13 ms·

Another Spanking for Apple from Judge Posner

173 points by grellas 14y ago

verroq 14y ago
Is a point not a zero length line? edit: it's going to have to be line segment isn't it. Since nobody drags infinite lines across a screen.
- asto 14y ago
  Lines are infinitely extended. Maybe you meant a line segment. Line segments have a minimum of 2 points.
  - tzs 14y ago
    Line segments have a minimum of an infinite number of points.
    - michael_fine 14y ago
      That's one of the paradoxes of Euclidean geometry, where a line/line segment is made up of an infinite number of points, but those points have no length or width, and infinity times 0 is still 0, so technically a line should have no length. Clearly, it does not.
      - baq 14y ago
        Infinity times zero isn't zero, it's undefined.
    - tirth 14y ago
      I assume they meant two end points (which cannot be the same point) to which the line segment is bound.
- notatoad 14y ago
  No. A line (or line segment, as was clearly meant) has a non-zero length by definition. If it had a zero length, it's not a line anymore. It is a point.
- Stratoscope 14y ago
  This has been discussed here before, but no, in common English usage, a point is not a zero length line. Maybe in mathematics, but not in everyday English as the judge was using the terms. Don't take my word for it, draw a dot on a piece of paper and ask ten non-geeky people, "Is this a line?" :-)
  - michael_fine 14y ago
    Actually, it's not true in mathematics either. A line is something which has one and only one dimension, and a point is something which has no dimension. A zero length line would not be a line, as it would have fewer than one dimension. So, there is no such thing as a zero length line.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      There is no one true mathematics vocabulary. You don't appeal to authority, you just need to clearly state your assumptions and definitions. It is totally reasonable to define a line segment in a general way of two points that are not necessarily distinct, and point as a degenerate line. This makes the set of line segments topologically complete, which may be convenient.
- ars 14y ago
  We only get to argue that once :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085613 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085613
- fchollet 14y ago
  Even in math, a line goes through two distinct points. You can't define a line with just a single point. And a segment is a piece of a line with a measurable length. So, in English or in Math, the answer is no.
- tsunamifury 14y ago
  This has irked me because those who don't know anything about touch screen technology don't seem to understand that 'taps' are actually small swipes. The sensors have a far higher resolution than your fingers ability to stay still, so the system rounds down small 'swipes' based on x time over y legnth into what the user meant as taps. It senses the touch down (start point) and the touch up (end point) which may or may not be a zero length swipe or even a small distance swipe. At a a hardware level and strictly speaking, taps are swipes, Apple just abstracted tiny swipes away into a tap function.
  - steve19 14y ago
    It irks me that some people who don't know anything about the physics of touch screen technology and don't seem to understand that 'taps' are actually small changes of capacitance of an array of capacitors. [0] At a a physics level, and strictly speaking, taps and swipes don't exist. Patents are pragmatic and full of abstractions. You are not required to specify a patent at every level of abstraction all the way down to its mathematical or quantum properties. (I have to read a number of mechanical patents each week as part of my job). [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing
    - tsunamifury 14y ago
      This is very interesting, thanks for the perspective.
  - PGenes 14y ago
    Taps are not swipes. This has nothing to do with touch screen technology, but about the ordinary, common meaning of "tap" and "swipe". Apple don't get to reassign meanings to common words.
chj 14y ago
Somehow Apple forgot that he was borrowing (let's not use stealing) many ideas from other companies. The "Slide to unlock" probably was inspired by Sony walkman's "slide to open". Surely, they must have got a lot of experience in suing other people over ideas they borrowed back from the windows GUI case in 80s.
- dekz 14y ago
  > The "Slide to unlock" probably was inspired by Sony walkman's "slide to open". Or you know, the physical slide to unlock bars on gates. I don't understand this misguided uproar around company Y suing company X for patent infringement. Why don't people start addressing the elephant in the room which what I assume is the USPTO.
  - Detrus 14y ago
    Patents are naive obsolete laws that had well intentioned principles behind them. The other elephant in the room is tech culture that readily accepts copycats or competitors that aim for a proven market to cash in on me-too success with no intention to improve the idea and move technology forward. Patents are supposed to discourage this. Steve Jobs probably agreed with the principle that you should aim to innovate, not merely make money. Of course the problem is the legal system is ill suited to perform what is really an economic incentive. All these trials about silly details like straight edges and slide to unlock comically miss the bigger picture, but they're the only current avenue.
  - pvidler 14y ago
    Yes, it seems that many devices -- even phones -- have had a physical slider to lock/unlock. What I find strange about the lcd-touch-panel version is why everyone wants to use it? I thought skeuomorphic design was something that everyone but apple was actively avoiding. I think I actually prefer the version where you draw a 2D pattern on a grid of numbers, or a picture... although this may also be covered by the patent. Hate patents.
    - rimantas 14y ago
aptwebapps 14y ago
There was a Castlevania game for the DS where you had to swipe patterns to unlock some doors (among other things), does that count? I forget which one, but definitely pre-iPhone.
- jcurbo 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Dawn_of_Sorrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Dawn_of_Sorrow
ChuckMcM 14y ago
The great thing about patent-a-geddon is that its really bringing the problem out front and center, both to the judiciary who are learning how the patent office failed us around the turn of the century and Congress where companies are crying out for relief and promising campaign money if they get it. I predict it will do a lot to make this stuff saner.
- glesica 14y ago
  Agreed, although it's always a risky bet hoping Congress will turn corruption (promises of campaign money, cozy ties with lobbyists) into good legislation. I'm sure it happens on occasion, but we could just as easily wind up with laws that gave relief only to a few very large companies in certain (ill-defined) industries. But here's hoping!
BadassFractal 14y ago
Patent lawyers everywhere are laughing all the way to the bank. This is a phenomenal time for them to cash in on the dozens of giant lawsuits that are happening every single day. The customers are enormous and willing to pay however much it takes to make sure that their billion dollar investments are not removed from the market. What's a few hundred million dollars compared to the kind of money that Apple is reaping from their devices? Fortunes are being made as we speak. These folks have a lot to gain from the patent system not changing. I'm going to guess that their spin will be "defending America's ingenuity" and "letting creators benefit from the fruits of their labor".
vibrunazo 14y ago
Why isn't there a bill circulating in the house or congress for patent reform yet? It's reasonably common in my country for companies to sponsor bills. Company having problems with legislation -> pays lawyers to write a bill -> lobby a few congressman to put bill to vote -> bill gets voted -> if no one opposes it, company gets its new law approved. Is it too different in the US? Why hasn't Google done this yet? They're sure under a lot of pressure, have a lot of interest in patent reform and have enough lawyers to write a great bill. Just getting something like this to get voted, so it would show up on media, that would be huge. The MAFIAA is doing it to defend their interests. Why isn't Google doing the same to defend theirs?
- benmccann 14y ago
  There are many powerful interests on the other side of the issue. For example, pharmaceutical companies have very different desires for the patent system than Google would.
  - vibrunazo 14y ago
    I can think of a bazillion of more problems like that. I can also think of a bazillion solutions (ex: reform only for software). An initial draft doesn't need to be perfect. But it would be great to get the conversation started. I'm not optimistic that a patent reform bill would be approved anytime soon, nor in it's first few attempts. But we have to start somewhere, right?
    - thomasjoulin 14y ago
      A proposed bill to ban software patent would be great, but maybe Google, Apple and co. actually "like" the status quo ? It's a kind a dissuasion weapon that only huge companies can get, so even if they don't like to fight with each other, at least they prevent new competition to arise
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Among other things, it doesn't matter how much Google wants to spend on patent reform. Apple can spend double or triple if it comes to that (not to mention other interests inside and outside the tech industry). If you knew you were hopelessly outgunned, would you start that fight? Or would you lay low and hope that gridlock means that at least things don't get worse?
Polarity 14y ago
I dont know why people dont getting the reality of the whole patent thing. If apple not patenting things, someone other does and come back to kick apple in the nuts. Its just one of the many legal capitalism games. Stop the patent laws and nobody does it. Just simple as that. If Samsung or Google would lead the mobile Race, they would act the same (and they do already).
- TheEskimo 14y ago
  >If apple not patenting things, someone other does... No, not at all. Patents are only granted if there's no prior art and as such if apple uses anything (such as slide to unlock) in one of their devices without patenting it that also removes the possibility for anyone else to patent it. >If Samsung or Google would lead the mobile Race... There are already more android devices than iOS devices. Google also leads in various other internet spaces and isn't nearly as aggressive patent-wise as Apple. You're right that patent reform is the real solution, but I don't think it's us who "dont [sic] get the reality of the whole patent thing" but you.
gecko 14y ago
Could someone explain to me why NeXT Software/NeXT Computer is listed as a co-plaintiff, on a lawsuit that was only recently filed? Did Apple and NeXT not fully merge in some capacity? As-is, this would be like reading Attachmate, Inc., Novell, Inc., and WordPerfect Corporation had just sued Microsoft.
eragnew 14y ago
> 'Another Spanking' What does that mean, exactly?

173 points by grellas 14y ago

Is a point not a zero length line? edit: it's going to have to be line segment isn't it. Since nobody drags infinite lines across a screen.

asto 14y ago
Lines are infinitely extended. Maybe you meant a line segment. Line segments have a minimum of 2 points.
- tzs 14y ago
  Line segments have a minimum of an infinite number of points.
  - michael_fine 14y ago
    That's one of the paradoxes of Euclidean geometry, where a line/line segment is made up of an infinite number of points, but those points have no length or width, and infinity times 0 is still 0, so technically a line should have no length. Clearly, it does not.
    - baq 14y ago
      Infinity times zero isn't zero, it's undefined.
  - tirth 14y ago
    I assume they meant two end points (which cannot be the same point) to which the line segment is bound.
notatoad 14y ago
No. A line (or line segment, as was clearly meant) has a non-zero length by definition. If it had a zero length, it's not a line anymore. It is a point.
Stratoscope 14y ago
This has been discussed here before, but no, in common English usage, a point is not a zero length line. Maybe in mathematics, but not in everyday English as the judge was using the terms. Don't take my word for it, draw a dot on a piece of paper and ask ten non-geeky people, "Is this a line?" :-)
- michael_fine 14y ago
  Actually, it's not true in mathematics either. A line is something which has one and only one dimension, and a point is something which has no dimension. A zero length line would not be a line, as it would have fewer than one dimension. So, there is no such thing as a zero length line.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    There is no one true mathematics vocabulary. You don't appeal to authority, you just need to clearly state your assumptions and definitions. It is totally reasonable to define a line segment in a general way of two points that are not necessarily distinct, and point as a degenerate line. This makes the set of line segments topologically complete, which may be convenient.
ars 14y ago
We only get to argue that once :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085613 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085613
fchollet 14y ago
Even in math, a line goes through two distinct points. You can't define a line with just a single point. And a segment is a piece of a line with a measurable length. So, in English or in Math, the answer is no.
tsunamifury 14y ago
This has irked me because those who don't know anything about touch screen technology don't seem to understand that 'taps' are actually small swipes. The sensors have a far higher resolution than your fingers ability to stay still, so the system rounds down small 'swipes' based on x time over y legnth into what the user meant as taps. It senses the touch down (start point) and the touch up (end point) which may or may not be a zero length swipe or even a small distance swipe. At a a hardware level and strictly speaking, taps are swipes, Apple just abstracted tiny swipes away into a tap function.
- steve19 14y ago
  It irks me that some people who don't know anything about the physics of touch screen technology and don't seem to understand that 'taps' are actually small changes of capacitance of an array of capacitors. [0] At a a physics level, and strictly speaking, taps and swipes don't exist. Patents are pragmatic and full of abstractions. You are not required to specify a patent at every level of abstraction all the way down to its mathematical or quantum properties. (I have to read a number of mechanical patents each week as part of my job). [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing
  - tsunamifury 14y ago
    This is very interesting, thanks for the perspective.
- PGenes 14y ago
  Taps are not swipes. This has nothing to do with touch screen technology, but about the ordinary, common meaning of "tap" and "swipe". Apple don't get to reassign meanings to common words.

chj 14y ago

Somehow Apple forgot that he was borrowing (let's not use stealing) many ideas from other companies. The "Slide to unlock" probably was inspired by Sony walkman's "slide to open". Surely, they must have got a lot of experience in suing other people over ideas they borrowed back from the windows GUI case in 80s.

dekz 14y ago
> The "Slide to unlock" probably was inspired by Sony walkman's "slide to open". Or you know, the physical slide to unlock bars on gates. I don't understand this misguided uproar around company Y suing company X for patent infringement. Why don't people start addressing the elephant in the room which what I assume is the USPTO.
- Detrus 14y ago
  Patents are naive obsolete laws that had well intentioned principles behind them. The other elephant in the room is tech culture that readily accepts copycats or competitors that aim for a proven market to cash in on me-too success with no intention to improve the idea and move technology forward. Patents are supposed to discourage this. Steve Jobs probably agreed with the principle that you should aim to innovate, not merely make money. Of course the problem is the legal system is ill suited to perform what is really an economic incentive. All these trials about silly details like straight edges and slide to unlock comically miss the bigger picture, but they're the only current avenue.
- pvidler 14y ago
  Yes, it seems that many devices -- even phones -- have had a physical slider to lock/unlock. What I find strange about the lcd-touch-panel version is why everyone wants to use it? I thought skeuomorphic design was something that everyone but apple was actively avoiding. I think I actually prefer the version where you draw a 2D pattern on a grid of numbers, or a picture... although this may also be covered by the patent. Hate patents.
  - rimantas 14y ago

aptwebapps 14y ago

There was a Castlevania game for the DS where you had to swipe patterns to unlock some doors (among other things), does that count? I forget which one, but definitely pre-iPhone.

jcurbo 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Dawn_of_Sorrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Dawn_of_Sorrow

ChuckMcM 14y ago

The great thing about patent-a-geddon is that its really bringing the problem out front and center, both to the judiciary who are learning how the patent office failed us around the turn of the century and Congress where companies are crying out for relief and promising campaign money if they get it. I predict it will do a lot to make this stuff saner.

glesica 14y ago
Agreed, although it's always a risky bet hoping Congress will turn corruption (promises of campaign money, cozy ties with lobbyists) into good legislation. I'm sure it happens on occasion, but we could just as easily wind up with laws that gave relief only to a few very large companies in certain (ill-defined) industries. But here's hoping!

BadassFractal 14y ago

Patent lawyers everywhere are laughing all the way to the bank. This is a phenomenal time for them to cash in on the dozens of giant lawsuits that are happening every single day. The customers are enormous and willing to pay however much it takes to make sure that their billion dollar investments are not removed from the market. What's a few hundred million dollars compared to the kind of money that Apple is reaping from their devices? Fortunes are being made as we speak. These folks have a lot to gain from the patent system not changing. I'm going to guess that their spin will be "defending America's ingenuity" and "letting creators benefit from the fruits of their labor".

vibrunazo 14y ago

Why isn't there a bill circulating in the house or congress for patent reform yet? It's reasonably common in my country for companies to sponsor bills. Company having problems with legislation -> pays lawyers to write a bill -> lobby a few congressman to put bill to vote -> bill gets voted -> if no one opposes it, company gets its new law approved. Is it too different in the US? Why hasn't Google done this yet? They're sure under a lot of pressure, have a lot of interest in patent reform and have enough lawyers to write a great bill. Just getting something like this to get voted, so it would show up on media, that would be huge. The MAFIAA is doing it to defend their interests. Why isn't Google doing the same to defend theirs?

benmccann 14y ago
There are many powerful interests on the other side of the issue. For example, pharmaceutical companies have very different desires for the patent system than Google would.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  I can think of a bazillion of more problems like that. I can also think of a bazillion solutions (ex: reform only for software). An initial draft doesn't need to be perfect. But it would be great to get the conversation started. I'm not optimistic that a patent reform bill would be approved anytime soon, nor in it's first few attempts. But we have to start somewhere, right?
  - thomasjoulin 14y ago
    A proposed bill to ban software patent would be great, but maybe Google, Apple and co. actually "like" the status quo ? It's a kind a dissuasion weapon that only huge companies can get, so even if they don't like to fight with each other, at least they prevent new competition to arise
fpgeek 14y ago
Among other things, it doesn't matter how much Google wants to spend on patent reform. Apple can spend double or triple if it comes to that (not to mention other interests inside and outside the tech industry). If you knew you were hopelessly outgunned, would you start that fight? Or would you lay low and hope that gridlock means that at least things don't get worse?

Polarity 14y ago

I dont know why people dont getting the reality of the whole patent thing. If apple not patenting things, someone other does and come back to kick apple in the nuts. Its just one of the many legal capitalism games. Stop the patent laws and nobody does it. Just simple as that. If Samsung or Google would lead the mobile Race, they would act the same (and they do already).

TheEskimo 14y ago
>If apple not patenting things, someone other does... No, not at all. Patents are only granted if there's no prior art and as such if apple uses anything (such as slide to unlock) in one of their devices without patenting it that also removes the possibility for anyone else to patent it. >If Samsung or Google would lead the mobile Race... There are already more android devices than iOS devices. Google also leads in various other internet spaces and isn't nearly as aggressive patent-wise as Apple. You're right that patent reform is the real solution, but I don't think it's us who "dont [sic] get the reality of the whole patent thing" but you.

gecko 14y ago

Could someone explain to me why NeXT Software/NeXT Computer is listed as a co-plaintiff, on a lawsuit that was only recently filed? Did Apple and NeXT not fully merge in some capacity? As-is, this would be like reading Attachmate, Inc., Novell, Inc., and WordPerfect Corporation had just sued Microsoft.

eragnew 14y ago

> 'Another Spanking' What does that mean, exactly?