Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by JoelSutherland on Saturday August 25, 2012 @02:51PM (#4432832)

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 event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by
  distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display
  that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to
  the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;

  4. issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or
  gesture operation;

  5. responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having
  a view associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the
  scroll stopped at a predetermined position in relation to the user input; and

  6. responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view
  associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in
  the form of the user input.

Here is text from the paper (http://www.sonycsl.co.jp/person/rekimoto/papers/chi02.pdf) that accompanied this 2002 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s#t=2m20s) of this exact same behavior:

  Figure 12 shows a map browsing system. The user scrolls the map by sliding a ﬁnger
  along the sensor surface. If the user touches the surface with two or more ﬁngers,
  by changing the distance from the ﬁngers to the surface, he/she can control the map
  scale. Simultaneous control of scrolling and zooming is intuitive, because the user
  feels as if his or her ﬁngers are ﬁxed to the map’s surface.

It is true that I don't understand patents very well. But, those are the same thing.

Since you seem to understand the patent system well enough to drop generalizations about the HN population, would you please explain how this can be and also why it should be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by lines on Saturday August 25, 2012 @05:03PM (#4433284)

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by JoelSutherland on Saturday August 25, 2012 @05:19PM (#4433343)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by skue on Saturday August 25, 2012 @04:24PM (#4433165)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by JoelSutherland on Saturday August 25, 2012 @04:36PM (#4433206)

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)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by skue on Saturday August 25, 2012 @05:14PM (#4433321)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by JoelSutherland on Saturday August 25, 2012 @05:28PM (#4433376)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury by skue on Saturday August 25, 2012 @06:55PM (#4433624)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]