It does though depend a lot on what one considers "prior art". There are
examples of touch UI using pinch-zoom well before the iphone. This
Microsoft/NYU-Research demo is a year prior to the iPhone being shown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ, and that's just one example.
Now Apple's patent is admittedly specific to a "portable device", and
perhaps that makes a legal difference, I dunno.
Still, borrowing your bluebird analogy, that seems akin to Kodak (as Apple
this time) saying to MS/NYU, "We've invented this great new bluebird photo.
It looks just the same as yours, but ours is specific to having been shot on
APS on a much smaller body. So it's a new invention, and took us years to
think of."
Anyway, the legalities will be debated for years I'm sure, but I don't
really buy most of the Invention arguments on either side of the fence here.
- Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Halpin
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Jury verdict is for Apple (vs Samsung)
Rounded corners I think are a relatively trivial issue, though I must admit
that I am surprised to see how many non-Apple phones look so much like
Apple. You would think that other companies designers could do something
other than copy. The part I most strongly react to is the patent(s) relating
to the tap, pinch, etc. aspects of the interface. And Apple's statement that
it took them three years to develop, and then it took Samsung 3 months to
copy that work. I worked on interface design back when we were struggling
with early GUIs, issues like natural-feeling ways to expand windows, pop-up
vs. pull-down menus, etc. Interface design is a non-trivial process, and
Apple deserves a great deal of respect for their continued ability to find
good solutions. Good enough that others want to copy what they have done. I
can hear the argument "but those are the only gestures that could be used on
a touch-screen interface, why should Apple profit from such an obvious
trivial detail?" The answer is that what they've done didn't exist before.
Why shouldn't they have the benefit of their labors?
I wouldn't want an Apple-dominated world anymore than an MS-dominated world.
But I do like to see the little guy (Apple) do well and profit from it. And
I will cheer on the next set of good ideas as well. Even if, however
unlikely it is, that they come from MS or Samsung.
stan
On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Tom C wrote:
From: Stan Halpin <s...@stans-photography.info>
Tom, do you remember the iconic bluebird photo 10-15 years ago? It showed
up in calendars, posters, postcards, etc. I remember an
interview with the photographer - he earned enough from that one shot to
build a home in the woods, full studio and darkroom, etc. What if
Kodak early on had said "that shot has great moneymaking potential; we'll
copy it and use our superior marketing (and lower pricing) to
compete with you for sales of that image. And oh by the way, if you don't
like it, then our film division won't sell you any more film.
I think that is a close analogy to what you are suggesting that Samsung
should do. Yes, copyright and patent rights are not identical, but
the principle is the same; theft of intellectual property is not a good
thing.
stan
Hi Stan,
I'm all for intellectual property rights. Apple and Xerox Parc have
some potential issues as well then. I'm sure some will differ, and I'm
not trying to start a debate by any means, as I'm truly no authority
on the subject.
I'll readily admit my statements are made upon the white-washed
summarizations of the legal proceedings and not the gory legal or
technical details.
From what I've read some of Apple's issues are with shapes,radius of
rounded corners and look of icons. My general opinion is you can
patent an implementation of an idea, or particular code behind a
technology, but not an idea. Again, I'm not a lawyer and don't have
intimate knowledge. If Samsung actually stole intellectual property
then I agree they should pay. If they said 'hey that's a good idea;
let's do something like that' and then made their own block-buster
product, that's the free market.
I may recall the bluebird photo you're referring to (or it's my
imagination). In any case Kodak or anyone else with a camera was
certainly able to go out and take as many bluebird photos as they
wanted to and compete with the guy and that would have been fair and
legal, as long as they weren't using the bluebird image he took. I
don't think Kodak theoretically refusing to sell film is the same
issue as what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting Samsung could recoup the
penalty at some future time.
What I'm against is a world where we only have Fords, Apple iPads,
Apple smart phones, Samsung TV's, Frigidaire refrigerators,,, you get
my drift, to choose from, and from what I can see that's the kind of
world Apple would like it to be.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5227 - Release Date: 08/27/12
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
