Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:35

muon said:
How is overscroll patentable? It is natural to have on touch screen displays.

A shame Apple didn't try and patent slide to scroll or something. Could have killed all other touch screen phones eh.

Over scroll isn't patentable. What happens when you over scroll is. Which is why android you now get a glow when you over scroll. And other menus just recentre.

muon · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:38

Glaucus said:
Over scroll isn't patentable. What happens when you over scroll is. Which is why android you now get a glow when you over scroll. And other menus just recentre.

The glow thing isn't overscroll.

The very fact I called Apple's implementation overscroll should say something. Nothing else is overscroll.

Google got around it by making their overscroll slightly 3D in the Gallery app, but it's the same thing.

edit:

If Apple were to hold the 2D version and Google the 3D version (which they don't), no one else could overscroll which is ridiculous.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:45

muon said:
The glow thing isn't overscroll.

The very fact I called Apple's implementation overscroll should say something. Nothing else is overscroll.

Google got around it by making their overscroll slightly 3D in the Gallery app, but it's the same thing.

edit:

If Apple were to hold the 2D version and Google the 3D version (which they don't), no one else could overscroll which is ridiculous.

Your going to have to explain the over scroll patent is the bounc back patent.

muon · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:51

Glaucus said:
Your going to have to explain the over scroll patent is the bounc back patent.

Allowing the screen to overscroll and then correct itself is what I call overscroll. Overscroll should not be patentable. The correction of the overscroll by recentring (a real word?), is what they call "bounceback".

They are both linked, as correction of overscroll could not possibly be done in any other way.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:52

muon said:
Allowing the screen to overscroll and then correct itself is what I call overscroll. Overscroll should not be patentable. The correction of the overscroll by recentring (a real word?), is what they call "bounceback".

They are both linked, as correction of overscroll could not possibly be done in any other way.

Apple do not own a patent on over scroll, the over scroll patent is actually the. Bounce back.

So other devices can over scroll, they just can't have the rubber band effect.
No recentralizing the screen is not bounce back at all. Bounce back is the rubber band effect and that is what the patent is for.

muon · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:55

Glaucus said:
Apple do not own a patent on over scroll, the over scroll patent is actually the. Bounce back.

So other devices can over scroll, they just can't have the rubber band effect.

Except you can't use overscroll if you aren't allowed to correct the image. You won't create a phone where you can scroll past the edge and the user has no idea where they are.

If you hadn't ever seen an iphone and this problem presented itself, what GUI element would you have used ("invented") Glaucus?

Glaucus said:
No recentralizing the screen is not bounce back at all. Bounce back is the rubber band effect and that is what the patent is for.

It is covered. Google didn't resort to the glow feature for no reason.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 10:59

you are allowed to correct the image, it is the rubber band effect you cant do.
they used glow as they thought it was the nicest way without using rubberband effect.

I wouldn't of invented anything, I would have gone normal pc UI where you cant over scroll. but then again i'm not a designer.

james.miller · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:08

This is what the patent's abstract say:

In accordance with some embodiments, a computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a device with a touch screen display is disclosed. In the method, a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display is detected. In response to detecting the movement, an electronic document displayed on the touch screen display is translated in a first direction. If an edge of the electronic document is reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display, an area beyond the edge of the document is displayed. After the object is no longer detected on or near the touch screen display, the document is translated in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed.

I'll let you lot make your own mind up on what that means....

http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

muon · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:23

Crafty · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:31

Wow, Apple really are ********* aren't they ?

I just read the slide to unlock patent, it says:
"A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture."

I can't see how the S3 infringes. There is no "unlock image" and there is no predefined gesture - swipe any way you like, doesn't even need to be a straight line.

As noted here previously the jury foreman has opened his mouth and is giving Samsung plenty of ammunition for an appeal: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

Meantime, do you remember the ban on the Galaxy 10.1 given in June ? the trial subsequently found the device did not infringe the patent is was banned for, so Samsung has asked for a hearing to get it lifted, Koh gave them a date in September, Apple asked for this to be delayed to a later date, Koh said no, so they are now asking to be in an appeal on that decision. Let it go guys, you lost that one!
Note the dirty tricks by Apple in the latter part of this article : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120831002313526

All I see if Apple becoming more and more unpopular. Sure when the iphone5 comes out plenty of chavs and sheep will go get it but there are many people being turned off their products. I hope it continues!

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:32

james.miller said:
This is what the patent's abstract say:

I'll let you lot make your own mind up on what that means....

http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

That's the basic overview

It does not patent over scroll, even the experts say this. It yet again is a pretty detailed and specific patent.

Claims
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

at a device with a touch screen display:
displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
in response to detecting the movement, translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion;
in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display:
displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and
displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; and
in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the electronic document, the second portion of the electronic document, the third portion of the electronic document, and the fourth portion of the electronic document are displayed at the same magnification.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the movement of the object is on the touch screen display.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the object is a finger.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first direction is a vertical direction, a horizontal direction, or a diagonal direction.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document is a web page.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document is a digital image.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document is a word processing, spreadsheet, email or presentation document.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document includes a list of items.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching an edge of the document has an associated speed of translation that corresponds to a speed of movement of the object.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction is in accordance with a simulation of an equation of motion having friction.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the area beyond the edge of the document is black, gray, a solid color, or white.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the area beyond the edge of the document is visually distinct from the document.

15. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating the document in the second direction is a damped motion.

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein changing from translating in the first direction to translating in the second direction until the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed makes the edge of the electronic document appear to be elastically attached to an edge of the touch screen display or to an edge displayed on the touch screen display.

17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document has a first associated translating distance that corresponds to a distance of movement of the object prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document; and wherein displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction for a second associated translating distance, wherein the second associated translating distance is less than a distance of movement of the object after reaching the edge of the electronic document.

18. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document has a first associated translating speed that corresponds to a speed of movement of the object, and wherein displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction at a second associated translating speed, wherein the second associated translating speed is slower than the first associated translating speed.

19. A device, comprising:

a touch screen display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the programs including:
instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement;
instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.
20. A computer readable storage medium having stored therein instructions, which when executed by a device with a touch screen display, cause the device to:

display a first portion of an electronic document;
detect a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
translate the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement
display an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and display a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, if the edge of the electronic document is reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
translate the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.

Then you have the images, you can still over scroll.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:35

Crafty said:
Meantime, do you remember the ban on the Galaxy 10.1 given in June ? the trial subsequently found the device did not infringe the patent is was banned for, so Samsung has asked for a hearing to get it lifted, Koh gave them a date in September, Apple asked for this to be delayed to a later date, Koh said no, so they are now asking to be in an appeal on that decision. Let it go guys, you lost that one!

!

It's even worse than that, the judge had no choice, in eu law as long as the community sesign paper work is in order, that's all the judge could do at that hearing.

Crafty · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:41

^ eu law not relevant, this is USA jurisdiction.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 11:42

Crafty said:
^ eu law not relevant, this is USA jurisdiction.

My bad, thought you where talking about the Germany ban on the tab.

james.miller · 1 Sep 2012 at 12:33

Glaucus said:
That's the basic overview

Yep, that's what the abstract is for.

The method of displaying an area beyond a documents's edge is what most people are calling 'over-scroll'. Is your definition different? I must admit, I couldn't find an official one so perhaps this is why opinions on this differ.

Anyway, What that patent does cover, quite clearly, is the method of displaying an area beyond the edge of a document when scrolling ,and returning the position of that document to such a position that the extra area is no longer displayed (Claim 1 in the text you quoted). The movement beyond the edge being what most would call 'over-scroll' and the movement beyond AND back to the edge being the 'bounce'.

It does not patent over scroll, even the experts say this. It yet again is a pretty detailed and specific patent.

Well, experts are certainly saying it shouldnt have been granted. I dont see any disputing what the patent is claiming, however. Do you have an example? Samsung tried to prove it wasn't valid, making reference to the 'over-scrolling' and 'bounce back' with examples of prior art. I doubt they would have bothered disputing both features if the patent didn't cover both.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

Samsung made its most compelling argument yet on why Apple's '381 bounce-back patent shouldn't be consider valid, with an expert witness providing a lengthy look at the Tablecloth application we saw this week. Dr. Andries van Dam, a faculty member at Brown University since 1965, walked the jury through the elements specified in the '381 patent, each of which appeared to be met by the application — and in his opinion, rendering the patent invalid due to prior art.

Tablecloth runs on the DiamondTouch Table computer, and as demonstrated yesterday allows a user to scroll through an image — in the example shown, a pair of desktop images — and then displays a blank white space when the user reaches the end; removing a finger causes the image to snap-back, much like Apple's feature. Tablecloth dates back to 2005, while Apple's bounce-back patent was originally filed in December of 2007.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2012 at 12:39

Patents can not be taken as a part, they are only valid as a whole.
So although there is over scrolling init. Over scrolling is not patented by itself.

Read this article on how media and many people over simplify patents as they are so complicated
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth

As to if it should have been granted, I'm not getting into that. That's even more complicated than the patent and changes from country to country.

Richie · 1 Sep 2012 at 13:01

After reading http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963 I don't see how this cannot be thrown out. That fool of a foreman basically used the same argument in both directions.

He stated that, because the "prior art" from the MERL app (P2Z)could not be run on the iPhone and vice versa, the prior art is invalid.

He then states that Samsung copied Apple. But if the "prior art" of the iPhone's P2Z cannot be run on the Samsung and vice versa, surely that invalidates the iPhone's prior art ergo different implementations ergo non-infringement

The same could then be said for the bounce back patent

I say the last paragraph with a hint of sarcasm BTW. Oh, and I don't care if you say the "jury" decided it. They didnt, it was the foreman that basically decided it for them.

stoosh · 1 Sep 2012 at 14:31

I'm just glad that in the UK we don't have a Micky Mouse court at least when it comes to technology and the Judges see past all the bull being feed by companies who are hell bent on destroying competition and want to operate with a monopoly.

bam0 · 1 Sep 2012 at 16:46

Glaucus said:
And what does that change, it's legally enforceable, like a lot of things it's upto the court to decide.
And certainly not what you implied.
"What do you mean smasung can't do that"

Cross licensing may or may not be common, but it is not essential. Basically FRAND patents have to be licensed and so far courts have given much lower costs, that the company's wanted.

Also

I didn't imply anything that you're attributing to me. The point is you keep going on about how Samsung have to license their patents FRAND and you think they aren't, but there is no legal percentage charge that constitutes "fair", just because you and Apple don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

n111ck · 1 Sep 2012 at 18:06

bam0 said:
I didn't imply anything that you're attributing to me. The point is you keep going on about how Samsung have to license their patents FRAND and you think they aren't, but there is no legal percentage charge that constitutes "fair", just because you and Apple don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

What does it matter? The general consensus on here is that patents are pointless and fair game to be ripped off. :rolleyes: