Let Us Rejoice
- Thread starter johnnyfr03
- Start date
This makes the top 10 of my "craziest things I've read on the internet" list. Thanks!
Pinch to zoom wasn't there until someone thought of the idea. I'm sure there must be other alternatives that just haven't been thought of yet. Some ideas are actually revolutionary not evolutionary.No idea but lets put it this way I can't see pinch to zoom being taken out anytime soon. Plus we are safe the ruling was an american ruling much like the global search one a UK judge has already found in favour of Samsung in this country
Rev2010
Well-known member
I'm not worried about it at all. The money won't affect Samsung and their going to appeal it anyway. An appeal will also put the breaks on any possible product bans. by the time this whole thing is really settled all those products will be outdated obsolete models. It bugs me that certain moronic media outlets keep reporting this as a blow or damaging to "Android", it's not... it's a blow to Samsung. And the whole Steve Jobs thermonuclear on Android because "it's a stolen product" is a total load of horse(youknowhat). Android is based on Linux, an OS Apple eventually switched to themselves and was developed by Linus Torvalds, it's not stolen from Apple.
Anyhow, all that aside the problem with all this is our ancient and broken patent legal system. The current legal infrastructure is outdated and does not have all the new technologies taken into account yet so they often don't know how to approach certain issues that arise. I work at a law firm and the lawyers themselves told me this and explained it. They are lawyers, not techs, and every time they take on a tech related case they have to literally learn what it is, how it works, what the dispute is, etc. But what needs to happen, and I think it eventually will, is a stop needs to be put on patenting simple concepts - like a rectangular phone, pinch to zoom, a green phone call button, etc. That is pure nonsense. Let's take pinch to zoom... I agree that can patent the technology underneath it, in this case capacitive touchscreen technology, but after that how can you dictate in which ways I am allowed to move my fingers on the screen?? That is plain ridiculousness and the only way they are getting away with it is buying it by paying lawyers big bucks, threatening smaller companies with bankruptcy (since they would have to pay their own legal fees to fight the bully), etc.
Colors and icons, it's absurd to argue infringement on these things unless they are copying too closely your trademark - like another burger joint using the same colors and similar design in their name as McDonalds. But can you patent the shape of a burger??? Or the bun?? Or "ours has sesame seeds!"? No, of course not. it has to stop, and it has to stop soon.
What scares me though is the lawyers don't want it to stop and as a matter of fact want it even more complicated. The more complex and absurd the legal system is the more they are called upon for their services and the bigger their paychecks become. Doing away with frivolity will lose them a ton of money. In London for example, if someone sues another and loses they are required to pay the winner's legal fees. That makes people/companies think twice about suing unless they really know they have a strong case. Do we do that here? No. You have to either ask the judge to grant legal fee reimbursement or sue to recoup the fees and if I recall that is very difficult to do and certain exceptions have to be met.
Rev.
Anyhow, all that aside the problem with all this is our ancient and broken patent legal system. The current legal infrastructure is outdated and does not have all the new technologies taken into account yet so they often don't know how to approach certain issues that arise. I work at a law firm and the lawyers themselves told me this and explained it. They are lawyers, not techs, and every time they take on a tech related case they have to literally learn what it is, how it works, what the dispute is, etc. But what needs to happen, and I think it eventually will, is a stop needs to be put on patenting simple concepts - like a rectangular phone, pinch to zoom, a green phone call button, etc. That is pure nonsense. Let's take pinch to zoom... I agree that can patent the technology underneath it, in this case capacitive touchscreen technology, but after that how can you dictate in which ways I am allowed to move my fingers on the screen?? That is plain ridiculousness and the only way they are getting away with it is buying it by paying lawyers big bucks, threatening smaller companies with bankruptcy (since they would have to pay their own legal fees to fight the bully), etc.
Colors and icons, it's absurd to argue infringement on these things unless they are copying too closely your trademark - like another burger joint using the same colors and similar design in their name as McDonalds. But can you patent the shape of a burger??? Or the bun?? Or "ours has sesame seeds!"? No, of course not. it has to stop, and it has to stop soon.
What scares me though is the lawyers don't want it to stop and as a matter of fact want it even more complicated. The more complex and absurd the legal system is the more they are called upon for their services and the bigger their paychecks become. Doing away with frivolity will lose them a ton of money. In London for example, if someone sues another and loses they are required to pay the winner's legal fees. That makes people/companies think twice about suing unless they really know they have a strong case. Do we do that here? No. You have to either ask the judge to grant legal fee reimbursement or sue to recoup the fees and if I recall that is very difficult to do and certain exceptions have to be met.
Rev.
Last edited:
Actually iOS and OSX are built on Unix, not Linux. But I agree with most of your points, Android is definitely not "stolen" from iOS. And I don't think this threatens base-Android much at all. This is really Samsung specific, and as I've said before I think Samsung deserves a smack in the face for what they did. That said, I'm not at all a fan of the current patent system with regard to software and I do think it needs some overhauling. (I don't think it should be completely abolished, but there are currently waaaay too many patents that shouldn't exist)
Rev2010
Well-known member
JHBThree
Well-known member
If pinch to zoom and double tap are so obvious, then why did no phones use it prior to the iPhone, but all smartphones use it after?
Not debating the validity of the patent, more questioning the fact that you are casting pinch to zoom as 'the most basic way to zoom in' when it didn't even exist in the mobile realm (and sparsely elsewhere) prior to the iPhone. While something may seem obvious now, prior to 2007 concepts like pinch to zoom were unheard of.
I don't even like lunch to zoom that much. It takes more than one hand for the average user so that sucks... I rather zoom in by holding an area and moving my thumb clock wise to zoom in father and father and counter clock wise for zooming out
What it comes down to is the broken US patent system. It seems there are no checks and balances in place to assure that a company can't take a concept from someone else, find a different way to apply it, and then get a patent on it. Some of the patents granted to Apple are on prior art, and so loosely worded and broad, that by the time a company comes up with a new innovation, someone at Apple is going to look at it and say, yep it infringes on patent X, so let's sue and get it banned. I read on another site, I believe it was a law revue site, that laid out several points that gives Samsung ammo in it's appeals. Also from what I have read there is also going to be or already is an investigation at the patent office on the patents in question, plus I have heard anti-trust and Apple being mentioned.
JHBThree
Well-known member
Groklaw is not exactly reputable.
Also, your entire post doesn't really have anything to do with this situation unless you've been reading too many android blogs.
Rev2010
Well-known member
Probably because they weren't yet using multi-touch capable capacitive screens
- something Apple didn't even invent. Rev.
JHBThree
Well-known member
Probably because they weren't yet using multi-touch capable capacitive screens
Rev.
And? If it was so obvious, manufacturers would have found a way. Multitouch resistive screens exist, and yet no manufacturer implemented anything resembling pinch to zoom.
Also, no one is claiming apple invented capacitive screens, so throwing out that little barb does nothing to help your argument.
dmmarck
Retired Moderator
GrooveRite
Well-known member
dmmarck
Retired Moderator
lol....you're the moderator right!!?!....so moderate!!! lol
I stay in my neck of the woods
Sent from my Nexus 7
Not to much we can do about threads spawning concerning the Apple vs Samsung issue. As long as they stay on topic and civil discussion we will let them ride.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums
yeah i respect the mods on here, ive only had two warnings and they were justified.
im all for freedom of opinion and unless comments get personal, thesse kinds of disgussions are healthy. we all learn something even if some of us dont like to admit it
im all for freedom of opinion and unless comments get personal, thesse kinds of disgussions are healthy. we all learn something even if some of us dont like to admit it
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
Trending Posts
-
[Chatter] "Where everybody knows your name ..."
- Started by zero neck
- Replies: 53K
-
S24 pictures... show us how they look!- Started by Walter Wagenleithner
- Replies: 388
-
-
Question Google says I'm in South Africa but I'm not
- Started by pierre5463
- Replies: 1
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram