171–180 of 212 posts
To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.
To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.
Perhaps someone could link an article about why these (IMO relatively trivial) design ideas are even patentable? Well before the iPhone 1 existed I had a phone with apps (or what passed for them back in the day) in a grid on the home screen, I've seen rounded corners (though not quite as rounded as the iPhone), and a rim around the screen. I'm no Samsung fanboy, I use Apple products, we're a 4 iPhone house, but this…
>There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.
Regardless of the merit of this claim in regards to what exists in text, tradition, or practice, it, in my opinion, shows that the legal system is effectively a huge game where the rules matter more than the concepts of which the game's existence is justified (such concepts are right and wrong, harm, guilt and innocence).
If you are about to be executed for a crime you were convicted of, but have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of your innocence, that alone is not worth demanding judicial consideration.
If the rules by which we murder people in cold blood are less nonsensical than the most recent version of D&D, then what hopes does far more mundane and boring issues like patents have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To support the obviousness of multitouch interfaces Camperbob mentions: See this prototype from Synaptics from 2006: https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-c... The original iPhone used a Synaptics touchscreen IIRC, so it's pretty reasonable that Apple and every major phone manufacturer has been shown the Synaptics tech demo in 2006, probably earlier.
That tech demo came a year after Apple acquired FingerWorks; who had been producing and selling multitouch technologies since 1998.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To support the obviousness of multitouch interfaces Camperbob mentions: See this prototype from Synaptics from 2006: https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-c... The original iPhone used a Synaptics touchscreen IIRC, so it's pretty reasonable that Apple and every major phone manufacturer has been shown the Synaptics tech demo in 2006, probably earlier.
At best that is an iteration of Blackberry or Nokia-style smart phone interfaces. It doesn't look particularly impressive, even for 2006.
Does any one please know a curated list of all lawsuits between Apple and Samsung? I've checked the Wikipedia page, but it's missing some trials and lawsuits.
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/advanced_search/search_litigatio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly - not their brilliants > displays, battery, or even wireless radio > functionality. You're completely losing the plot here here. The reason for the high amount of damages is not because it's believed that Samsung phones wouldn't have sold as well without rounded corners…
That's exactly how the legal system works in most of the non-American world.
There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsu…
Today’s decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages This case is far from over and will be quickly appealed as the award makes absolutely no sense and goes against the Supreme Court ruling.
They will certainly attempt an appeal, that doesn't mean anyone will accept it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps someone could link an article about why these (IMO relatively trivial) design ideas are even patentable? Well before the iPhone 1 existed I had a phone with apps (or what passed for them back in the day) in a grid on the home screen, I've seen rounded corners (though not quite as rounded as the iPhone), and a rim around the screen. I'm no Samsung fanboy, I use Apple products, we're a 4 iPhone house, but this…
I think the key to answering that question is derived in a supreme court case that is almost entirely unrelated to this. >There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. Regardless of the merit of this claim in regards to wha…
> The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.
Courts and laws change slowly, and changing them requires sustained, steady pressure. But they do change and adapt as their shortcomings are identified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used my fingers on my Palm Pilot because it was more practical than dragging the stylus out. It wasn't using fingers per se that was revolutionary with the iPhone but that it packaged everything up in a package that was actually attractive to "normal people" instead of only appealing to gadget geeks and power users the way things like Palm devices did.
> I used my fingers on my Palm Pilot because it was more practical than dragging the stylus out. Still using it in the same way as a mouse. The thing that set the iOS UI apart is direct manipulation of the UI. E.g. instead of using a scrollbar/arrows to scroll, you use your finger to move the page around. Instead of clicking a checkbox you move a slider. Instead of clicking a "zoom in" button you 'stretch' the photo…
It certainly wasn't something most potential users knew about the Palm Pilot before rejecting it out of hand as some gadget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, if I remember correctly the closest to the iPhone's look was the LG Prada one year before the iPhone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
Used that (was a J2ME developer at the time), it was nothing like an iPhone.
So any reasonable person should be able to conclude that Apple did not invent rounded corners?