Samsung Galaxy S3 Stripped of Local Search

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Galaxy S3 Stripped of Local Search

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @07:16AM from the it's-not-a-feature-it's-a-bug dept.

DavidGilbert99 writes "Ahead of a legal battle with Apple, Samsung has begun disabling the local Google search functionality on the international version of the Galaxy S3. This mean S3 owners will no longer be able to search contacts, messages, or other content stored locally on their phones using the in-built Google app. The interesting thing is that Apple has yet to sue Samsung over this feature in the EU or the UK and so it seems as if Samsung is being ultra cautious ahead of the the companies' big court date on Monday next."

21 of 243 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-25 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fuck you, Apple.
1. Re:Ugh by Fwipp · 2012-07-25 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is both the rules and those who exploit them.
2. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-25 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Lawful Evil is still evil.
3. Re:Ugh by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-25 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  and Fuck "IP".
  Time to mass-invalidate all software patents. This is ridiculous.
4. Re:Ugh by ZorinLynx · 2012-07-25 07:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How is being able to search for something "innovative"?
  Apple shouldn't be able to have a monopoly on obvious features like this.
5. Re:Ugh by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-07-25 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I second that. Fuck you, Apple
6. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-25 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The patent they have is not just to search for something. It's for searching in a single interface both locally and online and knowing what the user is searching for in a filetype. Quite different than a simple local search or an online browser search.
  
  Now whether or not they should have gotten a stupid patent on it (shouldn't) is a completely different matter.
7. Re:Ugh by MachDelta · 2012-07-25 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Edison didn't invent the first incandescent light bulb. Ford didn't invent the automobile. The Wright brothers didn't even invent the first experimental aircraft, they were just the first to get the thing off the ground reliably.
  Jobs is not God, Apple is not good, and you sir are a terrible troll.
8. Re:Ugh by oakgrove · 2012-07-25 10:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I have no problem professing genuine hate for some companies. Billions have been spent in marketing trying to attract the opposite after all. If it is an accepted and legitimate endeavor to try to make me like you or to make me feel cool to associate myself with you then I am perfectly within my rights to make a conscious decision to feel the opposite. Anyone trying to argue against this is oblivious to human nature.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:But... by brunes69 · 2012-07-25 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

They already have an injunction against it in the US, and due to various WTO agreements Apple will probably get that applied elsewhere.
didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? by alen · 2012-07-25 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

oh wait, that's why apple is suing them
seriously, google had local PC search like 10 years ago with google desktop. apple had it with finder i can't remember when.
unless samsung has really dumb lawyers that's prior art right there. local search has been on computers since the 1990's
1. Re:didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? by Anubis+IV · 2012-07-25 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's not local search that's the issue. It's searches on multiple databases from a single interface that are in question, specifically a single search UI that checks both local data and online for results. Apple had that with Sherlock back in 1997, and the patents being used in the various cases against Samsung go back that far in some cases.
  As you said, local search has been around forever, but a single interface for simultaneous local and online searches is a newer thing, and Apple seems to think they own it. Considering they've already had a few rulings in their favor in the U.S. for these patents, you can't blame Samsung for playing it cautious. IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could be sued for knowingly infringing at this point, given that the other rulings have gone against them with regards to these patents.
2. Re:didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? by gstoddart · 2012-07-25 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As you said, local search has been around forever, but a single interface for simultaneous local and online searches is a newer thing, and Apple seems to think they own it.
  Sadly, if they have been granted a patent to it -- they effectively do.
  Which is the most annoying thing about all of these lawsuits; they've all been granted ridiculous patents, that mostly seem to cover an idea, they all overlap, and the only thing corporations seem to understand now is to sue.
  I honestly don't see a way out of this, unless companies just decide amongst themselves to play nice -- but with billions in product revenue at stake, everybody would rather sue everybody else to make sure nobody else sells a product like their.
  Blame software patents. That's what is fundamentally broken here -- the companies are just looking out for their own interests, even if that means they're spending so much time in court.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Lawyers Profit by RichMan · 2012-07-25 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

The lawyers profit. It is their game.
1. Petition for patents on everything.
2. File Patent lawsuit with billable hours.
3. Profit.
Part of the solution? by nightfire-unique · 2012-07-25 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I want to preface this with: I love Samsung and have spent a lot of money on their products. I own a Captivate Glide, and am looking at the SGS3. I hope they triumph over Apple and cost them a lot of money in the marketplace.
But, if they roll out an update which removes this functionality from devices that have already been sold, I hope a class action lawsuit is filed against them.
Partly because removing functionality from a product that has been sold should be very illegal (criminal, not contract law), but also because it's important that every company suffers the consequences of software patents - regardless of whether or not they screw their customers by backing out functionality. I hope billions of dollars are wasted on this garbage, so that the situation ultimately becomes untenable. One day, multinational corporations will, together, take a step back and realize that this nonsense must stop.

--
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Re:But... by JBMcB · 2012-07-25 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dogpile just aggregates a bunch of search results.
Apple's patent is on refining results based on where the user is, the user's search history, etc...
For example, if you're in an airport and search for airplane, you are probably looking for information on airplanes, not Jefferson Airplane, or the movie Airplane, which is the first search result in Google.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:But... by rhook · 2012-07-25 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

To quote Steve Jobs, "Good artists copy, great artists steal". That company comes up with nothing original.
Re:pre-emptive stripping + unstrip with plugins by mrops · 2012-07-25 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think a safe way would be to strip it and change the entire search framework to a plugin based system. later let third part apps put plugins into the search framework.
They already do this for sharing, facebook when install can add itself as a share provider and application wishing to share content automagically see facebook( or dropbox etc).
Re:But... by BlackSnake112 · 2012-07-25 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

What about the ads that now appear on site that are for things I have searched for? Wouldn't those ads be violating Apple's patent? It is funny to see ads for the items that I just searched for. I was looking up home NAS options. Then I get ads for NAS systems. I was looking up fishing lures. I then get ads for fishing lures. I don't think all the ad people have paid Apple.
All these legal moves by Apple point to one thing. Apple is blocking other companies from bringing products to market that might be better their Apple's own products. Apple wants to have their next gen product out so that people always think of Apple of being the market leader. The lead position can and should change so that we have competition. That competition leads to better products.
Re:But... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-25 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
No, it's an indication that the patent system is completely insane.
Not only is it NOT encouraging innovation, but it's actually preventing innovations from being used.
How the hell does a local search infringe on anything. I search locally for my keys every morning. Do I owe Apple something for that?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:pre-emptive stripping by easyTree · 2012-07-25 10:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can tell you that when my awesome, light powerful Samsung phone with a great screen, camera, lots of ram, fast processor etc.. is stripped of features because of Apple's bullshit, Apple have just won themselves a lifelong non-customer.
Fuck you Apple. I sincerely mean that, you money-grabbing cocksuckers. Make your shitty, locked-in products a reasonable price so that the n00bs that buy them can afford to eat. Pay your employees a decent wage.

--
Requiem for the American Dream