Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Way to simplify the description to serve your own argument.

Data Detectors are far more advanced that what you just described.

in what way?
[doublepost=1475866016][/doublepost]
Why? Samsung blatantly copied early iPhone designs which got them to where they are today. Eventually, they were a notorious enough competitor that they could make their own designs and brand. But the damage was already done. Those early ripoffs have cost Apple billions in lost revenue over the years.

Samsung copied utilities that have been around for a while (prior art), but Apple somehow got to re-patent them. It's no wonder that Apple had to drop all their lawsuits worldwide when the courts and judges all around world saw through Apple's absurd lawsuits -- of course, except Apple's own hometown judge/jury in CA.

Further, Apple lost its claim on "lost profit" during the first trial (eg, Apple had their supply issues to justify this). Do you have any new evidence that Apple's lawyers didn't have demonstrating that Samsung's copy resulted in Apple's "lost revenue"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
I haven't read the decision, but I'm willing to bet that they are issues that Judge Koh rejected to present to the jury because it would favor Samsung, as she had done in the first 2012 trial.

Then that would be something presented to the trial court and, thus, up for consideration on appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveN
I'm starting to feel that sympathy that I feel with Blackberry for Samsung...

I don't feel bad for them and I've owned a lot of Samsung devices in my day. If anything this will give us better options for 2017 because Samsung will have to win a lot of customers back. The S8 may be a spectacular device because of these unfortunate events.
If this happened to the iPhone 6S I highly doubt Apple would have released the same design for the iPhone 7. Sometimes there needs to be a fire placed under butts to get things going.
 
Ever since TouchID, on both of my iPhone and iPad its a single press with a fingerprint-approved finger. Or a click with anything and then present a fingerprint approved finger for unlock.

One click. This was true before iOS 10 and remains true after iOS 10.

I see that the option to use slide-to-unlock is gone, but I don't understand why it would be considered more elegant. So you wake the phone by clicking something, then switch to swiping across the screen, then place your thumb on the TouchID sensor. I don't understand how that's more elegant than just placing your thumb on the TouchID sensor and clicking once.

I don't have to click multiple times. If you do, something is wrong.
You are sliding it wrong (or without need in this case) No need to "slide to unlock" if you are going to press the touchID. So that unneeded step adds to your point but isnt reality :). I agree tho with your last statement 100%. I think folks just like to complain when something is different whether its better or worse matters not, just the fact that its different is enough to complain.
 
Last edited:
Then that would be something presented to the trial court and, thus, up for consideration on appeal.

IIRC, the dispute over the datalink patent had all to do with the claim construction involving "analyzer server." Samsung was arguing that Judge Koh's claim construction was wrong, among many reasons, because she re-defined a claim construction already affirmed by a lower court case involving Motorola.

Samsung fought against this before the first trial (or during their pre-trial), but Judge Koh, known for her penchant for all things Apple, accepted Apple's claim construction and denied Samsung's motion for JMOL -- to dismiss Apple's claim even before it goes to the jury because it doesn't describe how Samsung's datalink works. As with the first case, Judge Koh heavily leaned on Apple's claim construction, expert witnesses, and refused Samsung's. That was why Samsung appealed and won. And now, it seems the federal circuits re-reversed that ruling because, the Moto case was still on-going at the same time, and I'm guessing they felt that the Moto decision was out of scope. I guess I'd have to read the decision to understand what's going on.

Now, I thought the slide-to-unlock patent was invalidated.. Why are we still talking about that garbage patent?
 
Last edited:
Seems they can just drop the lawsuit now since Apple doesn't want/like the "slide to unlock" feature now. Let someone else have it.
 
And then apple kills slide to unlock. RIP beautiful UX design.
Wonder if anyone owns a patent for press to unlock? I'm sure some troll out there has it or can come out with some prior art and sue everyone.
 
Holy cow these lawsuits. They just keep going, and going, and going, and...
Like the Eveready bunny :D

$_35.JPG
 
That's funny because I haven't used the "elegant design" since the 5S was released. I've always used one button press to unlock with my fingerprint. It's quick and secure.

ORLY? i've never used a button press to unlock. just a fingerprint resting on the home button. the button press was an added annoyance in iOS 10 (which, surprisingly, Apple lets you turn off)
 
  • Like
Reactions: spinnyd
ORLY? i've never used a button press to unlock. just a fingerprint resting on the home button. the button press was an added annoyance in iOS 10 (which, surprisingly, Apple lets you turn off)
If phone isnt awake you had to press. Resting only worked once awake

Slide to unlock? That sounds like a cool feature. I wish iOS 10 would copy it.
It would but iOS 9 would sue iOS 10 for copy and infringement. Maybe "Slide & Unlock" would work?? Unless Bobby from Podunk already patented that years ago too.
 
I don't have to click multiple times. If you do, something is wrong.
I didn't start using Touch ID until not too long before iOS 10 came out. So it's almost like I'm getting used to the combo together with no middle transition.

That said, you don't click multiple times? Huh. I believe you that there must be some proper way to do it that I just haven't figured out yet. Swipe was really easy and intuitive. Both my children figured out swipe-to-unlock before they were 2 years old. Sometimes it's as easy as click-and-hold. But other times that doesn't work, and I end up clicking and holding and clicking to finally get it to go.
 
I didn't start using Touch ID until not too long before iOS 10 came out. So it's almost like I'm getting used to the combo together with no middle transition.

That said, you don't click multiple times? Huh. I believe you that there must be some proper way to do it that I just haven't figured out yet. Swipe was really easy and intuitive. Both my children figured out swipe-to-unlock before they were 2 years old. Sometimes it's as easy as click-and-hold. But other times that doesn't work, and I end up clicking and holding and clicking to finally get it to go.

Hmmmm, for me it is click and wait 1/4 second to unlock. Maybe people are lifting off right after the click before TouchID is finished, so they are clicking multiple times but some times not long enough for TouchID, making it appear inconsistent. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.

If I do two clicks it's onto Apple Pay.

If I do three clicks, the screen inverts color.
 
Way to simplify the description to serve your own argument.

Data Detectors are far more advanced that what you just described.

Nope, they're not. Here's the core of the Apple patent: "an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures; a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure"

In other words, something to spot patterns, something to show that a pattern has been found (like an underline), and an action to do when chosen. Wanna tell us what is so advanced about that?

IIRC, the dispute over the datalink patent had all to do with the claim construction involving "analyzer server." Samsung was arguing that Judge Koh's claim construction was wrong, among many reasons, because she re-defined a claim construction already affirmed by a lower court case involving Motorola.

Yep, the whole idea of infringement hinged only on one thing: whether the "analyzer server" is a separate process or not.

Samsung says it's simply using an API library, therefore it is not a separate server. Apple claimed that the sheer fact that the API code sits in separate memory from the application code, makes it a "server".

The original appeals court panel agreed with Samsung that their definition made sense. The latest full set of judges said who cares, the panel shouldn't have looked up server definitions, but instead simply relied on what had been presented to the jury.

This is not only a poster child for why we should not let non-programmers decide a programming question, it's an example of letting legalities overcome common sense.

As the ruling majority put it, they simply wanted to keep the status quo and not come up with any new rules or ideas:

"We did not take this case en banc to decide important
legal questions
about the inner workings of the
law of obviousness. We have applied existing obviousness
law to the facts of this case. We took this case en banc to
affirm our understanding of our appellate function, to
apply the governing law, and to maintain
our fidelity to
the Supreme Court’s Teva decision.
" (Teva said to
only use the definition of the time. Which is meaningless
here, as even at the time of the patent, programmers
knew that APIs are not servers.)

The other three dissenting judges ripped the majority judges for going en banc for the first time in 26 years, yet totally 1) failing to ask for outside opinions, even from the USPTO, and 2) failing to even try to further define the question of obviousness.

Now, I thought the slide-to-unlock patent was invalidated.. Why are we still talking about that garbage patent?

The dissenting judges brought up the fact that the patent had been invalidated all around the world. The majority didn't care.

Instead, what they concentrated on was the fact that while the Neonode slide-to-unlock was indeed on a phone, the other half of the prior art Koh had allowed was a virtual sliding switch for a wall touchscreen control. Therefore they agreed with the argument that it wasn't valid prior art for a phone.

The dissenting judges brought up precedent that said the important factor was not the different application field, but that it was a UI problem common to both.

Here's the CAFC decision and the dissent at its end.
 
Last edited:
Kinda. Imagine if the car was invented now ..... it would demonstrate how flawed the patent system is when something like a window or wheel and use cases behind it is owned by only one company.

Im just glad desktop and laptops designs were already matured before these patent wars began between major IT companies .
Once Apple Car is out, Apple will sue every car manufacturer for the steering wheel after patenting it, or may be for blinker switch. I am glad Apple is going into ******** slowly with all these stupid bad karmas
 
Nope, they're not. Here's the core of the Apple patent: "an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures; a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure"

In other words, something to spot patterns, something to show that a pattern has been found (like an underline), and an action to place when chosen. Wanna tell us what is so advanced about that?



Yep, the whole idea of infringement hinged only on one thing: whether the "analyzer server" is a separate process or not.

Samsung says it's simply using an API library, therefore it is not a separate server. Apple claimed that the sheer fact that the API code sits in separate memory from the application code, makes it a "server".

The original appeals court panel agreed with Samsung that their definition made sense. The latest full set of judges said who cares, the panel shouldn't have looked up server definitions, but instead simply relied on what had been presented to the jury.

This is not only a poster child for why we should not let non-programmers decide a programming question, it's an example of letting legalities overcome common sense.

But then, as the ruling majority put it, they simply wanted to keep the status quo and not come up with any new rules or ideas:

"We did not take this case en banc to decide important
legal questions about the inner workings of the
law of obviousness. We have applied existing obviousness
law to the facts of this case. We took this case en banc to
affirm our understanding of our appellate function, to
apply the governing law, and to maintain
our fidelity to
the Supreme Court’s Teva decision.
" (Teva said to
only use the definition of the time. Which is meaningless
here, as even at the time of the patent, programmers
knew that APIs are not servers.)

The other three dissenting judges ripped the majority judges for going en banc for the first time in 26 years, yet totally 1) failing to ask for outside opinions, even from the USPTO, and 2) failing to even try to further define the question of obviousness.



The dissenting judges brought up the fact that the patent had been invalidated all around the world. The majority didn't care. Instead, what they concentrated on was the fact that while the Neonode slide-to-unlock was indeed on a phone, the other half of the prior art Koh had allowed was a virtual sliding switch for a wall touchscreen control. Therefore it wasn't valid prior art for a phone.

The dissenting judges brought up precedent that the important factor was not what field, but that it was a UI problem common to both.

Here's the CAFC decision and the dissent at its end.


just reading through the first 20 pages of their decision. It seems like the CAFC really embraced the view that "shared library" and RPCs are one and the same. That's really stretching a bit..
 
in what way?
[doublepost=1475866016][/doublepost]

Samsung copied utilities that have been around for a while (prior art), but Apple somehow got to re-patent them. It's no wonder that Apple had to drop all their lawsuits worldwide when the courts and judges all around world saw through Apple's absurd lawsuits -- of course, except Apple's own hometown judge/jury in CA.

Further, Apple lost its claim on "lost profit" during the first trial (eg, Apple had their supply issues to justify this). Do you have any new evidence that Apple's lawyers didn't have suggesting that Samsung's copy resulted in Apple's "lost revenue"?

I know "anecdotes" aren't evidence, but having worked in cellular sales from 2011-2015, I can tell you that literally DOZENS AND DOZENS of times I've had some sweet old lady (or man... or middle aged of either, actually) come in; drop a cheap-ass Galaxy Tab on the counter & ask: "how do I do that FaceTime thingy with my grandkids, here on my iPad??" or when I'm describing a cool new iPhone feature to them they say "Oooh, I've owned my iPhone for a while- I don't think it does that though!"... I ask them what model they have & they take out an old Galaxy S.
So.... I couldn't possibly extrapolate that out with a degree of accuracy, but an incredibly modest guess would put many tens of thousands of consumers believing they own an iPhone or iPad when they do not.
 
Apple's data detectors have been around for a long time. It's pattern matching, but more. Remember, this is from 1996.

It's pattern matching plus a built-in action link. That's basically it.

Recognizing common data such as phone numbers was a popular thing to do in DB programs from at least the 80s.

Ditto for apps. Windows CardFile did it in something like 1987. Lotus Agenda did it in 1992.

Ironically, a few years before Apple's 647 patent was filed in 1996, one of Apple's own programmers had patented a similar idea ... which was promptly forgotten at Apple... and that almost caused the newer one to be invalidated because of prior art!

--

It all once again points out the problem with most software patents: developers all over the world constantly and independently invent the same solutions.

Perhaps those who think that software patents should be treated partly like creative copyrights are correct. That is, that proof of independent invention should be a valid defense against infringement or at least infringement awards. Same as the way music writers can defend themselves because of independent invention of a riff.

This would hugely benefit companies like Apple, too, since they mostly get nailed with unknowingly infringing patents that trolls dig up.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.