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

Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

litigationandtrial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#61

Post by flogic »

otterley wrote: post #17
MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it had occurred to other people, and lots of them. You can even watch Tom Cruise pinch-to-zoom, and scroll by waiving his hands. Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.: US5844547 May 9, 1995 Dec 1, 1998 Fujitsu Limited Apparatus for manipulating an object displayed on a display device by using a touch screen US6567102 Nov 25, 2001 May 20, 2003 Compal Electronics Inc. Touch screen using pressure to contr…

Are you honestly contending that if anything depicted in a sci-fi movie cannot qualify as patentable subject matter when actually implemented? E.g., if someone invents a matter transporter as depicted in Star Trek, the inventor cannot patent it?

I think for UI elements the standard should be slightly different since a work of fiction can detail the entire thing. So in you example the transporter would be patentable since there no real info on how to make one. However the 3 finger slide gesture they use to activate it shouldn't be since that's the entire thing.

Disclaimer: I'm completely against patenting UI elements. I'm of the opinion that once they come into existence they're language and patenting language is anti-social behavior.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#62

Post by timr »

martythemaniak wrote: post #39
timr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity" Yeah. They do. Patented inventions become a commodity in 14-20 years, depending on the kind of patent. "Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process." Call me crazy, but I think we're seeing Apple using the process to defend their inventions , which is exactly…

The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less. I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped…

"The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less."

The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the verdict is consistent with the patent laws, then your objection to the case is irrelevant -- your proper complaint is with the system, not the actor.

"I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream."

Again, you have complaints about the patent system, and I empathize. I don't like many aspects of the system, either. But I also don't begrudge Apple for acting rationally within the rules established by the system.

In this case, in particular, I believe that the patent system is being used in a legitimate way, to protect a company that has made some true marketplace innovations. It's decidedly sub-optimal that Apple has to resort to patents on rubber-band scrolling to protect something as core to their business model as "look and feel", but that's the system that we have. I don't think it's fair to make Apple a villain (and Samsung a hero) just because the laws are flawed.

Said another way: don't hate the player, hate the game.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#63

Post by tensor »

nirvana wrote: post #41
tensor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a minimum test for whether something is non-obvious enough to be patented, I like to think of whether it could have been published in a computer science or UI journal. Similarly, if it has already been published in a journal, then it should be off limits for being patentable. Let's consider multitouch. This invention has already had numerous articles written about it [1]. Thus it is patentable, but Apple is decade…

Repeat after me: Patents do not cover ideas. Patents do not cover features. Writing about an idea or a feature in a computer science journal is not prior art. Star Trek has the warp drive. So, if someone invents the technology to give us a warp drive, you think that it isn't novel because we've seen it on TV going back to the 1960s!

I highly suggest you read the above quoted book by the American Bar Association on drafting patents. Emotionally repeating your own personal definition of the word idea helps no one. When we use the word idea in the context of invention, we are talking about the idea of an implementation. For example, the idea behind a steam engine, it might be at its most general: driving a piston with steam. If this idea did not have prior art, you most certainly could patent it as the idea embodies a technique.

Unfortunately, I don't have a good go-to source explaining what computer science is, but I assure you that computer science does not involve writing science fiction novels.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#64

Post by learc83 »

nirvana wrote: post #33

Special effects are not prior art. Demonstrating a feature does not give you prior art neither. Patents cover implementations. Two people can invent two different methods to do the same thing. It is not the case that the first patent gives them a monopoly on the features. Just because the internal combustion engine (eg: with pistons) exists, doesn't mean that you can't patent a rotary engine (like Mazda did). Both ar…

>Special effects are not prior art.

Special effects can be prior art, if they are sufficiently descriptive. Just like drawings, sketches, and textual descriptions can be prior art.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#65

Post by twoodfin »

MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #19
twoodfin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How hard do you think it is to implement scrolling, the rubber band effect, and pinch-to-zoom on a display screen? Answer: not hard at all. So surely there were dozens of devices with these features (I assume you mean inertial scrolling) prior to the patents being granted? This stuff is not trivial: Only a handful of multitouch devices even existed prior to the iPhone, and exploiting that technology, along with impro…

Look at the prior art cited by the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 Read the file wrapper and the notice of allowability. Here is Apple's great triumph in claiming an invention as compared to prior art: "The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: In regards to the independent claims 1, 19 and 20, the prior art found does not teach in response to an edge of the electronic documen…

If it's so narrow, why is it a problem for Samsung? You can't have it both ways. Either it's just an obvious, trivial idea, or it's a specific implementation that's a useful but not necessary extension of the art.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#66

Post by devcpp »

timr wrote: post #62
martythemaniak wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less. I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped…

"The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less." The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the ver…

The player is playing the kind of game where everybody loses. But there is a way to make everyone win: act like Google has been acting up to now. Every big actor should build up a protective pile of abusive patents (it's so easy nowadays) and threaten anyone that might sue them of counter-suing.

It's just like the Cold war: nuclear weapons were a reality, so everyone got lots of it and mutual assured destruction ensured nothing too bad could happen.

Now Apple decided to play an all-in against its main competitor to establish monopoly by using its abusive patent against someone they knew could counter-sue. And now, instead of discouraging that kind of practice and realizing the perversion of the patent system, the jury decided to encourage them.

In other words: this player chose to play a disgusting game. I think we can hate both the player and the game.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#67

Post by mratzloff »

ta12121 wrote: post #35
mratzloff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was apparently novel enough that a number of companies and open source projects have now implemented similar UI feedback where they didn't have it before.

Many breakthroughs are invented multiple times before they stick. The patent doesn't belong to the one who made it popular, but the one who made it first.

If that applies here, please point to a piece of software that did that prior to the iPhone. I would be genuinely curious to find out about it.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#68

Post by azakai »

nirvana wrote: post #36
MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it had occurred to other people, and lots of them. You can even watch Tom Cruise pinch-to-zoom, and scroll by waiving his hands. Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.: US5844547 May 9, 1995 Dec 1, 1998 Fujitsu Limited Apparatus for manipulating an object displayed on a display device by using a touch screen US6567102 Nov 25, 2001 May 20, 2003 Compal Electronics Inc. Touch screen using pressure to contr…

>Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.: Since the patent itself cites prior art, obviously the patent isn't patenting the same thing as the prior art. >All Apple did was jumble these same longstanding .... was at best modestly different from prior implementations You have provided no evidence or reason to believe this. In fact, I've seen this claim hundreds of times, and never seen anyone even attempt to p…

> Since the patent itself cites prior art, obviously the patent isn't patenting the same thing as the prior art.

It should be easy for you, if you are correct, to simply state what is new and novel and patentworthy that Apple did, that is not covered by the prior art mentioned.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#69

Post by jussij »

> smartphones in which the objects on the screen roll around and bounce back like you’re spinning the Wheel of Fortune.

What I don't understand about this 'bounce back' feature is that here in Australia we have software based poker machines (Vegas style slot machines to the yanks out there) and they have had this bounce feature for decades.

Edit: To help people visualise, what I mean is the reels of the poker machine spin in one direction and when they finally stop spinning they do a very short bounce back in the other direction.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#70

Post by jussij »

tensor wrote: post #56
learc83 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples pinch-to-zoom patent covers what we call pinch-to-zoom on a touchscreen. There is no other logical way to implement pinch to zoom on a touchscreen. Therefore, they effectively have a patent on the feature pinch-to-zoom on smartphones. It is also obvious. Had I been working on the iPhone and decided I wanted to implement the pinch-to-zoom feature from minority report, I would have done it exactly as described i…

I think Apple's patent is actually multitouch on a resistive touch screen . They do not have a patent on implementing gestures by measuring the speed and distance of multiple touch input points. The later is what has plenty of prior art and the former is exceedingly trivial and really should not be patentable.

I think the problem in this case is the jury just decided to ignored prior art.

Quoting from this link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...

> "He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art." "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

I doubt that in the appeal Apple will be so lucky.

Post reply on HN