Ridiculous verdict in Apple/Samsung case

[andribble]

Apple doesn't have a patent on pinch to zoom.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

??? Then what went on in the media about this trial?
According to the New-York Times of 8/25/12, --they are known to check their sources carefully--, the jury was asked:
"
Did Samsung infringe on Apple patents with at least one phone and tablet?
Software:
- Bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image? -- YES.
- Scrolling; pinching and zooming? -- YES.
Tap-to-zoom and center? -- YES.
"

 

[b0bbert]

So its not even "pinch to zoom". Its spread to zoom and pinch to reverse. Just sayin. I guess one could argue that you're still zooming in or out.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums

 

[Rominucka]

Somebody said something about the price of the iPhone doesn't matter because the subsidized price makes it the same as most of the rest?....wrong!
IPhones cost people more on average because the insurance, repair and replacement prices are much more than most, if not all, Android phones...AND they break a lot easier and more frequently than most Androids. And god forbid you have to buy one off contract.

Also they screw 3rd party, small business retailers because the cost of the unit eats up most of the profit. I'm pretty sure it also hurts the corporate stores too.

Sent from my Samsung Droid Charge 4G-LTE

 

[Ry]

??? Then what went on in the media about this trial?
According to the New-York Times of 8/25/12, --they are known to check their sources carefully--, the jury was asked:
"
Did Samsung infringe on Apple patents with at least one phone and tablet?
Software:
- Bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image? -- YES.
- Scrolling; pinching and zooming? -- YES.
Tap-to-zoom and center? -- YES.
"

Those patents are specific about where and when those features are available.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[badbrad17]

Somebody said something about the price of the iPhone doesn't matter because the subsidized price makes it the same as most of the rest?....wrong!
IPhones cost people more on average because the insurance, repair and replacement prices are much more than most, if not all, Android phones...AND they break a lot easier and more frequently than most Androids. And god forbid you have to buy one off contract.

Also they screw 3rd party, small business retailers because the cost of the unit eats up most of the profit. I'm pretty sure it also hurts the corporate stores too.

Sent from my Samsung Droid Charge 4G-LTE

Especially considering that the iPhone 4s is considered old technology yet it sells for more than the newest android phones with much faster hardware. I agree that the amount isn't huge. But in Canada you typically see the iPhone going for around $150 on a 3 year contract vs the Samsung GS3 that is free. It is changing now with the iPhone 5 coming out as I believe there are some resellers offering the iPhone for less, but anyone buying the 4s right now would be really dumb without at least seeing what the 5 offers. IMO.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Android Central Forums

 

[jova33]

2x as many android devices are out there than Apple. With Apple you're paying more for the name than the product

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

??? Then what went on in the media about this trial?
According to the New-York Times of 8/25/12, --they are known to check their sources carefully--, the jury was asked:
"
Did Samsung infringe on Apple patents with at least one phone and tablet?
Software:
- Bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image? -- YES.
- Scrolling; pinching and zooming? -- YES.
Tap-to-zoom and center? -- YES.
"

Apple DOES NOT have a patent on pinch to zoom. The Verge has a great story on how the media got their reporting wrong during the trial, and gave apple a patent for pinch to zoom that it doesn't even have.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dmmarck]

Apple DOES NOT have a patent on pinch to zoom. The Verge has a great story on how the media got their reporting wrong during the trial, and gave apple a patent for pinch to zoom that it doesn't even have.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Did the jury award them damages for it like whatever it was they did that for (yet there was no infringement)?

 

[Serial Fordicator]

http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sa...llion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cent-coins/

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy SIII

 

[JHBThree]

Did the jury award them damages for it like whatever it was they did that for (yet there was no infringement)?

How could they award damages for a patent they don't have and didn't sue over?

The patent people get confused about is one that covers a device determining between multi touch and non-multitouch input and how the devices respond. Specific example they gave is with one finger scrolling and other gestures.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[gollum18]

http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sa...llion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cent-coins/

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy SIII

That is absolutely hilarious.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ry]

Apple DOES NOT have a patent on pinch to zoom. The Verge has a great story on how the media got their reporting wrong during the trial, and gave apple a patent for pinch to zoom that it doesn't even have.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

For the record: http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[the gator]

I think some of the jurors were from the OJ trial and the rest were from the Casey Anthony trial.

 

[andribble]

For the record: The myth of pinch-to-zoom: how a confused media gave Apple something it doesn't own | The Verge


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

"A machine readable storage medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a method comprising:
receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing system;
creating an event object in response to the user input;
determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;
issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation;
responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object; and
responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input."

That is confused legalese for saying that if only one finger has moved on the screen, the program sends a scroll event for the displayed object, and if two or more fingers have moved, the program sends a scale, i.e. zoom, event for the said object.
That is, MOVE MORE THAN ONE FINGER --which includes PINCH/UNPINCH with thumb and index, which are the most likely fingers to move-- to ZOOM out/in.

It's actually more than pinch to zoom. If I write a program that uses any more than one finger to scale (zoom) an object, I'll be infringing.

 

[JHBThree]

"A machine readable storage medium storing executable program instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a method comprising:
receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing system;
creating an event object in response to the user input;
determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;
issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation;
responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object; and
responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input."

That is confused legalese for saying that if only one finger has moved on the screen, the program sends a scroll event for the displayed object, and if two or more fingers have moved, the program sends a scale, i.e. zoom, event for the said object.
That is, MOVE MORE THAN ONE FINGER --which includes PINCH/UNPINCH with thumb and index, which are the most likely fingers to move-- to ZOOM out/in.

It's actually more than pinch to zoom. If I write a program that uses any more than one finger to scale (zoom) an object, I'll be infringing.

Sorry, I'll trust the judgement of an actual patent attorney (Nilay Patel) over yours any day.

That patent is not for pinch to zoom. What it describes is software and hardware that detects whether there are one or two inputs on a screen, and the events that should follow those inputs. Nowhere does it describe a pinch to zoom gesture, and nowhere does it give ANY indication of the gesture that would be performed. For all we know, the gesture could be tapping with two fingers on screen. It is ambiguous precisely because this patent is not about the gesture itself. Apple did not sue, and has not sued, any android manufacturer over pinch to zoom.

I'm really not sure why you're still arguing that that patent is pinch to zoom, when that notion has been so thoroughly debunked by others more qualified than anyone here (including you).

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

And if you're still confused, here's the link to the verge article (again) so you can understand why you're wrong.

mobile.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

And if you're still confused, here's the link to the verge article (again) so you can understand why you're wrong.

mobile.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Lol, that article makes you look kind of wrong, actually.

That's exactly what Samsung went after in front of the jury ? they tried to show their accused devices scrolling with two fingers on the screen. Two finger scrolling is beyond the claims of the '915 patent, so any device that implements it likely doesn't infringe. (Unfortunately for Samsung, the lawyers got caught in a bit of deception while trying to show off two-finger scrolling ? they were pinching and zooming at the same time. Oops.)

According to Google, "Apple claims a very specific software implementation, and the implementation is different and has been changed in Jelly Bean."

That makes it very clear that non 2 finger scrolling on pre Jelly Bean Android phones is infringement. That means that Apple has patented something that apparently 99 percent of Android phones use. Apple did patent pinch to zoom and the only way to avoid infringing is to come up with elaborate workarounds that are not technically pinch to zoom.



Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Lol, that article makes you look kind of wrong, actually.



That makes it very clear that non 2 finger scrolling on pre Jelly Bean Android phones is infringement. That means that Apple has patented something that apparently 99 percent of Android phones use. Apple did patent pinch to zoom and the only way to avoid infringing is to come up with elaborate workarounds that are not technically pinch to zoom.



Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Seriously? You're trying to argue they've patented something they haven't, using an article that makes it clear that they hold no such patent?



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Seriously? You're trying to argue they've patented something they haven't, using an article that makes it clear that they hold no such patent?

Troll, thy name is CrackberryTraitor.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Actually, if you read the article you'd have seen it said quite clearly that all pre jelly bean devices that use traditional pinch to zoom infringe, however using 2 finger scrolling or workarounds that aren't technically multi-touch, like those in Jellybean, circumvent it. If that wasn't clear, English must not be your first language.

I'm sorry you have to get petty and call people trolls when you get called on posting an article in your defense and it ends up saying the opposite of what you're arguing. I'd appreciate if you could try for once to not escalate this into a pissing match and actually respond with a point rather than a personal insult.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Actually, if you read the article you'd have seen it said quite clearly that all pre jelly bean devices that use traditional pinch to zoom infringe, however using 2 finger scrolling or workarounds that aren't technically multi-touch, like those in Jellybean, circumvent it.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Apple does not have a patent on pinch to zoom. That you can't even acknowledge that is your issue and no one else's.

Read the patent. Nowhere does it describe a pinch to zoom gesture. All it describes is software being able to discern between single finger scrolling and gestures that use two fingers. That's it.

What Nilay actually said in the article was that the implementation in jelly bean was different than apples because it allowed for panning while scrolling with one finger, while apples implementation (and the subject of this patent) locks you into scrolling when you only use one finger. The ONLY mention of pinch to zoom is Nilay illuminating that the nexus 7 still has it. Nowhere does he say pre-JB devices infringe on pinch to zoom; what he was talking about was the scrolling patent. (Which is what Google was talking about too)

Now, two-finger scrolling is a pretty lame workaround, but it's far from the only way to avoid '915, and Google and the entire industry quickly designed around Apple's patents on bounceback scrolling and slide-to-unlock. It's silly to think they haven't worked out a good way to avoid '915 as well. And it appears they have: according to a Google spokesperson, "Apple's '915 patent claims a very specific software implementation, and the implementation is different in Jelly Bean." Astute industry observers will note that the Nexus 7 running Jelly Bean has pinch-to-zoom.

Looking a little closer, Chrome in Jelly Bean neatly sidesteps the '915 patent by allowing you to always pan around in multiple directions with one finger, whereas Mobile Safari in iOS generally locks you to a one-dimensional scroll when you start moving with one finger. Those are different behaviors ? and as a bonus, always panning and never locking to a scroll also neatly avoids Apple patent 7,479,949, which the company's asserted in several other lawsuits.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2