In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).
It's not about being "against Apple". It's about the fact that the USPTO got overwhelmed, and was more concerned with quantity than quality. Now the mess has to be cleaned up.
As I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent expert), the basis of Samsung's claims is the invalidity of Apple's patents. But back few year ago, when they started implementing the gestures, the Apple's patent had been already issued. They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they? And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?
And where's this evidence of "growing USB usage" in 1998 before the iMac was released?
Any evidence it was "growing" after the iMac was released? Don't remember peripheral manufacturers scrambling to support it until is was becoming widely available on PC's late 2000 and beyond.
The whole idea that some government asshat gets to sit around and say the methods were obvious back then after using an iPhone for 5 years is crap. If they were so damn obvious, others would have used them or at least attempted to patent them.
Yes. Apple should never have got that and a number of patents in the first place. With companies like Apple submitting so many rubbish patents, they are completely overwhelmed and just grant all these patents until it ends up in court wasting every one's time and money. What's crap is that it took them 5 years to invalidate them.
As I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent expert), the basis of Samsung's claims is the invalidity of Apple's patents. But back few year ago, when they started implementing the gestures, the Apple's patent had been already issued. They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they? And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?
Good questions, and you actually answered them with your guesses.
(The reason this is so late, is that I originally wrote up a long and detailed response. However, I don't think people read those. So I waited until I had a weekend to cut a much shorter version.)
--
The common response you see from any infringement defendant (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, et al) is to argue the patent ...
is invalid,
if valid, it doesn't apply to them,
if it does apply, it's covered by a license,
if no license, it isn't worth much and/or it's FRAND.
Quote:
They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they?
Right, they couldn't rely on that happening
Quote:
And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?
Just as you suggested, Samsung did base their defense on a claim that their code steps were different from Apple's patent. Figuring this out is sometimes hard for experts, much less for juries.
Confusingly, the jury decided that most, but not all, of the accused Samsung phones infringed on this particular Apple patent.
Yet _all_ of the phones used the same code. Technically, the jury's verdict made no sense.
It's this kind of inexplicable result that has made their entire verdict suspect.
Good questions, and you actually answered them with your guesses.
(The reason this is so late, is that I originally wrote up a long and detailed response. However, I don't think people read those. So I waited until I had a weekend to cut a much shorter version.)
--
The common response you see from any infringement defendant (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, et al) is to argue the patent ...
is invalid,
if valid, it doesn't apply to them,
if it does apply, it's covered by a license,
if no license, it isn't worth much and/or it's FRAND.
Right, they couldn't rely on that happening
Just as you suggested, Samsung did base their defense on a claim that their code steps were different from Apple's patent. Figuring this out is sometimes hard for experts, much less for juries.
Confusingly, the jury decided that most, but not all, of the accused Samsung phones infringed on this particular Apple patent.
Yet _all_ of the phones used the same code. Technically, the jury's verdict made no sense.
It's this kind of inexplicable result that has made their entire verdict suspect
Thanks, appreciate it. A long answer would be even better
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice
In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).
Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- History: www.touchscreencomputers.co.uk/history.html
So I went to the Starfire and the T3 tablet youtube videos.
In the Starfire video, the pinch feature was used to duplicate the video controls, not to do zooming.
The Tandy T3 wasn't really a two finger pinch either but more to do with dual handed mouse click gestures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
It's not about being "against Apple". It's about the fact that the USPTO got overwhelmed, and was more concerned with quantity than quality. Now the mess has to be cleaned up.
As I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent expert), the basis of Samsung's claims is the invalidity of Apple's patents. But back few year ago, when they started implementing the gestures, the Apple's patent had been already issued. They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they? And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And where's this evidence of "growing USB usage" in 1998 before the iMac was released?
Any evidence it was "growing" after the iMac was released? Don't remember peripheral manufacturers scrambling to support it until is was becoming widely available on PC's late 2000 and beyond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
The whole idea that some government asshat gets to sit around and say the methods were obvious back then after using an iPhone for 5 years is crap. If they were so damn obvious, others would have used them or at least attempted to patent them.
Yes. Apple should never have got that and a number of patents in the first place. With companies like Apple submitting so many rubbish patents, they are completely overwhelmed and just grant all these patents until it ends up in court wasting every one's time and money. What's crap is that it took them 5 years to invalidate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
As I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a patent expert), the basis of Samsung's claims is the invalidity of Apple's patents. But back few year ago, when they started implementing the gestures, the Apple's patent had been already issued. They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they? And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?
Good questions, and you actually answered them with your guesses.
(The reason this is so late, is that I originally wrote up a long and detailed response. However, I don't think people read those. So I waited until I had a weekend to cut a much shorter version.)
--
The common response you see from any infringement defendant (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, et al) is to argue the patent ...
is invalid,
if valid, it doesn't apply to them,
if it does apply, it's covered by a license,
if no license, it isn't worth much and/or it's FRAND.
Quote:
They couldn't just hope that it would be invalidated in the future, could they?
Right, they couldn't rely on that happening
Quote:
And if they have implemented the same gestures but using different principles, why don't they base their claims on the differences rather than on the patent invalidity?
Just as you suggested, Samsung did base their defense on a claim that their code steps were different from Apple's patent. Figuring this out is sometimes hard for experts, much less for juries.
Confusingly, the jury decided that most, but not all, of the accused Samsung phones infringed on this particular Apple patent.
Yet _all_ of the phones used the same code. Technically, the jury's verdict made no sense.
It's this kind of inexplicable result that has made their entire verdict suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Good questions, and you actually answered them with your guesses.
(The reason this is so late, is that I originally wrote up a long and detailed response. However, I don't think people read those. So I waited until I had a weekend to cut a much shorter version.)
--
The common response you see from any infringement defendant (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, et al) is to argue the patent ...
is invalid,
if valid, it doesn't apply to them,
if it does apply, it's covered by a license,
if no license, it isn't worth much and/or it's FRAND.
Right, they couldn't rely on that happening
Just as you suggested, Samsung did base their defense on a claim that their code steps were different from Apple's patent. Figuring this out is sometimes hard for experts, much less for juries.
Confusingly, the jury decided that most, but not all, of the accused Samsung phones infringed on this particular Apple patent.
Yet _all_ of the phones used the same code. Technically, the jury's verdict made no sense.
It's this kind of inexplicable result that has made their entire verdict suspect
Thanks, appreciate it. A long answer would be even better