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.
Question is, which patents are under re-examination? You never know...I could be of help.
They have BS patents on BS stuff and are using their market position and wealth to prevent the free flow of goods and consumer choice.
I happen to own a ton of Apple gear and really like their products but that is not the issue.
If it was a Microsoft product a consensus would be flipping their lids but somehow Apple gets a pass?
I guess their advertising really is that good.
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.
Yet. If this verdict stands I could easily see Apple attacking every Android-using company in the mobile space.
Apple has already lost to Nokia.
Of far more concern are how blindly the utility patents were upheld. An animated spring simulation, that doesn't even include code, is not worth giving Apple 20 years of protection.
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.
Or, it could just be that Samsung is, by itself, outselling Apple in the phone market and is moving up fast the tablet market.
I think that if you saw any of the other vendors you mention start to seriously threaten Apple's market share you would start to see litigation.
The lawsuit had nothing to do with Android. Your statement would make sense if you'd said "every smartphone manufacturer".
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.
You do see Motorola Mobility with a motion for an injunction against all ipads, iphones, and most apple laptops from being sold in the US for patent violation.
Apples iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2 are already banned from sale in South Korea due to patent infringement, and Google (the owner of Motorola Mobility) has picked only patents that seem to at first glance fit the following criteria:
It will be interesting to watch that case, as the goal seems to be to cause maximum pain, as a loss by Apple in that case would probably force them to cross license all there patents to all android phones.
It will be interesting if the press reports it as Google v. Apple or Motorola v. Apple.
It will be ironic if the courts uphold the injunction against Samsung and cites that case in granting Motorola Mobilities injunction against Apple.
Work bio at MMWD
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
Of course not, those would be harder to prove. This ruling sets precedent and, in addition to over a billion dollars, provides ammo for future action. If you think this is Apple's last suit, you're quite mistaken.
It makes sense that, if success tomorrow requires a win today, that you would start with the easiest to win and the proceed up the ladder.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
I thought Samsung was a supplier to Apple. Is that why the hardware is so similar?
Which is why they are now going after devices that look nothing like an iPhone?
The Galaxy Nexus does not have evenly rounded corners, no metal rim, it has a curved display, it does not have glass on the back. Still Apple claims it copies the iPhone somehow.
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?
Oh my, um gee....it's got a full screen. Rounded edges. And a few buttons.
Um that describes just about 70% of the smart phones out there. Ironically, if you remove the antenna nub from my old HTC 6700 it looks a lot like the iPhone. Sure the screen is smaller, but that's because it's older tech.
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 !
Mind you, Google only did this AFTER #crApple decided to use the nuclear option against Samsung.
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
Not *yet*. The worrisome possibility is that they decided to go against Samsung because they saw it as the case they could most easily make, then plan to use those precedents to attack all other Android devices. Steve Jobs is on record as saying that he wanted Android destroyed totally.
Um, I'm not familiar with Touchwiz. But the iPhone has an extremely rudimentary interface. Grid of icons on a page. Multiple pages.
Well, that should be eliminated from argument by the simple fact that it was a GUI used by Palm nearly 20 years ago.
As for the stupid bounce affect, it's called "easing" and is taught to first year design students.
See the excerpts he is quoting and you will see his post makes a hell lot more sense than yours.
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!
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 are cross licensing agreements with most of the big names making tablets and cell phones, which is the reason you don't see those. Google "patent thicket" -- its the norm in industry, and has been for 200 yars.
You only see litigation like this show up when the two companies involved don't have equitable patent portfolios, and the one with the lesser portfolio does't want to pay for things. That's why you see various figures for how much every Android phone makes Microsoft in licensing -- the patent cross licensing agreements are imbalanced in a direction that favors Microsoft. In other cases, Microsoft may be paying something. It all works out in the end, when people "play by the rules".
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 -- to the point where they thought it was economicaly viable to fight or ignore the patents. And Apple is stuck in a "use it or lose it" situation with their design patents. Add to it the fact that Samsung is still the bigger cell phone manufacturer, and the ecosystem around the iPad and Tablet are the only reason Apple exists at this point, and Apple is in a fight for its life. Samsung can go on just fine without tablets and phones -- Apple can't go on without the iPad and iPhone. Too much of their earnings are coupled to it.
You can bet that Apple doesn't care one tiny bit about the money -- injunctions against sales are all Apple cares about. A percent drop in market share will shave far more than a billion from Apple's value. They need to keep their market share growing as long as possible, so they can justify their stock price. Its a ponzi scheme that will fail eventually -- like every other company that has grown to its size, but the powers that be just need to keep it going long enough to get out.
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.
No. Apple claims that the Galaxy Nexus violated the patent on Unified Search. They don't claim any design patent infringement by Samsung with the Gnex.
http://www.xda-developers.com/announcements/motorolas-plans-to-sue-android-manufacturers-weekly-recap-12-august-2011/
"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.
I'm sorry, what part of the lawsuit was about Android? I must have missed that.
You mean like Google's BS patent application for a notification system despite the fact it's a butt ton of prior art on the top three desktop operating systems?
They all patent bullshit because the system allows it. So you can't complain that one company is doing something they all do. The system needs fixing.
A lot of the claims have nothing to do with the shape of the device but how the software operates and looks
The lawsuit had nothing to do with Android. Your statement would make sense if you'd said "every smartphone manufacturer".
Let's see:
Apple could sue...:
Android OEMs: They're already doing it, and going after others will be easier after the first victory. They got big money, no whammies, and they won't stop.
Apple: Doubtful.
Google: Google doesn't make end products, they have OEMs do it, so they're insulated there. Apple could sue on all of the software stuff, but since Google isn't the one making the devices, and using Android is "free" for OEMs, they'd have a hard time getting large awards for damages. Apple's goal is to win cash and to maintain their dwindling market share. If Google lost a suit, damages would be low or non-existent, and stock Android would have some minor change that OEMs override. No big deal. Android is like a hydra at this point, with each OEM being a head.
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. If Apple were to sue, MS would fire back, and it would be a tit-for-tat on technology (actual technology, not UI bullshit) patents each of them hold. There's no huge financial victory possible, and there's no smackdown to a major competitor.
That's everyone in the game today. Nokia is gone, Motorola Mobility is gone, and RIM is on their way to being bought out for their patents. Suing the biggest Android OEM is the best way to get a large cash award and disrupt a competitor's spot in the marketplace. If Samsung fails to score on the appeals, HTC will be next.
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
Samsung is their biggest competitor on the mobile front and therefore the biggest threat. I will be pleasantly surprised if Apple doesn't start suing all the other Android manufactures and Google. Given their track record, I would say that it is a fair assumption that they will continue suing. On a side note, Kindle Fire's UI sucks if you plan to use it like a tablet and not a ereader.
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.
These patents are BS provided you (or enter favority third-party here) aren't the one holding them.
Who owns them does not change the fact that these patents are BS.
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
you would be defending them for all it's worth or risk losing the protections patenting provide
You are perhaps confusing patents with trademarks?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
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"
I'm sorry, but did you see the same sales numbers for Samsung's tablets as everyone else did? They're barely in the noise at the baseline of the graph.
Phones maybe - Samsung are certainly head and shoulders above everyone else except Apple (ie, other phone makers), depending on what time of year you look at the figures. If it's nearing an iPhone refresh, Apple goes down, if it's just after, Apple goes up. Either way, they tend to share the top few spots between themselves.
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.
All the claimed patents related to the UI of Samsung's devices target Android and can be extended to other devices that use it, if the verdict stands (which hopefully won't happen).
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
[citation needed] GP's point and where is the reference to your nice little convenient piece of narrative?
Out of curiosity, are they suing anyone because of it? That iOS notification system looks mighty familiar ...
Bad Shill!
Apple has already made clear that they going after other companies next.
Those are the words from Tim Cook, CEO of Apple to the employees of Apple regarding the verdict of the Samsung case. I assure you that Apple's lawyers are offering pre-appeal deals to every android manufacturer you can think of and several you can't this very week. Apple will try to squeeze other vendors for as much money as they can before this is inevitably overturned or greatly reduced. That was the point of the lawsuit and you are naive if you think that about Samsung in particular.
Android is the most popular platform worldwide by a fair margin and Apple risks losing out. If you can't beat them in the market beat them in the courtroom and that is what Apple has done - for today. This case is about sheer and rampant greed and represents everything that is wrong with today's patent system. The idea that this verdict will stand is absurd and I haven't yet read a single third party analysis from any legal annalist that thinks it possibly can.
Just curious, do you own stock in Apple?
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.
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.
No. Apple claims that the Galaxy Nexus violated the patent on Unified Search.
And pinch to zoom. And double tap to zoom. And slide to unlock. And, it looks like, glow on overscroll.
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.
You mean the internal Samsung powerpoint presentation where they listed out the comparison between their products and the iPhone and how they should copy the iPhone software functionality point by point wasn't clear enough evidence suggesting they intentionally copied iPhone software functionality for you?
It was my understanding that the UI elements had been added by Samsung and are not in the vanilla Android. While Apple may, certainly, be gunning for Google, this lawsuit doesn't appear to have anything to do with Google's products.
The reason Samsung is outselling Apple in the phone market, in Apple's view, is because they ripped off UI/UX elements from Apple. So, yeah, it's a little of both--protecting their IP, and protecting their market share.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
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
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.
The items that Apple won on were not related to the physical design, so everyone's probably ok on that. Samsung lost on a bunch of their UI features that were specific to their flavor(s) of Android.
LegendMUD
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.
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.
Apple, like Microsoft, is essentially making profit out of other people's work. This is revolting.
I have never seen Google do that.
Now, you can claim that Apple and Microsoft are not intrinsically evil, they are just too big and powerful (which enables them to be evil, and, through the fiduciary duty, almost ensures that they _will be_ evil). I doesn't matter. They are sill two companies worth boycotting.
Most of Samsung UI is the vanilla Android. Unlike Sony who completely defaces the Android interface, Samsung uses pretty much the standard interface with just a few tweaks. At least that is the case with both Galaxy S and Galaxy S2 which I own.
This is where I think design patents fail. We have real patents and we have trademarks, that should suffice. Yet there's this middle ground of design patents that don't really make a lot of sense.
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
It's not been granted yet afaik so what are they going to do about it when they still may not get it.
Most likely because Google didn't have any ground to stand on and do something like that. Of course they've now bought Motorola and are resorting to the same tactics.
http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-mobility-sues-apple-again-seeks-iphone-mac-import-ban-7000002853/
So no, Google isn't clean and if I had to guess they'll only continue to do this sort of thing, just like the others. So the only solution is to fix the patent system.
The thing is though, this isn't really about how it affects Google or any other large corporation that has a pile of money and patents to go to war with. It's the fact it's pretty much impossible for anyone to start a new business. Sure Microsoft, Apple and Google and agree to share patents and that's all good for them but for anyone entering who will have no patents to begin with and probably little funds. They can't get into a patent sharing deal, they can't deal with being taken to court and if they agree to pay the licensing fees to everyone their product will probably be prohibitively expensive.
So long as we leave the system as it is, you can't really blame anyone for defending their patents. If they don't do it, someone will do it to them. So rather than fighting about which corporation we think is the best, it's better to focus on fixing the patent system.
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
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. It is my understanding that the UI elements that Apple has accused Samsung of violating Apple's patents on were added by Samsung and don't exist in the vanilla Android release.
Geez, never mind. It isn't important.
One of the elements is a square grid of icons with a dock. Which is a design currently used in most Android devices. It is a very silly patent because there is plenty of prior art, which was.blatantly ignored in the judgement, and is ridiculously obvious, but still it is there,
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.
This just in ...
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
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.
Of far more concern are how blindly the utility patents were upheld. An animated spring simulation, that doesn't even include code, is not worth giving Apple 20 years of protection.
I agree, conceptually, but the spring and other interface elements which bring a natural feel into the touch UI may not be as simple as they look. Remember, if something's never been done before in that context, it's likely that it took a lot more than just an idea ("Hey, let's show a user they're at the end of a page by having it pull out and spring back!") and hacking together some code ("Look what I just did in 15 minutes!"). It's likely that they did a lot of testing to see what the ideal "spring weights" were for all sorts of different contexts within the OS and applications.
Once they do it, it seems obvious and it's probably quite easy to copy (at least poorly), but let's say that they spent the equivalent of five person-years on it, maybe they should get a full 20 years of protection. But if they only spent one person-year on it, maybe that protection should extend only five years.
I think that's the problem with some of these software patents. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, it seems to me that some of the patents we're seeing get more merit for being first than they do for being any sort of challenge to implement. Going back to everyone's favorite punching bag--one-click purchasing--a lot of them seem to be overly general and far reaching, but it's my feeling that if a company can document that they were first to do something non-obvious, AND that they spent significant development resources (backing up the concept that it was non-obvious, and not just a hack), they should be entitled to some level of protection.
Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that everyone should be able to copy it, as Google indicated with a recent statement.
The CB App. What's your 20?
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'
I am hoping Gene Roddenbury is going into overtime calling his lawyers for a nice juicy bite out of a big ol Apple, ripe for the picking.
If you think the Great Bird of the Galaxy is capable of doing that, maybe a site described as 'News for Nerds' isn't really for you.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
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.
I know, it's like T-Mobile's trademark of "pink".
We understand what a design patent is. We think they shouldn't exist.
We also understand that Apple is trying to lay claim to a very very basic design. And that essentially precludes a basic and common look and feel.
This equates to us very smart readers as STUPID.
Yes, but Porsche is not trying to stop every other vehicle out there from being a two-door coupe with curves. Apple is...
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