Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What's next? The Mac stole from windows? Actually Mac did borrow a few usability from Windows too. 1. Finder Sidebar: Windows Navigation pane 2. The Mac Path bar: Windows Address bar 3. Back and Forward navigation buttons in folder windows 4. Minimizing to document windows into app icon 5. Screen Sharing: Remote Desktop Connection 6. Time Machine: Backup and Restore 7. System Preferences: Control Panel 8. ActiveSync…
They also took the multi-button mouse and made it (arguably) better.
A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
241–250 of 437 posts
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#242Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entire trial was a farce. The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down." They later went back to it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044427040457761...
I'm not seeing where they went back to it... It says: "Mr. Ilagan, who is 59, said they watched the video 'very, very carefully' but decided to move on when the two weren't swayed. 'We didn't want to get bogged down,' said Mr. Ilagan, who works in marketing for a company that makes circuit boards." Maybe I'm misreading it.
Another rationale is that they would have needed a unanimous opinion to overturn the patent on prior-art. And since they weren't going to get a unanimous opinion, they skipped it because they couldn't over turn the patent.
Without knowing all of the jury instructions, it hard to know exactly what happened.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those have a touch based UI. Touch means finger touches. Very different from a stylus which is only touching one or two pixels at a time. This is very easy to sense because the stylus pushes two layers together physically and effectively is closing swithces. A touch is much difeferent, a finger is an amorphous blob over many pixels of a varying shape, and Apple had to figure out how to resolve that into a sin…
Apple didn't invent touch UI. Ever been to a restaurant in the last decade?
And if they did, you could be damn sure that whoever did invent it would have been suing Apple left and right.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
The LG Prada looks a lot like the iPhone ? That's crazy. I couldn't think of two phones that looked less alike.
The other way around actually since the iPhone came out after it. But yes, if you were sent back in time to 2007 you would notice the similarity. I ran a mobile phone news website at the time, the similarity was definitely talked about (see the Engadget link in my OP).
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#246My dad: Apple just won right? Me: No - they just lost big time - Apple is done. Dad: Wait - What? They just won the court case and got a billion dollars to boot. Me: That doesn't matter - Samsung won. Dad: Explain. Me: As soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done. Apple did the same thing with Microsoft in the nineties. Furthermore, Samsung builds not only many of Apple products - i…
I mean, I remember a lot of the "Apple is at 90$ a share now, it will go down soon" crowd in the '06 in the Yahoo Finance forum posts and I'd love to see them now and sincerely ask them what were they thinking or why did they reach that conclusion back then.
I'm completely serious. This kind of "its the beginning of the end" prophecies are easy to make because you can always say "wait a little bit longer, it will happen" but other than anecdotal evidence, i don't know what prompt you to say "s soon as you have to sue your competition to remain competitive - you're done". Is this a real thing? No company has remained afloat and well after suing a rival?
Is there no way that Apple might be both suing and at the same time innovating in some other way or on any other markets? Does it have to be one or the other?
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be because they're selectively quoted, out of context, by a biased party.
Groklaw has been a pretty reliable source for years now. Its disappointing that them presenting an opinion means they are labeled as "biased."
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The quotes that I said lacked context and don't actually say what is claimed? Okay, let's look at the OP you replied to, and take at look at the claim you are disputing: "The jury foreman admitted that they "skipped" prior art because "It was bogging us down."" Okay. So, that's the extent of the claim. Going by the quote from the juror: "In fact we skipped that one,", it matches up with the claim. Claim: They skipp…
Your extrapolation from off the cuff out of context quotes is mind boggling daft in its scope. Instead of providing supporting evidence, you're merely building a larger and larger narrative on top of the same incomplete data. This is the same sort of reality twisting that we see out of the likes of the birther movement -- facts and supporting data take a back seat to whatever supports an appealing narrative.
Our jury also selected a lawyer as foreman--from everything I've read, and my experience, I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led.
--I've used Apple products for years, so I'm not trying to construct an anti-hero narrative--
Also, you really like the word "narrative".
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#249The patent system may be fucked but what Samsung was doing was wrong and patents were the best tool Apple could use to send a meaningful message and get them to stop. This case isn't all that good to argue the shortcomings of the patent system. There's too much biased information about it out there and everyone tends to just defend their camp. It turns into a Apple v. Android argument in the end. If you want to argue patents then argue patents. The fact is, Apple held patents, Samsung infringed, and justice was done. You can argue whether the patents should have been granted or not but you can't say Apple shouldnt have won because the patents should have never been granted. Too late. They already were.
Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the trial had a normal result given the legal framework. Sometimes trials like this might go a bit this or that way, but in general they will have results like this. My own position on this is very simple: All (yes, all) patents should be abolished. The current law is the problem, not Apple or Samsung or the Jury or the judge. I also think what Samsung did was – in part – morally reprehensible, but should hav…
For people who believe that patents should be abolished: how do you see an ARM-like company existing without patent protection? Or do you think there is no value in being able to transact in designs?
I believe that patents should be abolished.
There is value in being able to transact designs. There are costs in the patent system. Court cases for example.
The question is "does the marginal benefits of patents over the alternatives, justify the costs?". And sometimes it might and other times it won't.