Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Indeed. And when the patent office awards Google the patent for the notification bar, I'm guessing we will all be cheering for Google when they use the patent to sue apple for the notification center, right?

If that happens, Apple can decide how important that feature is to them and act accordingly i.e. license it, design around it, or scrap it altogether.

When I used an Android that feature was pretty useful due to how poorly Android deals with independent notifications (in my opinion).

On my iPhone, I very rarely use that feature at all. I wonder how many iOS users agree?

Just sayin'
 
No, it really doesn't. Samsung used the App Drawer in multiple advertisements and even some of the packaging/boxes apparently.

it seem Samsung is not totally stupid. They do occasionally try to change it just enough to not seem to infringe on others, like putting the applications in an "App Drawer"
 
No, apple got pwned by Bill Gates. They signed a peice of paper licensing all the Apple patents for every single version of windows ever made, they got burned in court when they tried to get out of it. Then apple refused to follow an MS business model, and thats why the Mac never took off.

Thats the one thing I don;t like about Bill Gates, he pretty much singlehandly made sure the mac would be a niche product, forever.

It wasn't anything near as obvious as that. The contract they signed was intended (by Apple) to cover Microsoft making software for the Mac. Microsoft, being a bit more business savvy at that point, ended up with a contract which was less specific than that. A court decided that, according to the wording of the contract, the license *wasn't* limited only to the creation of software for the Mac. As a result, Microsoft was free to develop Windows mimicking the look & feel and handling introduced in Mac OS.

(It still took them until 1995 to introduce an OS that actually *handled* as nicely as early Mac OS versions, but that's neither here nor there.)
 
FRAND patent holders aren't required to have cheap rates, though. Some of them are actually pretty high, starting at over 3% of each device's retail price for Qualcomm's IP.

(The trick is, the rate can drop to virtually zero if you cross license and/or buy their wares, which is what most companies do.)

The FRAND rates are to be no discriminating. Considering the only reason Qualcomm license was to provide it within their chips. This was the standard until Apple was more successful than the FRAND holders. This was when they wanted to change the rules and double dip. Even worse charge Apple considerably more.
 
Copying is really a very worst scenario especially when they caught. Be unique at least than doing such nonsense copying of rights.
 
Galaxy S3....what?

Image

Seems like a massive improvement, not a copy.

Quite right. When the S3 was announced, there were *several* articles (including reviews) which commented that Samsung seemed to have designed the S3 *specifically* not to infringe the patents which were already in suit regarding their previous designs.

Of course, this only proves that it *is* possible to do so without hindering the aesthetics or functionality of your design. Which, in turn, is proof that Apple's design patents aren't *essential* or *functional* designs. (Of course, the past 10 years of smart phones also proves that.)

----------

So... Will you all be cheering this much when Google successfully sues Apple for the notification center?

Did Google patent their design for the Android notification center?
Did they patent the functionality?

If not, they have nothing to sue over, and it's far too late at this point to apply for one.
 
The fact pinch and zoom as well as a grid payout with rounded icons can be patented this is completely nuts.

Excuse me while I patent the rear view mirror and sue any car maker that dare use it.

I dont see how samsung is supposed to get around pinch and zoom, its an essential component to a touch screen.

Simple: Two finger hold till a cross-hair circle appears scale out to what you want and then a single tap to instigate the action. If you cannot see that as a unique solution then too bad. It would be a smart control interface.
 
Complete nonsense, pinch to zoom is the most practical and logical method of employing zoom on a mobile device. The fact that it is something that is there is a patent for is scary. This entire case was nonsensical at best.

Yes, it is the most logical, given the existence of multi-touch displays, once you've seen it done.

Before that, user interfaces used +/- buttons, or a small representation of the full view with a panning rectangle in it that would control what portion of the zoomed in view you would see, or there was a fish-eye zoom right in the full view that could show more data. Many ways of accomplishing zoom, that were not pinch to zoom.

Users are notoriously afraid to try right clicking, or any other kind of interaction that's unguided, since they're afraid to mess things up. So hardware zoom buttons, or on-screen zoom buttons were more user friendly.Think of how many digital cameras use the lens zoom controls for zooming in and out, and the menu arrow buttons for panning the zoom. The same thing in DVD players.

But once Apple aired TV commercials, and had animations on their website, showing pinch to zoom on their devices, it became the obviously best way to go. Because it had been demonstrated in a mass fashion. Which cost them money. To say that a gesture is intuitive, is really circular reasoning, because you have to accept that gestures at all are intuitive, which they're not, because people don't want to randomly touch at something on the screen. They either won't think to, or are worried of ill effects. Just the other day so many people thought that picture downloading in the Facebook app wasn't available, but you had to touch and continue holding. In retrospect, maybe an obvious gesture, but not initially.

Never mind the technical issues of implementing multi-touch gestures. How does the system differentiate between a touch to click a link, and a touch to pan the view, or a touch that highlights text to copy? How does it differentiate between two clicks and two fingers touching the display, given that you'll never touch both fingers at exactly the same time. All of these things require thought, experimentation, and tuning. Just because it's easy for your finger to pinch to zoom doesn't mean it's trivial for the system to handle that occurence, which is likely how you developed the misconception of triviality.

It would be nice, as a consumer and tech user, for all ideas to enter into the commons, and the best ideas disseminate as rapidly as possible. But it takes many man-years to make complex software systems now a days, and hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs to globally launch these hardware devices, with the logistics of part procurement, assembly, shipping, stocking, marketing, etc., so I can see why device manufacturers need patents. It's a balancing act between different stake holders getting what they need, to continue to survive.
 
What? 10% of an absolutely massive market. Their practical ownership of the luxury high end segment of said market? Hundreds of millions of Macs sold worldwide? A solid, loyal, if not occasionally slightly rabid fanbase? Yeah. My heart weeps for poor ever abused Apple.

Apple went into near bankruptcy in the 90's due to gross mismanagement in the post pre Jobs era, not because someone else stole all their ideas.
I have to disagree with you here. Much of their demise came from mismanagement that allowed their ideas to be stolen. The reason they rarely license anything is because of a license deal with Microsoft use Apple tech to design Software for the Mac. This one poorly written license caused them to loose their case against Microsoft and allowed windows 95 to be released using apples designs. This is the only reason we are having this conversation now.
 
Apple's licensing rates for Samsung were revealed in the trial: $30 per phone and $40 per tablet, with possible discounts:

The Apple example that amazed everyone was their claim to a royalty of $6 ($30 x 80% discount) even if Samsung made a non-touch Windows phone:

FRAND patent holders aren't required to have cheap rates, though. Some of them are actually pretty high, starting at over 3% of each device's retail price for Qualcomm's IP.

(The trick is, the rate can drop to virtually zero if you cross license and/or buy their wares, which is what most companies do.)

$30 or $40 may sound like a lot, but were talking about devices that sell for hundreds of dollars, and Apple has a number of patents involved. The phones are cheaper because they are subsidized, but the phone carrier is paying most of the upfront cost.

Another thing that people tend to overlook is that Samsung produces many of the parts that make up their phones and tablets, so their build costs are much lower than their competitors. They also were privy to Apple's designs, so they didn't have to spend that much money on the R&D side. The work was done for them. They didn't create the operating system either. Google did that work for them (after they again largely copied Apple's OS).

Apple invested a lot more money in creating the iPhone and the iPad than Samsung ever did for their knockoff products. If it's expensive for Samsung to produce their "me too" products, then that's too damn bad. Maybe, they should've tried creating something new, like Apple did.
 
Jeff Han's Ted talk back in 2006 which would seem to invalidate the patent "pinch-to-zoom." It's funny to listen to the crowd react to multi-touch gestures...they were blown away. I believe this was presented at trial as indication of prior art, but I could be wrong.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jef...uchscreen.html

A TED Talk from 2006, is very unlikely to be prior art to something patented in a device which was first announced/released in early 2007. The patent was likely already filed when that TED Talk was done. (I don't have the dates handy to be sure about the timelines involved here, but there is a 1-year grace period in which a patent can be filed after the inventor first releases/displays the to-be-patented invention.) Now, the technology shown in the TED Talk might still be prior art, but since a patent (ostensibly) covers an *implementation*, it's entirely possible that the tech in question is a different implementation, which would allow *both* of the methods to be patented, independently of one another.
 
I honestly wonder if half the people commenting here have even followed the trial.
If you were Mr. Dyson of Dyson vacuums and you spent millions of dollars and months or years of research inventing a fan that doesn't have blades like traditional fans, you produced it, patented it, and you marketed it, then 6 months later someone else came out with the same type of invention basically, how would you feel personally? You would be p***ed that someone stole your idea.
Until Apple started using touch screens, pinch and zoom etc. on a smart phone, no one else had really tried it. They all used styluses or arrow keys to navigate through menus of options. Apple thought of a better idea, the public liked it, and now everyone wants to imitate it. that's flattering, but if it was your idea would you be happy if someone else was copying it and making money off your ideas?

RIM does it differently, MS does it differently, Palm did it differently, not all suceeded but..., why can't Samsung? I think this suit is great for competition, perhaps not so much in the short term, but in the long term it makes people come up with their own ideas, maybe even better ones.
Look at car engines the last few years. There is far more innovation with companies trying different ideas for improving fuel economy than there has probably ever been before. Now we have all kinds of super chargers, gas hybrids, flex fuel engines, electrics....companies are being forced to look for new and better ideas, and it may take a while, but it is working.
 
I wouldn't call them a well informed jury. They had no touch development experience, and they didn't ask any questions about the patent.

Heck, those jurors knew far less than many regulars in this forum do, since the latter have been debating these topics for the past five years.

The jury knows a little more then you think they do. One holds a patent himself, who I believe is also an engineer.
 
[/QUOTE] There is far more innovation with companies trying different ideas for improving fuel economy than there has probably ever been before. Now we have all kinds of super chargers, gas hybrids, flex fuel engines, electrics....companies are being forced to look for new and better ideas, and it may take a while, but it is working.[/QUOTE]

We people are used of change. Therefore, everyone must innovate. Innovation must our life easier. I am sure you are happy with some of the new inventions we have now.
 
take that ss

it's about time the bully (Samsung) gets a taste of pain.. haha.. I hate Samsung.. I am not apple fan but I hate how Samsung flood every markets to kill off competitor.. I am glad apple stood ground and pounce ss..

I hope apple will depend less on ss for its components..and then we will see ss stock tanks.. haha
 
All i know is if the product is **** apple wouldnt bother, so props to samsung for making it better ;)
 
Like I saw on the page 1 of the comments, I'm curious what alternatives we'll see for pinch and zoom. Double tap not claimed by anyone?
 
it's about time the bully (Samsung) gets a taste of pain.. haha.. I hate Samsung.. I am not apple fan but I hate how Samsung flood every markets to kill off competitor.. I am glad apple stood ground and pounce ss..

I hope apple will depend less on ss for its components..and then we will see ss stock tanks.. haha

Samsung kills competitors ?? :eek: is it there fault people like to buy samsung ? :)
 
Like I saw on the page 1 of the comments, I'm curious what alternatives we'll see for pinch and zoom. Double tap not claimed by anyone?

Never used double tap on my iphone (only when i got my first wich i didnt know i had to pinch for zoom lol) maybe tap and hold go up and down to zoom ?
 
For those talking about Kool-Aid . . . .

Image

You know what happens next . . . .

Image

You make news . . . .

Image

:D

Technically, that wasn't Kool-Aid, that was Flavor-Aid. Similar, but not the same thing.

And Flavor-Aid was distinct enough to not fall afoul of trademark/trade dress issues. (Just to bring it back on topic a bit :D)
 
Damn near all the patents Apple got are frivolous. Its disgusting seeing how they got patents on such loose and obvious pseudo technologies, the whole system is broken.

This isnt bad for just Samsung, its bad for the consumer as well.

Its disgusting to see people who have literally created nothing in their life say that the patent system is broken.

Invest all of your money and years of your life into an invention and patent it and then get back to me. I sure bet that if you did invest time/money and had a patent you would do anything to protect your patent.

What is disgusting is this idea that any innovation belongs to the public. Money for R&D comes form somewhere, not the public. The current patent system is what has made America the most innovative country this planet has ever seen.

I also find it laughable when people like you claim this hurts the consumer. In reality when people/companies are forced find new ways to do things, its spurs innovation when and helps the consumer.
 
Microsoft did the same. They went after Android manufacturer. The reason they can't go after Google directly because Android is open source and free.

Actually, the reason they (and Microsoft) haven't gone directly after Google for Android is because many (most? all?) of these patents require hardware. Google (up until their Motorola purchase) couldn't infringe these patents because they didn't sell the hardware part of the patented technologies. Samsung, etc., as a by product of supplying Android-based smartphones (the combined hardware and software) are capable of infringing these patents.

If my patent requires multiple parts, I can't sue someone for infringing it if they don't practice all of those multiple required parts. I *can* sue a customer of theirs who combines their product with another one, which (in total) *does* practice all of those required parts.

It is possible for a patent by party A to be infringed by a product from party B despite the fact that it is just a combination of products C & D from other parties. It is also possible for those same products C & D to *not* infringe the patent when not combined in the infringing manner.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.