|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
....nonsense.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|