Samsung: Android's Multitouch Not As Good As Apple's

itwbennett writes "Hoping to avoid a sales ban in the Netherlands, Samsung has said that Android's multitouch software doesn't work as well as Apple's. Samsung lawyer Bas Berghuis van Woortman said that while Apple's technology is a 'very nice invention,' the Android system is harder for developers to use. Arguing the bizarre counterpoint, Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme told judge Peter Blok, that the Android multitouch isn't inferior and does so infringe on Apple's patent: 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true,' said Blomme."

Comments

As good a time as any other

[Compaqt]

I just found this post today:

AT&T (yeah, them) is the one that invented a grid of colorful icons, half a decade before Apple.

http://www.statusq.org/archives/2012/08/30/4453/

Add this to the prior art file.

Re:As good a time as any other

[MrEricSir]

Yeah, but those are *square* icons, you see.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Compaqt]

>Doesn't mean anything unless AT&T patented it.

Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until Apple comes along to claim it all for itself.

Got it.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Amouth]

Just wait, just wait

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file

I've got a template i'm working on, for a biz process of patenting existing inventions that lack patents and collecting royalties from said invention's use, looking to patent the act of doing it (aka tax the trolls that are bound to appear).

Re:As good a time as any other

[calmofthestorm]

That's already been patented. You need to go deeper. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157743897/can-you-get-a-patent-on-being-a-patent-troll

Re:As good a time as any other

[Desler]

First to file does not eliminate prior art as a way to invalidate a patent.

From here:

The law will switch U.S. rights to a patent from the present "first-to-invent" system to a "first inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. The law also expands the definition of prior art used in determining patentability. Actions and prior art that bar patentability will include public use, sales, publications, and other disclosures available to the public anywhere in the world as of the filing date, other than publications by the inventor within one year of filing (inventor's "publication-conditioned grace period"), whether or not a third party also files a patent application. The law also notably expands prior art to include foreign offers for sale and public uses.[6]

In conclusion, YOU FAIL IT.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Abreu]

And, wasn't the grid of icons also a part of the PalmOS user interface?

Re:As good a time as any other

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not even a little bit accurate.

Re:As good a time as any other

[geekoid]

You are the one that needs the lesson:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

so this:
" If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art."
is just wrong.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Immerman]

Actually it does, so long as you *publish* it so that it becomes (theoretically) public knowledge within the relevant field. In-house projects that no one really knows about don't count though.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Yaztromo]

Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until someone comes along to claim it all for itself.

Got it.

FTFY.

Unfortunately, particularly in the US this is about how the system works currently. The patent submitter must list any known prior art with their application, but there is little to really prevent them from leaving things out. It is the patent examiners job to also look for prior art, but their view tends to be very narrow (similar but not identical often isn't good enough), and due to (what I understand of) their workload, they don't necessarily due a particularly exhaustive search.

The end result is that if you're willing to pay for it, you can patent pretty much anything you want. That's why you get craziness like #6,368,227 -- Method of Swinging on a Swing (note: not an Apple patent).

Don't like it? You need to take the patent holder to court, and prove to the court that the patent is either a) frivolous, b) obvious, or c) already exists in the public domain (or is covered by another patent).

That's the system the US uses (I don't live in the US -- our patent system here in Canada seems somewhat better run, so isn't quite as bad; I have a patent (7,251,809) that was accepted in the US, but rejected here in Canada). If you don't like it, you need to change the system.

Yaz

Re:As good a time as any other

[serviscope_minor]

The device is called the "broadband phone"

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/attarchive/bphone/apps.html

http://www.xorl.org/people/njh/bpstory/index.html

Re:As good a time as any other

[DragonTHC]

pretty sure it was xerox.

Re:As good a time as any other

[anomaly256]

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/site/about/xerox.big.png vs http://www.markshuttleworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

Re:As good a time as any other

[Gadget_Guy]

And then a decade before AT&T, Apple invented the Newton. Sure it didn't have a coloured screen, but the grid of icons is there.

That said, it is hardly a revolutionary idea to display icons in a grid.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Will.Woodhull]

Since when does prior art require a patent?

Oh, of course. We are talking the USPO, where I understand that Apple is about to diversify and patent the cotton gin.

Re:As good a time as any other

[oakgrove]

Yeah but see...

<idiotJuror>Those icons won't compile and run on an iPhone so it isn't prior art at all. As a matter of fact "prior art" as a concept is just too much of a burden to even think about and, wouldn't you look at the clock, it's lunchtime!</idiotJuror>

Re:As good a time as any other

[tk77]

I just found this post today:

AT&T (yeah, them) is the one that invented a grid of colorful icons, half a decade before Apple.

http://www.statusq.org/archives/2012/08/30/4453/

Add this to the prior art file.

And Apple had the Newton MessagePad a decade before that.

http://www.thocp.net/hardware/pictures/pda/apple_newton_sml.jpg

Re:As good a time as any other

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not even close. The AT&T guy is wearing a watch, and the Apple guy isn't. Totally different.

Re:As good a time as any other

[R3d M3rcury]

Val Hogan, is that you?

Re:As good a time as any other

[thetoadwarrior]

I know the guy who writes that blog and your quoting an apple "fanboy" so I'm pretty sure he's not as butt hurt as the fandroids would like to think.

Re:As good a time as any other

[thetoadwarrior]

Where's the proof given the web archive link doesn't show the portable and there appears to be no proof the image was ever public, especially given google fanboys would have been all over that.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Yaztromo]

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

so this: " If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art." is just wrong.

In law yes, but in practice, no.

As I've already mentioned in this thread, patents are granted all the time where there is amply prior art, either because the patent applicant has hidden the prior art, has made it appear to be different enough to be ignored, or the patent examiner simply isn't aware of it and doesn't find it themselves.

And unfortunately, one the patent has been approved, you have to take the patent holder to court and prove prior art to get it invalidated.

So yes, in a perfect world any invention already known and used would invalidate a patent prior to being granted. However, in the world we actually live in, the examiners don't know about every unpatented idea/invention ever devised, and if they're not aware of it, can easily grant a patent to something that has ample prior art. At that point, the only way for it to be undone is to go to court, where the burden of proof will be on you to show that prior art covers the invention at hand.

Yaz (inventor)

Re:As good a time as any other

[SiaFhir]

By that theory Apple can patent water, air, fire, the English language, the wheel, and everything else that has never been patented. Check the facts before you spew out nonsense.

Re:As good a time as any other

[tgibbs]

I guess that would be relevant if Apple's design patent were just for "grid of colorful icons."

But it isn't.

Re:As good a time as any other

[ArsonSmith]

how else would you display them? My desktops have always had a grid layout for icons.

Re:As good a time as any other

[maxwell demon]

Apparently you need a history lesson. Since you are repeating it stupid.

Who invented the telephone first and who patented it first? If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art.

Really? I don't think anyone has yet patented the wheel. I really should apply for a patent; I think it could make me rich!

Re:As good a time as any other

[maxwell demon]

Water and air are not inventions and thus not patentable, even by that theory. However, fire (as controlled fire), the English language and the wheel clearly are.

Re:As good a time as any other

[nerdocracy]

Trying to save your legal argument by switching to a practical argument is just bad style. More importantly geekoid is also right in practice.

In law yes, but in practice, no.

... At that point, the only way for it to be undone is to go to court, where the burden of proof will be on you to show that prior art covers the invention at hand.

In practice, why would any sane person go to court to "undo" a patent? If inventors chose not to patent their idea and someone else steals it, they can continue to use the idea. If the patent holder wants them to stop, the patent holder must enforce her right. When the patent holder takes the inventor to court, the patent holder has the burden of proof to show that the patent was infringed. That's why there are many more cases of Apple vs Samsung rather than Samsung vs Apple cases. More importantly, the issue of the burden of proof in civil cases has very little impact in practice. As long as you have some evidence, the burden of proof issue will not be decisive. This is not criminal law where you establish your case beyond reasonable doubt. Both sides will need to persuade the jury that their case is better on the balance of probability.

Re:As good a time as any other

[ewanm89]

I hereby patent a mix of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide for use as a stable environmental condition for use during the manufacture of various non-specific items ;)

Re:As good a time as any other

[Compaqt]

>I guess that would be relevant if Apple's design patent were just for "grid of colorful icons."

Your sentence is misleading. Are you implying that Apple has a patent for a whole bunch of stuff, and an icon grid is only one small part?

The link you gave describes a couple of Apple patents.

One of them is the icon grid patent. To wit: "The ornamental design for a [GUI] for a display screen or portion thereof, as shown and described" and then they give a picture of their icon grid.

So, if Apple's claiming the bit-for-bit exclusivity on their icons, sure they deserve that. But if they're just claiming the idea of an icon grid in a phone (colorful or otherwise), no, somebody did that before them.

Re:As good a time as any other

[hazydave]

Pretty good. I hadn't found that one yet.

Palm obviously did the grid of colorful icons, easily a decade before Apple did. Apple actually did B&W grids of icons on the Newton, but didn't patent that.

The main thing they had on Samsung was the grid of icons set in squares -- all the iOS icons are in squares (kind of the way Windows 7 Phone forces every icon into a square, only, smaller squares). Most of the grid of icons UIs, going back to Windows, MacOS, AmigaOS (did it in color before MacOS did), etc. all have icons set within a bound of some sort (though actually, on the AmigaOS, they could be huge), but there's a transparent background, no drawn box.

Some of the early version of SymbianOS also had icons in the box. I don't know if this was enforced by the OS, or just the way Nokia shipped it, a style thing. Since this is based on a design patent, it doesn't matter -- the SymbianOS thing is also prior art (they eventually went to the normal "transparent background" look used by Android and nearly everything else, other than Apple and Samsung's TouchWiz shell).

Re:As good a time as any other

[hazydave]

Sure it does. Well, no, AT&T can't sue. But patents are declared invalid all the time, or limited based on prior art. A judge could rule that Apple has no claim on square icons... though it's hard, with design patents, as they basically just illusrate the design, they don't make the kind of claims you find in a utility patent. So basically, if the prior art looks close enough, they toss out the whole design patent. If not, well, you have to look more like Apple than the prior art in order to infringe on Apple.

Re:As good a time as any other

[hazydave]

Of course prior art counts.

The laws are little different today. In the past, in the USA, we used a "first to invent" system in the PTO. If you designed and built a working telephone, documented this and everything, and went to the PTO and found your telephone already patented, but after yours was first documented as working (and obviously, working in exactly the same way), you could, in theory, not just strike down that prior patent, but obtain one of your own.

Today, it's first to file. So if you come to the PTO with a patent application and find that your thing was already patented, but way after yours, you can file to have that other patent tossed out. But you can never get a patent yourself on that technology.

I've read hundreds of utility patents, written many, got some of my own, etc. I really don't know all of the rule around design patents, which are half of those being asserted by Apple on Samsung. They really say very much -- their design patents show lots of pictures, but unlike utility patents, they don't list "known" prior art (you're supposed to declare everything that you know about prior art in a utility patent; in practice, patent lawyers only declare other patents, and ignore things everyone knows about unpatented prior art -- that should have the whole patent tossed just on the basis of fraud, but it doesn't). So I really don't know what they're supposed to do here, relative to things way before the iPhone that look as much like the iPhone as Samsung's TouchWiz did.

Re:As good a time as any other

[tk77]

As another said, you could have freeform placement.

Though my comment was more pointing out that Apple had a device with a "grid of icons" long before 2002. I've seen many people trying to point out phones and devices that had this a year to a few years before Apple, yet they ignore the Newton which was many years before that.

Now this isn't saying that another device didn't have a grid of icons before the Newton, just pointing out that Apple had one before the device(s) people are trying to use as prior art.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Plumpaquatsch]

You are the one that needs the lesson: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent

so this: " If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art." is just wrong.

Unless of course they did it in a foreign country and didn't patent. See Johann Philipp Reis.

Re:As good a time as any other

[Plumpaquatsch]

I just found this post today:

AT&T (yeah, them) is the one that invented a grid of colorful icons, half a decade before Apple.

First of all: neither Apple nor AT&T "invented" "a grid of colorful icons"

Second: Apple doesn't claim to have "invented" "a grid of colorful icons"

Third: AT&T's icons don't look like Apple's icons, while Samsung's look like Apple's.

Re:As good a time as any other

[hazydave]

Apple didn't bother to try to patent the Newton's row-of-icons. Neither did Palm. They were both small companies back then, and small companies think about winning via technology, not winning in court. But the Apple patent in question doesn't attempt to patent a grid of icons. It's all about the look -- it's a design patent,not a utility patent. And a big part of that look is that all icons are squares (or perhaps squares with rounded corners -- the patent mostly just shows pictures, it doesn't explain what the "inventors" thought was novel and what wasn't.

Re:As good a time as any other

[ToasterMonkey]

>Doesn't mean anything unless AT&T patented it.

Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until Apple comes along to claim it all for itself.

Got it.

The other way of looking at it is you might not understand their patent's claims. AT&T may have patented something similar, but different enough. Who knows? Sorry, what a dumb question, you guys know everything.

Patents. Copyrights.

[udachny]

This is ridiculous, isn't it? A patent system, that gov't introduces supposedly to encourage more innovation and invention is now being routed around because of the damage that it is causing.

It's damage that gov't involvement in the market is causing with all laws and this case is a good example even to the most staunch defenders of government intervention that it is damaging the clients, the end users, the consumers, because it can prevent you from having more choices (and thus from lower prices).

As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[rtb61]

Let's see the patent system was tweaked by lawyers and the net affect has been to generated more gratuitous law suite, somehow I believe those lawyers were 100% successful as far as they were concerned. The whole principle of first to patent rather than first to invent is to generate more court cases and lower the strength of prior art in arguing a case to ensure the case lasts far longer and always generates an appeal.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[BasilBrush]

As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.

So the law against murder actually causes more murders and is negative for the people. Amazing what you learn on Slashdot.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[ukemike]

As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.

If you though about it for just a moment instead of just spouting a talking point you'd realize that you are being silly. By your statement above the government ban on murder actually encourages murder and is somehow bad for the people. There are thousands of regulations that have exactly the effect they were intended to have.
The OSHA and EPA regulations regarding asbestos result in a condition where the overwhelming majority of asbestos installed in buildings is handled in a much safer manner than it was prior to the institution of the regulations, and the beneficiaries are, well, construction workers, the public, tenants, and nearly everyone else.
The Glass-Stegal Act prevented banks that held deposits from investing those deposits in speculative investments and prevented run away banking stupidity for decades. That stupidity returned to the point where it plunged us into another depression within 15 years of the repeal of Glass-Stegal.
The requirement that car drivers carry liability insurance means that in the overwhelming number of cases people are compensated when you make a stupid driving mistake AND you don't go bankrupt in the process! Nearly everybody wins (especially the insurance companies.)
Perhaps you should reconsider your use of words like "always" and "never" it always makes you wrong never helps your argument.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

On the other hand it's also equally ridiculous that if you invest the time and money into R&D to build something cool a competitor can just snipe you out of house and home and undercut you.

This is why we have a patent system. Good ideas are not fungible. Good implementations are. As long as good ideas are scarce or that the resources to live are scarce, we will need a patent system.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[oakgrove]

So the law against murder actually causes more murders and is negative for the people. Amazing what you learn on Slashdot.

The entire paragraph preceding what you quoted is focusing specifically on government interference in the market. It's reasonable to assume that the "laws" he was talking about are those specifically in that domain. I'm not saying whether I agree with him or not but I can't imagine how you misconstrued his meaning so badly.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[rdwulfe]

I seriously wish I had mod points right now, this made my night.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[stony3k]

“I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all";

-Thoreau

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[maxwell demon]

The anti-murder law definitely is a huge government interference on the market of paid killers, to the point of making it illegal.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[maxwell demon]

But if you improve of it, you still infringe on it. Only if you specifically circumvent it, you don't. But then, the energy you spend on circumventing cannot be spent on improving.

Also, company A had good idea X and patented it. Company B had good idea Y and patented it. It would be desirable to have a product featuring both X and Y. But if the companies don't license their patents, you don't get that.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[cryptolemur]

It's damage that gov't involvement in the market is causing with all laws and this case is a good example even to the most staunch defenders of government intervention that it is damaging the clients, the end users, the consumers, because it can prevent you from having more choices (and thus from lower prices).

As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.

The day the 'market' agrees to have no secrets at all is the day I might agree they need no regulation other than consumers doing infomed choices.

Of course, keeping the sosiopathic bastards honest to that degree will require immensive gevernment interference...

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[dzfoo]

That would be fine, except that he said, "as always," without further qualification.

Words have mearning, you know.

Re:Patents. Copyrights.

[udachny]

On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. Without patents the companies would have to rely on more trade secrets, but that's a healthy way for the market to attempt and keep a temporary lid on distribution of your products, not government intervention - market solution.

What's wrong with this picture

[puddingebola]

No, I swear to God, our multitouch sucks, its nowhere as good as Apple's. He's lying your honor, their Samsung multitouch is almost as good as Apple's

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[shaitand]

From the summary, " 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true,' "

" He's lying your honor, their Samsung multitouch is almost as good as Apple's"

I find it interesting that you edited them saying just as good to be "almost" as good.

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[puddingebola]

What are you implying?

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[oji-sama]

I do believe that he is implying that your interpretation of the picture is leaning towards Apple. And your interpretation is a bit curious. Perhaps accidentally, but curious anyway.

In the original Samsung states that the multitouch is harder to develop against, and Apple states that this just isn't true. In your version Samsung is saying that the whole thing sucks and Apple partially agrees.

If you are going to exaggerate, you should exaggerate both statements, not exaggerate one and mitigate the other. ('No, it may actually be better')

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[fm6]

Statement against interest, your honor!

Ooh, wait my Law and Order DVD just arrived. Let me memorize some more courtroom cliches, and I'll get back to you.

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[93 Escort Wagon]

I find it interesting that you edited them saying just as good to be "almost" as good.

Except they didn't make either of those statements. The actual quote from Apple's lawyer was ""They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true".

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[shaitand]

Yes, I included that quote. If Samsung's solution isn't lesser than Apple's the only possibilities that remain are that it is equal or that it is superior. It seems fair to paraphrase that as "as good" where "almost as good" run in direct contrast to the quote, almost as good would in fact be a lesser solution.

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[thespeech]

Posting to undo accidental mod.

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[Plumpaquatsch]

Yes, I included that quote. If Samsung's solution isn't lesser than Apple's the only possibilities that remain are that it is equal or that it is superior. It seems fair to paraphrase that as "as good" where "almost as good" run in direct contrast to the quote, almost as good would in fact be a lesser solution.

Or it is not better, just more complicated to use - which is what is said in TFA but not in TFS. Whoa, that must be a first for Slashdot.

While Apple's technology is a "very nice invention," the technique used in Android differs from the iOS solution, argued Bas Berghuis van Woortman, one of Samsung's lawyers. Because the Android based method is more hierarchical the system is more complex and therefore harder for developers to use, he said.

Re:What's wrong with this picture

[shaitand]

The "almost as good" statement this thread is talking about refers to the comments made by Apple's attorney. You are quoting a statement from Samsung's attorney. Nobody disputes that Samsung claimed the Android solution isn't as good.

Apple said, "They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true".

The guy I replied to reworded this as Apple saying Android was 'almost' as good. The above quote says its not a lesser solution and 'almost' as good would be a lesser solution. He injected the 'almost' out of air and I was curious as to why.

Re:Pathetic..

[ackthpt]

..just f****ng pathing...for both parties.

This is where you wish judges could just order one side of lawyers or both to 20 years hard labor.

Samsung's being slightly pathetic here...

[RocketRabbit]

If the pathetic nature of Samsung's claim isn't obvious to you, you drank too much kool-aid!

Re:Samsung's being slightly pathetic here...

[SScorpio]

Or they are just being awesome marketers.

Mac Vs PC
Mac: Hi PC, I'm so much better than you.
PC: Boy you sure are.

Samsung vs Apple.
Samsung: Man our phones aren't nearly as good as the iPhone. Why are you suing us?
Apple: Your phones run just as well as ours.
The Public: It's just like the iPhone but a larger screen and cheaper?

Well that clears that up

[fm6]

I had thought that my problems with multitouch (on my Android phone, where I avoid it as much as possible; on my laptop touchpad, where I've disabled it) had to do with my own poor physical coordination. But now it turns out that Apple is the only company that knows how to do multitouch right.

So maybe I should become an Apple person. Naw, the patriarchial user echosystems around OS X and iOS still suck too much. And I still don't understand how any sane person can live with iTunes!

Re:Well that clears that up

[arose]

Didn't you read the whole thing? Apple confirmed that it's just as good, you can rest assured that switching will do you no good.

Re:Well that clears that up

[fm6]

They just said that to confuse me.

Re:Well that clears that up

[fm6]

One can humorously speak the truth, and I often do. I totally buy your claim that Apple's muttitouch works betters. It's consistent with their long history of putting a lot of work into making their products easy to use.

I can honestly acknowledge Apple's achievements without being an Apple fan. That's because every encounter I've had with their technology has demonstrated that it's not for me. Cost, paternalistic ecosystems, key applications (mainly iTunes) that they have somehow overlooked in their usability Jihad, stupidity about media formats... Mind you, they don't totally suck. I've even suggested to technically non-savvy users that they might be happier using a Mac. But it's just not an option for me.

Re:Well that clears that up

[oakgrove]

My android has multitouch, and my hp laptop has two-fingered scrolling. But they,re a disastrous implementation and thoroughly unpleasant to use.

I don't know what "your Android" is but my Galaxy Nexus and Xoom both running Jellybean have excellent multi-touch behavior easily equal to the experience on my iPad.

Re:Well that clears that up

[Vegemeister]

But they,re a disastrous implementation and thoroughly unpleasant to use.

Two-finger scroll and tap actually work quite nicely if you get rid of Windows.

Re:Well that clears that up

[paimin]

Why would you need to use iTunes?

Re:Well that clears that up

[fm6]

To download content and applications to to my iWhatever?

Re:Well that clears that up

[paimin]

Why do that, instead of loading content directly?

Re:Well that clears that up

[fm6]

The last time I used an iPod, the only way to get MP3s onto the iPod was through iTunes. If that's changed, I'll certainly be more open to using iDevices in the future.

When a patent is needed, and when not

[DragonWriter]

Doesn't mean anything unless AT&T patented it.

Prior art -- of the kind that invalidates a patent -- doesn't require that it be patented.

Recovering for patent infringement (naturally) does require that the invention be patented.

I'm a lawyer for Samsung and can explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's holds a patent for "Good Multi-touch".
Since we just lost a Billion dollars on an insane patent law suit, we can no longer take any chances.
We must now have a touchscreen that is not compliant with "Good". Sorry world.

FML

Re:Kids

[fredgiblet]

Except they aren't doing it for us. Apple is doing this to try to prevent themselves from being pushed into irrelevancy by the march of progress. Samsung is doing this to try and survive in the phone business and to prevent Apple from settign a precendent of being able to litigate a competitor out of business. Ignoring it may result in fewer stories being posted, but it won't change the existence of the lawsuits.

New sales pitch...

[GrahamCox]

Samsung: Our phones are WAAAAY crappier than Apple's!
Apple: No they're not, they're just as good!

Bizarro world.

Re:New sales pitch...

[geekoid]

And you know what? Samsung will use Apples quote against them in marketing.

"Apple says our screens are just as good...interesting..did you know our newest phone is 100 dollars less expensive? "

Re:New sales pitch...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Judo may have been invented in Japan, but the South Koreans practice it at master level.

Re:New sales pitch...

[Anonymous Coward]

SAMSUNG PHONES: So good yet so affordable they've been banned in 42 countries.

Re:New sales pitch...

[Guignol]

It's not judo, it's hapkido ;)

Re:New sales pitch...

[zrelativity]

Hey this is a great sales pitch for RIM and Nokia

Samsung says their phone are Crap, Apple says they are not any better, but our are better!

Simply fascinating

[theRunicBard]

We have gotten to the point where Samsung is insisting Android is crap while Apple is insisting it is every bit as good as their technology. Could an actual flying pig be more than a week away?

Re:Simply fascinating

[Kartu]

Jokes aside, I find talks about apparently superior Android being "as good" as outdated (grid of icons eh? My iPaq 5555 10 years ago had much more than that) iOS to be an insult to humanity.

Re:Kids

[geekoid]

" The difference is that the whole world has to listen"
no. In fact, the vastly majority of the world do not no whats going on, and everyone not directly involved in the case has to listen to it.

Horrible, or brilliant marketing?

[geekmux]

I suppose no one thought of this as one of the most brilliant marketing schemes ever...$299 Android phones that are (admittedly by Apple themselves) equal to a $500 iPhone.

Re:Horrible, or brilliant marketing?

[dzfoo]

Not quite true. Apple is claiming that Samsung's solution for multitouch works in much the same way as theirs. They are not saying that the overall product equals in quality. They are not even claiming that the multitouch solution is equal in quality; just that the solution to the problem is similar.

Method and quality similarity are not equivalent. The one doesn't necessarily leads to the other.

Are we in opposite land?

[subreality]

I feel like I've fallen into a Monty Python skit.

Vendor A: "I assure you our product inferior to the competition's!"

Vendor B: "Don't believe his lies! His product is every bit as good as ours!"

Something is seriously wrong in the market if we're getting arguments like this.

Re:Are we in opposite land?

[interkin3tic]

Hell, I feel like it's a kids in the hall sketch every time the courts are involved. Corporations are PEOPLE! We INVENTED rounded corners! The gloves don't fit, clearly I couldn't have done it, despite all the DNA evidence!

Re:awesome marketers.

[TaoPhoenix]

Let's try an even sharper version.

Samsung: "We admit, you rule, and we suk. Therefore, we appeal to have the judgement vacated. However, the public will buy a shitty product for half the price, because it's good enough. Bye now!"

Samsung is right

[bill_mcgonigle]

Apple's touch is currently better. I find Android systems (including mine) as having much more trouble figuring out what my touches are supposed to do ("how many times do I have to click on this goddamn link?"). The hardware and drivers are OK, as the virtual keyboards usually work fine, but there's something in the runtime that's not quite right yet (as least up to ICS).

Which just makes the lack of 'undo' in Android that much more insane, because it's not hard to accidentlly whack a big bock of text with an errant multi-touch gesture.

Re:Samsung is right

[oakgrove]

Apple's touch is currently better. I find Android systems (including mine) as having much more trouble figuring out what my touches are supposed to do

That's strange since in my situation I've found it to be precisely opposite. When I'm using my iPad it's mostly for surfing the internet and I almost always have to tap twice on the urlbar before I hit the right spot for it to register. Dead on isn't it for some reason. Other parts of the OS have the same issue but maybe not as bad. Contrast that with my Xoom running Jellybean and the Xoom touches are always just right. My finger touches an element straight on and it hits it. Same with my Galaxy Nexus. Maybe my iPad's defective but it's always been that way since I bought it.

Re:Samsung is right

[notknown86]

You, sir, are obviously a shill. Just not sure for whom!

Re:Samsung is right

[deathguppie]

Apple's touch is currently better. I find Android systems (including mine) as having much more trouble figuring out what my touches are supposed to do

You obviously have a much more involved relationship with your phone's than most people have. Which is fine but I wouldn't want any kids reading about it.

Re:Samsung is right

[bill_mcgonigle]

Contrast that with my Xoom running Jellybean

It would be great if this is one of the improvements in Jellybean!

Re:So what is the alternative to buying Apple?

[GerardAtJob]

Just download via torrent, then send a check directly to the artist ;)

Windows 3.11

[mystikkman]

How is the iPhone icon interface much different from this? http://img.tfd.com/cde/_PROGMN2.GIF

Give a half decent team of engineers to make the above work with capacitive touch, and you can easily end up with the iPhone homescreen swipes.

The only mobile interface to claim to be really unique among UIs is Microsoft's Metro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=locNEna0of4&feature=plcp

Shame on Apple for trying to enforce basic touchscreen actions like multitouch and the jury not able to debate that because of the numbnut foreman. How is this not prior art from the 80s? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dmmxVA5xhuo#t=267s

Re:So what is the alternative to buying Apple?

[kenboldt]

Have a look at 7digital.

DRM Free, and available in Canada.

It's not just multi-touch

[tgibbs]

Apple's patent is not a general patent on multitouch, but on a particular way of implementing multitouch. This is why Samsung can argue that their multitouch does not infringe upon Apple's multitouch, as their algorithm is slightly less convenient for developers. Apple is arguing that the difference is an inconsequential variation on Apple's method.

So simply showing that somebody else did multi-touch before does not establish prior art. That is not a matter of dispute. To establish prior art, Samsung's would need to show that all of the key features of Apple's way of doing multitouch (or at least, the ones that Samsung is accused of infringing) were anticipated by prior art--such as how the operating system can figure out, from an elliptical area of finger contact that is a substantial fraction of the width of the screen, what specific point on the screen the user is trying to indicate, what screen objects the user intends that touch to be associated with, and what the trajectory of that point is over time, and how that noisy trajectory is interpreted in terms of specific gestures.

Re:It's not just multi-touch

[chowdahhead]

Isn't this what the driver handles though, discerning different types of touch and location, while the job of the OS is determining what that touch corresponds to ("clicking" on a button, for example)?

Re:It's not just multi-touch

[tgibbs]

The driver is part of the OS, and covered by Apple's patent

Re:Not prior art at all

[Nikker]

Just for a base line test, can you litterally pull something out of your ass?

The reason why I'm curious is that you make statements about what you saw on a clip on Youtube determining it "suggests" that it is not using Apples tech, then you go and equate you opinion with what you believe a jury should conclude.

It doesn't really matter what comes out of there I just want to see you do it with a straight face.

offs!

[pbjones]

give each member of the legal teams a knife, lock them in a room, and only let the last person standing, exit. This is going to go on long than MacOS vs, Windows 2.

Re:Not prior art at all

[ewanm89]

No, it suggests they aren't processing as much information being a prototype on early hardware, on more modern faster hardware and with better sensors it can run faster. As for 2 hands versus 1, totally irrelevant, it's still multiple touch points. The computer doesn't know when I use both hands on my phone or multiple fingers with one hand. As for the algorithms, what algorithms, it's just reading which groups of wire are currently giving the most power and reporting that as screen coordinates. Image scaling algorithms and the like are standard linear 2D matrix transformations the same as all 2D graphics work uses or standard interpolation algorithms depending if we are talking rasterized or vectorized data..

Isn't the real story here that multitouch is core?

[phonewebcam]

We were told recently the Samsung slapdown by Apple was because of Samsung mods to Android.

Inverse marketing? This has just got to backfire

[mrjb]

Samsung: "Apple products are better than ours!" Apple: "No, Samsung products are just as good as ours!" We've come to live in interesting times, where insisting that your product is NOT better than that of the competition is what makes it more competitive in the market place. I guess I'll start selling pieces of cardboard in a rectangular shape with rounded corners. I'll make sure to tell the courts that BOTH Apple and Android multi-touch are better than mine. I'll make a fortune!

Doesnt matter how good it is

[nurb432]

Not going to debate the Apple/Samsung thing directly, but overall in a patent/copyright case it really doesn't matter how bad a copy is, its still infringement..

This is a bad and stupid prescient.

How design patents and trade dress work

[tgibbs]

One of them is the icon grid patent. To wit: "The ornamental design for a [GUI] for a display screen or portion thereof, as shown and described" and then they give a picture of their icon grid.

Correct. Showing the key features: the specific shape and design of the icons, their arrangement on the screen with text labeling below, the position of the dock on the screen, and the icons in the dock. All of these specific features together--not merely a "grid of icons" (colorful or otherwise)--were at issue in the Apple-Samsung lawsuit. Remember, this is a design patent--a patent not just on individual features, but on the way in which they are combined to create a distinctive design. So prior art would have to demonstrate the same features combined in a very similar way.

The specific color scheme and design of the individual icons were also at issue in the lawsuit, but were not part of this patent. These are part of Apple's "trade dress" which is covered under trademark law. For this, prior art is irrelevant; Apple just has to show that their product has an appearance that is distinctive, widely known, and recognizable as an Apple product. In contrast to a design patent, which expires and enters the public domain after 14 years, trademarks, including trade dress, last indefinitely, so long as the company continues to use them--but in contrast to design patents, the company loses the rights to its trademarks if it does not vigorously defend them in court.

Not a "bizarre counterpoint"

[Compulawyer]

The argument is simple and straightforward: The device does not have an inferior solution. It uses OUR (Apple's) solution.

Re:Not prior art at all

[tgibbs]

No, it suggests they aren't processing as much information being a prototype on early hardware, on more modern faster hardware and with better sensors it can run faster.

Yes, it is possible that limitations on computing power would have prevented Apple's algorithm from being used. But the reason is immaterial--Apple's patent is on the algorithm, not on the general concept of multitouch, so the algorithm was different, it would not qualify as prior art. Of course, Samsung would be free to use the same algorithm as that used in the video instead of Apple's--even if patented, the method used in the video would by now have passed into the public domain.

As for 2 hands versus 1, totally irrelevant, it's still multiple touch points.

Again, it is not attempting to assert a general patent on "multiple touch points." Apple's patent covers specific gestures that can be made with one hand, and a method whereby these gestures are recognized. These gestures do not appear in the video. Thus, not prior art.

Image scaling algorithms and the like are standard linear 2D matrix transformations the same as all 2D graphics work uses or standard interpolation algorithms depending if we are talking rasterized or vectorized data..

Apple is not asserting a patent on "image scaling by matrix transformations," so this is also quite irrelevant.

Two very different problem

[tgibbs]

And in fact, there was no rational expectation that Apple's solution would obviously follow from that shown in the video, because the method shown in the video addressed a very different problem from the one Apple confronted in designing a touch phone:

The video addressed tracking gestures on a surface and manipulating virtual objects that were large relative to the area of a finger, using very large gestures. So accurate identification of the exact point of contact intended by the user was not needed. Apple's method addressed a very different (and considerably harder) problem: how to achieve the needed degree of precision for object manipulation and gesture recognition when the width of a the contact area of a finger is a substantial fraction of the width of the display and the virtual objects being manipulated are often smaller than the contact area. So it is hardly surprising that the methods used were quite different, and that one does not obviously follow from the other. It's like expecting the design of a motor scooter to "obviously follow" from the design of a pickup truck.

Not inferior at all...

[LordNightwalker]

Arguing the bizarre counterpoint, Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme told judge Peter Blok, that the Android multitouch isn't inferior and does so infringe on Apple's patent: 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true,' said Blomme."

Hook, line and sinker...

Re:Inverse marketing? This has just got to backfir

[LordNightwalker]

Oh man, if I had mod points.. :)