Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Beats Apple In Tokyo, Itching To Sue Over LTE Patents
AmiMoJo writes "A court in Tokyo has ruled that Samsung Electronics did not infringe on a patent relating to transferring media content between devices. Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji dismissed the case filed by Apple in August, finding that Samsung was not in violation of Apple patents related to synchronizing music and video data between devices and servers."
This particular battle is just one front in a patent war that spans ten countries and dozens of cases. Samsung also confirmed it was ready and willing to sue Apple if an LTE iPhone ever hits the market. Meanwhile, Apple was granted a number of new patents on Tuesday, including one for changing settings on a wireless device depending on its location (#8,254,902). For example, sound and light from the device could be disabled when entering a movie theater, or communications with other devices could be disabled in a science laboratory.
Well, from all I've heard, the US jury really dropped the ball on following instructions in the US trial, it sounds like Japanese jurors looked at things differently.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Obviously this is blatant abuse on both sides. It no longer about genuine infringement it's about sticking it to the competition or getting back at them. Now the patent system is it's own worst enemy, stifling innovation and progress. What a shame.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Either I'm missing something, or that doesn't make a lick of sense. LTE is all FRAND (just like 3G) isn't it? So what are they going to sue over exactly?
Apple should focus on bringing the best product to the market not the most expensive. Many people buy Samsung because you don't have to drop $600 on a phone. Apple is on its way to being the biggest patent troll in history.
For example, sound and light from the device could be disabled when entering a movie theater, or communications with other devices could be disabled in a science laboratory.
How is that patentable?
Not only is a obvious, it is already implemented by various android applications. Tasker probably being the most famous.
Can you now patent stuff people are already doing?
"sound and light from the device could be disabled when entering a movie theater"
I've been calling for this feature since the 90's.
It should NOT be patentable. Seriously, I am so fucking sick of patents.
How do we stop this insanity.
I bet those people who were at the Batman premier that were attacked by that gun wielding psycho are sure glad their phones weren't disabled so they could call the emergency services.
Jeez apple, I know thinking different is hip and all but....
Not to mention existing art
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It seems like an interesting strategy for Apple to protect the reputation of their restricted development platform by patenting technologies that are already used in Android applications which demonstrate clearly the benefit of a more open approach. Sadly the patent will probably hold up, as the first public release of Locale seems to have been in October 2008, 3 - 4 months after the Apple patent was filed. The patent application would have still been non-public at that point, so rather than the Locale developers copying Apple, I suspect both were inspired by the same presentation from somewhere; Apple's approach was to patent the ideas they'd got from elsewhere and sit on it, the Android approach was to make an app and get it out there.
with bluetooth being the communication path. Had little linux machines with a bluetooth dongle which tracked visible bluetooth devices and also sent messages requesting silent mode and so on. It was just a minor part of a research project at uni, we did get pretty good tracking data though just from setting up nodes around the building and recording what devices were seen. You couldn't be sure that Bob usually arrives at 8:00am, went to his office, and then to the espresso machine room, and then back to his office every day - but his phone sure did.
The humans have played their hand, now we get ready to play ours.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because you can't make calls from a device that is set to vibrate and not ring on an incoming call, right?
If the patent for "the process for setting a mobile phone to only vibrate during an incoming call when in a particular location" was really granted to them, I think the prior art for that was seen about 20 minutes after the first mobile phone was put into a consumer's hand. Really, who signs off on this shit?
now.. who the fuck wants a phone that gives the keys to control if it's on to someone else?
People that buy iPhones, duh.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes. Flamebait. But this is an A/C that got modded up Insightful for this uninspired drivel.
If Samsung wins, if the LTE case ever comes to court, the effects will be that the Apple victory in the States will become meaningless. "Here is the x billions I owe you, and thianks for the x billions you owe me." Besides, I'll bet the Apple victory gets over-turned quite quickly.
Who in hell is issuing patents on configuration settings? That isnt a unique goddamn invention. Of course, neither are pinchy finger motions. The "Kids in the hall" should have patented that one when they were crushing other peoples heads.
Let's see here.
Base station could be a PC, right?
Settings could be any setting in the "Settings" menu, right?
Then I have already implemented Apple's patent with Tasker and a computer with a Bluetooth radio. When my Android phone is in range of my desktop PC (which can be detected with Bluetooth), I toggle developer mode on. What exactly is different with Apple's implementation, other than Apple probably using proprietary devices and protocols?
not concept. Originally the patent was to cover the specific method of implementing an idea (like a better gear tooth pattern, or a more efficient mechanism to husk corn, or whatever.)
However, in the case of software patents they really do seem to be patenting an idea. So current patents are so broadly worded that they really do essentially cover the idea of pinch-to-zoom, or the idea of having a little marker showing your location on the current page while scrolling. If we held true to the original rules, the patent should only cover the implementation--that is, the source code.
It's not just software patents either. There is a company called Sawstop that makes tablesaws that can detect if the blade comes in contact with human flesh and slams the blade to a stop, dropping it down below the table. Their patents are so broadly worded that they've basically locked up the whole concept of flesh-sensing technology, making it really hard for anyone else to come out with competing technology, even if implemented totally differently.
Motorola charges the same rates to everyone (and they're less than Qualcomm, actually). It's just that normally companies don't pay cash but rather cross-license their own patents.
Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but claims the cash rates are too high. (When they're the same as what everyone else is charged.)
hell, my old phone used to connect to a device in my car that used a wireless setting to automatically change the device so that voice would come out the car speakers, and provide a settings control on the dash that I could use to accept or break calls.
But that was only on a featurephone, so I guess the Apple patent still applies as it uses the magic words "on a smartphone" :)
It is cute when people think things that are completely unrelated serve as prior art. Your example is like saying Barney the Dinosaur is prior art to my Purple Popsicle patent.
Yea, how silly of me to think that an application that controls the lights and sounds emitted by a wireless device, based on location, would qualify as prior art for a patent on applications that control the lights and sounds emitted by a wireless device based on location.
Silly, silly me.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If these patent wars continue, there will be an endless amount of patents for everything imaginable. Someone needs to draw a line in the sand, or nuke this whole patent system altogether!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Meanwhile, Apple was granted a number of new patents on Tuesday, including one for changing settings on a wireless device depending on its location (#8,254,902). For example, sound and light from the device could be disabled when entering a movie theater, or communications with other devices could be disabled in a science laboratory.
Sorry Apple, I got there first (ad this is just one paper, I began disseminating the work 2003).
Dodd, R., Green, S., and Pearson, E. 2009. User capability in an adaptive world. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMM international Workshop on Media Studies and Implementations that Help Improving Access To Disabled Users. Beijing, China, October 23 - 23, 2009 pp. 79-88. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1631097.1631110 New York, NY: ACM Press.
Abstract
General computing devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, personal, and mobile; and bring expectations of multimedia delivery with them that are traditionally the domain of desktop computing. Given their small form factors with restricted interaction modalities, optimizing interaction between user and device becomes critical to the usability and accessibility of the device. To this end, we present simple but powerful models of user capability, capacity, and preference that allow for a wholly adaptive and optimized user experience, with the models driving selection and configuration of appropriate interaction modalities, and themselves adapting their settings in order to reflect both changes in the environment, and the history of user behaviour . In order to achieve this, user profiles are no longer collections of purely static values, but may also contain functionally dependent properties that are changeable in response to external events. The models themselves do not perform any adaptation, but aim to drive the adaptation process.
Yes.