feat.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     
  • Reply 89 of 157
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member


    1. It proves Han DOES have a case; otherwise, he would not be informed as to what Apple's doing with Iphone etc...Apple must've pre-empted him with something of his liking.


    2. He is brilliant. Otherwise his technology wouldn't be "paid homage to" by Apple. 


    3. His company Perceptive Pixel was bought by Microsoft. Knowing how "lovely" the relationship of Apple and Microsoft is, we can surmise a cross licensing is in the work. How much dough Jeff Han is getting for his 6 years old company we just don't know. I am sure the amount will surpass the pile of dough he would've gotten had he gone after Apple.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    What do these articles and non-quotes prove?  



    • $200 Billion isn't enough


    • Han doesn't have a case


    • Han is brilliant, but unwise


     


    Why do you assume that "no comment" has more implied meaning than no action?


     


    If Han's company gets onto mobile -- he better be careful about Apple's IP.


     


    AIR, the original iPhone could detect 11 concurrent touches  if not the first iPhone. the capability has been around for several years... I remember asking what you would use to make the 11th touch


  • Reply 90 of 157
    845032845032 Posts: 76member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jwdav View Post


     


    Good artists copy, great artists steal doesn't mean what you think it means.


    To copy a work of art is to duplicate it, adding no value in the process - and is generally illegal. To steal an idea means making the work your own, which is done by creating something new based on or inspired by the stolen idea.


    For example, when Steve Jobs saw the Xerox Star, he didn't make a copy of it and sell that. He was inspired by it and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Macintosh which he did sell.



    Android and TouchWinz are not exactly same as iOS.


    Samsung/Google was inspired by iOS and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Android/TouchWinz which he did sell.


     


    Unless Samsung/Google stole lines of code from Apple servers, they didn’t steal anything.

  • Reply 91 of 157
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post





    That's a Pablo Picasso quote btw.


    I guess you forgot to mention the next statement where Steve Jobs states "we (Apple) always have been shameless about stealing great ideas."

  • Reply 92 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


    As my examples where subjective, so is your evaluation of them.


     


    This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.


     


    My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.



    Wait, I'm not so sure you're talking value adding anything in your points.  Amoled vs lcd - it's different sides of the same coin.  They're both screens.  Is this what the lawsuit is about?


    Size is not a value either, given it's purely subjective.  I'm 6' 3", does that make me better than you are at 5' 11"?  Is this what the lawsuit is about?


     


    User replaceable batteries?  And what pray tell value does that bring?  Sounds to me more like an excuse for not making the battery robust enough to survive the intended use, but this too is not what we're talking about here is it?


     


    Consumer choice?  Is that your argument for what?  For allowing Samsung, or anyone else, to copy another company's product(s) so that the consumer has a choice to buy the real thing or a knock-off?  Again, I'm not seeing how this pertains to the lawsuit?


     


    Price?  Again, how does that pertain to the lawsuit in question?   I would argue that it's Samsung's benefit to steal ideas from Apple and others so as not to have the burden of development costs, which in turn allows them to price their products, in some cases, lower than the competition.  That's not right or fair, even if you consider their products are generally not competing on the same quality/design level.

  • Reply 93 of 157
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    All this shows is that there are a lot of different gestures for performing actions on a touchscreen.


     


    Unfortunately for Samsung, Apple uses different gestures so I don't see how they will be able to invalidate them.


     


    Yet the Apple haters will go: "See - a touchscreen with gestures - this proves Apple copied".



    No, it shows that the idea for multi-touch interaction with a computer screen existed before the iPhone. The guy even called it "multi-touch" at one point. It doesn't matter if the gestures are different (Why would that matter in any way?) or that it is used on a different OS...the idea is clearly being used PRIOR to the iPhone. I am not an "Apple hater", but this looks like an example of prior art to me.

  • Reply 94 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


    1. It proves Han DOES have a case; otherwise, he would not be informed as to what Apple's doing with Iphone etc...Apple must've pre-empted him with something of his liking.


    2. He is brilliant. Otherwise his technology wouldn't be "paid homage to" by Apple. 


    3. His company Perceptive Pixel was bought by Microsoft. Knowing how "lovely" the relationship of Apple and Microsoft is, we can surmise a cross licensing is in the work. How much dough Jeff Han is getting for his 6 years old company we just don't know. I am sure the amount will surpass the pile of dough he would've gotten had he gone after Apple.


     


     



     


    Just because you want something to be true, and keep repeating it... doesn't make it true.


     


    Apple had $200 Billion revenue from multi touch devices...  MS has a market cap of $250 Billion compared to Apple's $589 Billion -- you figure who is the best potential source for money.


     


    I suspect that Han sold his company and IP for a lump sum and won't receive any royalties or license fees. MS plays hardball and I suspect what Han received is rather lower than what a valid claim against Apple would have brought.


     


    Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Han's offering resembles MS' big-assed [Surface] table more that any of Apple's offerings.   I suspect MS bought Han's company because of the nuisance factor, rather than the potential for cross-licensing the IP to Apple.

  • Reply 95 of 157
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member

    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



    Unfortunately, only if Samsung's lawyers were able to show this information to the jury. It seems pretty obvious to me that Apple's patent should be invalidated.

  • Reply 96 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    Unfortunately, only if Samsung's lawyers were able to show this information to the jury. It seems pretty obvious to me that Apple's patent should be invalidated.



     


    I guess that Sammy's lead, $500-per-hour, lawyer isn't as smart or as knowledgeable as you... pity!

  • Reply 97 of 157


    Ya' know...  I have teenage grandkids that have better reasoning and presentation ability than the current round of anti-Apple trolls!

  • Reply 98 of 157
    mauszmausz Posts: 243member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post


    ..... Is this what the lawsuit is about?


     


    .... but this too is not what we're talking about here is it?


     


    ....  Again, I'm not seeing how this pertains to the lawsuit?


     



     


    Did you read my last line ?!?!?


     


    "My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device."

  • Reply 99 of 157
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by marcusj0015 View Post


    Okay, well first off the Pinch to zoom is clearly nothing like Samsungs LaunchTile.


     


    Second off, Samsung's "DiamondTouch" is the exact opposite of pinch to zoom, in Samsung's system, you use it to change window size, in Apple's you use it to actually make objects appear larger onscreen, without affecting the size of the window.


     


    Both of Samsung's bullshit patents don't cover Apple's tech.



    You are correct, Samsung is showing drag to resize a window not and actual ZOOM of the window which would give the user a closer look. I hope the jury can understand the difference. 

  • Reply 100 of 157
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member


    I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a patent is for an implementation not a vague idea.  So the "pinch to zoom" patent isn't "hey man, if you pinch something it should get smaller, and if you do the reverse it gets bigger."  It's more specific than that.  As others have pointed out a number of these examples don't show "zooming" at all.  They show "pinch to shrink."  Moreover, the way the Diamond Touch thing works is different (and more limited) than Apple's implementation.  The explanation refers to changes in the size of the bounding box--as the user's fingers go beyond the edges of a box, the box is enlarged.  Guess what, Apple's pinch-to-zoom gestures don't make any reference to where the fingers are inside the bounds of an area (assuming they both inside to start).


     


    Having said that Han's stuff looks much more similar.  However it appears that he either didn't patent it (sucks to be him) and/or he made some sort of "I can't talk about it" deal with Apple (good for him).  Some people seem to think that if one finds prior art for a patent that that will provide some great windfall for the prior art creator.  That's only true if the prior art is patented.  The creator of the prior art doesn't retroactively get the benefit of the now-invalidated patent; the patent just goes poof. 

Sign In or Register to comment.