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.
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.
No, different patents. But it's the same m.o.: Apple steals other people's ideas and products, creates a barrage of iffy patents and copyrights, invests in a massive marketing campaign to create the false impression that they invented the technology, and then sues the hell out of everybody else.
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.
Apple has been unwilling to pay the licensing fees for several of Motorola's FRAND patents.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
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.
Apple has, thus far, been difficult when it comes to licensing FRAND patents. Essentially, a patent holder will say something like "Our standard rate is 2.5%", at which point Apple responds with "NO FAIR!!! Our phone is EXPENSIVE! You set that rate when phones were CHEAP! Not going to pay!" *stamps foot*
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It must be fun just to make things up. Of course, the rest of us who like real information spend the time reading from credible sources. Unfortunately, there is no information available on the situation with Samsung and LTE. However, when looking at court records from Nokia v. Apple on 3G FRAND issues, the record is quite clear. Nokia didn't want more money than Apple was willing to pay. They wanted a cross-license on Apple patents that Apple was unwilling to provide. According to Nokia, Apple was the only phone vendor unwilling to cross-license.
It was all eventually settled with Apple paying Nokia and not licensing their patents. Same thing is likely to happen to Samsung. Apple will not allow anyone to use their patents in a competing product for better or worse. But, Apple doesn't mind paying for standards essential patents.
It doesn't matter, what matters is that Apple is hurting all customers including their own, in the long run, by instigating spurious patent battles based on a rotten patent system. Whether it is an iphone, a Samsung phone or whatever else, you pay a hefty fee to lawyers anytime you buy a new phone.
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.
In order for something to be patentable, it needs to be a novel, non-obvious, and useful invention in a technical area, and we call "novel, non-obvious" insights "ideas". "Ideas" become "inventions" when they are about something that is also useful and in a technical area. So, not all ideas are patentable, but all patents (theoretically) require some idea at their core.
You are absolutely right that most of Apple's patents are "for specific implementations", and that is the core of the problem: Apple takes other people's novel, non-obvious insights and then creates a massive patent portfolio on implementations. And because juries aren't that good at figuring out the differences and are swayed by Apple's marketing prowess and commercial success, they then side with Apple when these cases go to court. As a result, inventors and innovators get screwed and Apple just keeps copying and stealing.
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
Can you imagine driving a flying car to work every day?
Based on the driving standards I see every day, I'm keeping four wheels firmly on the ground for now :)
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
The fact Samsung asked for 2.5% in royalties for its 3G patents is a matter of public record, as it came out during Apple vs Samsung.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yeah, the public record showed that Apple didn't owe Samsung anything for those patents because of exhaustion. If someone asked me to pay a licensing fee for a chip I bought from another company I would decline as well.
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?
This is incorrect. The fact that there was pinch-to-zoom 20 years ago, means that the Apple implementation is not a new, novel, non-obvious idea. If it was new, novel and non-obvious, the concept wouldn't have existed before. You're making the same mistake that the jury foreman made, thinking that each part has to be interchangeable in order to qualify as prior art. As this Groklaw article clearly points out, that's simply not the case.
The fact that the exact methodology used by the touch screens is different, doesn't mean that the idea didn't exist 20 years ago. Not only that, but pinch to zoom is about as obvious a method to zoom in when you have a tiny touch screen as there is.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
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" :)
Except that everyone else pays less because they cross-license patents into the pool. I mean, we're talking about Samsung, Nokia, HTC, Sony, all of whom have the other essential patents necessary to implement the tech. Apple has no such essential patents in the pool to negate the cost, and refuses to cross-license any of their non-essential patents, so they are expected to front up the cash. Not really surprising.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".