|
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
Tapping and swiping are different in the same manner as pushing a button or
toggling a switch. They both do the same thing and the only difference is in
implementation. Also, touching to turn stuff off and on has been around for
many years. Ever seen a touch sensitive light switch? This is nothing more
than someone trying to claim as unique, something that has existed for many,
many years.
BTW, those touch sensitive switches also use body capacitance to function, just
like the smart phones.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Fourteen floors - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Zero length - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- Old is New - Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Zero length - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT
- Zero length - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 11:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Tolerance on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
You have to watch out for wily old judges. Judge Posner knew exactly what he was
doing. In particular he is well educated enough to know about degenerate
geometry, which has been around since Euclid.
Noting Apple's comparison of tap to slide being comparable with a point being a
zero-length line sounds like he's saying "A point is not a zero-length
line". He didn't write that. It's just that true or not, it doesn't help
Apple's case.
A point is of course a zero-length line, albeit a degenerate case. But that
doesn't mean you treat a tap like a slide for patent purposes, because a point
is also a (degenerate) circle (radius zero), which in turn is a special ellipse
(semi-major = semi-minor), a degenerate cube (side length zero) and so forth.
Likewise a tap is a degenerate slide. It is also a degenerate swipe of any kind,
up, down, diagonally. It is a degenerate circular motion of the finger, even. In
fact it is a degenerate combination of swipes. Had Apple been allowed to get
away with their assertion - that a tap is covered by the patent for a slide - it
would have implicated almost any gesture you can imagine. Degenerate cases make
bad law.
---
Grumpy old man[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- It isn't "A" line. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 08:29 PM EDT
- Actually, ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 09:23 PM EDT
- Actually, ... - Authored by: Nivag on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- Actually, ... - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- Hah! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- Typo - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Which infinity, old chap? - Authored by: Tolerance on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- But it's degenerate. Posner knew that. - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- And it's offensive to people with disabilities - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT
- Degenerate circle - Authored by: kattemann on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 06:02 AM EDT
- Not the same - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: PTrenholme on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
There is actually a whole area of mathematics devoted to
"measure theory,"
and it's quite possible to assemble a set
of points into a line having a
"length" (reasonably defined)
of zero.
I.e., it's possible to define
lines with with a length of
zero that are not points.
For example,
consider the set of all rational numbers
between 0 and 1. Pick any two of those
numbers, and there
will be a first-order infinite number of rational numbers
between them. So, you could say that that set defined a line
with a "length"
of 1. But consider this: For any two
rational number, no matter how close
they are to each other,
there is a second-order infinite number of irrational
numbers between them.
So, The set of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is
a
countable set (a first-order infinite set) that could be
said to have a
length of one from one point of view, but,
when the irrational numbers between
0 and 1 are considered,
it can be seen that there is a second-order infinite
number
of "gaps" between the points in the rational number set. So,
from
another point of view, it is possible to conclude that
the rational number set
is just a set of different points,
each of length zero, and, defining the
length as the
(infinite) sum of the those lengths yields a length of
zero.
The bottom line here is that precise definitions of
"point,"
"line," etc. can be a non-trivial exercise.
Oh, another bottom line: The
Judge shouldn't assume that
everyone knows how to define a "point," "line,"
"area," or
"volume." Or that their understanding of those terms matches
his
understanding. ---
IANAL, just a retired statistician [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 03:45 AM EDT |
Yes, mathematically a line segment of length zero is a
point.
That is, on the face of it, pure nonsense. You are using
"mathematically" equivalent to "there exist axiom systems where one could
view..."
Points and lines are concepts of geometry. In geometry, the most
basic definition of a line is a (usually uniquely determined) entity connecting
two distinct points. There are lots of different geometries, and only a subset
of geometries contains measurable entities.
If you have a set of lines
converging to zero length measure, their limiting case will degenerate to the
same measure as that of a point.
However, the limiting case no longer
connects two different points, and is no line in itself. It also misses other
typical properties of a line, like a direction (even though your set of lines
may exhibit a converging direction, the limit, a point set with a single
element, in itself does not have one).
Saying "a point is just a zero-length
line" makes about as much sense as saying "pi is a rational number, since it can
be shown to be the limit of the rational sequence
4*1, 4*(1-1/3), 4*(1-1/3+1/5),
4*(1-1/3+1/5-1/7) ..."
This does not change, however, that you can examine a
press/release sequence with associated coordinates and check the coordinates for
(approximate) equality in order to determine whether the concept wanted from the
user corresponding more to a line or more to a point.
And of course, you can
even not compare for equality in which case you don't distinguish
points and lines conceptually.
Apple, however, tried to argue that even if
you distinguish both cases and concepts and build an interface described using
distinctive terms, that for some internal or mathematic reason the different and
distinguished operations should be viewed as equivalent concerning the
patent.
Of course, the distinction will be claimed to matter again when
looking for prior art.
Classic "have your cake and eat the others' too"
scenario.
The analogy of Posner is not really all that helpful particularly
for the layman, though: handwaving in mathematical contexts is not all that
different from handwaving in user interface contexts.
That the analogy is
not helpful is easily recognizable by people being much more divided over the
analogy than over the original claim. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
> Despite the mathematical argument, a tap is not a slide.
Well, The mathematical argument could apply: a zero-length slide is indeed a
tap.
But that would mean that there is *oodles* of prior art for Apple's "slide
to unlock" patent. It would therefore be necessarily dismissed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
