Support NeoGAF

[rezuth]

This is sony demoing pinch to zoom gestures back in 2002 on a capacitive surface.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&feature=g-hist#t=02m20s
skip to 2:20
Double tap to zoom has also been around on Opera Mini/mobile since forever.

Besides not being what is described in the patent Apple bought Fingerworks which did the Pinch-to-Zoom back in 1998 even.

 

[soco]

This just seals it. I'm never buying another Apple product and I'm shelving my iPods for good. Apple will never get another penny from me for ad long as I live.

aside from patent payments made by other companies, right?

 

[lunarworks]

I'm never buying an apple product again and will do everything withing my powers to prevent anyone from buying an apple, whenever I can.

I hope you don't buy phones from any of these other companies, either:

 

[reKon]

So late on this thread, but yeah the ruling was ridiculous. This is the best thing to come out of this thread:

poor Samsung

 

[F#A#Oo]

If the world ever needed evidence of how dumb Americans are this should be pretty close up the list close to the patriot act.

 

[Rubbish King]

I imagine them patenting the word 'and' soon

 

[numble]

Interview with jury foreman:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/uk-apple-samsung-juror-idUKBRE87O0A220120825

In an interview on Saturday, Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apple's arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive. Hogan worked as an engineer for decades before he retired, and holds a patent of his own.

"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict was delivered.

Samsung either 1) shouldn't have made those arguments about upturning the software patent system with the knowledge that a software patent owner was on the jury, especially after the juror had told the court how it took 7 years to get his patent granted. Or 2) they should've dismissed the juror with one of their peremptory challenges.

Also looks like using FRAND patents against Apple turned off the jury:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

Ilagan highlighted another area where Samsung lost the jury: its offensive on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, who made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.

 

[Clayton Bigsby]

If the world ever needed evidence of how dumb Americans are this should be pretty close up the list close to the patriot act.

That really isn't necessary.

 

[Ricky_R]

Is my decision to buy a galaxy SIII next month patented by Apple too? Need to confirm this.

 

[F#A#Oo]

That really isn't necessary.

Quite...but that was my first thought when reading this piece of news.

This was America vs Korea not an actual patent infringement case. It's a joke.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

slide to unlock
pinch to zoom
rectangle design.

are fucking innovations........are you kidding me

and there are people in here defending this bullshit? wow......just damn

 

[marathonfool]

Based on internal documents, it seems pretty damning Samsung emulated the success of the iPhone.

From everything I've read, Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents and trade dress. Whether Apple's patents should have been granted is another debate, maybe another trial?

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I've always been able to tell how undecided you have been on the issue up till now.

I own several Apple products, just have never been a fan of the iPhone.

 

[zedge]

Is my decision to buy a galaxy SIII next month patented by Apple too? Need to confirm this.

No

 

[zedge]

slide to unlock
pinch to zoom
rectangle design.

are fucking innovations........are you kidding me

and there are people in here defending this bullshit? wow......just damn

Apple fanboys who can't see past their own noses.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Might be a stupid question but how will this affect future Samsung devices(like Galaxy S4)?

 

[Kinitari]

I don't know if it's a good idea to be insulting everyone who comes into the thread thinking what was happened was good - not everyone is strictly siding with Apple -just- because they like Apple products (I don't think) a lot of people are simply thinking "these products look similar, so I agree".

I think it's more important to make a strong case for a counter argument (minimalism shouldn't be granted as trade dress, quite the opposite. Software patents are far too often abused and misued, and the patent system in general is fucked. This gives Apple precedent if they want to go against anyone else, which may scare manufacturers into licensing with Apple or Windows to avoid the shit storm of their non frand 'zoom' patents - essentially giving Apple the ability to manipulate the market at their whim, etc) - when you do so, people listen. They may not even fully agree with what the counter arguments, but maybe they stop thinking that people who are worried about the ruling aren't all just 'apple haters'.

 

[numble]

This is utterly stupid. That guy should be ashamed of himself - I'm dead serious. It shows you that it's solely an emotional decision, not a rational one. Horrible decision, ridiculous justification.

I don't see much to be in dispute with his statements, or the other juror's. What's wrong with not allowing infringement of intellectual property? What is wrong with believing that patent exhaustion trumps the FRAND claims?

Intellectual property ? That guy doesn't seem to understand the word. He should realize that if we took the same standard from this trial and applied it to everything, some fucker probably would've gotten away e.g. with getting a patent on general interpolation. Good God, the possible implications for mathematics make me shudder.[

What do you find objectionable about Karan Singh and Ravin Balakrishnan's testimony regarding patent validity and their arguments that DiamondTouch, Smartskin, etc. do not constitute prior art for Apple's 915 patent?

 

[Ricky_R]

No

Phew....

On a serious note. Like many have said, I think the problem doesn't lie in Samsung's patent infringements, but more on how absurd some of these patents are.

 

[Dead Prince]

Might be a stupid question but how will this affect future Samsung devices(like Galaxy S4)?

should make it into a shape of a pear.

 

[NullPointer]

Horrible.

Customers desire and expect certain similarities in functionality across devices. I'm all for differentiation, but when it comes to user experience people (developers and users) want convention. This is some destruction of the Tower of Babel level nonsense we're seeing. Or giving a single company the right to make aerodynamic airplanes.

 

[numble]

Horrible.

Customers desire and expect certain similarities in functionality across devices. I'm all for differentiation, but when it comes to user experience people (developers and users) want convention. This is some destruction of the Tower of Babel level nonsense we're seeing. Or giving a single company the right to make aerodynamic airplanes.

The Wright Brothers were involved in numerous patent battles over their airplane invention. Boeing, Airbus, etc. patent their aircraft designs and methods, including engines.

Here's a Boeing patent for one type of more aerodynamic plane:
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/boeing-patents.php

 

[Error]

what is scroll bounce limit?

 

[mcfrank]

http://www.marco.org/2012/08/25/pass-the-costs-along

I think Marco Arment is exactly right here

What’s really going to disrupt the iPhone is going to be something completely different, not something that tries so hard to clone the iPhone that it hits Apple’s patents.

Unoriginal manufacturers will need to pay for their unoriginality. The most reasonable course of action, therefore, is to truly innovate and design products that aren’t such close copies.

I fail to see how consumers lose.

 

[numble]

First of all, they seem to believe in the most general and vague definition of intellectual property that one can come up with, without sounding completely insane to absolutely everyone. The patents they defended are in their very nature so basic or vague, that if we applied the same standards e.g. to mathematics we would very quickly end up in a situation that would completely stifle innovation/progress and would put our society as a whole in deep shit.

Intellectual property is a nice word, but we're not even looking at software patents or actual algorithms that got patented, but the general principles/functionalities that they got a patent for. It's something lawyers and clever people came up with to make money out of a vague idea, because making money out of the actual implementation was not enough. It's a lie, a word that implies property where no property exists.

Now one can certainly argue for actual software/algorithm patents, i.e. patents that explicitly define an actual implementation. I know that most mathematicians are probably against software patents in general especially due to their huge implications and the problems they create, but I wouldn't necessarily go so far. However in this case we're looking at some very basic patents, in some cases based on prior art which surprisingly didn't matter to the jury at all. It would be like getting a patent for BFS in general, it makes my head hurt just to think about this stupidity. Everyone with experience in maths should've noticed how utterly stupid this is immediately.

I'm not quite sure how one could argue against FRAND and yet not throw out Apple's claims. It seems like an embarassing double standard to me. It didn't come down to who had the better arguments, it came down to who told the better tale. Both should've been thrown out.



I'm not sure if the Wright Brothers are a good example for the patent system working. That said we're usually looking at highly mathematical constructions in aircraft designs, as far as I'm aware completely different from this case.

Patent exhaustion is simple. Samsung licensed the patents to Intel, Intel sold the chips to Apple. Samsung wants to sue Apple for buying Intel chips, even though Samsung had already licensed it to Intel. How do you see there to be any issue?

You argue against vagueness and generalities, but that's exactly what you're doing when you're arguing this same point. What specifically did you find wrong about Singh or Balakrishnan's testimony regarding patent validity?

 

[SteveMeister]

Because the general public are morons and have no understanding on how software development works.

I didn't realize "the general public" reviewed and granted patents. You DO know that getting a patent is a difficult, lengthy and expensive process, right?

Look. Samsung (and others) need to come up with their own UI tricks and hardware designs instead of aping Apple or anyone else. Microsoft sure did with Metro. Does Samsung have nobody on staff who can think of other ways to interact than patented ones? Really?

Or, instead of ignoring international IP law and hoping nobody will care, they can license the tech.

 

[SteveMeister]

http://www.marco.org/2012/08/25/pass-the-costs-along

I think Marco Arment is exactly right here

Hear, hear! Exactly how I feel about this.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

The Wright Brothers were involved in numerous patent battles over their airplane invention. Boeing, Airbus, etc. patent their aircraft designs and methods, including engines.

Here's a Boeing patent for one type of more aerodynamic plane:
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/boeing-patents.php

that's not the point, he's talking about something broad and common or just damn natural being patented.

they have a patent on a shape......

everyone, every single person, involved in that decision should be shot......twice....or fired and publicly humiliated for being fucking retarded

 

[numble]

So do you think one should get vague patents without an actual, non-basic mathematical implementation or not ?

Patents do not have to do with math. Even QWERTY and the Nintendo DPad were patented. You have an inherent bias coming from a mathematical background. The patents are specific, which allows you to work around them. This is why Apple didn't patent something vague like "reaching the end of a document" or even "alerting the user that they reached the end of a document." They patented "bouncing back when you reach the end of a document." And if you just do a glow, or have the text enlarge, or something else, it doesn't infringe the specific patent.

that's not the point, he's talking about something broad and common or just damn natural being patented.

they have a patent on a shape......

everyone, every single person, involved in that decision should be shot......twice....or fired and publicly humiliated for being fucking retarded

None of the patents involved in the case have to do with a shape. Those were the trade dress claims, and most of them were not found to be protected. 3/4 of the trade dress claims were found to not be protected. The entire iPad trade dress was found to be not protected and the Galaxy Tab was not found to infringe. I have not done a count of how many phones were found to not infringe the iPhone trade dress, but it was a lot.

 

[Technosteve]

First of all, they seem to believe in the most general and vague definition of intellectual property that one can come up with, without sounding completely insane to absolutely everyone. The patents they defended are in their very nature so basic or vague, that if we applied the same standards e.g. to mathematics we would very quickly end up in a situation that would completely stifle innovation/progress and would put our society as a whole in deep shit.

Intellectual property is a nice word, but we're not even looking at software patents or actual algorithms that got patented, but the general principles/functionalities that they got a patent for. It's something lawyers and clever people came up with to make money out of a vague idea, because making money out of the actual implementation was not enough. It's a lie, a word that implies property where no property exists.

Now one can certainly argue for actual software/algorithm patents, i.e. patents that explicitly define an actual implementation. I know that most mathematicians are probably against software patents in general especially due to their huge implications and the problems they create, but I wouldn't necessarily go so far. However in this case we're looking at some very basic patents, in some cases based on prior art which surprisingly didn't matter to the jury at all. It would be like getting a patent for BFS in general, it makes my head hurt just to think about this stupidity. Everyone with experience in maths should've noticed how utterly stupid this is immediately.

I'm not quite sure how one could argue against FRAND and yet not throw out Apple's claims. It seems like an embarassing double standard to me. It didn't come down to who had the better arguments, it came down to who told the better tale. Both should've been thrown out.



I'm not sure if the Wright Brothers are a good example for the patent system working. That said we're usually looking at highly mathematical constructions in aircraft designs, as far as I'm aware completely different from this case.



I haven't read everything, just small parts. I'm not sure if it's worth to waste more time time reading people's ludicrous explanations for upholding something that is blatantly stupid in the first place.

I think your argument boils down to your perception that those patents are obvious, if you go back two pages we were trying to boil down to why (from a software engineer) that it's obvious. One of the stipulations of patents is that the widget is not obvious to a person familiar to the field.

If we go away from Apple lets go to US Patent 4197590 this is a patent granted in the 80's for displaying images on a CRT with the use of a Txt Cursor, this is a patent for an displaying a file heirachy system US Patent 5065347 and there's tons of patents for icons.

My question were all these things obvious? When they were programming on punch cards were text editors obvious? When they were using terminals were icon based file hierarchy obvious?

 

[numble]

So do you think the guy that came up with BFS should be able to get a patent ? How about the principle of interpolation ? Too vague ? When you leave out math regarding actual algorithms, you give out patents for vague, basic ideas. Not inventions, not innovations, not implementations, just ideas.

And when you start handing out patents for basic ideas you get into deep shit very quickly. Just this once society should actually listen to the scientific community.



They got a patent for "Slide-to-Unlock". A basic idea. What if someone had patented all the shit you mention, what if someone is smart enough to patent the various different, hilariously simple/basic and vague ideas for "bouncing back when you reach the end of a document" ? Do you honestly see a fundamental difference ?

That said they got a 'design patent' - not sure what it's called like in the US, but that'd be the German term - for essentially a rectangle with round edges. It is beyond me how anyone can defend that. Might as well give one for rectangles, that would be only slightly more insane.

Those are more vague than the specific patents involved in this case, which only apply to very specific uses and even only to specific products.

There is no design patent for rectangles or rounded edges involved in this case. If you're talking about trade dress, most of the claims failed. The entire iPad trade dress, rounded rectangles and all, was found to not be protected. Slide to unlock is not involved in this case.

Bouncing back when reaching the end of a document is not vague. You can keep calling things vague, but they're not.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Bouncing back when reaching the end of a document is not vague. You can keep calling things vague, but they're not.

Yea it is. What kind of easing does the bounce back utilize? Cubic, quadratic, linear, exponential? I've used both. The easing utilized is not the same. Where does the application bounce back to? Samsung devices bounce to the end of the document. Apple bounces to prior positon.

Yet, the jury says both bounce backs are the same. The only conclusion is the patent is vague enough to cover two fairly different implementations technically.

 

[giga]

Why are we discussing bounce back when Android doesn't even use bounce back anymore?

 

[EightBitNate]

Why are we discussing bounce back when Android doesn't even use bounce back anymore?

I'm sure Samsung will bounce back after this

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

slide to unlock
pinch to zoom
rectangle design.

are fucking innovations........are you kidding me

and there are people in here defending this bullshit? wow......just damn
http://i.imgur.com/XNhfI.gif

Samsung had the opportunity, but failed to provide evidence to invalidate any of those patents. Instead Apple presented strong evidence that Samsung meticulously went through all of those features and copied directly from the iPhone by name (feature by feature). On top of it all Samsung destroyed crucial evidence related to this case which makes them look like a really dirty company (even if they honestly were just a sloppy company).

The USPTO wasn't on trial here, Samsung's alleged copying was on trial. Apple needed to prove that Samsung willfully infringed their products, Samsung needed to prove that these "obvious" features came about without them looking at iPhone for inspiration. Samsung failed very badly and may have seriously tarnished the reputation of the company in the public's eyes. (Every mainstream media headline declares they are guilty of copying iPhone.)

How the fuck are they allowed to patent shit like that?

I have no serious problem with dumb patents going through so long as the system allows judges and juries to declare those dumb patents invalid. The burden was on Samsung to prove that these Apple patents were invalid. Instead what we saw is that Samsung greatly valued these specific patented features and made sure their phones looked and felt as similar to an iPhone as they could technically achieve. Samsung's behavior validated the patents more than anything. If Samsung had taken a more independent approach to designing their smartphones Apple would have had a much weaker case against them.

 

[Kinitari]

Why are we discussing bounce back when Android doesn't even use bounce back anymore?

The argument being made right now seems to be whether a general bounceback patent that encompasses all bounceback effects is a good idea. Whether or not Google took it out of android is neither here nor there.

 

[SpectreFire]

I find this whole ordeal to be hilarious and that's pretty much it.

Samsung will continue making phones and people will continue buying them.

It's not a huge deal.

 

[numble]

Yea it is. What kind of easing does the bounce back utilize? Cubic, quadratic, linear, exponential? I've used both. The easing utilized is not the same. Where does the application bounce back to? Samsung devices bounce to the end of the document. Apple bounces to prior positon.

Yet, the jury says both bounce backs are the same. The only conclusion is the patent is vague enough to cover two fairly different implementations technically.

Bounceback is not vague. Both cubic and quadratic bouncebacks are bouncebacks. But it is not so vague as to cover the stock Android method or other types of "end of document" alerts.

It's silly to assume that the patent system will only cover an exact copy, down to the easing, of your method.
It's also silly to assume the patent system will cover something so vague as "alerting a user when they reach the end of the document."

 

[CrushDance]

"Peers"

You know. As society continues to grow and technology advances rapidly. I think the courts are falling behind in the worst way possible. How can you have a jury from the GP that decides on cases without really knowing anything about or why the tech works? The history?

Am I insane or did I overlook something?

 

[giga]

First juror interview:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

Excerpt:

I'm pretty sure he means they skipped deliberating the first patent on the first day, and got to it later on.

CNet is doing a Katie Couric and spreading out the interview for more hits.

Edit: And they're updating the article by the minute, for some reason. Why not just put it altogether and post--it's not a liveblog.

It's pretty terrible reporting. That paragraph makes it imply that they skipped deliberating on the prior art of that patent. But when you click the gallery and go to image four (which not many are going to do), it says completely otherwise:

http://news.cnet.com/2300-13579_3-10013512-4.html

One of Apple's clean sweeps in the verdict was that all Samsung's smartphones were found to infringe on Apple's patent covering bounce-back. In short, this is what lets a user scroll beyond the edge of an image, Web page, or list, and have it bounce back onto the screen.

"We were thinking Apple filed a patent for bounce-back, (and) that's where we got stuck...because (of) prior art," Ilagan said. He added that the group eventually found some of Samsung's prior art "significantly different" from the technology outlined in Apple's bounce-back patent.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Sorry if it's been asked before but what does this mean for Samsung?

Will they ban Samsung smartphones or something? Stop production? Recalls?

 

[Magni]

I'm kinda shocked to see that the Korean court ruling was fairer than the American one, I was expecting the opposite. What a fucking shame.

 

[Izayoi]

Will they ban Samsung smartphones or something?

If they can't get Samsung to pay royalties, I'm sure that's the eventual goal.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Bounceback is not vague. Both cubic and quadratic bouncebacks are bouncebacks. But it is not so vague as to cover the stock Android method or other types of "end of document" alerts.

It's silly to assume that the patent system will only cover an exact copy, down to the easing, of your method.
It's also silly to assume the patent system will cover something so vague as "alerting a user when they reach the end of the document."

The patent system is such that it comes to down specific implementation. It's why patents are for specific chemical formulas. It's why engines are copyrighted to very precise mechnical processes. It's why Sony and Microsoft don't get in trouble for their D-Pads. Nintendo's patent covers a very specific implementation of a D-Pad.

 

[nbcjr]

This just seals it. I'm never buying another Apple product and I'm shelving my iPods for good. Apple will never get another penny from me for ad long as I live.

i'm doing the same. Apple is hindering innovation.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Sorry if it's been asked before but what does this mean for Samsung?

Will they ban Samsung smartphones or something? Stop production? Recalls?

Some older Samsung phones will most likely get banned. There won't be a recall or a stop of production because the ban would only apply to the USA for now.

Ultimately it means until Samsung signs the $30/phone licensing agreement or $24/phone cross licensing agreement with Apple that Samsung phones could be banned as long as they have these patented features.

Basically this decision gives Apple far more leverage in their license negotiations and if it's upheld on appeal or made worse through Apple's appeals then Samsung really has no choice but to give into Apple's royalty demands.

 

[D4Danger]

Some older Samsung phones will most likely get banned. There won't be a recall or a stop of production because the ban would only apply to the USA for now.

Ultimately it means until Samsung signs the $30/phone licensing agreement or $24/phone cross licensing agreement with Apple that Samsung phones could be banned as long as they have these patented features.

Basically this decision gives Apple far more leverage in their license negotiations and if it's upheld on appeal or made worse through Apple's appeals then Samsung really has no choice but to give into Apple's royalty demands.

this on top of whatever Microsoft is making people pay for Android must be getting expensive for them.

 

[edgefusion]

Dammit this is seriously bad news for consumers. How is anyone going to innovate if they're not allowed to rip-off Apple products anymore? How are we going to zoom in if this one specific method of zooming is patented? Smartphones are over, we're done. Looks like everyone will have to go back to Nokia 3210's. I'm going to donate all my Apple products to charity... No wait I'll just put them in a drawer somewhere so I can use them again when I change my mind next week.

 

[zedge]

Cool story.

 

[buhdeh]

Dammit this is seriously bad news for consumers. How is anyone going to innovate if they're not allowed to rip-off Apple products anymore? How are we going to zoom in if this one specific method of zooming is patented? Smartphones are over, we're done. Looks like everyone will have to go back to Nokia 3210's. I'm going to donate all my Apple products to charity... No wait I'll just put them in a drawer somewhere so I can use them again when I change my mind next week.

Yawn