Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 20, 2012, 08:19 PM   #201
Analog Kid
macrumors 68030
 
Analog Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
What goal posts? I don't see any goal posts.

Image
Hey, this thread just got interesting again!
__________________
Only trolls use the word "fanboy".
Analog Kid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2012, 08:29 PM   #202
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphoneclassic View Post
Even without the new law, it appears Samsung legal team was sloppy from get go. They completely missed out on jury foreman's background. Not sure if they even called their own expert witnesses, if so how effective they were explaining to jury.
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 06:48 AM   #203
MrWillie
macrumors 65816
 
MrWillie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Down south junkin...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cirus View Post
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.
__________________
Life's too short to deal with HP tech support. But I am considering a color laser e-printer.
MrWillie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 07:02 AM   #204
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
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...
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 08:41 AM   #205
iphoneclassic
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
Or they were very wise - as in "crazy like a fox".

Let the blowhard jury foreman taint the case, then bring it up during appeal. It could be better to have an incompetent, potentially biased foreman than one truly aware.

Microsoft did well in their big trial by infuriating the judge to the point where he made emotional mistakes that invalidated most of the ruling.

Remember the movie quote "there were plans within plans"....
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
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.
iphoneclassic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 09:11 AM   #206
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphoneclassic View Post
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 10:02 AM   #207
Tinmania
macrumors 68030
 
Tinmania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Aridzona
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
I first saw it for a demo for the Microsoft Surface (table, not tablet) back in 2006. They had a guy sorting through photos and zooming them in and out on their prototype touchscreen displays.
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

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhand1001 View Post
Microsoft surface was demod more than a year before this with full pinch to zoom functionality.
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
Tinmania is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 12:21 PM   #208
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinmania View Post
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
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.

Quote:
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).
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.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 06:48 PM   #209
SlCKB0Y
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by amptech View Post
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.
SlCKB0Y is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 06:59 PM   #210
SlCKB0Y
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by mentholiptus View Post
Go to 33:40, and see it for the first time on any consumer device, ever:
"Prior art" does not a prerequisite that an "invention" needs to be implemented on a consumer device to be recognised as such.
SlCKB0Y is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 08:44 PM   #211
Kanunu
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vietnam
University research

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
Wasn't pinch to zoom demoed in some multi-touch university research back in the 70s?

If it were then there would be a case for prior art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mentholiptus View Post
When Apple showed it for the first time, people ooh'd, ahh'd, clapped, whistled, and cheered, because it was THAT good.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.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.
__________________
27" iMac (late 2010),3.2GHz,12GB RAM, Lion 10.7.5; iPad 2,GSM-WiFi,32GB,iOS 6; iPod nano 7; Nokia "stupidphone"
Kanunu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 09:00 PM   #212
Tech198
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia, Perth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanunu View Post
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.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.
__________________
13" MBPR, i5, 256Gig SDD, 8 Gig Ram, Apple TV, iPhone 5S 16Gig, iPad 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7, 1TB HD
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."
Tech198 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 09:08 AM   #213
Firichi
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Of course .... Apple did not invent the telephone. But everyone wants to be like the iPhone
Firichi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2012, 05:19 PM   #214
Bezetos
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: far away from an Apple store
Hooray. Maybe they will finally stop fighting over extremely stupid things.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firichi View Post
Of course .... Apple did not invent the telephone. But everyone wants to be like the iPhone
No. That's what Apple wants you to think.
Bezetos is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2012, 08:47 AM   #215
goosnarrggh
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verbatim Cookie View Post
I don't really get the patent system, but I will guess that if Apple deserves a patent and what you say is true, then the patent becomes FRAND, not invalid.
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.
goosnarrggh is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2012, 11:36 AM   #216
mysticbluebmw
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Breaking news.....

Next, up...Apple patents putting one foot in front of the other in order to walk.
mysticbluebmw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:00 AM   #217
AZREOSpecialist
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
I think the point of this story is that Apple didn't invent neither the physical design (LG Prada/Samsung F700 say hi!) nor a lot of the technology in them.

That Apple used technologies and designs that were out there to produce an amazing mobile phone/platform is undeniable. That they invented it ? Sorry, the USPTO is catching on that they didn't with all these reviews that are going on.
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.
__________________
2009 Mac Pro Quad Xeon W3580 @ 3.3 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 2 TB RAID 5/RocketRAID 4320, Corsair P256 SSD Boot Drive, EVGA GTX-285
2012 MacBook Pro Retina 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD
AZREOSpecialist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:39 AM   #218
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post
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?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2012, 11:49 AM   #219
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USPTO Again Rejects Apple's Claim of Pinch-to-Zoom Patent MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 59 Jul 30, 2013 04:03 PM
Firefox add-on enables pinch zoom / double tap zoom like Safari Risco Mac Applications and Mac App Store 3 May 31, 2013 04:04 AM
U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 295 Jan 30, 2013 07:35 PM
Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Key to Samsung Lawsuit Preliminarily Invalidated MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 124 Oct 26, 2012 09:20 AM
Apple broiled, barbecued in court: Samsung PROVES pinch to zoom patent invalid tninety Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 12 Aug 14, 2012 02:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC