Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Sues Aussie Patent Office In Apple Suit, Apple Sues Back

Posted by samzenpus on from the court-room-blitz dept.

schliz writes "Samsung has sued the Australian patent commissioner — and by extension the Australian Government — in an attempt to force a review of patents key to its global battle with smartphone rival Apple. The Korean manufacturer claims that the commissioner should not have been able to grant four patents used by Apple in its case against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. The Government solicitor will face Samsung in court on June 25." Not to be outdone, niftydude points out that Apple has filed a motion in a California court to prevent Samsung selling its latest smartphone, the Galaxy S III in the US.

19 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple called Samsung a doodoo head and is currently grounded.
     

  2. MAD by sensationull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mutually Assured Destruction:

    This is like the nuclear deterant, but without the massive death toll to keep it at bay.

    They should all sue each other out of the market and let companies who are not such tools have a shot at the market.

    1. Re:MAD by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple is the aggressor here. They started the war, they are the ones trying to get Samsung products banned from sale. Samsung mostly tries to defend itself by getting patents invalidated, with occasional and IMHO misguided attempts at having Apple products banned in retaliation.

      There need to be severe consequences for failed patent litigation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:MAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, because we didn't have rectangular stuff with round corners before Apple. But talking about copying stuff, when did iOS get notification bar? Or multitask? Dictating and voice commands? Shall I continue on? Get over it, Apple copies as much as the next. The question is what is and it's not patentable (and I won't even go to the argument if Apple has the right to announce existing tech as new tech when launching "new" stuff or not).

    3. Re:MAD by wisty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Compare the iPhone 1.0 to the LG Prada phone. Apple was not the first capacitive touch phone. It came up with a similar design to the LG Prada. It's convergent evolution - once they realized that capacitive screens are better (because no-one wants to mess around with a stylus) then a few common solutions (big screen, no buttons, big icons, smooth dragging) cropped up. Apple just did it a bit better.

    4. Re:MAD by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Satire... I have a Galaxy Ace, and have no trouble telling it from my boss's iPhone. There are some cursory similarities, but the reality is that there's really only so many ways that a large-screen small handheld device can be put together and still have something that's functional. The only truly functional alternatives while keeping the same basic use are a clamshell and a slider, and both make for a heavier and larger device. In this day and age, people seem to want smaller, thinner, lighter devices, and so the bar is winning out as the most popular design.

      Compare how the software actually functions on the devices, and tell me that Samsung copied the iPhone. While doing so, please ignore that the software actually comes from Google, and that Android was actually in development since 2003 (and that Google acquired them in 2005), while iOS was first announced in 2007. You'll have more credibility if we just sweep that little tidbit under the rug.

    5. Re:MAD by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, because there is an infinite number of ways one could design a device that has exactly the same function, being used by people with about the same sized appendages in the same sorts of ways.

      Head on down to your local hardware store, and look at the hand tools, and think about why every hammer looks pretty much the same, every screwdriver looks pretty much the same, every wrench looks pretty much the same...and now imagine how fucking retarded they would have to be designed if a single manufacturer owned such a broad and over-reaching patent. Imagine how many would sell if they had to be deliberately designed to be less effective just to get around a ridiculously generic design patent.

      If the only way a competitor is supposed to get around Apple's stupid bullshit patents is to cram unnecessary hardware buttons onto their device, or make it work less efficiently, then there's a problem with the patent, and it likely never should have been granted in the first place.

    6. Re:MAD by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I can think of a lot of different ways to design a phone, the problem is, Apple's design patents are so generic that the only way to avoid them is to design a less efficient product. If they own a "minimal design", then every manufacturer out there has to cram buttons on the front of their device? Come on, that's just stupid.

      I could design a spherical cell phone, and nobody would buy it. Why? Because the most efficient shape for a communication device is a rectangle about 4-6 inches across. Look at every damned television remote, holy crap, all basically the same design. Why? Because they all have the same function, and they're all being used by hands about the same size.

      Imagine if someone owned the concept of a rectangular remote control with buttons on the front, and now imagine how fucking retarded every competitor's remote would have to be to avoid that generic patent. How healthy could a market be with those limitations?

    7. Re:MAD by domatic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple fans love that version of events but it just isn't so. The Blackberry-esque device was only one prototype. There were fully touch enabled prototypes being tested in the same time frame:

      http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

  3. What a strange outfit to sue someone by stud9920 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What a strange outfit to sue someone

  4. Whatever happened to.... by lechiffre5555 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    letting the consumer/market decide? Isn't this what capitalism is about, the consumers choose based on price, quality, features etc..... We seem to be in some sort of meta capitalist market now where the courts decide who can buy what. "All working as intended" ?

    1. Re:Whatever happened to.... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple's design IS distinct. It's minimal design is exactly that : distinct.

      The design itself is a natural evolution of the device as a whole, not Apple's particular spin on it. Allowing Apple to patent a rectangle with rounded corners is like allowing Craftsmen to patent a hammer with a handle and a claw. Now nobody else in the world can sell a hammer without radically changing the design and making it less efficient? Come on.

      If the only way a competitor can avoid litigation for their patent is to actually make their own competing product harder to use, then that's a sign that the original patent should never been granted in the first place. Do people honestly expect Samsung to cram a bunch of hardware buttons on the front of their devices just because Apple removed them and now "owns" a minimal look? That's going to degrade their product's functionality, just the same as having to design a hammer with the claw coming out of the top of the head, or the handle coming out of the top with the intention of swinging it underhanded. Nobody would buy that piece of shit hammer, obviously.

      Since most human beings are using these devices with the same appendages (their hands), the device is going to be roughly the same shape, and since most people's hands are about the same size, there's not going to be much variation on size before usefulness is impacted. They're all phones, and function dictates form. Imagine if Ford was able to patent such generic design concepts? How many cars would there be on the market if no one else was able to produce one with 4 wheels and doors on the sides? How stupid would every competitor's car be if they actually had to design around such a ridiculously broad and over-reaching patent? Who would drive the fucking things?

      Now, I'm sure Apple would be happier than a pig in shit if their patents were upheld and they got to basically own the concept of a smartphone in totality, but that is totally against the spirit of patent law in the first place, and everyone knows it. The only people defending this nonsense are Team Apple cheerleaders, not because it's actually right or makes any sense, but because it's their team.

  5. Competition == Irreparable Harm by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative
    FTFA:

    Apple claimed that the new phone, which is yet to go on sale in the US but went on sale in Australia last week, could cause it "irreparable harm," citing press reports that mobile companies had already sold more than nine million units in pre-orders.

    Hardly surprising that Apple is worried, according to the Telegraph the Samsung Galaxy S3 has now overtaken the iPhone 4S as the UK's most popular phone.

    1. Re:Competition == Irreparable Harm by pointybits · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the same chart (uswitch.com mobile tracker) the Galaxy S2 has outsold the iPhone 4S every month except April 2012, which was the only month that the 4S ever hit #1. So really the S3 is just taking the place of the S2.

  6. Thanks for the heads up, Apple by phonewebcam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was wondering how you thought your upcoming iPhone5 stacked up against the S3. It's too close to launch to change it now, so these desperate acts speak volumes.

  7. Re:Excuse me to be ignorant but by ballpoint · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been a pragmatically happy iPod owner, but one of the reasons I bought an Android phone was Apples behavior wrt patent lawsuits. If they want to continue to shoot their own foot, so be it.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  8. Re:Excuse me to be ignorant but by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't Apple that all the time sues Samsung or, (... put another Android phone maker here).

    When it comes to tablets, I think Apple is the lead horse regarding lawsuits, but the entire technology industry uses the courts as a 'business partner'. Just look at all the patents that are bought and sold when troubled or failing companies need to raise money, or when large companies want to strengthen their positions against their competitors.

    Would it mean that Apple is losing more and more ground compared to Android ? Patent justice is the last method when you have no more alternative to compete.

    Apple has no other option but to lose ground to competitors. They were the first largely successful tablet on the market and grabbed a huge percentage of sales. As competition comes along Apple can't realistically hold onto its entire marketshare. That doesn't mean that they are failing or being driven out of the market, it's just the reality of the numbers.

    Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.

  9. Fruit of the Loom by asylumx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Am I the only one whose mind went straight to the fruit of the loom guy dressed as an apple when reading the headline "samsung sues aussie patent office in apple suit?"

  10. Here's my fantasy by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The courts get fed up and ban every single mobile company on the planet from selling phones for a year. Then they can come back in to apologize for their shit and maybe they'll be allowed to play again.

    Your business is making and selling phones, not preventing other people from making and selling phones. I'm no longer buying any electronics product of any company who is plaintiff in a patent infringement case.