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.
Tim Cook Addresses Apple Employees After Lawsuit Victory
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of time, it's about parallel development and timing. They may have infringed on existing patents unknowingly. In the Korea case, the violations fit into this category. That's why the fines are low.
However the US case is different. They found Samsung infringe on these patents willfully. This means Samsung may have to pay 3 times the usual price.
Their management made a mistake trying to delete evidences, and trying to influence public opinion by distributing rejected evidences. They openly admitted to asking their employees to copy Apple's approaches, and trivializing the products to be just a rounded rectangle (so, it's ok to copy). That's what got them into the high price tag territory.
If Samsung truly think that they are innocent, would they do the above ?
Last edited:
i think your right seems 915 related to one finger scrolling , again its not pinch to zoom on its own which seems to be why others can use it freely , also a lot of prior art on the basic pinch to zoom
seems this is an add on that allows scrolling after the pinch part. mind you im no expert the patent docs aint the easiest to read
What is this vague patent you're talking about?
Apple awarded limited patent on pinch-to-zoom
Boom: Apple was just awarded a patent on pinch-to-zoom for multitouch displays. That's the first directly applicable patent we've seen on the gesture since we first started looking during the Apple / Palm war of words in January 2009, and it certainly gives Apple some potent ammunition against its competitors -- although there are some specific limitations on what Apple's been granted that will prove to be important. Let's break it down, shall we? Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006, and over the course of the patent process the claims have been significantly narrowed to cover a very specific set of actions:
- A multitouch display detects at least two contacts.
- Those contacts perform a first gesture.
- That gesture adjusts an image in some way: magnification, orientation and rotation are specifically claimed, but the patent is broad enough to cover virtually any adjustment.
- The first set of contacts is broken.
- A second set of contacts is detected.
- The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.
- The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.
- The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.
It's steps 5, 6, and 7 that are critically important here: Apple doesn't have a patent on "pinch-to-zoom" generally, but rather pinching to zoom, and then pinching to zoom again within some fixed period of time. How long that period lasts is totally up in the air, but it has to be defined somewhere -- this patent doesn't really apply unless there's a clock running and a second gesture takes place. Still, it's the first granted patent on the now-ubiquitous gesture we've seen, and based on its filing history it's essentially effective as of December 30, 2005 -- long before anything multitouch products with pinch to zoom had arrived on the market. That's no small weapon to bear -- we'll see what Apple does with it.
Why the Report Doesnt Prove Patent Infringement
1. Ideas would need to originate with Apple and be patented
2. Directions for improvement are vague
3. Recommendations to copy arent infringement if theyre rejected
The wildcard here is that the lawsuit is a jury trial. Apple needs only convince a jury in order to win the case. The Relative Evaluation Report is a powerful piece of evidence because it gives jurors a memorable visual image to accompany Apples slavishly copied claim. It gives Apple lawyers a thing to point to where they can say: See? This is the specific point at which Samsung decided to copy Apple.
The outcome of this case doesnt require Apple to prove infringement. It only requires Apple to convince a jury that infringement happened.
from http://www.datamation.com/mobile-wi...n-evidence-doesnt-prove-samsung-copied-1.html
Of course, Apple would never copy android...6 Ways Apple's iOS 5 Just Copied Android
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...ider.com/how-ios-5-copied-android-2011-6?op=1
1. Ideas would need to originate with Apple and be patented
2. Directions for improvement are vague
3. Recommendations to copy arent infringement if theyre rejected
The wildcard here is that the lawsuit is a jury trial. Apple needs only convince a jury in order to win the case. The Relative Evaluation Report is a powerful piece of evidence because it gives jurors a memorable visual image to accompany Apples slavishly copied claim. It gives Apple lawyers a thing to point to where they can say: See? This is the specific point at which Samsung decided to copy Apple.
The outcome of this case doesnt require Apple to prove infringement. It only requires Apple to convince a jury that infringement happened.
from http://www.datamation.com/mobile-wi...n-evidence-doesnt-prove-samsung-copied-1.html
Of course, Apple would never copy android...6 Ways Apple's iOS 5 Just Copied Android
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-...ider.com/how-ios-5-copied-android-2011-6?op=1
Last edited:
I'm pretty certain that the contract signed between the two companies has a set price already. At least, no company would be stupid enough to allow such price hikes for obvious reasons.
I recommend that when you criticize someone's grammar, you should be very careful not to make worse mistakes, like using a word that doesn't make any sense in that context.
I dont see any other companies able to deliver the components and volumes Apple requires - would you know any company? - I am curious to find out.
I'm sure there are other companies that can make the parts but there are other aspects to it. Do they have the infrastructure in place to supply the numbers now not in 6 months and can they maintain a level of quality. There probably a good reason apple have used Samsung all these years
If you look closely I was referencing a word from his previous sentence. Plus, it does make sense.
It would not change tomorrow, but that it would make future negotiations more difficult would be a very real scenario. Apple in the end can opt for an higher price for components from a different manufacturer and increase the price at the stores.
The consumer always loses in these matters ...
This is absolute nonsense.
I am asking you again to explain to me what innovation has Apple introduced in its "pinch to zoom" patent.
Well - this article is really vague and it doesn't name 'pinch to zoom' in any way.
Sheesh - I sincerely hope, Jeff Han is getting up a legal team. He and his team should at least earn some millions from the billion Apple receives.
Today my stock values have won and my broker listens
Seriously, going beyond that particular case software patents need reform.
HAHA don't make me laugh.
So first you pinch to zoom and then... you do it again!
GENIUS!
APPLE ARE GENIUS!
Apple are sooooooooooooo innovative!
Bless US and their patent system!
A highly responsive and robust pinch to zoom is that innovation.
It may be nonsense to you but for quite some time, Android is rather laggy when doing even simple swiping. Even their intern complained about it in a blog that got publicized.
Innovation doesn't have to be genius or grand. Apple is known for details. Naturally some of their patents would cover the small stuff. In fact, if you attend WWDC, they have evolved further. There are more advanced design patterns for detecting multiple, overlapping gestures now.
But Apple did not patent that! How many times do I need to tell you? They haven't patented a way of making it smooth. They simply patented the act of performing the pinch gesture. Do you understand?
First of all, not any more (actually, only phones from 2-3 years ago were quite laggy). Second of all, lag has nothing to do with the patent, as I've said a million times before.
----------
Innovation needs to be innovative (sic). How on Earth accepting another pinch gesture after some time is innovative? Can't you see that this is a blatant attempt to circumvent patent limitations? Nearly every time you will perform more than one pinch to zoom gesture.
See ? Small things are still noticeable and affect usability. I noticed it immediately and put the Android device down. Went for iPhone instead.
They patented a series of touch techniques, including pinch to zoom.
Actually, the earlier laggy pinch to zoom demo was like that. It's a single, asynchronous pinch to zoom gesture.
You may laugh at it now, but that was the one Samsung showed. It's different from user's perspective.
Apple's continuous tracking gestures require real-time tracking, which the earlier project can't keep up. The second, third, fourth, etc. continuous tracking allows a tighter and more robust experience.
Last edited:
if he's anything like me, it might be because Apple used to be still good (a la circa the mbp 5,2 times).
btw, pm about your i7 hackintosh? is it running SL? i'm looking for powerful desktop solutions to replace my MBP since apple is apparently gone down the drain with respect to their pc line :\ (thanks in advance!)
Are you trying to troll?
Tell me how is that related to patents?
PS. I've been using iPhones since iPhone 3G and I remember how laggy the first iPhone was compared to the latest phones. All phones have improved since then. I actually feel my Galaxy Nexus is smoother than my iPhone 4S after the JB update.
I answered the difference above in my edited post. There is a big difference in user experience between the previous pinch project and Apple's.
iPhone 3G is definitely less laggy than the Android at that time. The original iPhone may be even faster.
Apple has evolved their touch technique further. In the last WWDC, they could detect multiple overlapping gestures with a new design pattern now.