You must be new here.
Yes, of course it's OK. Apple can do no wrong. Because of Steve Jobs' holiness, Google should just give Apple permission to borrow whatever they want from Android
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
You must be new here.
Yes, of course it's OK. Apple can do no wrong. Because of Steve Jobs' holiness, Google should just give Apple permission to borrow whatever they want from Android
You must be new here.
Yes, of course it's OK. Apple can do no wrong. Because of Steve Jobs' holiness, Google should just give Apple permission to borrow whatever they want from Android
We'll have to wait until Google gives everything back first. It's becoming more apparent by the day that Google's entire ecosystem is built on "borrowed" IP.
This is probably why everything Google does is defensive. Google isn't very litigious for good reasons.
Very interesting bit from the linked post:
Now, I would rather read the corresponding bit in the decision, but if the quote is right then that's really bad for Apple.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/4217348
Watch at 0:57 - Theyre swipe-scrolling through thumbnailed pictures.
TECH SUPPORT!! TEEEECH SUPPOOOOORT!!!
(not my fault if you dont get the reference)
also look at 3:07 - Looks like a BIG iphone (with some imagination :-D).
----------
I read that too. Well, a google translated version of that. Seems legit, and makes perfect sense. Minimalism allows for less differentiating factors by nature, and exclusive rights to an entire style of design (that one didnt invent) is plain silly.
Watch at 0:57 - Theyre swipe-scrolling through thumbnailed pictures.
TECH SUPPORT!! TEEEECH SUPPOOOOORT!!!
(not my fault if you dont get the reference)
also look at 3:07 - Looks like a BIG iphone (with some imagination :-D).
----------
I read that too. Well, a google translated version of that. Seems legit, and makes perfect sense. Minimalism allows for less differentiating factors by nature, and exclusive rights to an entire style of design (that one didnt invent) is plain silly.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
so swiping in a gallery app breaks a patent but the other gestures dont. does that mean theres a single patent for each gesture or app like "swiping music" "swiping text" "swiping pages" etc. thats kind of an impossible task imo
so swiping in a gallery app breaks a patent but the other gestures dont. does that mean theres a single patent for each gesture or app like "swiping music" "swiping text" "swiping pages" etc. thats kind of an impossible task imo
This thread is hilarious. It shows that 1) 99% of people don't even bother to read what was decided by the Judge and 2) the same people don't realize this is actually a victory for Samsung, not Apple. All Apple's claims were thrown out, except one little bitty thing that is easy to correct. And because it is easily and cheaply to correct (according to the judge), he is granting the sales ban of those specific models. If you read between the lines of the verdict (which I can, since I am Dutch), it is not unlikely to think that had it been not so easy to change (and therefor unlikely to actually be enforced), Apple wouldn't have gotten a sales ban at all because the damages to Samsung would have been disproportional to the damage to Apple for the infringement. In that case they would probably have gotten a reasonable time to make modifications and present them in court before the Judge would discuss a sales ban.
Not only that but if someone other than Apple has patented it and Apple is using it in iOS then there can be a ban on sales of the iPhone, the iPad, and the iPod Touch...
1) Apple lost the PC-war. MSFT changed an industry. By applying your logic MSFT was super-innovative.
2) MSFT is a dying brand? How many dying brands sell 400 million licenses of their latest product in less than 2 years? How many dying brands can say their latest product is the fastest selling OS of all time? MSFT isnt dying. Get of that Apple-crack of yours.
3) Just like Apple is now building on the work of others.
You seem awfully concerned about the few hundred dollars it cost Apple to file this patent.
This lawsuit isn't over as far as I can tell. Wasn't this just a hearing for a preliminary injunction?
Example: the Fingerworks patents have a lot of code and math behind them. They researched hard to figure out how to mathematically recognize gestures across the tops of capacitive keys. Real work and cleverness, and not something that a layman could figure out in two seconds.
OTOH, here's Apple's utterly simplistic patent for using different numbers of fingers on a screen that recognizes... wait for it... different numbers of fingers. Good grief, that's the WHOLE POINT OF A MULTITOUCH screen.
The software patent system is as much to blame as is Apple for being overly opportunistic of that system.
--
As for the EU photo swipe patent, it's not much better. Its primary claim is a computer-implemented method, comprising (bold synopsis mine):
- (touchscreen) a portable electronic device with a touch screen display,
- (thumbnails) displaying an array of thumbnail images corresponding to a set of photographic images;
- (click on thumbnail) replacing the displayed array of thumbnail images with a user-selected photographic image upon detecting a user contact with a corresponding thumbnail image in the array, wherein the user-selected photographic image is displayed at a larger scale than the 0 corresponding thumbnail image;
- (swiping) and displaying a different photographic image in replacement of the user-selected photographic image, wherein the different photographic image is selected in accordance with a scrolling gesture comprising a substantially horizontal movement of a user contact with the touch screen display.
It was filed in the in the summer of 2007. Hey, wait a minute. Didn't we see Jeff Han using multitouch on photo thumbnails in 2006? Didn't we see Minority Report swiping between images in 2002? Doesn't seem like much of a jump, does it?
Worse, they have other claims where just a tap moves between screens. Didn't other posters here just say "Gee, that's more obvious than using swipes?"
There's no research here or invention of a new way of doing things. It's just a greedy grab at a vocabulary made up of previous touch phrases. As I said, no different than patenting ways to finger guitar or piano chords.
I support patents. I don't support simple gesture patents.
Last edited:
Well that's funny... I have an LG Xenon which isn't a smartphone and I can swipe through pictures on my phone the same way. I've had this phone since 2009 and I've always been able to do that. Seems kind of petty to me.
You seem awfully concerned about the few hundred dollars it cost Apple to file this patent.
This lawsuit isn't over as far as I can tell. Wasn't this just a hearing for a preliminary injunction?
Or the hundreds of thousands of dollars + time they wasted in presenting it.
Where are all the people who were adamant that both the Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab were infringing on Apple's designs out of interest?
Seems very quiet on that front.
Seems very quiet on that front.
Apple wasn't first with this, i recall I saw this swap-gesture from the movie Minority Report released in 2002.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ
Apple **** off ye? I love your products but if this doesn't stop I'll buy another cell phone in 6 months.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ
Apple **** off ye? I love your products but if this doesn't stop I'll buy another cell phone in 6 months.
It's the stock gallery app that is the problem.
Well since the Nexus S is not on that list it seems not to be an issue with stock.
I have not really used a touchwiz phone but I know on motoblur and Sense they both use something other than the stock galley App and one of there own design.
This lead me to assume there is some touchwiz built one. Either way since the Nexus S is not on the list tells me that it is could just be a touchwiz issue.
uh...the OP itself states:
and every page of this thread, posters have talked about the fact that its only the gallery app that's affected (the one little bitty thing you're talking about)
so congrats on knowing Dutch but Probeer te houden met de draad (Google translate ftw, please don't correct me, because I don't care)
It does sound so much more impressive when you make numbers up! Frankly, if you would have said millions of dollars, I would have completely agreed that Apple is screwed.
Yes, you will be banned from wiping your ass in the EU if Apple has anything to say about it
Use the three seashells.
(I'm ashamed that it's a movie reference...)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
so i could get an patent on "swiping birds in an app" and sue angry birds?
AaronEdwards said:
so i could get an patent on "swiping birds in an app" and sue angry birds?
READ THIS: Apparently the gallery in 3.x is fine. As 3.x has swipe its not about that.
1) In recent auctions the average price of patents have been way higher than a few hundred dollars.
2) Its perhaps not over, but the judge said they were likely to lose 1 patent in a full trial and found apples other claims baseless. Given the nature of the case Apple has nothing to gain from pushing forward.
p.s. i thought Apple spent millions of dollars in R&D to come up with the stuff they patent. money down the drain, no? after all, everyone can steal their "swipe to unlock" now without paying a dime.
----------
You can try, but youll find that Apple invented that last week.
You seem awfully concerned about the few hundred dollars it cost Apple to file this patent.
This lawsuit isn't over as far as I can tell. Wasn't this just a hearing for a preliminary injunction?
1) In recent auctions the average price of patents have been way higher than a few hundred dollars.
2) Its perhaps not over, but the judge said they were likely to lose 1 patent in a full trial and found apples other claims baseless. Given the nature of the case Apple has nothing to gain from pushing forward.
p.s. i thought Apple spent millions of dollars in R&D to come up with the stuff they patent. money down the drain, no? after all, everyone can steal their "swipe to unlock" now without paying a dime.
----------
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
so i could get an patent on "swiping birds in an app" and sue angry birds?
You can try, but youll find that Apple invented that last week.
Close:
I think the swiping gesture, although more natural, is not as handy as tapping on the side of the screen when it comes to many photos. Swiping makes more sense when scrolling in an item larger than the screen.
I'm not surprised it's been patented, though.