decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
And this rigmarole shows exactly what? | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And this rigmarole shows exactly what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 01:53 PM EDT
....nonsense.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw posting guideline #8:
Authored by: myNym on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 02:46 PM EDT
No personal attacks on anyone, friend, foe, or each other.

"PANTS ON FIRE Samsung!" certainly violates this guideline.

You need to take a chill pill, and stop using Groklaw as an
outlet for your diatribe.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dear Samsung, Your Pantaloons are Combusting
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 13 2013 @ 12:17 AM EDT
It seems to me that Apple have now "clarified" for the USPTO (and
everyone else) that their invention performs general alignment of a single edge,
with no restrictions on document or display size, while the Lira invention
aligns two parallel edges when and only when the document and display widths are
equal. They further observe that if these widths are equal then both inventions
will produce the same visual effect. From this we should be able to infer that
for equal widths there is no way of determining which invention was used without
examining the specific code.
Now I have insufficient knowledge of Samsung's devices to tell whether their
document and display widths differ or not, but would not be at all surprised if
both dimensions (height and width) were identical to simplify all sorts of
manipulations. At the very least however, to demonstrate infringement, Apple
would have needed to offer testimony at trial to prove that different widths
were in use (and I see no evidence that that occurred). Absent that, the Lira
invention might have been used and the exact code for each device would have to
be inspected to rule out that possibility. That seems not to have occurred
either because Apple's expert talks only in generalities with no specific
context provided for the code presented to the Court.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Source code is not instructions in memory. ...nt
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, July 13 2013 @ 04:16 AM EDT
.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple's expert witness shows that Samsung does not infringe on the patent
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, July 13 2013 @ 06:13 AM EDT
instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display;
Q AND HOW ABOUT IN THE BROWSER APPLICATION?

A THE BROWSER APPLICATION SIMILARLY WORKS THE SAME WAY. YOU CAN DRAG IT BEYOND THE EDGE, IN THIS CASE YOU'VE REACHED THE EDGE, AN AREA BEYOND THE EDGE IS SHOWN, YOU RELEASE YOUR FINGER, IT BOUNCES BACK, VERY MUCH LIKE THE GALLERY ACTUALLY.
I assume that the browser is browsing html electronic documents. Those documents contain the instructions for a browser to display text and images. The images are retained in separate files. The files, whether in local long-term memory or downloaded from the Internet do not have edges. There are no areas beyond the edge in the file. The effects that the expert described were just that, visual effects and the illusion of a page with an edge.

Obviously, the images being browsed in a gallery have edges. The images in electronic files have no edges. There are only instructions on how to display the pixels. That is the pixel height and width. There are no areas beyond the edge. Again, that is just a visual effect and not something in the electronic files.

ASCII text files also have no edges. PDF files have no edges and neither do Postscript or Extended Postscript electronic files. No files have areas beyond the edge. Neither do electronic documents have portions.

No electronic document files have characters. They only have symbols representing numbers which represent glyphs representing generic characters. The representations of characters shown on a smartphone screen are not in the electronic document. Neither are the illusions of page edges.

The expert witness demonstrates that the illusions on the smartphone screen are not related to the claim about electronic documents because the contents of electronic documents are never displayed. The computer looks up suitable representations of the symbols saved in the electronic document file and the instructions in the file for their display. The software creates the illusion of edges and areas beyond the edges independently of the electronic document files.

Illusions of pages and non-pages are abstract ideas because they are not real documents. They are non-statutory subject matter. Whether it is done 'on-a-computer' or with a slide projector does not alter the law on patents.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )