Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

Audible Click · 8th August 2012, 12:26 PM

Apple v. Samsung has been described by various tech bloggers as "the patent trial of the century". Apple has filed for $2.525 billion in damages from Samsung, and this week, Apple released a table and four charts detailing each alleged violation and the damages they expect. It's an interesting read even if you're not an Apple or Samsung enthusiast. To me, this brings to mind the "greed is good" speech from the movie "Wall Street". What's your take on this does Apple have a legitimate claim?

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/...utm_campaign=s

Darat · 8th August 2012, 12:43 PM

From what I understand there is some merit to some of Apple's allegations but nothing that should result in what Apple wants. And it seems as if Samsung legal team are rather naive, making stupid mistakes and not seemingly to make clear counter-arguments. An example that comes to mind is the "green phone" icon, from the reports I've read I've not seen it pointed out that "green phone to dial" symbol was the industry standard long before Apple came up with their "green phone to dial" icon.

I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA)

Ryokan · 8th August 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA)

Yes.

AvalonXQ · 8th August 2012, 03:24 PM

I disagree. Forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone will encourage innovation - as will developers knowing that if they go out on a limb to develop something new, they'll be protected from competitor clones.

The Dark Lord · 8th August 2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I disagree. Forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone will encourage innovation - as will developers knowing that if they go out on a limb to develop something new, they'll be protected from competitor clones.

Look at the Galaxy S III and tell me that it is a copy of the iPhone.

AgeGap · 8th August 2012, 04:47 PM

These lawsuits are not about encouraging innovation but stifling opposition.

There is a free (as in speech) ebook here that is well worth a read.

AvalonXQ · 8th August 2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by AgeGap

There is a free (as in speech) ebook here that is well worth a read.

Are you sure you don't mean "free (as in beer)"? It doesn't make much sense to talk about a "free (as in speech) ebook", and this one is actually available free (as in beer).

AgeGap · 8th August 2012, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Are you sure you don't mean "free (as in beer)"? It doesn't make much sense to talk about a "free (as in speech) ebook", and this one is actually available free (as in beer).

Creative commons where you are free to....you know the drill.
Apple did not invent the mouse, the GUI, the touch screen, the telephone, glass or rounded squares.
Patents and copyright should encourage innovation and reward us all.
This Microsoft suing Google suing Apple suing Samsung BS is BS. IANAL but with all these lawsuits flying around I wish I was.

AvalonXQ · 8th August 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by AgeGap

Apple did not invent the mouse, the GUI, the touch screen, the telephone, glass or rounded squares.

Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares."

Darat · 9th August 2012, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I disagree. Forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone will encourage innovation - as will developers knowing that if they go out on a limb to develop something new, they'll be protected from competitor clones.

The problem I see is how broad Apple are arguing in some areas - as an example - many a commentator have said it's being able to register a rectangle as a design feature that is the worrying (and stifling). Thankfully in the UK a judge has already thrown out that claim by Apple.

Plus of course there is the issue of how much is truly original to Apple, for example my example above of the "green phone to call symbol".

OnlyTellsTruths · 9th August 2012, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

The problem I see is how broad Apple are arguing in some areas - as an example - many a commentator have said it's being able to register a rectangle as a design feature that is the worrying (and stifling). Thankfully in the UK a judge has already thrown out that claim by Apple.

Plus of course there is the issue of how much is truly original to Apple, for example my example above of the "green phone to call symbol".

Those are my 2 beefs exactly.

#1) Trying to patent things that have been used forever. Like the green phone icon for dial. Or red phone icon for End Call.

#2) Trying to patent things so completely general that it would be a good joke if they weren't serious. Like the rectangle deal.

Or a Letter Envelope as the mail icon.

I don't give a hoot if they patent a specific, and most importantly, a distinctive!, looking Letter Envelope as their mail icon, but not letting anyone use any Letter Envelope as their mail icon is ridiculous.

Likewise, if they patent a specific and distinctive green phone icon for Dial and red phone icon for End Call, that is fine. But wanting to have the monopoly on all green phone icons and red phone icons is ridiculous.

Warning: All of the above examples are used to describe my problems. If they do not accurately represent something that Apple is asking, it does not have any bearing on whether or not they accurately represent my opinions!

Mojo · 9th August 2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Thankfully in the UK a judge has already thrown out that claim by Apple.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2012/1882.html

Quote:

The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different.

OnlyTellsTruths · 9th August 2012, 03:12 AM

lol@ "They are not as cool."

DrDave · 9th August 2012, 03:19 AM

If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side

Zelenius · 9th August 2012, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by DrDave

If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side

I wouldn't be surprised if they did

PixyMisa · 9th August 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA)

Either the standard for novelty in these patents needs to be scaled way up - and thus most existing design and software patents invalidated - or the whole idea needs to be scrapped.

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Warning: All of the above examples are used to describe my problems. If they do not accurately represent something that Apple is asking, it does not have any bearing on whether or not they accurately represent my opinions!

This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on.

So far, every time someone has actually identified one of these patents and we've examined it, it's been clear that the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest.

AgeGap · 9th August 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares."

But they, and others, have used these ideas in their own products and as a result we all can benefit.

The patent system should reward innovation but not at the expense of progress. It is a difficult and delicate balance but one that I fear is out of kilter.
One example being the Kodak patent grab. There is no innovation in Apple or Google buying Kodak patents in order to beat each other around the head with.

Why not build a better phone rather than a better arsenal of patents?

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by AgeGap

Why not build a better phone rather than a better arsenal of patents?

Why not do both?

You express an interest in innovation, but your attitudes aren't consistent with rewarding innovation.

WildCat · 9th August 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on.

Except that's basically what they did, have you read any of these court cases?

I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device", as if that is innovation deserving of patent protection.

The patent system is competely broken and is being used to stifle competition and prevent others from entering the market.

Horatius · 9th August 2012, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on.

So far, every time someone has actually identified one of these patents and we've examined it, it's been clear that the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest.

The problem I've encountered is, even after explaining to some people that "the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest", they still insist the patents are overly broad.

Horatius · 9th August 2012, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device", as if that is innovation deserving of patent protection.

Which patent are you talking about?

WildCat · 9th August 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by horatius

which patent are you talking about?

7,966,578

Sideroxylon · 9th August 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares."

They actually tried and failed with the mouse and GUI in their 1994 "look and feel" case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation

Horatius · 9th August 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

7,966,578

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/7,966,578

This patent? With the main independent claims:

Quote:

What is claimed is:

1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page; detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

2. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display: displaying a portion of page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the page; detecting an N-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the N-finger translation gesture, translating the page content to display a new portion of page content in the stationary application window, on the touch screen display, wherein translating the page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page; detecting an M-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N; and in response to detecting the M-finger translation gesture, translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display without translating the other content of the page.

Yep, a pretty good working example of what AvalonXQ was talking about above.

ETA: and one we've discussed previously:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7486315

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device",

... except they didn't.

It's just exactly what I was talking about -- people make ridiculous claims about patents that have no relationship to the facts.

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

They actually tried and failed with the mouse and GUI in their 1994 "look and feel" case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation

... which was a copyright case, not a patent case. And, yet again, it was an issue of how close the Microsoft GUI was to specific Apple GUI's, not some vague reference to owning the concept of GUI itself.

It's so easy to bash caricatures of IP cases while ignoring their actual facts.

BenBurch · 9th August 2012, 10:50 AM

I think they have Samsung on the ropes here.

TheL8Elvis · 9th August 2012, 02:10 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...d-in-pictures/

Article with pictures for the patent challenged

Darat · 9th August 2012, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on.

...snip...

That would be an impossible standard to achieve whilst a case is ongoing. However much of the evidence in the current wide reaching case is being released and is available to read.

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

That would be an impossible standard to achieve whilst a case is ongoing.

Posting patent claims or trademark registrations is hardly "an impossible standard to achieve," as both are publically available.

Plaintiff's briefs are often public, too, once filed.

But why bother with solid facts that will disprove the naive descriptions when we can stick with baseless speculations, right?

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...d-in-pictures/

Article with pictures for the patent challenged

The actual utility patent coverage in that article is really frustrating.

They act like claims 9 and 18 are just the elements listed on the chart. To infringe either claim, you'd also have to infringe claim 1 -- which is substantially longer and more complicated, which is why Ars Technica didn't include it in the article. But it makes it sound like Apple has claimed just the elements listed, which isn't true.

Darat · 9th August 2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Posting patent claims or trademark registrations is hardly "an impossible standard to achieve," as both are publically available.

Plaintiff's briefs are often public, too, once filed.

I suggest you reread what you seemed to be claiming was necessary before any discussion could take place.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

But why bother with solid facts that will disprove the naive descriptions when we can stick with baseless speculations, right?

Is the portion quoted above meant to be sarcasm?

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I suggest you reread what you seemed to be claiming was necessary before any discussion could take place.

What are you talking about?

Patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs -- all three available publicly before/during trial. What impossible standard are you trying to imply I'm imposing?

Belz... · 9th August 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by DrDave

If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side

what court judgement ?

TheL8Elvis · 9th August 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

what court judgement ?

http://gigaom.com/europe/apples-tabl...k-judge-rules/

Samsung’s tablets are “not as cool” as Apple’s, a senior British judge ruled today. No, I’m not making that up – it’s a real judicial quote and, believe it or not, it should come as music to Samsung’s ears.

Belz... · 9th August 2012, 03:09 PM

I was hoping DrDave had made that up.

Darat · 9th August 2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What are you talking about?

Patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs -- all three available publicly before/during trial. What impossible standard are you trying to imply I'm imposing?

Not really interested in exploring your standards for being able to discuss this matter any further. Do you have any comments to make about the trail?

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Not really interested in exploring your standards for being able to discuss this matter any further.

Hey, you're the one who brought it up.

My comments stand: Specifically, people who claim to know what's going on with a patent without actually reviewing and posting the claims have no clue what they're talking about. And people who describe that a given company is claiming something broad or vague without providing evidence, are just blowing smoke.

Patents are public record, people. Look up the patents, read the claim, and then decide how much of the "moon" Apple has actually claimed.

carlvs · 9th August 2012, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Not really interested in exploring your standards for being able to discuss this matter any further. Do you have any comments to make about the trail?

Don't bother - most likely you're communicating with a person who would not be happy until ALL Android devices are banned, and one would only be able to buy iPhones and iPads.

And as for those on Apple's side - please don't insult my intelligence by saying this is not their ultimate goal - if they win this case, they'll most likely use it to block products that use the Android OS from other companies.

At least when there have been patent disputes with Microsoft, that company has been willing to enter into licensing agreements, and not have their (then) CEO rant about going "thermonuclear" on them...

8th August 2012, 12:26 PM	#1
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 3,546	Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin. Apple v. Samsung has been described by various tech bloggers as "the patent trial of the century". Apple has filed for $2.525 billion in damages from Samsung, and this week, Apple released a table and four charts detailing each alleged violation and the damages they expect. It's an interesting read even if you're not an Apple or Samsung enthusiast. To me, this brings to mind the "greed is good" speech from the movie "Wall Street". What's your take on this does Apple have a legitimate claim? http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/...utm_campaign=s
	__________________ "Thank you, darling heart. Love you." Baba Australasian Skeptics Forum

8th August 2012, 03:24 PM	#4
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	I disagree. Forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone will encourage innovation - as will developers knowing that if they go out on a limb to develop something new, they'll be protected from competitor clones.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

8th August 2012, 03:54 PM	#5
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I disagree. Forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone will encourage innovation - as will developers knowing that if they go out on a limb to develop something new, they'll be protected from competitor clones. Look at the Galaxy S III and tell me that it is a copy of the iPhone.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

8th August 2012, 04:49 PM	#7
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by AgeGap There is a free (as in speech) ebook here that is well worth a read. Are you sure you don't mean "free (as in beer)"? It doesn't make much sense to talk about a "free (as in speech) ebook", and this one is actually available free (as in beer).
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

8th August 2012, 05:49 PM	#9
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by AgeGap Apple did not invent the mouse, the GUI, the touch screen, the telephone, glass or rounded squares. Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares."
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

8th August 2012, 12:43 PM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,803	From what I understand there is some merit to some of Apple's allegations but nothing that should result in what Apple wants. And it seems as if Samsung legal team are rather naive, making stupid mistakes and not seemingly to make clear counter-arguments. An example that comes to mind is the "green phone" icon, from the reports I've read I've not seen it pointed out that "green phone to dial" symbol was the industry standard long before Apple came up with their "green phone to dial" icon. I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

8th August 2012, 03:01 PM	#3
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,198	Originally Posted by Darat I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA) Yes.

8th August 2012, 04:47 PM	#6
AgeGap Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St.Helens, UK Posts: 2,386	These lawsuits are not about encouraging innovation but stifling opposition. There is a free (as in speech) ebook here that is well worth a read.

8th August 2012, 05:21 PM	#8
AgeGap Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St.Helens, UK Posts: 2,386	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Are you sure you don't mean "free (as in beer)"? It doesn't make much sense to talk about a "free (as in speech) ebook", and this one is actually available free (as in beer). Creative commons where you are free to....you know the drill. Apple did not invent the mouse, the GUI, the touch screen, the telephone, glass or rounded squares. Patents and copyright should encourage innovation and reward us all. This Microsoft suing Google suing Apple suing Samsung BS is BS. IANAL but with all these lawsuits flying around I wish I was.

9th August 2012, 12:14 AM	#10
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,803	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I disagree. Forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone will encourage innovation - as will developers knowing that if they go out on a limb to develop something new, they'll be protected from competitor clones. The problem I see is how broad Apple are arguing in some areas - as an example - many a commentator have said it's being able to register a rectangle as a design feature that is the worrying (and stifling). Thankfully in the UK a judge has already thrown out that claim by Apple. Plus of course there is the issue of how much is truly original to Apple, for example my example above of the "green phone to call symbol".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

9th August 2012, 01:54 AM	#11
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,811	Originally Posted by Darat The problem I see is how broad Apple are arguing in some areas - as an example - many a commentator have said it's being able to register a rectangle as a design feature that is the worrying (and stifling). Thankfully in the UK a judge has already thrown out that claim by Apple. Plus of course there is the issue of how much is truly original to Apple, for example my example above of the "green phone to call symbol". Those are my 2 beefs exactly. #1) Trying to patent things that have been used forever. Like the green phone icon for dial. Or red phone icon for End Call. #2) Trying to patent things so completely general that it would be a good joke if they weren't serious. Like the rectangle deal. Or a Letter Envelope as the mail icon. I don't give a hoot if they patent a specific, and most importantly, a distinctive!, looking Letter Envelope as their mail icon, but not letting anyone use any Letter Envelope as their mail icon is ridiculous. Likewise, if they patent a specific and distinctive green phone icon for Dial and red phone icon for End Call, that is fine. But wanting to have the monopoly on all green phone icons and red phone icons is ridiculous. Warning: All of the above examples are used to describe my problems. If they do not accurately represent something that Apple is asking, it does not have any bearing on whether or not they accurately represent my opinions!
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,811	__________________ ________________________

9th August 2012, 02:02 AM	#12
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,101	Originally Posted by Darat Thankfully in the UK a judge has already thrown out that claim by Apple. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2012/1882.html Quote: The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

9th August 2012, 03:12 AM	#13
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,811	lol@ "They are not as cool."
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,811	__________________ ________________________

9th August 2012, 03:19 AM	#14
DrDave Guest Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Geneva Posts: 3,110	If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side

9th August 2012, 04:28 AM	#15
Zelenius Muse Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: East coast, U.S Posts: 627	Originally Posted by DrDave If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side I wouldn't be surprised if they did

9th August 2012, 04:37 AM	#16
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,914	Originally Posted by Darat I want Apple to not win because it will stifle competition and lead to a reduction in innovation (at least in the USA) Either the standard for novelty in these patents needs to be scaled way up - and thus most existing design and software patents invalidated - or the whole idea needs to be scrapped.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th August 2012, 04:49 AM	#17
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Warning: All of the above examples are used to describe my problems. If they do not accurately represent something that Apple is asking, it does not have any bearing on whether or not they accurately represent my opinions! This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on. So far, every time someone has actually identified one of these patents and we've examined it, it's been clear that the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 06:06 AM	#18
AgeGap Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St.Helens, UK Posts: 2,386	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares." But they, and others, have used these ideas in their own products and as a result we all can benefit. The patent system should reward innovation but not at the expense of progress. It is a difficult and delicate balance but one that I fear is out of kilter. One example being the Kodak patent grab. There is no innovation in Apple or Google buying Kodak patents in order to beat each other around the head with. Why not build a better phone rather than a better arsenal of patents?

9th August 2012, 06:10 AM	#19
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by AgeGap Why not build a better phone rather than a better arsenal of patents? Why not do both? You express an interest in innovation, but your attitudes aren't consistent with rewarding innovation.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 06:21 AM	#20
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on. Except that's basically what they did, have you read any of these court cases? I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device", as if that is innovation deserving of patent protection. The patent system is competely broken and is being used to stifle competition and prevent others from entering the market.

9th August 2012, 06:23 AM	#21
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on. So far, every time someone has actually identified one of these patents and we've examined it, it's been clear that the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest. The problem I've encountered is, even after explaining to some people that "the actual scope of Apple's claim is significantly narrower than people's naive descriptions would suggest", they still insist the patents are overly broad.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

9th August 2012, 06:28 AM	#22
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	Originally Posted by WildCat I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device", as if that is innovation deserving of patent protection. Which patent are you talking about?
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

9th August 2012, 07:12 AM	#23
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by horatius which patent are you talking about? 7,966,578

9th August 2012, 07:44 AM	#24
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,643	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Nor have they asserted a patent on "the mouse", "the GUI", "the touch screen", "the telephone", "glass" or "rounded squares." They actually tried and failed with the mouse and GUI in their 1994 "look and feel" case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

9th August 2012, 07:44 AM	#25
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	Originally Posted by WildCat 7,966,578 http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/7,966,578 This patent? With the main independent claims: Quote: What is claimed is: 1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page; detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page. 2. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display: displaying a portion of page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the page; detecting an N-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the N-finger translation gesture, translating the page content to display a new portion of page content in the stationary application window, on the touch screen display, wherein translating the page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page; detecting an M-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N; and in response to detecting the M-finger translation gesture, translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display without translating the other content of the page. Yep, a pretty good working example of what AvalonXQ was talking about above. ETA: and one we've discussed previously: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7486315
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd Last edited by Horatius; 9th August 2012 at 07:47 AM.

9th August 2012, 09:10 AM	#26
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by WildCat I like how they took decades-old touch screen tech and patented it "on a mobile device", ... except they didn't. It's just exactly what I was talking about -- people make ridiculous claims about patents that have no relationship to the facts.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 09:13 AM	#27
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon They actually tried and failed with the mouse and GUI in their 1994 "look and feel" case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation ... which was a copyright case, not a patent case. And, yet again, it was an issue of how close the Microsoft GUI was to specific Apple GUI's, not some vague reference to owning the concept of GUI itself. It's so easy to bash caricatures of IP cases while ignoring their actual facts.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 10:50 AM	#28
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	I think they have Samsung on the ropes here.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

9th August 2012, 02:10 PM	#29
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,527	http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...d-in-pictures/ Article with pictures for the patent challenged
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,527

9th August 2012, 02:15 PM	#30
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,803	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ This, of course, is the perennial problem in these threads. People make statements like "Apple is patenting the touch screen" or "Apple is claiming a rectangle for a trademark" -- all without actually including patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs so that we can judge what's really going on. ...snip... That would be an impossible standard to achieve whilst a case is ongoing. However much of the evidence in the current wide reaching case is being released and is available to read.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

9th August 2012, 02:18 PM	#31
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Darat That would be an impossible standard to achieve whilst a case is ongoing. Posting patent claims or trademark registrations is hardly "an impossible standard to achieve," as both are publically available. Plaintiff's briefs are often public, too, once filed. But why bother with solid facts that will disprove the naive descriptions when we can stick with baseless speculations, right?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 02:26 PM	#32
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...d-in-pictures/ Article with pictures for the patent challenged The actual utility patent coverage in that article is really frustrating. They act like claims 9 and 18 are just the elements listed on the chart. To infringe either claim, you'd also have to infringe claim 1 -- which is substantially longer and more complicated, which is why Ars Technica didn't include it in the article. But it makes it sound like Apple has claimed just the elements listed, which isn't true.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 02:27 PM	#33
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,803	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Posting patent claims or trademark registrations is hardly "an impossible standard to achieve," as both are publically available. Plaintiff's briefs are often public, too, once filed. I suggest you reread what you seemed to be claiming was necessary before any discussion could take place. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ But why bother with solid facts that will disprove the naive descriptions when we can stick with baseless speculations, right? Is the portion quoted above meant to be sarcasm?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

9th August 2012, 02:31 PM	#34
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Darat I suggest you reread what you seemed to be claiming was necessary before any discussion could take place. What are you talking about? Patent claims, trademark registrations, or plaintiff's briefs -- all three available publicly before/during trial. What impossible standard are you trying to imply I'm imposing?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 9th August 2012 at 02:32 PM.

9th August 2012, 02:35 PM	#35
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,532	Originally Posted by DrDave If I claim that Samsung are cooler, can Apple sue me - they have a court judgement on their side what court judgement ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey