View Single Post
Old August 28 2012, 05:29 PM   #31
Robert Maxwell
Respect the Beef
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: Right behind you!
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Apple vs. Samsung Trial

Those "facts" are not correct.

Here is a nice graphic showing just what patents Samsung was found to have infringed, and on which phone models.

I will comment patent by patent:

163 - Enlarging documents by tapping the screen strikes me as pretty obvious, or at least not interesting enough to deserve a patent, but yes, Samsung infringed it.
381 - The rubber-banding effect is not something I'm aware of UIs doing prior to Apple's usage. That one seems fair.
915 - Multi-touch didn't even exist in this type of device, as far as I know, before Apple introduced it. While it is an obvious thing to have if you have the technology, this particular application of it doesn't strike me as obvious.
087 - Making a phone white is novel? Really?
305 - Rounded square icons on interfaces were around before Apple used them, however using them as the basis for the entire design aesthetic seems to be an Apple "innovation." Sounds like they got that one fair and... square.
677 - Making phones black is novel, too, apparently.
889 - Don't know enough about this one to say either way.

The Samsung patents all sound absurd.

If nothing else, this case has helped further convince me that patents on simple software features are complete bullshit and shouldn't even be permitted.
__________________
"Holy shit! It's Beef Supreme!"
The Journeyman - Buy it now! Maybe?
My world simulation project!
My blog
Robert Maxwell is online now   Reply With Quote