Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#41

Post by skue » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 8:24 PM UTC

JoelSutherland wrote: post #33

nirvana wrote: post #2

I think this is actually bad news. Since the guy has a patent to his name, that means he understood what patents are. (EG: protection for unique inventions, not monopolies on features or ideas.) If the jury had been completely non-technical, and subjected to the nonsense propaganda you see so much these days (that patents are "trivial" and that they cover ideas) and still found in Apple's favor, then this would bolst…

Hi, I'm a poster on Hacker News and I can read. Here is the core claim from the '915 patent: A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: 1. receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; 2. creating an event object in response to the user input; 3. determining whether the…

IANAL either, but I would certainly not presume that your example describes the same thing from an IP standpoint.

For example, you could start with the first sentence in Apple's claim: it applies to a "touch-sensitive display." What you cited incorporates a touch-sensitive sensor without a display that responds similarly. It's not unreasonable to say that a projector screen is not the same as a display.

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#42

Post by JoelSutherland » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 8:36 PM UTC

skue wrote: post #41

JoelSutherland wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm a poster on Hacker News and I can read. Here is the core claim from the '915 patent: A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: 1. receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; 2. creating an event object in response to the user input; 3. determining whether the…

IANAL either, but I would certainly not presume that your example describes the same thing from an IP standpoint. For example, you could start with the first sentence in Apple's claim: it applies to a "touch-sensitive display." What you cited incorporates a touch-sensitive sensor without a display that responds similarly. It's not unreasonable to say that a projector screen is not the same as a display.

I don't buy that. A projector is a display, right? Otherwise this sentence would be possible: "I showed my powerpoint the the executive board without using a display".

Either way it doesn't seem relevant since it is capacitive and display-covering transparent capacitive panels have been in existence since at least 1983. (Bob Boie, Bell Labs)

If it was relevant, shouldn't Samsung be in the clear for their AMOLED displays since the patent only mentions LCDs? (elsewhere in the doc)

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#43

Post by pvidler » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 8:57 PM UTC

syjer wrote: post #32

nirvana wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury had 14 days of hearing evidence. It is quite possible that the case was so compelling that it didn't take them very long to decide the points. I've yet to see any argument that the verdict is wrong, based on an understanding of the patents in question.

They found that the nexus s infringed the bounce back patent. But this is impossible as it use vanilla android which has never implemented this behaviour. So it looks like kinda rushed for _some_ decisions.

There is what looks like bounce back at around 0:36 onwards in this video review:

http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-nexus-s-at/4505-...

It's some sort of app list screen though and happens between what looks like screens of icons, so I'm not sure if it counts. For lists it looks like an orange glow effect, possibly with some small bounce, but that may be an optical illusion.

This might be enough to confuse a jury? I haven't checked the patent to see if it actually infringes or not.

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#44

Post by lines » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:03 PM UTC

JoelSutherland wrote: post #33

nirvana wrote: post #2

I think this is actually bad news. Since the guy has a patent to his name, that means he understood what patents are. (EG: protection for unique inventions, not monopolies on features or ideas.) If the jury had been completely non-technical, and subjected to the nonsense propaganda you see so much these days (that patents are "trivial" and that they cover ideas) and still found in Apple's favor, then this would bolst…

Hi, I'm a poster on Hacker News and I can read. Here is the core claim from the '915 patent: A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: 1. receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; 2. creating an event object in response to the user input; 3. determining whether the…

This Apple expert purports to rebut the SmartSkin as prior art: it notes the "touch-sensitive display" thing plus claims that SmartSkin might not use an "event object" or "scroll or gesture call" to achieve the effect. Make of thy what you will...

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#45

Post by skue » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:14 PM UTC

JoelSutherland wrote: post #42

skue wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL either, but I would certainly not presume that your example describes the same thing from an IP standpoint. For example, you could start with the first sentence in Apple's claim: it applies to a "touch-sensitive display." What you cited incorporates a touch-sensitive sensor without a display that responds similarly. It's not unreasonable to say that a projector screen is not the same as a display.

I don't buy that. A projector is a display, right? Otherwise this sentence would be possible: "I showed my powerpoint the the executive board without using a display". Either way it doesn't seem relevant since it is capacitive and display-covering transparent capacitive panels have been in existence since at least 1983. (Bob Boie, Bell Labs) If it was relevant, shouldn't Samsung be in the clear for their AMOLED displ…

You realize you are making the OP's point?

He alluded to HN posters who make broad IP statements without the experience or training to back them up. I'm not arguing the other side -- I was just trying to point out that the issue may be more complex than you assume. Take of that what you want.

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#46

Post by JoelSutherland » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:19 PM UTC

lines wrote: post #44

JoelSutherland wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm a poster on Hacker News and I can read. Here is the core claim from the '915 patent: A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: 1. receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; 2. creating an event object in response to the user input; 3. determining whether the…

This Apple expert purports to rebut the SmartSkin as prior art: it notes the "touch-sensitive display" thing plus claims that SmartSkin might not use an "event object" or "scroll or gesture call" to achieve the effect. Make of thy what you will... http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...

Awesome find. It's a shame that several of the relevant pages are not included in the document. I assume for trade secret reasons? Either way, the ONLY two Apple refutations are:

1. The display is not integrated in the device

2. The video does not conclusively prove the manner in which the software was programmed. i.e. We don't know from the video if it is event based.

If this is acceptable refutation of prior art, it seems like there would be a lot of money to be made by exploiting this. Attend every CS conference and patent everything displayed using a particular programming model and display type.

I suspect, however, this would not normally be considered acceptable or the patent world would be more messed up than it already is.

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#47

Post by JoelSutherland » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:28 PM UTC

skue wrote: post #45

JoelSutherland wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy that. A projector is a display, right? Otherwise this sentence would be possible: "I showed my powerpoint the the executive board without using a display". Either way it doesn't seem relevant since it is capacitive and display-covering transparent capacitive panels have been in existence since at least 1983. (Bob Boie, Bell Labs) If it was relevant, shouldn't Samsung be in the clear for their AMOLED displ…

You realize you are making the OP's point? He alluded to HN posters who make broad IP statements without the experience or training to back them up. I'm not arguing the other side -- I was just trying to point out that the issue may be more complex than you assume. Take of that what you want.

I haven't made any IP statements, broad or otherwise.

I agree that the issue is surely complex. It does seem fair to assume that I can use logic and literacy to at least isolate the items I don't understand. If you look a few comments down, we seem to have reached that point.

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#48

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 10:12 PM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #26

deskamess wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the patent number link: """ Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information April 1, 2008 A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive. ... """ Would a video cassette recorder (VCR) fit the bill for prior art? The source in this case would be…

You need to look at the Claims to figure out what the patent covers. The title and abstract have no legal force. And since the claims include such things as the compression algorithm being user-selectable, it's trivially obvious that a VCR is not covered.

A codec is only mentioned in claim 2, having more than one codec in claim 3 and letting the user choose in claim 4.

I'm no patent expert, but doesn't that mean he's claiming things without codecs (e.g. the VCR) too? The first claim is generally the broadest and people seem to just laugh it off that these are often so ridiculously broad. But as far as I'm aware these are legally binding until someone overturns them with a presumption of legitimacy due to the USPTO seal of approval.

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#49

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 10:13 PM UTC

JoelSutherland wrote: post #47

skue wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize you are making the OP's point? He alluded to HN posters who make broad IP statements without the experience or training to back them up. I'm not arguing the other side -- I was just trying to point out that the issue may be more complex than you assume. Take of that what you want.

I haven't made any IP statements, broad or otherwise. I agree that the issue is surely complex. It does seem fair to assume that I can use logic and literacy to at least isolate the items I don't understand. If you look a few comments down, we seem to have reached that point.

[deleted]

Re: Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

#50

Post by skue » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 10:55 PM UTC

skue wrote: post #41

JoelSutherland wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm a poster on Hacker News and I can read. Here is the core claim from the '915 patent: A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: 1. receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; 2. creating an event object in response to the user input; 3. determining whether the…

IANAL either, but I would certainly not presume that your example describes the same thing from an IP standpoint. For example, you could start with the first sentence in Apple's claim: it applies to a "touch-sensitive display." What you cited incorporates a touch-sensitive sensor without a display that responds similarly. It's not unreasonable to say that a projector screen is not the same as a display.

Wow, and downvoted too?

Sigh, I quit. I'm done posting to HN. The graybeards are right, it's just not the same. Snark and dogma get upvoted, and there's no point trying to fight it.

This isn't meant as a reply so much as a final comment so that anyone who stumbles upon my profile knows why I never post.

Edit: Hate to edit my last post but I replied to the wrong comment and meant to post it here.