Samsung sues Apple in Korea over iOS Notification Center

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,928member


    Well at least we got past that whole notification bar disagreement, which was part of the actual thread subject.  


     


    For the unrelated multi-touch discussion it's pretty obvious that Apple was ahead of everyone else. But now it should also be obvious that Google wasn't working on an OS for just a scroll-wheel Blackberry-like device. There were several different hardware configurations supported by Android API's and built as proof-of-concept projects by Open Handset Alliance members in 2007 (and perhaps earlier), and it included touchscreens.

  • Reply 62 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,928member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    Too bad Apple's method doesn't use a "notification bar" which is where your whole argument falls apart, in much the same way any attempt by Google to use their specific patent to sue Apple would also call apart.

    Apple introduced drop downs with the Lisa in the early eighties, if you want prior art more like Apple's implementation.


    That wasn't my argument at all. Go back just a bit to post 41 for the issues my posts were addressing. Solip thought he had found evidence to show I was perhaps incorrect about the status bar, and which I then further clarified. I think I proved my points without question, and they had nothing to do what you imagined them to be.

  • Reply 63 of 118
    gatorguy wrote: »
    But now it should also be obvious that Google wasn't working on an OS for just a scroll-wheel Blackberry-like device. There were several different hardware configurations supported by Android API's and built as proof-of-concept projects by Open Handset Alliance members in 2007 (and perhaps earlier), and it included touchscreens.

    I haven't seen any evidence to support that. Even the video from the end of 2007 you posted still has a scroll wheel and contextual menu items that could not be used without physical buttons (or stylus) on the device. Sure, I guess that's not technically BB-like, but it's certainly WinCE PDA-like, and certainly not iPhone-like.
  • Reply 64 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,928member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I haven't seen any evidence to support that. Even the video from the end of 2007 you posted still has a scroll wheel and contextual menu items that could not be used without physical buttons (or stylus) on the device. Sure, I guess that's not technically BB-like, but it's certainly WinCE PDA-like, and certainly not iPhone-like.


    I agree its wasn't iPhone like (supporting my arguments from a day or so back that Android wasn't targeting Apple in the first place but rather MS), nor did I even hint it was. Wouldn't that be a good thing? It was plainly a touchscreen-enabled prototype tho, unless there was a third hand spinning the globe with the buttons. It also plainly avoided multi-touch just as Steve Jobs demanded of them. That was a good thing too at the time, was it not?

  • Reply 65 of 118
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    12/17/2007  Hmm... Is that a notification bar I see at the top of this pic? I'll see you and raise you one.:)
    http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild?tag=gadgetsandroidhardwareinthewild

    I can go further back and add more detail if you'd like, for instance the API's. (FWIW there was Android support for touchscreens too) The Android status bar goes back at least as early as Fall/2007, months before anything similar from even 3rd party developers for iOS, and certainly nothing from Apple themselves.

    That doesn't mean Apple "stole" their notifications bar from Android, but it proves beyond a doubt that Android didn't borrow the idea from any Cydia developer. Seems more likely to be the other way around if anything.

    EDIT: For those that want to still insist that Google got the idea for the notifications/status bar from iOS jailbreakers, here's a video link demonstrating the feature (@2:19). Upload date: Nov 11th, 2007. And gosh gee whiz there's even a touchscreen model demoed beginning at the 3:00 minute mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg&feature=player_embedded#!

    Too bad Apple's method doesn't use a "notification bar" which is where your whole argument falls apart, in much the same way any attempt by Google to use their specific patent to sue Apple would also call apart.

    Apple introduced drop downs with the Lisa in the early eighties, if you want prior art more like Apple's implementation.
  • Reply 66 of 118
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    12/17/2007  Hmm... Is that a notification bar I see at the top of this pic? I'll see you and raise you one.:)
    http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild?tag=gadgetsandroidhardwareinthewild

    I can go further back and add more detail if you'd like, for instance the API's. (FWIW there was Android support for touchscreens too) The Android status bar goes back at least as early as Fall/2007, months before anything similar from even 3rd party developers for iOS, and certainly nothing from Apple themselves.

    That doesn't mean Apple "stole" their notifications bar from Android, but it proves beyond a doubt that Android didn't borrow the idea from any Cydia developer. Seems more likely to be the other way around if anything.

    EDIT: For those that want to still insist that Google got the idea for the notifications/status bar from iOS jailbreakers, here's a video link demonstrating the feature (@2:19). Upload date: Nov 11th, 2007. And gosh gee whiz there's even a touchscreen model demoed beginning at the 3:00 minute mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg&feature=player_embedded#!

    Too bad Apple's method doesn't use a "notification bar" which is where your whole argument falls apart, in much the same way any attempt by Google to use their specific patent to sue Apple would also call apart.

    Apple introduced drop downs with the Lisa in the early eighties, if you want prior art more like Apple's implementation.
  • Reply 67 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,928member


    Hill, I think you're accidently repeating the same post 58 over and over.

  • Reply 68 of 118
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I agree its wasn't iPhone like, nor did I even hint it was. Wouldn't that be a good thing? It was plainly a touchscreen-enabled prototype tho, unless there was a third hand spinning the globe with the buttons. It also plainly avoided multi-touch just as Steve Jobs demanded of them. That was a good thing too at the time, was it not?

    Sure, touch screens existed long before the iPhone though. Apple's Newton used a touch screen. That demo shows that they used what I can only assume is a capacitance display, but that was nearly a year after Apple demoed the iPhone. By that point anything less than that was an automatic fail. What I'm not seeing is that blurry image from 9 days after the iPhone was demoed appearing ever again and showing any capacitive, multi-touch, or the use of the finger as the primary input on-screen.
  • Reply 69 of 118
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Hill, I think you're accidently repeating the same post 58 over and over.

    It seems to be an issue with the forum.
  • Reply 70 of 118
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,928member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Sure, touch screens existed long before the iPhone though. Apple's Newton used a touch screen. That demo shows that they used what I can only assume is a capacitance display, but that was nearly a year after Apple demoed the iPhone. By that point anything less than that was an automatic fail. What I'm not seeing is that blurry image from 9 days after the iPhone was demoed appearing ever again and showing any capacitive, multi-touch, or the use of the finger as the primary input on-screen.


    I believe the touchscreen fail, if there was one, was on the part of the Handset Alliance members rather than Google, as they were tasked with the hardware builds while Google was primary lead on the OS to run them. The software-level support was there, but the concept handsets developed by the manufacturers as of mid to late 2007 weren't yet taking full advantage. Apple was plainly leading the pack, but Android's slack wasn't primarily due to lack of support by the Android OS itself IMHO. It pretty obviously took the hardware partners some time to get their acts together.


     


    This is another video from that same Nov/2007 time-period which probably better explains Google's view of what they envisioned with Android. They also discuss notifications in more detail beginning at about the 2:55 mark.



     


    Rather than push the thread further off-topic I'll not bother posting anymore on touch. My apologies for the distraction.

  • Reply 71 of 118
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Rather than push the thread further off-topic I'll not bother posting anymore on touch. My apologies for the distraction.

    It's a weekend topic and it's more entertaining than the original topic so I say post away.
  • Reply 72 of 118
    alexnalexn Posts: 119member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Rather than push the thread further off-topic I'll not bother posting anymore on touch. My apologies for the distraction.

    It's a weekend topic and it's more entertaining than the original topic so I say post away.

    What SolipsismX said :)
  • Reply 73 of 118
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I believe the touchscreen fail, if there was one, was on the part of the Handset Alliance members rather than Google, as they were tasked with the hardware builds while Google was primary lead on the OS to run them. The software-level support was there, but the concept handsets developed by the manufacturers as of mid to late 2007 weren't yet taking full advantage. Apple was plainly leading the pack, but Android's slack wasn't primarily due to lack of support by the Android OS itself IMHO. It pretty obviously took the hardware partners some time to get their acts together.


     


    This is another video from that same Nov/2007 time-period which probably better explains Google's view of what they envisioned with Android. They also discuss notifications in more detail beginning at about the 2:55 mark.



     


    Rather than push the thread further off-topic I'll not bother posting anymore on touch. My apologies for the distraction.



    Blame everyone else but Google. LOL. How convenient. This revisionist must be desperate. I love to see when the iPhone touch screen was that bad. It might be 1999. LOL.

  • Reply 74 of 118
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Speaking of JB apps/utilities...



    Techies love flashy stuffs and I think this caters to those. First, the main purpose of Multitasking Tray is for you to switch app quickly, I don't see how this is better than the traditional one. Second, iPhone arranges memory usage automatically. It's rare that you need to go quitting apps in Multitasking Tray. I only quit app when it's hanged or crashed which was extremely rare. My wife uses her iPhone 4 for a couple of years now and she didn't even know Multitasking Tray exists. Quitting app regularly is unnecessary and when you need to, the old press until it jingle is better because you know it by heart (from arranging apps on you home screen) by now. Deleting apps by swiping it down will further confuses users.


    I like the Media Tray though.

  • Reply 75 of 118
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mad Mac Man View Post


    I don't quite get this - isn't Android owned by Google? Therefore if the notification centre first appeared in Android (I think most of us would concede it did) then isn't Google's fight not Samsung?



     


    Well, where it first appeared doesn't really make a difference. The question is who owns the patent, and this is where it gets a bit sticky. Apple filed a patent for the notification centre sometime in 2007/2008, going by the date of this article:


     


    http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/18/potential_iphone_usability_and_interface_improvements.html


     


    And I think Google's patent surfaced in 2009, which is not to say we're talking about exactly the same thing.

  • Reply 76 of 118
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Speaking of JB apps/utilities...

    I don't like it. The live preview icons can be confusing, especially for gaming apps. They tend to go full screen and the app isn't recognizable anymore. Square icons are: we see them on the App Store, on the iOS home screen, marketing material. Consistency, that's what I like. I also agree with Matrix07 that swiping an icon down instead of press n hold, X is non-intuitive.

    Still, thanks for the watch. Weekend post indeed.
  • Reply 77 of 118

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    If Apple makes a TV I think it's likely they will have the panel calibrated well at the factory like they do with their other displays.




    Also, they'll prevent anyone but an Apple(R) Genius(R) at an Apple (R) Store (R) from changing the calibration level for your Apple (R) iTeevee(R) or whatever.


     


     


    But don't worry, if you purchased the Apple (R) AppleCare (R) for Apple (R) iTeeVee (R) * then the service will be free and only will require you leaving your Apple(R) iTeeVee(R) at the Apple (R) Store (R) for a mere three weeks.


     


     


     


    * Terms and conditions apply. Apple (R)  AppleCare (R) cannot exceed a year after buying date.


     


     


    Or something.

  • Reply 78 of 118
    matrix07 wrote: »
    Techies love flashy stuffs and I think this caters to those. First, the main purpose of Multitasking Tray is for you to switch app quickly, I don't see how this is better than the traditional one. Second, iPhone arranges memory usage automatically. It's rare that you need to go quitting apps in Multitasking Tray. I only quit app when it's hanged or crashed which was extremely rare. My wife uses her iPhone 4 for a couple of years now and she didn't even know Multitasking Tray exists. Quitting app regularly is unnecessary and when you need to, the old press until it jingle is better because you know it by heart (from arranging apps on you home screen) by now. Deleting apps by swiping it down will further confuses users.
    I like the Media Tray though.
    philboogie wrote: »
    I don't like it. The live preview icons can be confusing, especially for gaming apps. They tend to go full screen and the app isn't recognizable anymore. Square icons are: we see them on the App Store, on the iOS home screen, marketing material. Consistency, that's what I like. I also agree with Matrix07 that swiping an icon down instead of press n hold, X is non-intuitive.
    Still, thanks for the watch. Weekend post indeed.

    My feelings are the same. If you have multiple Safari pages open which one does it pull? If I happen to have that same page open in another browser I see pretty much the same page but with a different name. That's not good. I want to find these apps as quickly as possible which is why an icon is the fastest way for our brains to zero in on what we expect to see.

    And what about apps that are made for landscape view only, like some games? Do those show up sideways in the viewer or does it turn (and crop) the screenshot?

    That said, it looks really well done and I would love to see Apple allow for some fast access to certain settings but this solution doesn't look great for the average user.
  • Reply 79 of 118
    froodfrood Posts: 771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post





    Except NC existed on the iPhone long before samescum or google stole the idea. Lockinfo by David Ashman, late 2008, for JB iPhones. Who stole who's idea? Look it up. http://www.lockinfo.net/ version 1.1 was available for download through Cydia in January 2009. Google can't sue as prior art will kill any suit dead in its tracks."Google came up with it". The word is STOLE. Google don't create anything, like samescum, they just steal. Show me NC on android prior to 2008, please, I beg you!!!!! You can't.

    Your verdict. Shot down. In flames. Prior art, prior art. You lose. Go dance on someone else's grave.


     


    Actually you pretty much absolutely supported my verdict.  There are two issues related to these types of patent suits.  Infringement and validity.  Infringement is almost always the easy one.  Does Samsung hold a patent related to the notification center?  Yes.  Did Apple use something essentially the same in their devices?  If the answer to that is yes, then Apple infringed (regardless of whether or not the patent is valid).  It is even entirely possible that Apple could have a substantially similar patent in its arsenal and they could choose to use that to countersue Samsung.  If that is the case, since they both used a system that violates the others' held patents- they would both be guilty of infringement.  If you dispute that Samsung holds the patent, you're irrational- because Samsung holds the patent.  That is a fact.  If you could claim that Apples version of notification is not in violation of Samsungs patent you could at least make an argument if you have one.  But even a casual look at notification center on Android and Apples version shows they are pretty much the same thing.  Saying Apple didn't infringe the patent would be more emotional than logical.  It would be a lot like the 'bounceback' and 'pinch to zoom' patents-  Question 1: Did Apple hold a patent on 'bounceback' and 'pinch to zoom'  Answer(s):  Yes.   Question 2: Did Samsung use 'bounceback' and 'pinch to zoom' on their devices?  Answer:  Yes.  Therefore Samsung infringed on Apples patents.  It is not really arguable.  I think the android fans that argue otherwise are just as guilty of arguing emotionally instead of logically.


     


    If infringement is found, it is not necessarily a bad thing.  The patent needs to be valid.  In my case I thought the patent should not be valid because it is too obvious a thing to patent.  That would be open to argument and lawyers are pretty good at that and they will- which is why I said they could save some time and just use *my* opinion (and it is just that- my opinion).  In your case, you are claiming there is prior art.  That's an even stronger argument because it would be fact based.  Even with prior art there will still be an argument of whether the 'prior art' is similar enough and as long as they are getting paid lawyers will make the argument.


     


    Either way its the same verdict.


    Did Apple infringe:  Yes.


    Does it matter:  No, the patent is invalid.

  • Reply 80 of 118


    When is Apple (or even Konfabulator) going to sue Google over their copying of Widgets? And when are all those dock companies from the early 90's running on OS/2 going to claim prior art for notifications?


     


    I laugh at people whining over whether Android or iOS was first when the truth is neither of them came up with any of it.

Sign In or Register to comment.