Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 437 posts

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#341

Post by nirvana »

eropple wrote: post #328
nirvana wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Apple was neither the first to create a multi-touch user interface (the first consumer multitouch device I know of was the Lemur, but I'm sure that was predated) nor the first to put it in a handheld PDA-ish device or a phone (LG beat the iPhone to market with the Prada--which, incidentally, also used very few physical buttons in favor of software buttons)." The LG Prada was single touch and it did not have a touch…

> The LG Prada was single touch and it did not have a touch UI. Just a gimmick screen that would let you launch functions. IT wasn't even a smart phone, it was a feature phone. On this you are correct. I was thinking of the Prada II, which was multitouch. My apologies. That does not necessarily make Apple's use of multitouch the novel concept you assert, however--to me, Surface, Lemur, etc. make shrinking it down to…

Apple did not license iOS from someone else who invented multi-touch. I was rebutting the claim that they just assembled the iPhone from off the shelf parts, like legos.

You're so focused on your ideology that you're making an argument against patents (the context where obviousness would be relevant) in response to me saying Apple created iOS.

I find your need to characterize me, rather than address my point, and your dishonesty about the point I was even making, a form of obnoxiousness that I can do without, so feel free to ignore me. '

But don't pretend like I've done anything wrong here- you lied about me, and you characterized me and you called me names. Thus I must conclude you come to HN to be in the google distortion field, unpreturbed by anyone who would bring up pesky facts you don't like. And since I dared to make an argument you can't rebut, you feel fine insulting me.

You made the error, buddy, and you're blaming me for it. Shame on you.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#342

Post by nirvana »

antidoh wrote: post #132
nirvana wrote: post #111

Earlier 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…

My fingernail works just fine, and with much finer control than my blob of a finger on an aPhone or iPhone. Apple added some cool stuff, but I definitely interact with my Centro's screen by touch, with very little error.

So you're claiming that Apple licensed Palm OS for iOS? Or did you misunderstand what I was claiming?

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#343

Post by Falling3 »

veemjeem wrote: post #247
KirinDave wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Groklaw has been a pretty reliable source for years now. Its disappointing that them presenting an opinion means they are labeled as "biased."

Every news source is biased. It's a bit naive to think someone is reporting it with a historian-balanced viewpoint. Some people think NPR is "fair and balanced" only to find out they actually lean left. Groklaw has always reported favorably for linux during the SCO vs IBM trials -- there's definitely bias in the reporting. They tend to pick the side that wins them the most readers. Had they picked the "evil" SCO side…

NPR is unbiased. Reality leans left.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#344

Post by learc83 »

veemjeem wrote: post #315
learc83 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents. You're confusing trademarks and patents. You have an obligation to defend trademarks because if you don't you risk dilution. This isn't the case with patents.

> This isn't the case with patents You're confusing "utility" patents with "design" patents. You have obligation to defend the design patents because you'll need this to apply for trade dress protection.

I never said you didn't have a duty to defend trade dress. It can be diluted just like trademarks.

There may be some overlap, and as far as what's covered by the design patent is covered by trade dress you'd have to defend it (or risk dilution), but it has nothing to do with the patent.

You can register for trade dress protection without design patents. Design patents expire, trade dress does not, it's definitely possible to be covered by one and not the other.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#345

Post by veemjeem »

pserwylo wrote: post #318
catch23 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were so "obvious", why hadn't someone created something similar to iPhone's interface? I owned the Nokia 770 -- a great internet tablet for it's time. I even hack soldered a wifi extension dongle to it so I could get better signal, but the browser on that thing was just horrible. What other obvious ideas are out there right now that some company will make billions off of? There's a few right under your nose t…

I think the obviousness argument is getting a little confused in most comments about this case. I am arguing that the technology itself was obvious. This is also what the OP is arguing. Several examples of prior art for patented technologies such as pinch to zoom, rounded corner rectangles, etc. have been presented in other articles here and elsewhere. What is not obvious was the sum of each tiny part that Apple put…

I'd argue there are certain aspects of the iPhone that are truly revolutionary, even if the ideas may have existed in other contexts before. For example, the scrolling mechanism on the iPhone was not done by anyone else prior Apple's product, and now everyone implements scrolling with a flick/inertia. I think had Apple used the old style scrolling methods, we might still be using those today. LG had a 10 year head start on Apple for manufacturing phones when Apple's first phone came out, yet their LG Prada phone still had a painfully small scrollbar that you were forced to use.

I think Apple did create a product that warrants a design patent though. These are defensive mechanisms that prevent copycats from producing identical products in fashion where appearances and "feel" matter more than the practical purpose of the invention. Gucci applies for design patents all the time so that copycats won't produce an identical bag and sell it on the market.

Apple is worried about the same thing here -- they've produced a product that has a certain appearance and style they feel Samsung is making a direct copy of. Design patents can cover product packaging, and if you look at how Samsung packaged their tablets, you can see how identical the boxes are compared to Apple's.

So in summary, I have 2 main points: Apple can and should defend their design patents. The technology that Apple implemented for scrolling was non-obvious otherwise competitors would have implemented these long before Apple.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#346

Post by nirvana »

KirinDave wrote: post #329
nirvana wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how anyone posting on here who doesn't take a stridently anti-Apple position is accused of being "biased" (even when making ideologically neutral comments, I saw the other day)... yet pointing out that an agenda driven site, which has presented distorted and, frankly, dishonest, reporting of the situation is "biased" is somehow beyond the pale. The reason you feel this way is because you're biased. It's ok, I'm…

But, ah, nirvana... where did I call anyone biased? Can you find a single instance? You're typing angry words at a phantom argument you created. I don't know who's face you glued on that straw man, but I'm bored watching you burn it down. Besides, you can take as pro or as anti-Apple a stance as you want. Personally, I think that's missing the point of this entire exercise . Do you really think that people are upset…

You didn't call someone biased, you made a conclusion about the meaning of the word bias, that reflects something we've seen here on HN very often. I was showing you how people on your side of the patent debate use the word, since you were on the, shall we say, receiving end of it this time.

You were taking offense at the use of the word. I was, in a sense, agreeing with you, and asking you to recognize that bias does not mean lacking in credibility. It simply means having an opinion.

Bias is not the weapon that some on hacker news seem to think it is (and your position was one as if it had wounded you....)

Hope that makes it more clear!

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#347

Post by dmpk2k »

confluence wrote: post #330
dmpk2k wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but chances for future growth I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done". I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.

Sorry but I'm an investor. Companies need to grow my investment above 11% a year to be worth extra volatility/liquidity/market risks. Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.

From an individual perspective that makes sense. That does not change what I said, however.

This is old and beaten ground though, which you are no doubt familiar with. I'll refrain from treading it again.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#348

Post by ElliotMingee »

catch23 wrote: post #284
ElliotMingee wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point; I was too quick to comment there. I'm curious though: are you familiar with the reasoning behind the development of design patents? I've done some light research and not turned up much. It seems that trademark and copyright already provide fairly expansive coverage for non-functional IP, so I don't quite see the intent behind the design patent laws.

Here's a small article to get you going: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as... Here's a brief excerpt: "Design patent secures for their owner a fourteen-year right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product and, thus, allows time to build up secondary meaning necessary to acquire product design trade dress protection. Trade dress protection can last for as…

Ah, thank you very much. With this context, the verdict does make more sense now. I have one last question for you though: I've seen mention of design patents for a bezel around a screen or rectangle with round corners, however should a design patent not cover the entire device? It seems if the idea is to prevent consumer confusion, devices should be viewed holistically, not piecemeal.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#349

Post by veemjeem »

learc83 wrote: post #344
veemjeem wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't the case with patents You're confusing "utility" patents with "design" patents. You have obligation to defend the design patents because you'll need this to apply for trade dress protection.

I never said you didn't have a duty to defend trade dress. It can be diluted just like trademarks. There may be some overlap, and as far as what's covered by the design patent is covered by trade dress you'd have to defend it (or risk dilution), but it has nothing to do with the patent. You can register for trade dress protection without design patents. Design patents expire, trade dress does not, it's definitely pos…

Yes, because design patents expire, there's even greater reason to need to defend them while they exist. Design patents and trade dress protection often go hand in hand. In order to show trade dress infringement, one needs to show consumer confusion between the two products, and IIRC one needs around 4 years of solid registration before protection is enabled. So when you don't have trade dress protection yet, you would have to use your enforce your design patents to ensure that consumers won't be confused for 4 years or so.

Design patents can be implemented before the release of a product, but trade dress protection is decided by the market after being available to consumers for a certain length of time.

A handbag designer like Gucci would enforce their designer handbags with design patents when they release new ones, then enforce them with trade dress later on.

Post reply on HN