“With the second patent battle between Apple and Samsung now underway, we thought it would be useful to look at each of the five features Apple claims Samsung (or Google) stole from iOS,” Ben Lovejoy writes for 9to5Mac.
“The patents are, of course, worded in the usual dense legaleze. If you want to read them for yourself, you can find them on the US Patent and Trademark Office website in the links [in the full article],” Lovejoy writes. “But here’s my reading of what each one is about, in plain English.”
In the full article, Lovejoy covers:
• Patent 5,946,647: ”System and method for performing action on a structure in computer generated data”
• Patent 6,847,959: ”Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system, a patent that Apple claims is central to universal search
• Patent 7,761,414: ”Synchronous data synchronization among devices”
• Patent 8,046,721: ”Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image”
• Patent 8,074,172: Method, system and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple again seeks decisive U.S. court ruling against convicted patent infringer Samsung – April 1, 2014
Florian Müller: When all is said and done, despite years of Apple litigation, Android will continue to be world’s most popular mobile platform – April 1, 2014
Apple v. Samsung II: Convicted patent infringer Samsung now claims all patents aren’t worth very much – March 31, 2014
Google is central to new Apple v. Samsung patent infringement lawsuit – March 31, 2014
Apple’s war on Samsung has Google in crossfire – March 31, 2014
Apple already has its first victory in new $2 billion Samsung patent infringement fight – March 31, 2014
Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial begins today (link to live blog) – March 31, 2014
Ahem, yes, thanks for putting that in “plain English.” Now it’s all crystal clear lol.
The actual explanation is truly as simple as it could possibly be. You just have to actually read the article (link conveniently provided by MDN)…
I swear to GOD. Those CNET people and posters are the biggest douchebags on the planet. They always, I mean ALWAYS dismiss anything Apple does or claims as innovation. Every single one…Are these guys for real and hell bent on hating Apple so much?
There’s a lot of IT / tech people that made their living off of bashing Apple years and years ago which allowed MSFT to dominate the desktop. They’re angry now that MSFT is moving out of relevance and they’re backing ANYONE that isn’t Apple.
Also, the bigger tech sites and blogs have marketing agencies that pay people to control conversations and smear competitors….guess Apple doesn’t like the idea of fighting back on message boards or things might seem a little more fair. Can’t say I blame them though.
Apple has always been strictly of the opinion ‘Don’t Feed The Trolls’. The only direct exception I know of is Phil Schiller stating last summer ‘Can’t innovate my ass’.
Folks like myself, Dan Dilger et al. have been in a position where we can trample the trolls for Apple’s passive benefit as well as the triumph of facts over FUD/propaganda. With our personalities, it comes naturally.
I’m glad to be in the running with Fools like us to trample the TROLLS back to the gates HELL! lol
Bpondo, I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that Apple plays that game. A long time ago they supported an official Apple Evangelist, but liquidated that commissariat around 1997 or so, when they decided it was no longer needed. I do like that they take the high road. But at the same time, parasites are multiplying—Apple could deploy more than feeble feel-good ads to counter them. Bring in John McClane, I say.
For me, the decent into hell of CNET came to completion when they RUINED VersionTracker.com and turned it into an evil infestation of ADWARE foisting on sucker users.
I don’t put up with being abused by anyone. Apparently, certain people do, and they remain at evil, abusive CNET. What does that shout at me about these people? It certainly tells me I have NO use for their opinion. I think ‘douchebags’ covers the issue nicely.
When VersionTracker started I consulted it constantly, learning about utility programs, which were the best, downloading updates almost daily. It was a very cosy site. One day cnet swooped in and put it in chains. I tried to use it after that but the joy was completely gone. 🙁
The guys who created and ran VersionTracker were terrific. I was net friends with Kurt and Dan. It was easily the best place on the net to find software updates for Mac, Windows and iOS. But CBS/CNET had to play the game of:
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
Bad biznizz at work. 😛
I was hurt by it in the same way as a clan marriage that excludes you in a backhanded way, treating you as an afterthought. Those brusque dismissals burn for a lifetime.
… If you let them. It’s tough, but I’m learning how to dump the worthless elements of the past. There is always the future, with more learning and playtime fun to be had.
Why is this still in court? Is it because they’ve let samsung copy their design for so long that we are not even sure it’s wrong anymore? The iPhone was completely and entirely unique when it was first revealed and every part of that was patented in one way or another. There shouldn’t even be phones that look anything remotely close to an iPhone. Go back to your crawling board and learn to innovate for yourself, Samsung.
The iphone was a major step forward but hardly completely unique! There were phones before and they had icons and touch screens and scrolling pages and played music and had app stores …….
Please tell us what they were. The iPhone was the first phone with a multitouch capacitance screen. . . Apple holds the patent on that. . . which makes the rest possible. Show us phones that did NOT use styluses. . . or resistance screens. . . or that were not more more than single touch. You can’t. Show us phones with memory capacities anything like what the iPhone had. . .
What phones were those ?
The LG Chocolate was the closest to an iPhone that I ever saw and even that fell far short of what Apple delivered. The Chocolate was still a dumb phone for the most part.