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

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    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.



     


    Sorry, but it does matter. Apple doesn't own patents on "multitouch" nor do they own patents on "touchscreens". They have patents on very specific implementations of using touch gestures.


     


    This is as bad as the haters whining when it was discovered Apple had a patent application for "facial recognition". Everyone was going "how can Apple patent facial recognition - it's been around for years?" What Apple has patented is a very specific method of facial recognition which is uniquely different from all the other patents on facial recognition.


     


    People claim Apple is too vague. Well, I say the poeple against Apple are the ones being vague. As soon as they see anything that's even remotely similar to Apple technolgy they immediately claim "prior art" and that "Apple copied..."

  • Reply 122 of 157
    hattighattig Posts: 832member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


    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. 



     


    Well the F700 does show that Samsung was going down the same design route that Apple did.


     


    But Samsung failed to get that into the trial due to what I can only describe as utter incompetence - surely they knew what products they released in the past!


     


    This *could* invalidate the pinch-to-zoom patent, which is part of Apple's suit.


     


    In addition the bounceback patent *could* be invalidated.


     


    I'm not in the court, so I'm not getting the full story. We'll find out soon enough what happens. Popcorn at the ready.


     


    If Apple loses both patents, then their case is weakened, and potential damages could be greatly reduced over what they were claiming. Again, that's down to what the court decides.

  • Reply 123 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


     


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



     


    Funny that Bogue kept e-mails from 2003 when Samsung can't even keep e-mails from 2 weeks ago.


     


    Has Apple showed anything from Fingerworks yet? They were around since 1998 and Apple bought them in 2005.

  • Reply 124 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


     


    Well the F700 does show that Samsung was going down the same design route that Apple did.


     


    But Samsung failed to get that into the trial due to what I can only describe as utter incompetence - surely they knew what products they released in the past!


     


    This *could* invalidate the pinch-to-zoom patent, which is part of Apple's suit.


     


    In addition the bounceback patent *could* be invalidated.


     


    I'm not in the court, so I'm not getting the full story. We'll find out soon enough what happens. Popcorn at the ready.


     


    If Apple loses both patents, then their case is weakened, and potential damages could be greatly reduced over what they were claiming. Again, that's down to what the court decides.



     


    No they won't. These patents represent a small portion of the damages. The big $$$ is from the outright copying of the trade dress.

  • Reply 125 of 157
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    mausz wrote: »
    As Han states in his presentation, he is merely building upon the work did before him (20 years), so maybe he did not think it was patentable.

    When developing new software you constantly perform micro-innovations (if you would like to call it innovation at all, you're finding solutions to technical/procedural/user interface problems). These should not even be patentable, but as software patents have been possible for the last couple of decennia you get all these patents which are now being discussed. I develop software for a living, all completely custom built but I'm sure if all patent holders were to examine my software I would have 100+ infringements. Of those maybe 20 I would know about myself (because I implemented user interface elements like my customers wanted, and they said : have that list perform as all other lists on my iPad, oh and make the back button blue), but the other 80 I came up with myself because they were simply solutions to problems.

    I always have to remember that when I was ~13 I developed an integer based line drawing algorithm using 2 8 bit integers (6502 ;) in a vacuum (it was 1984, so no internet, no dial-up bbs etc.). 11 years later I graduated university on 3d computer graphics. My professor got his title around 1984 based on an 'algorithm for drawing angled lines using discrete arithmetic'...

    Not really related but still wanted to post it ;)

    Similar sentiments here.
    I developed paint and drawing programs including fill and copying algorithms and even added icon libraries with a floppy drive 'database' and graphic printer driver for a matrix printer. I also made a game generator and music synthesizer. And I did that in 1980.
    Later at the university I saw similar line drawing and fill algorithm when I had a computer graphics course.
    But I 'invented' it all by myself.
    According to the current patent law I would probably be liable for all the work I did myself.
    I'am very sure this is completely wrong.

    J.
  • Reply 126 of 157
    hattighattig Posts: 832member

    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?


     


    Because not everyone believes in patenting everything? Or they wish for the idea to be freely available?


     


    Not really a relevant question anyway.

  • Reply 127 of 157
    hattighattig Posts: 832member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by yakovlev View Post


     


    Punishment? But why?


     


    Since Samsung holds a view that pinch-to-zoom and LaunchTile are identical, they would surely be happy to change their products to use LaunchTile. By their own logic, it won’t make any difference.



     


    Samsung used LaunchTile against the concept of having a regular 2D array of icons for apps is unique. See also UIQ, PalmOS and even Apple's Newton OS, and I'm sure there's a load of other prior examples.


     


    The other video show's the pinch-to-zoom claim, and that looks fairly strong, although the details will surely get picked apart in the days to come.


     


    All of this is part of the trade dress aspect of the Apple lawsuit.

  • Reply 128 of 157
    jz1492jz1492 Posts: 41member

    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)


     


     




    Video upload date : 2006.4.8


    Video record date : 2004. 5


     


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



    Not so fast. These all are corner-pull, window-resizing gestures. Watch carefully and you will notice the squares don't start resizing up until at least one finger passes over a corner.


     


    They just extended the use of a mouse to multi-touch.


     


    Lame.

  • Reply 129 of 157
    hattighattig Posts: 832member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    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."



     


    Learn to think.


     


    Some patents are invalid, and that's discovered after the fact. The patent could have been applied for in good faith as well. That doesn't stop if from being found to be invalid (and if the U.S. system does invalidate it, then that's part of the process that you're so proud of).


     


    "shamelessly steal"? In this case with the pinch-to-zoom it's looking like Apple stole it, as the guy demoed it to them a long time in advance of Apple patenting it and using it, and he has the email proof that has been submitted to the court.


     


    Samsung makes some extremely good products, and you shouldn't let some corporate shenanigans cloud your future purchases.

  • Reply 130 of 157
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Let me get this straight. Apple's efforts are invalidated in your mind because the year before Apple releases a full fledged product they spent many years developing and have patents on multitouch capacitance gestures are null and void because they didn't demo an unfinished concept that wasn't part of an actual product first? Makes perfect sense¡

    I didn't say that.

    I said two things: (1) pinch to zoom wasn't patent-worthy by apple, and (2) you need to separate invention from execution (admittedly, the wording was unlucky). Apple didn't invent pinch to zoom, they just perfectly executed it. That means their patent is likely invalid because patents are awarded to the original inventor, regardless of who executed what.

    I think apple will win the rubber banding patent, that seems an apple original. I think samsung knows this too, as it's no longer in their new products.

    The trade dress claims are a mixed bag. I think some models will infringe, but not all.

    For the record, i have 3 ipods, 2 macs, an ipad, and only one galaxy s2 phone. I like apple's products, i just don't like their arrogant "we invented it all" attitude. As a software developer i also am fundamentally opposed to software patents, all of them, which is why i'm rooting for android on the patent front. I'm not rooting for samsung, they knew what they were getting into when they copied the design. My next phone won't be a samsung, but it will be android.
  • Reply 131 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    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."



     


    Learn to think.


     


    Some patents are invalid, and that's discovered after the fact. The patent could have been applied for in good faith as well. That doesn't stop if from being found to be invalid (and if the U.S. system does invalidate it, then that's part of the process that you're so proud of).


     


    "shamelessly steal"? In this case with the pinch-to-zoom it's looking like Apple stole it, as the guy demoed it to them a long time in advance of Apple patenting it and using it, and he has the email proof that has been submitted to the court.


     


    Samsung makes some extremely good products, and you shouldn't let some corporate shenanigans cloud your future purchases.



     


    The concept or idea of pinch to zoom is not the issue (and, likely, is not patentable).  What is at issue is Apple's patent on the method and implementation of pinch to zoom -- it is up to the court to decide if the patent is invalid based on information provided by both sides of the litigation.


     


    Often, when a Company such as Apple or Sammy is developing a new "method or implementation" -- they will do an exhaustive search to see if their efforts will be hampered by prior art or existing patents.  The demos to Apple of an existing implementation, apparently, lead Apple to believe that their method and implementation was different enough (or non-conflicted enough) to be validly patentable.


     


    Also, sometimes, a company will knowingly introduce a product that appears to violate an existing patent to see if it will be challenged and upheld in court.


     


    In the 1960s, Xerox held all the patents for Xerography copiers.  IBM, introduced a competitive copier that appeared to violate at least one of the Xerox patents.  AIR, IBM decided that this was the path of least resistance -- let the lawyers resolve the issues.  The copier was even nicknamed the "patent buster".

  • Reply 132 of 157
    bigmikebigmike Posts: 254member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    "Good artists copy great artists steal" -- SJ




     


    SJ did say that. And it's a true statement. I think it goes well with the phrase, "you snooze, you lose" especially in the business patent world. Besides, before Apple did the "pinch and zoom" correctly, it was butt ugly from the other guys.


     


    Anyway, Samsung just needs to learn how to be creative. 

  • Reply 133 of 157
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member


    We have a proverb: when you point a finger, the other four point at yourself. You are basing your supicions on what again? All, I know they all weren't based on facts. You can speculate all you want, and your speculations [or in your case your "suspicion"] can't be proven right or wrong. It's much the same way with what I believe to have happened. You can't disprove it either. 


     


    Fact 1: Apple had contacted Jeff Han about what it's been doing with the "multi touch" technology. 


    Fact 2: Nothing is being disclosed as to the agreement between Microsoft and Jeff Han surrounding its purchase of Perceptive Pixel.


    Fact 3: The technology employed behind Apple's and Perceptive Pixel's touch screens are two very fundamentally different technology. PP used something called light driven FTIR technology while Apple uses the widely used projected capacitance technology. These differing technology will also force different coding to address the hardware,  for instance for the "pinch and zoom" gesture. . 


     


     


    Jeffrey Han's /Perceptive Pixel's re: Multi Touch Patents: 


    -Graphical user interface for large-scale, multi-user, multi-touch systems


    -Multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection


    -Liquid multi-touch sensor and display device


    -Touch Sensing


    -Pressure-sensitive manipulation of displayed objects


    -Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls


    -Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls


    -Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls


    -Touch-Based Annotation System with Temporary Modes


    -Systems for an Electrostatic Stylus Within a Capacitive Touch Sensor


    -Projected Capacitive Touch Sensing


    -Capacitive Touch Sensor Having Code-Divided and Time-Divided Transmit Waveforms


    -FORCE AND TRUE CAPACITIVE TOUCH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR CAPACITIVE TOUCH


    -Capacitive Touch Sensor Having Correlation with a Receiver


    -Techniques for Locally Improving Signal to Noise in a Capacitive Touch Sensor


    -Localizing an Electrostatic Stylus Within a Capacitive Touch Sensor


     


    Those are the facts. Yet, you still can speculate all you want. 


     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    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 135 of 157
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they did use the Chewbacca Defense.

    One: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense

    And two:



    Not that I wish to encourage the silliness too much, but I'm surprised you didn't use the Lebron James defense reference on one of the prior threads.


    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.


     


     




    I was wondering how far back that quote went. It was obvious in the old Jobs interview he was taking it out of context and lacking any sense of how to interpret its original meaning. It was just execu-speak, which always annoys me. Your reference is much cooler.

  • Reply 136 of 157
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


    We have a proverb: when you point a finger, the other four point at yourself. You are basing your supicions on what again? All, I know they all weren't based on facts. You can speculate all you want, and your speculations [or in your case your "suspicion"] can't be proven right or wrong. It's much the same way with what I believe to have happened. You can't disprove it either. 


     


    Fact 1: Apple had contacted Jeff Han about what it's been doing with the "multi touch" technology. 


    Fact 2: Nothing is being disclosed as to the agreement between Microsoft and Jeff Han surrounding its purchase of Perceptive Pixel.


    Fact 3: The technology employed behind Apple's and Perceptive Pixel's touch screens are two very fundamentally different technology. PP used something called light driven FTIR technology while Apple uses the widely used projected capacitance technology. These differing technology will also force different coding to address the hardware,  for instance for the "pinch and zoom" gesture. . 


     


     


    Jeffrey Han's /Perceptive Pixel's re: Multi Touch Patents: 


    *SNIP*


    Those are the facts. Yet, you still can speculate all you want. 


     


     


     



     


    Fact 3 would seem to help indicate that it is likely that Apple's patents could be valid, as they are very different implementations and methods to achieve the results.  You have a nice list of facts here, but they don't exactly say that Apple is stealing anything either.

  • Reply 137 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


     


    No. It looks like real pinch to zoom in.


     


     


     


    image


     


    image


     


    image


     


     


    image


     


    Diamond Touch demo video




    Using giant fonts doesn't make your point any more effective, nor valid. It's usually the sign of someone who lacks enough persuasive evidence beyond their own personal opinion to get someone else to see their point of view.

  • Reply 138 of 157


    Time out!


     


    All this talk about patents and inventions reminds me of a Friden mechanical calculator my dad owned in the 1950s... AIR it cost over $1,000... and it was a mechanical marvel.   You could key in some numbers and the machine would dutifully perform for several minutes -- I think it performed multiplication and division by doing repetitive additions or subtractions.  


     


     


     


    The crowning glory, however, was that if you pressed the correct keys, you could this beauty to automatically "play" drum cadences such as:



    • the Campbells are coming


    • the Irish Washerwoman


    • several others I can't recall


     


    I surfed (in vain) for a video playing cadences -- the closest I could get was about 6 minutes, then 7:20 into:


     


    image


     


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S0BETniokI&feature=player_embedded


     


     


    Anyway you get the idea!

  • Reply 139 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Time out!


     


    All this talk about patents and inventions reminds me of a Friden mechanical calculator my dad owned in the 1950s... AIR it cost over $1,000... and it was a mechanical marvel.   You could key in some numbers and the machine would dutifully perform for several minutes -- I think it performed multiplication and division by doing repetitive additions or subtractions.  


     


     


     


    The crowning glory, however, was that if you pressed the correct keys, you could this beauty to automatically "play" drum cadences such as:



    • the Campbells are coming


    • the Irish Washerwoman


    • several others I can't recall


     


    I surfed (in vain) for a video playing cadences -- the closest I could get was about 6 minutes, then 7:20 into:


     


    image


     


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S0BETniokI&feature=player_embedded


     


     


    Anyway you get the idea!



    That's VERY cool! Thanks for that bit of history - I'm a sucker for facts like this :)


     


    On an even more unrelated note, did you know that one form of computer memory relied upon standing waves in tubes of mercury? It was called Delay Line Memory. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory

  • Reply 140 of 157

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


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



     


    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.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


    We have a proverb: when you point a finger, the other four point at yourself. You are basing your supicions on what again? All, I know they all weren't based on facts. You can speculate all you want, and your speculations [or in your case your "suspicion"] can't be proven right or wrong. It's much the same way with what I believe to have happened. You can't disprove it either. 


     


    Fact 1: Apple had contacted Jeff Han about what it's been doing with the "multi touch" technology. 


    Fact 2: Nothing is being disclosed as to the agreement between Microsoft and Jeff Han surrounding its purchase of Perceptive Pixel.


    Fact 3: The technology employed behind Apple's and Perceptive Pixel's touch screens are two very fundamentally different technology. PP used something called light driven FTIR technology while Apple uses the widely used projected capacitance technology. These differing technology will also force different coding to address the hardware,  for instance for the "pinch and zoom" gesture. . 


     


     


    Jeffrey Han's /Perceptive Pixel's re: Multi Touch Patents: 


    -Graphical user interface for large-scale, multi-user, multi-touch systems


    -Multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection


    -Liquid multi-touch sensor and display device


    -Touch Sensing


    -Pressure-sensitive manipulation of displayed objects


    -Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls


    -Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls


    -Event Registration and Dispatch System and Method for Multi-Point Controls


    -Touch-Based Annotation System with Temporary Modes


     


    Those are the facts. Yet, you still can speculate all you want. 


     



     


    Are the items above, in red, facts?  You certainly posted them as facts -- no qualifiers, no apparent doubt in your posts... also no citations to back up your claims!

Sign In or Register to comment.