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.
All of those rules you so rudely talk about came from physics. Just because Apple put parameters or limits doesn't mean that the ideas and equations didn't come directly from physics. Those equations are full of variables, and Apple only allows those variables to vary within certain ranges. Apple didn't have to rewrite physics to make those animations work. They applied physics. Don't be obtuse.
Android would not even exist if it weren't for the iPhone.
Android existed before the iphone but their direction before was to copy windows then when blackberry got on top they shifted and went blackberry then the iphone came. As Google would put it, Android is a very inspired OS. Google doesn't really care, they would preffer everything to be open as they are advocating not just because it is good for the consumers but first of all because it would be good for their business. Limitless ideas and innovations at google's hand means limitless services and products to treat people. More services makes more users, more advertising and more money for google.
It's good news for Apple, but calling it a "huge win" and "major victory" seems a bit dramatic, since it doesn't affect anything yet.
On the upside, claims 14, 17, 18, 19 were confirmed. However, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20 were canceled.
Again on the upside, claim 19 is the one Apple won with last summer. However, that doesn't mean the retrial jury will attach as much importance to it as the first jury might have. (We don't even know how much they did. That's one reason for the retrial.)
Especially as bounce back has been proved to not be critical to marketplace success. Samsung stopped using it long ago, and yet their sales increased afterwards.
At most, Apple can win some reward for the older infringing devices which are no longer sold.
This seems rather irrelevant. Android hasn't used rubber banding since gingerbread 3 years ago. Google recognized that Apple's patent was going to be enforced (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong Google chose to take the high ground) and changed how Android works. No rubber banding.
I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.
Android would not even exist if it weren't for the iPhone.
Actually that's not true, Google was working on Android the same time Apple was on iOS. Would it look the same, probably not but Android would defiantly be around.
This seems rather irrelevant. Android hasn't used rubber banding since gingerbread 3 years ago. Google recognized that Apple's patent was going to be enforced (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong Google chose to take the high ground) and changed how Android works. No rubber banding.
I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.
It's possible is a "huge win" because Samsung did use it after vanilla Android stopped long ago. Especially seeing as Apple & Samsung have a lawsuit going atm.
To be honest I wish they would all just call a truce and let technology roll. iOS7 has some balant copying of Android/Windows/WebOS functions and lord knows there is just going to be more useless lawsuits over it.
I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.
It's huge because this patent is involved in the Billion Dollar case Apple won against Samsung. They've used its review as a reason to delay, delay, delay but now it should go to trial and the damages will be redetermined. Redetermined at a stronger position for Apple since the patent is reaffirmed but perhaps not to the original $$$.
It's huge because this patent is involved in the Billion Dollar case Apple won against Samsung. They've used its review as a reason to delay, delay, delay but now it should go to trial and the damages will be redetermined. Redetermined at a stronger position for Apple since the patent is reaffirmed but perhaps not to the original $$$.
Actually, Judge Koh had refused to allow pending patent reviews to delay the trial.
"For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED without prejudice Samsung's Request for a Stay pending reexamination of the ’381 and 915 patents at issue in the new damages trial."
She wants everything to move forward, and if a patent is found invalid later on, then its related awards can be appealed at that time.
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.
Computer-generated representations of real world phenomena are mathematical and programming language creations by human beings, therefore they are not natural. Your points are all moot.
Actually that's not true, Google was working on Android the same time Apple was on iOS. Would it look the same, probably not but Android would defiantly be around.
How do you know that? Blackberry is barely around & that's the OS Google was copying back then. I would say odds are they would barely be around, if at all.
My response was based on the statement that a sizeable set of Apple fans seem to think Samsung/Android have stolen *everything* from iOS. While there's certainly some truth in that accusation, it's also true that in technology everyone's as bad as each other.
iOS just shows that Apple aren't above using other ideas and making them better. It's just hypocritical to complain and sue on one side, but also take good ideas and pass them as yours on the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Once more, all together now... "IDEAS" ARE NOT PATENTS.
Ideas like having the Control Centre as a quickly accessible overlay have been implemented in many ways and many places, and probably started life in the Jail-breaking Developer Community; Android was probably the first mobile OS to add it to their default system - big deal, it was being used well before that by jail-breakers on many platforms, including JavaME, Symbian, WinCE and yes, iOS (albeit illegally).
Similarly the concept of multitasking using cards had been around well before it was implemented in WebOS, whose chief architect actually worked for Apple in a previous life.
Ideas become patents when:
§ They are IMPLEMENTED in a certain. particular way or method;
§ This method is recorded and registered with an IP standards body e.g. USPTO;
This is what many commenters fail to appreciate - copying does not have to lead to infringement of others' IP, except when it's SLAVISH, which points to laziness and a tendency to feed off others without putting in any effort of ones' own. Then comes the time to litigate.
Cool story, 'bro. And I mean it on several levels.
§ Kid Thief got what was coming to him - I wish the same on all unapologetic, ambitious, wilful, shameless copiers in all walks of human creativity.
§ Don’t musicians play other musicians’ songs? - Yes they do, and sometimes theirs become the definitive version: I Will Always Love Youis a Dolly Parton original (I bet many people reading this will not know that fact) and Joe Cocker absolutely killed With a Little Help From My Friends, a Beatles original. Fact is, his and Whitney Houston's management paid for the privilege of covering those tunes - to do otherwise would bring punitive charges down on them, followed by the appropriate royalties thereafter
§ Like the comedian said, there will always be those who think that slavishly copying stuff and passing it off as one's own isn't wrong. The law disagrees.
Thanks for sharing that - it is relevant and parallel to this discussion.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
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.
All of those rules you so rudely talk about came from physics. Just because Apple put parameters or limits doesn't mean that the ideas and equations didn't come directly from physics. Those equations are full of variables, and Apple only allows those variables to vary within certain ranges. Apple didn't have to rewrite physics to make those animations work. They applied physics. Don't be obtuse.
Check the video about 2:43 in.
Expose:
Android existed before the iphone but their direction before was to copy windows then when blackberry got on top they shifted and went blackberry then the iphone came. As Google would put it, Android is a very inspired OS. Google doesn't really care, they would preffer everything to be open as they are advocating not just because it is good for the consumers but first of all because it would be good for their business. Limitless ideas and innovations at google's hand means limitless services and products to treat people. More services makes more users, more advertising and more money for google.
It's good news for Apple, but calling it a "huge win" and "major victory" seems a bit dramatic, since it doesn't affect anything yet.
On the upside, claims 14, 17, 18, 19 were confirmed. However, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20 were canceled.
Again on the upside, claim 19 is the one Apple won with last summer. However, that doesn't mean the retrial jury will attach as much importance to it as the first jury might have. (We don't even know how much they did. That's one reason for the retrial.)
Especially as bounce back has been proved to not be critical to marketplace success. Samsung stopped using it long ago, and yet their sales increased afterwards.
At most, Apple can win some reward for the older infringing devices which are no longer sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You should have just written "What is a patent?" for your post. You'd be saying the same thing.
Honestly - I don't know how long it's been since I laughed out loud hysterically.
Thank you.
This seems rather irrelevant. Android hasn't used rubber banding since gingerbread 3 years ago. Google recognized that Apple's patent was going to be enforced (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong Google chose to take the high ground) and changed how Android works. No rubber banding.
I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Android would not even exist if it weren't for the iPhone.
Actually that's not true, Google was working on Android the same time Apple was on iOS. Would it look the same, probably not but Android would defiantly be around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan
This seems rather irrelevant. Android hasn't used rubber banding since gingerbread 3 years ago. Google recognized that Apple's patent was going to be enforced (doesn't matter if it's right or wrong Google chose to take the high ground) and changed how Android works. No rubber banding.
I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.
It's possible is a "huge win" because Samsung did use it after vanilla Android stopped long ago. Especially seeing as Apple & Samsung have a lawsuit going atm.
To be honest I wish they would all just call a truce and let technology roll. iOS7 has some balant copying of Android/Windows/WebOS functions and lord knows there is just going to be more useless lawsuits over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjapk
Any bets on when the first (non-Apple) cylindrical PC is gonna hit the shelves?
They already had cylindrical PC's. Along with cubes, rectangles, etc lol.
Sammy is waiting for the Pro to be shipped first.
The usernames. The posts remain the same though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan
I don't get the point of any of this conversation or 'huge win' nonsense.
It's huge because this patent is involved in the Billion Dollar case Apple won against Samsung. They've used its review as a reason to delay, delay, delay but now it should go to trial and the damages will be redetermined. Redetermined at a stronger position for Apple since the patent is reaffirmed but perhaps not to the original $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB
It's huge because this patent is involved in the Billion Dollar case Apple won against Samsung. They've used its review as a reason to delay, delay, delay but now it should go to trial and the damages will be redetermined. Redetermined at a stronger position for Apple since the patent is reaffirmed but perhaps not to the original $$$.
Actually, Judge Koh had refused to allow pending patent reviews to delay the trial.
"For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED without prejudice Samsung's Request for a Stay pending reexamination of the ’381 and 915 patents at issue in the new damages trial."
She wants everything to move forward, and if a patent is found invalid later on, then its related awards can be appealed at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
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.
Computer-generated representations of real world phenomena are mathematical and programming language creations by human beings, therefore they are not natural. Your points are all moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjapk
Any bets on when the first (non-Apple) cylindrical PC is gonna hit the shelves?
One month?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Actually that's not true, Google was working on Android the same time Apple was on iOS. Would it look the same, probably not but Android would defiantly be around.
How do you know that? Blackberry is barely around & that's the OS Google was copying back then. I would say odds are they would barely be around, if at all.
Here's a great little essay by Patton Oswalt regarding stealing of ideas that is weirdly parallel to the patent discussion our little thread:
A CLOSED LETTER TO MYSELF ABOUT THIEVERY, HECKLING AND RAPE JOKES
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnbiasedDave
...
My response was based on the statement that a sizeable set of Apple fans seem to think Samsung/Android have stolen *everything* from iOS. While there's certainly some truth in that accusation, it's also true that in technology everyone's as bad as each other.
iOS just shows that Apple aren't above using other ideas and making them better. It's just hypocritical to complain and sue on one side, but also take good ideas and pass them as yours on the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Once more, all together now... "IDEAS" ARE NOT PATENTS.
Ideas like having the Control Centre as a quickly accessible overlay have been implemented in many ways and many places, and probably started life in the Jail-breaking Developer Community; Android was probably the first mobile OS to add it to their default system - big deal, it was being used well before that by jail-breakers on many platforms, including JavaME, Symbian, WinCE and yes, iOS (albeit illegally).
Similarly the concept of multitasking using cards had been around well before it was implemented in WebOS, whose chief architect actually worked for Apple in a previous life.
Ideas become patents when:
§ They are IMPLEMENTED in a certain. particular way or method;
§ This method is recorded and registered with an IP standards body e.g. USPTO;
This is what many commenters fail to appreciate - copying does not have to lead to infringement of others' IP, except when it's SLAVISH, which points to laziness and a tendency to feed off others without putting in any effort of ones' own. Then comes the time to litigate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
Here's a great little essay by Patton Oswalt regarding stealing of ideas that is weirdly parallel to the patent discussion our little thread:
A CLOSED LETTER TO MYSELF ABOUT THIEVERY, HECKLING AND RAPE JOKES
Cool story, 'bro. And I mean it on several levels.
§ Kid Thief got what was coming to him - I wish the same on all unapologetic, ambitious, wilful, shameless copiers in all walks of human creativity.
§ Don’t musicians play other musicians’ songs? - Yes they do, and sometimes theirs become the definitive version: I Will Always Love You is a Dolly Parton original (I bet many people reading this will not know that fact) and Joe Cocker absolutely killed With a Little Help From My Friends, a Beatles original. Fact is, his and Whitney Houston's management paid for the privilege of covering those tunes - to do otherwise would bring punitive charges down on them, followed by the appropriate royalties thereafter
§ Like the comedian said, there will always be those who think that slavishly copying stuff and passing it off as one's own isn't wrong. The law disagrees.
Thanks for sharing that - it is relevant and parallel to this discussion.