Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Perfect. While you're at why not install windows xp on it to avoid patent issues.
They don't use those particular gestures. There is more to a patent than its title, you know.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
lolwut?
I believe it uses a different gallery interface.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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]
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
I am really confused now. I thought software patents weren't valid in the EU? How can this happen? Did the members of the Europarliament sneakily approve software patents anyway? Wouldn't be the first time they ignored the population. (I didn't say voters; they are not elected and the EU is not democratic)
Can someone explain how software patents became valid in the EU?
"but said that Samsung could get around this simply by upgrading its phones to Android 3.0."
Good, I've been waiting for an upgrade to 3.0.
Thank you European Court.
Yet another reason not to listen to people who wear wooden shoes.
______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
The judge decided only whether what Apple presented was enough to get a preliminary injunction or not. It is about stopping Samsung from selling right now or not. So this judge doesn't decide whether patents are valid or not. He decides whether he or she thinks that the patents would be found valid and infringed in a real court case. All the patents will be looked at for real at a later stage.
Looking at a 3.0 gallery app, and the 2.3 gallery app, they appear to do the same thing.
Wonder what the difference actually is that allows one to be ok and the other not.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
There is less too ;) If gestures have been used once and again on touchscreens since decades ago I fail to understand how a patent about using a specific gesture for a specific task can even be considered.
the photo patent is just about a certain navigation? one that isn't particularly good either.
apples design is easy to infringe because it's actually got no design.. it's the bare minimum. galaxies have more stuff(two capacitive buttons).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Right. I was answering the AC's question about why 3.0 doesn't infringe.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Correct me if I'm wrong here - but I'm pretty sure that Android 3.0 is for tablets and not for phones.
Also why is Samsung being sued and found at fault for a software feature in an operating system that it does not own / write - its just a partner / vendor of Android - not the originator of the OS - so surely this should be a finding against Google - and not Samsung. I wonder what that dutch court is smoking...
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.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Well the patent is about pre-showing the next or previous photo when sliding the current photo to the side. That's what Samsung was guilty off.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Did anyone raise the PSM issue? Has that been decided by a court anywhere? Does it vary much by country?
I'm just thinking that in the US at least, there are strong arguments against patentability of a gesture.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
There is no honest use for software patents.
Yes there is. Some software methods do require the investment and effort which patents are supposed to temporarily protect. The problem is the duration of "temporary"; only a few years should be enough for software IMHO. And ofcourse the issue that most software patents require very little investment and effort; their implementation may take more time and money, but that's what copyright is for.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I have to assume that it's a ploy to get them in trouble for spamming. The copy is way too close to sarcasm.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Awesome. This is the sort of creative trolling that I still visit Slashdot to see.
[...] just have a look at a random phone vendor's page and see which ones look just like the iPhone... and blow me down [...]
I would but unfortunately this page is blocked in my country and all I can see is this message:
I really can't understand this obsession with blocking. They can't possible get enough traffic from outside of UK to justify it.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I actually assumed that domainsbyproxy was a scam/spam intended to get the email addresses of the people offended enough to say something (ie, the ones who were paying attention).
They require a full name and email address to report a domain, and their "secure site" uses flash/javascript.
Of course, I could just be being paranoid... but not giving out my email address never got it phished.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
So one can block the sale of a device on a whole continent because it possibly infringes on a functionality that represents 1/10000 of the default functionality of the phone. My phone can call, video call, chat, do my email, take and edit videos, upload pictures to the net, scan bar codes for maintaining list of books and dvds, do anything a browser can do, play games like a console, be my alarm clock, and I can't buy it because of the way it reacts if I scroll half way my pictures in the photo editor ?
This is just wrong.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Samsung Photo App violates one of Apples patents.
The sensational half truths that pass for headlines these days make me think I've wandered onto Digg by mistake
Samsung gets away with copying the distinctive look of the iPhone* to an extent that most other smartphone vendors have managed to avoid.
Only because (shocking, I know) there is nothing distinctive enough in Apple's design. From OS News:
Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The Kinght Ridder is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.
RT.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My dutch is very limited to sinaasappelsap but I believe this is the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62981838/KG-11-0730-en-11-731-Apple-Samsung
Maybe some dutch person can translate the it?
This is supposed to be the patent (in english):
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP
What really bothers me is that this is clearly a software patent of the ridiculous kind (How to stroke a touch sensitive device horizontally. There must be prior art...) How could this be valid in civilized Europe? I thought we had said no to software patents (with a few exceptions) back in 2005 or such.
But you can't patent maths.
discovering a new territory takes effort and investment, but you can't patent "The American Continent".
Hell, making a shit sandwich takes effort and investment (especially if you've not had enough fibre in your diet). You can't patent it either.
There's NO REASON to allow software patents. RSA algorithm: necessary by banks to secure their internet transactions. Without that, they have to spend MORE money on couriers with cash or notifications. Therefore it would be made whether patented or not. Video compression means you can sell a small disk about 4 inches across rather than a large platter about 15 inches across, or do without medium altogether and have VOD, which are cheaper with compression than without. Therefore it would be made whether patented or not.
I thought we didn't have software patents in Europe? What's all this?
Only because (shocking, I know) there is nothing distinctive enough in Apple's design.
There's plenty distinctive about the iPhone's design. Looks like the page I linked to above is blocked outside the UK, but try looking at the range of smartphones on the websites of some local vendors. There are plenty of competing smartphones that are, basically, dark colored rectangles with a large screen (as determined by function) yet still look nothing like an iPhone. There are a few, predominantly Samsung, that look remarkably like an iPhone, at least in the publicity photos.
It looks like Apple's problem is that its actual "community design" registration needed to be a bit more specific, and has come over as an attempt to "patent" a black slab.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Okay, I didn't want to know that -- now I think a lot less of Samsung. *sigh*
...that in 7 weeks you could do a patch to Android 2.3.x to match Honeycomb's handling of photos and thus bypass the issue
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
It took a lot of Dutch Courage for the court to say that.
It seems that Apple has really been putting some steam behind using patents as weapons. Interesting article at Forbes about this whole Samsung vs. Apple mess: http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/24/why-apple-went-to-dusseldorf/
Only because (shocking, I know) there is nothing distinctive enough in Apple's design.
There's plenty distinctive about the iPhone's design.
Not according to this judge -- and that's what really matters.
It looks like Apple's problem is that its actual "community design" registration needed to be a bit more specific, and has come over as an attempt to "patent" a black slab.
Not a small problem, is it? ;-)
RT.
You forget a major part here, sure Apple mostly lost because only one minor patent was upheld, but it still means that a judge in Europe considered (again) that a "software patent" is valid.
I would call this a victory!!!
A patent (or copyright) should protect you for exactly one year. Each year you want protection, you buy another year's worth. Each year you buy costs twice what it did the previous year. Problem solved.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Seeing as Android 3.0 reportedly does not work on phones, my suspicion is that you will just see the necessary changes backported to the 2.x series.
Not only that, but reporting the spam there requires full headers which are not available on a forum posting.
I show to Jobs a middle-finger-gesture - he should go and patent that!
Patenting that would require quite the reality distortion effect. There is prior art on the digitus impudicus which has a document trail stretching back at least 2 millennia.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Steve Jobs' health has gotten so bad he's had to resign. While Apple has many creative people in its society of mind, the company just lost the ego and super-ego that made them work together. Maybe somebody will step up to the plate and fill Jobs' shoes, but he certainly won't be replaced successfully by patent barratry.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Yeah, especially 5.
Using the courts to stifle a competitor is cheap.
I thought Apple prided itself on making better products, but by bringing these cases before a judge they admit they are not competing on quality anymore.
Why do you feel that using the courts to stifle a competitor is incompatible with making a quality product? It seems to me if you want to optimize your profit, you do both.
All the companies suck :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The concept of patents is only valid if you buy into the obsolete idea that any kind of patents really serve the public interest. Propping up capitalist self interest by government interference this way is only justified by the idea that it serves the public interest. We are expected to believe that innovation will be stifled unless it feeds greed. Would the cotton gin not have been invented without patent protection? It seems perverse to think so. I certainly don't buy that idea.
> [...] but said that Samsung could get around this simply by upgrading its phones to Android 3.0."
Samsung is absolutely screwed.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Right, but how is it different is what we want to know.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Android 2.x is for smartphones while Android 3.x is for tablets. This difference in purpose means a number of core apps, like the Pic Gallery, are very different in design and features.
If you disagree with the existing law, get it changed.
It's hard to change some laws because of entrenched special interests. It's hard to change the laws that allow special interests to corrupt legislative processes because of constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech in effect in some countries.
You can't upgrade a phone to 3.0. It's a tablet only GUI and doesn't work on small displays. Google also doesn't permit customers to ship phones with 3.0 (honeycomb).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It does work. But google has not released the code for android 3, and told manufacturers to not put it on phones. If you run 3 on a mobile device with a res of 800x480 or less, you will get the traditional interface (not the new tablet one). XDA had a copy of 3 on the Galaxy S that someone had hacked together, but was missing a lot of drivers as samsung has not release anything(and was useless as a phone because of it).
The public interest is (supposed to be) the public disclosure of the methods used, which would be free to implement after the patent expires.
And if patents lasted short enough, this public interest might actually be worth it. Sadly, the duration of patents is no longer based on what is best for the public but has shifted to what is best for the patent owners.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Hear hear! This is the equivalent of turning pages in a book... plenty of prior art exists, including most e-readers, unless Apple also has the patents to books, including page binding, proper paper tension/thickness, gravity, etc. What a complete waste of time and money.