Tuesday, August 28, 2012

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.



The ISandIS Network

Our Websites and Blogs: 3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog AndisKaulins.com Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat edu.edu Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog LawPundit.com Law Pundit Blog LexiLine.com LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog) Megaliths.net Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz