I would just use soft word wrap - well, I always have soft wrap on, but especially in this case it seems simplest to me to let long sentences/clauses soft wrap and retain the mapping from line to semantic unit.
I don't know about that. Consoles tend to have strict certification requirements, and presumably the manufacturer gets a cut of game sales, both of which are reasons to prevent sideloading unrelated to piracy.
If you take asking for the additional damages the law allows (most of which is based on willfulness, which the jury explicitly upheld), plus an injunction (which everyone always asks for) as anything other than lawyers taking the case to its logical conclusion, you're being silly. Whatever you think about the case, this is nothing new or surprising.
When reading patents, only the claims matter. In this case, anything that matches claim 19, which is anything that does bounce-back scrolling the way iOS does it, is infringing.
I get that the claims of patents are supposedly very specific, and what I'm asking is if someone can actually explain why and how this particular patent has anything non-obvious in its claims (without all the ridiculous patent jargon).
I've just read claim 19 about 5 times. I also studied Figure 5, which seems to lay out the process in a way that's a little easier to understand.
I have absolutely no idea how what is described in claim 19 is not the "idea" of inertial/bounce-back scrolling.
As far as I can understand, the layperson's explanation of claim 19 goes something like this: drag some content on a touchscreen at the speed that the dragging finger is moving, once you hit the end of the scrollable range, start slowing down the speed at which the item moves, and show a different background to make it clear you've reached the end of the list, once the finger releases move the list back into place.
I'm trying sentence by sentence to translate the words in the patent claim to english that I can understand. And it sounds to me like this is the general idea of this method of scrolling. There are no specifics, no specific easing algorithms, no specific method of tracking the finger's movement, no method of actually implementing this at all.
The first time I ever saw bounce-back scrolling, I was … taken aback. It seemed ugly for an instant [at least], I think because it so often showed the non-content zone so visibly. And maybe also because it was so very odd and unintuitive in relation to how computers tended to "feel" before then. (It seems obviously a great invention now.)
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 costs $100 less than the latest iPad, and the same as the iPad 2. May I assume that "Samsung's iPad" in this case was actually a seven inch model, and a blatantly unfair comparison?
edit: not to mention that the value of OS X is part of tw cost of MacBooks; running it in a VM on another OS is common, but unfair to portray to random people as a legitimate action as evidence that Apple is ripping peons off.
I think you are probably safe to assume that. Clearly the guy writing this is coming from one particular side of the argument. I really couldn't care one way or the other - I like my iPhone, but if a Galaxy is going to make you happier go buy it.
However, don't discount the other side of the price argument. For some people price will be an important factor - however, as the iPod showed, it's not necessarily the main consideration for all consumers.
I had a discussion about a year ago with someone from Samsung - "look", he said, "the problem is this: our phones cost basically the same to make as Apple's phones, but the average consumer thinks that the iPhone is worth more than a Galaxy". Samsung would probably quite like to charge as much for a Galaxy S3 as Apple do for an iPhone 4S. In some markets and territories this actually happens.
If it's non-technical people speaking about the differences between to technical things you can almost guarantee that they are trying to compare apples and oranges.
This Apple expert purports to rebut the SmartSkin as prior art: it notes the "touch-sensitive display" thing plus claims that SmartSkin might not use an "event object" or "scroll or gesture call" to achieve the effect. Make of thy what you will...
Awesome find. It's a shame that several of the relevant pages are not included in the document. I assume for trade secret reasons? Either way, the ONLY two Apple refutations are:
1. The display is not integrated in the device
2. The video does not conclusively prove the manner in which the software was programmed. i.e. We don't know from the video if it is event based.
If this is acceptable refutation of prior art, it seems like there would be a lot of money to be made by exploiting this. Attend every CS conference and patent everything displayed using a particular programming model and display type.
I suspect, however, this would not normally be considered acceptable or the patent world would be more messed up than it already is.
