Apple earns 'huge win' against Samsung on rubber banding patent

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 122
    ^ Oh look, a new uninformed troll. What else is new at AI? :\

    Troll harder next time, your ignorance is showing through. There's no way anyone who's followed patent issues this year could come to any conclusion other than Google and friends getting their asses handed to them. Even Microsoft is getting in on the action making a fool of Motorola. Not to mention getting royalties from that "free" OS Google gives away that's not really free.
  • Reply 82 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    You still haven't managed to make a cogent, defensible argument as to why you believe such a thing.



     


    No, I've made plenty of cogent arguments that you must not have read.  I didn't see your explanation for why this is patentable, though.

  • Reply 83 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


     


    The argument isn't about the physics that they're emulating, it's about what they're using it indicate.



     


    We'll have to agree to disagree.  I respect your position and opinions because you actually did make a reasonable argument, unlike lots of others here.

  • Reply 84 of 122
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Prior to Apple, nobody else used this rubber-banding technique. It's easy now, in hindsight, to say oh that is just so obvious. Well, apparently it wasn't because in all of written history, nobody utilized this technique until Apple. So yes, they should get the spoils and be able to protect this most unique idea. It is, after all, an important part of the OS and an integral part of the UI.

    Samsung is a sack of horse s**t for having no creative ideas of their own prior to the introduction of the iPhone. They literally copied everything from the iPhone down to the corner radii of the case. There is physical duplication of patented designs, then the blatant copying of elements of iOS either in Android itself or in Samsung's UI overlay.

    Apple designs a brand new mobile OS from the ground up. Google, through its position on Apple's board via Eric Schmidt, gets a sneak peak at the future and quickly puts its own mobile OS plans into motion, a la Android, and gives it away. A company like Samsung comes along and does not have to invest a dime in OS development, copies Apple's physical design to the letter, and has an instant product with absolutely no risk of its own and without any skin in the game. Then all the d-bags come to Samsung's defense and claim Apple is being a bully?

    American consumers should be bending over backwards to reward an innovative American company, not a thieving Asian company that does nothing but funnel dollars away from our continent. Apple is bringing Mac assembly back to the US, and they should be celebrated and rewarded for that. I think it's time we start taking a longer view of our purchases and look at who the dollars are benefitting and where they are going.

    When was the last time Samsung had a developer's conference? When did they sell it out in 71 seconds? Which developers do you see getting passionate about developing for Samsung? I saw a lot of passion at WWDC and a few standing ovations. I also saw almost every major network's video cameras in there. I don't remember seeing that at any Samsung event. There is excitement on the Apple side, there is no excitement of the sort with Samsung. I mean my god, even the name sounds ridiculous - how is anyone going to get excited by such a lame brand?

    Apple's got this.

    Good post, a little long winded but nonetheless good, except for the fact that none of that really matters. Samsung will never come close to Apple and my guess is that they're fine with that. Nothing wrong with being number 2 especially since #3,4,5....are so far behind. Rubber banding has been long gone from Android so I don't see how it's a 'big win'.
  • Reply 85 of 122
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,291member
    We'll have to agree to disagree.  I respect your position and opinions because you actually did make a reasonable argument, unlike lots of others here.

    Sure made the end of my work day fly by.
  • Reply 86 of 122
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,398member
    You still haven't managed to make a cogent, defensible argument as to why you believe such a thing.

    No, I've made plenty of cogent arguments that you must not have read.  I didn't see your explanation for why this is patentable, though.

    Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.
  • Reply 87 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Should have guessed. You couldn't tell the difference between touch and 'touch.'



     


    Don't blame me for misinterpreting your vague usage.  It seems like you must have meant (sarcastically of course) that touch screen responses should not be patentable.  I agree with that (not your sarcasm).  I don't think that interactions should be patented, only the technologies that allow for those interactions.

  • Reply 88 of 122
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post





    Google doesn't hold the patents to some of its most important algorithms. Stanford University, where Google was born, does. Google holds a license.


     


    Hmm... It was my understanding that their most important code has never been patented so it would not be revealed, which seems pretty smart to me.

  • Reply 89 of 122
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


     


    No, I've made plenty of cogent arguments that you must not have read.  I didn't see your explanation for why this is patentable, though.



     


    Point out your arguments (the ones that aren't an utter waste of time), then we'll discuss further.

  • Reply 90 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    You may be waiting a while.


     


    There's an awfully large amount of cool shit to spend my time on in this world, and I have zero interest in trying to convince you of anything.


     


    Maybe you should be directing your concerns towards the U.S. Patent and Trademark office?


     


    image



     


    I see.  You have just enough time to make useless jabs but no time to form any sort of argument, not even a bad one.

  • Reply 91 of 122
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Hmm... Its my understanding that their most important code has never been patented so it would not be revealed, which seems pretty smart to me.

    It's an old tactic. Many companies have never patented their great ideas so that the competition will never get their hands on it. The Coca-Cola and KFC recipes being the best examples.
  • Reply 92 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    Point out your arguments (the ones that aren't an utter waste of time), then we'll discuss further.



     


    1.  The UI acts as a virtual object to be acted upon by the virtualized impetus of your finger.


    2.  This virtual object can interact with other virtual objects in the environment, such as virtual bounds and barriers.


    3.  One possible interaction between virtual objects, like real objects, is rebound when two objects collide.


    4.  Rebound, being a physical phenomenon that exists without reason and existed before our ability to describe it mathematically, cannot be patented.


    5.  The virtual world being a mimic of the real world, a patent cannot be granted for rebound or any other virtualized physical interaction between objects.

  • Reply 93 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself at this point.


     


    I'm not embarrassed at all.  I appreciate your concern.

  • Reply 94 of 122
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    1.  The UI acts as a virtual object to be acted upon by the virtualized impetus of your finger.
    2.  This virtual object can interact with other virtual objects in the environment, such as virtual bounds and barriers.
    <span style="line-height:1.231;">3.  One possible interaction between virtual objects, like real objects, is rebound when two objects collide.</span>

    <span style="line-height:1.231;">4.  Rebound, being a physical phenomenon that exists without reason and existed before our ability to describe it mathematically, cannot be patented.</span>

    <span style="line-height:1.231;">5.  The virtual world being a mimic of the real world, a patent cannot be granted for rebound or any other virtualized physical interaction between objects.</span>

    You were doing well until number 4. Rebounding does have a reason for happening. It's the simple physics law of action and reaction.
  • Reply 95 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You were doing well until number 4. Rebounding does have a reason for happening. It's the simple physics law of action and reaction.


     


    I understand why rebound occurs.  I don't know why rebound (i.e. the physics that governs our universe) exists.

  • Reply 96 of 122
    splifsplif Posts: 603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by UnbiasedDave View Post


    http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/02/25/1747201/lg-acquires-webos-source-code-and-patents-from-hp


     


    I would imagine HP held onto them and only recently sold them to LG.




    Anyway, the task switching system is the same as Windows Phone 8, just with the additional ability to close apps. What'll be interesting to see is if in iOS 7 apps can still run in the background, or whether or not they'll be tombstoned.



    Actually, the iOS 7 feature was seen before in the first version of iOS with regards to how web history was handled & to view multiple webpages in Safari - before webOS. It also is an extention of expose. What I see on windows phone is expose with scrolling or the safari history idea first the first version of iOS. Seems to me Apple is just using it's own UI ideas for other areas of the OSX & iOS.

  • Reply 97 of 122
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    I see.  You have just enough time to make useless jabs but no time to form any sort of argument, not even a bad one.

    No. You've misunderstood again.

    I'm saying that you're not cool enough to do.

    ;)
  • Reply 98 of 122
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member
    I think you're missing the point.  Apple software engineers made code of their own to cause the rebound effect, but the idea was not novel.  The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago.  Making a virtual copy of something that is a natural phenomenon is not now and never will be novel.

    By that logic... Chemicals and pharmaceuticals shouldn't be patentable because all the engineers do is put things together a certain way, but the actual reactions are defined by nature.
  • Reply 99 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


     


    I understand why rebound occurs.  I don't know why rebound (i.e. the physics that governs our universe) exists.



     


    Oh I think you understand. You're just being intentionally obtuse.


     


    This is not physics. If it were as simple as something hitting the edge of your screen and bouncing back then maybe (like the game of Pong). If you actually read Apple's patent you'd understand there's more going on here. Like the content of the document, how fast the user is scrolling, what is to be displayed behind the document when the user goes beyond the limits and so on.


     


    Further, if you were talking about about collisions in the real world, then the objects would continue on their paths until they hit something else or friction eventually slows them down. This is not what happens in iOS where there are specific actions as to when the page should "stop" and how fast it should take to get to that point. In other words, iOS has its own set of rules which do not involve the laws of physics. Since it has nothing to do with physics (a natural, real-world phenomenom), then it can be patented.

  • Reply 100 of 122

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post





    By that logic... Chemicals and pharmaceuticals shouldn't be patentable because all the engineers do is put things together a certain way, but the actual reactions are defined by nature.


     


    I see a distinction there because pharmaceutical companies usually aren't recreating natural substances when they develop medicines.  If they do, then those compounds shouldn't be patentable.

Sign In or Register to comment.