Even voorstellen

Door Velvet op donderdag 20 december 2007 12:48 - Reacties (2)
Categorie: Nieuws, Views: 2.276

Hoi allemaal! Ik ben Q'tee, op tweakers.net beter bekend als qtee (apostrof kon er helaas niet in). Al sinds 2005 lees ik hier mee, eerst vooral op de frontpage, later meer en meer op het forum. Af en toe post ik zelfs een reactie, maar het grootste deel van de tijd ben ik een typische lurker...

Aangezien ik als het even kan elke dag wel op tweakers.net te vinden ben, heb ik besloten om een Full-abo af te sluiten, en eens te kijken wat de extra mogelijkheden zijn. Onder andere dus dit weblog!

Hier zullen in de toekomst diverse gadget- en fotografiegerelateerde zaken komen te staan. Het is nu nog een beetje leeg, maar daar hoop ik snel verandering in te gaan brengen! Voor meer persoonlijke zaken verwijs ik je graag door naar mijn andere weblog, daar vind je ook mijn fotoblog.

Volgende: Legaal of niet? 12-'07 Legaal of niet?

Reacties



Door Lynda, maandag 19 augustus 2013 07:05

The method is about nagivating through a photo gallery using a touch screen. I'd say the human-machine interaction here is technical and the implied graphical effects don't detract from that.Claim 1 reads (the physical object being your finger):"A computer-implemented method, comprising:at a device with a touch screen display:detecting a first movement of a physical object on or near the touch screen display;while detecting the first movement, translating a first digital object displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction, wherein the first digital object is associated with a set of digital objects; characterized in that:in response to display of a previously hidden edge of the first digital object and continued detection of the first movement,displaying an area beyond the edge of the first digital object;after the first movement is no longer detected, translating the first digital object in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the first digital object is no longer displayed;detecting a second movement of the physical object on or near the touch screen display; andin response to detecting the second movement while the previously hidden edge of the first digital object is displayed, translating the first digital object in the first direction and displaying a second digital object in the set of digital objects."First you slide with your finger the photo being displayed a bit to the side and let loose, after which the photo snaps back. Then you slide with your finger the photo to the side for a second time, after which the photo slides away and the next photo appears.According to the court's interpretation of the claim, it is mandatory that the photo snaps back after the first sliding movement. In the closest prior art (WO 03/081458) the first slide may already bring in the next photo (or rather, digital object) depending on how far you slide.The court's interpretation seems incorrect to me. Maybe it can be derived from the description, but it simply does not follow from the claim. The claim certainly can be read as describing one way of using the closest prior art, so it's not new. In my unhumble opinion, if something else was meant Apple should have formulated the claim more carefully. (As an aside, it is interesting that a mobile phone can directly infringe a method of using the phone. Seems to me there could at most be contributory infringement of claim 1 by a phone.)The Galaxy S, S II and Ace actually normally use the method of the closest prior art (i.e. the first sliding movement results either in snapping back or snapping to the next photo), except when the user has zoomed in on the photo currently being displayed. In the latter case, two sliding movements are indeed necessary to get to the next photo.The Galaxy Tab uses the method of the closest prior art even when the user has zoomed in, so does not infringe the claim as interpreted by the court.Interestingly, Apple argued that the two sliding movements are completely independent (see par. 4.21). That is, Apple effectively admitted that the claim is anticipated by the closest prior art. The court rejected this argument mainly based on the distinction between claim 1 and the closest prior art(!!).

Reageren is niet meer mogelijk