Slashdot Mirror
Google Distances Android From Samsung Patent Verdict
Nerval's Lobster writes "On August 24, a California court ruled in favor of Apple in its patent-infringement case against Samsung, hitting the latter with a $1.05 billion fine. Tech pundits spent the weekend chattering about the possible repercussions of the decision, which Samsung will surely appeal. One of the biggest issues under discussion: how Apple's victory will affect Google Android, the operating system that powers the majority of Samsung's mobile devices, and itself a player in the patent-infringement actions shaking the tech world. For its part, Google made every effort to create some distance between Android and the smoking ruins of Samsung's case. 'The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims' the company wrote in a widely circulated statement. 'Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office.' Google didn't end there. 'The mobile industry is moving fast and all players—including newcomers—are building upon ideas that have been around for decades,' the statement continued. 'We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that."
From a non-Apple rectangular computing device with rounded corners.
So, sue me.
Have gnu, will travel.
However you feel about Apple, iOS, Samsung, Google or whomever else, keep in mind how broken the technology patent system is. Most of us have known this for years and this trial only serves to highlight this point over and over again.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. Don't focus your hate on the companies involved. Focus on reforming the horribly broken patent system.
It was Samsung that chose to copy Apple designs. Most other Android handset makers did not so slavishly copy the design of the iPhone in regards to hardware and software, so they are far more immune to being sued.
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia. It is quite possible to make distinctive designs that do not mirror the iPhone, and in fact preferable for long term health. If your product just looks and acts like an iPhone, eventually people will just switch to the "real thing". Far better to make it distinctive in a way that people may grow to prefer so moving to an iPhone would feel wrong to the user because it was different.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Touchwiz looks like the main culprit of design copy. AOSP aka vanilla android looks and behaves very differently from iOS.
On August 24, a California court ruled in favor of Apple in its patent-infringement case against Samsung, hitting the latter with a $1.05 billion fine.
Linked summary says: "The jury is in in the epic patent dispute between Apple and Samsung and Apple appears to be coming out on top."
How come we didn't get a story or at least an update that confirmed that Apple really did come out on top?
Question is, which patents are under re-examination? You never know...I could be of help.
This whole patent and innovation thing is a mess. As an engineer with a day job, I've created a few useful thing for myself on my own time that never leave the walls of my own home. I've never even considered turning them into products and selling them. Why? I have the skills and resources to design and build them, to patent them, to go through all the FCC stuff...everything. The only thing I don't have are the resources to defend my patents against an unknown team of lawyers so why should I even bother? I'm not saying that I know for sure the things I'm making are revolutionary and everyone would want one....but I'll never know because it's not worth it to me to find out.
Am I the only one in this boat?
So I've tried hard not to throw my hat in the ring on all this crap between Apple and Samsung. Basically what it comes down to is two things. Google has worked hard to move away fromt he iOS look and feel every since Froyo because they new it was a hotbed and because Steve Jobs was moderately correct in calling out the vendors in their attempts to make Android look like iOS.
The war between these two isn't about functionality it's about aesthetics. Samsung makes their UI very iOS'ish. I bought an Epic 4G from Sprint last year and even I noticed it. This was purely Samsung though, most other vendors veered away from this, especially Motorola who used Motoblur instead.
Apple is all about aesthetics. So when Samsung, who had prior knowledge of and access to Apples plans as one of their close suppliers, started "copying" the look and feel, naturally Apple got pissed off. I'm ok with Apple kicking them in the balls over that. I'd feel the same way knowing the history of Samsung and their complete lack of originality in the marketplace.
However, this has shown some serious problems with patents. It never should have gone this far. Maybe i'm wrong but I've never seen Ford sue Chevy over the size and shape of their trucks. They all have similar features because they are friggin obvious. Enough is enough with this crap. I've sworn both companies off and will never buy anything from either of them again. I'm going strictly Nexus (non-Samsung Nexus that is) with Android from now on. When my Macbook Air is EOL I'll be looking into other solutions.
I'm done supporting this. I thoroughly believe it's only gotten this far and become this bad because the media love a fight and because Samsung is incapable of making money based on their own products aesthetics. Samsung has Apple envy and Apple has an inferiority complex. Fuck'em both.
"The smoking ruins of Samsung's case"? Nope.
Samsung's case is not in ruins. There are so many errors that it is an appeal's dream.
To begin:
1. Prior art have been abundant, from Samsung and LG
2. The jury ignored the prior art as it was too tedious...
3. The jury tried to punish Samsung
etc.
No, there are no ruins here. Wait and see what happens in the appeal.
While I don't think Google is squeaky-clean innocent in all of this, they did at least warn Samsung that they were too close to infringing on Apple's patents. They knew what was going to happen if Samsung didn't respect Apple's IP - Samsung just decided to ignore the warning...
As a related side note, as a consumer, I _WANT_ Samsung to be forced to design around Apple's patents (since I doubt they'll license them...). _THAT_ will lead to further innovation in the market and that is a good thing for me, as a consumer. Copying someone else doesn't provide innovation. Copying them without paying for the right to do so isn't innovative nor honourable. Anyhow, I look forward to the new innovations that Samsung (and probably others) are going to come up with in an effort to design around Apple's (and others') patents. That will lead to true consumer choice, product differentiation, and innovation.
Meanwhile in a garage, another inventor has decided it just ain't worth it. The opportunity to be crushed by corporate behemoths just isn't that exciting. How's that encouraging progress in science and the arts working out for ya?
Monopolize the market so everyone must buy an iPhone if they want any kind of functionality.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Copying a design isn't innovative except in the minds of those too dim-witted to come up with original designs. Actually enforcing the patents the tech companies have will force more innovation and better devices. Instead of complaining about how patent wars stifle innovation (they don't they only stifle copying) everyone who owns the current generation of devices should be complaining to the device manufacturers about the lack of truely innovative technologies and features in their devices.
At its core, Android and AOSP do not contain anything that infringes on Apple's IP. I think the stuff that it used to have that did (slide-to-unlock, for example) were removed.
However, it doesn't take anyone more than five minutes to notice that Samsung ripped off of Apple's stuff nearly-wholesale since their first Galaxy S device.
Icons? Bounce-back scrolling? Rounded corners?
The Constitution makes this statement:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
How is any of this malarkey leading to the Progress of Science?
Has anyone seriously taken the time to calculate the amount of money changing hands in these Technical Law Suits ? If they would simply STOP suing each other and start COLLABERATING they might find the world a better place to live. PATENTS need to be OUTLAWED ... I believe that time has come.
Its time to stop thinking about SELF and OWNERSHIP and start WORKING FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY !
Everyone keeps reporting that the court has reached a ruling. This is not the case. The jury has reached a verdict, but the final judgement has not yet happened.
or else!
The Apple v Samsung case had two facets to it. The first was Apple alleging infringement of it's "trade dress". This is a claim that Samsung made their products look like Apple products in the general sense, or "rounded rectangles" as everyone likes to call it. For these issues the physical form of the hardware is as important, if not more important than the software elements. The look of the product was decided almost entirely by Samsung, and thus Google and Android are probably largely unaffected by this part of the case.
The second part of the case was patent infringement. Things like the "bounce back" effect when scrolling, or pinch to zoom. These are pure software patents, and as far as I can tell in the core of Android as shipped by Google. Until the patents are invalidated it appears they would apply to any Android phone (at least, where the manufacturer didn't disable those features). Google should be very worried about this aspect of the case, with Apple now having a positive ruling (if only temporary on appeal) they can probably supply some significant pressure to other manufacturers who don't have a spare billion like Samsung and don't want to take the risk.
Note that Google, via Motorola Mobility has sued Apple as well. I suspect what we're going to see over there is either thermonuclear war with both of them attempting to destroy the other, or a new attempt at a settlement and cross licensing. I suspect Apple would cross license a pile of weaker patents (think pinch to zoom) for licenses to a bunch of Motorola stuff if they can hammer out a reasonable DMZ between "Apple Trade Dress" and "Google Trade Dress".
This is round one of what will be a 10 round fight.
"Has anyone seriously taken the time to calculate the amount of money changing hands in these Technical Law Suits ? If they would simply STOP suing each other and start COLLABERATING they might find the world a better place to live."
No, Apple's belief is that it can crush Samsung, Motorola etc. in the courts and remove them from the equation altogether so that they can have the entire smartphone market to themselves. From their point of view, they believe they can win, and that if they win the world will be a better place for them. You may be right that if they were to collaborate then the world would be better for everyone else, but the problem is they don't give a shit about everyone else and simply want to build an even bigger money pile than the one they have now.
If the Android OS promotes the UI to be "Apple" like, maybe its time for webOS to come back. There UI was different. I believe its now FOSS.
Who knows, being different may be a competitive edge.
I'm sorry, what part of the lawsuit was about Android? I must have missed that.
First they buy out a competitor (Motorola Mobility). Next they stand silently by while Apple and co. open up a barrage of litigation against everyone using GOOGLE's software. And now they simply rub salt in the wounds, with press releases like this. No wonder Nokia went with Microsoft.
Yeah... but things like pinch-to-zoom existed quite some time before iPhone. Similar, if not identical forms of graphical interface interaction were demonstrated on table-computing devices several years before the iPhone came out. Nobody patented them before Apple because nobody else was arrogant enough to think that they invented them. Indeed, if Apple (or any other device manufacturers before them that utilized such an interface) had genuinely invented the practical use of gestures for such computer interaction, then it would have not been anywhere nearly as intuitive for people without any prior training in using such an interface to operate.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Your post would seem to contradict the article summary.
In any case, if the criteria hold as you say then Google would seem to have a strong case and should win. Only if large companies really start getting hurt by patents can we see some reform I think.
I don't see how the press could not present it is Google vs. Apple, since Google wholly owns Motorola Mobility now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The court case was about Samsung not Android
Android isn’t to blame for Samsung copying.
Android isn’t to blame for HTC’s dreadful sales numbers.
Android isn’t to blame for poor consumer experiences.
Android is the answer to these problems.
Google has invested millions of dollars in development to get Android performing as well as it does now inJelly BEan
To be an Android UI designer must be digressing to see your good-looking and innovative OS covered by some ugly skin and stuffed with bloat ware
Google now has to witness the top Android OEM pay billion dollar fine and take the negative publicity because Samsung chose to hide the Android UI in favour of looking more like a competitor.
Google has every right to take pride in the original purchase of Android and what it has become under their stewardship.
Apple hasn't sued other manufacturer for the same reason they have sued Samsung and there's good reason for that
Google: Google doesn't make end products, they have OEMs do it, so they're insulated there.
They make the Nexus phone and tablet. Perhaps you've heard of them?
Microsoft: Windows Phone phones are actually quite different in design and UI compared to the iPhone and Android phones, and MS has the resources (entire battalions of lawyers and its own patent portfolio) to defend itself properly.
And Samsung didn't? And Google doesn't?
If Samsung fails to score on the appeals, HTC will be next.
Based on what? What does Apple have to sue them over they won against Samsung with... do you think HTC has a 100 page document carefully examining the iPhone and how they can make internal products more like it? I don't think so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
...yet. Now that they've won against Samsung, if the verdict stands, do you honestly think they won't start going after other companies? Mark my words, if this verdict stands, Samsung was just the first and we can look forward to a whole new slew of "trade dress" and patent lawsuits.
In fact, I'll even go so far as to predict that if this verdict stands, Apple will have basically hung themselves. Now, every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has ever built anything will be looking to patent the crap out of it all because it's clearly not acceptable any more to have something that cosmetically looks and vaguely works like something else any more. And when Tom, Dick, and Harry go looking for people to sue because hey, that thing has a triangle on it and my thing has a triangle on it, so they owe me a kazillion dollars!, who do you think they're going to go after? The companies with the deepest pockets, of course.
As has been pointed out a lot in these threads, a lot of Apple's products look almost identical to products that came before. Sure, Apple has endured some lawsuits, but nothing on the order of what they've just put Samsung through, and most people--especially large corporations who want to coexist with them--were content to just leave them alone. Not any more, though. The "thermonuclear war" of patent lawsuits among the big players is now starting, and this is inevitably going to do as much harm, if not more, to Apple as it is going to everyone else.
Also, I have to point out that I honestly believe that we had a so-called "runaway juror" running things. In an interview, the jury foreman told the local newspaper that he owns a patent. If you look up that patent, it is for a TiVo-like device that he patented several years after the TiVo was released. With such a large verdict, this opens the door for him to sue over his patent and get a crapton of money from it. Why Samsung didn't strike him from the jury is beyond me, but I wasn't there so I don't know. Other potential jurors may have been worse. At any rate, he is on the record that he wanted to "send a message," "we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist." This is in spite of the judge's instruction that damages shouldn't be assessed to punish the defendant. Other jurors have said that they were influenced by this guy. "He owned patents himself... so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier." Yeah, I'll bet it was.
I hope for the sake of everyone--including Apple--that this verdict is overturned and overturned quickly. As someone who grew up geeky and who loves technology, it scares me and angers me that we have gotten to the point where "it kind of looks and works like an X, but with these features and innovations" is the standard by which billion dollar-plus awards are given for "copying." I can't think of any modern device that we enjoy that hasn't come about by iterative innovation by multiple people and companies.
I own some Samsung devices, and I didn't buy them because they were "copies" of iDevices. If I wanted an iDevice, I'd buy an iDevice. If you present any iDevice and any Samsung device in front of me, I will immediately be able to tell you which is which. If you hold them up fifteen feet away, it might take me a second, but I could still do it. If you turn the device on, I could probably tell you which is which from 20 or more feet away, even on phones with relatively tiny screens. To someone who's not as familiar with mobile technology, maybe they couldn't at a quick glance, but within a minute or two, I could show them enough that they'd be able to tell you what the differences are between them, including advantages and disadvantages of each device. No one is going into stores wanting an iDevice and walking out with a Galaxy Whatever.
Mmm hmm, say, random AC here with a question. Would you mind at all if I copied the URL of your post so I can feed it back to you once Apple DOES start explicitly suing every Android phone manufacturer on earth
Only if you use a real name so we can do the same to you. Hardly fair if you can just crawl back under the AC rock if (when) you are wrong.
If you are so sure use your real account to proclaim it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think that may be throwing the baby out with bathwater. *STUPID* patents should be outlawed... particularly patents that amount to essentially complete ownership of entire concepts, ideas, or manners in which other people may do things.
I'll agree that the patent system needs one helluva *MAJOR* overhaul, but I genuinely believe it would be an error in judgement to not have it at all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
it's got a full screen. Rounded edges. And a few buttons.
None of those items counted for the trial. The jury found explicitly that the rounded corner patent was bogus.
Apple won based on the systems as a whole looking and working substantially like the iPhone, not on something as simple as rounded corners.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sorry, what part of the lawsuit was about Android? I must have missed that.
Yes, you did, there were software patents in the case. Try to do a little research before posting. The following three patents in the case relate to Android:
'163 Enlarging documents by tapping the screen
'381 'Bounce-back' feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a page
'915 Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures
Check out that last one. It's big.
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
Citation please?
obviously did something significant to have redefined the marketplace.
Citation please?
far more has been copied from them than MS.
Citation please?
Can you imagine the state of automobile development if these lawyers, judges, and juries had been around to rule that the first one out the door with a four-wheeled design incorporating an engine and a forward-facing screen owned the automotive universe? Even Henry Ford would have been "too late" to market. And the same thing for aircraft...the Wright flyer would have ruled, inefficiently.
On the other hand, war would have remained much more...personal...perhaps making it more difficult to invoke.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
There's more than one way to implement pinch-to-zoom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s
Fast forward to 2:22: Pinch to zoom as demonstrated by Sony back in 2001; six years before Apple applied for the 7864163 patent.
As this apparently doesn't qualify as prior art; Apple can't claim infringement either.
So specific implementation details must matter. The general idea cannot be what Apple claims ownership of. The idea has been around for a long long time (Minority Report from back in 2002 being yet another example) and hardly qualifies as novel.
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
ORLY
Apple licenses their design patents:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-design-patents-to-microsoft-in-anti-cloning-agreement/
4. Jingoism
Deep down, in the not-too-pleasant lizard brain areas of these jurors was the desire to defend an American company (with happy, playful, insipid music in all their commercials) from the evil, juggernaught-like, unscrutable Asian conglomerate (China, Korea, whatevs, bro).
An interesting data point would be counting up how many times Apple's lawyers said 'American' in front of the jury...
Honestly...I think if Apple loses on the Motorola patents, they'd almost rather strip out the offending functionality from iOS than cross-license.
Realistically, Siri would be by far the biggest hit to Apple if Moto wins (assuming they win on all). The rest are, well, fairly benign or mandated for FRAND licensing if I recall correctly.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This victory for Apple legitimatizes Jobs original reaction that Google ripped off iOS and that they should be destroyed. This is just a first salvo in a war against Android that will ultimately lead to an Apple vs Google epic lawsuit that will probably change and destroy the mobile device industry.
In 5 years Apple is going to make Microsoft look like canonized saint when it comes to anti-competitive practices.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
it's just a question of how long before they're invalidated.
if the judge is truly not biased she'll do that for us via the court case.
[citation needed] GP's point and where is the reference to your nice little convenient piece of narrative?
It seems to me Apple has a strategic choice: it can license its patents on basic technology, like pinch zoom and edge bounce, to Samsung and others, or keep suing. Licensing keeps Google Android as its main rival, while Apple gets a tidy tax on every smartphone sold. Not licensing puts Microsoft and Nokia, two hungry giants, back in the game and brings Apple nothing. Sometimes it's best to quit while you're ahead.
One of the jurors said that they stopped considering prior art as it was taking too much time. They also said that they wanted to send a message to Samsung to punish it (despite what the jury instructions -- which they did not read -- said).
The lawyers did not have time to defend/invalidate the patents -- they were given 25 hours total for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. A lot of evidence (internal designs, the Night Ridder, StarTrek PADD, 2001 device, etc.) was excluded.
Also, invalidating patents is done in the Supreme Court, not the Court where this was tried.
Compare this trial with Oracle vs Google.
Go ahead... start innovating and give away your innovations. No one is stopping you.
Oh, what's that? You don't want to do the work, just reap the rewards? Typical ranting Slashtard.
So, the trial could not have BS results? Are trials infallible? Besides there is more to it than rounded corners. What about the pinch-to-zoom and tap-to-zoom patents? Both would be completely obvious to anyone thinking about the best option for zooming. It wouldn't take any technical expertise or heavy thought to even think of them. The bounce-back patent is also stupid but it isn't a huge deal since there is not a whole lot of important functionality attached to it.
As far as '381, stock Android doesn't bounce back. It has a line and gradient shadow when scrolling past the edge.
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
There won't be one because Microsoft invests more in R&D than any other tech company BY FAR. Now how much of that is actually useful or makes it into an actual product is another concern all together.
far more has been copied from them than MS.
Perhaps in certain sectors, but I'd call shenanigans on this one as well. Not only from Microsoft but from other big players like IBM as well.
What an interesting chart. The R&D ROI for AAPL is astounding given what Samsung, RIM, and Nokia have invested versus their relative earnings. I guess a lesson here is, it's not QUANTITY of R&D investment so much as QUALITY.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Things like the "bounce back" effect when scrolling, or pinch to zoom
You just don't see it, but there is no other possible way to end the scrolling of a list unless it bounces back when the scrolled list reaches its end. The technology to do this wasn't there before, and now it's the obvious way for a scrolled list to end.
/sarcasm: just sayin', they better come up with better arguments or Samsung's position is indefensible, and their strawman spewing proponents won't sway any court, either of law or public opinion.
The commentary coming from the Jurors post-trial happens to be enough to move for a Mistrial or have it all vacated on appeal.
You DON'T do what the Foreman for the Jury did. Pure and simple. It's enough to have things thrown out on Jury Misconduct alone.
A lot of evidence (internal designs, the Night Ridder, StarTrek PADD, 2001 device, etc.) was excluded
I should fucking hope so. Making a movie or demo video of with a bunch of special effects is hardly the same thing as making an actual real-life device that works and can be bought down at the store.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
IANAL, but my blink on Samsung/Apple is that they probably had fairly comparable patent portfolios, but the places where Apple was using Samsung IP was predominantly in cases where Apple was *buying* from Samsung, leaving Samsung at a disadvantage where a cross licensing deal was concerned
Yes, this is why Apple will not, for example, sue Amazon.
In fact your observation about Samsung patents being used by Apple because they buy from Samsung, came up in another way - Samsung claimed Apple was in violation of a patent based on a part they bought from Intel and used in the iPhone. But Intel was given a blanket license by Samsung that covered all purchasers of the component, so Apple was found not to infringe.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trying to "design around" rounded rectangles isn't a constraint anyone should be subjected to.
You don't have to avoid that. The jury thought it was a silly a claim as anyone, and denied that Apple patent. It's the other design patents Apple won with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I disagree--I think their end game is to make sure their competitors innovate instead of slavishly replicating the look and feel that they designed. Windows 8's Metro interface and Palm's webOS interface both demonstrate that it's possible, with a little imagination, to attack this market with new ideas. Samsung needs to get up off their ass and learn how to macroinnovate.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Difference is, Apple paid Xerox for the right to use it.
Has Samsung paid Apple for all the copying they did?
To further make the point
1) Nokia chose to lic apple patents and to obtain others via use of MS windows (which also lic apple patents). This was a slower approach than the android approach and they lost market share to samsung which played fast and loose. Nokia was punished worse than apple for being IP sensitive.
2) Samsungs internal documents compared their in house design to the Apple one and recommended chucking many design elements in favor of copying apple. Thus evidently some (not all) of the apple design exceeded what Samsung could do. it was not obvious evidently. So please stop saying this is all about rounded corners or that someone somewhere implemented pinch zooming on a 40" surface monitor. Getting all these things to work as a whole on a small pocket size device is a matter of careful selection of feature integration and attention to details. Samsung failed on their own to hit the sweet spot and said so in their own documents.
3) The pre-2010 samsung phones and tablets look like crap.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
But, one of the big patents under contention is the size and shape of the iPhone. It has nothing to do with being a modern touch screen smartphone, but a rectangular box with round corners. Many a digital camera had the same size and shape, so it isn't anything unique to Apple. As for Apple creaing the modern touch screen smartphone market, that is true. But the market isn't what the patent is about. It is about a touch screen smartphone, which was first commercially available to the general public in 1994 (IBM on AT&T), 13 years before the iPhone. Granted the form factor was similar to other phones of the day, unlike the iPhone, but unless you define "modern" as anything post iPhone, they definitely did not create the first product.
So, please, don't talk about others ripping off Apple, many of the features you claim they are ripping off were in their own products long before Apple released the iPhone. Did Apple do it better? Most definitely. Did they do it first? No. Is the US Patent System hopelessly broken? Most definitely. Will the Apple/Samsung case change that? No.
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
There won't be one because Microsoft invests more in R&D than any other tech company BY FAR. Now how much of that is actually useful or makes it into an actual product is another concern all together.
That's probably only true for consumer markets. But if you include military and aerospace, then there are other tech companies out there that spend a whole lot more on R&D than Microsoft.
Nobody patented them before Apple because ...
FTFY
However you feel about Apple, iOS, Samsung, Google or whomever else, keep in mind how broken the technology patent system is. Most of us have known this for years and this trial only serves to highlight this point over and over again.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. Don't focus your hate on the companies involved. Focus on reforming the horribly broken patent system.
Things won't change until people take their Lexus or Mercedes in to the shop and when it comes back, their touch screen devices have been deactivated because multi-touch screens violate Apple's patent. Once people of means and political power are inconvenienced, then things will change.
Patents protect ideas, not implementations. You don't have to have your idea even be demonstrable to be awarded a patent for it, at least with a tv or movie mock up the idea is being demonstrated and that should surely count as prior art. Now it wouldn't be prior art for the patentable processes which enable the original idea to be implemented but that is not what is at issue here.
Lucky those patents are only enforceable in the US. The rest of the world can continue business as normal.
No, you didn't fix that for me at all. I said what I meant.
You are probably right about the iPhone being the first mobile platform to utilize such an interface, but many of Apple's alleged patents are still on the general idea of what amounts to a "Minority Report" style of computer interaction, using available touchscreen technology... and devices which utilized them, albeit not typically mobile, *DID* exist before the iPhone, while Apple apparently claims to have effectively invented that form of user interaction. The strength of that claim lies only in public ignorance of the interfaces that existed before it, not on any factual merit, and certainly not considering the fact that such a user interface is *extremely* obvious, and no patents on it should have ever been awarded in the first place.
The very fact that Apple devices, and indeed, the other devices which preceded it which used a similar user interface, are very intuitive and easy for people to use without having received any prior training or exposure to the user interface is *BECAUSE* that type of interface is very natural and obvious for people to utilize. It is, quite frankly, nothing less than an abomination that Apple, or any company, should be permitted to take ownership of it, and essentially prevent any other manufacturer from ever making another touchscreen device which might happen to be just as easy for untrained people to use,.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No, they don't. Samsung makes the Galaxy Nexus phone
They MANUFACTURE the phone.
Are you saying Google did not DESIGN the Nexus? I thought that was the whole reason for Google to make the Nexus line, so they had full control over what would go in the hardware.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh please enlighten me as to what was so monumental?
I don't have to. The jury did.
It was not any one thing, it was all of them combined. The end result was something quite hard for anyone who came across one to distinguish from an iPhone, the thing that was so close even Google warned Samsung, the thing that was designed based around a 100+ page document from Samsung going through EVERY iPhone feature and detailing how best to replicate it.
I don't even think Samsung set out to copy the iPhone. But what they did do was take every small part of an iPhone, and tell the team working on the Samsung products "make ours just like this". For a few things it would not have been a big deal (as we can see with every other Android handset maker) but because Samsung did such a comprehensive analyses of the iPhone, the end result was very much a copy/clone of the iPhone feature for feature.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One of the jurors said that they stopped considering prior art as it was taking too much time.
WRONG.
He said that was taking too much time, so they put that item to the side so they could move forward.
OBVIOUSLY they would have had to come back to that item, and at that point continue to consider prior art. They could not have completed the verdict without considering that item. You cannot just "put it to the side" and leave it there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
May be, but it certainly does not give you the right to claim it as your own idea.
R&D quality is meaningless when you're dealing with a consumer commodity, such as the iPhone (or any smartphone). It's a race to the bottom every. single. time. That is what Apple is fighting.
Look at DVD players, or cassette tape players, for that matter. Sony had cassette players and later CD and DVD players locked up tight for the better part of 20 years through one means or another. At the end of their reign it was due to image more than any actual quality. But then media consumption became commodity, and the bottom fell out. You can get a $15 DVD player now from Walmart or even some gas stations for a bit more.
That is what Apple does not want to see happen to the cell phone industry, because it's all they've got. If they can't maintain control of cell phones, they've got to compete with all the other media distribution markets out there - Google Play, Amazon Prime, etc. - on multiple platforms due to not having market dominance.
So they've put a shitton into marketing, first and foremost. That's where most of Apple's money has gone since they released OS X: marketing. Even when you're selling non-physical things like software and music, it's impossible to have that kind of ROI when your market is as big as these companies are and the competition is as stiff as it is.
Seriously: provide for me an honest comparision of how Apple has done discernibly better research and development than, say, HTC, resulting in better products. (I'd argue they haven't, simply based on consumer preference. Apple's products weren't even twice as good as HTCs at less than twice the price point, based on consumer preference and intiial investment amount. In fact, you could argue they were half as good, based on market numbers.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes
"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."
##
"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio
##
"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)
##
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director
##
George Carlin:
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.
But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.
You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big clu
It is the same thing when they try to get a patent on it because they "came up with it all on our own". That's the thing about patents. They have to be something the world has *NEVER* seen before.
I'm sorry, what part of the lawsuit was about Android?
Tap-to-zoom.
Menu bounce.
AllThingsD posted an Ina Fried article a couple weeks ago about Apple's 2010 presentation to Samsung on patents. You know, the "by the way, you're infringing a crapload of our stuff, and we'd really like you to license it or pay royalties" dog-and-pony show.
Given that Apple has made it clear they offered Samsung a license/royalty deal, and Samsung has made it clear they would have preferred a license/royalty deal, it appears the whole mess only went to trial because they simply couldn't agree on pricing.
Interestingly, AllThingsD included (via Scribd) the entire 90-slide "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" presentation Apple made to Samsung - I guess it must have been submitted as evidence or something. Basically the whole presentation is "We have patent X, which is infringed by Android in Y way, as used in Samsung product Z."
The list of patents in that presentation is a lot longer than the list of patents the jury in this case had to decide infringement claims on. Some of them are also being cited in a case against HTC, but it looks like several may not be topics of any lawsuits so far.
And while a decent number of the patents are ones issued since the creation of iOS and the iPhone, there are quite a lot that date back to the 1990s.
I'm not sure how many of them have already been rendered moot by various aspects of Android being re-implemented, but the presentation is an interesting read.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Apple can't win because Apple is, at the end, against the general interest. An entire industry cannot be at the mercy of a single player. Even if they are right (but they aren't) under the current patent's law system, the civil society will perceive the injustice and that they don't need another modern, greedy tyrant that imposes its extortion against consumers and competitors.
If pinch-to-zoom existed and that can be documented in court then a patent on it - any patent at all - will simply be thrown out. Once something has been publicly disclosed you have 12 months to file or it becomes permanently unpatentable.
Something tells me that Apple wouldn't bother with trying to patent the unpatentable unless they thought they had something new to bring to it. Sometimes it is worth the effort to chase after something unpatentable but generally it makes you look pretty silly when it gets thrown out.
You can say it should be impossible to patent the unpatentable, but that would require the patent office to have complete knowledge of everything in the world. I think that power is reserved for deities, and I am glad the patent office doesn't want to be considered as such.
To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't patented previously. But this is probably only *BECAUSE* it was thought of as obvious... (indeed, its obviousness is what makes the interface so natural and intuitive for anyone to use without having received any prior training on controlling the user interface).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ah, so that's patentable now. Not inventing. Simply using other's inventions together.
Inventions do not enter into it. How can Slashdot readers, otherwise the most technically astute people on the planet not get the simple difference between a DESIGN PATENT an a normal patent that is in fact about invention?
A DESIGN PATENT is more like a trademark, it's a way of registering a significant enough combination of elements that you are recognized as owning that "look & feel" if you will. Otherwise what is to stop people from making exact replicas of all kinds of things from a specific Porsche model to a really distinctive spatula?
Depends on if you're talking about the utility patents or the design patents. For the design patents, it's pretty much the same thing.
Apple does not want to see happen to the cell phone industry, because it's all they've got.
On the contrary, every single market where a human has a shitty experience with technology is a potential target for Apple. If you've been pissed off with programming a DVR, pissed off with the interface on your microwave oven, pissed off with the power bill that you get because the thermostat in your house isn't customizable enough... you can bet someone at Apple has put that on a list for future consideration.
Same soon got reamed on Touch Wiz and HW design. Android has little, if anything, to do with this particular trial.
Look investors! Multi-trillion dollars, Multi-country lawsuits as the new management sweep our skeletons from the closets to under the rug!
See anal fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_fistula
... there is not even ONE SINGLE thing in Android that is not a copy from others. Not one.
So what exactly did Apple copy from Android??
Do they have an internal team for making workable replacements for their own software and/or hardware, or do they forget the 'lessons learned' with each new iteration? Because their stuff tends to be the most frustrating to get to work with anything else (properly).
The best thing I can say about Apple is that they got VPN connectivity Right in both iOS and OSX. Beyond that, it's been a general bag of meh sprinkled with fail and incompatibility for the past 5 years.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
So why are Apple now so slavishly copying Android features such as the notification bar if they have a genuine interest in innovation?
Innovation has nothing to do with it as Apple copies as much as anyone (bear in mind they've lost a lot of court cases across the world themselves), if it was entirely about innovation then they wouldn't copy themselves, but they do. Since about Android 2.3 iOS has started to look more and more like Android rather than vice versa.
You're right Metro hasn't been brought into the frame but are you aware Apple was willing to make a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft on mobile patents that it wouldn't with other manufacturers? Although metro has a different front-end it also otherwise infringes on many of these patents such as bounce back, and rectangle with rounded corners, however Apple is happy to license to them because a) Microsoft is more of a patent threat to Apple if Apple plays that game with it, and b) Microsoft is nowadays an irrelevant non-threat to Apple in the mobile market.
Keep in mind that Apple was going after Nokia until Microsoft de-facto took them over and then suddenly Apple settled. Funny that isn't it?
Apple wont touch MS, not because they're any more innovating, but because they're shit scared of waking up that giant in the patent battles.
Nope? didn't think so.
A waterbed patent was rejected due to it appearing in a Heinlein novel [1]. Prior art is any publication (journal article, blog post, novel, movie, etc.) or public release (software, hardware), no matter how obscure that describes the patent in sufficient detail so that it can be reproduced by someone skilled in the art prior to the application of the patent.
For example, the UI interaction in Minority Report cannot be patented as it is described in the movie sufficiently, but a holographic touchscreen display to realize that UI would be patentable (the film does not sufficiently describe the tech involved).
[1] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-strange-waterbedfellows/6098825
Google apple or whatever whoever
Exploited intelligence
I challenge google and apple
Croz Patents