Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the when-the-facts-are-on-your-side dept.

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."

38 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. As good a time as any other by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:As good a time as any other by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:As good a time as any other by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >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.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    3. Re:As good a time as any other by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:As good a time as any other by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:As good a time as any other by Immerman · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:As good a time as any other by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    7. Re:As good a time as any other by anomaly256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    8. Re:As good a time as any other by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Informative

      (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)

    9. Re:As good a time as any other by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:As good a time as any other by nerdocracy · · Score: 2
      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.

    11. Re:As good a time as any other by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Patents. Copyrights. by udachny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    MY OTHER COMMENTS
    1. Re:Patents. Copyrights. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Patents. Copyrights. by ukemike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- QED
    3. Re:Patents. Copyrights. by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    4. Re:Patents. Copyrights. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

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

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. What's wrong with this picture by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    1. Re:What's wrong with this picture by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:What's wrong with this picture by oji-sama · · Score: 2

      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')

      --
      It is what it is.
  4. Well that clears that up by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Well that clears that up by arose · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Well that clears that up by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They just said that to confuse me.

    3. Re:Well that clears that up by fm6 · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. When a patent is needed, and when not by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. New sales pitch... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Bizarro world.

    1. Re:New sales pitch... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      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? "

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:New sales pitch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    3. Re:New sales pitch... by Guignol · · Score: 2

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

  7. Simply fascinating by theRunicBard · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  8. Horrible, or brilliant marketing? by geekmux · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. Are we in opposite land? by subreality · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Are we in opposite land? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      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!

  10. Samsung is right by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Samsung is right by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  11. Windows 3.11 by mystikkman · · Score: 2

    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

  12. It's not just multi-touch by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  13. How design patents and trade dress work by tgibbs · · Score: 2

    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.