Samsung: Android's Multitouch Not As Good As Apple's 176
itwbennett writes "Hoping to avoid a sales ban in the Netherlands, Samsung has said that Android's multitouch software doesn't work as well as Apple's. Samsung lawyer Bas Berghuis van Woortman said that while Apple's technology is a 'very nice invention,' the Android system is harder for developers to use. Arguing the bizarre counterpoint, Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme told judge Peter Blok, that the Android multitouch isn't inferior and does so infringe on Apple's patent: 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true,' said Blomme."
As good a time as any other (Score:4, Interesting)
I just found this post today:
AT&T (yeah, them) is the one that invented a grid of colorful icons, half a decade before Apple.
http://www.statusq.org/archives/2012/08/30/4453/ [statusq.org]
Add this to the prior art file.
Re:As good a time as any other (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but those are *square* icons, you see.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 3.11 (Score:3)
How is the iPhone icon interface much different from this? http://img.tfd.com/cde/_PROGMN2.GIF [tfd.com]
Give a half decent team of engineers to make the above work with capacitive touch, and you can easily end up with the iPhone homescreen swipes.
The only mobile interface to claim to be really unique among UIs is Microsoft's Metro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=locNEna0of4&feature=plcp [youtube.com]
Shame on Apple for trying to enforce basic touchscreen actions like multitouch and the jury not able to debate that because of the
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why I'm curious is that you make statements about what you saw on a clip on Youtube determining it "suggests" that it is not using Apples tech, then you go and equate you opinion with what you believe a jury should conclude.
It doesn't really matter what comes out of there I just want to see you do it with a straight face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is possible that limitations on computing power would have prevented Apple's algorithm from being used. But the reason is immaterial--Apple's patent is on the algorithm, not on the general concept of multitouch, so the algorithm was different, it would not qualify as prior art. Of course, Samsung would be free to use the same algor
Two very different problem (Score:2)
And in fact, there was no rational expectation that Apple's solution would obviously follow from that shown in the video, because the method shown in the video addressed a very different problem from the one Apple confronted in designing a touch phone:
The video addressed tracking gestures on a surface and manipulating virtual objects that were large relative to the area of a finger, using very large gestures. So accurate identification of the exact point of contact intended by the user was not needed. Apple
Re: (Score:2)
And, wasn't the grid of icons also a part of the PalmOS user interface?
Re: (Score:2)
The device is called the "broadband phone"
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/attarchive/bphone/apps.html [cam.ac.uk]
http://www.xorl.org/people/njh/bpstory/index.html [xorl.org]
Re: (Score:2)
pretty sure it was xerox.
Re: (Score:2)
And then a decade before AT&T, Apple invented the Newton [pcmag.com]. Sure it didn't have a coloured screen, but the grid of icons is there.
That said, it is hardly a revolutionary idea to display icons in a grid.
Re: (Score:3)
how else would you display them? My desktops have always had a grid layout for icons.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't bother to try to patent the Newton's row-of-icons. Neither did Palm. They were both small companies back then, and small companies think about winning via technology, not winning in court. But the Apple patent in question doesn't attempt to patent a grid of icons. It's all about the look -- it's a design patent,not a utility patent. And a big part of that look is that all icons are squares (or perhaps squares with rounded corners -- the patent mostly just shows pictures, it doesn't explain what
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah but see...
<idiotJuror>Those icons won't compile and run on an iPhone so it isn't prior art at all. As a matter of fact "prior art" as a concept is just too much of a burden to even think about and, wouldn't you look at the clock, it's lunchtime!</idiotJuror>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess that would be relevant if Apple's design patent were just for "grid of colorful icons."
But it isn't. [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>I guess that would be relevant if Apple's design patent were just for "grid of colorful icons."
Your sentence is misleading. Are you implying that Apple has a patent for a whole bunch of stuff, and an icon grid is only one small part?
The link you gave describes a couple of Apple patents.
One of them is the icon grid patent. To wit: "The ornamental design for a [GUI] for a display screen or portion thereof, as shown and described" and then they give a picture of their icon grid.
So, if Apple's claiming the
How design patents and trade dress work (Score:3)
Correct. Showing the key features: the specific shape and design of the icons, their arrangement on the screen with text labeling below, the position of the dock on the screen, and the icons in the dock. All of these specific features together--not merely a "grid of icons" (colorful or otherwise)--were at issue in the
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty good. I hadn't found that one yet.
Palm obviously did the grid of colorful icons, easily a decade before Apple did. Apple actually did B&W grids of icons on the Newton, but didn't patent that.
The main thing they had on Samsung was the grid of icons set in squares -- all the iOS icons are in squares (kind of the way Windows 7 Phone forces every icon into a square, only, smaller squares). Most of the grid of icons UIs, going back to Windows, MacOS, AmigaOS (did it in color before MacOS did), etc. al
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I just found this post today:
AT&T (yeah, them) is the one that invented a grid of colorful icons, half a decade before Apple.
First of all: neither Apple nor AT&T "invented" "a grid of colorful icons"
Second: Apple doesn't claim to have "invented" "a grid of colorful icons"
Third: AT&T's icons don't look like Apple's icons, while Samsung's look like Apple's.
Re:As good a time as any other (Score:4, Interesting)
>Doesn't mean anything unless AT&T patented it.
Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until Apple comes along to claim it all for itself.
Got it.
Re:As good a time as any other (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until someone comes along to claim it all for itself.
Got it.
FTFY.
Unfortunately, particularly in the US this is about how the system works currently. The patent submitter must list any known prior art with their application, but there is little to really prevent them from leaving things out. It is the patent examiners job to also look for prior art, but their view tends to be very narrow (similar but not identical often isn't good enough), and due to (what I understand of) their workload, they don't necessarily due a particularly exhaustive search.
The end result is that if you're willing to pay for it, you can patent pretty much anything you want. That's why you get craziness like #6,368,227 -- Method of Swinging on a Swing [uspto.gov] (note: not an Apple patent).
Don't like it? You need to take the patent holder to court, and prove to the court that the patent is either a) frivolous, b) obvious, or c) already exists in the public domain (or is covered by another patent).
That's the system the US uses (I don't live in the US -- our patent system here in Canada seems somewhat better run, so isn't quite as bad; I have a patent (7,251,809 [uspto.gov]) that was accepted in the US, but rejected here in Canada). If you don't like it, you need to change the system.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Doesn't mean anything unless AT&T patented it.
Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until Apple comes along to claim it all for itself.
Got it.
The other way of looking at it is you might not understand their patent's claims. AT&T may have patented something similar, but different enough. Who knows? Sorry, what a dumb question, you guys know everything.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:As good a time as any other (Score:5, Informative)
You are the one that needs the lesson:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm [uspto.gov]
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent
so this:
" If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art."
is just wrong.
Re:As good a time as any other (Score:5, Informative)
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent
so this: " If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art." is just wrong.
In law yes, but in practice, no.
As I've already mentioned in this thread, patents are granted all the time where there is amply prior art, either because the patent applicant has hidden the prior art, has made it appear to be different enough to be ignored, or the patent examiner simply isn't aware of it and doesn't find it themselves.
And unfortunately, one the patent has been approved, you have to take the patent holder to court and prove prior art to get it invalidated.
So yes, in a perfect world any invention already known and used would invalidate a patent prior to being granted. However, in the world we actually live in, the examiners don't know about every unpatented idea/invention ever devised, and if they're not aware of it, can easily grant a patent to something that has ample prior art. At that point, the only way for it to be undone is to go to court, where the burden of proof will be on you to show that prior art covers the invention at hand.
Yaz (inventor)
Re: (Score:2)
In law yes, but in practice, no.
In practice, why would any sane person go to court to "undo" a patent? If inventors chose not to patent their idea and someone else steals it, they can continue to use the idea. If the patent holder wants them to stop, the patent holder must enforce her right. When the patent holder takes the inventor to court, the patent holder has the burden of proof to show that th
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it does, so long as you *publish* it so that it becomes (theoretically) public knowledge within the relevant field. In-house projects that no one really knows about don't count though.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does prior art require a patent?
Oh, of course. We are talking the USPO, where I understand that Apple is about to diversify and patent the cotton gin.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course prior art counts.
The laws are little different today. In the past, in the USA, we used a "first to invent" system in the PTO. If you designed and built a working telephone, documented this and everything, and went to the PTO and found your telephone already patented, but after yours was first documented as working (and obviously, working in exactly the same way), you could, in theory, not just strike down that prior patent, but obtain one of your own.
Today, it's first to file. So if you come to th
Re: (Score:2)
When a patent is needed, and when not (Score:5, Informative)
Prior art -- of the kind that invalidates a patent -- doesn't require that it be patented.
Recovering for patent infringement (naturally) does require that the invention be patented.
Re: (Score:2)
Val Hogan, is that you? [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. Well, no, AT&T can't sue. But patents are declared invalid all the time, or limited based on prior art. A judge could rule that Apple has no claim on square icons... though it's hard, with design patents, as they basically just illusrate the design, they don't make the kind of claims you find in a utility patent. So basically, if the prior art looks close enough, they toss out the whole design patent. If not, well, you have to look more like Apple than the prior art in order to infringe on
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait, just wait
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent#The_USA.27s_change_to_first-to-file [wikipedia.org]
I've got a template i'm working on, for a biz process of patenting existing inventions that lack patents and collecting royalties from said invention's use, looking to patent the act of doing it (aka tax the trolls that are bound to appear).
Re: (Score:2)
That's already been patented. You need to go deeper. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157743897/can-you-get-a-patent-on-being-a-patent-troll [npr.org]
Re:As good a time as any other (Score:5, Informative)
First to file does not eliminate prior art as a way to invalidate a patent.
From here [wikipedia.org]:
The law will switch U.S. rights to a patent from the present "first-to-invent" system to a "first inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. The law also expands the definition of prior art used in determining patentability. Actions and prior art that bar patentability will include public use, sales, publications, and other disclosures available to the public anywhere in the world as of the filing date, other than publications by the inventor within one year of filing (inventor's "publication-conditioned grace period"), whether or not a third party also files a patent application. The law also notably expands prior art to include foreign offers for sale and public uses.[6]
In conclusion, YOU FAIL IT.
Patents. Copyrights. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is ridiculous, isn't it? A patent system, that gov't introduces supposedly to encourage more innovation and invention is now being routed around because of the damage that it is causing.
It's damage that gov't involvement in the market is causing with all laws and this case is a good example even to the most staunch defenders of government intervention that it is damaging the clients, the end users, the consumers, because it can prevent you from having more choices (and thus from lower prices).
As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see the patent system was tweaked by lawyers and the net affect has been to generated more gratuitous law suite, somehow I believe those lawyers were 100% successful as far as they were concerned. The whole principle of first to patent rather than first to invent is to generate more court cases and lower the strength of prior art in arguing a case to ensure the case lasts far longer and always generates an appeal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.
So the law against murder actually causes more murders and is negative for the people. Amazing what you learn on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
So the law against murder actually causes more murders and is negative for the people. Amazing what you learn on Slashdot.
The entire paragraph preceding what you quoted is focusing specifically on government interference in the market. It's reasonable to assume that the "laws" he was talking about are those specifically in that domain. I'm not saying whether I agree with him or not but I can't imagine how you misconstrued his meaning so badly.
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-murder law definitely is a huge government interference on the market of paid killers, to the point of making it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be fine, except that he said, "as always," without further qualification.
Words have mearning, you know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.
If you though about it for just a moment instead of just spouting a talking point you'd realize that you are being silly. By your statement above the government ban on murder actually encourages murder and is somehow bad for the people. There are thousands of regulations that have exactly the effect they were intended to have.
The OSHA and EPA regulations regarding asbestos result in a condition where the overwhelming majority of asbestos installed in buildings is handled in a much safer manner than it w
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand it's also equally ridiculous that if you invest the time and money into R&D to build something cool a competitor can just snipe you out of house and home and undercut you.
This is why we have a patent system. Good ideas are not fungible. Good implementations are. As long as good ideas are scarce or that the resources to live are scarce, we will need a patent system.
Re: (Score:2)
It's damage that gov't involvement in the market is causing with all laws and this case is a good example even to the most staunch defenders of government intervention that it is damaging the clients, the end users, the consumers, because it can prevent you from having more choices (and thus from lower prices).
As always it is with all gov't regulations, laws, the actual effect is the exact opposite of the supposedly desired one, and it's always negative for the people.
The day the 'market' agrees to have no secrets at all is the day I might agree they need no regulation other than consumers doing infomed choices.
Of course, keeping the sosiopathic bastards honest to that degree will require immensive gevernment interference...
Re: (Score:2)
“I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all";
-Thoreau
What's wrong with this picture (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the summary, " 'They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true,' "
" He's lying your honor, their Samsung multitouch is almost as good as Apple's"
I find it interesting that you edited them saying just as good to be "almost" as good.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I do believe that he is implying that your interpretation of the picture is leaning towards Apple. And your interpretation is a bit curious. Perhaps accidentally, but curious anyway.
In the original Samsung states that the multitouch is harder to develop against, and Apple states that this just isn't true. In your version Samsung is saying that the whole thing sucks and Apple partially agrees.
If you are going to exaggerate, you should exaggerate both statements, not exaggerate one and mitigate the other. ('
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that you edited them saying just as good to be "almost" as good.
Except they didn't make either of those statements. The actual quote from Apple's lawyer was ""They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I included that quote. If Samsung's solution isn't lesser than Apple's the only possibilities that remain are that it is equal or that it is superior. It seems fair to paraphrase that as "as good" where "almost as good" run in direct contrast to the quote, almost as good would in fact be a lesser solution.
Re: (Score:2)
The "almost as good" statement this thread is talking about refers to the comments made by Apple's attorney. You are quoting a statement from Samsung's attorney. Nobody disputes that Samsung claimed the Android solution isn't as good.
Apple said, "They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true".
The guy I replied to reworded this as Apple saying Android was 'almost' as good. The above quote says its not a lesser solution and 'almost' as good would be a lesser solution. He injected
Re: (Score:2)
Statement against interest, your honor!
Ooh, wait my Law and Order DVD just arrived. Let me memorize some more courtroom cliches, and I'll get back to you.
Samsung's being slightly pathetic here... (Score:1)
If the pathetic nature of Samsung's claim isn't obvious to you, you drank too much kool-aid!
Re: (Score:2)
Or they are just being awesome marketers.
Mac Vs PC
Mac: Hi PC, I'm so much better than you.
PC: Boy you sure are.
Samsung vs Apple.
Samsung: Man our phones aren't nearly as good as the iPhone. Why are you suing us?
Apple: Your phones run just as well as ours.
The Public: It's just like the iPhone but a larger screen and cheaper?
Re:awesome marketers. (Score:2)
Let's try an even sharper version.
Samsung: "We admit, you rule, and we suk. Therefore, we appeal to have the judgement vacated. However, the public will buy a shitty product for half the price, because it's good enough. Bye now!"
Well that clears that up (Score:3, Funny)
I had thought that my problems with multitouch (on my Android phone, where I avoid it as much as possible; on my laptop touchpad, where I've disabled it) had to do with my own poor physical coordination. But now it turns out that Apple is the only company that knows how to do multitouch right.
So maybe I should become an Apple person. Naw, the patriarchial user echosystems around OS X and iOS still suck too much. And I still don't understand how any sane person can live with iTunes!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well that clears that up (Score:5, Funny)
They just said that to confuse me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To download content and applications to to my iWhatever?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I used an iPod, the only way to get MP3s onto the iPod was through iTunes. If that's changed, I'll certainly be more open to using iDevices in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
One can humorously speak the truth, and I often do. I totally buy your claim that Apple's muttitouch works betters. It's consistent with their long history of putting a lot of work into making their products easy to use.
I can honestly acknowledge Apple's achievements without being an Apple fan. That's because every encounter I've had with their technology has demonstrated that it's not for me. Cost, paternalistic ecosystems, key applications (mainly iTunes) that they have somehow overlooked in their usabili
Re: (Score:2)
My android has multitouch, and my hp laptop has two-fingered scrolling. But they,re a disastrous implementation and thoroughly unpleasant to use.
I don't know what "your Android" is but my Galaxy Nexus and Xoom both running Jellybean have excellent multi-touch behavior easily equal to the experience on my iPad.
Re: (Score:2)
But they,re a disastrous implementation and thoroughly unpleasant to use.
Two-finger scroll and tap actually work quite nicely if you get rid of Windows.
I'm a lawyer for Samsung and can explain (Score:1)
Apple's holds a patent for "Good Multi-touch".
Since we just lost a Billion dollars on an insane patent law suit, we can no longer take any chances.
We must now have a touchscreen that is not compliant with "Good". Sorry world.
FML
New sales pitch... (Score:5, Funny)
Apple: No they're not, they're just as good!
Bizarro world.
Re:New sales pitch... (Score:5, Funny)
And you know what? Samsung will use Apples quote against them in marketing.
"Apple says our screens are just as good...interesting..did you know our newest phone is 100 dollars less expensive? "
Re: (Score:2)
Judo may have been invented in Japan, but the South Koreans practice it at master level.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
SAMSUNG PHONES: So good yet so affordable they've been banned in 42 countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung says their phone are Crap, Apple says they are not any better, but our are better!
Simply fascinating (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Horrible, or brilliant marketing? (Score:3)
I suppose no one thought of this as one of the most brilliant marketing schemes ever...$299 Android phones that are (admittedly by Apple themselves) equal to a $500 iPhone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not quite true. Apple is claiming that Samsung's solution for multitouch works in much the same way as theirs. They are not saying that the overall product equals in quality. They are not even claiming that the multitouch solution is equal in quality; just that the solution to the problem is similar.
Method and quality similarity are not equivalent. The one doesn't necessarily leads to the other.
Are we in opposite land? (Score:5, Funny)
I feel like I've fallen into a Monty Python skit.
Vendor A: "I assure you our product inferior to the competition's!"
Vendor B: "Don't believe his lies! His product is every bit as good as ours!"
Something is seriously wrong in the market if we're getting arguments like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung is right (Score:4, Informative)
Apple's touch is currently better. I find Android systems (including mine) as having much more trouble figuring out what my touches are supposed to do ("how many times do I have to click on this goddamn link?"). The hardware and drivers are OK, as the virtual keyboards usually work fine, but there's something in the runtime that's not quite right yet (as least up to ICS).
Which just makes the lack of 'undo' in Android that much more insane, because it's not hard to accidentlly whack a big bock of text with an errant multi-touch gesture.
Re:Samsung is right (Score:4, Funny)
Apple's touch is currently better. I find Android systems (including mine) as having much more trouble figuring out what my touches are supposed to do
That's strange since in my situation I've found it to be precisely opposite. When I'm using my iPad it's mostly for surfing the internet and I almost always have to tap twice on the urlbar before I hit the right spot for it to register. Dead on isn't it for some reason. Other parts of the OS have the same issue but maybe not as bad. Contrast that with my Xoom running Jellybean and the Xoom touches are always just right. My finger touches an element straight on and it hits it. Same with my Galaxy Nexus. Maybe my iPad's defective but it's always been that way since I bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrast that with my Xoom running Jellybean
It would be great if this is one of the improvements in Jellybean!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's touch is currently better. I find Android systems (including mine) as having much more trouble figuring out what my touches are supposed to do
You obviously have a much more involved relationship with your phone's than most people have. Which is fine but I wouldn't want any kids reading about it.
offs! (Score:2)
give each member of the legal teams a knife, lock them in a room, and only let the last person standing, exit. This is going to go on long than MacOS vs, Windows 2.
Isn't the real story here that multitouch is core? (Score:2)
We were told recently the Samsung slapdown by Apple was because of Samsung mods to Android.
Inverse marketing? This has just got to backfire (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesnt matter how good it is (Score:2)
Not going to debate the Apple/Samsung thing directly, but overall in a patent/copyright case it really doesn't matter how bad a copy is, its still infringement..
This is a bad and stupid prescient.
Not a "bizarre counterpoint" (Score:2)
Not inferior at all... (Score:2)
Hook, line and sinker...
Re: (Score:2)
..just f****ng pathing...for both parties.
This is where you wish judges could just order one side of lawyers or both to 20 years hard labor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
" The difference is that the whole world has to listen"
no. In fact, the vastly majority of the world do not no whats going on, and everyone not directly involved in the case has to listen to it.
It's not just multi-touch (Score:4, Informative)
Apple's patent is not a general patent on multitouch, but on a particular way of implementing multitouch. This is why Samsung can argue that their multitouch does not infringe upon Apple's multitouch, as their algorithm is slightly less convenient for developers. Apple is arguing that the difference is an inconsequential variation on Apple's method.
So simply showing that somebody else did multi-touch before does not establish prior art. That is not a matter of dispute. To establish prior art, Samsung's would need to show that all of the key features of Apple's way of doing multitouch (or at least, the ones that Samsung is accused of infringing) were anticipated by prior art--such as how the operating system can figure out, from an elliptical area of finger contact that is a substantial fraction of the width of the screen, what specific point on the screen the user is trying to indicate, what screen objects the user intends that touch to be associated with, and what the trajectory of that point is over time, and how that noisy trajectory is interpreted in terms of specific gestures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The driver is part of the OS, and covered by Apple's patent