Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Galaxy S3 Stripped of Local Search
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."
i don't know if that's a good thing or bad!!!
Fuck you, Apple.
They already have an injunction against it in the US, and due to various WTO agreements Apple will probably get that applied elsewhere.
Being that my version of the Galaxy S3 was purchased through Verizon, and they are notoriously slow with software updates, i can safely say that this feature will be present on my phone for a long time to come. Thanks for being lazy slackers, Verizon!
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
Serious question here....but how much do these companies spend on legal fess? It seems like every week they are throwing lawsuits at each for something or the other.
Patent holders win.
Consumers lose.
Where's profit?
Stability for their legal department.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
duh, someone has to think it up, code it and make up an algorithm. takes time and money. not like the algorithm is there in the open
but this has been on PC's since at least 1995 or 1998. maybe on 3.1 as well. unless apple was the first one to do it for email and email content
If Google is successful at invalidating that patent (at USPTO or at Court of Appeals), will this feature come back?
Perhaps, IANAL so I don't know, but it also should prevent Apple from being able to file an injunction against selling it (at least over this issue), since the function no longer exists on it. Samsung may figure it is easier to pay a small fee over prior "infringement" (quotes because the whole "patent on local search" is complete and utter bullshit) than to have their sales of the device blocked for weeks or months, losing them market share.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Wait, I am a little confused and not only did I RTFA, but I did a Google search for more information.
Apple has a patent on searching local files for information? wtf? Did they get a patent for searching both the internet and the local files....I mean this must be a twisted reality when a grep or find type operation, which has been around for a looooooong time not only gets a patent, but stops another company from performing said function on its own machines.
Somehow we are getting to the point where companies like Apple seem to be able to patent a chair, just because its a chair that works in the field; no one else can build such a chair again.....This just makes me sad for the industry I once loved.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Wouldn't an Android search GUI just be a front end for a bunch of grep (for data) or find (for files) commands?
Serious answer (not complete, but should give you a good idea). Summary: a lot.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Does it have local search without using a specific google app?
I have a nexus one right now, and I can't search a damn thing with it. It drives me downright nuts. I've run into so many frustrating usability issues with android that I've decided I'm going to have to move away from it on my next purchase. It's really sad when the evil proprietary overlords support industry standards (eg: caldav) better than an open OS.
The lawyers profit. It is their game.
1. Petition for patents on everything.
2. File Patent lawsuit with billable hours.
3. Profit.
So basically, your evil overlord stops Android companies to implement search, then you support the evil lord for it.
Amazing, I never knew someone could actually fuck themselves with such a tiny dick.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
It is hard not to infringe if you are writing a single search interface. Here's the patent. Apple is claiming to have invented executing searches on multiple sites from a single interface, of ranking and presenting the results in some order, and of being able to guesstimate what file type the user is trying to search for:
The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information....
...web-browser applications are not designed to search for non-web-based documents or applications located on the computer or an associated computer network and, conversely, File Find-type utility programs are not capable of searching the Internet for web-based documents or applications. There has been no combination of desktop find routines that presents a single interface and Internet browsing routines to allow a computer user to find a needed or desired item of information from among all different types of information storage systems. Additionally, there is no program which is able to process the user's input and then determine, using many different factors, including use of the Internet, the intent of the user as to the file to be retrieved. Accordingly, in order to present a more informative and personalized user interface, a unitary manner of finding a user's desired item of information is needed.
I have bolded the things that Apple claims did not exist before this invention.
There isn't really an algorithm in the patent. Just a description of the idea.
And this is not something that is non-obvious to a normal practitioner of the art.
as pointed out last time, Dogpile.com holds a massive amount of prior art if the claim is searching multiple sources with one interface.
(Not to mention as a programmer is damn obvious).
Their competitors are now scared to implement the most basic functions. Congratulations! Everybody else loses out, but fuck those guys and fuck society, am I right?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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
Apple is too much of a newbie at playing the evil monopolist game. Software patents suck, but at some point, Apple will run out of patents to assert, specially now that the competition is getting ahead of them in innovation and features. Google has learned that they only have to remove existing features and reimplement them differently. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a true veteran at being evil and forces Android manufacturers to sign up for expensive and shady "IP" licensing schemes.
No way. Typically when you go to court to fight something you don't want to be doing what the plaintiff is complaining about at the same time.
Quit the speculation shit. In fact, doing what you're protesting at the same time is far more likely to be an admission of guilt.
see, its not true that we don't make anything here in the US.
ask any lawyer.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Oh Apple invented local search didn't you know? They have a patent after all! That MUST mean they invented it first and spent BILLIONS of dollars in R&D developing it. Right? RIGHT?
Very weird - Palm did universal local search on handhelds circa 1999. Apps could even (actually, had to) determine how app data was searched.
Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
no
Local search is actually one of the least useful things I've ever seen on a phone. I HATE the implementation on iOS. I don't use it on my Android devices. Pretty much ever. And have many many times wanted to be able to remove the way it worked from both.
It sucks in the sense that Samsung is pre-caving to Apple demands ... but I'm kinda glad at the specific result in this case.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
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.
well, ....
they DO allow getting multiple things from one box.
(yes, I'll take an aisle seat, thank you)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
To quote Steve Jobs, "Good artists copy, great artists steal". That company comes up with nothing original.
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).
They (Samsung) should just implement an enabling code (like an easter egg), that is supposed to be secret, but "accidentally" ends up in the open. Entering this code on your phone will then enable all features owned by Apple. With this workaround, all Apple can do is blame the individual users. Btw, this is the same technique that has been used successfully by DVD player manufacturers for circumventing region-code restrictions enforced by trading authorities.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
It was actually Picasso who said that. Jobs stole it from... oooh.
Google Desktop?
I'm sure there is an app out there to take of it.
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.
That's why I like older versions of Android.
but it's on a computer so that makes it **new**.
Before I used to do "DIR *findme* /s" but now I need it on a mobile device and so I *NEED* a new invention for that.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
When did the Common Lisp find-if procedure appear? What other similar built-in collection-searching functions have there been in programming languages? Would that not be a generic prior art preventing anyone from patenting the ability to search through a collection of entries? Searching a list must have been obvious to anyone "skilled in the art" since some time in the 1960s.
Real karma will set you on fire for a comment like that.
in 97, I had a program called weasel. or maybe ferret? anyways, it search my desk top and any sites, or all available FTP port. Pretty much everything. So, Apple has invented, created, or even had an original idea regarding the patent.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
The Palm Pre had this as part of Web OS before apple did.
With all these companies suing each other and the new smart phone plans carriers are rolling out, I think my next phone will be a pay as you go pos.
...Google disagrees with you:
Before the legal fiasco began, Google warned Samsung not to copy Apple:
In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/25/before-the-legal-fiasco-began-google-warned-samsung-not-to-copy-apple/
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
The real costs are for Discovery. Now you are talking about tens of millions. A huge amount of effort goes into producing information for the other side. It is used as an attack tool to consume the resources of the opponent.
From your link: "The first release of Google Desktop Search was released as a beta version on October 14, 2004."
From GP link to patent: Filing Date: Dec 1, 2004
BUT: "application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/478,009, filed on Jan. 5, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,847,959"
And wiki article on Apple's Spotlight: "Spotlight was first announced at the June 2004 Apple Worldwide Developers Conference, and then released with Mac OS X v10.4 in April, 2005."
Maybe there's valid prior art to this patent, but Google Desktop is not it.
From the school of "Better to ask forgiveness than permission?"
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Just root your iphone and install stock android on it.
Why would you want the crappy samsung/your-carrier version of android anyway?
Steve Jobs didn't steal the quote. He attributed it to Picasso .
i thought, therefore i was...
BUT: "application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/478,009, filed on Jan. 5, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,847,959"
THIS is fucking bullshit! How the hell can it be anywhere near legal to "invent" something after someone else has then tag it onto an existing patent and claim you "invented" it first?
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Huh?
Web OS did not exist before this patent so..umm..yeah.
WHat innovation is this discouraging? Samsung copied a feature someone else created and patented 8 years ago. How is doing that innovation. Do you own a dictionary? Now they get to be real innovative and come up with their own way of doing it.
The "feature" of searching locally on a device? Are you kidding?
And even if this was some groundbreaking innovation that nobody would ever think of on their own, 8 years is about twice as long as they should be protected.
Patenting a local search on a device: that's chickenshit. What's next, patenting the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Plus, now that you asked, I didn't say it "discouraged" innovation, I said that the patents aren't doing their job of encouraging innovation. In fact, as I said, they are discouraging innovations from being adopted.
I can't believe there still exist people who believe that you should be able to patent something like searching locally on a device or clicking on a button to buy something.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ignore the other guys. Moving to have injunctions placed against directly competing products for a patented feature which is actually used in multiple markets is highly anti-competitive. I'd say Apple's moves are fully indicative they're getting scared by the competition. It's sad that they feel they can only beat the competition in the court room.
My blood hurts...
That's an awesome innovation that no-one could have possibly thought of. Definitely patentable. ~
Who cares? It stopped being about design alone a long time ago. And Google itself is being sued over Nexus, which doesn't look anything like an iPhone - solely over features in the phone.
sometime around when real karma gives tim cook aids
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
In Windows 98, explorer.exe was capable of doing both a local file search (while file browsing) and literally replacing the body of the current window with an iexplore widget that performed a web search. This was a single interface that could search both locally and the internet. There's your prior art. From Microsoft of all people. Similarly, it allowed you to search shared folders, which were internet-connected stores (intranet, but that's technically all the internet is), and IIRC, even Windows 95 supported that.
.. well.. since floppy drives existed.
Oh, and there's probably no fewer than 10 prior art examples in *nix. Attaching a networked storage device and searching your local machine AND the remote machine (ie: internet) for information surely happened when transitioning from workstations to PCs (I certainly did this while setting up a modern computer cluster, shared outputs were written to an ISCSI device shared by nodes, and intermediary files for processing were stored locally on each node, so sometimes you'd need to search both).
Let's go even further: floppy drives. Yes, a search on most machines with a mnt lower than root or a multi-drive search capability (Windows and *nixes) have been able to perform a search of your harddrive and a floppy drive simultaneously from a single interface for
How about memory virtualization? I'm searching through memory which is actually paged to disk, so I'm searching two different storage systems transparently, although it's unlikely that I'll get any means of ordering information distinctly based on whether it was on disk or in memory (thus the purpose of the abstraction), it's still a search on two different medium simultaneously.
The more I think about this, the more cases of prior art I find, and the more I find things that would very easily be seen as a violation of this patent. It should be thrown out. It's horribly vague, is terribly obvious, and had been done repeatedly long before the patent was filed.
Well done Samsung, I applaud you for improving youir device in this way. Ever since Apple introduced local search my iPhone has been running like a dog. I go to type in a location in the map app and it takes literally 10 seconds for each letter to be typed into the search box. When I search (properly) online with Google for this problem it turns out that the local search kills older iPhones and many people who upgraded to the version of the OS with local search regret upgrading. Leave local search out it's mostly a waste of CPU cycles.
Korma: Good
WHat innovation is this discouraging? Samsung copied a feature someone else created and patented 8 years ago. How is doing that innovation. Do you own a dictionary? Now they get to be real innovative and come up with their own way of doing it.
So, Samsung owners aren't supposed to do a local search on their phone, something old POS desktops have been able to do for years, because it's on a phone? Seriously? How again is the patent system not broken?
Make love, not reality television.
Thus, its in the best interest of the politicians to upsell, beef up, apple share price to the moon, to pay for the lazy ass employees that retire with 5x greater benefits, damn slackers.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I will not purchase any more Apple Products. For work I currently have an older iPhone 3GS and was waiting to upgrade to the 5 this year once it came out. No more, evil actions like this mean I will now purposely seek out a non-Apple product to replace that phone. My company replaces my work cell phone every 2 years and I get to pick what I want. Apple just lost at least one recuring sale by screwing over the general public.
My personal phone is the Samsung Galaxy S3. It was marketed by Sprint to have certain features. Now Sprint and the other Cell phone companys are likewise bowing to Apple in fear of being left out of the next iPhone release and rushing out these patches to cripple the S3's. Yes, Samsung made the update to head off litigation by Crapple, but Sprint is notoriously slow rolling out updates (waited 6 months to get updates on my older Epic), yet Sprint was able to test the crippling patch and other add-in's or sub-tractions and push it out to their customers in days this time? Sprint's forums are full of posts of S3's having signal and other issues now after the patches.
If the cell phone companies cared about their customers, they'd all stand up to Apple and say knock it off. Instead they are more concerned with upsetting apple than their customer bases. I wouldnt be surprised to see class action lawsuits against the carriers from their customers for selling them something and then taking it away. Misleading advertisement and broken contracts. Sure the carriers will try to blame Samsung and Apple, but as i said above, if the carriers banded together and slapped Apple the same way Crapple is slapping all other consumers, this whole thing would be nipped in the bud quick.
I wont be "downgrading" my phone. Screw CrApple.
. What's next, patenting the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners?
You don't realize Apple actually had patented rectangular tablet with rounded corners and (mkay, "community design" is not strictly a patent) and it and even managed to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab in Germany using it.
I was being purposely obtuse. I'm aware that Apple patented the rectangle
I've heard they've got a patent pending on 3-dimensional objects.
You are welcome on my lawn.
#1. Completely gut the patent system, invalidate all existing patents and abide by a this rule: any concept deemed worthy of a patent needs to be burdened with revolution, detailed and complex, all-encapsulating and original; something that is simply unheard of. Adding a feature to an existing technology doesn't count. It must be type of idea which, in its time, seems inconceivable and astonishing (for example, the telephone ... who, at the time, *didn't* think it was completely impossible and ridiculous to have a real-time conversation with someone across town, across the country or across the world without physically being in their presence?)
#2. Publicly fund the patent office. No more bribe funding (which is what it really is)
#3. Get rid of prior art and replace it with something better: an RFP to the public. Any reasonable, similar or plausible responses would automatically deem a concept non-patentable (and accepted responders would receive payment; I'd gladly see my tax dollars working to prevent BS patents). Such responses would be publicly available and voted upon to prevent some crony in the office rubber-stamping patents. If there are no responses, then no patent is granted.
i am sure