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.
Thread beginning with comment 532078
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by darcysmith on Sat 25th Aug 2012 01:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
darcysmith
Member since:
2006-04-12

Maybe someone here can answer this for me.

People like John Gruber - rooting for Apple here, obviously - support App.net. However, App.net is a 1:1 Twitter clone. Zero changes. It's literally a 1:1 copy.

Why is App.net okay, but Samsung's clearly different devices are not? This has been bugging me for weeks.


The App.net API is different than the Twitter API, so no copying there.

The goal of App.net is pretty much the same, which I guess is what you are calling a copy. However Apple isn't saying nobody else can make a phone, they just have to make it look different (the Trade Dress stuff). The software patents, I hate the idea of them, I hope that they go away, but sadly they have them and they were violated.

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?

From that point of view Apple/Samsung is not the same as Twitter/App.net. App.net 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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tupp on Sat 25th Aug 2012 05:54 in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

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: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/26/patent-application-reveals-ninten...

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/App.net. App.net 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/App.net 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

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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.

Oh... FFS! '915 Claim 8 is not pinch to zoom. Neither did they claim that they own pinch to zoom. They claim that they invented the idea that you can have gestures and scrolling on the same device.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by some1 on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:57 in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

Android APIs are very different from iOS. The case was about look and feel of the UI.

Reply Parent Score: 1