TouchSmarter: Touch Screen Gadgets

Below a few more pictures of the 5 meter long multi-touch bar that was developed for Total together with Proscreens, Handscape, Global Digital Media and TOTALs agency/Idea Entrepreneur, Melvær&Lien.

Silence before the storm…

Talking about truly multi-user…

NUITEQ, GDM, Handscape and Proscreens collaborated on delivering a 5 meter long custom built multi-touch bar to Total, for an exhibition booth at the event ONS 2010.

The interactive multi-user bar was the center stage of attraction on the booth of oil and gas giant Total and fitted seamlessly with the theme of the booth.

The event ONS 2010 in Stavanger, Norway, covered topics such as energy, natural resources, oil and gas, took place this week.

The customized multi-touch software solution that we developed, let visitors of the booth experience Totals projects, in an innovative and hands-on way.

We are very proud to successfully have delivered this project to such a large brand in the natural resources industry and we are delighted that the customer was satisfied with the solution that we offered them.

We are thankful to the partners that we worked with on this project, that assisted in delivering this challenging and exciting project.

(zoom to enlarge)

Stay tuned for a video…

You might have been following NUITEQ on Twitter for a while here at http://www.twitter.com/multitouch/, where you can read about NUITEQ’s daily operations and my activities in the company.

However we have now also launched a Twitter account specifically for Snowflake Suite, where we will be tweeting about Snowflake Suite, with tips, tricks and other information.

Please follow Snowflake Suite on Twitter here: http://www.twitter.com/snowflakesuite/.

Yesterday I was interviewed about NUITEQ by Infotech Umea.

You can find the article online here in Swedish and thanks Google for Google Translate, English version here.

Image courtesy of Infotech Umea.

A Class Action Complaint was filed on April 15, 2010 against Apple and 100 Doe Defendants.  With regard to the unnamed Defendants, Plaintiff states:

Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100 and dues them by fictious names.  Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to include these Doe defendants’ true names and capacities when they are ascertained.  Each Doe defendant is responsible in some manner, including without limitations, as aiders and abettors, for the conduct alleged in this Complaint.

The case is alleged to exeed 5 billion dollars.  The products in question include the iPhone (from 3G forward) and the iPod Touch.  As is pretty commonly known, Apple’s warranties (both the standard warranty and Applecare) exclude damages caused by liquid spills or submersion.  If your iPhone falls in the toilet (even if a deposit has not already been made), it isn’t covered.

The Plaintiff alleges that Apple employees are instructed to utilize an external Liquid Submersion Indicator that is contained on the device to determine if it is damaged by moisture.  This sensor turns red or pink if the user is pregnant. Just kidding! As far as I know, there is not yet an app for that. It does so if their is moisture detected in the hardware. This measure is the sole indicator for the employee to make their determination except in rare cases to be detailed below.  The Plaintiff alleges that Apple is aware that this external indicator cannot be relied upon with any degree to certainty to determine if the product was subjected to a spill or submersion and that things such as cold weather, humidity, sweaty palms, and other ordinary and expected everyday events can cause this external indicator to give false positive results.  It is the Plaintiff’s belief that this has been proven by independent testing. Excuse me while I cleanse my mind of the mental image of the sweaty-palmed Plaintiff waiting at the Genius Bar.

The devices also contain an Internal Liquid Submersion Indicator.  Access to this indicator requires that the product be opened, but Apple’s corporate policy dictates that this only be done on rare occasions and at corporate’s direction.  Therefore, the standard policy is to rely upon the external indicator alone without attempting to verify this diagnosis by viewing the internal indicator.  Even in cases where the internal indicator is examined, Apple does not give the customer any photographs of the status of the indicator and does not allow the customer to be present at the inspection or take their own photographs.

Once Apple has denied a warranty claim for moisture, the customer must then either pay full price for a replacement or face early termination fees from AT&T.  Because of the numerous customer complaints, Apple “quietly” began offering to sell replacement iPhone at a price of $199.00 and requiring that the old phone be surrendered beginning in May 2009.

When the Plaintiff’s first iPhone stopped operating, the Apple employee who tested it told her that it was exposed to a “significant” amount of moisture based on the external indicator alone and above her insistence that it had not.  She purchased the replacement phone and within six months, that phone malfunctioned.  When she brought the phone into an Apple store, she was told once again that the external indicator tested positive for moisture.  She did not argue as she felt it would be futile considering her prior experience.  She once again bought the replacement and surrendered the malfunctioning phone.

Ms. Gallion is asserting the following causes of action:

• Declaratory Relief
• Breach of Warranty Violations of the Song-Beverly Consumar Warranty Act Fraud Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
• Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of the Unfair Competition Lawbreaker Unjust Enrichment

In the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, the Plaintiff re-alleged her position as stated in her Complaint. Apple stated that its external sensors have been thoroughly tested and found to be reliable. Damage from exposure to liquids is not a defect in materials or workmanship and thus are not warrantable damaqges. Thusly,

It is beyond dispute that members of hte putative clas have in fact damaged their iPhones and iPods by liquid exposure; accordinglly, plaintiff’s putative class cannot be certified.

This part, however, is immensely entertaining,

Plaintiff’s Statement. Plaintiff originally anticipated filing a motion for class certification in approximately October 2010 (barring unforseen difficulties that would delay its preparation and filing). Defendant has recently announced, however, that is document production would be “agonizingly slow,” “frustrating,” and will cause Plaintiff’s counsel to want to “tear their hair out.” And although Defendant’s counsel have stated that many of the difficulties they forsee in responding to document requests stem from Defendant’s use of computers that are on a “non-Windows platform,” there are two basic reasons no such problem should exist. First, the parties have agreed that documents will be produced in TIFF or PDF format (which are readable by all computers) for use in Summation databases, which should resolve any issues pertaining to “non-Windows platforms.” Second, even if documents such as email were produced in native (e.g., Apple Mail) format, that would not be a problem in any event because Plaintiff’s counsel use Apple software and hardware–from their network server to their desktop and laptop computers.

In addition to seeking class certification, Plaintiff expects to file a motion for “partial” summary judgment of the aspect of Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment that pertains to Defendant’s burden of establishing that it was entitled to deny coverage based on the terms of the Liquid-Damage Exclusion provisions of the Standard Warranty and the Extended Warranty.

Defendant’s Statement. As required by Rule 26, defense counsel was candid with Plaintiff’s counsel respecting the challenges of electronic discovery on a non-Windows platform. Plaintiff’s mischaracterization of the Parties’ discovery conferences does not promote the effective and efficient prosecution of this litigation.

Defendant anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s proposed “partial summary judgment” motion seeking to alter the Parties’ burden of proof is procedurally improper and legally incorrect.

So wait… is Apple actually arguing that using its products is an obstacle for businesses such as corporations and law offices?

On August 6, 2010, the parties stipulated that a pending California case (which will be the subject of a future article) should be declared as related to this case as the claims asserted and questions of law are substantially similar. Earlier, Apple mentioned a different California case which was not mentioned at all in the Stipulation. I will look into that one as well.

In addition to her position as Assistant Editor at World of Apple, dizzle runs idrankthekoolaid, an Apple fangrl satire blog, and is an Administrator and Hostess at MyAppleSpace and their vidcast MASTv.

In reminder, there is a whole constellation of pending actions involving Apple and Eastman Kodak. Here is a summary list (with details on status to follow):

• International Trade Commission Investigative Report Number 337-703, Eastman Kodak v. Apple. Complaint involves patent no. 6,292,218 (“the ’218 patent’”).
• International Trade Commission Investigative Report Number 337-717, Apple v. Eastman Kodak. Complaint involves patents identified as 6,031,964 (“the ‘964 patent’”) and RE 38,911 (“the RE ‘911 patent’”).
• Western District of New York Case No. 6:10-CV-06021-MAT. Eastman Kodak v. Apple. Complaint involves U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (“the ‘218 patent’”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,493,334 (“the ‘335 patent’”).
• Western District of New York Case No. 6:10-CV-06022. Eastman Kodak v. Apple. Complaint/Counterclaim involves U.S. Patent No. 5,226,161 (“the ‘161 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,421,012 (“the ‘012 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,303,379 (“the ‘379 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,341,293 (“the ‘293 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,898,434 (“the ‘434 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,634,074 (“the ‘379 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,072,925 (“the ‘925 patent’”); and, U.S. Patent No. 5,920,726 (“the ‘726 patent’”).
• Northern District of California Case No. CV 10-01609 JCS . Apple v. Eastman Kodak. Complaint involves U.S. Patent No. 6,031,964 (“the ‘964 patent’”) and U.S. Patent No. RE38,911 (“the RE ‘911 patent’”).

International Trade Commission Investigative Report Number 337-703, Eastman Kodak v. Apple and Research in Motion. Complaint involves United States Patent No. 6,292,218 (“the ’218 patent’”).

Construction of the claim terms is the present controversy as well as whether or not a decision on claim terms is properly subjected to the prior Motions for Summary Judgment which were granted in part and denied in part.

RIM and Apple are arguing that they are properly subject to these Motions and to the Initial Determination of the Commission under Commission Rule 210.18.

This part was of interest in RIM’s Brief on the Issues Under Commission Review of the Initial Determination on Claim Construction:

Kodak turns to district court practice arguing that ruling on claim construction via summary determination runs afoul of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and that the Federal Circuit does not want interlocutory appeals of claim construction.

But Kodak misses the point for two reasons. First, the Commission operates under the Commission Rules, not the Federal Rules. Second, there is no possibility of interlocutory review of the Commission’s determination on claim construction by the Federal Circuit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, which states in pertinent part that:

A party claiming relief may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.

Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 56(a)(emphasis added). This is entirely different from Commission Rule 210.18 which provides that a party may move for summary determination “upon all or any part of the issues to be determined in the investigation.” Commission Rule 210.18(a). As discussed above, and unlike Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Commission Rule 210.18 (a) is not limited to a claim, but broadly encompasses any issue or part thereof to be determined in the investigation.

RIM goes on to argue that an appeal would not be possible until there was a final Commission decision on the whole matter and that decisions on claim construction do not automatically dispose of the whole matter and would not do so in this case.

Arguing against this, the Office of Unfair Import Investigation’s Brief states:

Rule 210.18 concerns “issues to be determined” and in OUII’s view, claim construction is but a necessary underpinning to the resolution of certain issues such as infringement, invalidity, or the technical prong of the domestic industry argument (“technical prong”).  Standing alone, claim construction does not appear to fall within the scope of “issues to be determined” under the rule.  In particular, a claim construction ruling does not resolve any of the issues involved in a violation determination, nor does it result in one party successfully proving issues such as infringement, invalidity, or the technical prong.  Thus, following a ruling on claim construction there is no clear aggrieved party.  From the Judge’s and Commission’s perspective, the litigating parties remain in the same position as they were prior to a claim construction ruling.

I can see the validity of both arguments. However, the OUII seems to be, on the whole, straining at technicalities. I believe a better analogy would be civil law practice in the area of declaratory judgments in which the rights and status of the parties, including construction of contract terms (which seems to be a fair analogy), can be the subject of motions for summary judgment. While a final adjudication of the whole controversy, or even the whole of a part of the controversy, it is not quite correct to say that the status of the parties remains the same. The one who successfully petitions for a favorable claim construction has a distinct legal victory.

The OUII also states that there is no evidentiary hearing in a summary disposition hearing which is necessary for an issue such as this, without explaining exactly why this is so. Briefs and oral arguments are allowed as well as supporting affidavits, so honestly, that parting shot seems to be a bit of fluff.

The terms under dispute include:

• Motion Processor
• Still Processor
• At Least Three Different Colors
• Capture Button
• Initiating Capture
• Each Captured Image Having A First Number of Color Pixel Values Provided In a First Color Pattern
• Captured Image
• First Number of Color Pixel Values
• First Color pattern

Apple noted in its Response to Notice of Commission to Review Initial Determination:

While the Chief ALJ did not adopt verbatim the constructions proposed by Apple (or the other parties), Apple support affirmance of the construction in the 703 ID on all but one term: “capture button.”  Kodak and the Staff have already attacked the Chief ALJ’s construction of “motion processor,” “still processor, “ “at least three different colors,” and “initiating capture…” in their petitions for review by the Commission.  Apple’s response to Kodak’s and the Staff’s petitions for review illustrated why Kodak’s and the Staff’s criticisms of the Chief ALJ’s findings on those terms are without merit.

Also interesting is the dispute regarding the meaning of the term “button” as it would have been intended in 1994, when the patent term in question was authored.  At that time, buttons were “mechanical elements that could be depressed or partially depressed.”  Thus, Apple is disputing that their touch screens are indeed “buttons” as intended by the inventors.  Further, the patent “specification consistently describes capture buttons as mechanical elements—it does not redefine buttons as a purely functional, generic user control.”

For those interested in the more minute details of the upcoming hearing, the following items contain Apple’s Witness List, Exhibit List, and Witness Summaries.

Respondent Apple Inc.’s Pre-Hearing Statement

Additionally, this is the Initial Markman hearing determination decision which is the source of these latest wrangling.

International Trade Commission Investigative Report Number 337-717, Apple v. Eastman Kodak. Complaint involving patents identified as 6,031,964 (“the ‘964 patent’”) and RE 38,911 (“the RE ‘911 patent’”).

Apple had served a Subpoena for records upon non-party Zoran Corporation to which it was objecting. Although their objections were due by August 2, 2010, there are none in the records indicating that most likely an agreement was reached to limit the scope of production. Apple has also agreed to withdraw its Motion to Compel the depositions of Kodak witnesses Kenneth Parulski, David Woords, and Timothy Tredwell.

Apple and Kodak have agreed to participate in mediation in August, 2010. As with the above ITC disputer (337-703), claim construction is also at issue with Kodak submitting its proposed constructions and the filing of a schedule is in place with the following significant dates:

• Fact Discovery Cut-off: October 20, 2010
• Expert Discovery Cut-off: November 3, 2010
• Dispositive Motion Deadline: November 30, 2010
• Pre-Trial Statements and Briefs: December 15, 2010
• Target Completion Date for Investigation: September 19, 2011

Western District of New York Case No. 6:10-CV-06021-MAT. Eastman Kodak v. Apple, involving U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (“the ‘218 patent’”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,493,334 (“the ‘335 patent’”).

Nothing new has transpired in this case since our last report here in which we summarized the proceeding which had thus far culminated in both parties stipulating to a stay of the matter on March 25, 2010, until such time as there is a final, unappealable decision in the relevant ITC action.

Western District of New York Case No. 6:10-CV-06022. Eastman Kodak v. Apple, involving U.S. Patent No. 5,226,161 (“the ‘161 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,421,012 (“the ‘012 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,303,379 (“the ‘379 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,341,293 (“the ‘293 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,898,434 (“the ‘434 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,634,074 (“the ‘379 patent’”); U.S. Patent No. 5,072,925 (“the ‘925 patent’”); and, U.S. Patent No. 5,920,726 (“the ‘726 patent’”).

I had last reported that Kodak filed a Counterclaim to Apple’s Amended Counterclaim as new patents were introduced into the case at that time. Apple responded to the Counterclaims with general denials. An Agreed Protective Order was entered regarding the disclosure and use of discovery materials. What I found interesting in this order was the following,

16. MOCK JURORS
(a) A party may not disclose to mock jurors any original, as-produced materials or information (including, for example, documents, deposition testimony, or interrogatory responses) produced by another party designed as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER or CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-SOURCE CODE INFORMATION. A party may, however, disclose to mock jurors arguments and materials prepared by its outside counsel that are derived from CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER, so long as the derivative materials do not include the as-produced information itself.
(b) Before hearing arguments or reviewing materials that were derived from confidential business information, each mock juror must sign an undertaking or agreement agreeing not to publicly disclose such arguments and materials and to keep such arguments and materials confidential.

It would be very interesting indeed to read the results of any mock jury research conducted in these sorts of cases. The tenor of this case is markedly different from the juvenile manner of Psystar in their disrespect of confidential work product in that both are legitimate companies respecting each other’s need to protect such investments, as opposed to two punks wanting a free ride. I know, I know, say how I really feel.

Northern District of California Case No. CV 10-01609 JCS . Apple v. Eastman Kodak, involving U.S. Patent No. 6,031,964 (“the ‘964 patent’”) and U.S. Patent No. RE38,911 (“the RE ‘911 patent’”).

A stay has been entered in this case until such time as a final, unappealable decision is reach in Apple’s parallel proceeding against Eastman Kodak Company in the U.S. International Trade Commission, entitled Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, Investigation No. 337-TA-717. Additionally, the case has been reassigned to a new Judge (still within the Northern District despite Kodak’s request to transfer the case to the Western District of New York) with an Order requiring a status update to be filed in August despite the Stay.

In addition to her position as Assistant Editor at World of Apple, dizzle runs idrankthekoolaid, an Apple fangrl satire blog, and is an Administrator and Hostess at MyAppleSpace and their vidcast MASTv.

It has been confirmed by Apple that Mark Papermaster will be leaving Apple. Papermaster previously had held the position of Senior Vice President of Devices Hardware Engineering within Apple and was of course in charge of much of the iPhone 4′s production.

Papermaster joined Apple with much controversy in 2009 and officially began working on April 24, 2009.

Papermaster will be replaced by Bob Mansfield who is already in charge of some of the iPhone 4′s components namely the A4 processor, retina display and touch screens according to an Apple spokesperson. Some will not be surprised by this decision with Mansfieled being present at last months iPhone 4 press conference and Papermaster was notably not.

Parallels between Papermaster and the troublesome iPhone 4 antenna are easy to make but taking into account Papermaster’s time at Apple it is likely that Apple was well into the development of the external antenna design when the executive took his position.

Magic Trackpad

Apple has today released the Magic Trackpad, a multi-touch glass trackpad for desktop computers. The Magic Trackpad gives desktop users the same intuitive multi-touch gestures that Mac notebook customers have come to love and is available separately for $69 (£59).

With its glass surface, the wireless Magic Trackpad enables users to scroll smoothly up and down a page with inertial scrolling, pinch to zoom in and out, rotate an image with their fingertips and swipe three fingers to flip through a collection of web pages or photos. The Magic Trackpad can be configured to support single button or two button commands and supports tap-to-click as well as a physical click.

The Magic Trackpad makes use of Bluetooth for wireless connectivity and is powered by two AA batteries. Apple now also sells a $29 (£25) Battery Charger, designed to charge two AA batteries.

Apple has today quietly released a minor update to iTunes. The 102MB download is available from Software Update or Apple.com.

iTunes 9.2.1 provides a number of important bug fixes, including:

• Disables older versions of some incompatible third-party plug-ins
• Addresses minor issues with dragging and dropping items
• Addresses a performance issue when first syncing to some devices with iTunes 9.2
• Addresses an issue upgrading to iOS 4 on an iPhone or iPod touch with encrypted back-ups
• Addresses other issues that improve stability and performance

Apple this afternoon released the first beta of iOS 4.1 iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3G and iPod touch 2nd and 3rd generation.

The build is numbered 8B5080c, but Apple have provided no details of any changes or fixes in the iOS software.