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.
Key Claim of Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Used Against Samsung Confirmed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But this is not about copying, this is about patent violations. If inventor left his invention open so that everyone can use it, then why not copy it? Or Apple and MS have patent agreements, because it's precisely so that they can copy each other's good features.
Exactly. They should have come up with their own solution in the first place and avoided this mess.
I do like HTC's implementation of when you've reached the top or bottom of a page.
I think some people forget what smart phones we're like before the iPhone. All I can say is, I hope Apple wins... the iPhone 1 changed everything we know about smart phones and nothing came even close at the time. It was true innovation and an invention worth being protected by patents. Too bad we can get 5 years down the road and now all of a sudden people act like it's no big deal. Sad.
Patents were created to encourage significant investment in research development, instead it's being used on something insignificant, and its true purpose is to avoid having to innovate, using the weaknesses in the implementation of patent laws to sue your competitors.
You're taking a meaningless, willfully ignorant and narrow view, which is "the law is the law and Apple deserves its protection".
It's because that glitter was copied, and that copying led to a lot of money that was earned unduly.
What part of "significant investment in research and development" did Apple not make since it became a company in 1976? Surely Apple meets that requirement to a "T".
If it is so insignificant, then why was Samsung using it? Surely there must have been something of interest to have so freely copied so many of Apple's innovations.
Yes, the law IS the law, and therefore, everyone deserves the protection from it. It's not ignorant, it's the way this country has always run.
If it's so not an innovation, why didn't anyone else think of it first, and if it's an innovation without value, why did Samsung copy it as soon as Apple did it?
Answer the questions. Stop trying to change the subject.
If it's so insignificant, why didn't anyone else think of it first?
If it's so insignificant, why did Samsung copy it as soon as Apple did it?
Your reply doesn't pass the smell test. Neither do the replies of anyone else who can't answer those two simple questions:
1. IF [it's not a genuine advancement/it's obvious/it's insignificant/it's not innovation/insert b.s. rationalization here] THEN Why didn't anyone else think of it first?
2. IF [it has no value because of insert b.s. justification here] THEN Why did Samsung copy it as soon as they saw Apple's implementation of it? Why would Samsung copy it at all, if it added no value?
Innovation means doing something new
Patents don't kill innovation, they protect it and encourage it.
Really? Over such a minor garnish to functionality?
Hardly a ground breaking and choice determining factor. I am sure Apple lost 1000's of sales to Samsung just because customers became confused between the two OS's.
Hardly a ground breaking and choice determining factor. I am sure Apple lost 1000's of sales to Samsung just because customers became confused between the two OS's.
No, people buy cheap phones and don't know or care that it has Android.
Equally these people probably don't buy Apps, nor do they use the majority of the smart phones abilities. All they have done is replace their dead feature phone with another cheap replacement.
You will also note that Samsung barely pays lip service to Android now, further devaluing that moniker. They are also the only Android manufacturer who is actually making any money from their phones, they are in effect the "Apple" of the Android market.
Usage statics say a different story. Just because they are sell more doesn't seem to be leading to more usage. Maybe cause they are installing it on every feature phone now???
you need an engineering or other relevant hard science degree before attending 3 years of law school (and paying over 150k) to get a foot in that door...
(1) engineering degree - check
(2) 3 years of law school - 66% done (very thankful for various scholarships)
(3) foot in that door - sort of... still just a lowly intern. we'll see.
Meh
People are dying in the world and these two companies spend millions protecting bouncy and rounded things.
Does Apple really think that people buy their products because the view bounces back at the end of the scroll?
I still believe Apple feels there customers are vapid and ignorant if the thing that drives them to buy an iPhone is the roundness of buttons or cute visual UI cues, or that customer cannot distinguish the difference between a Samsung or Apple because of it.
Neither of these are incredibly innovative features, hence why it can be repeated about a million times by a million people. I am tired of companies protecting the trivial and obvious.
Regardless of the outcome, both companies better donate millions to charity after this to shun the stink and relative vapidness of this lawsuit.
People are dying in the world and these two companies spend millions protecting bouncy and rounded things.
Does Apple really think that people buy their products because the view bounces back at the end of the scroll?
I still believe Apple feels there customers are vapid and ignorant if the thing that drives them to buy an iPhone is the roundness of buttons or cute visual UI cues, or that customer cannot distinguish the difference between a Samsung or Apple because of it.
Neither of these are incredibly innovative features, hence why it can be repeated about a million times by a million people. I am tired of companies protecting the trivial and obvious.
Regardless of the outcome, both companies better donate millions to charity after this to shun the stink and relative vapidness of this lawsuit.
Good luck with the "insert state here" bar and the patent bar.
Studying for the bar is basically the worst summer ever. You and everyone you know will take up unbelievably higher levels of alcohol consumption on a regular basis.
I seriously don't know why you are mocking this by putting quotes around innovation. Many other software features either have some form of prior art or are obvious from a normal software advancement perspective. As minor as rubber-banding sounds, it's a feature that I can't say I ever saw even a hint of on any other device or software title before the iPhone. Further, I can't say it is remotely obvious.
I truly think anyone mocking rubber-banding is either a hater or just has no experience developing software to realize how un-obvious and innovative it truly was.
This does not change the fact that it can still be invalidated in court and Apple will be fighting that one as well and honestly I am not a big fan of rubber banding. I like the way Android does thing by just having a slight color changing being pulled down. The bouncing screen always bothered me.
----------
Just going to point out the rubber banding was not Android but Samsung only using it. HTC using closer to stock android.
----------
Just going to point out the rubber banding was not Android but Samsung only using it. HTC using closer to stock android.
Simply because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's false.
Jack, if you're interested in learning about how biological structure works, I suggest Donald Ingber's Scientific American article The Architecture of Life (1998). I recommend in particular the discussion about AK Harris on p. 3 of that article. Professor Ingber's 2006 published paper Cellular mechanotransduction: putting all the pieces together again is a dazzling description of how these structures are used as a signaling mechanism to express genes in all our cells. This is very new science (~20 years old), but there are hundreds of researchers and thousands of peer-reviewed published papers. Ingber is founding director of the Wyss Institute at Harvard.
You should also look at the free gorgeous picture book from the sculptor Kenneth Snelson: Art & Ideas. His floating compression artwork rocked the world in the 1970s; applications in aerospace, biomimetic robotics, and biology are slowly coming online. Look at Ingber's Serendipitous science lecture here: how a project in a sculpture class dramatically influenced his career as a biologist. It reminds me of a different person who took a Calligraphy class in school.
The viscoelastic behavior of these structures -- our structures -- is remarkable. I'm hardly surprised that Apple's designers picked up on this remarkable behavior of nature and imitated its viscoelastic behavior in the iOS design. Jobs told us that Apple is at the intersection of technology and the liberal arts. IMHO, the springy behavior of the UI is at ground zero of that intersection.
Please read up on that. If you have any other questions, you can PM me.
Last edited:
I say kill all software patents and replace them with Copyrights. If the CODE is the same than you can sue. You can use the same IDEAS but you have to write it with different CODING. Then you have things you can prove in court - less ambiguity, less lawsuits. You have to publish your code to get the copyright and then it is ike a copyright for a book or anything else published.
Totally wrong. What you _claim_ is Mike's view ("the law is the law and Apple deserves its protection") is _exactly_ what he didn't say. His argument is exactly right: If "Rubber Banding" was so insignificant, why did Samsung copy it? And seriously, how stupid is it to claim that Apple hasn't made significant investment in research and development creating iOS?
Quite obviously Samsung thought so, because otherwise they wouldn't have copied Apple, and they wouldn't have written a 130 page book comparing Samsung/Android and iOS features, noting where iOS was better, and tried to copy it. And reality is, people _do_ buy things because they look nice, or because they behave nice. In the case of iOS, the user interface looking nice is a substantial part of the value. With other products, "looking nice" would always be the deciding factor between two otherwise identical products.
Last edited: