Touch-screen voting initiated in Bali

On a bright Monday morning on July 29th, residents of Mendoyo Dangin Tukad, in Jembrana, Bali, lined up to choose their next village chief. Most wore traditional Balinese attire – batik sarongs– with kebaya for the women and a headscarf (destar) for the men.

Election workers assist Wayan Ngidep during e-voting at Mendoyo Dangin Tukad village in Bali on July 29th. [Ni Komang Erviani/Khabar]
A voter uses touch-screentechnology in the village chief election in Mendoyo Dangin Tukad in Jembrana, Bali, on July 29th. [Ni Komang Erviani/Khabar]

Related Articles

The election voting was far from traditional, as election officials said it was the most technologically advanced ever held in Indonesia, using touch-screen devices that verify voters’ identity via their national ID cards.

Implementation of the e-voting system was a collaborative effort by the Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) and the Jembrana regional administration. BPPT provided the four e-voting devices, each worth about Rp 10 million ($1,000).

A major breakthrough

The new technology is a breakthrough for Indonesia, which plans to implement it in other parts of the country, according to the head of BPPT, Marzan Iskandar.

“We are very happy the system could be implemented for the first time in Bali, as this will be a pioneer of many other elections. The e-vote village chief election will become a miniature of a system that will be implemented across our country,” he said.

All election workers were trained and certified by the BPPT and the Indonesian Technological Auditors Association (IATI), he said. The system prevents any attempt to vote more than once, because voters use their electronic identity card.

“So, no one can manipulate the result,” Marzan said.

E-voting is also part of the country’s attempt to reduce election costs, and could decrease such costs by nearly 50%, according to Marzan. “It will also cut much time for the vote count process, as well as cut the social cost that can be caused by polling disputes,” he added.

Mixed Reactions

Many Mendoyo Dangin Tukad voters appeared sceptical about the new system as they’d never previously voted by computer. Local election committee members patiently guided voters through the process, one-by-one.

“I’d rather vote using ballot papers than using a computer system. It is harder. The traditional system is far easier for me,” said 55-year-old voter Wayan Ngidep.

The grandmother of eight had a particularly rough experience when the device she was using malfunctioned. Although election officials helped her navigate through the system, she felt her privacy was breached.

“Everyone finally knew my choice when they tried to help me,” Wayan said.

Putu Bukit, 70, had to ask for guidance from her nephew in order to vote. “I don’t understand at all how to use the computer,” she said.

But other villagers said it was smooth sailing. “I had no problem in the booth. I think the e-voting system is good,” said I Gusti Agung Ayu, 67.

Initial rejection

Voting ended at 2pm, after 1,753 out of 2,381 eligible voters cast their ballots. Candidate number two, IGAK Bambang, won the election with 536 votes, defeating three other rivals.

It was also a victory for local election officials who managed to convince the community to pioneer the system, with the help of promotional programmes and outreach by BPPT and the Jembrana administration.

“It was not easy for me to ensure the local leaders in the village would use the e-voting system. Most of them were worried about the accuracy of the election result,” said local election committee chairman I Gusti Putu Suarden.

“The e-voting system was stipulated in Jembrana Bylaw No. 1/2010 on village chief elections. It was our pride to be the pioneer of our national e-voting system,” Jembrana Regent I Putu Artha said.

E-voting could be implemented in other elections on the island, even the presidential election, said Ketut Lanang Sukawati Prabawa, chairman of Bali’s General Election Commission.

“However, it needs a long preparation time before the system can be implemented all over the country. We should also conduct special programmes for several remote areas across the country, where most of the residents are not able to read,” Sukawati said.

From:NJYTOUCH

Apple first sued Motorola Mobility

Now-ubiquitous touch screen for Apple iPhones and iPads are worthy of patent protection, the Federal Circuit ruled, reversing the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Apple first sued Motorola Mobility – now owned by Google – in 2010 for a number of patent infringements related to its iPhone and iPad. Motorola countersued over claims that Apple infringed on its wireless technology, and the two companies have been locked in a multi-pronged worldwide war ever since.

Though an administrative law judge found that Apple violated Motorola’s 3G wireless patents, the ITC recently reversed that decision. Despite the finding, Motorola continued to enforce a German ban on Apple products and drew the ire of the European Commission, which opened antitrust proceedings earlier this year.

Back in the U.S., Apple had been appealing an ITC decision that invalidated one of its touch screen patents for obviousness and anticipation, and a finding that Motorola did not infringe a second related patent. The first, patent ’607, covers the way the screen handles finger swipes and touches. Patent ’828 meanwhile discloses how the touch screen is made transparent.

A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit panel found Wednesday that the first seven claims of Apple’s ’607 patent had been anticipated by a prior patent. The court rejected Apple’s argument that its speed improvements and the enabling of multiple touches at once make it sufficiently different than the prior patent.

“Apple fails to provide any reason why the faster or optimal approaches would be too slow or inaccurate to detect multiple touches or why the disclosure of Perski ’455 fails to enable multiple touches,” Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for the panel. “To the contrary, as Motorola points out, the scanning algorithm disclosed in the ’607 patent is very similar to the ‘faster approach’ disclosed in Perski ’455. The ’607 patent discloses a sensing circuit that detects changes in capacitance at each node along n columns in the matrix by cycling through one row at a time for the m rows. Moreover, the claims of the ’607 patent do not expressly contain a speed or accuracy limitation. Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ITC’s finding that Perski ’455 anticipates claims 1-7 of the ’607 patent.”

The panel nevertheless took the ITC to task for its finding that claim 10 of the ’607 patent should be dismissed for obviousness. The ITC agreed with its administrative law judge that the Apple technology at issue stemmed from a previous innovation called SmartSkin without even examining Apple’s evidence, according to the ruling.

“This is not adequate under our law,” Moore wrote. “The ultimate conclusion of obviousness is a legal conclusion to be reached after weighing all the evidence on both sides. The ITC analyzed only the disclosure of the prior art references and based solely on that evidence determined the claims would have been obvious.”The ITC’s prejudicial failure to take into account industry accolades for the iPhone, sales figures and evidence of industrywide copying undermined its obviousness finding, according to the 37-page opinion.“Apple presented evidence showing a nexus between the undisputed commercial success of the iPhone and the patented multitouch functionality, namely evidence that Apple’s competitors copied its  touch screen and that those in the industry praised the iPhone’s multitouch functionality,” Moore wrote. “The ITC did not address any of this evidence.”

She continued: “To be clear, we conclude that the ITC fact findings regarding the scope and content of the prior art (what the reference discloses) are supported by substantial evidence. We remand so the ITC can consider that evidence in conjunction with the evidence of secondary considerations and determine in the first instance whether claim 10 would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of the invention.” (Parentheses in opinion.)The panel completely threw out the ITC’s finding that Motorola did not infringe Apple’s ’828 patent. It agreed with Apple that the ITC improperly limited terms in the patent’s specifications to find noninfringement.In his partial dissent, Judge Jimmie Reyna said he would have gone further and reinstated the first seven claims of the ’607 patent.

Reyna applauded Apple’s innovation and said the majority made a mistake in invalidating the claims as secondary art.“Based on the extensive record in this case, I believe Apple overcame significant complexities to produce a touchscreen with desirable optical properties that accurately detected multiple simultaneous touches,” Reyna wrote. “Ultimately, it was Apple – not the prior art inventors – who identified the problem, disclosed the steps explaining how the problem was solved, and then created a marketplace for its contribution. By incorporating the invention in the patented products of the iPhone and iPad, Apple’s efforts endowed users around the world with better access to information, more efficient communication, and unparalleled convenience to organize life on the mobile.”

from:NJYTOUCH