It has to have the same ornamental design. 677 isn't about rounded corners but an entire look:
Fig 1: Front top and bottom have material while sides don't. Also button is bottom center. Fig 2: Charger on bottom and unusual shape and size Fig 4: Existence of rear camera and placement Fig 5: entire off/on mechanism etc...
Surface needs to be very cheap if Microsoft wants to make a splash. Microsoft cannot afford another failed product but I'm not sure if they understand how much money a successful product is going to cost them.
I read the patent. That seems like a very exact description of layout and dimensions from all sides.
Fig 1: Front top and bottom have material while sides don't. Also button is bottom center. Fig 2: Charger on bottom and unusual shape and size Fig 4: Existence of rear camera and placement Fig 5: entire off/on mechanism
Which summarizes my problem with the rulings in this case: it very much doesn't seem to be about any underlying innovative technology i.e. unique algorithms, but rather just the "look and feel" of iOS devices. It's about completely nebulous user interface elements, which involve no actual improvement in our tools or techniques to create - a rounded or square button is literally a matter of preference.
If these are just simply user preference of no importance then why did Samsung so aggressively copy them instead of of sticking with the direction they had been going in? Why were they moving the Bada UI towards Android? If Apple did nothing of value then why did Apple's approach cause everyone to start doing the same things?
And if you are going to answer its the only way to do things let me point you to an excellent alternative: http://swipe.nokia.com/
I agree that Apple has a lot of limitations. I've thought about jail breaking and going to Cydia to get rid of some of the ones I find annoying. I chafe a bit but not enough (as of yet) to want to lose the advantages of the walled garden.
As far as diversity I assume that Google's Android 5 will be totally different you have a 1x switching cost and then you are now familiar with the new UI. But if you like Apple's UI it will only be available on the Apple. There is nothing like Apple's OSX today. Maybe some Android manufacturer will license Apple's UI, Samsung perhaps but maybe someone like LG that needs to get a quick leg up.
Overall I don't see this as crippling to Android and if I had to bet I'd suspect that the rapid experimentation will lead to Android passing iOS in the UI department quickly. Evolution works.
Apple's pinch to zoom has a 9 step process. They agree there was prior art. All the previous ones did not use a timer between steps 6 and 8, while Samsung did.
I see now, sorry I did misunderstand. That's called the criteria of anticipation. That is if anyone in the field sees (a) and sees (b) and believes that (a) and (b) should obviously be conjoined and their method of conjoining was obvious then that creates anticipation which eliminated novelty which eliminates the patent. That would be a good defense.
And that might very well cover the functionality but... functionality + exact same look is too high a bar. Samsung (who remember would have the burden here) would need to be able to show people pictured an unlock mechanism that looks like there's. I don't think that's true but congratulations on a different defense for Samsung than I've heard.
What technologies invented between 1500 and 1700 would not have inevitably happened using the technology available in 2000? Your definition makes all patents worthless. Obvious requires things like easy recognition. If it requires time or thought, it ain't obvious.
For a look and feel patent. The ace has a 3 button design not a 1 button design.
As for look alike I'd hope they license the design (physical) from Nokia. Heck have Nokia make the body. That's a design that Apple didn't invent, they agree doesn't infringe and is way cooler than the iPhones.
Patents don't require that an invention be totally original. Improvement is fine. For prior art to work as a defense you need to show
1) The people hundreds if not thousands of years ago would have seen the application to a touch screen UI (hard to prove) or 2) That experts in the field of touchscreen UI would have seen the application of a bolt.
The problem is there were touchscreen UIs for years with no bolts. The only possible except is the N1, which is button press + swipe. People didn't think of it immediately. I'm not saying it was genius, I am saying it appears to meet the criteria for a patent.
Yes. Take TouchWiz and remove the ideas taken from iPhone and they have a fine Android UI that doesn't infringe. Nothing major was found to be infringing.
Samsung wasn't allowed to present F700 evidence, Apple was. Samsung was being punished for failures during discovery. No question, had Samsung not gotten themselves punished the F700 might very well have been used to prove prior art for things like the shape of the iPhone and rounded corners. The shape patents would have been thrown out. The problem is Samsung made parts for the Apple phone. They needed to present how they came up with that look and screwed around. I personally would have loved to seen the full F700 evidence and I think the penalty was a bad move on Koh's part.
The F700 in terms of look and feel though show which direction Samsung was headed in at the time the iPhone came out.
1) This was a system which didn't make heavy use of icon animations. 2) The system directed your eye much more than the iPhone does. It is a much more "obvious" interface 3) The center of the system was time management: calendaring / scheduling / to do list... was what the system focused on. etc...
So while the F700 is really good on the physical stuff on the functionality patents it works well for Apple. And that's the point this isn't the end of smartphones it is the start of greater diversity in smartphones.
True and that is really good grounds for a partial appeal for Samsung. No question they get to appeal. I think the N1 case was decided wrongly on law since that was: button press + swipe to unlock not swipe to unlock. But I'd be happy enough if a court found that "close enough" and threw out swipe to unlock.
Samsung didn't offer the N1 defense so their court did decide rightly.
That was swipe but button press to unlock. Very similar but not quite the same. And given that the court has now invalidated the patent in England based on this unquestionably grounds for an appeal.
True and that is really good grounds for a partial appeal for Samsung. No question they get to appeal. I think the N1 case was decided wrongly on law since that was: button press + swipe to unlock not swipe to unlock. But I'd be happy enough if a court found that "close enough" and threw out swipe to unlock.
Samsung didn't offer the N1 defense though for so their court did decide rightly.
Your theory has to explain why other people failed to invent swipe to unlock and didn't think of it. Had that been true that everyone would have thought of it Samsung could have proven that everyone did think of it and invalidate the patent.
Eventually would have been implemented is still patentable. I'm not saying swipe to unlock was genius what I am saying is it isn't immediately obvious to an expert.
In which case Apple's thinking of it first does entitle them to a patent. Which means everyone else can either think of something else (like double press to unlock) or pay Apple a license fee.
The infringed patents include pinch to zoom and double tap to zoom.
That's not quite true. Again to use MeeGo, MeeGo has pinch to zoom but implements it differently. Apple agrees there was prior art so what Apple has patented is this sequence:
A multitouch display detects at least two contacts. Those contacts perform a first gesture. That gesture adjusts an image in some way: magnification, orientation and rotation are specifically claimed, but the patent is broad enough to cover virtually any adjustment. The first set of contacts is broken. A second set of contacts is detected. The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time. The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.
In particular no clock means you are fine.
Similarly with double tap to zoom. "Tap to fit" is prior art.
What's worse is that now we're going to have phones that are radically different for no good reason.
I think that's great. I'm not happy that systems 1 (Android) and 2 (iOS) are so similar. I want diversity. I use an iOS device but am thrilled with the powerful multi tasking of MeeGo. And frankly I'm very impressed with what Microsoft is doing with Windows phone. I want to see very different GUIs which use totally different concepts. Lets have some real diversity back. Samsung itself has some nice ideas in TouchWiz it ported over from Bada that are different. The F700 (Samsung's 2006 smart phone) had some GUI features that impressed even hardened Apple guys.
Let's have diversity. iOS was a really cool phone OS based on web browsing, animations and capacitive touchscreen. Why not a smartphones based on driving interfaces like some of the Symbian smart phones? Why not something based on time and task management?
They believe all of Android is infringing their functional patents. Generally they haven't alleged physical infringement with other vendors like Motorola. Since they have specifically indicated RIM phones are not copies something like the Motorola Charm wouldn't infringe (physically). Similarly something like the Kyocera Milano I can't see how you could argue that was a physical copy.
In terms of more broadly, that is more than just physical copies. No. They believe all of Android violates their functionality patents. Android (from Apple's perspective) would need to get another GUI. But again MeeGo isn't being used, is frankly better than iOS, is available (open source) , Jolla is busy porting MeeGo to run Android apps so.... I don't see a crisis.
I think that's a good example. I don't think swipe to unlock is obvious.
1) No one else used swipe to unlock prior to Apple. Generally they used hitting some sort of button to unlock. 2) There are other methods to unlock on a touch screen. For example MeeGo's double press to unlock.
Yes in retrospect it is obvious. But... there is pretty clear evidence in 2005, 2006 it wasn't obvious based on the fact that other people weren't thinking of it. If Samsung could prove everyone thought of it, they could have invalidated the patent.
_____
Now in terms of a theoretical world where those sorts of patents existed 20-30 years ago. We likely would have seen several GUIs that were radically different from each other. For example if the Apple Macintosh used a mouse, Windows might have had to use a trackball or a trackpad or a stylus type device. We would have a greater degree of GUI diversity very much like you have with Linux. Where on one end you have minimalist GUIs like Gnome, on another system feature rich configurable GUIs like KDE on another system different paradigms like tiling and keyboard controls like XMonad, on another systems swipe like MeeGo.
Slashdot Mirror
It has to have the same ornamental design. 677 isn't about rounded corners but an entire look:
Fig 1: Front top and bottom have material while sides don't. Also button is bottom center.
Fig 2: Charger on bottom and unusual shape and size
Fig 4: Existence of rear camera and placement
Fig 5: entire off/on mechanism
etc...
There's no such thing as a "look and feel" patent, at least not outside the pipe dreams of Apple lawyers.
677 which was one that they got nailed on for all but 1 of their phones was entirely about look and feel. No functionality in that patent at all.
By the way the Lumia phone cases totally look like the old iPod minis. Just sayin'. /b?
Nokia is fine. Apple keeps using them as an example of a company that's not infringing.
Surface needs to be very cheap if Microsoft wants to make a splash. Microsoft cannot afford another failed product but I'm not sure if they understand how much money a successful product is going to cost them.
I read the patent. That seems like a very exact description of layout and dimensions from all sides.
Fig 1: Front top and bottom have material while sides don't. Also button is bottom center.
Fig 2: Charger on bottom and unusual shape and size
Fig 4: Existence of rear camera and placement
Fig 5: entire off/on mechanism
etc... There is a lot to change
Come on. Lets address the facts here: http://www.talkandroid.com/126109-samsung-in-hot-water-for-alleged-icon-theft-from-apples-ios/
Which summarizes my problem with the rulings in this case: it very much doesn't seem to be about any underlying innovative technology i.e. unique algorithms, but rather just the "look and feel" of iOS devices. It's about completely nebulous user interface elements, which involve no actual improvement in our tools or techniques to create - a rounded or square button is literally a matter of preference.
If these are just simply user preference of no importance then why did Samsung so aggressively copy them instead of of sticking with the direction they had been going in? Why were they moving the Bada UI towards Android? If Apple did nothing of value then why did Apple's approach cause everyone to start doing the same things?
And if you are going to answer its the only way to do things let me point you to an excellent alternative: http://swipe.nokia.com/
I agree that Apple has a lot of limitations. I've thought about jail breaking and going to Cydia to get rid of some of the ones I find annoying. I chafe a bit but not enough (as of yet) to want to lose the advantages of the walled garden.
As far as diversity I assume that Google's Android 5 will be totally different you have a 1x switching cost and then you are now familiar with the new UI. But if you like Apple's UI it will only be available on the Apple. There is nothing like Apple's OSX today. Maybe some Android manufacturer will license Apple's UI, Samsung perhaps but maybe someone like LG that needs to get a quick leg up.
Overall I don't see this as crippling to Android and if I had to bet I'd suspect that the rapid experimentation will lead to Android passing iOS in the UI department quickly. Evolution works.
4 wheels is fine. The 4 wheel cart was already in use for centuries as was the 4 wheel carriage.
4 wheels that work in precisely the same way i.e. same mechanism... Nope. Patent would apply.
Apple's pinch to zoom has a 9 step process. They agree there was prior art. All the previous ones did not use a timer between steps 6 and 8, while Samsung did.
I see now, sorry I did misunderstand. That's called the criteria of anticipation. That is if anyone in the field sees (a) and sees (b) and believes that (a) and (b) should obviously be conjoined and their method of conjoining was obvious then that creates anticipation which eliminated novelty which eliminates the patent. That would be a good defense.
And that might very well cover the functionality but... functionality + exact same look is too high a bar. Samsung (who remember would have the burden here) would need to be able to show people pictured an unlock mechanism that looks like there's. I don't think that's true but congratulations on a different defense for Samsung than I've heard.
That's the problem. People claim its obvious, but the experts didn't think of it.
Lots of stuff is obvious in retrospect.
What technologies invented between 1500 and 1700 would not have inevitably happened using the technology available in 2000? Your definition makes all patents worthless. Obvious requires things like easy recognition. If it requires time or thought, it ain't obvious.
For a look and feel patent. The ace has a 3 button design not a 1 button design.
As for look alike I'd hope they license the design (physical) from Nokia. Heck have Nokia make the body. That's a design that Apple didn't invent, they agree doesn't infringe and is way cooler than the iPhones.
Patents don't require that an invention be totally original. Improvement is fine. For prior art to work as a defense you need to show
1) The people hundreds if not thousands of years ago would have seen the application to a touch screen UI (hard to prove)
or
2) That experts in the field of touchscreen UI would have seen the application of a bolt.
The problem is there were touchscreen UIs for years with no bolts. The only possible except is the N1, which is button press + swipe. People didn't think of it immediately. I'm not saying it was genius, I am saying it appears to meet the criteria for a patent.
Yes. Take TouchWiz and remove the ideas taken from iPhone and they have a fine Android UI that doesn't infringe. Nothing major was found to be infringing.
Samsung wasn't allowed to present F700 evidence, Apple was. Samsung was being punished for failures during discovery. No question, had Samsung not gotten themselves punished the F700 might very well have been used to prove prior art for things like the shape of the iPhone and rounded corners. The shape patents would have been thrown out. The problem is Samsung made parts for the Apple phone. They needed to present how they came up with that look and screwed around. I personally would have loved to seen the full F700 evidence and I think the penalty was a bad move on Koh's part.
The F700 in terms of look and feel though show which direction Samsung was headed in at the time the iPhone came out.
1) This was a system which didn't make heavy use of icon animations.
2) The system directed your eye much more than the iPhone does. It is a much more "obvious" interface
3) The center of the system was time management: calendaring / scheduling / to do list... was what the system focused on.
etc...
So while the F700 is really good on the physical stuff on the functionality patents it works well for Apple. And that's the point this isn't the end of smartphones it is the start of greater diversity in smartphones.
As far as i know it does a 4x(4+1) row of rectangles of icons.
True and that is really good grounds for a partial appeal for Samsung. No question they get to appeal. I think the N1 case was decided wrongly on law since that was: button press + swipe to unlock not swipe to unlock. But I'd be happy enough if a court found that "close enough" and threw out swipe to unlock.
Samsung didn't offer the N1 defense so their court did decide rightly.
That was swipe but button press to unlock. Very similar but not quite the same. And given that the court has now invalidated the patent in England based on this unquestionably grounds for an appeal.
True and that is really good grounds for a partial appeal for Samsung. No question they get to appeal. I think the N1 case was decided wrongly on law since that was: button press + swipe to unlock not swipe to unlock. But I'd be happy enough if a court found that "close enough" and threw out swipe to unlock.
Samsung didn't offer the N1 defense though for so their court did decide rightly.
Your theory has to explain why other people failed to invent swipe to unlock and didn't think of it. Had that been true that everyone would have thought of it Samsung could have proven that everyone did think of it and invalidate the patent.
Eventually would have been implemented is still patentable. I'm not saying swipe to unlock was genius what I am saying is it isn't immediately obvious to an expert.
In which case Apple's thinking of it first does entitle them to a patent.
Which means everyone else can either think of something else (like double press to unlock) or pay Apple a license fee.
The infringed patents include pinch to zoom and double tap to zoom.
That's not quite true. Again to use MeeGo, MeeGo has pinch to zoom but implements it differently. Apple agrees there was prior art so what Apple has patented is this sequence:
A multitouch display detects at least two contacts.
Those contacts perform a first gesture.
That gesture adjusts an image in some way: magnification, orientation and rotation are specifically claimed, but the patent is broad enough to cover virtually any adjustment.
The first set of contacts is broken.
A second set of contacts is detected.
The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.
The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.
In particular no clock means you are fine.
Similarly with double tap to zoom. "Tap to fit" is prior art.
What's worse is that now we're going to have phones that are radically different for no good reason.
I think that's great. I'm not happy that systems 1 (Android) and 2 (iOS) are so similar. I want diversity. I use an iOS device but am thrilled with the powerful multi tasking of MeeGo. And frankly I'm very impressed with what Microsoft is doing with Windows phone. I want to see very different GUIs which use totally different concepts. Lets have some real diversity back. Samsung itself has some nice ideas in TouchWiz it ported over from Bada that are different. The F700 (Samsung's 2006 smart phone) had some GUI features that impressed even hardened Apple guys.
Let's have diversity. iOS was a really cool phone OS based on web browsing, animations and capacitive touchscreen. Why not a smartphones based on driving interfaces like some of the Symbian smart phones? Why not something based on time and task management?
They believe all of Android is infringing their functional patents. Generally they haven't alleged physical infringement with other vendors like Motorola. Since they have specifically indicated RIM phones are not copies something like the Motorola Charm wouldn't infringe (physically). Similarly something like the Kyocera Milano I can't see how you could argue that was a physical copy.
In terms of more broadly, that is more than just physical copies. No. They believe all of Android violates their functionality patents. Android (from Apple's perspective) would need to get another GUI. But again MeeGo isn't being used, is frankly better than iOS, is available (open source) , Jolla is busy porting MeeGo to run Android apps so.... I don't see a crisis.
I think that's a good example. I don't think swipe to unlock is obvious.
1) No one else used swipe to unlock prior to Apple. Generally they used hitting some sort of button to unlock.
2) There are other methods to unlock on a touch screen. For example MeeGo's double press to unlock.
Yes in retrospect it is obvious. But... there is pretty clear evidence in 2005, 2006 it wasn't obvious based on the fact that other people weren't thinking of it. If Samsung could prove everyone thought of it, they could have invalidated the patent.
_____
Now in terms of a theoretical world where those sorts of patents existed 20-30 years ago. We likely would have seen several GUIs that were radically different from each other. For example if the Apple Macintosh used a mouse, Windows might have had to use a trackball or a trackpad or a stylus type device. We would have a greater degree of GUI diversity very much like you have with Linux. Where on one end you have minimalist GUIs like Gnome, on another system feature rich configurable GUIs like KDE on another system different paradigms like tiling and keyboard controls like XMonad, on another systems swipe like MeeGo.
So what exactly is so bad about that world?