Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Legal And just like that, within a matter of days, the jury has reached a verdict in Apple vs. Samsung. The basic gist is simple: Apple's software patents are valid, and many Samsung devices infringe upon them. Apple's iPhone 3G trade dress is valid, and Samsung's Galaxy S line infringes, but other devices did not. Samsung did not infringe Apple's iPad design patent. Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Apple is awarded a little over $1 billion in damages. Competition lost today, and developers in the United States should really start to get worried - software patents got validated big time today.
Permalink for comment 532140
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tupp on Sat 25th Aug 2012 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Member since:

Pinch to zoom, for example, though, can you honestly not think of some other way for that to work? It is 100% impossible to do it any other way?

Of course, there are other ways to do it, and it is being done in other ways very successfully.

However, that is not the point -- the point is that Apple did not invent/originate that multi-touch gesture (nor any other gestures), so Apple has no valid claim to the feature. It does not matter whether or not Samsung tried to copy Apple -- Apple did not originate the technology.

The non-Apple prior art is staggering in this instance (as it is in most Apple instances). I won't bother to link the decades-earlier multi-touch items. Suffice it to say, pinching to scale items came about around 1983. For a more recent citing, in July of 2004, Nintendo applied for a patent for multi-touch on handheld devieces:

Note that Nintendo was granted the patent in February 2006, over a year before the Iphone was released. "Multi-touch" certainly included pinch-to-zoom in 2004-2006, so, in keeping with Apple's methods, Nintendo should sue Apple sh*tless for stealing "their" handheld technology.

Apple doesn't validly own the rights to 99.95% of their technology (nor designs), so they cannot rightfully claim that someone is stealing "their" IP by "copying."

From that point of view Apple/Samsung is not the same as Twitter/ set out to provide the same sort of service as Twitter but do it in a different way. Samsung set out to provide a product that mimicked that of Apples. That is the difference.

No. The difference is that in the Twitter/ instance, Twitter might have originated protected features that Apple is using without rightfully compensating Twitter, but in the other instance, Samsung is using obvious and/or long established technology/art that Apple also uses -- Apple did not originate any of the technology/designs.

Edited 2012-08-25 05:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6