Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They did call many expert witnesses, and a lot of their prior art evidence, as well as evidence relating to the general design of the F700 wasn't allowed into the trial.
All things for the pending appeal. Same for the jury foreman. Koh refused it, but she's not the 9th district or the appellate court.
It's funny you're quite to claim the Samsung counsel was sloppy and yet fail to mention how Apple's counsel was equally sloppy, failing to prove any kind of damages to Apple if no injunction was granted and thus Apple cannot even block infringing Samsung devices from sale.
Yep sure
The unit of capacitance is the farad, named after Michael Faraday.
Yep,you are correct. The unit of capacitance was named in honor of him, but he wasn't the discoverer. Mr Farday's contributions were in chemistry (working with Humphry Davey) and in physics, working with inductance.
In fact Apple did the opposite, didn't they. During/post trial - they kept promoting how amazing the iPhone and all their products were selling...
In this outsourcing world, an attorney infuriates a judge only if customer's internal counsel dictating terms. It happens all the time, internal counsel shouts on outsourced attorney, outsourced attorney repeats verbatim in the court room, judge throws the case out.
----------
So, Samsung's expert witnesses were not effective. I am not saying Apple's attorneys were great. We live a winner takes all country. Samsung team should have tried harder. i thought jury consultants are paid big bucks to make sure the odds of winning are good.
According to interviews, the jury was actually starting to side with Samsung when Hogan had his "ah ha!" moment and basically steered them towards an Apple verdict by using a completely incorrect to analyse prior art.
10 up-votes for a bogus statement. Real knowledgeable peeps we have here.
Microsoft didn't demo Surface until 2007, at the very end of May. That was four months after the iPhone was announced, and less than a month before it was shipping. At that time Surface was no where near ready and would not be an actual commercial product till the following year (barely).
You didn't see a demo of it in 2006.
Michael
----------
Wrong. Surface was demo'd the first time at D: All Things Digital conference at the end of May, 2007--well after the iPhone was announced, if not already in production (since it would arrive in customers' hands less than a month later).
Nice (lack of) citation btw.
Michael
You might be right, since I can't seem to find any videos before May 2007. While I might've mistakenly attributed it to the Surface, I did see a video of pinch to zoom in action as far back as at least 2006. And hell, we've seen people post videos of a rough form of it as far back as the 80's.
It was first shown to the public at All Things D and through demo kiosks at certain hotels back in May '07. I even posted a video showing as much.
While it was officially announced 4 months afterwards, I doubt MS whipped the surface together along with a few programs capable of taking advantage of it, and shipped it out to certain locations, all after being caught off guard by the iPhone's multitouch capabilities.
Long story short, while Apple were among the first to release a capacitive device to the public at large, tons of companies had their own projects in the works around the same time as the iPhone. It wasn't Apple releasing something truly unexpected like most people claim.
They're totally right.... I mean, I was using pinch-to-zoom on everything before 2006. My flip phone, my XP tablet, my mini-xp tablet, my Rio MP3 player. It was getting so old by the time iPhone came out. I hope they burn.
Fortunately for the us, the USPTO does not base their definition of prior art as to things that you have used.
"Prior art" does not a prerequisite that an "invention" needs to be implemented on a consumer device to be recognised as such.
University research
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html
Jeff Han of NYU demonstrates pinch to zoom in 2006. It is unclear from the article exactly when Apple applied for this patent but the concept was apparently in the public domain by 2006. I read that the patent office simply receives patents without much research as to their validity and then lets the lawyers sort it out. Patents for ideas in the public domain are clearly invalid.
Mentholyptus might want to notice that Han's audience "ooh'd, ahh'd, clapped, whistled, and cheered" too. Obviously they had never seen an iPhone because it was not 2007 yet and most of Jobs' 2007 audience must not have seen Han's video or they would have been a lot less impressed.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html
Jeff Han of NYU demonstrates pinch to zoom in 2006. It is unclear from the article exactly when Apple applied for this patent but the concept was apparently in the public domain by 2006. I read that the patent office simply receives patents without much research as to their validity and then lets the lawyers sort it out. Patents for ideas in the public domain are clearly invalid.
Mentholyptus might want to notice that Han's audience "ooh'd, ahh'd, clapped, whistled, and cheered" too. Obviously they had never seen an iPhone because it was not 2007 yet and most of Jobs' 2007 audience must not have seen Han's video or they would have been a lot less impressed.
I thought validating patents were the whole idea behind patent office .
After all, isn't it the patent office that raises concern and invalidates, after them being gone into more details in court.....
I would have thought if they have the power to invalidate, but why not validate as well ? This would overcome the need for returning to the patent office "because" of something that should of been done at the office originally. I know it may be all "getting patents out the door", but if patents are widely just being passed, only to later come back by a court case as "invalid", then to me that says "The patent office should have done their job"
The fact they invalidate must proof they they have read it in detail.
Hooray. Maybe they will finally stop fighting over extremely stupid things.
----------
No. That's what Apple wants you to think.
----------
No. That's what Apple wants you to think.
It becomes FRAND if it is a mandatory part of implementing a standard managed by a recognized standards-setting agency, and if Apple has signed a covenant with that agency stating that they will license their technology to people implementing that standard.
If either one of those components are not present (ie it is not a necessary component of a recognized standard, or else Apple has not signed any covenants with respect to that recognized standard), then discussions about FRAND do not come into play.
Breaking news.....
Next, up...Apple patents putting one foot in front of the other in order to walk.
Next, up...Apple patents putting one foot in front of the other in order to walk.
The reason the USPTO is reviewing Apple's patents is because others are challenging them and requesting the review - it's not the USPTO doing this on its own. Apple has been successful in getting a number of such preliminary invalidations overturned upon full review.
Genuinely curious, what patents have been preliminary invalidated and then overturned?
In Apple's case I know of none. But kdarling posted the statistic earlier and I think it was around 25% of patents that do survive these reviews. The USPTO doesn't just humor anyone coming forth and opposing, that would be ludicrous for smaller patent owners having to constantly defend themselves and would result in way too high cost. The opposition has to have some merit.