How is forcing another company to find a new way of doing something rather than simply copying it, stifling creativity?
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.
Ban on Sale of Samsung Galaxy Smartphones in EU Set for October 13th
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How is forcing another company to find a new way of doing something rather than simply copying it, stifling creativity?
As much as its on the machine end its also on the movement. By doing so they are essentially saying that other phones are not allowed to respond to a swiping motion specifically (in this case) flip between photos.
and fine if you want to claim that swiping was not the logical next step and that Apple really did something revolutionary and deserving of legal protection, why is the top to bottom/bottom to top swipe associated with scrolling not protected, that action too was once contolled with arrows and virtual buttons. OH THATS RIGHT, Apple wasnt the first to do that, but they didnt get sued when they copied that action becuase its an obvious motion control used in the absence of buttons.
No they all have it, it's an EU wide law but I live in Cyprus and a lot of the stuff here find their way directly from mother chinaSwiping as an idea to replace clicking arrows, or tapping an arrow on a keyboard, or using a scrollbar has been around for at least 11 years if not longer.
It's very interesting to read the Dutch court's opinion here.
Even if you can't read Dutch (copy & paste paragraphs into another browser tab using Google Translate)... you can look at the pictures that the court used to disprove Apple's claim that the Galaxy was a direct clone.
For example, in one part, the court says that just the big rectangular button on the Samsung is different enough from the well known big round button on the iPhone, that customers should know the difference.
The court also pointed out the difference in side views, which many here have done previously.
Even if you can't read Dutch (copy & paste paragraphs into another browser tab using Google Translate)... you can look at the pictures that the court used to disprove Apple's claim that the Galaxy was a direct clone.
For example, in one part, the court says that just the big rectangular button on the Samsung is different enough from the well known big round button on the iPhone, that customers should know the difference.
The court also pointed out the difference in side views, which many here have done previously.
I am pretty sure gallery swiping with a finger is prior art also, I remember seeing something like that before the iPhone.
Interesting read kdarling. Always good to see your posts.
The TC1000 (that I've previously bought up) even got a mention.
Loved that tablet in it's day.First off, I absolve Apple in no way, should they steal patented technology. My interest isn't to defend Apple. It is to defend the rights of those who invent products and bring them to market. In this case, Apple has been aggrieved, even if the European judge does not agree.
Whether the technology is vital to you, whether you could live without it or not, Apple invented it and if they wish to protect it, it is and should continue to be their right to do so.
The call is theirs, not yours.
Apple ripped off the developer of Delicious Monster, Wil Shipley, for the interface for iBooks. Wil didn't patent his interface. He didn't feel it necessary. That was his decision to make and he made it.
The multi-touch gesture concept is Apple's invention. They decided to patent it. You'll notice that they didn't consult you, me, or anyone else on the matter and that is their right. That is their decision and they made it. They were granted the patent. That should be the end of the story. If you have a problem with the patent procedure, that's fine, but take it up with the appropriate bodies. What Apple is pursuing is within their legal rights and insofar as that's the case, I support them.
Whether the technology is vital to you, whether you could live without it or not, Apple invented it and if they wish to protect it, it is and should continue to be their right to do so.
The call is theirs, not yours.
Apple ripped off the developer of Delicious Monster, Wil Shipley, for the interface for iBooks. Wil didn't patent his interface. He didn't feel it necessary. That was his decision to make and he made it.
The multi-touch gesture concept is Apple's invention. They decided to patent it. You'll notice that they didn't consult you, me, or anyone else on the matter and that is their right. That is their decision and they made it. They were granted the patent. That should be the end of the story. If you have a problem with the patent procedure, that's fine, but take it up with the appropriate bodies. What Apple is pursuing is within their legal rights and insofar as that's the case, I support them.
Samsung first. Who's next?
Swiping gestures are pervasive in iOS, and Apple is going to protect their intellectual property vigorously.
Who's next? HTC? LG? Motorola? All of the above?
Swiping gestures are pervasive in iOS, and Apple is going to protect their intellectual property vigorously.
Who's next? HTC? LG? Motorola? All of the above?
No... it's not.
Apple has a few specific implementations they have filed patents for, but they did not invent multitouch or gestures.
Got your iPad knockoffs right here.
I guess they don't have Best Buys in Holland. I hear they had a fire sale on TouchPads recently.
I wonder if people will be camping out at the European equivalent of Best Buy on October 12th. To snap up all those Galaxy Tabs for what, 70 Euros?
What's an iPad knockoff? The Judge had difficulties finding one.
I guess they don't have Best Buys in Holland. I hear they had a fire sale on TouchPads recently.
I wonder if people will be camping out at the European equivalent of Best Buy on October 12th. To snap up all those Galaxy Tabs for what, 70 Euros?
Not so simple
I beg to differ. The problem here is not something as general as the mouse cursor. Did you read the article?
Take the photo scrolling, it's in the small details. Samsung is copying every small detail, it's giving to the galaxy the iPhone "feel". And that's what Apple is trying to demonstrate and therefore suing.
It is a copy to littlest detail. That's the problem.
This is as stupid as patenting that when I move my mouse left, the cursor on my screen goes to the left.
Imagine having to know that when I'm on an Apple device, moving the mouse to the left moves the cursor to the left, but on Windows moving the mouse to the left moves the cursor to the top, etc. That is what's going to happen with all those patent wars. Different interfaces depending on which company made it. It's insane.
I beg to differ. The problem here is not something as general as the mouse cursor. Did you read the article?
Take the photo scrolling, it's in the small details. Samsung is copying every small detail, it's giving to the galaxy the iPhone "feel". And that's what Apple is trying to demonstrate and therefore suing.
It is a copy to littlest detail. That's the problem.
Considering the fact that the Galaxy Tabs were not found to be in violation, I fail to see the point or purpose of your comment other than to prove you failed to read the original article.
That's ONE gesture as it relates to scrolling through pictures.
Not an all inclusive multitouch/gesture patent as you portrayed in your post.
That patent also only applies to the U.S.
And the that patent is dependent upon 5 other existing patents that Apple does not own.
So one has to look at Apples contributions and separate them from the underlying patents to find the actual infringement.
Something I doubt many on this forum are qualified to determine, myself included.
Last edited:
Why is the Galaxy Tab going to be subject to a firesale on October 12th? Neither the Galaxy Tab 10.1v or 10.1 are subject to the ban.
Sure, and the same is true of those who are fighting the Apple patents.
They're doing exactly what Apple does when the situation is reversed: 1) challenge its validity, and/or 2) disprove that it applies to their product.
---
Another interesting tidbit from the Dutch ruling was on the icon grid. The judge basically said that it wasn't different enough from the 2004 Nokia 7710 grid menu.
I wonder if Apple will do better in an American court system that's not as used to using smartphones prior to the iPhone.
Yup. Unfortunately my dutch is way to rusty to aid where Google cannot. It seems, however, like the judge confirmed what has been said here so many times by now:
Grid GUI is old. Samsungs home screen is significantly different from Apples. The overall design is different enough for people to tell the difference.
Interestingly enough Apple provided some survey as evidence that people mix them up. The judge paid little attention to the results of this, essentially criticizing Apple for poor design of the study.
Addendum: I cant be bothered reading more until a translation pops up. Cant be that far away.
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
This patent covers scrolling through a page with one finger, then using two fingers to interact with an embedded frame on that page without scrolling the page itself. Imagine a Google Map or embedded photo viewer on a site. It covers the ability to zoom and scroll within such a frame on a larger page.
Bloody hell, why do media reporters report on something they have absolutely no idea about?
Doubt it. Did you see that iHolic TV btw? They used that instead of the photo frame for some reason :- )
I figure it's a good way to measure those that are genuinely interested in the subject at hand and those who overlook the facts to preach inaccuracies. Can this be constituted as simple FUD?
Type first, think later.
Such misleading title
"Ban on Sale of Samsung Galaxy Smartphones in EU Set for October 13th "
Read this folks.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung
The ONLY patent Samsung was found to be infringing was photo swipe which is an app included in stock Android 2.x, added by Google. And the software can be fixed easily. The real loser here is Apple.
"Ban on Sale of Samsung Galaxy Smartphones in EU Set for October 13th "
Read this folks.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung
The ONLY patent Samsung was found to be infringing was photo swipe which is an app included in stock Android 2.x, added by Google. And the software can be fixed easily. The real loser here is Apple.