Google Nexus One Software Updated to Offer 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Multi-Touch Capabilities

[DreamcastDC]

Looking quickly through this thread I find that no one has posted a mention of Apple's major patent covering multitouch, patent #7,479,949, "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics", issued to Steven Jobs et al, on January 20, 2009 and weighing in at 358 pages.

The patent specifically covers multitouch gestures such as pinch to zoom:

"In some embodiments, a multi-finger de-pinching gesture magnifies the image 1606 by a variable amount in accordance with the position of the multi-finger de-pinching gesture and the amount of finger movement in the multi-finger de-pinching gesture. In some embodiments, a multi-finger pinching gesture demagnifies the image 1606 by a variable amount in accordance with the position of the multi-finger pinching gesture and the amount of finger movement in the multi-finger pinching gesture."

IANAL, but in my opinion if Google imitates these gestures they are at strong risk of patent violation. This patent was almost certainly prepared, filed, examined, and issued with the full knowledge of prior art.

To bad none of those patent like pinch in zoom will hold up in court, its just use to scare companies from using multi-touch.. Why you think Microsoft and Palm has multi-touch? Its because they know they cant be sue for prior art, if Apple bring a company to court related to multi-touch, they risk the chance of the patent being voided for prior art.

 

[cmaier]

To bad none of those patent like pinch in zoom will hold up in court, its just use to scare companies from using multi-touch, why you think Microsoft and Palm has multi-touch? Its because they know they cant be sue for can't prior art, if Apple bring a company to court related to multi-touch, they risk the chance of the patent being voided for prior art.

To be prior art, the prior art:

1) must have existed prior to Sept. 6, 2005
2) have all the elements of each claim

Here's a claim:

1. A computing device, comprising: a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including: instructions for detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display; instructions for applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device; and instructions for processing the command; wherein the one or more heuristics comprise: a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; and a next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.

That's the easiest claim to invalidate by prior art (some have many more elements).

So, to what prior art do you refer?

 

[DreamcastDC]

To be prior art, the prior art:

1) must have existed prior to Sept. 6, 2005
2) have all the elements of each claim

Here's a claim:



That's the easiest claim to invalidate by prior art (some have many more elements).

So, to what prior art do you refer?

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

 

[cmaier]

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

That doesn't answer the question. Please show me where that earlier work contains each element of the claim I listed above.

And by the way, here's all of the stuff that the patent office decided is not prior art:

US Patent References:
20070118400 Method and system for gesture recognition to drive healthcare applications May, 2007 Morita et al. 705/2
20070061126 System for and method of emulating electronic input devices March, 2007 Russo et al. 713/24
20070040812 Internet phone integrated with touchpad functions February, 2007 Tang et al. 345/173
20060294472 User interface with figures mapping to the keys, for allowing a user to select and control a portable electronic device December, 2006 Cheng et al. 715/771
20060253793 System and method for issuing commands based on pen motions on a graphical keyboard November, 2006 Zhai et al. 715/773
20060181519 Method and system for manipulating graphical objects displayed on a touch-sensitive display surface using displaced pop-ups August, 2006 Vernier et al. 345/173
7093203 System and method for enabling manipulation of graphic images to form a graphic image August, 2006 Mugura et al. 715/864
7088344 Data processor, I/O device, touch panel controlling method, recording medium, and program transmitter August, 2006 Maezawa et al. 345/173
20060164399 Touchpad diagonal scrolling July, 2006 Cheston et al. 245/173
20060132460 Touch screen accuracy June, 2006 Kolmykov-Zotov et al. 345/173
20060101354 Gesture inputs for a portable display device May, 2006 Hashimoto et al. 715/863
20060049920 Handheld device having multiple localized force feedback March, 2006 Sadler et al. 340/407.1
20060044259 Wide touchpad on a portable computer March, 2006 Hotelling et al. 345/156
20060031786 Method and apparatus continuing action of user gestures performed upon a touch sensitive interactive display in simulation of inertia February, 2006 Hillis et al. 715/863
20060028428 Handheld device having localized force feedback February, 2006 Dai et al. 345/156
20060022955 Visual expander February, 2006 Kennedy 345/173
20060007178 Electronic device having an imporoved user interface January, 2006 Davis 345/173
20060001652 Method for scroll bar control on a touchpad January, 2006 Chiu et al. 345/173
20050193351 Varying-content menus for touch screens September, 2005 Huoviala 715/840
20050012723 System and method for a portable multimedia client January, 2005 Pallakoff 345/173
20040160420 Electronic device having an image-based data input system August, 2004 Baharav 345/173
20040021676 Method and apparatus of view window scrolling February, 2004 Chen et al. 345/684
6690387 Touch-screen image scrolling system and method February, 2004 Zimmerman et al. 345/684
20040012572 Display and touch screen method and apparatus January, 2004 Sowden et al. 345/173
6683628 Human interactive type display system January, 2004 Nakagawa et al. 715/799
6657615 Input processing method and input processing device for implementing same December, 2003 Harada 345/173
20030184593 System, method and article of manufacture for a user interface for an MP3 audio player October, 2003 Dunlop 345/810
6597345 Multifunctional keypad on touch screen July, 2003 Hirshberg 345/168
6559869 Adaptive auto-scrolling merge for hand written input May, 2003 Lui et al. 715/785
20020158838 Edge touchpad input device October, 2002 Smith et al. 345/156
6466203 Hand-held with auto-zoom for graphical display of Web page October, 2002 Van Ee 345/173
6278443 Touch screen with random finger placement and rolling on screen to control the movement of information on-screen August, 2001 Amro et al. 345/173
5805161 System and method for data processing enhanced ergonomic scrolling September, 1998 Tiphane 715/786
5655094 Pop up scroll bar August, 1997 Cline et al. 715/786
5528260 Method and apparatus for proportional auto-scrolling June, 1996 Kent 345/684
Foreign References:
EP0827064 March, 1998 Selection device for touchscreen systems
EP0827094 March, 1998
EP1517228 March, 2005 Gesture recognition method and touch system incorporating the same
GB2347200 August, 2000
WO/2002/001338 January, 2002 PROVIDING A SCROLLING FUNCTION FOR A MULTIPLE FRAME WEB PAGE
WO/2004/111816 December, 2004 USER INTERFACE
WO/2005/074268 August, 2005 ON-SCREEN CONTROL OF A VIDEO PLAYBACK DEVICE
WO/2006/020305 February, 2006 GESTURES FOR TOUCH SENSITIVE INPUT DEVICES
WO/2006/126055 November, 2006 IMPROVED POCKET COMPUTER AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
Other References:
Examiner's Report on Australian Innovation Patent No. 2008100179, dated Apr. 30, 2008, which application claims priority to U.S. Appl. No. 60/824,726, the same priority application of the instant application.
Baguley, R., “Nokia Handlelds & Palmtops Internet Tablet 770, Nokia's Small, Svelte, Internet-Savvy PDA,” Jan. 31, 2006, http:.//www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,124456/printable.html.
Bordovsky et al., “Interpreting Commands from a Graphical User Interface,” reproduced from International Technology Disclosures, vol. 9, No. 6, Jun. 25, 1991, 1 page.
Cheng et al., “Navigation Control and Gesture Recognition Input Device for Smaill, Portable User Interfaces,” Synaptics Inc. of San Jose, Callifornia, pp. 1-13, 2004.
Computergram International, “Next-Generation Sharp Organiser to carry Pen Interface,” No. 1955, Jul. 2, 1992.
Electronic Engineering Times, “Screen Can Tell Finger From Stylus,” No. 858, Jul. 24, 1995, p. 67.
Gillespie, D., “Novel Touch Screens for Hand-Held Devices,” Information Display, vol. 18, No. 2, Feb. 2002, 5 pages.
Hoover, J.N., “Computer GUI Revolution Continues with Microsoft Surface's Touch Screen, Object Recognition,” Information Week, May 30, 2007, http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199703468.
IBM, “Method to Disable and Enable a Touch Pad Pointing Device or Tablet Input Device Using Gestures,” Jun. 11, 2002, pp. 1-3.
Johnson, R.C., “Gestures Redefine Computer Interface,” Electronic Engingeering Times, No. 924, p. 42(1), Oct. 21, 1996.
Korpela, J., “Using Inline Frames (iframe elements) to Embed Documents into HTML Documents,” (Online), Sep. 25, 2006, http://web.archive.org/web/20060925113551/http://www.cs.tut.fi/{jkorpela/htm/iframe.html.
Narayanaswamy, et al., “User Interface for a PCS Smart Phone,” Multimedia Computing and Systems, IEEE Conference 1999, Published Jun. 7-11, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 777-781.
Poon et al., “Gestural User Interface Technique for Controlling the Playback of Sequential Media,” Xerox Disclosure Journal, vol. 19, No. 2, Mar./Apr. 1994, pp. 187-190.
PR Newswire, “FingerWorks Announces a Gestrue Keyboard for Apple PowerBooks,” Jan. 27, 2004, 2 pages.
PR Newswire, “FingerWorks Announces the ZeroForce iGesture Pad,” Feb. 18, 2003, 2 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application PCT/US2007/088885, mailed Apr. 24, 2008.
Examiner's Report on Australian Innovation Patent No. 2008100179 dated Apr. 30, 2008.
“Sprint Power Vision Smart Device Treo™ 700p by Palm,” Sprint Nextel, 432 pages, 2006.
“Google Maps API—Google Code,” Google Inc., http://www.google.com/apis/maps, 1 page, printed Apr. 10, 2008.

 

[conradwt]

Apple and Google have had to come to some sort of secret patent sharing agreement here. Perhaps a team-up to kill Flash (?).

Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera are already in the process of killing Flash by fully supporting the HTML 5 standard and adopting standard based technologies like WebGL. You can read more about the air assault here:

http://www.khronos.org/webgl

 

[MyBrainIsSpeakn]

That doesn't answer the question. Please show me where that earlier work contains each element of the claim I listed above.

And by the way, here's all of the stuff that the patent office decided is not prior art:

It doesn't matter. It won't hold in court evidenced by other devices from other companies gladly using the technology. Why you think, if so... Apple "asked" Google not to use it... because they know... the patent won't hold its water.

 

[cmaier]

It doesn't matter. It won't hold in court evidenced by other devices from other companies gladly using the technology. Why you think, if so... Apple "asked" Google not to use it... because they know... the patent won't hold its water.

You are making a ridiculous argument: the patent must be invalid because people are infringing it.

First, I don't know that google et al actually infringe it. But even if they do, people and companies infringe patents all the time. Often they end up in court. They may figure apple won't sue for fear of being countersued on other patents. They may figure they have no choice but to infringe and take their chances. Who knows. Apple may sue, or it may be waiting for more of it's applications to issue.

I'm a patent attorney and I hear stories all the time of people who assumed there must be no valid patent since "everyone is doing it.". It usually ends badly for them.

 

[Cerebrus' Maw]

Yawn .........

This has been around on the iPhone since its launch.

Nobody cares about Googles old adaptation to "Pinch to Zoom" technology.... "OMGosh we can zoom now yay!! yippieeee"...NOT!!

We know their plans now, and they want to "Kill the iPhone" so besides search at the moment and maps (which I barely use), somebody tell me why I should care about google?? and their monopolistic community.

This should be Page 2 news.

Google is dead in my eyes now.

Wow, my faith in humanity's survival has just died a little bit.

Google? Dead? Probably the most important single web startup company to exist? Can I assume that you dont work for a dot com retail business. Because if you dont, you have no idea how important Google is to the internet.

Lack of services? Just because you dont use them, you discredit them? Adwords, web optimizer, split testing, multi variant testing, page testing, analytics? Let alone their open services, such as Docs, Calender, Mail, Goggles, Maps, oh and that little thing of free gps navigation with android...

Last to the party? Yet cut,copy and paste was added to the iphone OS X in.... 2009? Did you crow about that?

'Kill the Iphone' was coined by the review sites, as they all labeled it to pit it against the Apple kit, add a bit of spice. And a smart phone, I remind you, that Google did not big up pre launch. No advertisement, no sponsors, no links, no info, they just dog fed it their employees and released it. It was every other tech site/person under the sun that created the hype.

I find it ironic that these 'fanboys' love their large percentage of market share for the Iphone, yet will rabidly defend their small Desktop OS market share, crediting the better experience, the travesty of the 90's to their ' we're smaller, ergo, we are better' stance. Small man syndrome.

I love my Apple stuff, but to blindly place blinkers on your own eyesight because of some cult like following to a company that owe's you nothing, let alone a cold heated profession as technology, is perplexing to say the least. I equally enjoy my Ubuntu box, my Moto, my Win 7 box...

Man, I bet the walls in your garden run high...

 

[mrochester]

Apple may sue, or it may be waiting for more of it's applications to issue.

Oh gosh no, Apple won't possibly do that! That'd make them (apparently) just like Nokia who (apparently) waited until Apple had made a lot of money on the iPhone before sueing. The only acceptable course of action according to some on these forums is to sue the second you see a competitor using your patent; absolutely no discussion or negotiating is allowed. That way, you don't come across as sueing just because of sour grapes.

 

[MyBrainIsSpeakn]

You are making a ridiculous argument: the patent must be invalid because people are infringing it.

First, I don't know that google et al actually infringe it. But even if they do, people and companies infringe patents all the time. Often they end up in court. They may figure apple won't sue for fear of being countersued on other patents. They may figure they have no choice but to infringe and take their chances. Who knows. Apple may sue, or it may be waiting for more of it's applications to issue.

I'm a patent attorney and I hear stories all the time of people who assumed there must be no valid patent since "everyone is doing it.". It usually ends badly for them.

I'm not insinuating that, I'm saying its evidenced by. Apple doesn't want to sue Google, Microsoft, Nokia, etc... over multi-touch (mind you, a technology that was bound to happen, i.e bare feet, to shoes, horses to cars)...

Apple, I'm sure is infringing many other companies patents, especially the ones I named. You are a patent attorney, thats good, but you should know, that you should never step on toes, when you are barefooted. Steve just has a huge kindergarden ego, and likes to say things to feed his ego.

But I bet you, if Apple decides to sue (bad move), they will lose, and other companies will come out the woodworks to say "wait a minute... if we're not mistaken..." and sue Apple.

 

[MyBrainIsSpeakn]

Wow, my faith in humanity's survival has just died a little bit.

Google? Dead? Probably the most important single web startup company to exist? Can I assume that you dont work for a dot com retail business. Because if you dont, you have no idea how important Google is to the internet.

Lack of services? Just because you dont use them, you discredit them? Adwords, web optimizer, split testing, multi variant testing, page testing, analytics? Let alone their open services, such as Docs, Calender, Mail, Goggles, Maps, oh and that little thing of free gps navigation with android...

Last to the party? Yet cut,copy and paste was added to the iphone OS X in.... 2009? Did you crow about that?

'Kill the Iphone' was coined by the review sites, as they all labeled it to pit it against the Apple kit, add a bit of spice. And a smart phone, I remind you, that Google did not big up pre launch. No advertisement, no sponsors, no links, no info, they just dog fed it their employees and released it. It was every other tech site/person under the sun that created the hype.

I find it ironic that these 'fanboys' love their large percentage of market share for the Iphone, yet will rabidly defend their small Desktop OS market share, crediting the better experience, the travesty of the 90's to their ' we're smaller, ergo, we are better' stance. Small man syndrome.

I love my Apple stuff, but to blindly place blinkers on your own eyesight because of some cult like following to a company that owe's you nothing, let alone a cold heated profession as technology, is perplexing to say the least. I equally enjoy my Ubuntu box, my Moto, my Win 7 box...

Man, I bet the walls in your garden run high...

Yep... lol

Changing the way devices are used is one thing, changing the way the Internet is used is a whole other grander thing. Its the truth. One is tangible, the other... not so much.

 

[NickK1066]

Oh gosh no, Apple won't possibly do that! That'd make them (apparently) just like Nokia who (apparently) waited until Apple had made a lot of money on the iPhone before sueing. The only acceptable course of action according to some on these forums is to sue the second you see a competitor using your patent; absolutely no discussion or negotiating is allowed. That way, you don't come across as sueing just because of sour grapes.

What's interesting that in the UK you can no longer lay a minefield of patents and then ambush your competitors. You have a short period of time before you must, by law, act to defend your patent or loose the right to the patent.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (SonyEricssonC902/R3EA Browser/NetFront/3.4 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 JavaPlatform/JP-8.3.3)

Anyone got any ideas if apple will react at all over this? I cant wait to get my nexus one back from htc to try the new update out but i must admit, double tap to zoom was working perfectly before. I used double tap more than pinch zoom on my iphone and hero anyway.

 

[Stella]

No one in silicon valley has ever sent an MMS or ever will?

Hmmm... it was predicted that by 2009 year end, 175 billion MMS would be sent.

2010 - "MMS traffic will continue to grow in 2010. Expect between 190 – 200 billion MMS messages."

For north america:
"North America is certainly the fastest growing MMS market, and should finish 2009 with over 30 billion MMS messages. "

http://blog.burstsms.com/sybase-blogs-william-dudley-blog-archive-2009

Silicon Valley or someone else isn't in touch with reality, obviously.

<Laughing> and no body bothers with MMS </Laughing>

 

[cmaier]

before iPhone added mms, neither me nor anyon in my family had ever sent an mms. Neither had anyone with whom I work. Neither had anyone I know. Our old smartphones couldn't so it, sprint could barely SMS on many of their phones- and we all are constantly on email via smartphone or blackberry, so what was the point of mms? It didn't solve any problem that wasn't already solved, and better, by email.

I've received two mms photos since iPhone added the feature. Both photos my wife took with her iPhone of my baby. Both misaddressed and sent to my email, no my mms. And both perfectly viewable - and much more useful - sitting in my email inbox.

Hmmm... it was predicted that by 2009 year end, 175 billion MMS would be sent.

2010 - "MMS traffic will continue to grow in 2010. Expect between 190 – 200 billion MMS messages."

For north america:
"North America is certainly the fastest growing MMS market, and should finish 2009 with over 30 billion MMS messages. "

http://blog.burstsms.com/sybase-blogs-william-dudley-blog-archive-2009

Silicon Valley or someone else isn't in touch with reality, obviously.

<Laughing> and no body bothers with MMS </Laughing>

 

[ChazUK]

before iPhone added mms, neither me nor anyon in my family had ever sent an mms. Neither had anyone with whom I work. Neither had anyone I know. Our old smartphones couldn't so it, sprint could barely SMS on many of their phones- and we all are constantly on email via smartphone or blackberry, so what was the point of mms? It didn't solve any problem that wasn't already solved, and better, by email.

That's a very Americanised point of view (I'm not US bashing by that statement) but MMS has been in use in Europe for many years.

Thanks to MMS I was able to send pictures of my daughter as she was born to all my friends and family who own a multitude of phones.
There are many people out there that don't have email on the go and the easiest way to send pictures from a phone is via MMS. Is it right to dismiss the whole idea and use of MMS just because you've found no personal reason to do so?

 

[Razeus]

All I know is that if the next iPhone/OS update doesn't have multi-tasking, I can see myself going to a Droid or a Nexus One. Paying the early term fee with AT&T is no thing for me.

The competition is getting fierce, and Apple needs to put up or shut up. Not having Flash is ridiculous. Sure it's supposedly on its way out, but Adobe is fighting back, making it take that much longer to kill it. Therefore, Apple needs to support Flash while supporting HTML 5. They are only doing themselves a disservice to their customers. I don't give a hoot what Jobs thinks of it, just support it because damn near every site uses it.

So lack of Flash is my main bitch about iPhone. But if they can pull of multi-tasking, I can keep dealing with it. These once a year updates is getting lame. At least update the OS every 6 months with new features.

Don't get me started on why the MBP updates are so slow, yet they want to charge full price for something from 6 months ago. Jesus Apple, get with the program!

 

[cmaier]

That's a very Americanised point of view (I'm not US bashing by that statement) but MMS has been in use in Europe for many years.

Thanks to MMS I was able to send pictures of my daughter as she was born to all my friends and family who own a multitude of phones.
There are many people out there that don't have email on the go and the easiest way to send pictures from a phone is via MMS. Is it right to dismiss the whole idea and use of MMS just because you've found no personal reason to do so?

Of cours it's Americanized. That was my point. Follow along:

someone asked what apple's excuse for not adding MMS for so long was

I suggested it was because no one in silicon valley used mms (that's where apple is located of course)

someone said something about statistics in America

I responded by explaining the mms situation in silicon valley

you responded by saying i am being provincial


Well of course I am. That's the point. If the people who make th decision re MMS features have never used MMS and don't know anyone who has ever used it, that would certainly color their priorities, don't you think?

 

[AnalyzeThis]

That doesn't answer the question. Please show me where that earlier work contains each element of the claim I listed above.

And by the way, here's all of the stuff that the patent office decided is not prior art:

Thanks for the useful info. I think a lot of folks missing a very important detail: despite the fact the claims of this patent are absolutely valid. It does not grant the patent holder any rights to any prior-art(patents below in the stack or pyramid if one prefer). To illustrate my point lets look at: [20060101354 Gesture inputs for a portable display device May, 2006 Hashimoto et al. 715/863] This basically means that before "Apple et al" could even use any of its claims they need to obtain permission to use any sort of gesture on touch screen from "Hashimoto et al" first and down it goes.

I consider this type of patents to be a "trophy" type (dusting on the wall of pride). This patent would be offensive if it is owned by 3rd party(patent troll et al) who does not need to use it. Unfortunately Apple is using it in their products which makes it mandatory for them to seek permission from prior-art holders first. Which we can safely assume "Apple at el" never did, as stealing is a normal business practice these days. This is the main reason "Apple at el" would not go to court. There would be no benefit neither for Apple nor competitors.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[dgree03]

Of cours it's Americanized. That was my point. Follow along:

someone asked what apple's excuse for not adding MMS for so long was

I suggested it was because no one in silicon valley used mms (that's where apple is located of course)

someone said something about statistics in America

I responded by explaining the mms situation in silicon valley

you responded by saying i am being provincial


Well of course I am. That's the point. If the people who make th decision re MMS features have never used MMS and don't know anyone who has ever used it, that would certainly color their priorities, don't you think?

Well if that was the case then they ARE out of touch with reality. If everyone at apple... or in silicon valley had a smart phone with email capablities then OF COURSE they would probaly use email....

But outside of Lala land... most people dont have phones with email capablity(Esp in 2007)... not only that.. but if you dont have a blackberry or some other type of true push service... it would not get to your recepient in a timely matter...

I love it when people try to justify missing features that CURRENT phones have or have had for YEARS... its so delusional and comical...

 

[cmaier]

a couple things. Hashimoto isn't a patent- it's merely a patent application. You are correct in that a patent doesn't give the invntor the right to do what he patented. It only gives him the right to stop others from doing so.

The fact that some patents were considered by th uspto doesn't mean apple is infringing them. If there are multitouch patents that apple is infringing (assuming those patents predate iPhone) apple could have a problem. However, keep in mind that apple owns fingerworks, and most of the relevant patents stem from that. I doubt there are any patents that apple needs to worry about - certainly none on that list I posted.

Thanks for the useful info. I think a lot of folks missing a very important detail: despite the fact the claims of this patent are absolutely valid. It does not grant the patent holder any rights to any prior-art(patents below in the stack or pyramid if one prefer). To illustrate my point lets look at: [20060101354 Gesture inputs for a portable display device May, 2006 Hashimoto et al. 715/863] This basically means that before "Apple et al" could even use any of its claims they need to obtain permission to use any sort of gesture on touch screen from "Hashimoto et al" first and down it goes.

I consider this type of patents to be a "trophy" type (dusting on the wall of pride). This patent would be offensive if it is owned by 3rd party(patent troll) who does not need to use it. Unfortunately Apple is using it in their products which makes it mandatory for them to seek permission from prior-art holders first. Which we can safely assume "Apple at el" never did, as stealing is a normal business practice. This is the main reason "Apple at el" would not go to court. There would be no benefit neither for Apple nor competitors.

Please, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[ChazUK]

Of cours it's Americanized. That was my point. Follow along:

someone asked what apple's excuse for not adding MMS for so long was

I suggested it was because no one in silicon valley used mms (that's where apple is located of course)

someone said something about statistics in America

I responded by explaining the mms situation in silicon valley

you responded by saying i am being provincial


Well of course I am. That's the point. If the people who make th decision re MMS features have never used MMS and don't know anyone who has ever used it, that would certainly color their priorities, don't you think?

I was responding directly to this:
"before iPhone added mms, neither me nor anyon in my family had ever sent an mms. Neither had anyone with whom I work. Neither had anyone I know. Our old smartphones couldn't so it, sprint could barely SMS on many of their phones"

Are ALL of these people located in Silicon Valley?

 

[chocolaterabbit]

before iPhone added mms, neither me nor anyon in my family had ever sent an mms. Neither had anyone with whom I work. Neither had anyone I know. Our old smartphones couldn't so it, sprint could barely SMS on many of their phones- and we all are constantly on email via smartphone or blackberry, so what was the point of mms? It didn't solve any problem that wasn't already solved, and better, by email.

Pretty clear that argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Are you really suggesting that Apple didn't include MMS because no one in Silicon Valley uses it? Are iPhones sold only to people in Silicon Valley? Or do Apple have a bigger market to consider?

Are you also going to say that no one in Silicon Valley multitasks?

Right, so he should have at least something around what Bill has? Or maybe he just doesn't care a lot about money?

I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but according to Google Bill Gates is worth more than 10 times what Jobs is. As for not caring about money, i don't know, why did he start a business then? Why not earn an ordinary wage?

 

[cmaier]

Pretty clear that argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Are you really suggesting that Apple didn't include MMS because no one in Silicon Valley uses it? Are iPhones sold only to people in Silicon Valley? Or do Apple have a bigger market to consider?

Are you also going to say that no one in Silicon Valley multitasks?

You people need to read the thread. All I'm saying is that the people who were setting the priorities might have set mms as a low priority because they saw no need for it since a superior solution - email - already existed and since they were intimately familiar with that solution and it was already widely deployed among them and everyone they knew - and that they underesimated the demand for mms since so few of them, their friends, and neighbors used mms. I'm not saying it's a valid way of making decisions, but if you think people don't make decisions based in part on their own experience you're crazy.

 

[chocolaterabbit]

You people need to read the thread. All I'm saying is that the people who were setting the priorities might have set mms as a low priority because they saw no need for it since a superior solution - email - already existed and since they were intimately familiar with that solution and it was already widely deployed among them and everyone they knew - and that they underesimated the demand for mms since so few of them, their friends, and neighbors used mms. I'm not saying it's a valid way of making decisions, but if you think people don't make decisions based in part on their own experience you're crazy.

I've read and understood what you said, and Apple would be foolish to operate in the way you suggest. Never mind a simple bit of market research, nay, even a 10 second google query, would've told them that MMS is kind of popular, no, forget that, common sense should've told them that if they want to actually send a picture to a dumbphone without email, they have to use MMS. And last time i checked, dumbphones are a lot more popular than smartphones.