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

[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

[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

[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

[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)

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.

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

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.

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? "

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?

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:Well that clears that up

[fm6]

They just said that to confuse me.