Dutch Court Rejects Samsung Patent Claims Against Apple

angry tapir writes "A judge at the district court in the Hague has rejected claims that Samsung had made against Apple regarding four patents. Samsung wanted Apple to pay for licensing the patents in question, and the court to issue an injunction banning the import and sale of Apple's iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 2, as well as upcoming products, until licensing terms are in place. But the latter won't happen at this point. The ruling came in the in the same week that an Australian court blocked sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1."

Comments

FRAND process

[msobkow]

The judge says Samsung didn't go through FRAND negotiations properly. I'm confused by this. Isn't it Apple that refused to negotiate? If so, it would seem Samsung has done their part to come to an agreement, rendering the judgement invalid.

There doesn't appear to be any question of whether Apple infringed the patents or not -- the article clarifies that the patents are for essential technology, which means you can't actually build such devices without infringing the patent.

Re:FRAND process

[beelsebob]

No, Apple negotiated, and indeed owns a license for the 3G RAND patent pool. Samsung's patent that they're now saying apple doesn't have a license for is required to implement 3G, because of this, they were legally obliged to put it into the patent pool. That's where they failed at negotiating –they didn't disclose the existence of the patent, and tried to submarine the whole 3G standard.

Re:FRAND process

[msobkow]

Have you got a reference link confirming that? I've never heard that claim before and want to read up on it.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Whitey applying unfair protectionism (again). Australia blocked Samsung? What a shocker! Now count in those prophet drawing Danes.

Re:FRAND process

[JAlexoi]

FRAND != patent pool. Those are totally different things.
Since 3G patents aren't actually in a pool, Apple owns no such thing. Remember the issue with Nokia? Same thing.

Re:FRAND process

[gabebear]

It was on Slashdot a couple days ago. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/09/27/1748236/apple-says-samsung-3g-patents-violate-rand-requirements

Re:FRAND process

[msobkow]

Thanks. Sounds as bad as RAMBUS.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

What stinks here is regardless of FRAND and negotiations is that one company can get another's products banned based on something utterly arbitrary and which took no amount of effort or imagination to produce (the concept of a rectangle with rounded corners) but that when that company tries to strike back using patents based on actual real solid research that cost real money to come up with and produce in the first place they're told they don't have a case.

There's something very wtf about that, Samsung's patents are based on real R&D, Apple's aren't yet Apple's warrant a ban from the marketplace and Samsungs don't? seriously?

I suspect the real issue here is that Apple is just as good at lobbying and giving backhanders to the right people as it is marketing, and Samsung, not so much.

I just simply struggle to see how this ruling is in any way fair relative to the ruling in Apple's favour, how can their ludicrous patent be upheld but Samsung's real actual patent not?

Re:FRAND process

[msobkow]

From the article:

The patents are standards-essential, which means they are incorporated in internationally accepted technology standards -- in this case 3G. Standards-essential patents are licensed under so-called Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which is what Samsung has to offer Apple.

Not that it means the article or the judge were necessarily using the right terminology.

Re:FRAND process

[JabrTheHut]

I do wonder why Apple aren't going after any of the other tablet manufacturers such as Sony, Motorolla, and even Amazon. Why only Samsung, a business partner of theirs?

Could it be that it's not just about rounded edges?

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this as because Apple, despite catching all the flack from people here and other places, isn't actually doing the evil people are painting it to be. They are going after Samsung directly becuase Samsung had access to exact specifications of the ipad and iphone ( since they were making a considerable number of their parts ) and were a very close business partner. Samsung basically stabbed them in the back. RIM, Dell, HP, Amazon, Sony, Motorola are all companies that genuinely made their own products through their own reaseach and development.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung shifted nearly as many Galaxy S II's as Apple did iPhones last quarter, it was something like 16 million S II's vs. 17 million iPhone 4s. That's before you factor in Samsung's other offerings - Android and WP of course.

It's entirely because Samsung is far and away Apple's biggest competitor - whilst companies like HTC have some offerings in Apple's market they also have a lot of budget phones and their userbase is spread across that. Samsung's actually cutting directly in Apple's high end market like no other, and worse for Apple, even the sales Samsung hasn't taken from it - which number in the millions - people buying iPhones are still giving money to Samsung because so much of the iPhone is produced by Samsung. Apple doesn't want this story repeated in the tablet market too, it's hard enough for them to swallow in the phone market.

It's that that Apple doesn't like - Apple can only beat them if they can push them out the market, and even there they're always going to be paying for components from them to at least some degree. Effectively Samsung could at any moment pull the rug out from under Apple - by not just producing a product that's succesful or at least almost so as the iPhone/iPad, but also by deciding to up their rates on production too leaving Apple more limited in it's ability to find a manufacturer for it's products.

Really though what Apple should do if it wants out of this mess is not resort to suing, but to invest some of those many billions in cash it has lying around in pursuing it's own manufacturing base as a longer term strategy. This would be better for everyone - excellent job creation, greater plurality in manufacturing to name a couple of benefits. It can also then ensure stability, and then compete on the merits of it's products, unless of course, they think they can't. Which I suspect is precisely where the problem is. Why pursue this route of a more stable manufacturing base if you can't be sure you're going to be able to produce products people want manufactured on such a scale forcing you to throw that investment down the drain?

It's no coincidence that since Jobs mostly stepped down and Cook took over back in Feb that all we've seen is a half-arsed iPad update, a late and abysmal iPhone refresh, a pretty weak iOS update, and then a massive escalation of lawsuits from Apple against others. Perhaps it's too early to say Apple's few years in the sun are done and it's downhill again for it from here, but let's be honest, that's certainly where it's heading without drastic change. I wouldn't like to be one of those fools who has bought their grossly overinflated shares right now, that's for sure.

Re:FRAND process

[intheshelter]

If you think Apple is simply going after Samsung because of rectangle with rounded corners then you are probably being deliberately obtuse or you're not as smart as you think you are.

Re:FRAND process

[terminal.dk]

Italy makes lots of designer stuff. Stuff of same or lower value than competing products, but sold solely because how it looks. So it is important for the EU to protect designs.

EU does not recognize software patents.

BTW: Multitouch is a patent that Apple holds. So just prevent all competition from recognizing more than 1 finger would kill the competition.

Samsung is a company that had inside knowledge, producing to Apple, which is why they are in front of the competition.

Re:FRAND process

[UnknowingFool]

Samsung shifted nearly as many Galaxy S II's as Apple did iPhones last quarter, it was something like 16 million S II's vs. 17 million iPhone 4s. That's before you factor in Samsung's other offerings - Android and WP of course.

Er? I'm not sure where you got that information as Samsung just announced they have sold 30million Galaxy S phones total (S and S2 combined not each). The S2 has been available for 5 months and has sold 10 million with S making up the 20 million.

Apple doesn't want this story repeated in the tablet market too, it's hard enough for them to swallow in the phone market.

That premise relies on two things: (1)Your incorrect assertion above and that (2)Apple cares that they sell more smartphones than anyone else. I don't think Apple has really ever cared about having the most sales. They have always seemed concerned about having the best product first and making gads of money second. For instance, Apple might have 5% of the computer market but they are making tons of profit while other makers sell much more volume but make less profit.

Effectively Samsung could at any moment pull the rug out from under Apple - by not just producing a product that's succesful or at least almost so as the iPhone/iPad, but also by deciding to up their rates on production too leaving Apple more limited in it's ability to find a manufacturer for it's products.

Apple has already contracted TSMC to make the A5 which Samsung is the only supplier, the A5. You could say that the phone situation was the whole reason but TSMC offers a 28nm process whereas Samsung will move to a 32nm sometime in the next year. All other parts have multiple sources.

Really though what Apple should do if it wants out of this mess is not resort to suing, but to invest some of those many billions in cash it has lying around in pursuing it's own manufacturing base as a longer term strategy. . . Why pursue this route of a more stable manufacturing base if you can't be sure you're going to be able to produce products people want manufactured on such a scale forcing you to throw that investment down the drain?

Spending money on infrastructure when there is already a stable infrastructure in place? Take for instance, there are many companies that make flash memory. I would estimate that to get into the flash memory business would take 10 billion dollars just for Apple to make something which offers no advantage to their competitors and would cost more. Same thing for displays and plastics. That just doesn't make sense.

It's no coincidence that since Jobs mostly stepped down and Cook took over back in Feb that all we've seen is a half-arsed iPad update, a late and abysmal iPhone refresh, a pretty weak iOS update,

Everyone says that every time we get a new Apple product. The 3GS wasn't a huge improvement over the 3G. It still sold.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF. Samsung has been producing decent phones before the iphone frenzy. And then these lawsuits are mostly centered around Android features, developed by Google as their own R&D. OK, exception is the design patents, those which are simple enough to work around (i.e. without injuctions, they will fail to do any impact, next gen will be redesigned).
Most dangerous by far are "multitouch" patents and the whole Oracle-vs-Google lawsuit.

Re:FRAND process

[Hazel Bergeron]

Maybe Samsung are just great artists.

Re:FRAND process

[Nadaka]

Then why is the galaxy tab such a different aspect ratio if they intended to copy it to "exact specifications"?

Re:FRAND process

[Nadaka]

Don't fool yourself. They care about making gads of money first. And the impression that they have the best product is one of the big reasons they do make gads of money. For the longest time, it didn't matter if their stuff was actually better, or just seemed that way. Now consumers have more options, and tighter budgets, so they tend to make more informed choices. And apple products don't stack up nearly as well under those circumstances.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

Except there is no such thing as "a license for the 3G RAND patent pool". Engadget had a patent lawyer write an understandable article on the situation in 2009. Because of patent cross-licensing, and the fact that there is no independent examination of potential FRAND patents during the standardisation process, the result is that a) nobody really knows which patents are (or should be) considered FRAND, and b) there is no "fixed price" for licensing FRAND patents. "In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory' license actually is."

Samsung's patent that they're now saying apple doesn't have a license for is required to implement 3G, because of this, they were legally obliged to put it into the patent pool.

Once again, there is no single "3G patent pool" to license. When you deal with these FRAND patents, you have to license the patents of each patent holder individually.

That's where they failed at negotiating –they didn't disclose the existence of the patent

No, you are mixing up two things here. The "failure at negotiating" that the judge referred to is regarding the negotiations between Apple and Samsung in the last year. It is a completely unrelated issue to Samsung's dealings with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute who defined the 3G wireless standards a decade ago.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

Your quote doesn't say anything about a patent pool. There is no single patent pool that you can license that covers the 3G FRAND patents. You have to go to each patent holder individually and arrange a license agreement that covers their FRAND patents. From TFA it appears the judge has found that Samsung's patents should be covered by the FRAND agreement, and has sent them back to the negotiating table. This means that Apple still needs to get a license for those patents. This puts Apple in basically the same situation as they were with Nokia; expect to see a large cash settlement.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

If the wireless patents are essential then they should be covered by the FRAND terms of the 3G standardisation process. In contrast, Apple's patents are "design patents" - a special type of patent that covers the form and appearance of items. These are two very different types of patents, covered by different contractual terms, and so they will get treated differently by the courts. In terms of the design patent, the Samsung photo frame predates the iPad design patent and has a strikingly similar form, though obviously it is not a tablet.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

For instance, Apple might have 5% of the computer market but they are making tons of profit while other makers sell much more volume but make less profit.

Exactly. At one time, Apple had a huge chunk of the home computer market. Then a standards-based competitor with multiple manufacturers appeared, and Apple market share was driven down into the single digits. Apple do not want a repeat of this situation. The second point to be made here is that Apple isn't actually making huge profits from the home computer business - the vast bulk of Apple's profits now come from the IOS devices where they have good market share (50%+ depending on device type).

Re:FRAND process

[UnknowingFool]

People have been saying that since 2008 when the recession it. It hasn't come true yet in three years at the height of the recession. Instead Apple has been making record profits and sales year after year. Eventually Apple will plateau and people will say "I told you so" but it won't because they have amazing predictive powers. Just like I can predict there will be a total solar eclipse today. Oh, it didn't happen? Then tomorrow. And then tomorrow and so on. One day I am sure to be right but it won't be because I'm good at predicting solar eclipses.

Re:FRAND process

[fuzznutz]

That premise relies on two things: [...] (2)Apple cares that they sell more smartphones than anyone else. I don't think Apple has really ever cared about having the most sales.

You can bet your last dollar that Apple cares about selling more smartphones than anyone else. Because it's not about the hardware sales, but the aftermarket iTunes, iTunes rental, andiTunes app market that they care about. The last thing they want is for the bulk of the market to operate outside their walled garden. Since phones are usually replaced every two years, the shift in the market can be huge over a very short period of time. Just ask Research in Motion. Apple is committed to maintaining major market share of after sale revenues.

They just don't want Samsung guiding customers to Amazon and Google for their music, video, and Angry Birds fix.

Re:FRAND process

[UnknowingFool]

According to the 3Q 2011 report, Apple made about $5B in revenue and an estimated $1.5B in profit from their computers. Now the computer division is no longer the largest part of their revenue and profits but it still is hugley profitable. By comparison, Dell made $15.7B in revenue with $1.1B in profit. HP is harder to interpret but in personal computing group, it appears they had profit of $1.8B on $29.5B revenue. If the iPod/iPhone/iPad never happened. I think Dell and HP would be jealous of Apple's profits.

Re:FRAND process

[ceoyoyo]

Slashdot keeps parroting this rounded rectangle thing. Samsung copied a little more than that, right down to putting some of Apple's app icons on some of their marketing. Note also that there are quite a few OTHER rounded rectangles that are NOT being sued by Apple.

Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.

Re:FRAND process

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Exactly. At one time, Apple had a huge chunk of the home computer market. Then a standards-based competitor with multiple manufacturers appeared, and Apple market share was driven down into the single digits.

You make it sound like a deliberate strategy. However IBM's PC's were just as closed. When clone manufacturers sprang up they were promply sued and forced to reverse engineer the BIOS. This coupled with Microsoft's cunning decision to retain the right to license MSDOS to others evantually led to the "PC Compatible." So it was more like a comedy of errors on IBM's part than any sort of natural evolution or strategy that created the PC.

Re:FRAND process

[Space cowboy]

Apple *is* in fact making huge profits from its Mac division - about $5B last *quarter* - see http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/20/how-apples-business-grows/ ... A whole lot of companies would love to have this "not huge profits" business line... Assuming they don't screw it up, that's ~ $20B/year...

Apple makes a lot *more* money from iOS devices (lumping the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch together gets you to ~60% of the company's income), but that's "only" 3x the Mac income, hardly the "vast bulk", which (to me at least) implies a completely dominant fraction of the whole - of the order of 90-odd percent, not ~60 percent...

And your analysis is wrong anyway, IMHO. I think Apple are perfectly happy to be seen as the premium brand, where they can rake in much more in profit from much less "work" by focussing on only a few product lines. Look at http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/31/fourth-quarter-mobile-phone-industry-overview/ - Apple take more than 50% of the profit in the phone industry by owning only 4% of the market-share.

Businesses exist to product profit, not to product market share. *One* way to try and increase profit is to try and increase market share. Apple has another way, and it's working well for them.

Simon.

Re:FRAND process

[msobkow]

Actually I expect to see a patent licensing exchange with little or no money changing hands. Don't forget Apple is suing Samsung, too. In the end, the whole thing will probably be settled out of court after they're done their patent-waving contest.

Re:FRAND process

[UnknowingFool]

There is a difference between having the most sales which HP and Dell care about and having the most profit. Apple would rather chase 5% of the market and make more profit than Dell (which they did last quarter) than fight with Dell, HP, and Lenovo for 95% of the low profit side. According to Apple's 3Q report, they made over $14B in revenue on iPhone/iPad sales (does not include iPod sales) with an estimated $4.2B in profit. Their iTunes music, video, books, apps and iPod accessories pulled in $1.6B in revenue. At best that would be $480M after the content owners take their cut. So according to you Apple is more concerned about $500M in iTunes revenue than the $14+ B in hardware revenue. They are so concerned that they pushed for music to be DRM free. Currently what is stopping Apple users from buying music on Amazon and putting it on their iOS devices? What is stopping Samsung users from buying iTunes music and putting it on their Galaxy phones?

Re:FRAND process

[DJRumpy]

Before Apple came along and contracted with Samsung to build the iPhone and iPad pieces, Samsung's phones and pad's looked very different. After apple they are pretty much identical, down to the connectors, the hardware, and even the packaging. Google images on the before and after, even for the packaging. It just looks bad, and smacks of those fake Apple stores being busted up in Japan. Cloning for the sake of consumer confusion.

There is most likely a simple reason Samsung keeps loosing in every country they go to court in; the evidence is pretty damning. Each of the vendors mentioned above manages to make a distinct product that speaks to itself, has it's own flavor, look, and feel from a hardware/packaging perspective, yet Samsung ended up with a clone of Apple's, even going so far as to clone the OS GUI on their earlier smartphones, down to the 'dots' showing that more pages of icons were available, the icon images, etc.

There are also a few hardware patents in there in addition to the suit about copying product design but they never seem to get any play time with everyone so obsessed about that rounded corner nonsense.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

Apple *is* in fact making huge profits from its Mac division - about $5B last *quarter*

That figure is for all divisions, not just personal computers. Anyway, it terms of PC manufacturers, then yes, Apple is highly profitable compared to the likes of Asus, Fujitsu etc. You may find this interesting.

Apple take more than 50% of the profit in the phone industry by owning only 4% of the market-share.

4.6% is the Garner figure for all Apple phones globally. Nielsen says Apple's market-share of smartphones is 28%. I suppose it depends on whether you count smartphones as a distinct market segment or not. Most figures these days do seem to be presented in terms of smartphone market share rather than overall phone market share.

Re:FRAND process

[UnknowingFool]

No $5B is revenue for computers according to 3Q 2011 reports. It is estimated that they made $1.5B on computers as Apple doesn't seem to show profit by product line in the quarterly reports. For the whole company, Apple announced something on the order of $7B in profit.

Re:FRAND process

[MrDoh!]

Once again, Samsung need to watch TV to show this amazing rectangle with rounded edges;

https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ

air date of that show, april 2003.

Well, if not Samsung, at least their lawyers arguing all this, as the amount of prior art for that shape is just crazy. Not that 'tablets before ipad/tablets after' pic, but there's a huge amount of prior art that the iPad closely copies.

Re:FRAND process

[Anthony Mouse]

Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.

Then maybe Apple shouldn't have filed a lawsuit arguing in significant part that they have a design patent on rounded rectangles? Or are you arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize them for that? Or that people shouldn't criticize the legal system for allowing injunctions based on patents like that, which are of dubious validity, while denying them for almost certainly valid patents on actual technology?

This concept that 'your patents are FRAND so you can't get an injunction' is of a highly questionable nature in any event -- if there is no threat of an injunction then how do you get the infringer to negotiate rather than persistently low-balling?

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

Thanks for the link. Yes, it says $1.5b revenue for desktop and $3.5b for laptop. Don't know exact profits but Deutsche Bank report says Apple is the most profitable personal computer manufacturer, they suggest other companies lose profit margin because they have to pay Microsoft for software.

Re:FRAND process

[chrb]

Deutsche Bank report

Re:FRAND process

[oxdas]

There are two issues in this case. The first is Apple believes it has already paid relevant licensing fees because it sources its chips from Intel and they have a license. The second is the terms of the FRAND license. Most companies require patent cross-licensing in order to receive FRAND rates. The problem with Nokia, Samsung, Motorola etc. is how do you value Apple's patents for the terms of cross-licensing (software patents vs. hardware patents). In the Nokia case, Apple finally agreed to pay above FRAND rates, but not cross-license any patents. It is important to remember that the more valuable aspect of FRAND to patent holding companies is usually the cross-licensing and not the nominal fee. The judge believes that Apple and Samsung can come to an agreement on the rate, hence their ruling.

Re:FRAND process

[Genda]

For the Love of Peat... So put little circular pads at the corners with extra buttons for navigation or menu control or whatever the hell, just so its obviously not an iPad clone, still looks cool, and has simple added features which could be made to make common tasks even simpler.

There are other product designers out there who can envision a simple, elegant and beautiful product. COMPETE!

We are seriously in danger of losing our capacity to invent. I think its the Wilipediafication of our school children. All the rehashed, rehashes of 60s and 70 remakes and their ENDLESS remixes online and on the radio today. Watching people on reality competition shows see one person do something unique and remarkable, then see 2000 contestants after them try to duplicate it badly. Living in a world with endless possibilities, and all Hollywood can come up with is another comic book movie, and all hardware producers can come up with is make it much like and iAnthing-At-All as the friggin law will allow. Enough already. Think of something interesting on your own. That's why you have those big fat frontal lobes. Make them work a little!

Re:FRAND process

[Genda]

I doubt this is so, not because it doesn't make sense, on a person to person level. I could totally see this between people. On a corporation to corporation level, the game is a lot colder and a lot more aggressive. I would guess that Apple acted because Samsung actually had a cool product that might actually garner some interest and then market share. They learned from their competition with Android phones, that the way to stay ahead is to nip their competition in the bud, kill their momentum, keep coming out with new features make every other release a market extravaganza, with something super cool everyone will need to have (eg. Seri?)

The Galaxy was an attempt to technologically one up the iPad in a volatile market where minutes make the difference. Hold them back 3 months and you win, hold them back 6 and you crush them.

This isn't a soap opera, its a chess match.

Re:FRAND process

[Anthony Mouse]

Innovation is great. But there is an expression: Don't reinvent the wheel. You want the innovative thing to be not only different, but better. Change for the sake of change is a waste of effort.

So now I hear you say that people should make innovations for the better. But they do. They make incremental improvements -- because that's how it works. Once you have a wheel, well, you can prove by math that "round" is the best shape. You can make one that is a spherical rather than cylindrical, but unless that is somehow an improvement it's just change for the sake of change. The way you improve it is by making incremental changes -- you add ball bearings, you use tires, etc. But at the end of the day, it's still a wheel and it still works pretty much the same way it did 50 years ago or a thousand.

The idea that everyone should have to reinvent the wheel in order to enter a market is monopoly-sympathizing claptrap. You take what already works, you make it a little better, you get a short-lived advantage in the marketplace. If you want to keep your advantage, you need to keep making improvements. That is how progress is made.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean this photo frame - yeah, especially from the side it looks just like an iPad or Galaxy Tab. And it is younger than the design patent.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet your last dollar that Apple cares about selling more smartphones than anyone else. Because it's not about the hardware sales, but the aftermarket iTunes, iTunes rental, andiTunes app market that they care about.

Christ on a crutch can't you read their bloody financials? They make basically nothing on iTunes and rentals, using them as a way to sell hardware. Yes, Apple cares about money, but they make that on hardware and use software and services as break even incentives.

Re:FRAND process

[HermMunster]

I don't believe he rejected any patents. He only rejected the idea that Apple should be sued by Samsung for the patents in question, rather they should have been negotiating according to their rules.

This doesn't mean Apple gets out from under the suit. It just means more delays. It is likely that Samsung is learning well.

My opinion to date is that Samsung is inept at pursuing their claims. Surely Samsung can get some better lawyers to deal with these issues.

My prediction is that Google will begin suing Microsoft and Apple once they have thorough control of Motorola. Right now Apple and Microsoft have done everything possible to avoid lawsuits with Google directly. That's going to come to an end. Google now has a very strong portfolio and can create havoc especially for Microsoft (a company that tends to loose every battle they face in court).

Google won't sit back any longer and watch Microsoft extort money without disclosing to the world what they are using to extort it with. Right now you have Microsoft refusing to tell the community what is at issue so that they can correct any discrepancies that might occur. They are hiding that while suing others. That is extortion. They won't give the open source community the ability to change things if they are in fact in violation and instead threatens suits unless they cross license, pay money, and invest in their failing phone OS. That frankly could be considered restraint of trade.

Re:FRAND process

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW: Multitouch is a patent that Apple holds. So just prevent all competition from recognizing more than 1 finger would kill the competition

If it wasn't a complete myth, sure.

Re:FRAND process

[ceoyoyo]

"Then maybe Apple shouldn't have filed a lawsuit arguing in significant part"

Ah, weasel words. Aren't they great?

Here's a breakdown of Apple's complaint: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/

Note the first list:

Hardware and software trade dress claims

a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width;
as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width;
a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.
Packaging trade dress claims

a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box;
a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and
use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.

Yes, a rounded rectangle is in there as one item. Apple is not complaining that Samsung is making rounded rectangles (which several other companies who are not being sued are also doing). They're complaining that Samsung is making devices that so closely mimic Apple's that the two are difficult to tell apart (something even Samsung's lawyers have trouble doing, apparently), for all the reasons listed.

Here are some pictures: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/

The devices are very similar, the boxes are identical except for the names and pictures of the products, the chargers and sycing/charging cables are identical except for the colour... Samsung even ripped off some Apple icons for their marketing display.

As for FRAND, well, when you ram your patents into a standard you have to expect you're going to wind up with a little restriction on what you can do with those patents. If you don't want that then don't jam patented techniques into standards.

Re:FRAND process

[Anthony Mouse]

Yes, a rounded rectangle is in there as one item.

You say that as though the other items are any different. It's black? It has a screen and the borders are symmetrical? Really?

They're complaining that Samsung is making devices that so closely mimic Apple's that the two are difficult to tell apart (something even Samsung's lawyers have trouble doing, apparently), for all the reasons listed.

Except the question isn't whether Samsung's lawyers can tell them apart from across the courtroom when they aren't shown the trademark on it (you know, the thing that actually identifies it to the customer). The question is, when a customer goes to the store looking to spend hundreds of dollars on a device, whether they'll be confused into buying the Samsung device thinking it's an Apple device notwithstanding that it doesn't have the Apple logo on it anywhere and it says Samsung in big letters on both sides.

If you don't want that then don't jam patented techniques into standards.

What you just said is that if you invent something brilliant, you should either not patent it so that people can use it or you should patent it so that no one (not even you) can use it because the standards that everyone must follow in order to sell phones that actually make phone calls don't include it. Do you see how it might be nice to have a middle ground, where you can put it in the standard and then demand a cross-license from your competitors, so that anyone who actually invented something significant can make whatever they want, but still exclude the cheap crap from people who have never invented anything?

Re:FRAND process

[ceoyoyo]

Individually most of the claims are ridiculous. All together it's unlikely Samsung would infringe on all of them without blatant and willful imitation. You know those cheap knockoffs that every brand name manufacturer in the world fights? Samsung has apparently decided they want to be one of those knockoff manufacturers.

No, I did not say that. I said that if you want to freely exploit your invention however you see fit, you should not lobby for it to be included in a standard. If you DO push it into a standard then you have to accept some restrictions on what you can do with the patent. Why should a cross-license be required? Samsung gets paid a fair and reasonable (that's the first two letters!) amount for their patent. Why should they be allowed to leverage it to force other manufacturers into cross licensing their own patents? Besides which, most of Apple's lawsuit isn't about patents anyway - it's a trade redress suit.

Re:FRAND process

[Anthony Mouse]

All together it's unlikely Samsung would infringe on all of them without blatant and willful imitation.

Maybe if the list was full of arbitrary stuff that had nothing to do with the function of the product and was only used to brand it, but that isn't the case. Making the front of it black is fashionable; people like it. It isn't because people think it's an iPad, it's because black is the new black. Having symmetrical borders is completely functional: The thing has got a touch screen and you have got to be able to pick it up without inadvertently pressing anything, and the width necessary to do that is the same on each side. Arranging icons in a grid is a standard technique used so often that it's part of the library. The navigation buttons are likewise completely standard.

Someone who had never seen an iPad might not come up with exactly the same thing, but it's also completely plausible that they would. The real problem is that Apple is trying to claim something they have no right to claim: They're trying to get a perpetual patent on an obvious combination of functional elements by shoehorning it into trade dress. They aren't supposed to do that.

I can see the problem from Apple's perspective: The way trade dress works is that you have some fanciful addition to your product that has no function other than to identify it to customers. But Apple makes simple, minimalistic products. Their attractiveness is in their simplicity -- but you can't really claim a right to the absence of something uniquely identifying. So this is their attempt to get around that, but they're doing something they're not really allowed to do: You aren't supposed to trademark the parts of something that are functional.

Why should a cross-license be required? Samsung gets paid a fair and reasonable (that's the first two letters!) amount for their patent.

The whole problem is that "fair and reasonable" are undefined terms. The actual amounts paid tend to be rather modest, but only because the companies agree to a cross-license the value of which allows for a substantial discount on royalties. Apple seems to want to get the discount without the cross-license.

More than that, the advantage of cross-licensing is that it allows freedom to operate without fear of litigation. If everybody cross-licenses with everybody else then each company can design the best product their engineers can manage without establishing a giant bureaucracy of lawyers who have to look over everyone's shoulder and tell them that they can't do this or that. It is a workaround against the prevalence of over-broad patents that prevents each company from having to go to court and spend millions of dollars invalidating each of them. Naturally, someone with an overabundance of questionable patents will be inclined to disfavor cross-licensing, but in my book that makes it a feature rather than a bug.

Re:FRAND process

[ceoyoyo]

Maybe if the list was full of arbitrary stuff that had nothing to do with the function of the product and was only used to brand it, but that isn't the case. Making the front of it black is fashionable; people like it. It isn't because people think it's an iPad, it's because black is the new black. Having symmetrical borders is completely functional: The thing has got a touch screen and you have got to be able to pick it up without inadvertently pressing anything, and the width necessary to do that is the same on each side. Arranging icons in a grid is a standard technique used so often that it's part of the library [mytelcoit.com]. The navigation buttons are likewise completely standard.

Copying the box exactly? Using several icons that are almost exactly the same as Apple's? I'd agree with you if Apple were suing EVERYONE who makes black rectangles, but they're not. They're suing Samsung, who many have noted have copied Apple much more blatantly than anyone else. Even Samsung seems to realize it - they've managed to change the Nexus Galaxy and I don't think they believe the function was compromised.

Re:FRAND process

[Anthony Mouse]

I'd agree with you if Apple were suing EVERYONE who makes black rectangles, but they're not.

But they wouldn't anyway. Samsung's aim is to make a product that feels familiar to Apple's customers. There is a significant difference between confusion and familiarity -- you can be quite aware that something is made by a different manufacturer and yet buy it because you know that when you intentionally switch, you don't have to learn an entirely new set of icons and interface conventions. That's not trademark infringement, it's competition.

Naturally Apple would like nothing more than to prevent that. But nobody wants to file a lawsuit against a dozen huge manufacturing giants, especially with a questionable case. Better to only go after the one most similar to yours and make an example of them, so that anybody else who dares to target a product at the aggressor's customer base will think twice.

The problem is it isn't at all clear that Apple has any right to do that. They're arguing consumer confusion. But nobody is going to the store and buying a Galaxy Tab thinking it's an iPad. Just making something similar is not illegal, it's the basis of the free market -- Apple has to have a valid and infringed monopoly right in order to prevent competition. And it isn't clear that they do.

Even Samsung seems to realize it - they've managed to change the Nexus Galaxy and I don't think they believe the function was compromised.

Well, certainly they've realized that someone with a right you claim is invalid can get a judge to order you to stop selling your product before you get a chance to show the court why it's invalid. Which is no doubt much to the delight of Apple -- but that doesn't make Apple right. It only makes them a successful bully.

Re:FRAND process

[ceoyoyo]

"The problem is it isn't at all clear that Apple has any right to do that. They're arguing consumer confusion. But nobody is going to the store and buying a Galaxy Tab thinking it's an iPad. Just making something similar is not illegal, it's the basis of the free market -- Apple has to have a valid and infringed monopoly right in order to prevent competition. And it isn't clear that they do."

They've managed to convince a few judges (you know, actual legal experts) that not only are Samsung's products probably infringing, but they certainly have a right to complain about it.

Re:FRAND process

[Anthony Mouse]

They've managed to convince a few judges (you know, actual legal experts) that not only are Samsung's products probably infringing, but they certainly have a right to complain about it.

You're conflating what it takes to get a preliminary injunction with who will win on the merits.

Plaintiffs tend to win preliminary injunctions because they happen early in the process: The plaintiff can take as long as they like to get all their ducks in a row and do all their research before they file the lawsuit, then the defendant has a short period of time to defend against the motion for an injunction (which comes almost right away), which gives the plaintiff a large advantage at that stage because they've had more time to prepare.

The real question is what happens at the trial and appeal, once Samsung has had time to do its homework and come up with a list of prior art, a list of other companies that have been using similar "trademarks" that Apple hasn't been policing or that have prior dates of first use than Apple, and some fleshed out legal arguments about why what they're claiming is unsuitable subject matter for a trademark etc.

Too bad

[aaaaaaargh!]

That's really a pitty---what an injustice! I think that all alleged patent violations should lead to an immediate stop of sales. Moreover, to serve justice, patent laws must be adjusted such that all patent violations have to be investigated and punished, no matter whether the patent holder wants to or not. For the sake of innovation and the protection of "intellectual property rights" all companies that violate any patent must pay hefty fines in the range of millions or billions!

Re:Too bad

[Pieroxy]

The patent system is hopeless, at least when it comes to software and technology. It is based under the premise that whatever you might invent yourself, in your garage, may not be yours to sell. But you don't know.

This cannot be fixed as it is the basis of the patent system.

The patent system is just nuts and should be abolished entirely.

Re:Too bad

[msobkow]

Oh, yes, I could see how that would be good for business -- block every product from being marketed based on the unproven allegations of a patent holder or troll without any proof whatsoever.

Maybe you'd like to see everyone held in jail until their court case is heard instead of allowing bail hearings, too?

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've just been "whooshed", as they say.

spreading ...

[TESTNOK]

Samsung is not backing down because of that Australian ruling: here's an article that they have now also filed suite against the iPhone 4s in Australia and Japan (following existing cases in France and Italy)

Re:spreading ...

[beelsebob]

Unfortunately for them – those suits rely on the exact same patents the dutch ruling was about, given that one court has already said Samsung is the one in the wrong, it's not likely to help them.

Re:spreading ...

[Zironic]

As a rule national courts do not care much about what other national courts rule.

Re:spreading ...

[TESTNOK]

Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?

Re:spreading ...

[beelsebob]

No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason, and generally reach the same conclusions because of that.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing a small thing though. Because it is a 3G FRAND patent they can not negotiate with Apple for it, since non-discrimatory means everyone has to pay for this patent (probably even Samsung themselves). Therefor negotiations have to be done with the members of the 3G standards body.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason

The German court didn't.

Re:spreading ...

[gl4ss]

well, yes, but how do you conclude that negotiations have ended? you don't.

samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

Re:spreading ...

[peted56]

As ever it seems that apple can stop the sale of someone else's product while they fail to negotiate but other companies do not get the same deal, seems a bit cock eyed to me.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"They've never done that and you goddamn know it!"

Re:spreading ...

[Kartu]

Exact same patent ("community design" of rectangle with rounded corners, no I'm not joking) that have not worked in Netherlands worked wonders in Germany.

Re:spreading ...

[gabebear]

Samsung is claiming to own an international telecommunications standard(and they might)... Samsung could take every 3G capable piece of equipment off the market if this was allowed which is why patent's covering this technology are by law required to be fairly licensed to everyone.

Re:spreading ...

[gnasher719]

samsung should use the same thing against apple to get tab bans lifted, saying that they'd be willing to negotiate for the right to sell a rectangle..

The design case is not about "a rectangle". Apple's design patent is for a long list of design choices, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that looks like an iPad, and you need to copy them _all_ to get a tablet that Apple can sue you for successfully. If you look at many of Samsung's competitors, they had no problem at all creating tablets with rectangular screens and rounded corners where Apple doesn't have a chance in hell to sue successfully. These companies will also not be able to make customers think "it looks like an iPad, so it must be good". Instead they have to compete with Apple on their own merits, which is what competition is all about.

That said, Samsung can of course claim that they want to negotiate with Apple, and since this design patent is not _essential_ as shown by Sony, Toshiba, RIM, HP and many others, Apple can then just say "we are not selling any licenses" and that finishes the negotiations. Samsung's patents fall under the "essential patents" category so they cannot refuse license negotiations.

Re:spreading ...

[Zironic]

Well, I haven't read the actual court decision (is it available anywhere?) though I know in general it's often a coin toss what the decision will be in high profile court cases.

This is because often certain terms might be lacking a strict definition (FRAND for instance is never defined, so it's up to the court itself to decide if something is FRAND or not) and even when things are defined, it can be hard to establish whether it applies to the particular situation or not.

While I might change my mind after reading the actual court text, at this point I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see different rulings all over.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents relating to standards are different. When you own a patent relating to a standard (3G in this case) you are obliged to license it in fair and non-discriminatory ways. Which means that Samsung can't charge Apple 10 times what it charges other companies.

Apple on the other hand is suing Samsung with patents which are not related to standards, which means that Apple is free to (offer to) sell a license (or not) to whoever it pleases at whatever price.

Re:spreading ...

[Rhaban]

No, but as a rule, they all apply logic and reason, and generally reach the same conclusions because of that.

Logic and reason? In a court? In what universe?

Re:spreading ...

[arkanjuca]

I see what you did there, nice sarcasm.

Re:spreading ...

[Dragonslicer]

The design case is not about "a rectangle".

Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

After a quick Google search, I found this one - http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001. Of course, that's from Troll-of-the-Century Florian, so keep the grains of salt handy.

Re:spreading ...

[Tomato42]

There's a difference between non obvious (as most 3G patents would be) and bloody obvious (as any geometrical shape is).

I'd suggest the judges to measure all people (and companies) using the same rule.

Re:spreading ...

[gabebear]

I think you are way out of line for faulting the judge here. He didn't rule that one patent was better than the other, it was made on the contracts that Samsung had agreed to and the law. Samsung was obviously in the wrong(possibly to the point of fraud).

Re:spreading ...

[UnknowingFool]

There is a difference between a design patent and a function patent. After all, do you think courts should let Toyota copy the VW Beetle design and sell it as the Bug?

Re:spreading ...

[UnknowingFool]

Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

The main thing is that many slashdotters think Apple is claiming that they are the originators of the rectangular with rounded corners. What Apple is saying is that it is part of their design as one aspect. There are other aspects which Apple complained about. The icon placement is another. Again slashdotters will say that icon placement is necessary for a touch based phone which misses the point. Apple is complaining that Samsung copied that aspect of the iPhone (4 x 4 grid and 4 in the launch bar). Other smartphone makers use different arrangement of icons with some not having a launch bar, some using a more hexagonal arrangement, etc. It is also a cumulative effect of how many aspects Apple feels violated their design. The more they can show, the more likely they are to win. If Samsung just had the rectangular with rounded corners, they probably wouldn't have sued.

Re:spreading ...

[Dragonslicer]

What you're saying implies that violating a single Community Design in Europe is not enough to get an injuction, since a rectangle with rounded corners is all that's in the one I linked to. Is that true?

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that the Dutch court also rejected all of Apple's design patents, while injunctions on that basis have been granted in Germany and Australia. So no, this has zero effect on the outcome of any of the other lawsuits.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it was the judge who was in err.... time for a judge with a brain.

ie - negotiations fell apart, Apple proceeded sans license... ergo patent violation, immediate halt of all 3g based sales/products.

Re:spreading ...

[UnknowingFool]

The problem again is your reduction of all of Apple's claims to the "rectangular with rounded corners". Apple had more claims in their suit. Whether you agree with them is another matter.

Re:spreading ...

[gnasher719]

Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?

That's in principle it. Why the negotiations fell through would make a difference. If Samsung asked for $500 per iPhone and Apple refuses, or if Apple offered $500 for _all_ iPhones and Samsung refuses, that would make a difference. Or hypothetically, if Apple offers $X and Samsung demands $2X, Apple might offer to pay $X now and put another $X plus interest into escrow and let a court decide how much should be paid; that could make it hard for Samsung to get a sales ban.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, why not? Don't all pickup trucks look more or less the same? How about sedans? There's not a lot of differences when you're down in the mass market offerings.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking retard.

Re:spreading ...

[Tomato42]

It's not so clear cut -- if the shape makes a big difference (40% fuel saving) then, if patents would be a sane system, no. But as patents are only a bit more broken than "democracy" in USA, then yes.

It's not like I can't buy Abidas shoes already that look very much the same like the Adidas ones. If I buy them I'm at fault myself. If Abidas started using the Adidas name, then it shouldn't be legal. But it would become a completely different case before.

It's put only a bit further than patenting a colour, the difference is, most people intuitively know that the amount of colours is limited. They don't think that the amount of shapes is limited, it's huge for any shapes, it's large for functional ones, but it's not infinite: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

Re:spreading ...

[Anthony Mouse]

It's not so clear cut -- if the shape makes a big difference (40% fuel saving) then, if patents would be a sane system, no.

If it's functional then you're talking about a utility patent rather than a design patent, which is a completely different thing.

Re:spreading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, as I understand it, Samsung asked for a sales ban because Apple has to pay licensing fees, and the ruling says "no sales ban until you negotiate more (the FRAND business)". That would suggest that if negotiations happen but fall through, a sales ban could still be in consideration. Or do I miss something?

You missed that then there would first be a trial to determine what would be the FRAND terms where Apple (most likely) would be sentenced to pay a specific license fee per unit sold (past and present), and only if Apple didn't pay those Samsung could ask for a sales ban. But the ruling would probably not include forced cross licensing of patents (at least not of ones not relate to 3G technology).

Re:spreading ...

[manekineko2]

That's not true. The only issue litigated in the German case that Dragonslicer was referencing was the Community Design he linked to. It is solely on the basis of that community design that an injunction was issued.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/preliminary-injunction-granted-by.html

Re:spreading ...

[Tomato42]

But then, shapes that are more aerodynamic are also more pleasing to the eye, the difference is blurry.

All your code are belong to us.

[andydread]

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

The companies are also on a mission to use software-patents to make the use of open source software more expensive than their own.

The fact these companies are using the legal system against open source and free software shows that they can no longer compete in the marketplace based on the merits of their own products.

The sad thing here is that they will win and open source will lose and they will become the gatekeepers to all development in the future. The days of free software innovation are coming to an end.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[gnasher719]

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

I cannot quite see how you come from a story about Samsung wanting a ban of iPhone sales because of an alleged patent infringement by Apple, to the conclusion that Apple (and Microsoft) wants to "own all your code". Can you give an example where Apple has tried to gain ownership over someone else's code?

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[JAlexoi]

Do you think that it's only Apple and Microsoft? There are lots of big companies with the same idea.
Yet fanboys and companies themselves cry bloody murder, when their favourite company gets sued by a patent troll using the same "infrastructure" that the big players spend billions to maintain and enlarge...

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[andydread]

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades. Software-patent on "a picture viewer that displays thumbnails and when clicked displays the picture in an image viewer" They got an injunction against Samsung in the Netherlands for this. I could go on and on and on but that should be enough.

Now let me break it down for you ok? Software is already protected by copyright. That means that if I write a feature and you write a feature and the features are similar they are protected by copyright. If I copy your code then that is a violation. however if I file a software-patent on what my code does and your code though completely different from mine solves the problem in a similar way then I can then claim ownership of your code by suing the shit out of you until you 1) pay me a license to use/distribute your totally different code or 2) you remove your code from the marketplace. get it?

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware patent. Karma-bait.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[gabebear]

Make sure you include Google and IBM in your list of opponents to free software.

In reality, this legal crap between Apple and Sumsung is how progress is made. What's awesome about the Samsung/Apple cases are they AREN'T SETTLING! Out of court settlements don't move law forward.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Steve asked Larry to deal with. (Java API lawsuit)

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[joh]

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades.

Have these really been around for decades? I mean, it looks totally obvious when you see it (which is the point of implementing it this way) but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that. And if you work hard to come up with great and totally intuitive ways of doing something you're not happy if others just copy it without any effort spent on it. Without protecting it in some way everybody could just copy it and nobody would ever bother to put much effort into coming up with own solutions. You'd get mediocre half-assed solutions all over the place.

Well, maybe this is wrong. But evidence seems to support that view. If you look at copies and ripoffs from China and elsewhere how often do you see products where someone intelligently and carefully picked the best ideas from the products he has stolen from? He should be able to afford this, or not? He doesn't has to pay licenses and can freely chose whatever he wants to copy. But what you invariably see is just badly ripping off from the currently best selling products, nothing else. Small wonder: it's much cheaper, it takes much less effort and it's much faster -- and if there is no protection, being on the market a few weeks earlier than others is imperative.

No, I think we've taken a long time to get us into that mess and we will have to take a long time and careful measures to get out of it again.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[oakgrove]

At what time and against whom has Google used a single patent offensively? Should they just allow themselves to remain defenseless against the Apple MS Oracle et al onslaught? Yeah right.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? Google is one of the biggest supporters of open source projects, has never used a software patent offensively, and has come out in favor of abolishing them.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

At best, it's a graphical depiction of existing mechanical device, just like buttons with icons on them (my monitor has them, my car has them, the elevator has them etc). There are many sliding latches in the physical world that are used to unlock things. Calling it innovative is really lowering the bar to what innovation means.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[Solandri]

Sure. Software-patent on swipe to unlock. They sued Samsung in the Netherlands over this., software patent on scroll bouncing and other effects. Effects that have been around for decades.

Have these really been around for decades? I mean, it looks totally obvious when you see it (which is the point of implementing it this way) but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that.

The bouncing effects are based on cartoon effects which have been around since at least the 1940s. Back in the 1980s when the first 3D animations were being done, they found that rendering a solid 3D object hitting and bouncing off the ground or a wall looked "fake" even though the physics were correct. Only when you distorted it by squashing it in a completely unrealistic manner (a la cartoons) did it start to look "real". The (pirated) version of 3D Studio I played around with as a kid in the early 1990s has a pretty good introduction to it in the tutorials. This type of exaggeration along with rubber banding to emphasize certain motions and actions has been around almost a century now (think back to the Saturday morning cartoons you watched as a kid), and applying it to animation in computer UIs should be considered obvious.

If there was a non-obvious part to this in UIs, it was the concept of giving a window momentum and friction as you scroll it up and down. Once you think of that, all the bouncing animations are obvious.

Swipe to unlock being patentable is asinine. It's a graphical representation of a sliding door latch. Completely obvious. If it's patentable, then anything that's existed in the physical world for centuries or millennia is patentable simply by adding the words "on a computer UI" to it.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[houghi]

but very often what looks totally obvious and the only right way to do it with hindsight is everything else than obvious before that.

I agree. Imagine that the wheel had not yet been invented yet. Now it is something obvious, before that it wasn't.

I am just not sure that the invention of the would would be something that I would want to have somebody able to trademark, copyright, patent or limit its use in any way.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[sydneyfong]

All software are based on Turing machines which have been around since at least the 1940s. The Turing machines are based on pen and paper which have been around for ~2000 years.

I mean, a lot of people have been writing with pen and paper for centuries. If there was a non-obvious part to this, it was the concept of letting a machine do its thing. Once you think of that all "innovations" in computing are just obvious.

No wonder some idiot commissioner of the patent office once (allegedly) said "Everything that can be invented has been invented".

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't used patents offensively; they just simply prefer to steal everyone else's code and *maybe* come up with a license for it later. The reason they were able to give away Chrome for free was because they didn't license any of the code they were using. H.264, Java, there's lots of technology Google "threw in" to make their software package better that THEY weren't paying for.

Google got everything that was coming to them. They only started caring about patents when they started having to pay up to all the people whose code they stole. Suddenly Android isn't nearly as free as they thought it was, (now THEY'RE the ones having to Microsoft and other companies each time its installed on a device) and the only counter to that was having their own patents to sign cross licensing deals with and negate the per-device fees.

Incidentally, this is also why Google declined to join the patent pool with Microsoft, Apple, etc earlier this year. Google didn't want to team up with them; the only thing they wanted was patents to throw back in the others face to negate the code they had already stolen and void the cross licensing deals.

Google is just as evil as all the other companies out there. Don't believe the bullshit.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[gabebear]

At what time and against whom has Google used a single patent offensively?

Oh please: Google funds patent trolls, gives patents to other companies to sue, and patents the absurd. Intellectual Ventures was suing Motorola Mobility while Google bought it, Google gave HTC patents to sue Apple with, and Google has patented Doodles on homepages...

Should they just allow themselves to remain defenseless against the Apple MS Oracle et al onslaught? Yeah right.

Should Apple just allow themselves to be sued? Yeah right.

Google isn't an altruistic international corporation.

Re:All your code are belong to us.

[oakgrove]

you haters miss no opportunity to twist the truth. you are sad and pathetic.

The digital dark-age

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of corruption, lawyers are racketeering. It is extortion, plain and simple. And, it's sanctioned by the courts. I want a country where there is no intellectual rights whatsoever! Give us creators a small country where we can say there is no imaginary property. In USA you know that the oligarchs runs the courts when it comes to intellectual property. EU is going in the same direction. It's not even coding, it's affecting everything. If a country punishes people for singing and dancing, they are evil. In USA you can get hit with a lawsuit for singing and dancing, in Iran you will get prosecuted for singing and dancing. Same things, different wrapping. We live in the information-age, but there are powerful forces at work that wants absolute control of information. You all know where this road ends, it ends in 1984. And it ends in a dark age.

I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one right

[JAlexoi]

I hate to say it, but this time I have to agree with Florian Mueller... This decision, on it's own, is a win for the industry. Simply because it reaffirms the fact that you can't use FRAND'ed patents for an injunction.

Samsung gaining time

[Pierre-Arnaud]

Samsung don't have a case, and never had one... They're just gaining time to establish a dominant position on the Android side. They will eventually bend over, and they know it.

For those FRAND patents, it's said they asked 2.4% on each iPhone sold, and for each one of their 13 patents... That was a stupid move, it will backfire big time...

Apple just nailed it by offering a license on their low-level patents, showing who's the sensible party here...

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[HBI]

Florian Mueller is a paid for troll. I couldn't care less what you think, Florian. Stop astroturfing your crap. You aren't a lawyer and have nothing relevant to say.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[JAlexoi]

Him being a paid troll doesn't make the point false. I believe Florian has his own Slashdot account...

Sorry Samsung

[onezeta]

Sorry Samsung, better luck next time. I have to say though your phones are better in quality and features than Apple. Too bad, you don't a great backstory as a company to be more famous than Apple. Quick, make an SOB story about your creator or developer of some of your gizmos and gadgets.

Nearly right

[joh]

The real story here is that Apple and Microsoft are on a coordinated campaign to own all your code.

The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write code without needing a massive legal department to go up against the likes of Apple and Microsoft as they come to either ban products based on your code or demand a license from vendors based on your code is chilling to say the least

These companies rose on the backs of others. These companies became successful using ideas of others and writing lots of code that was unchallenged by patents for decades. Now they want to use software-patents to raise the barrier of entry so high that even Samsung is having trouble in the marketplace

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple or that anyone else in their position would do anything different. The patent system needs an overhaul, but just replacing one company with another wouldn't change a bit. They *can't* act different. It's not a point of "evil companies" at all. They are just doing what they must do in the position they're in.

Additionally it's very questionable to assume that without patents and copyright and trademarks and so on anyone would bother to put much development efforts into anything.

There are really no easy answers to these problems. Yes, this is sad and not very satisfying.

Re:Nearly right

[andydread]

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple

I did not say nor did I assume that they are the only ones running this campaign. They however are running a concerted anti-competitive campaign against open source software and even Microsoft has said that they will do this if they start to lose footing in the marketplace against open source software. They promised this years ago. And even without the honorable mention by Microsoft it is still transparently obvious what they are doing. And well if the big players are OKing this type of software-patent malfeasance then does anyone think the trolls are not going to want to join the party?

Additionally it's very questionable to assume that without patents and copyright and trademarks and so on anyone would bother to put much development efforts into anything.

I was directly referring to software-patents and the use of software-patents to take ownership of other people's code by using aggressive litigation in the marketplace. Microsoft and Apple rose to prominence rarely being threatened by software-patents throughout their early history. And they were both plenty motivated to create successful products back then without filing software-patents. Now they are using the last draw in order to push the software freedom genie back into the proverbial lamp. Software is authored works and is already protected by copyright along with books, music, movies etc. So should books be protected by patents too? If I come up with the idea in a book about wars in space should I be allowed to file a patent on that and go suing everyone that writes a book about wars in space? even if their wars in space story is completely different than mine? Authored works should not be patented and MS and Apple are abusing the patent system in the same ways they hate for it to be abused against them.

Re:Nearly right

[devent]

Isn't it "evil" if a company lobby congress (or other law makers in other countries) to implement software patents? Is that then the same that "they can't act different"?

Or is the congress (or other politicians) the evil ones, who listen to such selfish lobbying?

I think both are to blame and both are "evil". And the people are too lazy or to stupid and let it happened. I'm really exciting to see Occupy Wall Street and similar protests in Greece and Italy. Because that is the only way to change things.

Re:Nearly right

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right with the first part but it is idiotic to assume that it's only MS or Apple

I did not say nor did I assume that they are the only ones running this campaign. They however are running a concerted anti-competitive campaign against open source software and even Microsoft has said that they will do this if they start to lose footing in the marketplace against open source software.

Wait Apple is against open source code? Why do they contribute so much to it then? They own and maintain CUPS and haven't closed sourced it. They contribute all the Darwin code to an open source license despite the origins being BSD and not requiring them to. They created Bonjour and open sourced it. They wrote Webkit2 including all the awesome multi-threading and process separation stuff right in the library so all applications that use Web rendering can use it (instead of implementing it in the browser code like Google did in Chrome did and making it hard for others to re-implement). Here's a nice list of about 800 open source projects Apple actively contributes to. You can easily support the assertion that Apple is invested in sfotware patents as much as anyone, but to try to make them out as anti-open source is just demonstrating a lack of information.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[Fahrvergnuugen]

+1 for not blinding bashing Apple or Microsoft which seems to be the norm around here.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he is relatively new at it. You haven't had anything relevant to say since 9/11. Why is that?

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judge made his ruling while he had his bluetooth headset on that was connected to his brand new 64GB iPhone 4S

Shut up about rounded corners already

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gigaom.com/apple/judge-samsung-does-infringe-apples-u-s-patents/

A federal judge

“held both tablets above her head, one in each hand,” and “asked Samsung lawyers to identify which was which.” Levine said it took Samsung’s legal team “a while to do so.”

They couldn't recognize their own product right in front of them. That must have been hilarious to watch, and I'm sure it was absolutely devastating in the courtroom. But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"

Re:Shut up about rounded corners already

[CharlyFoxtrot]

But Slashdot is still hung up on "OMG rounded corners!!1!!"

It's a talking point. For all the talk of shills and astroturfers slashdotters do all the time, they sure are quick to echo mindless nonsense planted by them if it suits their purpose.

Re:Shut up about rounded corners already

[cHiphead]

Perhaps if you had read the previous comments on the previous submissions, the Samsung lawyers were not there to identify the devices, they were there to argue the case, the judge was wrong to directly ask the attorneys about the differences between two devices that employ the same style of technology. The attorneys were in the right to not answer without consideration. But it makes a good bullshit soundbite for astroturfers such as yourself.

Re:Shut up about rounded corners already

[gstrickler]

Perhaps if you used a little common sense, you would realize that your argument is useless.

This suit is about the physical similarities of the iPad and the Galaxy Tab 10, in essence, about the looks of the design. That Samsung's lawyers couldn't quickly and reliably determine which was which at 10 ft (3m), show one of two things: Either the Galaxy Tab does look so much like an iPad as to be confusing, or Samsung's lawyers are guilty of gross negligence. This case is about the looks of the two products, and if their lawyers didn't compare the two enough to be able to distinguish the differences between them, then they were negligent. If they did compare them and still couldn't tell the difference at 10ft, then Apple has a valid case.

Re:Shut up about rounded corners already

[scot4875]

From 10-15 feet, I doubt if I'd be able to tell the difference between very many tablets or smartphones unless they were distinct in very obvious ways, and I have 20-15 vision. They're all black or grayish with a large screen and rounded corners. The logos on the back are about the only distinguishing features. That the legal team wasn't able to do so instantly isn't surprising in the least.

--Jeremy

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[UnknowingFool]

Nothing says Florian can't own multiple accounts. I'm not saying that you're Florian but I find it interesting that you didn't deny it. On the other hand I find it interesting you didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. I'm just asking questions that's all.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[JAlexoi]

LOL! What's the point in denying anything to a loonie? Best defence is ignoring them, maybe they'll forget about the issue and move on to another shiny conspiracy theory.... remember tin foil hats?

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[Nemyst]

On the flip side, the "sane" resolution would be for Apple's design patents to be nulled. While I agree with the judge here, I hate the fact it gives Apple reason to keep bullying because it's working. You should never be able to disrupt competition through such tenuous accusations (not even condemnations, mere accusations are enough!).

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[tlhIngan]

On the flip side, the "sane" resolution would be for Apple's design patents to be nulled. While I agree with the judge here, I hate the fact it gives Apple reason to keep bullying because it's working. You should never be able to disrupt competition through such tenuous accusations (not even condemnations, mere accusations are enough!).

Design patents exist for a reason - they're a step down from trademarks (and trust me, you DO NOT want to force everyone into trademark wars - it's a lot nastier). They're also short-lived, 5 years or so, but serve to protect the unique looks of devices. At least with design patents, the claims are important - if a design feature is shown but not claimed, it's a free for all. With trademarks, degree of similarity is important.

Of course, perhaps if Samsung stopped making their devices look like Apple it would help. I mean, I walked down the tablet aisle of Best Buy, and the only two I got mixed up were the iPads and Galaxy Tabs. All others looked distinctly different with different trim pieces applied. The closest I could find would be a PlayBook, but it's so obviously different from an iPad and Galaxy tab. Maybe Samsung has a case since it looks a lot like a 7" Galaxy tab.

Seriously. Look at how the other tablets differ visibly from an iPad other than the Galaxy Tab. Just add a trim piece or something and the lawsuit would be meaningless. Maybe a stripe around the screen?

no.

[unity100]

its because samsung's tablets started to outsell and eclipse ipads in europe.

Re:no.

[dswskinner]

wait what?? did i sleep through that news story?

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[Anonymous Coward]

The equally 'sane' resolution would be for Samsung's trademarks to be nullified.

Design patents, despite having 'patent' in the name, are much more closely related to trademarks, and serve the same purpose. (Preventing confusion in the market place, that is.)

Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

They just work.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[JAlexoi]

Seriously. Look at how the other tablets differ visibly from an iPad other than the Galaxy Tab. Just add a trim piece or something and the lawsuit would be meaningless. Maybe a stripe around the screen?

And that visibly different look got XOOM in Apple's legal radars in Germany... Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[Anthony Mouse]

They're also short-lived, 5 years or so, but serve to protect the unique looks of devices. At least with design patents, the claims are important - if a design feature is shown but not claimed, it's a free for all.

This is a design patent. It says right on it: "Term: 14 years." And I don't see any claims.

Re:I hate to say it, but Mueller has this one righ

[Anthony Mouse]

If Samsung somehow managed to get a trademark for "Phone(TM)" or "Device(TM)" then you would probably be right.

Sympathy for Samsung much?

[VJmes]

For a company that's been convicted time & time again for anti-competitive behaviour and bullying it's competition, Samsung seems to get a lot of sympathy from /.'ers.

Taken individually, yes Apple's patent claims are ridiculous, the idea that Apple can patent a black square with rounded edges highlights how much of a joke the patent system currently is. Though if we take all of Apple's patent infringement claims together it does appear Apple have a case, fashion designers have won lawsuits in the past based on greater differentiation & less evidence.

Samsung needs better lawyers

[theolein]

They really do. When I read about Samsung's lawyers not being able to distinguish between their own device and apple's, I thought that Samsung deserved to fail in court. This particular battle between apple and samsung is about as evil and bad for the market as it gets, but apple seems to have done their homework, although I am surprised at how pro-apple the law is.