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.
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.
They aren't. It's not a software patent.
not to listen? They refused all claims except a rather trivial one that can be easily fixed. You should definately listen to us :)
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.
Incorrect: the judge in this case rejected all the other patents Apple brought in... This was not for a preliminary injunction, that case is still pending in Germany and probably will be hugely influenced by this outcome...
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.
Yes it is. There are several things wrong with this patent.
1) "[0001] The disclosed embodiments relate generally to portable electronic devices, and more particularly, to portable devices for photo management, such as digital photographing, 5 photo editing, and emailing photos."
The Galaxy phone is a phone; not a portable device for photo management. Its main function is to call and provide PIM functionality. But this is not related to software patents.
2) "5 [0008] One aspect of the invention involves a computer-implemented method in which a portable electronic device with a touch screen: displays an array of thumbnail images corresponding to a set of photographic images; replaces the displayed array of thumbnail images with a user-selected photographic image upon detecting a user contact with a corresponding thumbnail image in the array, wherein the user-selected photographic image is"
The above is clearly software.
3) "programs. The one or more program are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors. The one or more programs include: instructions for displaying an array of thumbnail images corresponding to a set of photographic images; instructions for detecting a scrolling gesture comprising a substantially vertical movement of user contact with the touch screen display; and instructions for responding to the scrolling"
Clearly describing software.
4) "[0012] Another aspect of the invention involves a computer-program product that includes a computer readable storage medium and a computer program mechanism embedded"
Also software. The whole patent describes a software program that is used on a generic touchscreen device and describes the user interaction with photos. Flowcharts and process descriptions are given.
I tried to find where I can object to this patent, but somehow it seems this is not possible with the EPO.
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
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).
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?
The patent system is rotten to the core. Not just software patents, the entire patent system. It needs to be done away with and replaced with nothing.
Um. No. I know we tend to think patents are terrible because... well... most software patents stifle new innovation and are granted on things that we think are so obvious we could come up with them in a few minutes given the problem conditions. But even if that were true for software, it's not true, for example, in biopharm. It costs hundreds of millions, or even billions, to bring a drug to market. You either need a very good government grant system that is willing to spend money on wacky ideas too occasionally (so that you don't have the best-iron-lung-in-the-world problem), or you need patents.
You can reform patents. But if you want private industry doing product innovation, then for a lot of products, you need something like patent protection.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
it's an user interface patent. you know. like patenting rectangular pixel areas as meaningful. not sw!
on the upside, this is a highly visible case bringing attention to stupid patents and stupid design/patent law.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.