Dutch Court Says Android 2.3 Violates Apple Patents

jfruhlinger writes "A Dutch court came to some interesting conclusions in the Apple-Samsung patent case raging there. The court rejected claims that Samsung stole intellectual copyrights, or that it slavishly copied Apple's iPad and iPhone. It did decide that Android 2.3 violated an Apple photo management patent — but said that Samsung could get around this simply by upgrading its phones to Android 3.0."

Comments

Patent, singular

[Sockatume]

The court find that it violated one patent. It also decided that all of the other patents Apple cited were either not violated, or were likely to be invalid. Early days but it's pretty heavy stuff.

Re:Patent, singular

[DJRumpy]

Actually the court found the swipe to unlock gesture that was also under consideration 'obvious' while it held that the photo app used by Android was in violation. It's likely Android will simply update the app rather than license this from Apple. They are now getting into implementations rather than physical designs. I don't recall of the top of my head if there are any physical aspects to the Samsung lawsuits. I think those are currently going for Motorola or HTC in regards to slimline rocker switches. In any case, this was a natural extension of older physical methods being implemented in software. The next 20 years should prove interesting as more and more physical aspects of devices are implemented in software and digital realms.

For example, the swipe to unlock was lost due to a previous art that samsung submitted an image from a 1992 human interface design doc that discussed toggling 'switches' via a touch interface. This was the primary reason the judge found the patent 'obvious' and dismissed it.

I'm of two minds regarding software 'patents' when it comes to this sort of implementation. For instance, take something as simple as a music player of any type. Fully implemented in a digital medium now with only the 'box' holding the software itself doing all of the work where before with something like an 8-Track or Cassette required a full hardware implementation. I have to wonder if/when they will draw a line between the digital and physical realm for implementation.

In regards to the photo patent that Samsung lost on this one, it is yet another patent that was successfully leveraged against Android. Right or wrong, it is probably making smartphone vendors a bit nervous. There are some 50 lawsuits from various companies worldwide against Android. I'm doubtful that the Motorola purchase is going to be of much help against all of those, especially if they relate to Android rather than phone functinality.

Apple lost in Dutch court, not the opposite

[Simon (S2)]

No matter what alarmists will tell you, net result is:

        Samsung can continue to sell current Galaxy phones and must provide a trivial change to the picture gallery in the next 7 weeks.
        Samsung can continue to sell the Gaöaxy Tab.
        Apple has LOST all design and copyright related claims.
        Apple has LOST the infringement claim on one patent and the court deemed a third patent broken anyway.

http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/08/samsung-v-apple-in-nl-happy-selling-samsung/ [cache]

Summary is quite bad.

[RedK]

Wow, did the summary ever get this wrong. The court said that the Samsung supplied Photo Gallery application infringes on an Apple patent related to a swipe gesture to move from picture to picture that bounces back to the current picture if the swipe is not completed.

The default Android Photo Gallery application does not do this, but Samsung customized the version included on its phones with TouchWiz (hence the Nexus S does not infringe and is not part of the ban or the Tab 10.1 that uses stock Android too) to replicate this functionality of iOS.

Also, the solution is not to provide Android 3.0 for the phones, Samsung will simply remove this extra functionality from the application (either by reverting back to the stock Android application or by simply removing it from their customized app) and provide an update for the affected models, thus negating the ban.

Re:This is all very odd...

[F.Ultra]

Every one in the chain, including the end user, is viable for patent infringement. So it does not matter who made the software, Samsung uses the software / distributes it so Samsung can be sued in a patent court. If Apple knew that you as an end user had millions they could have sued you as well (there is a case where some end users of MS SQL got sued do the patent infringement some years ago).

Re:I will never buy Apple products again

[MightyYar]

Right, because Samsung doesn't hold any patents and doesn't enforce them.

Unless you are an LCD maker, of course.

And they would never sue anyone for simple writing an article poking fun at their glorious leader.

Re:This is about a preliminary injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up. The parent is right. These are expedited proceedings that only cover the question whether there is enough ground for a preliminary injunction.

IANAL, but here are some interesting snippets from the court's findings:

4.18 The court issues a preliminary judgement that the implementation used in the Galaxy S, SII and Ace is covered by EP868.
4.19 Samsung has posited that patent EP868 would be nullified by prior art WO458. However, WO458 does not in any way describe or allude to the "bounce on first move" approach covered in EP868. Therefore, EP868 is presumed valid by this court.
4.21 The GalaxyTab devices do not implement a "bounce on first move" approach. Therefore, those implementations are covered by WO458 and do not infringe on EP868.

4.35 The Samsung products are not covered by EP948 because the patent explicitly associates one "exclusive touch flag" with each view. Samsung's devices allow the association of multiple "exclusive touch flags" with each view [red: WTF?]

4.45 This court finds that there is a reasonable chance that EP022 will be found invalid in a reexamination procedure. A preliminary injunction based on this patent is therefore denied.

4.49 The court finds that there is no infringement on any Apple community designs. Contrary to Apple's assessment, only features as covered by the designs filed are eligible for protection. Physical devices based on those designs are not protected.

4.50 Assuming that CD181607 is valid, Samsung's GalaxyTab designs are unique enough to not be infringing. This is based on the observation that only the front side of the 'Tabs bear similarity, and that the front design as filed was known before the filing date [citing HP Compaq TC1000 as prior art]

4.54 regarding Apple's assertion of a "minimalist" design: minimalist implies that the design is predominantly determined by its features and ergonomics. Features such as transparent touch-surface and rounded corners are therefore not eligible for design protection, as a monopoly forces competitors to make compromise on the functionality of their designs.

4.66/4.74/4.85 from the prior items it must be concluded that the design CD748280/CD888920 and the Galaxy S/Ace will not leave the same impression on an informed user. Apple's market research findings do not sway the court to judge otherwise.

4.75 Regarding CD748694: since the design as filed does not suggest that the particular icons are ineligible for protection, the depicted icons will be considered along with their arrangement. Apple failed to supply a model in which the icons are replaced with empty squares. Also noted is that only the design as marketed by Samsung is viable for infringement. User modifications can not play a role in this process.

4.76 The Nokia 7710 predates Apple's CD748694 filing and covers much of the design: four coloured icons per row, each icon contained in a bezeled square with rounded corners, single-colour background. Black as a background colour is not eligible for protection either because that is a technical exponent (the screen itself is black, so leaving it black conserves power).

4.86 Samsung has succesfully argued that Apple's designs originate from the United States and those works do not enjoy copyright protection over there. It follows from the Bern Convention's article 2-7 that such a protection will then not be granted in The Netherlands.

My reading, all in all, is that Apple got their ass handed to them. The judge for the most part didn't even need to rule on the designs themselves.