Maps may not be the best place to test that since the tiles are discrete sizes. Try it in the picture viewer app and see if it zooms continuously or in steps.
Excellent point. Maps was also a stupid place for me to test because it has to download the information. However, pictures are the same... it only zooms in direct response to the gesture. When I stop, it stops, regardless of whether I do another gesture in immediate succession. (I just realized that scrolling is continuous, but it's not multi-touch.)
I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.
If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.
Over scroll bounce = min feature easily removed/replace
Data tapping = Prior Art
SG3 search = Removed proactively and have been reinstated to avoid patent < Google now
Galaxy Tab = Banned. Revised. Too old to matter now.
If Apple keeps this up more will come out of the wood works to sue them like dsp, siri, etc
Of course it was "sure to be a success". By the benefit of hindsight.
Not really, especially once it was subsidized. It was cheaper and more convenient to buy an iphone versus buy an iPod plus a cell phone. People had already seen what Apple could do with a digital music player it was very easy to believe they'd do the same with a cell phone.
Packaging can't be patented, unless it is part of a product. The logo's on the packaging can be trademarked, but not patented.
This isn't true. There's nothing in the patent statutes that say that packaging can't be patented. The physical structure of the packaging certainly could be patented (assuming it's novel and non-obvious). And further the look and feel of the packaging could be covered by a design patent. Even the logo's COULD be included in the design, but that would be unhelpful, since no legitimate company would acutally use someone else's trademark on their packaging.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, really; it's just not true. Packaging definitely is patentable, both the structure and the look and feel.
More importantly, the competition is backing away from the blatant copies of Apple products. Put the original Tab next to the iPad of its time. It was so close that even their attorneys couldn't tell the difference and the largest reason for returns at Best Buy was people who thought they were buying an iPad. Now, after all the lawsuits, look at the Galaxy SIII next to the iPhone - Samsung has stopped the near-exact copies.
I commend you for not saying "slavish" and/or "exact" copy, "Near-exact" I won't argue with. I do believe you're correct in saying that all this litigation has forced Samsung to make different looking devices which is something they could've and should've done in the first place. I can't believe that only Apple employs people with great design ideas, all these companies probably have some but they're probably stuck in the mail room.
Over scroll bounce = min feature easily removed/replace
Data tapping = Prior Art
SG3 search = Removed proactively and have been reinstated to avoid patent < Google now
Galaxy Tab = Banned. Revised. Too old to matter now.
If Apple keeps this up more will come out of the wood works to sue them like dsp, siri, etc
Overscroll bounce is a minor feature? Then why did everyone go to court with Apple over this instead of just removing it? Because it's not a minor feature. Especially to someone who understands interface design.
Where is the data-tapping prior art? And don't talk about hyperlinks, because originally they had to be specifically coded. HTC found out this is a valid patent as it's been through court and still stood up.
Apple's patent was strong enough to get Google and Samsung's attention and come up with a way to work around it (by removing the feature). It was also strong enough to get a preliminary injunction against the Nexus (although under appeal, the appeal has nothing to do with the validity of the patent - just that they will allow sales to continue while under appeal).
Galaxy Tab. Might be old, but it'll make other vendors think twice before copying again. And if Samsung loses this case in California, the fact it's no longer sold will be irrelevant as Samsung will have to pay damages. Imagine having to fork over money for a product that's long been dis-continued?
Apple's hardly an 'underdog, by any stretch of the imagination... and this (pictured below) will likely put an abrupt end to all this 'They Copied Our Ideas' nonsense, and the tech world can get back to competing on a fair/level playing field without fear of Apple's overly-litigious antics:
I wonder why Samsung doesn't show the F700 as it really looks, this is the phone with a design patent applied for in late 2006, shown at CES in 2007 shortly after the iPhone was shown off by Steve Jobs and used as an example by Samsung in your picture and as an exhibit in this case:-
How many of those other Samsung phones were also like this?
Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
Well I was just correcting how it should've been written, and no there hasn't been any thermonuclear war and thankfully so.
Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
I can quote SF from the 2007 keynotes "... and boy, did we patent it"
So I am assuming Apple has wall to wall patents over the iphone design and fonctionnality. They could make them UI "essencial" patents and license them the same way lots 3g patents are license as "essencial"
I think this is going to end up with both companies being force to license patents to each other. If Apple really has the pinch to zoom and proximity sensor patents, they why not just license them to everyone at a fair price ? Those are much more concrete patents then "rectangle" or general look and feel of the design...
'Pinch to zoom' and 'proximity sensors' are not essential to operating a mobile phone. They are innovations that solve problems. Why would Apple want to licence something that gives them a unique competitive advantage to a competitor? This is exactly what Samsung wants - a trade between their FRAND patents and Apple's exclusive ones.
And notice how Samsung cleverly show the devices with their screens blanked out. If they had shown them active, they would have revealed that they were conceptually windows mobile phones.
Anyone who thinks that Samsung even had a chip in this game when iPhone came out should go back and rewatch the original Keynote when Jobs introduced the iPhone. Look at the phones he compared the iPhone to. THAT was the landscape at the time... Palm, Blackberry Windows phone.
Samsung might have had a mystical prototype that was all touch interface, but it's really hard to believe that what they put out in the market was anything other than trying to be an iPhone.
Look at the freaking dock connector even, the packaging... the icons... flat out ripoff.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Maps may not be the best place to test that since the tiles are discrete sizes. Try it in the picture viewer app and see if it zooms continuously or in steps.
Excellent point. Maps was also a stupid place for me to test because it has to download the information. However, pictures are the same... it only zooms in direct response to the gesture. When I stop, it stops, regardless of whether I do another gesture in immediate succession. (I just realized that scrolling is continuous, but it's not multi-touch.)
heres a link to the source of that pic so you can see it. it is more than obvious where samsung is getting their ideas.
http://cydiahelp.com/samsung-copies-apple/
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I wouldn't say that. They forced vendors to drop features like overscroll bounce or data tapping. Several versions of the GSIII have also received updates to remove universal search.
If Apple keeps this up they'll get what they want - removal of several key features that make the iPhone different.
Over scroll bounce = min feature easily removed/replace
Data tapping = Prior Art
SG3 search = Removed proactively and have been reinstated to avoid patent < Google now
Galaxy Tab = Banned. Revised. Too old to matter now.
If Apple keeps this up more will come out of the wood works to sue them like dsp, siri, etc
Not really, especially once it was subsidized. It was cheaper and more convenient to buy an iphone versus buy an iPod plus a cell phone. People had already seen what Apple could do with a digital music player it was very easy to believe they'd do the same with a cell phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Packaging can't be patented, unless it is part of a product. The logo's on the packaging can be trademarked, but not patented.
This isn't true. There's nothing in the patent statutes that say that packaging can't be patented. The physical structure of the packaging certainly could be patented (assuming it's novel and non-obvious). And further the look and feel of the packaging could be covered by a design patent. Even the logo's COULD be included in the design, but that would be unhelpful, since no legitimate company would acutally use someone else's trademark on their packaging.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, really; it's just not true. Packaging definitely is patentable, both the structure and the look and feel.
I commend you for not saying "slavish" and/or "exact" copy, "Near-exact" I won't argue with. I do believe you're correct in saying that all this litigation has forced Samsung to make different looking devices which is something they could've and should've done in the first place. I can't believe that only Apple employs people with great design ideas, all these companies probably have some but they're probably stuck in the mail room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Over scroll bounce = min feature easily removed/replace
Data tapping = Prior Art
SG3 search = Removed proactively and have been reinstated to avoid patent < Google now
Galaxy Tab = Banned. Revised. Too old to matter now.
If Apple keeps this up more will come out of the wood works to sue them like dsp, siri, etc
Overscroll bounce is a minor feature? Then why did everyone go to court with Apple over this instead of just removing it? Because it's not a minor feature. Especially to someone who understands interface design.
Where is the data-tapping prior art? And don't talk about hyperlinks, because originally they had to be specifically coded. HTC found out this is a valid patent as it's been through court and still stood up.
Apple's patent was strong enough to get Google and Samsung's attention and come up with a way to work around it (by removing the feature). It was also strong enough to get a preliminary injunction against the Nexus (although under appeal, the appeal has nothing to do with the validity of the patent - just that they will allow sales to continue while under appeal).
Galaxy Tab. Might be old, but it'll make other vendors think twice before copying again. And if Samsung loses this case in California, the fact it's no longer sold will be irrelevant as Samsung will have to pay damages. Imagine having to fork over money for a product that's long been dis-continued?
Really? Name a time that's happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Apple's hardly an 'underdog, by any stretch of the imagination... and this (pictured below) will likely put an abrupt end to all this 'They Copied Our Ideas' nonsense, and the tech world can get back to competing on a fair/level playing field without fear of Apple's overly-litigious antics:
I wonder why Samsung doesn't show the F700 as it really looks, this is the phone with a design patent applied for in late 2006, shown at CES in 2007 shortly after the iPhone was shown off by Steve Jobs and used as an example by Samsung in your picture and as an exhibit in this case:-
How many of those other Samsung phones were also like this?
Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
A lot of history buffs in today I can tell.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
Well I was just correcting how it should've been written, and no there hasn't been any thermonuclear war and thankfully so.
And the problem with thermonuclear war (and software patents) is that no one wins.
History buffs indeed.
Maybe you should look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
I thought that they had been used twice. Is there some distinction I am missing?
That's what lawyers do. Samsung's lawyers will do the same thing
Originally Posted by Socrates
Oh, well in that case, name the last thermonuclear war when that happened.
We nuked our own soil to test the first bombs, so if you want to be pedantic, the definition fits.
(Clue: thermonuclear weapons have never been used in combat. That's why they called it the "cold" war.)
Wow, you've never heard of WWII? Sort of a big deal. Guy with a tiny mustache, surprise attack in Hawaii…
I believe you are correct sir, I forgot about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were just nuclear, not thermonuclear (e.g., H-Bombs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I can quote SF from the 2007 keynotes "... and boy, did we patent it"
So I am assuming Apple has wall to wall patents over the iphone design and fonctionnality. They could make them UI "essencial" patents and license them the same way lots 3g patents are license as "essencial"
I think this is going to end up with both companies being force to license patents to each other. If Apple really has the pinch to zoom and proximity sensor patents, they why not just license them to everyone at a fair price ? Those are much more concrete patents then "rectangle" or general look and feel of the design...
'Pinch to zoom' and 'proximity sensors' are not essential to operating a mobile phone. They are innovations that solve problems. Why would Apple want to licence something that gives them a unique competitive advantage to a competitor? This is exactly what Samsung wants - a trade between their FRAND patents and Apple's exclusive ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Concepts. Everyone can pull em out of thin air.
Try again.
And notice how Samsung cleverly show the devices with their screens blanked out. If they had shown them active, they would have revealed that they were conceptually windows mobile phones.
Anyone who thinks that Samsung even had a chip in this game when iPhone came out should go back and rewatch the original Keynote when Jobs introduced the iPhone. Look at the phones he compared the iPhone to. THAT was the landscape at the time... Palm, Blackberry Windows phone.
Samsung might have had a mystical prototype that was all touch interface, but it's really hard to believe that what they put out in the market was anything other than trying to be an iPhone.
Look at the freaking dock connector even, the packaging... the icons... flat out ripoff.