Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin. - Page 2

The Dark Lord · 9th August 2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

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

So?

Horatius · 9th August 2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by carlvs

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.

Or, you know, he's trying to explain to you how patents, and their use in court cases, actually work, as opposed to the ridiculously ill-informed interpretations used by anti-patent crusaders.

But that is clearly an uphill battle for some.

Quote:

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.

Sure, it is clearly their ultimate goal - but you can't evaluate how likely they are to succeed at that goal via patent lawsuits until you understand how patents actually work - something that lots of people posting here demonstrably don't understand.

AvalonXQ · 9th August 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by carlvs

And as for those on Apple's side

I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly.

That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts.

People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.

Wangler · 9th August 2012, 06:20 PM

If you don't like how Apple defends it's IP, just don't support them.

It's easy to not buy anything that Apple puts out, ever.

Just ask me how.

rwguinn · 9th August 2012, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

If you don't like how Apple defends it's IP, just don't support them.

It's easy to not buy anything that Apple puts out, ever.

Just ask me how.

not if they win...

Sideroxylon · 9th August 2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly.

That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts.

People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.

It's a kind of religious dogma, isn't it.

PixyMisa · 10th August 2012, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I think they have Samsung on the ropes here.

Very unlikely. The judgement Apple is asking for would buy millions of hours of prior-art searches, and their patents simply aren't that novel.

Samsung may settle, but there is no chance Apple will get what they are asking for.

Darat · 10th August 2012, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly.

That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts.

People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.

What about those that criticise others even though they show that they have not read the up about what the case they are commenting on on? This case is not only about patent violations......

DrDave · 10th August 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I was hoping DrDave had made that up.

It doesn't sound like the sort of thing judges should be ruling on does it?!

Darat · 10th August 2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by DrDave

It doesn't sound like the sort of thing judges should be ruling on does it?!

There have been a few of these types of legal tussles in which the judge has been very clear that the courts really shouldn't be involved (and that includes cases not involving Apple)

TheL8Elvis · 10th August 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

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

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

So?

So what ?

WildCat · 10th August 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

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

This patent? With the main independent claims:

What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display".

It's absurd.

WildCat · 10th August 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Or, you know, he's trying to explain to you how patents, and their use in court cases, actually work,

I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that's how it actually works. The problem is the sytem "actually working" that way shows the sytem is broken and is actually stifling innovation and competition.

AvalonXQ · 10th August 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display".

The claim is for selective scrolling of a page with frames. It scrolls the whole page if you use one finger, or it scrolls just the frame if you use two fingers.

What device did this prior to the filing date of the Apple patent?

TheL8Elvis · 10th August 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that's how it actually works. The problem is the sytem "actually working" that way shows the sytem is broken and is actually stifling innovation and competition.

That the patent system may be broken and in need of change is not relevant to whether apple currently has valid patents that samsung is infringing on.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display".

It's absurd.

What's absurd is that you are once again ignoring about 90% of body of the claims, which is something I and AvalonXQ have told you repeatedly you simply can't do. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything about patents. It's really just that simple.

First off, you say they "took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"". Well, no they didn't.

The line "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display" is the introductory portion of the claim, which merely sets up the environment in which their invention (which is actually embodied in a method of using that device) operates. Had they simply tried to patent "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display", they'd have been laughed out of the patent office.

Originally Posted by Horatius

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.

As AvalonQX says above, show us any system anywhere prior to this patent's filing date that taught a method that involves all (or even most) of these major steps, which each include several sub-steps:

1) 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;

2) 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;

3) 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.

THIS is what they have patented. Show us evidence that THIS was known prior to the filing date and you'd have something to argue about. But until you understand and acknowledge that the patent is not simply directed to "existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"", you'll never make any progress.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

That the patent system may be broken and in need of change is not relevant to whether apple currently has valid patents that samsung is infringing on.

I've said before that there are real problems with patents, particularly in the US, but those real problems won't be solved by people who demonstrably don't know what they're talking about, and go out of their way to make up fake problems like we see here.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 10:57 AM

Hey, anyone want to see a real ridiculously broad patent claim? Check out what I'm working on:

http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic...ims.html?type=

Bonus points to the first person who isn't AvalonXQ (

) who spots the first dependent claim that isn't completely ridiculous!

ETA: Hey, Yanks, leave off Apple and go complain about the USPTO's job on this one!

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/7838844

WildCat · 10th August 2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

What's absurd is that you are once again ignoring about 90% of body of the claims, which is something I and AvalonXQ have told you repeatedly you simply can't do. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything about patents. It's really just that simple.

First off, you say they "took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"". Well, no they didn't.

The line "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display" is the introductory portion of the claim, which merely sets up the environment in which their invention (which is actually embodied in a method of using that device) operates.

Why on earth should the platform matter?

Originally Posted by Horatius

Had they simply tried to patent "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display", they'd have been laughed out of the patent office.

Seeing as the patent office fairly regularly allows patents for perpetual motion devices and other such nonsense I doubt anything has ever been laughed out of it.

Originally Posted by Horatius

As AvalonQX says above, show us any system anywhere prior to this patent's filing date that taught a method that involves all (or even most) of these major steps, which each include several sub-steps:

1) 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;

2) 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;

3) 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, again, they're just taking existing tech and combining them in a uwithout translating the other content of the web page.

Right, once again they just took existing tech and combinmed them in a unique but obvious way.

Originally Posted by Horatius

THIS is what they have patented. Show us evidence that THIS was known prior to the filing date and you'd have something to argue about. But until you understand and acknowledge that the patent is not simply directed to "existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"", you'll never make any progress.

I guess you have to be an entrenched bureaucrat with turf to protect to see the merits in such a patent.

WildCat · 10th August 2012, 11:37 AM

US Circuit judge, University of Chicago lecturer and intellectuial property expert Richard Posner sounds off:

Quote:

The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple Inc's smartphone technology battle is questioning whether patents should cover software or most other industries at all.

Richard Posner, a prolific jurist who sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, told Reuters this week that the technology industry's high profits and volatility made patent litigation attractive for companies looking to wound competitors.

...Posner, who teaches at the University of Chicago, effectively ended Apple's lawsuit against Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit last month. He canceled a closely anticipated trial between the two and rejected the iPhone maker's request for an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products using Apple's patented technology.

Apple is in a pitched battle with its competitors over patents, as technology companies joust globally for consumers in the fast-growing markets for smartphones and tablet computers.

Posner said some industries, like pharmaceuticals, had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.

Advances in software and other industries cost much less, he said, and the companies benefit tremendously from being first in the market with gadgets - a benefit they would still get if there were no software patents.

"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," he said.

Also, devices like smartphones have thousands of component features, and they all receive legal protection.

"You just have this proliferation of patents," Posner said. "It's a problem."

When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Right, once again they just took existing tech and combinmed them in a unique but obvious way.

And once again you ignore the fact that all sorts of patents are granted for "existing tech combined in a unique way". That's part of what "novelty" means. That's why the patent system exists: so people can see what others have done, and improve upon it, but combining it in new an useful ways.

You also ignore the fact that you can't mere assert that this new combination is "obvious", you have to prove that, using references. References you have never been able to provide, despite having been asked for them several times.

AvalonXQ · 10th August 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Seeing as the patent office fairly regularly allows patents for perpetual motion devices and other such nonsense I doubt anything has ever been laughed out of it.

"Fairly regularly allows"?! Do you have proof for these ridiculous claims of yours?

How about you cite the number of a single perpetual motion patent issued in the 1980s, one issued in the 1990s, and one issued since 2000? If the patent office "regularly allows" such patents, it should be easy for you to find one each per decade, right?

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

US Circuit judge, University of Chicago lecturer and intellectuial property expert Richard Posner sounds off:

When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.

See, now this is a reasonable discussion to have: what do we, as a society, want to be patentable? I have no problem with re-writing the law to either explicitly include or exclude any particular types of technology (Here in Canada we already explicitly deny patents on methods of medical treatment, for instance), but as it stands right now, we're required to enforce the law as it exists, and as it has been interpreted by the Courts.

Go ahead and fix that if you think it's broken, but again, you'll get nowhere with that if you don't even understand the basics of the laws you're complaining about.

AvalonXQ · 10th August 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.

It really doesn't appear that you have any idea what you're talking about. The only thing you can do with a patent is either exclude competition with it (patent litigation), or make an agreement not to exclude them (patent licensing). That's precisely what a patent does; it gives you a limited monopoly over what you invented. That's what it's for.

Your statement is as nonsensical as "When land deeds are used solely as a tool to stifle land use and exclude competitors from parcels of property...."

What else do you imagine we use patents for? The question isn't whether they're used against competitors (duh); the question is whether they were properly granted and whether they are properly applied.

And that's a question that can only be answered with research you apparently refuse to do.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

"Fairly regularly allows"?! Do you have proof for these ridiculous claims of yours?

How about you cite the number of a single perpetual motion patent issued in the 1980s, one issued in the 1990s, and one issued since 2000? If the patent office "regularly allows" such patents, it should be easy for you to find one each per decade, right?

I might take you up on that challenge - BS patents like that were the topic of my first TAM talk at TAM 5.

But yes, as a percentage of the number of patents issued each year in the US, it's a very small problem. It's also, note, a completely different problem from that of "obvious" or trivial patents being issued. The problems with PM machines is one of utility, which is much harder to challenge than lack of novelty or obviousness, and requires a far greater commitment of resources on the part of the Examiner.

That's another of those real problems I see that these sorts of silly arguments do nothing to fix.

DuvalHMFIC · 10th August 2012, 11:52 AM

I have no idea how patents work, nor do I really wish to know. I think it's a bit silly to be able to patent a simple improvement of an already existing product though. I have no idea if that is the case here or not.

If someone invented the television, they've invented a new product, and should get a patent. When that patent runs out and someone else comes along and decides to add color to the television, it doesn't seem like that should be able to get a patent. It's not a new product. It's an upgrade to an existing product. Later, when someone comes up with hi-def, that too, is an upgrade, not a new product. Why should you be able to patent an upgrade?

I guess it would get a little mirky would the remote control. It's an upgrade, but the product itself, the remote control, is a new product.

Glad I'm not ruling on this stuff.

AvalonXQ · 10th August 2012, 11:53 AM

PM patents aren't a real problem because they're facially invalid anyway. They disintegrate at the first legal challenge.

Patents granted on obvious/trivial features are definitely a different and important problem.

AvalonXQ · 10th August 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

If someone invented the television, they've invented a new product, and should get a patent. When that patent runs out and someone else comes along and decides to add color to the television, it doesn't seem like that should be able to get a patent. It's not a new product.

What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent?

I don't see any reason why the first guy to come along with glue, for instance, should get a patent, but the second guy who comes up with a new and different way to make a better and stickier glue, shouldn't.

WildCat · 10th August 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

And once again you ignore the fact that all sorts of patents are granted for "existing tech combined in a unique way". That's part of what "novelty" means. That's why the patent system exists: so people can see what others have done, and improve upon it, but combining it in new an useful ways.

You also ignore the fact that you can't mere assert that this new combination is "obvious", you have to prove that, using references. References you have never been able to provide, despite having been asked for them several times.

It's a touchscreen, how is it not obvious that you manipulate it by touching it? That's pretty much the whole point of a touchscreen display.

WildCat · 10th August 2012, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent?

Except in this case another team of engineersd came up with a completely different way to transmit and display color information but was still somehow blocked by the first team's patent. That's what we're seeing in the smart phone battles.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except in this case another team of engineersd came up with a completely different way to transmit and display color information but was still somehow blocked by the first team's patent. That's what we're seeing in the smart phone battles.

Actually, they got a patent for their new way of doing it, then cross-licensed with the earlier patentees, who had earlier cross-licensed with the guys who came up with B&W TV.

The existence of a previous, broadly claimed patent doesn't prevent you from getting a patent to a new, more narrowly-claimed invention. Which you'd know if you knew how to read patent claims properly.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

PM patents aren't a real problem because they're facially invalid anyway. They disintegrate at the first legal challenge.

Yeah, that's true. The larger social issue is, the PM patentees (and others like them) aren't using the patents in the manner intended - that is, suing those who infringe. Instead, they're using patents as marketing tools to either sell to gullible consumers, or as inducements to investors*. They stay as far away from the courts as they can.

*The notion is, if it's patented, it must work! The Government said so!

DuvalHMFIC · 10th August 2012, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent?

I don't see any reason why the first guy to come along with glue, for instance, should get a patent, but the second guy who comes up with a new and different way to make a better and stickier glue, shouldn't.

And what if I told you that a second team spent the same 20 years, and about 10 million, but they ended up being just a couple of months behind the first team? Why is it okay to say "screw you, someone else came first" in that instance, but not with the first team?

Once a product like the tv is invented, it's much easier for engineers to imagine improvements for it. Coming up with the initial product is much trickier, because you are doing something that hasn't been done before. Sure, another guy may be working on a tv, but the chances are it will be different than yours. The guys working on color? They are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there. They have a template (the tv) with which to formulate their ideas off of.

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

And what if I told you that a second team spent the same 20 years, and about 10 million, but they ended up being just a couple of months behind the first team? Why is it okay to say "screw you, someone else came first" in that instance, but not with the first team?

If they come up with essentially the same thing, well, that sucks, but they knew the risk when they decided to invest.

And why do you imagine that this only happens with improvements to technology? Look into the history of the telephone - there were several people working on similar ideas all at essentially the same time.

The race to the patent office can be brutal, but it was implemented so as to encourage timely disclosure of inventions. There is much less benefit from someone who spends 30 years tinkering in his basement before finally revealing his work.

Quote:

Once a product like the tv is invented, it's much easier for engineers to imagine improvements for it. Coming up with the initial product is much trickier, because you are doing something that hasn't been done before. Sure, another guy may be working on a tv, but the chances are it will be different than yours. The guys working on color? They are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there. They have a template (the tv) with which to formulate their ideas off of.

And that's why "improvement" patents have much narrower claims than patents on brand new ideas. The first inventor gets a broad patent, and can profit by licensing that broad patent to those who develop the improvements. But the improvements also get patents - just of a much narrower scope. That why people who "are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there" can still get their own patent - different ways of arriving at the same effect are still patentable.

That's part of what AvalonXQ and I have been trying to get across. The patent claims you see here are of extremely narrow scope. They're not just for "using a touch to control a touch screen", they are for a very particular type of touch, that manipulates a very particular type of displayed information, to manipulate it in a very specific way, and they cover nothing else outside the bounds of those very specific limitations. Can you really claim that the whole entire remainder of the smart phone industry is doomed because they might have to pay a licensing fee to use this one, very specific method?

The Dark Lord · 10th August 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

So what ?

So, is the GS3 a copy of the iPhone? If not, then Apple winning is obviously not necessary in "forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone".

OnlyTellsTruths · 10th August 2012, 03:48 PM

Exactly. Apple is trying to shut down a product from being sold if Apple can convince a judge somewhere that that competitor product, which has thousands of features, has interacted upon one of a billion patents.

They should be fined and told to remove that feature post-haste, not banned from being sold in entire countries! And if they don't remove that feature from the next manufacturing, or in the next version update, fine them some more! Big money. But don't ban the product from being sold during that time for a tiny feature.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a tiny, very narrow, feature or it's not.

OnlyTellsTruths · 10th August 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The claim is for selective scrolling of a page with frames. It scrolls the whole page if you use one finger, or it scrolls just the frame if you use two fingers.

First of all, love how Apple has to call "windows" "frames".

That's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that should be patentable. Video games steal input ideas from each other all the time that are way more complicated than that and it is fine. Why? Because it's the most obvious way to do something.

If using one finger scrolls the "whole thing", then obviously if you want to scroll just something that is part of the "whole thing" you'll use two fingers.... Humans have fingers! What would the alternative be? Use your nose? Now ]that would be patentable!

Horatius · 10th August 2012, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

First of all, love how Apple has to call "windows" "frames".

That's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that should be patentable. Video games steal input ideas from each other all the time that are way more complicated than that and it is fine. Why? Because it's the most obvious way to do something.

If using one finger scrolls the "whole thing", then obviously if you want to scroll just something that is part of the "whole thing" you'll use two fingers.... Humans have fingers! What would the alternative be? Use your nose? Now ]that would be patentable!

"Ex post facto analysis"

If it's so "obvious", why can't either you or WildCat ever seem to point to anyone who even hinted at this type of scrolling prior to the filing date of this patent?

Just a hint, is all we need. I won't even hold you to the standards of an "enabling disclosure" that the patent office is legally required to follow.

BenBurch · 10th August 2012, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Exactly. Apple is trying to shut down a product from being sold if Apple can convince a judge somewhere that that competitor product, which has thousands of features, has interacted upon one of a billion patents.

They should be fined and told to remove that feature post-haste, not banned from being sold in entire countries! And if they don't remove that feature from the next manufacturing, or in the next version update, fine them some more! Big money. But don't ban the product from being sold during that time for a tiny feature.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a tiny, very narrow, feature or it's not.

Removing those features and having a product working well enough to sell would be pretty much impossible. They would need a totally new design.

AvalonXQ · 10th August 2012, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Removing those features and having a product working well enough to sell would be pretty much impossible. They would need a totally new design.

They'd need to innovate, then?

9th August 2012, 05:34 PM	#41
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by The Dark Lord Look at the Galaxy S III and tell me that it is a copy of the iPhone. So?
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

9th August 2012, 06:02 PM	#42
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by carlvs 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. Or, you know, he's trying to explain to you how patents, and their use in court cases, *actually work, as opposed to the ridiculously ill-informed interpretations used by anti-patent crusaders. But that is clearly an uphill battle for some. Quote: 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. Sure, it is clearly their ultimate goal - but you can't evaluate how likely they are to succeed at that goal via patent lawsuits until you understand how patents actually work - something that lots of people posting here demonstrably don't* understand.
	__________________ 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, 06:05 PM	#43
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by carlvs And as for those on Apple's side I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly. That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts. People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

9th August 2012, 07:02 PM	#45
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,447	Originally Posted by Wangler If you don't like how Apple defends it's IP, just don't support them. It's easy to not buy anything that Apple puts out, ever. Just ask me how. not if they win...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

9th August 2012, 10:06 PM	#46
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,628	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly. That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts. People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts. It's a kind of religious dogma, isn't it.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

9th August 2012, 06:20 PM	#44
Wangler Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: OH State Posts: 2,230	If you don't like how Apple defends it's IP, just don't support them. It's easy to not buy anything that Apple puts out, ever. Just ask me how.

10th August 2012, 01:13 AM	#47
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by BenBurch I think they have Samsung on the ropes here. Very unlikely. The judgement Apple is asking for would buy millions of hours of prior-art searches, and their patents simply aren't that novel. Samsung may settle, but there is no chance Apple will get what they are asking for.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

10th August 2012, 04:06 AM	#48
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,783	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm not on anyone's side. I want the facts represented correctly. That's your mistake. You want to pick a "side" rather than actually looking at facts. People who haven't even shown enough integrity to actually look at a patent before determining what it says, clearly aren't interested in facts. What about those that criticise others even though they show that they have not read the up about what the case they are commenting on on? This case is not only about patent violations......
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 04:36 AM	#49
DrDave Guest Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Geneva Posts: 3,110	Originally Posted by Belz... I was hoping DrDave had made that up. It doesn't sound like the sort of thing judges should be ruling on does it?!

10th August 2012, 06:04 AM	#50
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,783	Originally Posted by DrDave It doesn't sound like the sort of thing judges should be ruling on does it?! There have been a few of these types of legal tussles in which the judge has been very clear that the courts really shouldn't be involved (and that includes cases not involving Apple)
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 06:21 AM	#51
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,519	Originally Posted by The Dark Lord Look at the Galaxy S III and tell me that it is a copy of the iPhone. Originally Posted by The Dark Lord So? So what ?
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,519

10th August 2012, 10:04 AM	#52
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by Horatius http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/7,966,578 This patent? With the main independent claims: What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display". It's absurd.

10th August 2012, 10:06 AM	#53
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by Horatius Or, you know, he's trying to explain to you how patents, and their use in court cases, *actually work*, I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that's how it actually works. The problem is the sytem "actually working" that way shows the sytem is broken and is actually stifling innovation and competition.

10th August 2012, 10:25 AM	#54
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by WildCat What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display". The claim is for selective scrolling of a page with frames. It scrolls the whole page if you use one finger, or it scrolls just the frame if you use two fingers. What device did this prior to the filing date of the Apple patent?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th August 2012, 10:34 AM	#55
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,519	Originally Posted by WildCat I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that's how it actually works. The problem is the sytem "actually working" that way shows the sytem is broken and is actually stifling innovation and competition. That the patent system may be broken and in need of change is not relevant to whether apple currently has valid patents that samsung is infringing on.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,519

10th August 2012, 10:51 AM	#56
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by WildCat What is novel or new about that patent? They simply took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display". It's absurd. What's absurd is that you are once again ignoring about 90% of body of the claims, which is something I and AvalonXQ have told you repeatedly you simply can't do. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything about patents. It's really just that simple. First off, you say they "took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"". Well, no they didn't. The line "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display" is the introductory portion of the claim, which merely sets up the environment in which their invention (which is actually embodied in a method of using that device) operates. Had they simply tried to patent "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display", they'd have been laughed out of the patent office. Originally Posted by Horatius 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. As AvalonQX says above, show us any system anywhere prior to this patent's filing date that taught a method that involves all (or even most) of these major steps, which each include several sub-steps: 1) 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; 2) 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; 3) 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. THIS is what they have patented. Show us evidence that THIS was known prior to the filing date and you'd have something to argue about. But until you understand and acknowledge that the patent is not simply directed to "existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"", you'll never make any progress.
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 10:53 AM	#57
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis That the patent system may be broken and in need of change is not relevant to whether apple currently has valid patents that samsung is infringing on. I've said before that there are real problems with patents, particularly in the US, but those real problems won't be solved by people who demonstrably don't know what they're talking about, and go out of their way to make up fake problems like we see here.
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 10:57 AM	#58
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Hey, anyone want to see a real ridiculously broad patent claim? Check out what I'm working on: http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic...ims.html?type= Bonus points to the first person who isn't AvalonXQ () who spots the first dependent claim that isn't completely ridiculous! ETA: Hey, Yanks, leave off Apple and go complain about the USPTO's job on this one! http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/7838844
	__________________ 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; 10th August 2012 at 11:01 AM.

10th August 2012, 11:31 AM	#59
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by Horatius What's absurd is that you are once again ignoring about 90% of body of the claims, which is something I and AvalonXQ have told you repeatedly you simply can't do. If you don't understand that, then you can't understand anything about patents. It's really just that simple. First off, you say they "took existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"". Well, no they didn't. The line "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display" is the introductory portion of the claim, which merely sets up the environment in which their invention (which is actually embodied in a method of using that device) operates. Why on earth should the platform matter? Originally Posted by Horatius Had they simply tried to patent "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display", they'd have been laughed out of the patent office. Seeing as the patent office fairly regularly allows patents for perpetual motion devices and other such nonsense I doubt anything has ever been laughed out of it. Originally Posted by Horatius As AvalonQX says above, show us any system anywhere prior to this patent's filing date that taught a method that involves all (or even most) of these major steps, which each include several sub-steps: 1) 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; 2) 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; 3) 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, again, they're just taking existing tech and combining them in a uwithout translating the other content of the web page. Right, once again they just took existing tech and combinmed them in a unique but obvious way. Originally Posted by Horatius THIS is what they have patented. Show us evidence that THIS was known prior to the filing date and you'd have something to argue about. But until you understand and acknowledge that the patent is not simply directed to "existing technology that Apple certainly didn't invent and patented it on "a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display"", you'll never make any progress. I guess you have to be an entrenched bureaucrat with turf to protect to see the merits in such a patent.

10th August 2012, 11:37 AM	#60
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	US Circuit judge, University of Chicago lecturer and intellectuial property expert Richard Posner sounds off: Quote: The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple Inc's smartphone technology battle is questioning whether patents should cover software or most other industries at all. Richard Posner, a prolific jurist who sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, told Reuters this week that the technology industry's high profits and volatility made patent litigation attractive for companies looking to wound competitors. ...Posner, who teaches at the University of Chicago, effectively ended Apple's lawsuit against Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit last month. He canceled a closely anticipated trial between the two and rejected the iPhone maker's request for an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products using Apple's patented technology. Apple is in a pitched battle with its competitors over patents, as technology companies joust globally for consumers in the fast-growing markets for smartphones and tablet computers. Posner said some industries, like pharmaceuticals, had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug. Advances in software and other industries cost much less, he said, and the companies benefit tremendously from being first in the market with gadgets - a benefit they would still get if there were no software patents. "It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," he said. Also, devices like smartphones have thousands of component features, and they all receive legal protection. "You just have this proliferation of patents," Posner said. "It's a problem." When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.

10th August 2012, 11:42 AM	#61
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by WildCat Right, once again they just took existing tech and combinmed them in a unique but obvious way. And once again you ignore the fact that all sorts of patents are granted for "existing tech combined in a unique way". That's part of what "novelty" means. That's why the patent system exists: so people can see what others have done, and improve upon it, but combining it in new an useful ways. You also ignore the fact that you can't mere assert that this new combination is "obvious", you have to prove that, using references. References you have never been able to provide, despite having been asked for them several times.
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 11:45 AM	#62
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by WildCat Seeing as the patent office fairly regularly allows patents for perpetual motion devices and other such nonsense I doubt anything has ever been laughed out of it. "Fairly regularly allows"?! Do you have proof for these ridiculous claims of yours? How about you cite the number of a single perpetual motion patent issued in the 1980s, one issued in the 1990s, and one issued since 2000? If the patent office "regularly allows" such patents, it should be easy for you to find one each per decade, right?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th August 2012, 11:46 AM	#63
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by WildCat US Circuit judge, University of Chicago lecturer and intellectuial property expert Richard Posner sounds off: When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken. See, now this is a reasonable discussion to have: what do we, as a society, *want* to be patentable? I have no problem with re-writing the law to either explicitly include or exclude any particular types of technology (Here in Canada we already explicitly deny patents on methods of medical treatment, for instance), but as it stands right now, we're required to enforce the law as it exists, and as it has been interpreted by the Courts. Go ahead and fix that if you think it's broken, but again, you'll get nowhere with that if you don't even understand the basics of the laws you're complaining 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

10th August 2012, 11:51 AM	#64
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by WildCat When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken. It really doesn't appear that you have any idea what you're talking about. The only thing you can do with a patent is either exclude competition with it (patent litigation), or make an agreement not to exclude them (patent licensing). That's precisely what a patent does; it gives you a limited monopoly over what you invented. That's what it's for. Your statement is as nonsensical as "When land deeds are used solely as a tool to stifle land use and exclude competitors from parcels of property...." What else do you imagine we use patents for? The question isn't whether they're used against competitors (duh); the question is whether they were properly granted and whether they are properly applied. And that's a question that can only be answered with research you apparently refuse to do.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th August 2012, 11:51 AM	#65
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ "Fairly regularly allows"?! Do you have proof for these ridiculous claims of yours? How about you cite the number of a single perpetual motion patent issued in the 1980s, one issued in the 1990s, and one issued since 2000? If the patent office "regularly allows" such patents, it should be easy for you to find one each per decade, right? I might take you up on that challenge - BS patents like that were the topic of my first TAM talk at TAM 5. But yes, as a percentage of the number of patents issued each year in the US, it's a very small problem. It's also, note, a completely different problem from that of "obvious" or trivial patents being issued. The problems with PM machines is one of utility, which is much harder to challenge than lack of novelty or obviousness, and requires a far greater commitment of resources on the part of the Examiner. That's another of those real problems I see that these sorts of silly arguments do nothing to fix.
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 11:52 AM	#66
DuvalHMFIC Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 142	I have no idea how patents work, nor do I really wish to know. I think it's a bit silly to be able to patent a simple improvement of an already existing product though. I have no idea if that is the case here or not. If someone invented the television, they've invented a new product, and should get a patent. When that patent runs out and someone else comes along and decides to add color to the television, it doesn't seem like that should be able to get a patent. It's not a new product. It's an upgrade to an existing product. Later, when someone comes up with hi-def, that too, is an upgrade, not a new product. Why should you be able to patent an upgrade? I guess it would get a little mirky would the remote control. It's an upgrade, but the product itself, the remote control, is a new product. Glad I'm not ruling on this stuff.
	__________________ Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.

10th August 2012, 11:53 AM	#67
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	PM patents aren't a real problem because they're facially invalid anyway. They disintegrate at the first legal challenge. Patents granted on obvious/trivial features are definitely a different and important problem.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th August 2012, 11:55 AM	#68
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC If someone invented the television, they've invented a new product, and should get a patent. When that patent runs out and someone else comes along and decides to add color to the television, it doesn't seem like that should be able to get a patent. It's not a new product. What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent? I don't see any reason why the first guy to come along with glue, for instance, should get a patent, but the second guy who comes up with a new and different way to make a better and stickier glue, shouldn't.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th August 2012, 11:58 AM	#69
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by Horatius And once again you ignore the fact that all sorts of patents are granted for "existing tech combined in a unique way". That's part of what "novelty" means. That's why the patent system exists: so people can see what others have done, and improve upon it, but combining it in new an useful ways. You also ignore the fact that you can't mere assert that this new combination is "obvious", you have to prove that, using references. References you have never been able to provide, despite having been asked for them several times. It's a touchscreen, how is it not obvious that you manipulate it by touching it? That's pretty much the whole point of a touchscreen display.
	Last edited by WildCat; 10th August 2012 at 12:03 PM.

10th August 2012, 12:02 PM	#70
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent? Except in this case another team of engineersd came up with a completely different way to transmit and display color information but was still somehow blocked by the first team's patent. That's what we're seeing in the smart phone battles.

10th August 2012, 12:22 PM	#71
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by WildCat Except in this case another team of engineersd came up with a completely different way to transmit and display color information but was still somehow blocked by the first team's patent. That's what we're seeing in the smart phone battles. Actually, they got a patent for their new way of doing it, then cross-licensed with the earlier patentees, who had earlier cross-licensed with the guys who came up with B&W TV. The existence of a previous, broadly claimed patent doesn't prevent you from getting a patent to a new, more narrowly-claimed invention. Which you'd know if you knew how to read patent claims properly.
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 12:26 PM	#72
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ PM patents aren't a real problem because they're facially invalid anyway. They disintegrate at the first legal challenge. Yeah, that's true. The larger social issue is, the PM patentees (and others like them) aren't using the patents in the manner intended - that is, suing those who infringe. Instead, they're using patents as marketing tools to either sell to gullible consumers, or as inducements to investors. They stay as far away from the courts as they can. The notion is, if it's patented, it must work! The Government said so!
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 12:27 PM	#73
DuvalHMFIC Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 142	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent? I don't see any reason why the first guy to come along with glue, for instance, should get a patent, but the second guy who comes up with a new and different way to make a better and stickier glue, shouldn't. And what if I told you that a second team spent the same 20 years, and about 10 million, but they ended up being just a couple of months behind the first team? Why is it okay to say "screw you, someone else came first" in that instance, but not with the first team? Once a product like the tv is invented, it's much easier for engineers to imagine improvements for it. Coming up with the initial product is much trickier, because you are doing something that hasn't been done before. Sure, another guy may be working on a tv, but the chances are it will be different than yours. The guys working on color? They are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there. They have a template (the tv) with which to formulate their ideas off of.
	__________________ Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.

10th August 2012, 12:43 PM	#74
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC And what if I told you that a second team spent the same 20 years, and about 10 million, but they ended up being just a couple of months behind the first team? Why is it okay to say "screw you, someone else came first" in that instance, but not with the first team? If they come up with essentially the same thing, well, that sucks, but they knew the risk when they decided to invest. And why do you imagine that this only happens with improvements to technology? Look into the history of the telephone - there were several people working on similar ideas all at essentially the same time. The race to the patent office can be brutal, but it was implemented so as to encourage timely disclosure of inventions. There is much less benefit from someone who spends 30 years tinkering in his basement before finally revealing his work. Quote: Once a product like the tv is invented, it's much easier for engineers to imagine improvements for it. Coming up with the initial product is much trickier, because you are doing something that hasn't been done before. Sure, another guy may be working on a tv, but the chances are it will be different than yours. The guys working on color? They are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there. They have a template (the tv) with which to formulate their ideas off of. And that's why "improvement" patents have much narrower claims than patents on brand new ideas. The first inventor gets a broad patent, and can profit by licensing that broad patent to those who develop the improvements. But the improvements also get patents - just of a much narrower scope. That why people who "are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there" can still get their own patent - different ways of arriving at the same effect are still patentable. That's part of what AvalonXQ and I have been trying to get across. The patent claims you see here are of extremely narrow scope. They're not just for "using a touch to control a touch screen", they are for a very particular type of touch, that manipulates a very particular type of displayed information, to manipulate it in a very specific way, and they cover nothing else outside the bounds of those very specific limitations. Can you really claim that the whole entire remainder of the smart phone industry is doomed because they might have to pay a licensing fee to use this one, very specific method?
	__________________ 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

10th August 2012, 03:19 PM	#75
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis So what ? So, is the GS3 a copy of the iPhone? If not, then Apple winning is obviously not necessary in "forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone".
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860