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

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 157
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,462member
    Ya' know...  I have teenage grandkids that have better reasoning and presentation ability than the current round of anti-Apple trolls!

    Private schooling?
  • Reply 102 of 157
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    T. S. Eliot actually, regarding poets.

    Feel free to provide evidence of where this misquote was actually used by Picasso.


     


    No the TS Eliot quote is  "“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different"

  • Reply 103 of 157
    845032845032 Posts: 76member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


     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." [...] 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).



     


    No. It looks like real pinch to zoom in.


     


     


     


    image


     


    image


     


    image


     


     


    image


     


    Diamond Touch demo video


  • Reply 104 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


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



     


    Ideas, not complete products.  There's a big difference.

  • Reply 105 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


     


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



    See http://www.scribd.com/doc/102603522/Apple-Presentation Part 2, Slides 6 and 26, for starters....

  • Reply 106 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.



    Yeah, I am sure that, for all that's riding on this trial for Samsung and the amount of time they've spent and the man-hours of legal firepower and the multiple countries where it's being litigated with multiple teams of lawyers, they must have missed something that a fandroider found on Youtube! image

  • Reply 107 of 157
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jsebrech wrote: »
    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]


    The only problem is that your "prior" art is dated months after Apple's priority date. Maybe you should look up the meaning of 'prior'.
    adamc wrote: »
    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

    Your first sentence is incorrect. Prior Art does not need to be mainstream to be used as a defense. If it was in the public domain at all, it can invalidate a patent.
  • Reply 108 of 157
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member


    Since you are suspecting so much, I suspect your suspicions are suspect.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    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 109 of 157


    Error 314159, sorry...

  • Reply 110 of 157
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    freediverx wrote: »
    This line originally dates back not to Jobs or Picasso, but to T.S Eliot, and the original quote sheds some light into the intended meaning, which is often misinterpreted by the clueless as a license to steal other's work and ideas.

    "<em style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif;font-size:16px;line-height:24px;">One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.<strong style="background-color:transparent;border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;"> </strong>
    The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.</em>
    "

    The quote is from an essay Eliot wrote on a playwright named Philip Massinger. He's basically saying that good poets borrow from other's works in a way that contributes something entirely new to the medium. He is not suggesting that merely imitating someone's work without added value is justified.

    Eliot's comment on borrowing "from authors remote in time, alien in language, or diverse in interest" meshes brilliantly with many of Apple's design influences, such as Dieter Rams's transistor radio designs' influence on the original iPod. Another great example is the iPad's Smart Cover, which bears an uncanny resemblance to an obscure Japanese bathtub cover.
     

    700

    700




    Contrast this with Samsung's modus operandi, which is to blatantly copy [often poorly] their direct competitors' designs without adding any value.
     
     
     

    this post is why i "plow" through sooooo many posts of questionable quality... to find a gem!.
  • Reply 111 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


     


    This line originally dates back not to Jobs or Picasso, but to T.S Eliot, and the original quote sheds some light into the intended meaning, which is often misinterpreted by the clueless as a license to steal other's work and ideas.


     



    "One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."



     


    The quote is from an essay Eliot wrote on a playwright named Philip Massinger. He's basically saying that good poets borrow from other's works in a way that contributes something entirely new to the medium. He is not suggesting that merely imitating someone's work without added value is justified.


     


    Eliot's comment on borrowing "from authors remote in time, alien in language, or diverse in interest" meshes brilliantly with many of Apple's design influences, such as Dieter Rams's transistor radio designs' influence on the original iPod. Another great example is the iPad's Smart Cover, which bears an uncanny resemblance to an obscure Japanese bathtub cover.


     


     


    image


     


     


    image


     


     


     


    Contrast this with Samsung's modus operandi, which is to blatantly copy [often poorly] their direct competitors' designs without adding any value.


    #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; }

     



    I registered just to tell: good post! I learned something at least :)

  • Reply 112 of 157
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    jwdav wrote: »
    <p style="margin-bottom:1em;border:0px;vertical-align:baseline;float:none;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif;line-height:18px;background-position:0px 50%;">Good artists copy, great artists steal doesn't mean what you think it means.</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:1em;border:0px;vertical-align:baseline;float:none;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif;line-height:18px;background-position:0px 50%;">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.</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:1em;border:0px;vertical-align:baseline;float:none;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, Utkal, sans-serif;line-height:18px;background-position:0px 50%;">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.</p>

    Exactly!... that is what is meant by that quote!
  • Reply 113 of 157
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post




    That's a good point. Still, innovation starts in research labs... that's how the whole Western world works.



     


    Funny, in Silicon Valley it seems to start in garages :)


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by haar View Post





    Exactly!... that is what is meant by that quote!


     


    What is funny is that Steve has actually explained exactly what he means when he uses the quote, but people never want to deal w/that.

  • Reply 114 of 157


    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

    And, say fanbois...??


     


    We say, "Don't use that word again, thanks."





    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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


     


    I have a lilac bush in my backyard with better reasoning and presentation ability than the current round of anti-Apple trolls…

  • Reply 115 of 157
    daharder wrote: »
    Maybe you're looking at it wrong?
    Anyway: Looks like this may well be a case of... Prior Art = Invalid Patent.

    I didn't see any demonstration of rubber-banding in the videos.

    As for pinch to zoom, the DiamondTouch demo uses a similar gesture to size something but not to zoom in or out on anything. I'm not sure how that applies to patent law today, though I'm not too sure about granting patents on something like 'pinch to zoom' anyway. It does seem like a pretty natural gesture and I'm surprised this much reaching is needed in the first place.
  • Reply 116 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post




    Since you are suspecting so much, I suspect your suspicions are suspect.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    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.





     


    suspectverb |s??spekt| [ with obj. ]have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (somethingwithout certain proof: if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light | [ with clause ] she suspected that he might be bluffing | (as adj.suspecteda suspected heart condition.• believe or feel that (someone) is guilty of an illegal, dishonest, or unpleasant act, without certain proof: parents suspected of child abuse.


     


    Above is the dictionary definition of suspect!


     


    People often make statements that they think are true, but cannot verify them as certain fact.  In polite conversation, these statements are usually qualified with "I suspect" or "I think".  This places the topics into discussion with proper emphasis on their veracity.


     


    You should try it -- you might find that people are more likely to reason with you than challenge your indefensible statements of ideas or feelings as facts.
  • Reply 117 of 157
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote "Apple Insider":


    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.



     


    This small detail seems to be the most potentially damning for Apple.

  • Reply 118 of 157


    Note to Samsung:


     


    Apple owns the patent.


     


    That's how the U.S. protects inventors from copycats.


     


    Get over it.


     


     


    Seriously, what's the use of getting a patent if everyone says "but I don't believe they should have that."


     


    Samsung is officially a joke.


     


    i will not fund their business practices with my money.


     


    i currently own a Samsung HDTV.  It is the only Samsung product I own. It will be the last.


     


    The obvious nature of their knockoff style and the extent which they will go to shamelessly steal and then defend their theft is beyond appaling.  Perhaps this is Ok in Korea.  Not here.


     


    Can you imagine if apple did this to Samsing in Korea?  it simply would not be tolerated there.  To quote the criminal Don King and his ability to get rich off crime: "Only in America."

  • Reply 119 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


     


    This small detail seems to be the most potentially damning for Apple.



     


     


    If all details are true.  records would need to be verified.


     


    And yet, it says nothing about the rubber band effect or the hardware knockoff design or the interface, etc.

  • Reply 120 of 157
    hattighattig Posts: 832member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post


    I cannot see the similarities after watching the video links...


     


    Prior Art is extremely hard to prove when invalidating patents; the patent office does a very good job of researching and discovery before issuing a patent.



     


    LMFAO.


     


    Anyway, the videos aren't very helpful to us (presumably because it's all AppleInsider could find on YouTube), but in the court the testimony is what counts, and that's where the creator said it had pinch to zoom, and that it was demonstrated to Apple quite some time before it appeared in their products and they patented it.


     


    As for the tiled UI thing, god knows what that is, but it looks as ugly as pretty much every Windows Mobile application did.

Sign In or Register to comment.