they infringe on a few VERY strong Motorola ones! they only really battle apple in europe and apple lost pretty quick!
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.
Apple Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
they infringe on a few VERY strong Motorola ones! they only really battle apple in europe and apple lost pretty quick!
Exactly
Yes, Apple pays multi-millions to all the major media execs for preferential treatment, and they also payout huge bribes to all the patent judges throughout the nation and also the world. I'm just glad we have someone as smart as you to uncover this vast conspiracy. You're the Man!!!
Yes, Apple pays multi-millions to all the major media execs for preferential treatment, and they also payout huge bribes to all the patent judges throughout the nation and also the world. I'm just glad we have someone as smart as you to uncover this vast conspiracy. You're the Man!!!
The iPhone UI wasn't that big of a departure seeing as the the old Apple Newton and Palm OS, which also was more button and dialog based menu system. So......
Imagine you're building a phone with a touch screen and you're picking a method to unlock the phone.
What's the most basic gesture you can think of that would be useful as an unlock gesture, except tapping the phone (which wouldn't be a good unlock mechanic)? I think it's a swipe. I genuinely can't think of anything simpler and more obvious.
Seriously, the Galaxy Nexus is a better phone than the iPhone 4S. Apple did this to try to kill off their competitors because they know they are inferior.
Why didn't Steve Jobs sue Microsoft in 1997 but sued Android in 2010-2012?
Why didn't Steve Jobs sue Microsoft in 1997 but sued Android in 2010-2012?
It is when you compare it with other Wintel PCs, though they do offer color gamut and screen quality that is better than most competitors, but still not good enough for the price you pay. You have to remember for many $600 is the most they want/can pay for a notebook.
Umm.. Let's see.
A. You could tap the screen twice,three times or just once.
B. You could press a button.
C. You could press and hold.
D. Or you could use a variation by swiping down
E. Or you could use a variation bt swiping up.
And I'm not an inventor.
Umm.. Let's see.
A. You could tap the screen twice,three times or just once.
B. You could press a button.
C. You could press and hold.
D. Or you could use a variation by swiping down
E. Or you could use a variation bt swiping up.
And I'm not an inventor.
FYI Windows Mobile had 'swipe to unlock' before iOS was even a thought. Interestingly Apple aren't the only ones with the 'Swipe to Unlock' patent. Nokia also owns it, so there's nothing stopping Google licensing it from them instead of Apple if they so wish.
I do however agree that Google could quite simply remove it and use the 'pattern unlock' that's already on android (and frankly, way better than slide to unlock) and which they own the patent for.
I'll take that question, since it's near and dear to my profession as a long-time touch programmer
The Dutch judge last year laid out the reasons very well in his ruling warning Apple that their patent was almost certainly invalid. He even brought up many of the same points that I had posted when the patent first came out:
- Swipe to unlock had been around since the 1990s on PDAs. Originally with no visual indicator since the purpose was security, not ease of use.
- Swipe to unlock with direction arrows was used on a smartphone in 2002, for ease of use.
- Apple's claim was for a visual indicator that moved with a finger.
- The iPhone indicator looked very much like slide switches that followed a finger on industrial touchscreen GUIs from the 1990s.
- Thus, if asked to provide a good visual indicator of your finger's path, an experienced touch programmer would've come up with the idea of using a type of slide switch. That is, it was an obvious invention.
Basically, Apple tries to patent many things that others do not think of patenting, simply because they're obvious to experienced touchscreen programmers. The fact that they get some of their patents, tells us far more about the inexperience in that field of the USPTO examiners, than it does about validity of the patent claims.
It's also a by-product of the past decade when it became more work for examiners to deny patent applications than it did to approve them. Also, their patent output quanitity became more important to determine examiner performance and raises. What would you do if you were an examiner? Yeah.
A. Tapping could happen accidentallyUmm.. Let's see.
A. You could tap the screen twice,three times or just once.
B. You could press a button.
C. You could press and hold.
D. Or you could use a variation by swiping down
E. Or you could use a variation bt swiping up.
And I'm not an inventor.
B. The point of any unlock mechanic is that you don't unlock your phone by pressing a button
C. Same as A
D & E. This variation is actually used by different devices but still appears to be covered by the patent
Yeah I was 12 when they first came out. I remember those cruddy models that were like a mini laptop running CE, with black and white screen and lack of touch. It even had that awful start button and a browser that could have been made by a brain dead monkey.
Pocket PC and their keyboard variants were turtle pace slow, with lots of lag, bloat, and latter or ugly interface that manufactures made to trick users into buying their devices, with an OS that should not be used, since that OS had weaker than expected market share in the mobile market.
Umm.. Let's see.
A. You could tap the screen twice,three times or just once.
B. You could press a button.
C. You could press and hold.
D. Or you could use a variation by swiping down
E. Or you could use a variation bt swiping up.
And I'm not an inventor.
And? Apple used the same method that other did before them
I'll take that question, since it's near and dear to my profession as a long-time touch programmer
The Dutch judge last year laid out the reasons very well in his ruling warning Apple that their patent was almost certainly invalid. He even brought up many of the same points that I had posted when the patent first came out:
- Swipe to unlock had been around since the 1990s on PDAs. Originally with no visual indicator since the purpose was security, not ease of use.
- Swipe to unlock with direction arrows was used on a smartphone in 2002, for ease of use.
Which multi-touch Phone ? Link please
- Apple's claim was for a visual indicator that moved with a finger.
Correct
- The iPhone indicator looked very much like slide switches that followed a finger on industrial touchscreen GUIs from the 1990s.
Citation please.
- Thus, if asked to provide a visual indicator, any competent touch programmer could've come up with the obvious idea of using a type of slide switch.
Could have does not equal Did. I could have patented a lot of things but I didn't.
The order seems to apply to the nexus, but this site has a bunch of phones that are similar but not called nexus:
http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-galaxy-smartphones
Rocketman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvlHi7iTdaw&feature=related
http://www.samsung.com/us/topic/our-galaxy-smartphones
Rocketman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvlHi7iTdaw&feature=related
Last edited:
It's obvious right AFTER it is patented by someone. Anybody could have applied for patents on everything "obvious" on the theory some of them would be approved.
The patent that are criticized AFTER THE FACT for being obvious is simple whining.
So annoy me and patent something "obvious" today.
Rocketman
This is a completely new UI paradigm, never before seen in public...
...which looks absolutely nothing like this, which came before...
Whereas this is an obvious and blatant ripoff...
How does this make sense?
Apple's indicator follows a finger. It's an invention and deserves the patent.
You claims experienced programmers didn't file patents because they were obvious, but you can't prove them. The only proof they had was the indicator that didn't follow the finger. lol.
I had many chances to use WM as my cousin and friend had one, but I made the choice not to touch/use it. I have no desire to use garbage, like I am sure you have to desire to play in garbage can.
Then, when patents get invalidated because of prior art or for being obvious is because judge are at wrong