ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apple , lawsuits , samsung

Reply
Old 10th August 2012, 09:07 PM   #81
The Dark Lord
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,860
If Samsung violates Apple patents in such a way that a complete redesign is necessary, it is the patent system that is the problem.

Because the GS3 is not a copy of the iPhone. It is a much better device.
The Dark Lord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2012, 09:09 PM   #82
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
"
If it's so "obvious", why can't either you or WildCat ever seem to point to anyone who even hinted at this type of scrolling prior to the filing date of this patent?
What does the first person finding it have anything to do with it? My claim is that it is obvious. If someone just needed to do it now, obviously it wouldn't have been done before!

Advanced touch screens capable of running multiple windows have just recently come into popular use.

If no one needed to do it before then obviously no one would have done it before. Therefore asking for previous examples to prove that it isn't obvious makes zero sense at all.

If that is taking as sensible in the current patent system, then it is more broken than I thought.
__________________
________________________

Last edited by OnlyTellsTruths; 10th August 2012 at 09:19 PM.
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 03:03 AM   #83
Wangler
Master Poster
 
Wangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,230
Originally Posted by The Dark Lord View Post
Because the GS3 is not a copy of the iPhone. It is a much better device.
And thus Apples' fear, and the true reason behind the lawsuits.
Wangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 03:21 AM   #84
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Originally Posted by Wangler View Post
And thus Apples' fear, and the true reason behind the lawsuits.
Ironic that several posters here are telling Samsung to innovate! Apple is the one trying to get competition off store shelves...
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:45 AM   #85
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
What does the first person finding it have anything to do with it? My claim is that it is obvious.
And our challenge is for you to back up that claim with evidence.

You appear to be using "obvious" as synonymous with "known without evidence," rather than "readily apparent from the evidence."

You can claim obviousness all day, but your claims are quite unsupported at this point.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 08:08 AM   #86
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,755
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
What does the first person finding it have anything to do with it? My claim is that it is obvious. If someone just needed to do it now, obviously it wouldn't have been done before!

Advanced touch screens capable of running multiple windows have just recently come into popular use.

If no one needed to do it before then obviously no one would have done it before. Therefore asking for previous examples to prove that it isn't obvious makes zero sense at all.

If that is taking as sensible in the current patent system, then it is more broken than I thought.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dp...g/ip00154.html


Quote:
At the Federal Court of Appeal (Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet OY)16, it was held that the evidence of the experts, although admissible, is to be treated with care.

Quote:
Every invention is obvious after it has been made, and to no one more so than an expert in the field. Where the expert has been hired for the purpose of testifying, his infallible hindsight is even more suspect. It is so easy once the teaching of a patent is known to say, “I could have done that”; before the assertion can be given any weight, one must have a satisfactory answer to the question, “Why didn't you?”

Interesting, isn't it? Various courts and patent offices all over the world have been trying for years to come up with pragmatic definitions of what should be considered "obvious", and yet, here we are, still dealing with the exact same problems, coming from people who've apparently never even looked at any of this discussion. This is not a new question, and your answer to it has be rejected by the courts, repeatedly, for years.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 10:05 AM   #87
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,083
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
They'd need to innovate, then?
Sure, they just have to make a phone that doesn't have a rectangular touchscreen and no other features that have been around forever but Apple has claimed a patent for "on a mobile device".
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 10:07 AM   #88
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,083
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
And our challenge is for you to back up that claim with evidence.

You appear to be using "obvious" as synonymous with "known without evidence," rather than "readily apparent from the evidence."

You can claim obviousness all day, but your claims are quite unsupported at this point.
Why do you think touchscreens were invented long before Apple even existed, if not to manipulate with the fingers?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 10:12 AM   #89
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,083
Apple claimed in court yesterday that people bought Samsung products thinking they were iPhones or iPads. I'm guessing these people were like my mother, who calls every smart phone an "iPhone" and is completely unaware that only Apple makes them, indeed she probably doesn't even know there is a company called Apple.

That's certainly not the fault of Samsung, just a predictable result of wildly successful Apple marketing. Just like she calls all plastic wrap "Saran wrap" no matter who makes it.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:18 AM   #90
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Sure, they just have to make a phone that doesn't have a rectangular touchscreen and no other features that have been around forever but Apple has claimed a patent for "on a mobile device".
So now your strategy is "keep making the same ridiculous claims and ignore the requests for evidence"?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:21 AM   #91
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Apple claimed in court yesterday that people bought Samsung products thinking they were iPhones or iPads.
Yes, that is how a trademark claim works.
Search for "trademark" on Wikipedia and you can find some useful information on the subject.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:23 AM   #92
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,083
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
So now your strategy is "keep making the same ridiculous claims and ignore the requests for evidence"?
Are you still demanding evidence that touch screens invented long before Apple existed were intended to be manipulated by fingers?

And are you completely unaware that Apple is claiming "trade dress" on rectangular phones with rounded corners?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:26 AM   #93
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,083
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, that is how a trademark claim works.
Search for "trademark" on Wikipedia and you can find some useful information on the subject.
And? Do you think Apple's claim to the rectangular shape with rounded corners is legitimate, and not just convergent design?

Maybe Apple will also claim trade dress on rectangular TVs when they come out with theirs, and get Judge Koh to declare inadmissable all claims of prior art like she did in the current case.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:28 AM   #94
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And? Do you think Apple's claim to the rectangular shape with rounded corners is legitimate, and not just convergent design?
Considering your clear misrepresentations of Apple's position in other matters, I'm not going to accept your description of "Apple's claim.". Quote their arguments and cite to their briefs.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:30 AM   #95
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,083
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Considering your clear misrepresentations of Apple's position in other matters, I'm not going to accept your description of "Apple's claim.". Quote their arguments and cite to their briefs.
Ah, so you don't even have the slightest clue as to what the current lawsuit is about.

I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:32 AM   #96
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Ah, so you don't even have the slightest clue as to what the current lawsuit is about.

I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.
In other threads, we call this "making claims without evidence."

This thread is about IP, though - a topic where the uninformed feel they have a particular right to speak without the benefit of either facts or education.

If you're unwilling to actually back up your claims about what Apple is arguing or what their patents say, recognize that we'll keep calling you on that.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:34 AM   #97
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,852
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
...snip...

And are you completely unaware that Apple is claiming "trade dress" on rectangular phones with rounded corners?
Well no one had the idea until Steve did - I mean this never existed in 2003...

(Had to use the P900 and not the P800 as my P800 isn't in my desk drawer so couldn't take a quick photo of it - the P800 was 2002.)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20120811_192628.jpg (39.6 KB, 5 views)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:39 AM   #98
Sideroxylon
Gavagai!
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,184
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Ah, so you don't even have the slightest clue as to what the current lawsuit is about.

I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.
It would make the thread more interesting and informative to lurkers if you could have a bit of a go at answering that question.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:49 AM   #99
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,852
Trade dress complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53458125/C...ne-Trade-Dress

Love one of the first parts: "...before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with keypads for dialling and small passive display screens that did not allow for touch control....".

Yeah apart from of course phones like the P800 or the XDA - and the XDA (1 & 2) is one of the best prior art arguments about Apple's claims.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 11:51 AM   #100
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
It would make the thread more interesting and informative to lurkers if you could have a bit of a go at answering that question.
My prediction: if he bothers to answer at all, it will be to an second-hand source, like an article or blog post with a misinformed title like "Apple patents rectangle." Essentially saying, "Hey, I'm not the origin of this fact-free opinion; I'm just passing it along!"
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 12:43 PM   #101
DuvalHMFIC
Critical Thinker
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 438
This all still seems ridiculous to me. Should the corner grocery store patent having 60" wide aisles in their store? Better yet, should they patent having SHELVES to place the products on? Baskets to put the products in? How about having a sign out front?

Should they patent having angled parking spaces too? This is what these lawsuits seem the equivalent of to me.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 12:56 PM   #102
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
This all still seems ridiculous to me. Should the corner grocery store patent having 60" wide aisles in their store? Better yet, should they patent having SHELVES to place the products on? Baskets to put the products in? How about having a sign out front?
They're welcome to try. All we have to do is find one grocery store that had each of these things in it before the patent was filed, or a document of someone describing how groceries stores work dated from before the patent was filed, and they can't get a patent on it.

On the other hand, assume for a second that every grocery store had at least 50" aisles, everyone knows you must have 50" aisles, and all the grocery store literature assumes 50" aisles. Now, lets says somebody comes up with a way to feasibly make grocery products available to consumers in 30" aisles -- something nobody else has done before. Why shouldn't they have the option to get a patent on it?

Remember, utility patents are only available to the first person that makes a useful invention actually work. You need to keep that limitation in your mind. That's really the most basic requirement.

Last edited by AvalonXQ; 11th August 2012 at 12:58 PM.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 03:34 PM   #103
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Trade dress complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53458125/C...ne-Trade-Dress

Love one of the first parts: "...before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with keypads for dialling and small passive display screens that did not allow for touch control....".

Yeah apart from of course phones like the P800 or the XDA - and the XDA (1 & 2) is one of the best prior art arguments about Apple's claims.
And about a dozen other phones. At least.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 03:42 PM   #104
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
They're welcome to try. All we have to do is find one grocery store that had each of these things in it before the patent was filed,
That's odd, because the Judge in this case told Samsung they could not present their earlier phones that had these features as evidence.

Also, as I already pointed out, sometimes tech can arrive at a point where something is possible. It can be both obvious at that time and obviously not been done before. Just because it wasn't done before does not mean it isn't obvious! It's because it only just became possible ! That flat out makes that part of patent law ridiculous. Sure, that can be a good way to sometimes tell if something is obvious. But there are clearly situations where it is not.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 04:12 PM   #105
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
That's odd, because the Judge in this case told Samsung they could not present their earlier phones that had these features as evidence.
And yet again, no citation or quotation.

Which, if I had to guess, means that that's not what went down with the patent features at all.

Last edited by AvalonXQ; 11th August 2012 at 04:15 PM.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:05 PM   #106
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
And yet again, no citation or quotation.

Which, if I had to guess, means that that's not what went down with the patent features at all.
It was huge news last week when Samsung leaked that? Did you seriously miss it?
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:12 PM   #107
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Judge Koh Lets Samsung Slide For Publishing Rejected Evidence

Quote:
Judge Koh rejected Quinn’s request to include several pieces of evidence — including pictures of old Samsung phones which looked like the iPhone before the iPhone began to ship — for the third time on Tuesday, sending Mr. Quinn to “beg” to have the evidence included. When Koh once again rejected their requests, Samsung sent out this evidence, including interviews, drawings and memos, to select members of the press.
Quote:
“The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone,” wrote Samsung in their evidence dump.
Quote:
“The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”

Here's an interesting new article:

Apple Should Have Followed the Bouncing Srcoll to Prior Art; How Apple's Case Is Starting To Crumble
__________________
________________________

Last edited by OnlyTellsTruths; 11th August 2012 at 05:19 PM.
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:17 PM   #108
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol...day-2-roundup/

Quote:
Samsung’s lawyer, John Quinn, then asked Judge Koh once more if they could include drawings of older Samsung designs which predate the first iPhone as evidence. This isn’t the first time Samsung has asked Judge Koh to consider these drawings as evidence, and today she once more denied the request. Much to her chagrin, Quinn decided to press the matter, saying he was — for the first time in his 30 years of courtroom experience — begging that this evidence be included.

“You’ve made your record for appeal,” said the judge. “Don’t make me sanction you, please.”
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:22 PM   #109
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Apple Should Have Followed the Bouncing Srcoll to Prior Art; How Apple's Case Is Starting To Crumble

Quote:
We have noticed this from the beginning when Apple asked to have details about the F700 phone and the “Sony” prototype kept out of court. Judge Lucy Koh originally prevented the evidence from being entered claiming it was too late in the discovery process to be allowed. We asked about this and many IP lawyers were a little surprised that it was not allowed since the F700 is a phone that Apple claims infringes on their patents. They felt that Judge Koh should have allowed the original brief and all evidence related to it. Even now Apple is still trying to block evidence that can show the origin and design concept for the F700 by asking that the original developer for the F700 not be allowed to testify.
Quote:
When a company or person repeatedly asks for evidence to be excluded it is because they know that it weakens their case. We are fairly certain that Apple is aware of the impact bringing in the original designer of the F700 will have.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 05:58 PM   #110
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,280
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
They'd need to innovate, then?
Absolutely.

Who knows, if they try, they might some day have Apple by the balls.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:15 PM   #111
The Dark Lord
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,860
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Absolutely.

Who knows, if they try, they might some day have Apple by the balls.
They already do innovate. The Super AMOLED screens, for example, which Samsung invented and builds (unlike Apple which just buys components from companies like Samsung) is far more innovative and worthy of patents than the idea of scrolling with two fingers or whatever.

Consequently, they are the number one smartphone maker in the world. Which is why Apple is trying to bring them down in court.
The Dark Lord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:16 PM   #112
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Absolutely.

Who knows, if they try, they might some day have Apple by the balls.
I know you are referring to patents with that comment, but I don't think Samsung is very worried either way. Samsung is killing them in smartphone market share. That is why Apple is using patent law to try and get Samsung products off shelves.

Android has nearly 70% of the smartphone market, half of which are Samsung phones. Apple has like 15% smartphone market share. So, AFAIK, Samsung already has more than twice the smartphone market share.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:20 PM   #113
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Hey The Dark Lord, why do you have to ninja me!

Anyway I wanted to check my numbers before someone tries to say:

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
And yet again, no citation or quotation.

Here's an article from 3 days ago. I was very nearly spot on:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/08/tech...-market-share/

Quote:
Google's Android surged to a whopping 68% share of the global smartphone market last quarter. That's four times the 17% market share held by Apple, according to a Wednesday report from research firm IDC.

More specifically, IDC pegged Android's gain "directly" to Samsung, which represented 44% of all Android phones shipped during the quarter. That's more than the next seven Android vendors combined, IDC said. Samsung's Galaxy S III debuted late in the quarter to favorable reviews.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 06:29 PM   #114
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
I know that Apple is one of, if not the, most profitable companies, and people on the internet love to talk about them. But you wouldn't know it from market shares.

I very rarely even see people with Apple phones or computers.

Apple doesn't even have 5% of the worldwide PC OS market share, and are lucky if they have over single digit in the US, compared to nearly Microsofts nearly 90% PC OS domination.

AFAIK the only thing Apple has a majority OS market share in is tablets and that's just barely. They have 54% compared to 44.6% of tablets running Android. With the Android % rising, and the Apple % falling.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/14/28...indle-fire-idc
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2012, 07:00 PM   #115
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
It was huge news last week when Samsung leaked that? Did you seriously miss it?
Yeah, so it didn't have anything to do with excluding prior art regarding the features of sold Samsung phones. It doesn't have anything to do with the utility patents at all.

It's excluding the internal (unreleased) designs Samsung had allegedly been working on prior to the Apple release to rebut the allegations that Samsung copied the iPhone's design.

In other words, it has nothing to do with the points being made back and forth about claiming inventive features in patents versus finding those features in the prior art.

After repeated calls for pre-2007 technology that actually reproduces the claimed multi-touch feature and failure to produce same, can we infer that none of the posters here actually have any?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 01:32 AM   #116
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,853
Wow it's like you only read the article until you saw a weakness and jumped on it.

The F700 is a real phone, just because they reference the design schematics doesn't mean it's not real....

Why do you think Apple is trying to block the developer and designer of the F700 form testifying?
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 05:57 AM   #117
Wangler
Master Poster
 
Wangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,230
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
After repeated calls for pre-2007 technology that actually reproduces the claimed multi-touch feature and failure to produce same, can we infer that none of the posters here actually have any?
I don't know; it seems as if this 2003 patent might be considered prior art to the Apple patent.

It may be too general in it's input specifics, though.
Wangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 07:05 AM   #118
Ferguson
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
I very rarely even see people with Apple phones or computers.

Apple doesn't even have 5% of the worldwide PC OS market share, and are lucky if they have over single digit in the US, compared to nearly Microsofts nearly 90% PC OS domination.
Yep, they've always been fighting for survival with a tiny percent of market share, but still the internet loves to vilify them as the big bullies on the block.
Ferguson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 07:09 AM   #119
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,755
Originally Posted by Wangler View Post
I don't know; it seems as if this 2003 patent might be considered prior art to the Apple patent.

It may be too general in it's input specifics, though.


Here's a better link where you can read the full text:

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...d=WO2003081458



Quote:
Implementations may include one or more of the following features and one or more of the features noted above. For example, the input tool may be a pen stylus or a finger, and tracking motion of the input tool may include tracking the pen or finger on the display surface.
The display may include a touch screen and tracking motion of the input tool may include tracking motion of the input tool on the touch screen. The touch screen may include, for example, a resistive sensor, a capacitive sensor, an acoustic wave sensor, or an infrared sensor. The touch screen may include a sensor activated by a touch activation force by the input tool on the display.
The motion may be separated into a horizontal component and a vertical component relative to the display, the horizontal component may be compared to the threshold, and horizontal movement of the visible portion of the page of information on the display may be constrained if the horizontal component does not exceed the threshold. Vertical motion may be left uncompared and unconstrained or comparing the motion also may include comparing the vertical component and constraining the vertical movement of the visible portion of the page of information on the display. Comparing the motion of the input tool to the threshold may include comparing the motion of the input tool to a user-defined threshold or to a system-defined threshold.
Quote:
Implementations may include one or more following features and one or more of the features described above. For example, the input tool may include a stylus, a mouse, or a finger. The display may include a touchscreen on which the input tool may be tracked. The touchscreen may include, for example, a resistive sensor, a capacitive sensor, an acoustic wave sensor, or an infrared sensor.


I'd say that this actually "teaches away" from the one finger vs. two fingers control of the Apple patent. Note that they consider a finger to be functionally equivalent to a stylus or mouse. It's likely no one would have two mice or styluses, and there's no suggestion that you could use multiple fingers in any way. Also, the control scheme is entirely based on the direction in which you move the stylus/finger, not on how many you're using. A very different style of control.

Also note, the information they're scrolling is formatted differently as well - there's no suggestion of a frame-within-a-frame, which is scrolled differently based on the different control inputs.

And that's a key point, which all the "Ohh, touch is obvious" types keep missing: you have to consider all elements of the claim before you can judge obviousness. The frames formatting is just as much a part of the invention as the one vs. two finger scrolling. As is the fact that the one finger vs two finger control is applied regardless of where on the screen you touch - as opposed to scrolling the inner frame only when the touch is within that frame, as you'd see in most web browsers, for instance.

So, a different touch control scheme, with no discussion of the allegedly "obvious" use of two fingers, that uses differently formatted page layouts, and controls those page layouts in a completely different way. Yeah, I think AvalonXQ would Bitch Slap me severely if I tried to apply a reference like that!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2012, 07:23 AM   #120
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,755
A few quotes from the thread we had last time we went back and forth over this:


Originally Posted by Ferguson View Post
The iPhone and iPad use it as described, to scroll frames within pages. Some sites, like facebook, will have a page (the news feed) that you scroll through, with one finger, then you click something, like '17 friends like this' which pops up a frame with the list of friends that liked it. How do you scroll through that list without scrolling the whole page? With two fingers. I discovered it by accident a few months ago, and its saved my *** a few times on various sites.

I agree that as written I dont believe it covers zooming, just scrolling frames within scrolling pages.
Originally Posted by Ferguson View Post
I can't speak for others to the obviousness of it, but when I discovered it by accident on my phone a few months ago, I was surprised, and thought it was a pretty brilliant solution to that problem (how to scroll interior frames on a website without a mouse).
Originally Posted by Almo View Post
When we wrote My Word Coach DS (the DS has a touch screen), one minigame had a swipe interface. There was a 3x3 grid of papers, and you looked at one.

Some people preferred swiping up to move the camera up, which moved the papers down.

Some people felt like they were grabbing the paper, so swiping down moved the camera up.

In the end, playtests showed people didn't even understand how to swipe, let alone which direction did what. So we put arrows on the screen, and you touched those to move the camera.

Swipe to move is not necessarily obvious.

So here we have two actual, live people, who have real-world experience that suggests that this control scheme was not obvious. Not personally, and not to the group of play testers they used.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.