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]

Re:Sigh...

[pieterbos]

not to listen? They refused all claims except a rather trivial one that can be easily fixed. You should definately listen to us :)

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:A fine example of...

[mwvdlee]

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.

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.

1/10000 of the functionality

[Pastis]

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.