The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.
Yes, they did and the thing that differentiates it from the drop downs Apple first introduced with the Lisa is the presence of persistent icons in the notification bar across the top of the screen to indicate the presence of notifications.
This forms part 1 of Google's patent, everything else builds on that.
So no, Google can't sue because Apple doesn't infringe.
This is getting pretty silly. All of these guys borrow from each other, which is nothing new.
I can't wait for the court battle over the innovative android windowshade vs. apples borrowed notification center. Even microsoft finally came out with their own copycat version of androids windowshade at this years build.
I don't see how slide to unlock is any different than the windowshade. Nothing to see here, just companies borrowing ideas from each other. Move along.
What hell are you talking about? Android is complete rip off osx/ios.
Widgets notification Center where all on osx before android.
Are current Samsung phones still ripping off slide to unlock or the rubber banding patent? What's the end result? That Samsung pays Apple for what they infringed and then life goes on? I don't think anything in this trial is going to stop Samsung from being a fast follower.
I know this is AI, I'm just playing devil's advocate here: Sure, Samsung does all these market research and found out that Apple's UI is more intuitive than theirs. Maybe Apple should just accept it as part of being popular and successful. I mean, Chicken McNuggets was so popular that every fast food chain has a chicken nugget on the menu. I'm sure that McDonald's even sued a few of its competitors for it, but eventually, everyone has a chicken nugget item on the menu and McDonald's had to accept it.
Please at least read the comments that came before yours. It's just common courtesy to read other people's views if you expect us to read yours. Several of us have already made the case about companies adopting ideas that are in the public domain (a McDonald's food item would certainly qualify) versus inventions that a company has patented and therefore legally owns as part of its intellectual property. Are we required to continue to make that same point? I guess maybe so. Sheesh!
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
I disagree. Actually in my opinion DED is insulting Apple, because it seems that the value added of an Apple product is in silly things like slide-to-unlock. Customers do not purchase a phone because of the look-and-feel of the slide-to-unlock or because it is unique of the iPhone.
Customers are influenced by the overall experience and recommendations from friends and associates. You'll note that Apple and Samsung already went to trial on a handful of other patents in which Apple won $920 million in damages. And now we're back for a new trial on five more Apple patents, which was initially more but the court required Apple to reduce the number. That's because the court doesn't want to have an overly long trial that ties up jurors and costs more taxpayers dollars. You have to take these facts into account, plus the fact that each patent must be contested individually during each trial. If Apple could bring to suit all of the patents it claims Samsung infringed in a single trial, you and others with the opinion you hold might see more clearly the significant injustice done to Apple by Samsung stealing its intellectual property. Eventually, after three or four more trials, perhaps it will become more clear the extent to which Samsung has done damage to Apple's business.
Yes, they did and the thing that differentiates it from the drop downs Apple first introduced with the Lisa is the presence of persistent icons in the notification bar across the top of the screen to indicate the presence of notifications.
This forms part 1 of Google's patent, everything else builds on that.
So no, Google can't sue because Apple doesn't infringe.
Absolutely correct. Let me expand on that. From Claim 1 in Google's patent,
"displaying, in a status area near a perimeter of a graphical interface for a mobile device, a notification of a recent alert event for the mobile device, wherein the alert event corresponds to a change in status of an application operating on the mobile device or of an account associated with the mobile device;"
Any company that wishes to avoid infringement with this patent would simply avoid displaying, in the status area near a perimeter of a graphical display, a notification of a recent alert event. You'll note that in Apple's iPhone and iPad status area there exist the device identifier, a signal strength icon, screen rotation lock status (on the iPad), Bluetooth status, battery status, etc, but never anything related to notification of a recent event. Instead, Apple temporarily displays a drop down alert window, which after a moment recedes back off the display. That temporary alert window covers the status area but is not part of it, thus Apple's alert notification method is different from what Google describes in the referenced patent. If a product, such as the iPhone or iPad, does not infringe claim 1, then it automatically does not infringe any claims that reference back to (incorporate and build upon) claim 1, which, in this patent are claims 2 - 12. Claim 13 recapitulates claim 1 under a different instance of the invention, with claims 14 - 17 referencing claim 13, as does claim 18 with claims 19 - 20. Claim 21 and 22 speak to the displaying of the alerts and represent claims that are very broad and general and so would be very unlikely to hold up in a patent re-examination in light on prior art in the public domain, in my opinion.
The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.
Even if Google obtains a patent for Windowshade, their difficulty comes in showing damages. The question would/must evolve into what monetary damages did Google suffer. That will be super difficult for Google in as much as they don't sell Android and drive no revenue from the software. And, they can't give/sell it (the patent) to Samsung to litigate because that would put every other phone vendor at risk.
As for Swipe to Lock: Samsung's own internal documents about Swipe to Lock make a pretty good case for the importance they place on the feature, and thus, the first step to establishing value. One only needs to look at incremental sales (difference between Samsung non-swipe and swipe unit sales) units to quantify the damages.
And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:
Apple and others use on/off toggles everywhere (just go into settings on any Smartphone). These are not patented and couldn't be given this video's existence from 1991. Slide to unlock certainly builds upon the sliding to change state metaphor, but patents express inventions in very specific terms where context and intent are paramount. In this case, Apple has not patented a slider that toggles (allows a user movement back and forth between) two separate states. Stated simply, Slide to unlock doesn't remain on your display after you've entered unlock mode so that you can slide it back to return to the locked mode. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.
What Samsung thinks of it's own phone design: "The document concluded that Samsung's own Amethyst phone "has weakness compare to iPhone in task success rate and satisfaction," noting "80 usability issues among 104 items" and the admission, "it is weak at aesthetic integrity, error tolerance, efficiency, simplicity." "
And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:
Apple and others use on/off toggles everywhere (just go into settings on any Smartphone). These are not patented and couldn't be given this video's existence from 1991. Slide to unlock certainly builds upon the sliding to change state metaphor, but patents express inventions in very specific terms where context and intent are paramount. In this case, Apple has not patented a slider that toggles (allows a user movement back and forth between) two separate states. Stated simply, Slide to unlock doesn't remain on your display after you've entered unlock mode so that you can slide it back to return to the locked mode. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.
Now that you explain it that way it makes total sense. I still think the trouble Apple runs into (at least in the PR or media meme sense) is people will say slide to unlock is something completely obvious that should never have been granted a patent. So even if the jury decided Samsung violated that patent the public at large will say it was ridiculous that it ever received a patent in the first place and ridiculous that Apple sued over it. I'm not saying I agree, but that's what will happen IMO.
And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:
. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.
Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?
EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today.
Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?
EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today.
My comment wasn't on the validity of Apple's slide to unlock patent. It was a comment on the applicability of the 1991 video as prior art. I am not aware of what countries Outside the U.S.have tested Apple's slide to unlock patent other than Germany where the patent rules differ. Not sure what your point is. Samsung needs to follow the rules of each country in which they sell their Sam-kit. This patent trial will determine whether they broke the rules here in the U.S.
How exactly does Apple win? So Samsung pays a fine. It's a drop in the bucket. And doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile the media meme/public mindshare is that Apple is spending all their time on silly lawsuits over things that should never have been granted a patent in the first place. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing for Apple to win at this point and and all these confidential memos/emails being leaked do more harm than good.
Except the public sans a few fanboys on various sides of the issue doesn't care about, and largely isn't even aware of, ongoing litigation.
Every time Apple wins, it paints the adversary as an unsavory copyist, and maintains the publics perception that Apple products are uniquely consumer friendly by design.
Even if Google obtains a patent for Windowshade, their difficulty comes in showing damages. The question would/must evolve into what monetary damages did Google suffer.
.
Google wouldn't proactively sue Apple anyway, That's the easiest explanation why it doesn't legally matter whether Apple might infringe on some Google IP.
FWIW logically they almost certainly do infringe on some Google owned intellectual property particularly since they have one of the largest patent portfolios in the world. No big tech can completely avoid infringement. Software patents are worded as broadly as the patent office will let them get away with so it's often not clear just what a specific one covers. Google is not one to initiate a lawsuit with Apple over a patent (or copyright) claim.. It's not something they have any history of doing with anyone else either. On the contrary they've demonstrated over and over their belief that technology should be made as widely available as possible, something that's hindered by aggressive patent enforcement They may own a lot of IP, a lot more than even Apple, but Google doesn't use it to sue competitors out the markets they'd like to lead.
MHO, and shared by others, they have so many patents simply because if they did not they'd be an easy target for several techs who would love some of Google's billions. There's zero evidence that Google plans to deploy them as offensive weapons or use the courts assistance to maintain or expand their market status, one of several areas where they differ from Apple and Microsoft.
And no, I'm not claiming a benevolent Google with clean hands. They're driven by profit just like all the others and may not always be the best neighbor, That has nothing to do with Google's aversion to neighborhood lawsuits.
Except the public sans a few fanboys on various sides of the issue doesn't care about, and largely isn't even aware of, ongoing litigation.
Every time Apple wins, it paints the adversary as an unsavory copyist, and maintains the publics perception that Apple products are uniquely consumer friendly by design.
I disagree. If anything the media paints Apple as a bully and Samsung gets off scott free.
Recent phones are pretty differentiated, at least enough so to make litigation more difficult, and Apple's phones have as much 'borrowed' features as other phones if not more (notifications, swiped the Swype keyboard, almost blatant holo UI knockoff in iOS7 etc). I do think the big difference is Apple had 'Swipe to unlock' patented and Samsung pretty blatantly ripped it off.
Wait, are we talking about the older Samsung implementations that used an iOS style left-to-right slider, or the current implementation of slide-to-unlock as found in, say, the Galaxy Nexus? Since ICS, Android's slide-to-unlock has allowed the user to swipe along any path from the center of a circle to any point on the circle; neither the endpoint nor the path are "predefined."
Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?
EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today.
argumentum ad populum
Or in other words why protect what you don't have
and do not even believe in.
Good fishing here,
everyone crowd around,
and keep a weather eye out for our next "discovery".
Foss"s new chum was bound to attract new eye's,
but not mine.
My comment wasn't on the validity of Apple's slide to unlock patent. It was a comment on the applicability of the 1991 video as prior art. I am not aware of what countries Outside the U.S.have tested Apple's slide to unlock patent other than Germany where the patent rules differ. Not sure what your point is. Samsung needs to follow the rules of each country in which they sell their Sam-kit. This patent trial will determine whether they broke the rules here in the U.S.
Fair enough. Samsung could certainly either find a different way to initiate a similar function, or worst case modify the UX for the US while staying with what they had for the rest of the world. It's certainly an avoidable issue in any case. At least until the next lawsuit anyway.
By the way, nice patent claim research. You're just the kind of member AI benefits from. Thanks for the time and effort.
Comments
There are more people reading this site than you may think.
Please keep posting.
The question I would ask is, did Google patent their window shade or was it even patentable given what might exist as prior art? If so, then yes, they can make a determination as to whether Apple infringed their patent and, if so, sue for compensation.
Yes, they did and the thing that differentiates it from the drop downs Apple first introduced with the Lisa is the presence of persistent icons in the notification bar across the top of the screen to indicate the presence of notifications.
This forms part 1 of Google's patent, everything else builds on that.
So no, Google can't sue because Apple doesn't infringe.
What hell are you talking about? Android is complete rip off osx/ios.
Widgets notification Center where all on osx before android.
Please at least read the comments that came before yours. It's just common courtesy to read other people's views if you expect us to read yours. Several of us have already made the case about companies adopting ideas that are in the public domain (a McDonald's food item would certainly qualify) versus inventions that a company has patented and therefore legally owns as part of its intellectual property. Are we required to continue to make that same point? I guess maybe so. Sheesh!
DED's articles
Customers are influenced by the overall experience and recommendations from friends and associates. You'll note that Apple and Samsung already went to trial on a handful of other patents in which Apple won $920 million in damages. And now we're back for a new trial on five more Apple patents, which was initially more but the court required Apple to reduce the number. That's because the court doesn't want to have an overly long trial that ties up jurors and costs more taxpayers dollars. You have to take these facts into account, plus the fact that each patent must be contested individually during each trial. If Apple could bring to suit all of the patents it claims Samsung infringed in a single trial, you and others with the opinion you hold might see more clearly the significant injustice done to Apple by Samsung stealing its intellectual property. Eventually, after three or four more trials, perhaps it will become more clear the extent to which Samsung has done damage to Apple's business.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/06/apple-samsung-slider-video/
Absolutely correct. Let me expand on that. From Claim 1 in Google's patent,
"displaying, in a status area near a perimeter of a graphical interface for a mobile device, a notification of a recent alert event for the mobile device, wherein the alert event corresponds to a change in status of an application operating on the mobile device or of an account associated with the mobile device;"
Any company that wishes to avoid infringement with this patent would simply avoid displaying, in the status area near a perimeter of a graphical display, a notification of a recent alert event. You'll note that in Apple's iPhone and iPad status area there exist the device identifier, a signal strength icon, screen rotation lock status (on the iPad), Bluetooth status, battery status, etc, but never anything related to notification of a recent event. Instead, Apple temporarily displays a drop down alert window, which after a moment recedes back off the display. That temporary alert window covers the status area but is not part of it, thus Apple's alert notification method is different from what Google describes in the referenced patent. If a product, such as the iPhone or iPad, does not infringe claim 1, then it automatically does not infringe any claims that reference back to (incorporate and build upon) claim 1, which, in this patent are claims 2 - 12. Claim 13 recapitulates claim 1 under a different instance of the invention, with claims 14 - 17 referencing claim 13, as does claim 18 with claims 19 - 20. Claim 21 and 22 speak to the displaying of the alerts and represent claims that are very broad and general and so would be very unlikely to hold up in a patent re-examination in light on prior art in the public domain, in my opinion.
As for Swipe to Lock: Samsung's own internal documents about Swipe to Lock make a pretty good case for the importance they place on the feature, and thus, the first step to establishing value. One only needs to look at incremental sales (difference between Samsung non-swipe and swipe unit sales) units to quantify the damages.
And here's my take on the video referenced in that article, which I just posted as a comment to that article:
Apple and others use on/off toggles everywhere (just go into settings on any Smartphone). These are not patented and couldn't be given this video's existence from 1991. Slide to unlock certainly builds upon the sliding to change state metaphor, but patents express inventions in very specific terms where context and intent are paramount. In this case, Apple has not patented a slider that toggles (allows a user movement back and forth between) two separate states. Stated simply, Slide to unlock doesn't remain on your display after you've entered unlock mode so that you can slide it back to return to the locked mode. This video will yield no results for those referencing it in an attempt to invalidate Apple's Slide to unlock patent.
"The document concluded that Samsung's own Amethyst phone "has weakness compare to iPhone in task success rate and satisfaction," noting "80 usability issues among 104 items" and the admission, "it is weak at aesthetic integrity, error tolerance, efficiency, simplicity." "
Priceless.
Apple attempted to patent that "slide-to-unlock" feature n several countries but I think the only one where it's been found valid is the US, Is that correct?
EDIT: DED gets a star. He was mentioned in a FOSSPatents article today.
My comment wasn't on the validity of Apple's slide to unlock patent. It was a comment on the applicability of the 1991 video as prior art. I am not aware of what countries Outside the U.S.have tested Apple's slide to unlock patent other than Germany where the patent rules differ. Not sure what your point is. Samsung needs to follow the rules of each country in which they sell their Sam-kit. This patent trial will determine whether they broke the rules here in the U.S.
How exactly does Apple win? So Samsung pays a fine. It's a drop in the bucket. And doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile the media meme/public mindshare is that Apple is spending all their time on silly lawsuits over things that should never have been granted a patent in the first place. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing for Apple to win at this point and and all these confidential memos/emails being leaked do more harm than good.
Except the public sans a few fanboys on various sides of the issue doesn't care about, and largely isn't even aware of, ongoing litigation.
Every time Apple wins, it paints the adversary as an unsavory copyist, and maintains the publics perception that Apple products are uniquely consumer friendly by design.
Google wouldn't proactively sue Apple anyway, That's the easiest explanation why it doesn't legally matter whether Apple might infringe on some Google IP.
FWIW logically they almost certainly do infringe on some Google owned intellectual property particularly since they have one of the largest patent portfolios in the world. No big tech can completely avoid infringement. Software patents are worded as broadly as the patent office will let them get away with so it's often not clear just what a specific one covers. Google is not one to initiate a lawsuit with Apple over a patent (or copyright) claim.. It's not something they have any history of doing with anyone else either. On the contrary they've demonstrated over and over their belief that technology should be made as widely available as possible, something that's hindered by aggressive patent enforcement They may own a lot of IP, a lot more than even Apple, but Google doesn't use it to sue competitors out the markets they'd like to lead.
MHO, and shared by others, they have so many patents simply because if they did not they'd be an easy target for several techs who would love some of Google's billions. There's zero evidence that Google plans to deploy them as offensive weapons or use the courts assistance to maintain or expand their market status, one of several areas where they differ from Apple and Microsoft.
And no, I'm not claiming a benevolent Google with clean hands. They're driven by profit just like all the others and may not always be the best neighbor, That has nothing to do with Google's aversion to neighborhood lawsuits.
Recent phones are pretty differentiated, at least enough so to make litigation more difficult, and Apple's phones have as much 'borrowed' features as other phones if not more (notifications, swiped the Swype keyboard, almost blatant holo UI knockoff in iOS7 etc). I do think the big difference is Apple had 'Swipe to unlock' patented and Samsung pretty blatantly ripped it off.
Wait, are we talking about the older Samsung implementations that used an iOS style left-to-right slider, or the current implementation of slide-to-unlock as found in, say, the Galaxy Nexus? Since ICS, Android's slide-to-unlock has allowed the user to swipe along any path from the center of a circle to any point on the circle; neither the endpoint nor the path are "predefined."
argumentum ad populum
Or in other words why protect what you don't have
and do not even believe in.
Good fishing here,
everyone crowd around,
and keep a weather eye out for our next "discovery".
Foss"s new chum was bound to attract new eye's,
but not mine.
Fair enough. Samsung could certainly either find a different way to initiate a similar function, or worst case modify the UX for the US while staying with what they had for the rest of the world. It's certainly an avoidable issue in any case. At least until the next lawsuit anyway.
By the way, nice patent claim research. You're just the kind of member AI benefits from. Thanks for the time and effort.