Another Spanking for Apple from Judge Posner

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120704142749867

by grellas • 14 years ago

173 68 14 years ago

groklaw.net

verroq• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

Lines are infinitely extended. Maybe you meant a line segment. Line segments have a minimum of 2 points.

tzs• 14 years ago

Line segments have a minimum of an infinite number of points.

notatoad• 14 years 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• 14 years 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_fine2• 14 years 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.

ars• 14 years ago

We only get to argue that once :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085613

fchollet• 14 years 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.

tsunamifury2• 14 years 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• 14 years 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

chj• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

pvidler4• 14 years 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.

reitzensteinm2• 14 years ago

You don't even have to look that far back - pre iPhone, it was used on the Neonode N1m:

http://youtu.be/7ru2GjBTHRY?t=3m56s

Even if the iPhone were the first to use it, the patent is still ridiculous. If you tasked 100 engineers to come up with an unlocking solution for touch screens before the iPhone existed, I'd bet good money at least 50 of them would consider it an option. That's not non-obvious.

Patents in software are no longer about inventions, they're about being the first do obvious technique x in context y.

And sometimes, that's not even necessary - I've had a technique I used for displaying cross domain ads in Flash that I considered obvious at the time patented out from under me later on. The "in Flash" bit being the novel part, I assume - I try not to spend too much time dissecting insanity.

At least we're starting to see notable investors rally against them, like pg and Fred Wilson - the very people who should be benefiting the most from a non broken patent system.

Edit: Clarified line about the 50/100 engineers.

oemera• 14 years ago

Sure 100 engineers would come up with the idea "slide to unlock". After you see and use something it's always easier to find this said solution. BUT before Apple it seems that none of the 100 engineers you mentioned came up with the idea and it was never build and that means it was never obvious before Apple created it.

Saying things are obvious after someone already invented a dead simple and good solution for a problem we had for years is always easy.

EDIT: Grammer.

luriel3• 14 years ago

> At least we're starting to see notable investors rally against them, like pg and Fred Wilson - the very people who should be benefiting the most from a non broken patent system.

John Carmack has been speaking out against patents for a long time, and you would think he should be the perfect example of the lone genius inventing amazing new technology that needs the patent system to make money from his inventions:

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/patents/carmack

idspispopd• 14 years ago

I don't think apple are really trying to protect their intellectual property per se. After all the patents they put on the line are frivolous, and usually easily discounted... after a lengthy case.

Instead I believe these lawsuits are their 'revenge' for what they view as an injustice or 'stolen product', they know this harms their competitors and google financially, and interestingly the bulk of the buying market aren't phased by what they're doing. As a ruthless competition tactic it seems to be effective. I'm curious to know if the net spend of paying out legal fees is advantageous in comparison to the sales generated by this tactic.

If we're lucky this stunt of theirs will be what's needed to have the patent system overhauled in the USA. Apple have had fewer successes internationally, and the USA should as a minimum follow this lead.

powerslave12r• 14 years ago

Isn't a zipper slide to unlock? (granted sliding and pulling are arguably different)

aptwebapps• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Dawn_of_Sorrow

ChuckMcM• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years 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".

vibrunazo2• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

vibrunazo2• 14 years 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?

fpgeek• 14 years 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?

luriel3• 14 years ago

Not to mention Google just spent billions buying patents, investors might think it wasteful if then Google goes to push for abolishing software patents, even if it would still be a good business decision (those billions were never really an investment but a form of "insurance", if patents are abolished that insurance is not needed anymore).

mtgx• 14 years ago

Because they've just passed something they called "patent reform", which barely changed anything. Now they think that they don't need to address the issue anymore for the next decade or so.

tptacek• 14 years ago

The patent reform law included restructuring of joinder rules, which will prevent patent trolls from casting a huge net over tens or hundreds of companies (like Lodsys did) and dragging them all out to Texas in a single suit. Instead, trolls like Lodsys will have to sue each target one- by- one, at much greater expense, and in each suit will have to make a case for venue; many patent lawsuits will probably now occur in venues favorable to the defendant (if only for logistical reasons).

The patent reform bill didn't fix everything, or even most of the problems, but it's not accurate to say it "barely changed anything".

Polarity• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

> 'Another Spanking'

What does that mean, exactly?

Another Spanking for Apple from Judge Posner

Related Stories