|
Authored by: jezevans on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Post corrections here with a hint to the correction in the title. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jezevans on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
Nothing on topic at all, please. Include links and a hint of your subject in
the title.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Zuckenberg NewsPick - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- Arduino and Urban Aquaponics in Oakland - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- Where is PolR's part 2 - and what about effort to file at CLS v Alice appeals court? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:44 AM EDT
- Raspberry Pi opens its ARM graphics code - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:22 AM EDT
- Another Blow For Apple As Dutch Court Rules - references Groklaw - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- More Apple hardball ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- 5,000,000 cows on Mars - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
- A scandal in the making - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT
- Things are different here; In the USA these would be lawyer bait - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Reddit AMA - Internet freedom advocates, experts, and innovators :: 9 AM – 7 PM Eastern - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- EXT4 Data Corruption Bug Hits Stable Linux Kernels - Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- EU to Microsoft: IE browser selection error violated antitrust deal - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- total cost of ownership? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jezevans on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
Want to discuss the news, do it here. Please include links and make your
subject obvious.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EU charges Microsoft for ignoring browser choice mandate - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:25 AM EDT
- Microsoft Surface review - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT
- Raspberry Pi News... http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2221 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT
- Value of one FB account: $.000005 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- Seismologists Convicted of Not Predicting Earthquake - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT
- Woz & Fusion IO - Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- facebook purchase - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- Dutch court says Samsung does not infringe "pinch to zoom" Apple patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 09:59 AM EDT
- NR response to Mann's lawsuit threat - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT
- U.N. calls for 'anti-terror' Internet surveillance - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Google being sued in Delaware - Authored by: squib on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- ITC sides with Apple against Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jezevans on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
Well done if you post something here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jez_f on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:26 AM EDT |
A VIDEOTAPE?
I hope that this is a phrase used for all video media.
Otherwise I would say that this casts a little doubt on the professors
expertise, most computer science professors would at least I would have thought
have progressed to avi files.
Even though I think a video tracking dial does show bounce back quite well. So
even then he was not well informed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
It seems clear that Apple's expert "should have known". Ignoring
perjury for the moment, can Samsung argue that his evidence was material in the
jury verdict, it was also "clearly erroneous", and that as a result
the verdict is tainted?
Okay, that'll probably get rejected as "Samsung should have objected at the
time", but *did* Samsung object? It wouldn't surprise me if they did and
got shut down ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 06:15 AM EDT |
As I said in a comment under the previous story, the patent is a simulation of a
picture being moved with a finger and bouncing back.
The picture is not
a picture. It is pixels on a display screen simulating a physical picture. The
moving of the picture is a simulation of moving, say, a photograph on a table
top using a finger-tip. The only reason the invented illusion is useful is
because the telephone display screen is poor at simulating a table top due to
its limited size.
In other words, the invention is useful because of
the inadequacy of the simulated or modelled physical behaviour. The patent
applies to any simulated document, not just pictures. It is a useful illusion.
What's more, the simulation is not of a real physical thing. The display screen
is an abstract idea of a display surface that does not exist in the physical
world. You see the real physical surface when you turn off the
phone.
So Apple have a number of patented inventions based on
simulating the illusion of a display surface that does not exist in the physical
world. The patents are specifically on the modelling of the physical behaviour
of moving or manipulating simulated objects on the illusion of a display surface
using the modelling of a finger tip touching action.
The patents are
not on the modelling and simulating software and hardware, but on the illusion
that the software and hardware create. For this reason, the invention can be
found on devices as different at the Microsoft Surface Pro and the Samsung
Galaxy phone which use different display technology, processor, touch screen
technology, operating system, software language, physical dimensions, memory
devices and graphics control devices.
So, let's see which type of
patentable invention this is under U.S.C. 35 § 101:
'Whoever
invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a
patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.'
Can you see what it is, yet? Which of these is the
illusory patent class?--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JonCB on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
I don't want to disparage the good doctor from Toronto,
but his
characterization of this issue as "desert fog" is a
bit simplistic and his
assertion that no-one fixed this is a
little bit disingenuous.
"Desert
Fog" AFAICT is a term that was created by Jul and
Furnas in 1998. It
properly refers to an issue where
there aren't enough features visible to
navigate in the
current context, either because those features don't exist,
exist but are in a different context or exist but are
"overwhelmed" or
"obstructed" by other features. Suggesting
this patent "solves" desert fog is,
to be blunt, ridiculous.
But leaving that aside, to say that "no-one"
solved "it"
is on one level disingenuous and on another, wonderful
lawyery
misdirection. If by "it" you mean both problems
simultaneously, then i would
maybe agree with you. If
however by "it" you mean just this limited vision of
"desert
fog" then that is incorrect. The standard textbook solution
was to use
a (to quote an
academic resource) "combination of constraints on
rotating, panning, and
zooming". Which is to say, you only
allowed the user to move the item in such a
way that it
always maintained a piece of the item in view.
All in all,
i'm not that impressed with Dr Balakrishnan
critical faculties. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT |
"Don't read on, if you don't wish to read specifics regarding
several patents."
In a nutshell, the patent system is broken.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
AFAICT, this "expert witness" makes two claims in his
testimony
[Y]ou'll find testimony by Dr. Balakrishnan about that
patent, telling the jury that without a doubt Samsung infringes claim 19 of
Apple's '381 patent. He asserts as well that there is no prior art.
- Samsung infringes
- There is no prior
art
Based on his background:
Sure. I'm a professor the
computer science at the Department of Computer Science at the University of
Toronto, where I also hold a Canada Research Chair in Human Center Interfaces,
and I also co-direct a user interfaces and graphics laboratory at the University
of Toronto.
What makes him an expert in knowing what constitutes
prior art in a country in which he doesn't even reside. For that matter what
constitutes anyone being an expert on the matter. I can stand here and say "I
don't know of any prior art" and be 100% truthful. But just because i don't know
of any doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
~ukjaybrat - IANAL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
I can't beleive these problems had not been solved before, probably in different
ways.
Also attempting to look up some information it seems that the 'desert fog'
problem generally refers to ZUI situation where it is possible to zoom so tight
that some screen elements get lost off screen. That is not a scrolling problem.
In other older interfaces this was often handled by slide bars or other edge
indicators that a portion of the content is off the screen.
I used a CAD program in 1989 that implemented this feature for the current view
and provided vertical and horizontal slide bars which gave a representation of
the current view that was off the screen. The browser on my Galaxy SII does
pretty much the same thing.
But I probably misunderstood something.
Checking on the "frozen screen" problem was more difficult because so
many mentions of Windows Frozen Displays. Since that portion of the testimony
was not included I need to go back to try to figure out what it means.
Finally since Samsung did know about the prior patents was he cross examined on
them?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
I am reading through the testimony and came across this excerpt:
"THEY HAD TO BASICALLY DEVELOP A GLASS THAT WAS NOT BREAKABLE ENOUGH,
SCRATCH RESISTANT ENOUGH,"
I don't beleive that Apple developed the glass but adapted a technology
developed by Corning called "Gorilla Glass" which Corning had
developed but had found no significant application for.
According to Wikipedia:
"Corning could find no practical use for the glass at the time and the
predecessor of "Gorilla Glass" was never put into mass production,
excepting its use in approximately one hundred 1968 Dodge Dart and Plymouth
Barracuda race cars," ...
"When Steve Jobs subsequently contacted Wendell Weeks, the CEO of Corning
told him of the material the company had developed in the 1960s and subsequently
mothballed."
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|