Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

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

  4. 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).

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  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_