Slashdot Mirror
Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung
walterbyrd writes "Apple Inc has asked a federal court in California to block Samsung Electronics Co Ltd from selling its new Galaxy Nexus smartphones, alleging patent violations. In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products. Those include the ability to unlock phones by sliding an image and to search for information by voice."
These kinds of software patents are patently bogus.
....has been on Android long before it was on iOS. I guess we know Apple is going to use their warchest to be anti-competitive.
Yay software patents.
No slide to unlock? Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.
This is starting to become childish.
I like my Apple products, but this endless pissing match between them and Samsung doesn't endear them to me.
That has been going on since the advent of language. Walk into a crowded room... "HAS ANYONE SEEN MY KEYS?!?"
:)
Nothing new...
This will become interesting only when Apple files suit against Microsoft (one if Apple's largest shareholders) for searching for information by voice -- a long time feature of Windows phones.
That google has had for a long time, and they had search by image. Please apple try and infringe on this. I hope google sue you into oblivion.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Apple is an outsourcing manufacturer of niche products. Samsung is a global innovator AND manufacturer.
It's not like Apple has the vision and single-mindedness of Steve Jobs to fall back on any more.
In the end, this only benefits lawyers and kills future innovation.
I don't see how Apple is benefitting long-term from this mentality and cultural mindset. It's a shortterm win at best and then a death by a thousand cuts as any of it's own innovations will be dealt with the same way by other companies.
I don't particularly blame Apple for this, but they certainly could afford a few lobbyists to turn this crap system around.
Apple should of never been allowed to get that patient! I would say the ability to unlock a phone through touch motion is active public domain knowledge and should fall outside the requirement for filing a patient. I think it's time for some major change in the US patient office. Technically Apple can now block EVERY single touch screen phone on the market and being developed. They have been allowed to secure a monopoly in a growing field, how on earth it that fair? Whats next is Apple going to patient toilet paper and go to court with everyone who goes to the bathroom?
What is up with the first sentence of TFA?
"In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products."
I think it's supposed to be saying "patents OF underling features THAT customers expect"... But this seems to imply that the reason that the patents are valid is because customers expect Apple to have the features that these patents cover, which is not a basis for a patent, and certainly not the basis for a patent infringement claim.
I am very, very frustrated with the state of tech reporting regarding patents, and the tortured English and tortured understanding of the nature of the suit even in the very first sentence of this article just makes it worse.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/apple-launching-sidelong-attacks-against-google-with-new-lawsuits-in-us.ars
Including a breakdown on FOSS Patents blog:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apple-requests-us-preliminary.html
The Slide-to-unlock patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7657849.PN.&OS=PN/7657849&RS=PN/7657849
It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.
Dilbert RSS feed
I am long time apple user. I love their OS, their software, and they way they implement those things on elegant hardware. I will probably always be a mac (and linux) user. (disclaimer: I use an android).
But all I can say anymore to mainly apple and a lesser extent other manufactures is:
Give me a fucking break already! Aim for cooperation and interoperability. Those two things would benefit end users on both sides more than spending billions on squabbling! All of these endless back and forth lawsuits is ruining both the mac and android experience for me. I know I'm kinda rambling but I'm getting to a tipping point. Looking forward to WebOS this September.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
"Search for information by voice"? Prior art: 411
Not to mention, of course, that the concept of making any sort of vocal request and having it acknowledged and responded to in a comprehensible fashion is entirely obvious, even if the exact implementation of how to get a computer to do it is not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...
If you can't innovate
litigate!
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Most of the property they're "defending" is not really theirs.
... When tech companies actually sold products consumers wanted, instead of suing each other over the common features of said products?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well in the UK it IS a valid argument. ^_^
http://mattwpbs.com/2009/08/10/i-refer-you-to-the-reply-given-in-arkell-vs-pressdram-1971
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
This is what happens when I dont read my morning "paper" before I post. Looks like sony is still king - http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/sony_music_jacks_price_of_whitney_houston_music_immediately_following_her_death
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Ars technica reported, "All told, Microsoft spent a little over $151 million to acquire 18.2 million shares of Apple stock, for roughly $8.31 per share. Microsoft confirmed that it sold all of its AAPL holdings some time ago, and likely did so at a healthy profitâ"after all, AAPL has traded significantly higher than $8 for many years. But what if Microsoft had held on to that investment just a little longer?"
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft.ars
I don't what it will take for you, but Apple has no allure for me anymore. I have had their products for many years and still have three in house, but I am done with buying their products going forward.
Fortunately Samsung just announced a Android 4 tablet coming in March, seven inch form factor which the Kindle Fire convinced we was best, so I may just be able to ditch that iPad.
This certainly ain't a property of Apple post Steve, they started down this road before he died and after reading quotes attributed to him I am quite sure this direction came from him too.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Can Apple sue Bell laboratories- the earliest phones were voice operated for searches.
"Operator, can you connect me to Oswaldina McWeaney in Memphis Tennessee please?"
- incidentally I wonder if any operator was named Siri?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Wow. What a nicely incoherent collection of rambling.
Patents may be "anti-competitive", but that's exactly what they are supposed to be! Thanks for the non sequitur.
It is not despicable that Apple relies (uses) the IP of others. No one creates in a vacuum. They publish the source code for all the Open Source code they use; even the BSD code. They do not (knowingly) violate software licenses. They purchased CUPS, and yet they still make their changes public. They are doing absolutely nothing to remove OS from the marketplace. Your ramblings about Apple's software strategy is completely nonsensical, and is not based in reality.
There is nothing what-so-ever to recommend about your post other than that it's a great essay for the entrance exam of your nearest Bigots-Are-Us club.
Please do not blame Samsung, that is just not fair. If a guy gets mugged in an ally, and tries to fight back, do you blame the victim or the mugger? Apple is the mugger.
I remember when Amiga and Atari both came out with machines based on the Motorolla 68000 processer (the same as the first mac). I owned an Atari ST during that time. Apple sued Atari over the TOS desktop, specifically they were mad about the Trash Can icon (among other things).
Then there were the emulators. Since they shared the same processor it was only a matter of time before someone wrote an emulator to let Mac run on Atari. "Gadgets by Small" was hounded by Apple's lawyers when they published Spectre 128 and Magic Sac. The ST ran 68000 Mac software with very little impact in performance.
Actually, I hope that this results in an all-out patent war between the big players. Right now, they have little incentive to pour money into lobbying Congress to change the patent system because they're all benefiting from it. As long as they all don't sue each other and only pick on little guys, why would they want to upset the status quo?
However, if the mutual assured destruction scenario actually plays out and they all start suing the crap out of each other, only then would they finally realize that buying tens of thousands of patents as a defensive measure against getting sued is not an acceptable solution to the patent problem. Ultimately, the answer is that software/business process patents need to permanently go away. That can only happen when they stop spending so much on lawyers building, defending, and in some cases, using as weapons their patent portfolios and start actually making meaningful changes in the system.
Yes, they'd have more competition. Yes, that means that sometimes, competitors might mercilessly steal some of your clever ideas. But it also means that instead of spending billions of dollars on lawyers, you can now redirect that money towards research and development to blow competitors away with awesome products (thus gaining brand and product loyalty) instead of trying to blow them away in a courtroom (which is nothing but a colossal waste of time and money).
given that Android has had voice search for more than two years now (introduced i think in 2.0 or so) and Winmobile had it also for 7 or more years.
When will this patent madness finally end?
Except that all of the mentioned patents are bull**** it is even worse that Android had voice search 1-2 years before Apple. Same goes for slide to unlock, a dutch court just threw apple out of the court after Samsung showed prior art regarding slide to unlock. What apple here simply does is landgrabbing and then suing people left and right and sometimes even people who have contracts with the original landowners.
In view of the actual lifetime of a mobile phone, and the Apple cash mountain, I'd suggest a realistic valuation is between $200 and $300 billion.
In order to maintain the appearance of invulnerability Apple must sue, sue and sue again - just like SCO - as part of the preservation of the image that no other company can (or will be allowed to) possibly compete. If it starts to lose too many patent suits, its share price will suffer, and if, post-Jobs, it has somewhat lost direction (or is up against growing technological barriers like battery life), it doesn't really have a counter.
While the Chinese economy continues historically weak I don't thing the rulers of China will rock the boat - but at some point I suspect they will look at Apple's profits and say, in effect "Hey, we do all the work, we deserve some of that". One option would be a dramatic rise in factory gate prices. Another would be a slow rise in the currency.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Please explain how raising prices, reducting choice, and stifling innovation is a benefit to consumers?
Does this mean that I owe Apple £0.10 every time I mutter to myself to help me remember something?
And behold, a command prompt and he who sat upon it, his name was shutdown and -h 3:11 followed with him
No offence intended, but did you submit this article just so that you could post flamebait like this?
It's a really poor article, with very little information in it. There are many more articles on the same subject available on the 'net - I've linked to some in my other comments.
It's an interesting subject, but your submission is pedestrian at best and your comment here is pretty worthless and adds nothing to any sort of debate or analysis that could occur on the subject.
No business wants to compete in a fair market. Who do you think starts all those "grass roots" (note quotes) movements to influence lawmakers? Recent example: I love the railroads and keep up with the news from the world of railroading, but the American Association of Railroads recently put links on Facebook and the like to the "stop larger trucks" website. They claim they're worried about safety (and given the number of recent train/truck collisions, they may be on to something), but let's face it: The railroads would love to do anything they can to make the trucking industry less profitable. And I'm sure the trucking industry does the same thing to the railroads whenever they can. This is, unfortunately, how the game is played, and it's been this way for a long time. Do you know who bought up many the streetcar companies in the 1930s-1950s so they could shut down the rail system and sell more buses? General Motors. In short, I'm not sure why Apple gets singled out for this hate - every company does this kind of thing. Hate 'em all, or hate none of them.
I know, right? It's so totally unfair, how's Apple supposed to make any profit at all when everyone's copying their very original ideas! They're barely turning any profit at all from iDevices as it is, and if evil Samsung has their way Apple will lose what little profit margin they have!
Oh crap, reality called: turns out Apple's making huge profit, and it's bigger than Microsoft. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has turned into a philanthropist and turns out Steve Jobs was a misanthropic lunatic before he died. Apple's making more profit than Exxon or Walmart. Want more reality? Apple's original ideas were stolen from others too. Apple's crap isn't new, it's existing shit marketed to general populace. It's the technology made in a way so soccer moms and douche bags can use it too. The only thing Apple discovered is that soccer moms and douche-bags are a huge market of people with money to waste.
This is not a hate of Apple (there are some reasons to hate Apple, but this isn't it). Instead, it's a case of Apple doing what many other companies do because of a broken patent system.
People have wanted these small mobile devices for years before the iPhone. And Apple would even have made them earlier if the CPU capability were around earlier. Steve Jobs had a very good insight into what the market wanted. But he wasn't the only one who has that insight. In other companies, the many insights Steve Jobs had might not all be in one person, and so those companies react slower. Apple had the advantage by having the top guy also having insights into the market. But this is NOT unique innovation. Steve Jobs did not personally oversee every detail. He just made sure there was a framework for others to put the ideas in. But that's the kind of thing that can happen at any company.
The patent system's purpose is NOT to create monopoly, specifically. Instead, it's purpose is to create innovation that would not have happened, otherwise. The monopoly of reward is the means of the patent system to encourage innovation that would not have happened.
99% of the patented "innovations" in smart phones, whether done by Apple or others, is not something the patent system was made for. These are things many dozens of engineers or programmers could have made, very often trivially. Patent lawyers won't recognize that because they are not paid to. If the company boss says "patent everything we can get away with", those lawyers will. The real tests need to be applied by the patent office. But they have a fundamental problem: they need more, and better, patent examiners, but that would also mean less money coming in. So in the end, we get junk patents. And in this day and age of 99% of technology being trivial, we get 99% junk patents. In the 19th century that might have been around 50%, given that the vast majority of the population was entirely out of tune with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Today, we have so many more people (millions) into STEM. Very very little of technology today is "something we would not have but for that one inventor making it" that the patent system was made for.
I do not agree that these are blatant knockoffs. They are designs that work well. We would have these designs whether Apple did it first or not, because the design is so obvious to hundreds of UX engineers. Notice that the tablet is so obvious it's design even existed in the 1960's (which you would have seen had you watched Star Trek). Had you asked me to design a phone that is also a personal mobile computer, I could have come up with the design we see as an iPhone or a Nexus as early as the mid 1970's. The finer points of the styling might be special to Apple, but the basic bar design and most of the technology in it is just obvious.
I'm outraged over the stupid corporate monopoly-oriented attitude about this. Where would we be without a patent system today? Would Steve Jobs have just said "screw it, I'm not going to make anything cool because I won't get to be the only supplier of it"? I think not.
I'm not opposed to the patent system concept. I think it still has a place. And there may well be some technology in smart phones which we would lack without a patent system. But not much. I'd bet more people would be willing to jump in and start creating even more if they didn't have the FUD caused by the risk that some company with lots of lawyers might come along and take it all away just because that company managed to trick an incompetent patent process into issuing patents for little things.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I always said Apple would be worse than Microsoft if it was ever given a chance. I hate being so very right.