Apple actually lost in Dutch court, not the opposite | Hacker News Reader

Apple actually lost in Dutch court, not the opposite

jan.wildeboer.net

167 pointsrunn1ng12 comments

For the interest - video of the Knight Ridder Newspad (from 1994!), that was used as a prior design by the court. Very interesting, if a little too talkative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

Nice. Key elements at 2:30 - 1994 description of how tablets would be pervasive, image could be a (larger) iPad, and the statement that tablets would be for consumption and we may still use desktops for creating content.

It looks like it may have a slightly raised bezel around the screen, and it's a stylus based interface, but it's primarily a display in a rounded rectangle with a narrow black border, and it appears to lack other buttons.

After reading the article I assumed that Knight Ridder was a typo for Knight rider the tv show

Cache, since site isn't working

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

The first article I saw only really mentioned that Samsung was banned from selling certain phones in the jurisdiction. APPLE WON!! YAY!! They said world will now be a better place, somehow.

After reading the second and third articles on the same topic that claimed Apple won (because of the BAN) I was confused. It seemed to me that Apple didn't really win anything at all. Especially with the majority of the points Apple were making being tossed.

I don't get the logic; Company A sues Company B over five bullet points, Company A loses four of them and wins one, Company A somehow wins the entire case. How exactly?

Am I missing something?

Is there an explanation somewhere of how the gallery in 2.x infringed, but the gallery in 3.x does not? It's not immediately clear to me how the two are significantly different.

Yes, in the verdict. The patent is on two things that are relevant here. 1: When you slide through pictures with your finger, and you move one picture to the right, is the empty space on the left filled with parts of the new picture? If yes, you infringe! 2. If you slide a picture a bit and remove your finger, does the picture pop back to the centre? If yes, you infringe!

Is this a ridiculous patent? Yes. But hey, that's the system.

Android 3.0 on tablets does not have this functionality as they run on a big screen with a different approach, hence Android 3.0 and thus also the Galaxy Tab that runs with 3.0 is not infringing. As this was the only surviving point of Apple (all design stuff, copyright, copycat, patent claims have been thrown out) it needs a trivial fix from Samsung - that they already promised to deliver - and Samsung is the big winner here. Today the whole circus moves to germany, Düsseldorf court. Should be fun!

Doesn't anything that use Gallery3D thus infringe? (every AOSP based Android phone)

Thank you very much for this info. It's a pity to see that once again the media got it all wrong.

Amazing. I read the Dutch version also.

Funny that if you google this, you mostly find articles that says other wise :(

Unfortunately its the end result taht matters.

Did you RTFA? The end result is a minor software change has to be deployed by Samsung, software which is already in Android 3.0.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com