Pinch-to-Zoom and Rounded Rectangles: What the Jury Didn't Say 147
CharlyFoxtrot writes "Steve Wildstrom at Tech.Pinions takes on some of the what he calls folklore surrounding Apple v Samsung, investigating what was and wasn't part of the case and how the media got it wrong: 'There's one serious problem with the first sentence, which was repeated dozens of times in stories in print and on the Web. Apple only has a limited patent on the pinch to shrink, stretch to zoom gesture that is a core element of touch interfaces. And the 826 patent wasn't in dispute in the Samsung case because Apple never asserted it. In fact, this particular patent does not seem to be in dispute in any litigation.'"
As if... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:As if... (Score:4, Informative)
The Apple '915 patent [google.com], which was at issue, does assert a claim to "pinch/zoom." Claim 8 includes:
Re:As if... (Score:5, Informative)
Nilay Patel of the verge, an actual honest-to-god copyright lawyer not just someone who plays an expert on the web, disagrees in his aptly named "The myth of pinch-to-zoom: how a confused media gave Apple something it doesn't own" [theverge.com]:
"So let's just be extremely clear about this: the jury ruled that 21 of 24 accused Samsung phones infringed claim 8 of Apple patent 7,844,915, which specifically covers a programming interface which detects if one finger on a screen is scrolling or two or more fingers are doing something else. It is one possible step along the road to pinch-to-zoom, but it is definitely not pinch-to-zoom itself. And — crucially — it may not be that hard to design around."
Maybe read up there too ?
Re:As if... (Score:5, Interesting)
The claim very clearly does describe "pinch to zoom." To say that it doesn't is simply disingenuous. That's different than saying it's a valid claim.
Oh, BTW, the link's counter-example, scrolling with two fingers, doesn't work with Google Maps, it causes a change in pitch instead of scrolling (at least it does on my non-Samsung, Android phone, running ICS).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patent reporting has gotten as bad as science reporting.. I might despise software patents, but I rarely trust the accuracy of stories about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but it doesn't mention pinching, what it is is a method to determine an action based on the fact if 1 (resulting scrolling) or 2 fingers (resulting in a gesture) are on the screen. It doesn't define the gesture, whence the workaround mentioned in the article of having 2 finger scrolling so this patent is circumvented because there is no differentiation being done based on the 1 finger -> scroll, 2 fingers -> gesture method. Or so I gather, I am no lawyer.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't have to. It mentions "scaling," which covers both pinch and spread. Additionally, the other counter-example in the link you provide draws a distinction which may not even exist - between "scroll" and "pan." Where's the definitive, legal, definition which say that scrolling can only be vertical or horizontal? Why can't I scroll diagonally?
Re:As if... (Score:5, Informative)
No, "scaling" is what the interface does as the result of a gesture, pinching is what the fingers do which again is not defined in the document. There's a reason the patent is called "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations": it focusses on scrolling and how that operation is distinguished from a gesture. And a gesture is just defined as having 2 ore more input points without further elaborating on the state of those input points.
Scrolling is defined in the full patent text [uspto.gov] as :
"Scrolling is the act of sliding a directional (e.g., horizontal or vertical) presentation of content, such as text, drawings, or images, across a screen or display window. In a typical graphical user interface, scrolling is done with the help of a scrollbar or using keyboard shortcuts often the arrow keys. Gesturing is a type of user input with two or more input points. Animating operations include changing content within a given time period."
So, they only mention the 2 axis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well aren't you fancy with all your latin :). It means "for example" of course, I also know that in a legal text if you don't define something exactly lawyers will find a way around it. You brought it up, I don't think the directionality of the scrolling matters only the difference between the scroll action and the resultant end-of-screen bounce (what this patent is really all about) and how that's different from a not further defined gesture action resulting in scaling.
Re: (Score:3)
For those following along at home, this is what happens when a lawyer does describe a pinch to zoom gesture [uspto.gov] :
"1. A method, comprising: detecting at least two first contacts on a display surface of a multi-touch-sensitive display device; detecting a first motion associated with the at least two first contacts, wherein the first motion corresponds to a multi-touch gesture; adjusting a parameter of a graphical object in accordance with the first motion; detecting a breaking of the at least two first contacts;
Re: (Score:2)
Try to follow along. The "bounce" patent is '381, not '915.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I'm just more literate than the average reader, but this clearly doesn't cover "pinch to zoom." This allows the user to resume a multitouch operation for a period after removing his fingers from the glass to essentially allow him to continue his adjustment further than he otherwise could.
Re:As if... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but no. That's what happens when random slashdotter's try to describe a patent that they believe means "pinch to zoom" when in fact it does no such thing. This patent clearly describes a more complicated gesture.
The reason Apple is not defending pinch to zoom is they didn't invent it. It was clearly demonstrated in the original Ted talk that inspired Apple to peruse multi-touch technology. I've been involved in two situations where I found that one of my patent claims was not valid due to prior art. In the first case, the patent examiner had already approved my claims, and he argued with me that my claims were still valid. He restricted my claims in the most minimal possible way to avoid the prior art when I pushed the matter. That's fine... I think he was trying to be good to a rare inventor who was trying to be honest about prior art. In the second case, my customer (I was a contractor for Zvi Orbach) told me after we'd submitted a patent why it was invalid due to prior art at Chip Express. I called the patent office, and was advised that I should not attack claims I'd filed for a previous employer. I had already quit, in part due to this issue, though Zvi had given me many other reasons to stay away from him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Er... my point to my rambling comment is that Apple clearly lacked an honest inventor in this case. Their lawyers will naturally try to keep their clearly invalid multi-touch patent on the books, never suing anyone with it, simply because they know it's invalid. It's only the inventor who breaks the law by not bringing prior-art to the patent office, and as I found out, there is zero penalty to inventors who break this law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I confused myself there. This one is the scrolling patent, then there are separate bounce and pinch patents.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I understand, it's a technicality (which might be another reason to dislike patents, if you will):
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it seems like you don't even need to do that since Apple hasn't bothered to sue anyone over it yet. Presumably there are other specifics to the patent (didn't read it, natch) that prevent them from wielding it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:As if... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are advocates. That's what they are supposed to do.
If they took your money but not your cause that would be dishonest.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You misspelled "whores." HTH! HAND!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Truth? What is that? Surely you cannot propose that a system of justice can infallibly determine the truth. A lawyer of course is much less capable than that.
There have been plenty of legal cases where it seems obvious from the facts available that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Except he is not.
Your lawyer is not there to judge your guilt. He is there to advocate your position in court as part of the process of hopefully finding the truth.
The system may be broken, in particular by the way your pocket
Re: (Score:2)
But while the system we have sucks, it sucks less than all the others.
The only time I see that is from the people who know nothing of the others.
Re: (Score:2)
But to advocate truth presupposes everyone knows what the truth is. But if that's the case, why would we even need a trial in the first place? The purpose of the court is to uncover truth, and the mechanism by which that's done in our system is to have a party argue the merits of each side.
I agree with you. You read my post to argue, not to listen. The adversarial system in the US does not try to uncover the truth. It only advocates in an adversarial manner, with a focus on what you can prove, not what is closest to the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
What is truth? If it can't be proven, then it's just opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As if... (Score:5, Insightful)
And more crucially: Is that claim negated by prior art? And should it have been considered obvious to a "person skilled in the art"?
From the comments of the jury foreman, he (they) seemed to misunderstand what prior art actually is. And thus had a conflict of reasoning in applying the patent loosely to the device in question, while requiring prior art to exactly match the device in question. Whereas, the prior art should have been loosely matched to the patent, and not to the infringing device - thus negating the claim in the patent. (Assuming the prior art did actually apply.)
I've noticed that people involved in the patent system (lawyers and inventors) seem to develop an increasingly more stringent view as to how closely prior art must be to invalidate a claim. Reworded, that means that their interpretation of novelty has the bar lowered to the point where the concept of obviousness gets watered down to be meaningless. So any 'invention' that is different in the most minor or pointless way becomes fair game for an IP grab.
Now that would be fine if infringement of the patent was taken as strictly, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If the claims are looked at more broadly when applied to "infringement" than they are when applied to the prior art that would invalidate them; then the patent system becomes a stumbling block rather than a way to 'promote science and the useful arts'.
Google Warned Samsung They Were Infringing (Score:5, Interesting)
From the jury foreman:
"One of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between Google executives and Samsung executives.
It was for a tablet and Google was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was getting too close to what Apple was doing.
And in the memo themselves - remember this was minutes - they stated that Google demanded that they back away from that design.
And later there was a follow-up memo among themselves, these executives, and in black and white it says: we elect to not pass this information down to the divisions that were actually involved in the design.
So, from the sake of the engineers they went merrily along continuing their design not given any orders to back away.
They knew nothing of that meeting. To me that kind of raised a light bulb in my head that when I got in the jury room I wanted to read the minutes of that meeting myself.
When we went into deliberation in the jury room we not only had all the physical evidence of everything that was presented, but we also had sealed source code in its entirety from both sides, we actually had the memos that were talked about in the trial... and there was a piece of evidence after a piece of evidence that just clearly stacked up. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19425052 [bbc.com]
The foreman changes his statement in every article (Score:3)
Why did the jury foreman consider Google's opinion to be the arbiter of this case? What if Google were just being over-cautious? That was likely the Samsung boards opinion, and why they chose not to pass this onto the engineers. From the BBC article it seems that the Jury's decision was that if Google and Apple says its so - then it must be so.
Every time I read statements from the jury foreman - they seem to be evolving - with the news stories finding holes in his previous statements.
What amazes me is his s
Re: (Score:3)
"the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." So because they could not run the software from a device produced in the 2010s on a device produced in the 1990s - it was not considered as prior art... astonishing.
I've just been reading that article and the whole thing just reads like a train wreck. Although I understand that these sorts of interviews cant then be used in the appeal in the US?
This also sticks out in that interview:
Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?
I think so. But let's not say me specifically.
Let's say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different - or it might have been the same.
I believe that the jury system in this country stands. The individuals would have ultimately come to a verdict. It might have been a lot longer.
But what definitely would have been required is passing more questions to the judge and having them come back. In our case we didn't have to.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand the Google concern.
Take a look at the section of the stuff released that shows icons. Now, you can argue if Apple has any exclusive right to rounded-square icons... I'm pretty sure early versions of SymbianOS either enforced this, or used it as the standard design-guide stuff. Most "rows of icons" handheld devices have traditionally used the more typical icons you find everywhere, which have an image, transparent background, and no borders. At least as an option.
Looking at just that bit, it's p
Re: (Score:3)
He's not going to sue TiVo, even though he did more or less patent a TiVo-like device some years after TiVo shipped. I had a series of STBs sold in Germany in the late 1990s that also deliver demonstrable prior art against this guy's patent (Metabox AG). However, according to wherever I snagged hit patent (Google Patent Search?), he's abandoned it -- didn't pay his maintenance fees, more than likely.
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly, the '826 pinch-to-zoom patent [weblogsinc.com] could be more correctly called "double pinch to zoom": it covers a more narrow implementation in which the system recognizes a user doing a pinch-to-(activity) gesture followed by a 2nd pinch-to-(activity) within a preset time, maintaining the activity state in between. A naked pinch-to... activity (or any number of them) isn't covered if the system doesn't explicitly connect the repeated pinches together. This is probably why Apple hasn't asserted it. (And betwe
Re: (Score:2)
I actually went and read that link. I'm assuming that the claims it presented "untangled" (i.e. without all the "the method in claim x" crap). Allow me to excerpt the parts I think are relevant, from the link you provided to The Verge.
Re: (Score:1)
. Your argument seems to be that it's okay for Apple to patent the combination of these very basic and natural actions and gestures because this isn't that hard to design around?
He's saying it isn't a broad patent.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, exactly what you quoted. Because it isn't a broad patent, it's okay for this combination of actions and gestures to be patented, since it's not hard to design around the patent.
I'm sorry but I still disagree. People did one finger scrolling before Apple, people did pinch to zoom before Apple, but Apple gets to patent the combination? In my opinion that's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, this boils down to patenting "scroll with one finger or pinch-to-zoom with two"
No, scroll with one, or gesture with two, where gesture is any operation that follows 2 or more simultaneous inputs.
Your argument seems to be that it's okay for Apple to patent the combination of these very basic and natural actions and gestures because this isn't that hard to design around?
I don't care about patents. We could throw away the whole patent system tomorrow and it's be no skin off my back. It wouldn't change the fact Samsung is copying Apple here. But as long as we are operating within this system you have to apply its rules consistently and that means you can't just throw out cases because you don't like the claimant because that's just arbitrary. That's what I'm do
That's not how it works. (Score:2)
You don't understand how patent claims work. You can't just take one sentence out of a claim and say that the overall patent covers whatever's in that sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't execute every method described in a claim, you have not violated that claim. That's how it works.
But this doesn't just apply to patent claims. Whenever you take a single sentence out of context you may be misrepresenting the overall meaning of the sentence. It's scary to think that so many moderators apparently don't understand that, or didn't bother to check before moderating your misleading/misinformed post.
Re: (Score:2)
Gestures are ancient news.... I used an Apollo computer running Mentor CAD software back in the mid 1980s. It supported all kinds of mouse/puck gesture commands... but I'm not sure you could draw an equivalence to one finger or two. Of course, there's the usual chorded-mouse stuff -- gesture with button vs. no button, which kind of does the same thing (the Apollo puck actually had four buttons; they switched to a three-button mouse as standard with the newer systems, by the late 80s).
As The Bezel Turns... (Score:3, Funny)
On This hour of As The Bezel Turns will Steve Jobs really come back from the dead? Will we finally know if Tim Cook switched the paternity result test disowning his own sons Larry Page and Sergey Brin? Will the wedding of Melissa Meyer and Jerry Yang be stopped at the eleventh hour by her bitter rival Carly Fiorina? Did Samsung CEO Kun Hee Lee recover from his sudden bout of amnesia?
Oh, nevermind, it's just another rehash of the fucking patent trial. Please make it stop.
Strawman Argument (Score:1)
I’m not sure where the idea that pinch and stretch was at stake originated.
Simple. It originated among people disingenuously insinuating that this trial was all about pinch-to-zoom and rounded corners. In fact, these are simply rhetorical shorthand for the obviousness and prior art that should have undermined Apples claims.
OTOH, I get writer is saying about the sorry state of writing. He knocked that one out of the park.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Strawman Argument - what the jury did say (Score:5, Informative)
Very interesting interview [bbc.co.uk] with the jury foreman on the BBC.
Especially his statements like:
"The jurors wanted to send a message to the industry at large..."
"And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
"And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."
I hope Samsung's lawyers are watching.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. Statements made by the jury after a trial mean nothing. They could say "neener neener we just didn't like samsung" and the verdict would stand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It did actually involve rounded corners -- that became the focus of many pundits and bloggers, simply because that was such a public thing in Europe, the various "it does", "no it doesn't" decisions over the Galaxy Tab vs. the iPad, the "Community Design" that doesn't look like either one of them, etc.
This was on the table. The jury rejected it -- they agreed with the UK judge: the Galaxy Tab is just not as cool as the iPad :-)
Ironic note at end of article (Score:2, Troll)
The note at the end:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
*SHOCKED* (Score:2)
Wait, so the "news" got the facts wrong and didn't bother doing even a little bit of research for their stories before "reporting" their "news"? I'm *SHOCKED*. Shocked, I tell ya!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm *SHOCKED*. Shocked, I tell ya!
Well gambling has been going on in the establishment.
Please understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Please understand. Nobody cares WHICH patents were used to squash competition like a bug. On the one side, Apple and their partisans only care that competition was squashed. They don't care how.
And on the other hand, actual thinking people only care that not just the patent system as it is presently tortured, but the very IDEA of patents is an evil, stinking, obscene insult to humanity. It is corporate welfare. It is a denial of nature and evolution. It strangles competition. It does not further the advance of useful arts in ANY WAY. It stifles the advance. While accelerating transfer of wealth to the wealthy, It hurts the economy. It props up the cancer of bloodsucking lawyers - not the lawyers who participate usefully in addressing criminal acts and REAL civil transgressions. It gives the finger to small business already reeling under the assault of the System. It even uselessly damages very large corporations like Samsung who employ many people. And Samsung will quickly move to pass the cost along to the consumer if this decision stands.
Only idiots believe that patents encourage innovation. Patents strangle innovation. In the absence of patents, innovation would flourish because it confers advantage. The real advantage comes not in planting your boot on the other guy's neck to get a competitive edge at the expense of everybody else. The real advantage comes from making a superior product at a superior price, for its OWN sake.
N.B. - most people, if they interviewed me skilfully, would conclude that I am to the right of Ghengis Khan. In actuality I deny the whole right/left fraud. If I have one message, it is: don't filter every single issue through the prism of some presumed regimented Rule Of Everything imposed from outside your own conscience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Please understand (Score:2)
But encouraging innovation isn't the (direct) intention of patents: it's to get the technical details published and available to the public (in return for which the inventor gets a time-limited monopoly on its use).
In industries where seeing an invention in use offers little clue to its construction (e.g. drugs), that may be a reasonable bargain. It would take huge resources to rediscover and re-test a drug, and so publication saves money in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Android is proof this is not true, as Google actually has worked around most of the patents, leading to the innovation and differences you see between iOS and Android (for better or worse - there are things iOS does better, and things Android does better). And face it - why do many high end Androids end up being slates? Where's the inn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A "little guy" winning this kind of war against Microsoft/Apple/Samsung (take your pick)? I see what you're trying to do, but for your question to have a valid answer, it would first need a valid premise.
It's kind of like asking, "if the moon was made of cheese..." or "if communism worked at a national scale..." - a nice thought exercise but of no practical applicability.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case your "little guy" would be the jury foreman.
Plenty of us have already said that he is full of shit and that his patent is an embarrassment to the profession.
Of course if you aren't just a mindless brand partisan you will be "singing the same tune". Some of us here are not treating the Soylent Corporation like your local sports team.
"tap to zoom" existed in mandelbrot explorers (Score:3)
Re:"tap to zoom" existed in mandelbrot explorers (Score:5, Informative)
Read the patent. No, really, it's enlightening and a propos to any discussion on the subject.
It does not claim the "tap-to-zoom" gesture as novel. It claims a specific mechanism that describes how to determine which parts to zoom, when to zoom in or out, and on which part to focus and center; all using various methods and heuristics to determine user intent.
Have you noticed that in say, Mobile Safari, when you double-tap to zoom it doesn't just "zoom in"; it tries to determine which is the relevant content block that the user is selecting and magnifies that, often at the exclusion of the surrounding content. The mechanisms to determine what to do and how to do that is what is claimed in the patent.
The prior art on "tap-to-zoom" is precisely a non-contextual and non-discriminating magnification at the point of contact; which is different.
Yes, reading, it's a dangerous thing.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
What is it about selecting the tapped frame when multiple are displayed, and zooming out when only a single frame is double tapped, is non-obvious?
If you are double tapping to zoom, and asked a typical, advanced/senior UI programmer what should occur in the context of browser - how does this not end up on a yellow pad in a brainstorming session??
Re: (Score:2)
You tell me! If it were so obvious, how come every previous implementation did not include that? So far, prior art included the wholesale and indiscriminate magnification of the point of contact.
It is obvious, of course, once you see it for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
9 million developers 3 billion patents a year (Score:2)
Tech journalism is indeed shallow (Score:2)
And the serious research in TFA is the author asking a guy on Twitter...
Self Contradictory (Score:3)
He spends half the article complaining about supposed misreporting of "rounded corners" as an issue and then admits that in fact the jury did decide in favor of Apple's design patent on the rounded corners (qualified by equally dumb things like a "flat surface", and a "grid of icons", but that hardly makes the reporting of it sensationalist).
So what? (Score:2)
Author of TFA is just plain wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think the jury did an admirable job making sense of the case they were given. They certainly did better than much of the tech media, which have made a complete mess of the verdict."
The jury *completely* screwed up. They started by ignoring the prior-art argument[1] samsung made, and then the foreman proceeded to sway everyone[2] with an "I got my own patent so listen to me" bullshit. The jury was an ill-fated catastrophe from the beginning of deliberations.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120826/23534320161/applesamsung-jurors-admit-they-finished-quickly-ignoring-prior-art-other-key-factors.shtml [techdirt.com]
[2] http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4394863/Jury-foreman-recounts-Apple-vs--Samsung-case [eetimes.com]
Re:How many article submissions on this topic?? (Score:4, Informative)
I submitted this article because firstly this has been such a huge story in the mainstream press that it's good opportunity to investigate how reliable the information coming from them about tech matters is and secondly because there is a lot of confusion even among geeks about what was at stake in this trial resulting in a low signal to noise ratio in the discussions. Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry so even if this lawsuit may end up being of little to no importance the close attention is warranted.
Re: (Score:1)
I can absolutely guarantee you that there will be no post for this article shedding a new insight or angle that hasn't already been posted twice before. The mainstream press has reported the story wrong but they report every technology story wrong, so nothing new there. And how can this possibly be a "defining moment"?? There have been thousands of patent cases won and lost in the past, and there will be thousands more in the future, and the result of this case seems to not be unusual or trendsetting in
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, maybe someone will actually read the article and take away a new insight or learn something they didn't before, I know I did. I'd call that a win. The comments here will be ... well like they always are, good or bad that's Slashdot.
I don't think this court case is a defining moment, but the rise of smartphones and tablets is and at te very least all these court actions expose what the main players are thinking, where they come from and where they want to go. At the same time there's the entire discussi
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry
There have been many "defining" moments in modern computer history.
What's so defining about this particular moment with its clone army of touchscreen phones?
so even if this lawsuit may end up being of little to no importance the close attention is warranted.
This lawsuit is important becase two 800 lb gorillas went nuclear with injunctions instead of settling with the usual cross licensing agreement.
Which is to say, why they are fighting is less important than the fact that they are fighting.
Apple injunction hearing against Samsung phones set for Dec. 6 [cnet.com]
Hopefully we don't have any more articles about the cas
Re: (Score:2)
There have been many "defining" moments in modern computer history.
What's so defining about this particular moment with its clone army of touchscreen phones?
Look around on trains and subways or coffee shops: personal computers are going mainstream in a way they haven't before, crucially even among those we would consider to be tech-illiterate. Like the Mac (or Lisa) decades ago(*), we're defining a new way of interacting with our computers that'll probably be with us for a good long time and it'll impact more people than ever before.
(*) Because I know someone will bring this up, yes there was Xerox but the Mac, with all the changes it made to the Xerox model, w
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This is a defining moment. If we leave things to the corporate shills, then the future will be owned by a single company in a much more destructive manner than what we saw last time with Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. If the Google model wins not only will we end up with a system where device support is non-existant, app quality is low and letting developers make money is a low priority (the current state of Android "ecosystem"), and we'll all end up paying for it all by trading away our privacy and our data because that's the real priority and reason Android was ever even developed. I prefer the Apple way because I think it'll end up creating a much better (if not exactly ideal) environment for both end user
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry
There have been many "defining" moments in modern computer history.
What's so defining about this particular moment with its clone army of touchscreen phones?
I'll respond, even though this is a two week article (I was on vacation..)
I feel this moment is defining not due to the actual results of the Samsung case but due to the type of precedent it sets. It represents a clear shift, showing that the courts are happy to protect this sort of thing now, while they didn't back in the 80s when Apple and others were filing (and losing) their "Look and Feel" lawsuits. It opens the door for far more litigation over interface patents.
Whether Samsung has to change the inter
Re:How many article submissions on this topic?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this have such a resounding life-or-death import on the tech industry to warrant such attention?
Yes, yes it does. The current patent system is choking the life out of the tech industry. At first, everyone said they were just building up patent war chests for "defensive purposes". Patent trolls destroyed many of the little guys, but the big companies were largely untouched. Now Apple has unloaded it's patents against Samsung - both major companies, both with large swathes of patents, and Samsung at least has its fingers in many, many tech pies. It's not little companies getting shaken down for lunch money any more, it's superpowers taking swings at each other. And with things like the pre-emptive ban of Samsung's products, it's not a tidy little gentlemanly fight in the courts, either. The patent war just went hot.
Now, that's all a little dramatic, but it's essentially true. This case could quite possibly be the tipping point for the patent system - one way or the other - and people in technical fields are (or should be) extremely interested in the outcome.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get a 20 year patent for merely "thinking about something". You actually have to invent something.
Get over it?
You first. Restrict yourself to 20 year old tech. Then get back to us.
Re:The whole thing is insipid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The whole thing is insipid. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that reasoning is the assumption that the law in question is reasonable in the first place. "Working it out" may have involved a ridiculous settlement far exceeding any reasonable demand in a world where that law did not exist.
Let's say there was no patent system. If that were the case, there would be no dispute in the first place.
Now, let's say the patent system did exist, but had a much higher expectation of "inventiveness" and "non-obviousness" than it currently does. Again, the dispute would be easily resolved as it would be clear where copying had taken place.
However, the current system is comprised of ambiguous laws and patents that have so little (if any) inventiveness that they are almost entirely comprised of prior art (and anything left is obvious to anyone 'skilled in the art'). Now the courts are forced to sort everything out and verdicts become pot-luck.
With laws that bring entitlement where entitlement should otherwise not exist, there will always be a conflict that cannot be resolved anywhere but in the courts. Samsung had no way out, but to either pay Apple money, or go to court and take the chance of either paying or not paying. Apple held all the cards and had no reason to back down.
Re: (Score:2)
Without laws, society is defined by who has the biggest club - kid of like our current legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least the clubs used in our current legal system are metaphorical. I much prefer them over the very real clubs that would bludgeon me to death because some other tribe is mad that I picked berries on their side of the river.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have worked out between themselves. But they didn't.
"Working it out" is driven by your motivations.
I had dealings in the 80s on the receiving side of an IBM patent suit (working for Commodore). They hit us up with all sorts of patents. And over 90% were bogus, based on various criteria (doesn't apply, prior art, etc). But IBM's goal was basically eliminating themselves as a target, not taking all of your money or trying to block your product. So they had a flat license fee for 3+ patents. And an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but the lawyers for both sides are getting richer. That's what's important.
No. That is just the side effect.
Re: (Score:3)
But it is the same group of bastards that make the damned laws in the first place. It's all a scheme to shake everyone down for more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the lawyers for both sides are getting richer. That's what's important.
No. That is just the side effect.
Not to the lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A brief history of how the first legal system actually sprang up (thought to have happened in southern England)... People argued about stuff, and couldn't agree. The community said "fine, we'll have a big meeting on top of this hill, and we'll decide who's right". In those days, who was right was decided based on how many people you could get to swear an oath to god that you were right, and not based on facts and juries, but it was a start. Legal systems exist exactly because people couldn't sort it out
Re: (Score:1)
Hrm, that "litany of lies" seems rather informative to me...
Re: (Score:2)