4 ms·

Wise man. The way I see it, Apple had a case regarding "trade dress". Some Samsung devices, for example the Galaxy Tab 10.1, do look too much like Apple product

Wise man. The way I see it, Apple had a case regarding "trade dress". Some Samsung devices, for example the Galaxy Tab 10.1, do look too much like Apple products. However, the rest of the patents were ridiculous. If the bar for patent validity is going to be this low, most software developers will not be able to do a day's work without accidentally infringing on something. Every piece of software I've seen being built most certainly uses methods that are described somewhere in patents, especially if it is leading edge in terms of communicating, collecting, syncing or displaying information through the web or mobile devices. If court decisions keep going this way, it is going to become impossible to code legally without the costly burden of acquiring a patent war chest and a team of layers to defend your organisation. We might as well shut down the industry to newcomers.

ghshephard 14y ago
I'm interested in why you thought the bar was set low? From all my reading, it sounded like Samsung had to go out of their way to emulate the Apple processes, it wasn't something they would have accidentally done. I'm not saying I agree with the verdict, but a lot of people misrepresent this case as, "Apple has a patent on pinch-to-zoom" (not true), and Samsung was sued for building a rectangle-with-glass (not true) - instead of the actual, more complicated case. In particular, which patent did you think was "ridiculous?"
- cma 14y ago
  Pinch-to-zoom. Just because it is on a capacitive touch screen instead of some other type of touch screen, doesn't really change the implementation of it, and isn't worth patentability. It is like someone coming on the scene and seeing that windowed GUIs weren't patented, deciding that now if I plug my VGA cord into an LCD instead of a CRT I have suddenly invented a new device and can get all the old innovations protected as long as they appear on a "computing device with LCD display".
- zizee 14y ago
  How about: 1. Rounded Square Icons on interface 2. Enlarging documents by tapping the screen http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-versus-samsung-2012-8?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-versus-samsung-2012-8?o...

ghshephard 14y ago

I'm interested in why you thought the bar was set low? From all my reading, it sounded like Samsung had to go out of their way to emulate the Apple processes, it wasn't something they would have accidentally done. I'm not saying I agree with the verdict, but a lot of people misrepresent this case as, "Apple has a patent on pinch-to-zoom" (not true), and Samsung was sued for building a rectangle-with-glass (not true) - instead of the actual, more complicated case. In particular, which patent did you think was "ridiculous?"

cma 14y ago
Pinch-to-zoom. Just because it is on a capacitive touch screen instead of some other type of touch screen, doesn't really change the implementation of it, and isn't worth patentability. It is like someone coming on the scene and seeing that windowed GUIs weren't patented, deciding that now if I plug my VGA cord into an LCD instead of a CRT I have suddenly invented a new device and can get all the old innovations protected as long as they appear on a "computing device with LCD display".
zizee 14y ago
How about: 1. Rounded Square Icons on interface 2. Enlarging documents by tapping the screen http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-versus-samsung-2012-8?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-versus-samsung-2012-8?o...