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."
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
Patent holders win.
Consumers lose.
Where's profit?
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
The lawyers profit. It is their game.
1. Petition for patents on everything.
2. File Patent lawsuit with billable hours.
3. Profit.
I think it is a patent on searching for and showing unified local and web search results. And I think it is a mater of time before prior art shows up to invalidate.
Because if you attempt to invalidate a patent and fail, you become a sitting duck in federal court.
Apparently you lose the right to raise certain defenses such as invalidity and prior art if you strike out with a reexam at the USPTO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
... and how to "reverse" it: http://android.stackexchange.com/a/26013/15713
...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"
i don't know if that's a good thing or bad!!!
Why dont apple just fuck off and do one once and forn all time
Apple are much more likely to bugger off than fuck off