The jury rules based on the information presented. It was Samsung's job to preent these facts if they felt such invalidates Apples patent. If they didn't that is on them.
It didn't help that Koh refused to allow quite a bit of prior art, and evidence that Samsung had done similar designs, along with a time limit.
Here in the forum, we have the luxury of presenting any evidence without being cut off
On side note, the Tilt to Zoom feature found in some of the Galaxy phones is not a bad alternative but I feel is not as intuitive as Pinch to Zoom. Any thoughts?
HTC had a pretty intuitive version at one time: you drew a circle around the area you wanted to zoom! (Just like you would with a highlighter on a photo.) This allowed not only picking the center of the zoom area, but the size of your circle gave a rough zoom amount because the contained area expanded to fill the screen.
There is no difference between a software patent and a hardware patent.
The way they're being given out now, there's a huge difference.
Read any of Apple's software patents and you will often see no details on implementation in the claims, just general ideas.
Basically, the mechanical equivalent of patenting a black box that magically threshes wheat. Only the idea, no actual reproducible or inventive method.
patents on touchscreen gestures are truly not in the best interest of the consumer
This is the problem I have with locking down gestures to the first company that pays to patent them. A gesture is simply a vocabulary for working with a touchscreen.
It is not good for the consumer if every device had a different vocabulary.
It's like requiring cars to have pedals arranged differently, or even not be pedals at all in some vehicles. Sure, you'd come up with clever rearrangements, but that doesn't help the user, nor the industry in the long run. Users need to feel comfortable moving between devices, for them to adopt them.
