14 ms·

But pinch to zoom is not invented by Apple. Microsoft Surface implemented it before, also it was shown in some scifi movies way before then.

by ghost91 14y ago

StavrosK 14y ago
That's true. Can't someone successfully contest it, then?
- intended 14y ago
  Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: From the verdict: Patent invalidity, Samsung had to prove apple invalid - No, across the board for all patents brought up. Apple contested that 3 feature related patents and 4 design patents were infringed a) '381 - rubber band - valid / Samsung infringed b) ’915 - pinch to zoom or scroll - valid / Samsung infringed c) ’163 - multi-tap to zoom - valid / Samsung infringed Samsung also was found to be willfully infringing. d) '667 - iPhone front design - valid / infringed /willful e) '087 - iPhone back design - valid / infringed /willful f) '305 - iPhone home screen - valid / infringed /willful g) '889 - iPad design - no infringement Apple has only proven that the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress is protectable. Negative on the iPhone / iPad combo and the iPad / iPad 2 trade dress This is a pretty broad sweep of the verdict, a lot of the verdict breaks down onto whether Samsung Telecom America (STA), Samsung Electronics (SEC) and Samsung Engineering America (SEA). This is further broken down over each product which is found to be infringing. Sources: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-breakdown-which-samsung-tech-gadgets-infringe/5 http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-bre... http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-trial-loss-to-apple-has-a-silver-lining-for-the-industry/ http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-tria... yet another edit: Also to be noted is that none of Samsung's claims against Apple were found valid.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Thank you for that comment. I find it weird that the patent was not only not invalidated, but Samsung was found infringing, even with the Surface prior art clearly existing.
    - intended 14y ago
      Me too. IANAL, sadly; interpreting this thing would take a lot of time and effort for a lay man. I can understand them getting hit on willful infringement, but the way the verdict was read out, they got hit for infringement first, and then willful infringement. I'm confused too.
andybak 14y ago
I'm not clear on this and haven't got around to reading the patent to try and figure it out. This is the patent in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 This patent is more limited: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 as discussed here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-pat... However - it was granted after the first patent (2010 vs 2008)
- m_eiman 14y ago
  That first one isn't related to multitouch, it's about bounce-back when scrolling with a single finger.

But pinch to zoom is not invented by Apple. Microsoft Surface implemented it before, also it was shown in some scifi movies way before then.

by ghost91 14y ago

But pinch to zoom is not invented by Apple. Microsoft Surface implemented it before, also it was shown in some scifi movies way before then.

StavrosK 14y ago

That's true. Can't someone successfully contest it, then?

intended 14y ago
Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: From the verdict: Patent invalidity, Samsung had to prove apple invalid - No, across the board for all patents brought up. Apple contested that 3 feature related patents and 4 design patents were infringed a) '381 - rubber band - valid / Samsung infringed b) ’915 - pinch to zoom or scroll - valid / Samsung infringed c) ’163 - multi-tap to zoom - valid / Samsung infringed Samsung also was found to be willfully infringing. d) '667 - iPhone front design - valid / infringed /willful e) '087 - iPhone back design - valid / infringed /willful f) '305 - iPhone home screen - valid / infringed /willful g) '889 - iPad design - no infringement Apple has only proven that the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress is protectable. Negative on the iPhone / iPad combo and the iPad / iPad 2 trade dress This is a pretty broad sweep of the verdict, a lot of the verdict breaks down onto whether Samsung Telecom America (STA), Samsung Electronics (SEC) and Samsung Engineering America (SEA). This is further broken down over each product which is found to be infringing. Sources: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-breakdown-which-samsung-tech-gadgets-infringe/5 http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-bre... http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-trial-loss-to-apple-has-a-silver-lining-for-the-industry/ http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-tria... yet another edit: Also to be noted is that none of Samsung's claims against Apple were found valid.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  Thank you for that comment. I find it weird that the patent was not only not invalidated, but Samsung was found infringing, even with the Surface prior art clearly existing.
  - intended 14y ago
    Me too. IANAL, sadly; interpreting this thing would take a lot of time and effort for a lay man. I can understand them getting hit on willful infringement, but the way the verdict was read out, they got hit for infringement first, and then willful infringement. I'm confused too.

andybak 14y ago

I'm not clear on this and haven't got around to reading the patent to try and figure it out. This is the patent in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 This patent is more limited: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 as discussed here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-pat... However - it was granted after the first patent (2010 vs 2008)

m_eiman 14y ago
That first one isn't related to multitouch, it's about bounce-back when scrolling with a single finger.