Ridiculous verdict in Apple/Samsung case

[LegalAmerican]

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.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I love when apple fans try to tell others to be logical. Apple and their fan base are the most illogical tech consumers I've ever conversed with. And don't act like "The Verge" is the authority on everything technology. That website is as biased as they come.

Sent via SwiftKey 3 on Droid Razr Maxx

 

[JHBThree]

I love when apple fans try to tell others to be logical. Apple and their fan base are the most illogical tech consumers I've ever conversed with. And don't act like "The Verge" is the authority on everything technology. That website is as biased as they come.

Sent via SwiftKey 3 on Droid Razr Maxx

Funny that people like you tend to call websites that tell the truth biased, and can never support your assertions.

Oh FYI, in the specific article we're discussing, a patent attorney (you know, the type of person apple and samsung paid millions of dollars to fight their case for them) was the author, breaking down a patent in question to show that apple did not hold a patent on something.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

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)

As I said three times now (and you just did) traditional pitch to zoom (everything prior to jellybean) infringes on Apple's patent. That's the entire reason they came up with a technical workaround for Jellybean. I'm sorry if YOU can't acknowledge that.





Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[andribble]

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

I'm glad to see that even I can be included in the bunch who do not take your authorities on faith alone.

I think the whole point here is not who copied who, but the fact that the patent system is broken in many ways.

What is clear to me now, is that not only is the software patents system broken, but that software patents legalese has evolved into a confused, convoluted and ineptly vague jargon to describe software implementations, so that it can be nit-picked ad absurdum.

Let's hope that software programmers can still think, write and program simply and logically.

 

[JHBThree]

As I said three times now (and you just did) traditional pitch to zoom (everything prior to jellybean) infringes on Apple's patent. That's the entire reason they came up with a technical workaround for Jellybean. I'm sorry if YOU can't acknowledge that.





Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

The technical work around is not for pinch to zoom, it is for scrolling. I quoted the relevant section for you in a previous post, but apparently it is too difficult for you to read it.

Apple DOES NOT have a patent on pinch to zoom.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

I'm glad to see that even I can be included in the bunch who do not take your authorities on faith alone.


What is clear to me now, is that not only is the software patents system broken, but that software patents legalese has evolved into a confused, convoluted and ineptly vague jargon to describe software implementations, so that it can be nit-picked ad absurdum.

Let's hope that software programmers can still think, write and program simply and logically.

It is not 'confused, convoluted, and ineptly vague'. It is written so that other programmers could replicate what the patent covers, and more specifically, work around it. Just because you or I cannot understand it easily is not proof the system is broken.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Paul627g]

It would really be cool if we could have a good debate without all the finger pointing at one another and directing things "You" and "You didn't read" etc. etc..

Bottom line a healthy debate is good but lets try and leave the finger pointing and getting personal towards one another out of the debates.

Thanks.

 

[dmmarck]

Play nice .

 

[crackberrytraitor]

The technical work around is not for pinch to zoom, it is for scrolling. I quoted the relevant section for you in a previous post, but apparently it is too difficult for you to read it.

Apple DOES NOT have a patent on pinch to zoom.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yeah my bad, I meant traditional scrolling, not pinch to zoom, that's why I quoted the section from the verge talking about Samsung's 2 finger workaround and the Jelly Bean scrolling workaround. Apple doesn't have a patent on pinch to zoom.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Yeah my bad, I meant traditional scrolling, not pinch to zoom, that's why I quoted the section from the verge talking about Samsung's 2 finger workaround and the Jelly Bean scrolling workaround. Apple doesn't have a patent on pinch to zoom.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Good to hear it was just a miscommunication. Sorry for going off on you, but you can see why I was frustrated. We were talking about the same thing all along! *sings why can't we be friends*

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

Good to hear it was just a miscommunication. Sorry for going off on you, but you can see why I was frustrated. We were talking about the same thing all along! *sings why can't we be friends*

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yeah as I said, my bad. Please take into account that I drink a gallon or two of wine a day while smoking /snorting assorted research chems, when you read what I post. Me getting mixed up/missposting/quoting the wrong thing is far from a rare occurrence.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Yeah as I said, my bad. Please take into account that I drink a gallon or two of wine a day while smoking /snorting assorted research chems, when you read what I post. Me getting mixed up/missposting/quoting the wrong thing is far from a rare occurrence.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

No worries. And yes, I agree with your last post 100%. Seems like Google's version is better since it doesn't lock you into a scroll.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

I love when apple fans try to tell others to be logical. Apple and their fan base are the most illogical tech consumers I've ever conversed with. And don't act like "The Verge" is the authority on everything technology. That website is as biased as they come.

Sent via SwiftKey 3 on Droid Razr Maxx

The bias of Apple fans is not unique, or exclusive to that brand. In case you haven't noticed, Android fans can be just as biased.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

First off, it does matter if what Samsung copied from Apple was copied from Sony. In order to own intellectual property rights, you have to be the inventor or creator. Also, you do not get intellectual property rights by filing paperwork with a patent office. Intellectual property rights are created when the invention or work is created. You only need to file with a patent office to sue someone for infringement.

One could argue that intellectual property law is out of hand. Did you know that everything that you and I have copyrights to whatever we post in this thread, as it is all literature, assuming that it is all our original work? Likewise, if I take screen shots of the posts in this thread, not only have I infringed on your copyrights, but I have also infringed on the intellectual property of the owners of this website, since I reproduced the look and feel of the website in another medium. Similarly, If I visit one of your Facebook profiles, and decide that I want to post your picture on my blog in an article criticizing you because I just don't like you, I infringed on your copyright to your photography. In today's age of technology, you can see the potential for a crapload of frivolous lawsuits under our outdated intellectual property laws, which is why Congress passed the Digital Media Copyright Act (DCMA) to provide convenient out-of-court remedies to keep these cases out of the courts.

Whether or not Samsung should be held liable if Apple suffered no actual damage is debatable. In many civil cases, nominal damages are available, which are damages that awarded just because the losing party committed the illegal act, regardless of whether or not actual damage (a.k.a. compensatory damages) was established. There are also punitive damages, which are intended to punish the losing party for their wrongdoing. Punitive damages are not usually awarded in breach of contract or intellectual property cases, but are awarded in intentional tort cases, such as battery, assault, etc.

There are established limits are to what can be copyrighted or patented. For example, I can't sue you for copyright infringement because you started your book with "Once upon a time", and I also started my book with those words. Similarly, Apple shouldn't be able to sue Samsung because their phone had rounded edges like the iPhone does. If that is the case, then Apple can be sued by plenty of other tech manufacturers. Should Samsung now sue Apple for making the iPhone 5 have a 4-inch rectangular display? Imagine if the inventor of the telephone sued the first cell phone maker for infringing on their patent because it makes phone calls, and has a 12-key dial pad!

Apple knew good and well that what Samsung did is common trade practice, and that Apple is also guilty of infringement under their own standards. Their intent to engage in anti-competitive conduct by filing strategic frivolous lawsuits is clear. Apple doesn't care if they win or lose these lawsuits; in fact, they are losing, or are having their cases dismissed, more than they are winning. Their actual goal is to bog their opponents down with wasted time and legal fees until they give up. They're also in it for the press, hoping to make Google and their Android OEM partners copycats in the opinion of the consumers. Yes, it is natural to want to defeat your competitors, but you do that by putting out betting products than they do, by having better customer service than they do, and by selling at a lower price than they do. Our legal system is not as a tool to be used for defeating your competitors!

 

[Altmed]

The VERY sad part is regardless of who did or didn't copy who, WE will be the ones paying for it - Bottom Line.

I'm a STRONG believer in that ANYTHING that is so essential ought to have no trademarks or copyrights of ANY sort. Let the buyers decide who to support & who not to... This creates an environment that STRONGLY encourages better product development & people will buy what they feel is best & often will shun those that copy stuff just to rip off someone else.

Sad that we all get stuck with the bill. I like the new Samsung phone's features (Galaxy S? III), but I've heard it has issues already with VERY slow downloads & doesn't perform as well as others, like even an older 4G HTC. It could be where I live, but doubtful, as I've heard it in other places too across the country, so I won't be buying either. I'm not going to support a company that has a history of suing others over silly BS, so Apple isn't going to knowingly get a dime from me (other than the raised prices this lawsuit did across the board to have all the companies having the pay their lawyers to take a look at every breath they take.

And we wonder why so many companies move out of the US??? YIKES!

Apple crap has ALWAYS been overpriced since the late 1970's at least.