PONG ! About that Ridiculously Granted Bounce-Back Scrolling Patent US 7469381 Which Is Anticipated by the Prior Art and Obviousness of the Old Atari Game of PONG

You can read about the ridiculously granted Apple patent 7469381 at ycombinator.com via Hacker News at Can someone explain to me (like I'm 5) exactly what, besides the general concept of list scrolling with bounce-back to indicate end of list reached, it was that Samsung copied from the 7,469,381 patent?

Well, the idea contained in the Apple patent is so simply demonstrated that you can go back to the initial days of PCs for a good demonstration of the principle used, revealing the prior art and obviousness of the invention.

The essential principle of bounce-back scrolling becomes obvious if you play the famed Atari game PONG which was virtually "the first game" in the early days of the computer and you can still play it online here.

Whenever the ball hits the paddle, that is a "bounce-back" and if it does not hit the paddle, there is no "bounce-back". Apple has essentially stolen this PONG bounce-back invention for the basics of its scrolling patent 7469381, as we see from the court decision in Cupertino, to the tune of $1 Billion.

Now, THAT is professional theft.

Update:

In both cases you are simply defining "pointers" that initiate changes when any pointer reaches a predefined mathematical position on a display. There is no "invention" or "discovery" involved here.

The fact that in Pong the defining position is the near edge of the display and in Apple the defining position can be some other reference point in the visible or non-visible display is of no consequence to the prior art and obviousness of the invention.

Whenever a pre-defined "point" under predefined conditions is reached, a bounce-back occurs. In that sense, there is no difference at all in the basics between a PONG bounce-back and the method of bounce-back scrolling.


Indeed, a similar bounce-back "invention" is still found on keyboards for word processing use. If you press Control + End keys on your keyboard when working on a text program like Microsoft Word, the cursor (viz. pointer) will spring to the end of the document from any location in the text, while if you press Control + Home at any location the cursor will spring to the beginning of the document. I.e. the text can be made to "bounce-back" forwards or backwards, and the same is true for getting the cursor to the beginning (use the Home key) or the end of the line (use the End key).


Bounce-back scrolling is most certainly no innovation that should entitle any manufacturer to exclusive rights as to its use because it is merely a modern implementation of a tried-and-true method employed in software programming long beforehand.

Apple Samsung Jury Foreman Video Interview: A Legal and Patent System in Chaos

At the Washington Post video the Jury foreman discusses Apple-Samsung trial, verdict.

"Look and feel" and "feel and function"
are now the legal standards for patents?

So now laymen jurors like this determine international handset markets,
what can be produced and what can be bought by consumers worldwide,
and not the experts or the markets, right?

It is a legal and patent system in chaos.



Update:

See also at droid-life with a hat tip to androidheadlines.com:

Video: Jury Foreman in Apple vs. Samsung Opens Up About Reaching Verdict and the text there....

Jury Verdict in Apple v. Samsung Cupertino Case -- "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later" -- Is Very Unlikely to Withstand Judicial Challenge on Appeal Due to Errors by the Judge and Jury

The jury verdict in this case was issued so quickly that it is virtually impossible that the jury read their instructions completely and carefully, which they must do, and they must obey those instructions. All the evidence points to the jury NOT reading all the instructions fully and being led astray by their possibly not unbiased patent-holding foreman.

Groklaw has the story at Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj Updated 4Xs writing inter alia in Update 2 (excerpted here) as follows:

"Update 2: Dan Levine of Reuters has some words from the foreman:

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable." ...

[Groklaw] ... Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages [as PDF], they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.

The same instruction is repeated in Final Jury Instruction No. 53, in case they missed it the first time. Did they obey those instructions? Nay, did they even read them? The evidence, judging by the foreman's reported words, point the wrong way."

Yup. Trial over.

Press the Restart (Reset) Button.

Read the whole article at Groklaw here.

Monopolist Apple's Patent War Litigation vs. Samsung and Other Competitors Bound to be a Long Legal Battle With Patent Trolls as the Likely Winners

Apple v. Samsung: The legal aftershocks is the title of an article at ZDNet by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols for Linux and Open Source with the summary:

"What do lawyers make of Apple's victory? They think among other things that, besides showing a broken patent system, Apple may yet regret its “victory.”"

Read the whole thing here.

College Football Prediction Madness Week 1 2012 Division I FBS

College Football
Prediction Madness
Week 1 2012 Division I FBS

YPPSYS SportPundit (Andis Kaulins)
v.
Danny Vasta at Bleacher Report

This is posted in good fun in the spirit of competition.

"Danny V" and Bleacher Report are not affiliated in any way

with this posting and we thus link to each separate Bleacher Report page for each game since there is much useful information found there (just click on the prognosticated score).

We ran across the Danny V Week 1 college football predictions at Bleacher Report after posting our own predictions for Week 1 independently at SportPundit. We were surprised to see that prognosticated scores were quite similar, but there were also differences in predicting some game outcomes.

We thus thought it would be interesting to match up the predictions in a competitive table and see who comes closer to the actual results the first week of the season, a week which is often very predictable because many strong teams play weak opponents, but there are always surprises. In 75 games, we call the winners differently in 11 games. We also take different sides of the spread, i.e. home or visitor, in many games.


If the print is too small for you to read, press Control plus the plus sign "+" to size it larger and Control plus the minus sign "-" to make it smaller again.

Game (visiting team 1st)	Line viz. "spread" (via Danny V or Beyond the Bets)	Actual Game Winner & Score	YPPSYS Sport Pundit "Y" Call	ATS (against the spread)	Danny V Bleacher Report "V" Call	ATS (against the spread)	Closest Call to Actual Score "Y" vs. "V"
(Visitor v. Home)	(moving line may differ)		Prognosticator Andis Kaulins	1 won 0 lost	Prognosticator Danny Vasta	1 won 0 lost	"Y" or "V"
UCF v. Akron	UCF by 24		UCF 28-14		UCF 34-7
E. Michigan v. Ball St.	Ball St. by 3.5		E. Michigan 31-27		Ball State 24-23
S. Carolina v. Vanderbilt	SC by 7		S. Carolina 28-17		S. Carolina 24-20
SE Missouri St. v. C. Michigan	Chippewas by 18.5		C. Michigan 37-14		C. Michigan 37-17
Towson v. Kent State	Kent by 14.5		Kent State 24-17		Kent State 28-13
N. Colorado v. Utah	Utah by 34.5		Utah 48-10		Utah 49-7
UTSA v. S. Alabama	S. Alabama by 6.5		S. Alabama 27-24		S. Alabama 17-14
UMass v. UConn	UConn by 24.5		UConn 35-14		UConn 42-14
Texas A&M v. Louisiana Tech	Aggies by 7.5		Texas A&M 28-21		Texas A&M 35-31
UCLA v. Rice	Bruins by 15.5		UCLA 38-21		UCLA 27-13
McNeese St. v. Middle Tenn.	Blue Raiders by 20		Middle Tenn. 41-27		Middle Tenn. 30-14
Sacramento St. v. N. Mexico St.	NMS by 14.5		N. Mexico St. 30-13		N. Mexico St. 30-17
Southern Utah v. Utah State	Aggies by 16.5		Utah State 45-14		Utah State 34-14
E. Washington v. Idaho	Vandals by 7		E. Washington 38-31		Idaho 24-21
Washington St. v. BYU	BYU by 13.5		BYU 35 -20		BYU 38-31
N. Arizona v. Arizona St.	ASU by 27.5		Arizona St. 44-14		Arizona St. 42-17
Minnesota v. UNLV	Gophers by 8.5		Minnesota 31-21		Minnesota 31-17
Villanova v. Temple	Owls by 16.5		Temple 48-17		Temple 31-14
Tennessee v. N.C. State	Vols by 4		Tennessee 24-23		Tennessee 31-20
Boise State v. Michigan St.	Spartans by 7		Michigan St. 27-17		Michigan St. 24-21
Wagner v. Florida Atlantic	Owls by 9.5		Florida Atl. 31-10		Florida Atl. 23-14
San Jose St. v. Stanford	Cardinal by 25.5		Stanford 44-14		Stanford 45-7
Navy vs. Notre Dame in Ireland	Irish by 17		Notre Dame 31-17		Notre Dame 38-14
Troy State v. UAB	Troy by 5.5		UAB 27-26		Troy 24-20
Tulsa v. Iowa State	Tulsa by 1		Iowa State 24-23		Tulsa 28-26
Appalachian State v. East Carolina	Pirates by 15		Appalachian State 41-24		East Carolina 34-17
Northwestern v. Syracuse	Wildcats by 1		Northwestern 27-24		Wildcats 23-17
Miami of Ohio v. Ohio State	Buckeyes by 23		Ohio State 42-10		Ohio State 38-10
Ohio v. Penn State	Nittany Lions by 6		Penn State 28-27		Ohio 22-21
Marshall v. West Virginia	W. Virginia by 24		W. Virginia 39-17		W. Virginia 45-21
W. Michigan v. Illinois	Illini by 9.5		Illinois 31-21		Illinois 38-24
Buffalo v. Georgia	Bulldogs by 37.5		Georgia 35-0		Georgia 45-0
Elon v. North Carolina	Tar Heels by 39		N. Carolina 44-7		Tar Heels 42-7
Idaho State v. Air Force	Falcons by 31.5		Air Force 38-7		Air Force 38-7
Nevada v. Calilfornia	Cal by 11.5		California 31-27		California 28-17
Nicholls State v. Oregon State	Beavers by 28.5		Oregon St. 38-14		Oregon St. 31-7
William & Mary v. Maryland	Terps by 31		William & Mary24-23		Maryland 33-14
Richmond v. Virginia	Cavaliers by 28.5		Virginia 38-7		Virginia 41-10
Bowling Green v. Florida	Gators by 29		Florida 33-14		Florida 34-7
Miami (Florida) v. Boston Coll.	Eagles by 1		Hurricanes 24-14		Hurricanes 17-13
Southern Miss v. Nebraska	Huskers by 19.5		Cornhuskers 24-13		Nebraska 37-14
Northern Iowa v. Wisconsin	Badgers by 37		Wisconsin 49-7		Wisconsin 56-14
Iowa v. Northern Illinois	Hawkeyes by 9.5		NIU 31 -24		Iowa 30-17
E. Kentucky v. Purdue	Purdue by 27		Boilermakers 42-14		Purdue 35-13
Colorado v. Colorado State	Buffaloes by 5.5		Colorado St. 27-24		Colorado 28-20
Southern U. v. New Mexico	Lobos by 10		New Mexico 27-20		New Mexico 21-13
Murray St. v. Florida State	Seminoles by 49		Florida State 49-7		Florida State 52-0
Youngstown St. v. Pittsburgh	Panthers by 28		Pittsburgh 38-14		Pittsburgh 34-7
Liberty v. Wake Forest	D. Deacons by 27.5		Wake Forest 31-17		Wake Forest 38-10
Jacksonville St. v. Arkansas	Hogs by 36		Razorbacks 45-17		Arkansas 50-14
Austin Peay v. W. Kentucky	Hilltoppers by 21.5		W. Kentucky 38-7		W. Kentucky 24-6
North Texas v. LSU	Tigers by 43		LSU 38-7		LSU 45-3
SE Louisiana v. Missouri	Tigers by 42.5		Missouri 55-7		Missouri 48-10
C. Arkansas v. Mississippi	Rebels by 21		Ole Miss 37-14		Ole Miss 27-13
Tenn-Martin v. Memphis	Tigers by 10.5		Memphis 31-23		Memphis 23-10
S. Dakota St. v. Kansas	Jayhawks by 15.5		Kansas 38-17		Kansas 27-17
Missouri St. v. Kansas State	Wildcats by 35		Kansas State 41-10		Kansas State 42-10
Northwestern St. v. Texas Tech	Texas Tech by 35.5		Red Raiders 51-7		Texas Tech 42-10
Clemson v. Auburn	Clemson by 3		Auburn 24-23		Auburn 24-20
Chattanooga v. South Florida	Bulls by 30		S. Florida 38-17		S. Florida 38-12
Florida Int'l v. Duke	Duke by 4		FIU 31-30		Duke 21-20
Savannah State v. Oklahoma St.	Cowboys by 52		Oklahoma State 70-7		Oklahoma State 59-13
Lamar v. LA Lafayette	Cajuns by 25.5		LA Lafayette 49-7		LA Lafayette 42-7
Jackson State v. Mississippi St.	Bulldogs by 38.5		Mississippi St. 38 -17		Miss. State 48-10
Hawaii v. Southern Cal	USC by 39.5		Southern Cal 40-17		USC 52-7
Texas State v. Houston	Cougars by 36.5		Houston 49-7		Houston 49-17
Wyoming v. Texas	Longhorns by 29		Texas 33-14		Texas 42-6
Rutgers v. Tulane	Knights by 19.5		Rutgers 28-13		Rutgers 38-10
Indiana State v. Indiana	Hoosiers by 23.5		Indiana 31-17		Indiana 27-10
Michigan v. Alabama	Crimson Tide by 12.5		Michigan 27-26		Alabama 33-17
Weber State v. Fresno State	Bulldogs by 28		Fresno State 38-14		Fresno State 38-9
San Diego St. v. Washington	Huskies by 14		Washington 31-28		Washington 38-14
Oklahoma v. UTEP	Sooners by 30.5		Oklahoma 42-21		Oklahoma 48-14
Toledo v. Arizona	Wildcats by 11		Toledo 30-27		Arizona 38-35
Arkansas State v. Oregon	Ducks by 35.5		Oregon 38-21		Oregon 52-17
Kentucky v. Louisville	Cardinals by 14		Louisville 27-14		Louisville 30-17
SMU v. Baylor	Bears by 11		Baylor 34-24		SMU 31-30
Georgia Tech v. Virginia Tech	Hokies by 7.5		Virginia Tech 31-27		Virginia Tech 28-17

We will compare the predictions
when the final scores of the actual games are known.

China Handset Technology Companies: The Chinese Are Coming

One of the reasons that a company like Apple dominates the US handset market is because the USA does all it can to keep legitimate competition out, an isolationist strategy that has no long-term chance of success, because it means that domestic industries have no pressure to keep up with technological developments, and they are in fact falling behind.

Not only has Apple been surpassed by the Korean Samsung worldwide in sales, but, according to various test reports, it also lags substantially behind in quality and technological innovation.

Samsung e.g. dominates the "best" smartphone lists in Germany, e.g., while Apple products are wallflowers.

For example, the Apple iPhone 4S is ranked 26th on the current chip.de chart, the highest ranking for that company's products -- which means that the American market does not reflect actual world handset realities.

Court decisions such as those in Cupertino against Samsung force Americans to buy "worse" products from Apple -- and at higher prices -- because they are hindering the competition unduly. The consumer is the one who bears the burden of faulty patent policies in the USA.

To make things even more difficult for America is the fact that the Chinese too are coming onto the handset market with their own branded products.

We ourselves buy our hand-helds at the wholesaler Chinavasion because almost all handsets -- also those from Apple -- are largely "made in Asia" anyway, so why should a savvy consumer pay "brand" monopolists three or four times as much simply for the label?

Giant companies such as Huawei and ZTE are becoming ever more important and are adding their own new technological refinements to their handsets.

See e.g.

Jay Greene and Roger Cheng at CNET News, Inside Huawei, the Chinese tech giant that's rattling nerves in DC

Roger Cheng at CNET News, Don't Know Huawei or ZTE? You will soon
As Cheng writes, ZTE "is the fourth-largest handset vendor in the world".

See also our previous posting on Lenovo at:
Lenovo in China with the Legacy of IBM Set to Replace HP and Dell as Number One in Global PC Market Share in 2013: Innovative and Nimble, with a Touch of Mao

The Pinch Gesture as an Ancient Non-Patentable Natural Physical Historical and Technological Hand Mechanism With Prior Pinch Pot Art Galore as Obvious as the Hand in Front of Your Face : Our Modern Patent Systems are Operating in a Fantasy World

According to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme  Court, most recently in Mayo v. Prometheus, laws of nature, natural viz. physical phenomena and processes, and abstract ideas are not patentable.

So what about the human "pinch" as a natural, physical, historical and technological "hand mechanism" with "prior art" and "obvious" to boot.

"Pinching" is one of the oldest of "hand gesture technologies" of humanity, as written at About.com:

"The potter's wheel did not appear in history until only a short 4,000 years ago. Prior to that, pinch and coil construction methods prevailed as the main ways clay was formed by man....

Producing pinch pots is the most direct method people have of interacting with clay. We push, and the clay responds. We pinch, and again the clay responds.... Through creating pinch pots, we can continually refine our ability to work by touch, rather than by sight alone."

We are in fact talking here about a VERY ancient natural phenomenon, since human gestures were formally not "invented" by man, but by God.

Now a court and jury in Cupertino, California -- apparently operating in a vast knowledge vacuum -- have said in Apple vs. Samsung litigation that some greedy folks in California should be able to obtain monopolistic rights to pinching as a technological hand gesture mechanism.

How absurd is that? Have the people at Apple never heard of pinch pots?

How does a monopolist like the Apple firm (who virtually "stole" its name from the public goodwill rather than e.g. logically calling itself Wozniak-Jobs Co.) come to apply for a monopolistic "pinch" patent and also similar "multifunctional" human gesture patents? And how do hopelessly inept organizations like the USPTO come to grant such absurd patent applications rather than throwing them out the door?

Human gestures as tools of communication even long precede the pinch pots.

As written by Michelle Trudeau in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in
Primate Gestures May Be Clue to Human Language

"Watch a group of apes for a while and you'll inevitably see them use their hands to communicate ... the flexibility of gestures may be the first primitive step toward the evolution of human language."

Few things are as much a "natural" physical process to human beings and their predecessor apes than "hand gestures", so it is more than incredible to find the absurd granting of patents on human gestures as applied to the operation of hand-held or similar electronic devices.

The possible explanation for this patent insanity can only be vast human ignorance and stupidty on a wide scale as found in legislatures, courts, law offices and government agencies.

In the days of the horse, we might have had to ride "no hands".

Imagine if the steering of automobiles "by hand" had been patented to one manufacturer -- forcing the remainder to use the toes of their feet or other anatomical features to steer their cars.

Or just think of a monopoly patent grant on using certain hand gestures to shift gears or operate other control devices on motorized vehicles.

Granting patents on hand gestures for hand-held devices is no different.

Granting patents for ANY KIND of HUMAN GESTURE or MOTION
-- all "natural physical processes" --
for whatever purpose is beyond absurdity.
It is anathema to the human spirit.

No greedy company invented or discovered human gestures or motions.

They should in no way be able to profit via currently impossible over-reaching patent grants, overbroad patent laws and warped patent law interpretations.