Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:15AM from the another-day,-another-apple/samsung-ruling dept.

Maow writes with word that the U.S. Federal Appeals Court has reversed a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone. According to the decision (PDF), "Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. ...the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus." The ruling also said Apple didn't do a good enough job showing that the allegedly infringing features were "core" to the Nexus's operation. The case centered on what is called "unified search," a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large (U.S. Patent #8,086,604). "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."

140 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Laugh... by koan · 2012-10-12 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's certainly possible. This is what happens when you don't have free markets. It becomes profitable to divert some effort into abusing the regulatory systems instead of spending all your time and energy actually producing things.
2. Re:Laugh... by crachel · 2012-10-12 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  The Galaxy Nexus came out in November 2011. This ban that is being overturned occurred in June 2012.
3. Re:Laugh... by Synerg1y · 2012-10-12 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not the market that's broken, but the patent system... it clearly wasn't designed for computers & technology.
4. Re:Laugh... by sir-gold · 2012-10-12 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
  http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way
5. Re:Laugh... by MachDelta · 2012-10-12 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Or it was a shot across Google's bow.
  If Apple really wanted to hurt Samsung alone, they would have picked the SII instead - it's very close to the same phone (admittedly, it was Samsung's "true" flagship phone as the hardware specs were the same or better). Going after the Nexus was probably nothing more than a two-birds-one-stone scenario, attacking their largest hardware competitor and their largest (only?) OS competitor (and sworn enemy) at the same time.
6. Re:Laugh... by d3ac0n · 2012-10-12 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think Laxori666 was intimating that "The Market" was broken, but rather that our regulatory systems (that would include the Patent system) have shackled it to the extent that it can be more profitable to engage in legal assaults against your competitors than to actually PRODUCE something new for sale.
  Now, Apple is clearly doing both, but the fact that the legal avenue is even viable for them to bother pursuing should be of great concern to anyone wishing to see greater vibrancy and energy from the marketplace.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
7. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Has anyone actually put out the costs broken down by general, defensive and offensive legal fees? I would really like to see it broken down that way.
8. Re:Laugh... by parkinglot777 · 2012-10-12 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is what happens when you don't have free markets.
  I am not an economist, so I am not sure what would free markets do in this case. I agree with Synerg1y's point -- the patent system is broken. So if the broken patent system exists, how would your "free markets" be?
9. Re:Laugh... by Rockoon · 2012-10-12 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Free markets cannot exist while the government distorts them. This isnt about regulation, because regulation does not need to distort the markets.
  
  Market distortions perpetrated by government are often characterized by government money, but that isnt the whole story. The patent system is most certainly a market distortion, which seemed like a beneficial trade-off when it was only manufacturing techniques that were being patented. Clearly its not a free market if you arent free to also do what someone else is succeeding when doing. You shouldn't be guaranteed to succeed, but you should be free to try.
  
  The patent system, as it stands, is a gross violation of liberty. The society does not benefit when information that was naturally (going to be) public information is given exclusive use. Society only benefits in the case where what would have been trade secrets is made public through these government enforced incentives of limited exclusiveness. This kind of would-have-been-a-trade-secret patent is rare these days. Companies like Intel and Global Foundries certainly are involved in that kind of 'good' patent (not exclusively, see instruction set patents), but companies like Apple patent information that would by definition become public through the sale of millions of devices which demonstrate it.
  
  Its about time people stood up for technological liberty. End the 'design' side of the patent system, and reform the 'utility' side of the patent system.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
10. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Patents are monopolies, so by definition they break the free market. In a free market, the company that made a real invention wouldn't get a monopoly on selling it, so the theory is that they wouldn't bother with the invention, or would try to keep it secret. Patents break this free market system and hopefully encourage innovation.
  But you're right, the patent system is also broken, and probably isn't achieving that goal of increased innovation any more.
11. Re:Laugh... by jlv · 2012-10-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
  The Galaxy Nexus has been on sale for almost a year.
12. Re:Laugh... by sribe · 2012-10-12 06:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
  No, they did not. The "spending on patents" which exceeded their R&D included huge (multibillion $) one-time purchases of assets, including patent portfolios, from failing companies.
13. Re:Laugh... by sribe · 2012-10-12 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Has anyone actually put out the costs broken down by general, defensive and offensive legal fees? I would really like to see it broken down that way.
  By far the majority of the spending referred to was for unusually large, one-time, purchases of patent portfolios from failing companies.
14. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  My point is that the patent system itself is what makes the market not free. A freer market would be one without the patent system.
  How would that market operate? It means companies would no longer be able to make money by coming up with something and preventing other people from doing it (thus enjoying the benefits of a monopoly), but rather, to come up with something which they can make money from even if they have competition. Whenever there is competition in a free market, prices go down while quality goes up, thus consumers would benefit.
  As for the argument that nobody would invent anything without patents, I find it specious. People are always willing to make money, and they will find ways to do so if you let them. All patents do in this regard is prevent people from making money because somebody else patented something. Ironically, the patent system, which is purported to promote innovation, ends up doing the exact opposite.
15. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).
16. Re:Laugh... by sribe · 2012-10-12 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).
  "Legal fees" is commonly understood to mean "fees paid for legal services". NOT money paid for licenses, copyrights, patents, leases, tangible property, real property, non-legal services or anything else except, you know, actual legal services.
  And no, of course it's not R&D. Neither are a whole host of other things these companies spend money on, none of which magically become legal fees by virtue of not being R&D.
17. Re:Laugh... by jo_ham · 2012-10-12 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
  Well, then they were late in getting the ban - the Galaxy Nexus has been on sale for almost a year already.
18. Re:Laugh... by mk1004 · 2012-10-12 07:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Patents may be monopolies, but how about the alternative? Companies may spend months or years and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with some new way of doing something. Without patent protection, other companies could then quickly copy the invention, spending a fraction of the time and money, with just a small lag in time to market. What incentive would companies have to innovate? Patents, done right, should protect the inventors at least long enough for them to make back their investment in time and money, giving them the incentive to keep innovating.
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
19. Re:Laugh... by makomk · 2012-10-12 07:45 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Free markets cannot exist, full stop. For instance, every time a companies actions have negative externalities - costs that affect others who aren't doing business with them - that distorts the market even if there's no government, because it means the free market price of their product doesn't reflect the actual cost. We see this with global warming; in fact that's one reason why libertarians are so keen on insisting that it doesn't exist despite the actual evidence. There's a related problem with (for instance) deep sea fishing called the tragedy of the commons - without government intervention the free market would wipe out fish stocks and drive fishermen into bankrupcy, despite the fact that this makes everyone else worse off.
  That's before we even get into the problems with false advertising and food and drug mislabelling, and the consistent inability of the free market to deal with it, or natural monopolies and rent-seeking behaviour, or...
20. Re:Laugh... by Fjandr · 2012-10-12 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  <snark>
  Really, Google could avoid paying for any patents and just make a cellular phone?
  </snark>
  Buying patent portfolios is like buying a house instead of renting. Google would obtain those patents either via outright ownership, or they'd rent them. You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.
  Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists which fits your purpose, and your time is better spent in other aspects of your business than the construction of something fitting that purpose, you buy it outright. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  And as was said before, in no way does any of the above constitute "legal fees," even if the purpose of the acquisition is primarily to launch legal assaults backed by those patents.
21. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  People are counting them as legal fees because their only purpose is to avoid costly lawsuits.
22. Re:Laugh... by englishknnigits · 2012-10-12 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  In theory, I actually agree with you. In practice, I completely disagree. If patents were used appropriately for truly innovated things and for a short duration (6 months to a few years at most) then it would provide a good incentive to innovate due to the large potential benefits of a short lived monopoly. The detriment of that monopoly could be offset by the societal benefits brought on by increased innovation.
  
  The problem is that none of those things are true. Patents are granted for completely trivial things that have usually already been done before but with some irrelevant twist such as "on a mobile device." Patents last way too long and give excessive monopoly power. The theory is sound but the implementation is a catastrophe. I would rather have no patent system than have a horribly broken patent system. I have absolutely no faith, and have seen no evidence, that we will ever get it "right" so we should get rid of the whole mess.
23. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  The point you're missing is that if it takes a significant time to invent, then it's more than a basic feature. As an example, everything Apple sued for was a trivial invention. No one begrudges Google protecting its full map data, or someone fully copying trivial pursuit. People have a problem that patents apply to common problems with common solutions.
  I suggest that a complex algorithm can be protected, but not software. This could cover page rank, complex DSP algorithms, compression algorithms, but not frigging elastic banding, combined search or slide to unlock. That was horse shit and Apple was downright disgraceful for playing that hand.
  Oh, to the fanboy that supported Apple's case because Samsung used a "green phone icon" (ie. like the ones that have been on phones for 29 years) - FUCK YOU!
24. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.
  That's precisely my point. But if the patent system didn't exist as it does now, you would be able to, if you could set your engineers to the task of figuring out how modern networks work and how to make something that interoperates with them.
  
  Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists which fits your purpose, and your time is better spent in other aspects of your business than the construction of something fitting that purpose, you buy it outright. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  The analogy is flawed. When you buy a patent, you don't buy any information or knowledge, let alone anything physical. You merely buy the right to use certain information/knowledge because the legal system is set up such that it is illegal to use it - this even if you could have come up with it on your own. The analogy would be more accurate if you said "purchasing technology/blueprints/research" instead of "purchasing patents"
  There is indeed nothing wrong with paying somebody who has already done good research for their research. There is something wrong when you have to buy a company, not because of the research or technology they've developed, but for the right to use the technology you could have developed on your own, anyway.
  
  And as was said before, in no way does any of the above constitute "legal fees," even if the purpose of the acquisition is primarily to launch legal assaults backed by those patents.
  Perhaps for the technical definition of "legal fees" it does not. But the point still stands - if you buy a patent in order to launch legal assaults, you are spending money on things for the sole purpose of dealing with litigation instead of spending that money on producing anything useful.
25. Re:Laugh... by Synerg1y · 2012-10-12 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The original purpose of the patent system was to protect say Alexander Graham Bell when he invented the phone from marketing it, having big corporate come in and rip off his idea, cheating him out of a fortune and discouraging him from ever contributing to society ever again. That's backwards progressive. It was also almost a century and a half ago when this was relevant, before global economy became a buzz word, before the computer and internet were invented. We're still using this system and it no longer works. I'd like to see patent approvals ask something like how is this relevant to society, in addition to did you come up with it first or not. I'm sure there's room for abuse in my theory, anybody think of anything better?
26. Re:Laugh... by bhcompy · 2012-10-12 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they also create monopolies. Creative Labs litigated Aureal out of business with bogus patent lawsuits that Aureal won, but the legal cost was too much and Creative effectively killed the competition because they could afford to do it. Didn't even have to worry about antitrust concerns when they bought the assets, since they were already out of business
27. Re:Laugh... by ScienceofSpock · 2012-10-12 10:47 · Score: 2
  
  I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
  Considering the Galaxy Nexus was released almost a year BEFORE the iPhone 5, that's unlikely.
28. Re:Laugh... by steelfood · 2012-10-12 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  And it worked, this time at least. Even if they didn't stop Android outright, they were able to slow down its momentum for a short while. It's not a complete victory, but it's enough of one. The real question is, is it going to work again the next time. I hope not. More of these, and they could really kill Android's momentum and ultimately kill Android.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
29. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Then patent system is not broken, its being used in a manner in which it was not intended to be used or foreseen to be used. There's a difference between the two :
  e.g you cannot call a car broken if you try and fit 7 people in a 5 seater car. on the other hand if the steering wheel doesn't turn the car while accelerating/decellerating then the steering might be claimed to be broken in a car.
30. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Despite his fame Alexander Graham Bell may not be such a good example of the patent system "working". See this controversy.. It's not clear that Bell was entitled to a patent monopoly.
31. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
  That would be very odd, since the Galaxy Nexus was released in December 2011.
32. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  People like you seem to ignore the fact that corporations have no conscience. What happens when they become big enough to litigate any small companies out of existence or threaten the relatives of the owners with violence? The only one who can knock them down to size is government. If you don't believe me see JP Morgan, the Carnegies, etc. The government was the only able to stop them and set up a path for what we refer to the middle class today. I'll admit that unions and their ilk can get out of hand as well, but I'll take them any day over people who will do anything to make a dollar. Very few extremes in this world are good, including an unfettered, unregulated market.
33. Re:Laugh... by chrismcb · 2012-10-12 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Apple just released a new iPod, shortly before that iPhone 5, a few months prior iPad3, a few months prior iPhone 4s, a few months prior iPad 2. It looks like they are spending quite a bit of time and energy producing things. So what was your point?
34. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  What about this idea:
  When you patent something, you need to set a price for your invention (and optionally a duration). And you pay the fee as a proportion of this price. If anyone pays to you your price, then the invention become public domain. You are always free to license the patent to anyone, at any condition, but if a third party pays the invention, it become anyway public domain.
  The main idea is that you ask the society some service (i.e.: monopoly over a fixed duration) and you need to pay a price accordingly.
  When you want to patent something, you will need to be careful about your "invention value". If you set it too high and the "real" value is low, you just pay the society too much, bad luck. If you set it low because it is trivial (or any other reason), then you get what you think it was worth, not a bad deal.
  The positive point about this is that groups of individuals, or even the government, could "buy" the patent if it is really worth it (for instance a drug)
  Also court could easily fix the price of a patent infringement, since it cannot possibly be higher than the invention price.
  Any comment welcome!
35. Re:Laugh... by robsku · 2012-10-13 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think Laxori666 was intimating that "The Market" was broken, but rather that our regulatory systems (that would include the Patent system) have shackled it to the extent that it can be more profitable to engage in legal assaults against your competitors than to actually PRODUCE something new for sale.
  Your interpretation makes sense, but seemed to me that he basically put the emphasis on stating that the problem was the whole existence of regulatory system in the first place, which is something I associate with FMN's (Free Market Nutjobs).
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
36. Re:Laugh... by robsku · 2012-10-13 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Then patent system is not broken, its being used in a manner in which it was not intended to be used or foreseen to be used. There's a difference between the two :
  e.g you cannot call a car broken if you try and fit 7 people in a 5 seater car. on the other hand if the steering wheel doesn't turn the car while accelerating/decellerating then the steering might be claimed to be broken in a car.
  How legal/regulatory system being broken or not is really not defined in way that it could be compared to mechanical devices working or not like you seem to think. The comparison works if you define "working" as how the system is used and affects the society the way it was accomplished to do.
  Example: war on drugs is not working because the drug criminals that get caught are sentenced heavily as is meant by law - it's broken because it doesn't achieve what it was designed to do, that is destroying or even shrinking the drug problem and the nasty related issues.
  In case of patent system it has very much to do with it if it's being used for something it was not meant to and that something is counteractive to what the system is meant to achieve - in such case the system is broken.
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
37. Re:Laugh... by sribe · 2012-10-14 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  The analogy is flawed. When you buy a patent, you don't buy any information or knowledge, let alone anything physical. You merely buy the right to use certain information/knowledge because the legal system is set up such that it is illegal to use it - this even if you could have come up with it on your own. The analogy would be more accurate if you said "purchasing technology/blueprints/research" instead of "purchasing patents"
  OK, fine, his analogy was not perfect. But yours is no better. The perfect analogy would have been leasing a building--not buying anything physical, merely the right to use something.
38. Re:Laugh... by billd10 · 2012-10-15 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Patents should be awarded for something unique and new, not something like the color or shape of an appliance, like a telephone. The appeals court has given Apple what it deserved, not what it got from the home-town boys who gave them what they wanted.
Thank you.. by Moheeheeko · 2012-10-12 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

...sweet merciful logic!
1. Re:Thank you.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I know, I know, it's blasphemous and wrong, but don't worry! Friend Apple will be by to innovate the Appeals Court, correcting their faulty logic! Then the foul Green Beast will be forever slain, and all the true believers will be welcomed to iHeaven to stand by His side with His holy turtleneck! So don't despair!
Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:23 · Score: 0, Insightful

Sound like Apple owes Samsung some money for lost sales.
1. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  They should send the bill to judge Koh.
2. Re:Hmmm... by SternisheFan · 2012-10-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  They should send the bill to judge Koh.
  Remember when she asked the Apple lawyers if they were on crack? That seemed like an inciteful comment from her at the time, so now we are hearing more and more that she's mis-handled the case. All that money that's gotten wasted over this patent crap... Everytime I read about another twist in this ridiculous case, my head just shakes left and right several times. Such a complete waste of many resources all around. At least those poor lawyers won't go hungry.
3. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm... Did you mean to use inciteful? Or, did you mean insightful? Both work, but the meanings are vastly different...
4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm... Did you mean to use inciteful? Or, did you mean insightful? Both work, but the meanings are vastly different...
  I meant "insightful", thanks for that. And you're absolutely right, both do work. I'm off my game today, problems in my personal life today. signed, SF
Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by FirstOne · 2012-10-12 04:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I.E.. Apple forfeits some of the bond they posted for PI, up to 96.5 million dollars, maybe more.
This ruling can also put a serious dent in the Apple's victory over Samsung SJ court. The same reasoning will overturn that verdict as well. (Apple didn't show they were damaged by Customers seeking out those specific patented features.)
Additionally those features represent a tiny fraction of the overall value of the phones.. (big hit to damages award),
1. Re:Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Too bad, it is not a significant percentage of Apple's war chest.
  Would love to see Apple go the way of SCO. They really have exhausted all the good will they had with me.
2. Re:Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by Dishevel · 2012-10-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I do not like Apple. Some people do though, so I would like them to survive.
  Competition is good.
  Apple just needs to fucking build shit for their fanboys and leave the rest of the world alone.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
3. Re:Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-10-12 09:21 · Score: 2
  
  I do not like Apple. Some people do though, so I would like them to survive.
  Competition is good.
  Apple just needs to fucking build shit for their fanboys and leave the rest of the world alone.
  I have worked in the Telco industry for 10 years now and you can trust me when I say that Apple's move into mobile devices has been like an earthquake in a petrified landscape and it has had an effect way outside the Apple 'fanboy' community. Like Apple or hate them, the iPod, iPad and iPhone have all transformed their respective market segments (and heavily influenced Android). Nobody took tablets terribly seriously until the iPad, the iPod has revolutionised music players (I know that because I was in the market for an MP3 player way back when the iPod came out in 2001... they all sucked) and the iPhone has collapsed the market share of RIM and Nokia drastically. Both of those companies were major players 6-7 year ago, now they are swimming for their lives. Until the iPhone came along Telcos were also struggling to get users to buy smartphones and use mobile Internet... that is no longer a problem. So damn, right... innovation and competition is good. While I generally accept Apple's claim that Samsung imitated them, giving a fuck is counterproductive. Apple should not spend their energy on lawsuits, they should be doing what they were doing up until recently which is innovate, set new standards and make Samsung look dated just like they did with Nokia, RIM and whole cohort of music player and tablet manufacturers. Samsung, HTC, Nokia and the rest should also try to do a bit more of their own thing and try to upstage Apple. Microsoft gave it a good try with Windows 8 and two thumbs up to them for trying. More competition please!!! I like the results so far...
  P.S. It's funny how it used to be 'Microsoft Certified Minesweepers Experts' vs. 'Apple fanboys' but now it's 'Apple fanboys' vs. 'Google drones'. The Microsofties must be having right old laugh watching this shit-storm unfold from the sidelines. It's getting so bad that I'm inclined to join them for a beer and a hot-dog and then laugh at the spectacle.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
4. Re:Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by youn · 2012-10-13 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I am disappointed... in this rant, we people who like linux don't even get mentioned... next year is the year of linux on the desktop, i swear :p
  
  --
  Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Up Next.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:35 · Score: 0, Insightful

Court overturns 1 billion judgement against Samsung.
April fools? by firesyde424 · 2012-10-12 04:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

A logical ruling on a patent case? Really? *looks around, bewildered* Is this America??
I assume this particular judge is aware that we don't live in a free country anymore and that the role of government is to listen to whoever has the most money. So what happened? Did Apple forget to send the six figure "judicial consultation fee?"
Lucy Koh, look around... by jkrise · 2012-10-12 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

unless you overturn the idiotic jury verdict, the entire World is going to laugh at you.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
1. Re:Lucy Koh, look around... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-10-12 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  Lucy Koh got bitch-slapped on this one. Let us hope that it is the start of a trend.
  "Before PROST, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. "
  Thank you and those who had the wisdom to select you to the court.
2. Re:Lucy Koh, look around... by sribe · 2012-10-12 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  unless you overturn the idiotic jury verdict, the entire World is going to laugh at you.
  Not the same case; this is a preliminary injunction from claims that are not scheduled for trial for a very long time yet to come.
3. Re:Lucy Koh, look around... by Diss+Champ · 2012-10-12 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  "SHARON PROST, Circuit Judge
  SHARON PROST was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001."
  http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/sharon-prost-circuit-judge.html
  "KIMBERLY A. MOORE, Circuit Judge
  KIMBERLY A. MOORE was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006."
  http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/kimberly-a-moore-circuit-judge.html
  "JIMMIE V. REYNA, Circuit Judge
  Jimmie V. Reyna was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by President Barack Obama in 2011."
  http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/jimmie-v-reyna-circuit-judge.html
Hooray, someone gets it by sandytaru · 2012-10-12 04:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

People don't always buy phones because of specific features any more - they buy it because of the brand and because it is the latest model from that brand. People will buy the Nexus instead of the Apple regardless of the specifics of its search functions.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by OrangeTide · 2012-10-12 04:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If the Nexus didn't have any features, then it would cease being a popular brand. That's kind of the point that Apple was trying to make.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
2. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by Todd+Knarr · 2012-10-12 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but if this particular feature were left out, people would still buy it. The Appeals Court noted this clearly in their order:
  
  The causal nexus requirement is not satisfied simply because removing an allegedly infringing component would leave a particular feature, application, or device less valued or inoperable. A laptop computer, for example, will not work (or work long enough) without a battery, cooling fan, or even the screws that may hold its frame together, and its value would be accordingly depreciated should those components be removed. That does not mean, however, that every such component is "core" to the operation of the machine, let alone that each component is the driver of consumer demand.
  Apple's patented feature certainly adds value, but it's lack isn't a deal-breaker for most consumers.
3. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by MozeeToby · 2012-10-12 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between "You're infringing and will be punished" and "You're infringing and cannot sell the phone until we get this worked out". Blocking sales should be the nuclear option, only used in the most blatant violations of the most key features, which is what this judge is saying. Violating this patent to marginally improve the user experience on a device is not sufficient to run a company into the ground.
4. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Cmon.. I bought one ONLY because it had a rectangular aspect ratio and rounded corners!
5. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by DickBreath · 2012-10-12 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  > People don't always buy phones because of specific features any more
  
  Actually, in some sense that is not true. When buying phones, it must be Android. That's what I'm looking for. I'll compare amongst Android phones for everything else, as you suggest. Brand. Features. Price. Size. Color. Style. Keyboard. Cameras.
  
  But not running Android is a deal killer. I buy the phone because it runs Android. Because it syncs with Google services, runs Google maps, etc. I buy it because I can get source code. Because I don't have to pay money, sign a draconian NDA and use a specific platform in order to develop. Eclipse and other tools run on Linux and Windows (maybe even Mac).
  
  And before an iFanboy complains, I would point out that they do the same. They buy the iDevice specifically because it is from Apple, runs iOS, is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
6. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by amRadioHed · 2012-10-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and this particular search feature is one that I have barely used in years of having an Android phone. To ban sales of the phone because of it is patently absurd.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
7. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, if it was a brick, then people would not consider it when shopping for a smartphone. Since it is not a brick, but rather a feature-filled smartphone, what, precisely, is your point?
8. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-10-12 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  The unique "feature" of the Nexus line is that it is comprised of stock Android phones. The line is not unique to Samsung, as the first Nexus was built by HTC, Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus built by Samsung, Nexus 7 tablet built by Asus. It isn't brand specific...the line is developed by Google in conjuntion with the aformentioned manufacturers. BTW, I have a Galaxy Nexus and brand had nothing to do with my purchase. I wanted a pure Android phone. Galaxy Nexus is one of the few phones recommended by the Android Open Source Project for Android software development.
9. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-10-12 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Nexus isn't a brand...You don't get it. Parent poster doesn't get it either. Read my above post.
10. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by OrangeTide · 2012-10-12 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nexus is a brand. I worked on the Nexus 7 tablet. I guess you don't know what a brand is.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
11. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I see what you did there!
12. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by Dishevel · 2012-10-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Nexus is very "Brandish" to those of us who buy based on "Nexus"
  Nexus means that I am dealing with an unlocked, root capable phone running base Android software.
  I like Nexus s. Some of them I might skip because of the manufacturer but I will not be buying another non Nexus phone.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
13. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by jo_ham · 2012-10-12 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  And before an iFanboy complains, I would point out that they do the same. They buy the iDevice specifically because it is from Apple, runs iOS, is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc.
  Why would they complain? Those are all perfectly valid positions to take. Your choice of platform and the criteria that are involved in its selection have nothing to do with anyone else - I just with that certain Android "fans" would appreciate that people who don't ultimately choose Android also have equally valid reasons and criteria.
  I didn't go for an iPhone because it "is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc." - that's simply a nonsense statement. My iPhone (in fact, my last two iPhones) have been free, and I'm not on a subsidised phone plan, and I didn't decide "oh, I want a phone that removes my freedom". iOS is certainly more curated than Android, but that does not mean I chose it because of that - I chose it because it does everything I want it to do and works well *for me*. Other people might find that the inability to sideload apps is something they can't live with, and good for them if that's something that is important to you, the iPhone is not for you, but that does not mean people who do not need that feature are somehow having their freedom "taken away". It's a phone, not a career or mortgage. If I find that I run into something that I can't do that I want to then I'll look at other options.
  It seems fashionable right now to bash anyone who didn't choose Android as someone who either a) was clueless about their options and "obviously" chose the inferior option or b) somehow set their criteria to "I want to be overcharged and to have my freedom removed" as you just suggested.
  Telling an iOS user that they selected the iPhone because they wanted to overpay and be restricted is like telling an Android user they they chose an Android handset because they love fragmentation and being trapped on 2.2 because there's no carrier or manufacturer update on locked handsets. Neither situation is true and you know it.
14. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by Kartu · 2012-10-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is only true in case of Apple's customers. There is no such thing as "the last model" for pretty much any company, besides Apple, there is a bunch of different models with their own "latest": latest "Nexus", latest "Galaxy", latest "Note"...
15. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by CowTipperGore · 2012-10-12 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly what the court said, wondering "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."
16. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by CowTipperGore · 2012-10-12 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  And this makes the case all the more intriguing. As the court pointed out, the feature in question (Quick Search Box) is a part of Android, not something provided specifically by Samsung, and it has existed for several years longer than this particular phone.
17. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by scot4875 · 2012-10-12 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Amazing how reasonable you can be when it comes to defending Apple from unreasonable claims.
  Too bad that capacity for reason completely goes away when it comes to defending Apple from reasonable claims.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
18. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by jo_ham · 2012-10-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Amazing how reasonable you can be when it comes to defending Apple from unreasonable claims.
  Too bad that capacity for reason completely goes away when it comes to defending Apple from reasonable claims.
  --Jeremy
  Such as? Give me a reasonable claim where you think my reason will elude me, or better a CID link to a post or two. Is this going to hinge on the definition of "reasonable"?
19. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by jo_ham · 2012-10-12 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  (additional: that comment (41636511) came off more adversarial than I intended)
Does this mean unified search is coming back? by h4rr4r · 2012-10-12 04:42 · Score: 2

Will the next software update for the GN and GS3 then reactivate unified search?
1. Re:Does this mean unified search is coming back? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily.
  In a nutshell this is saying the Galaxy Nexus phone should not have been banned because of its infringement, unless Apple can prove its infringement was a primary purchasing point for consumers (it's not).
  It does nothing to say that the implementation is non-infringing or that Apple's patent is null.
what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:45 · Score: 0

The problem is that #Apple was awarded an injunction that prevented #Samsung from selling the #GalaxyNexus for some time, which inevitably cost them sales. It seems to me that in the interest of fairness, #Apple should now be liable for this loss?
1. Re:what about the lost sales? by h4rr4r · 2012-10-12 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  This is slashdot not twitter you dolt.
2. Re:what about the lost sales? by Kenja · 2012-10-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to recall sales going up, not down, as a result of the trial.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:what about the lost sales? by h4rr4r · 2012-10-12 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well better not tell the iFans, about half that thing comes from Samsung.
4. Re:what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  I seem to recall sales going up, not down, as a result of the trial.
  It may be true that #galaxynexus sales went up, but what evidence do you have that it was because of the trail? It seems more likely that without the ban, sales would have been even higher, since the ban impacted availability in key markets.
  Seems like a clear case of correlation not being causation if there ever was one.
5. Re:what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Who in their right mind would want to willingly buy a SamDung product is beyond me...
  Oh look...another iSheep from the church of Crapple is dissing a non-Crapple phone.
6. Re:what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  I believe some of the iPhone components come from "SamDung"...as you put it.
7. Re:what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  #imafuckingmoron
8. Re:what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. Every time I see someone shove hash-tags in the middle of what they're saying, I can't help but feel like every time one comes up, it's as if the poster just stopped talking, knocked me to the ground, jumped up and down on my chest, and just started screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M PART OF A TRENDING TERM! EVERYONE LOOK AT ME RIGHT NOW!". For each tag.
  If the tags are all put at the end of the post, that looks more like trash piling up in a lazy bachelor's apartment, but at least that doesn't beat me over the head as much with desperate attention-whoring.
9. Re:what about the lost sales? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Have you thought about seeking professional psychological help, if you are that bothered by the increasingly ubiquitous use of hashtags? They're even in mainstream media reporting now. If they bother you this much, that might be a sign of some other problem that it would be better for you to get to the root of.
10. Re:what about the lost sales? by Fjandr · 2012-10-12 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Better rip that Retina display out then.
True, but by OrangeTide · 2012-10-12 04:45 · Score: 4, Informative

We're more interested in legal precidence than the effects on an individual product line.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Google desktop did it in 2004 by sir-gold · 2012-10-12 04:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Version 1 of google desktop was released a month BEFORE this patent was even filed. I don't remember if version 1 had unified search, but the later versions definitely did.
Is the US patent office pulling a Velvan Hogan and disregarding prior art just because it doesn't run on the same hardware? Or do they just automatically approve EVERY apple patent without research?
1. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by suutar · 2012-10-12 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  more the latter, I think. They're overworked and understaffed and their directive seems to be "pass it unless there's an obvious an egregious problem and let the courts sort out anything else".
2. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Daniel_Staal · 2012-10-12 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And the court's default position is 'if the patent office passed it it's probably valid'.
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
3. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Regardless, under the laws in 2004, you have one year from the date of invention (well, publication of invention) to file your patent-- even if Google Desktop existed prior, if Apple invented it first the patent could be valid.
  Not saying it *is* valid, just that it could be.
4. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by sir-gold · 2012-10-12 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I just looked into the 604 patent some more, it was filed in 2004, but was rejected that year and another 8 times over the following years. It wasn't approved until 2011, yet it somehow still has an effective date of 2004.
  So it's not that the USPTO grants every apple patent, it's just that if you submit the same patent 10 times over the span of 5 years, they will eventually approve it, even if they shouldn't.
5. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by timeOday · 2012-10-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  They're overworked and understaffed and their directive seems to be "pass it unless there's an obvious an egregious problem and let the courts sort out anything else".
  Well, the alternative is to re-create a new court within the Patent Office, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Making a judgment on whether something is patent-worthy is an inherently messy process, and making authoritative judgments about messy issues is what courts are for.
6. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  If They're overworked and understaffed , hire more staff and raise the patent fee. It's will be less fee than regular tribunal fee.
7. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder what changed. Did USPTO get a "donation"?
8. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by CannonballHead · 2012-10-12 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? That is way messed up. I pay for that patent office with taxes, I assume. I don't like it that a company can spam them, essentially, with patent applications until they get one through (presumably had an inexperienced reviewer or something). Blech. And this isn't anti-Apple, this is anti-anyone-that-does-this :P
9. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't really matter - PalmOS had unified search before we ever heard of Google. It was a core feature when I got my first Palm III, launched in 1998. Apparently they renamed it a couple of times since, but it's not exactly a novel concept.
10. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by nephorm · 2012-10-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  The USPTO is fully fee-funded, at no cost to the taxpayer (http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_house_2012budget.jsp).
  Regarding multiple rejections, this is common in patent prosecution. A first Office Action is almost always Non-Final. Applicant has the opportunity to rebut the arguments of the examiner and/or file amendments to overcome the alleged prior art. If these arguments and/or amendments are not persuasive, or the examiner has new rejections (such as new prior art) necessitated by the amendments to the claims, the next Office Action is generally Final. At that point, applicant may either appeal the rejection to the Board of Appeals, or applicant may file a Request for Continued Examination, paying the USPTO a fee to consider additional arguments or amendments. Many cases go through several rounds of this process before they are either allowed to issue or are abandoned by applicant.
  This process does not mean that the same application is being re-submitted (re-filed, I assume the parent means). That would generally mean a continuing application or a divisional application, and those (are supposed to) go to the same examiner who examined the original application, especially if the claims are not patentably distinct.
  What generally happens is that the applicant finally argues persuasively or submits a sufficient amendment to overcome the art of record, and the examiner can't find prior art sufficient for a rejection of the amended claims. And yes, such a case ought to have an effective date as of its filing. The point is that you invented it as of the filing date, so you are entitled to patent protection from that date, regardless of delays at the USPTO or the lag caused by ordinary prosecution.
11. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  The USPTO is fully fee-funded, at no cost to the taxpayer (http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_house_2012budget.jsp).
  Dubious patents created by the PTO are costing the taxpayer billions every year. That's how these PTO fees are paid for. To say that the PTO is self funding is silly and self serving.
  The point is that you invented it as of the filing date,
  As usual the PTO and it's cohorts are living in a fantasy world. The amended, actual patent was only realized once all the examiners objections were addressed. The previous attempts were not complete patents and are not even relevant.
12. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by nephorm · 2012-10-13 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Your taxes comment is fatuous. The running of the PTO is covered by fees. The OP's comment was not directed toward external costs.
  What do you even mean by saying "the actual patent was only realized once all the examiner's objections were addressed?" The specification may not substantially change throughout prosecution; any changes to the content of the specification or claims that were not disclosed as of the filing date are considered new matter under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph, and subject to a rejection under that section. If an applicant were to slip new matter by the examiner, the patent would be invalidated by the court, or the limitations would be construed such that they still only covered the original disclosure. The claimed subject matter does change over the course of prosecution - the idea is that applicant is better defining the invention by more specifically claiming the novel and non-obvious features. But those changes still may not depart from the original specification as filed.
  As far as "previous attempts go," they are actually relevant, as the prosecution history may represent estoppel in future litigation.
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-12 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not just any old logical ruling, but I speculate it holds the seeds for slowing down patent madness. Borrowing from another of my posts elsewhere:
"It said the district court in California, which had issued the ban in June, had "abused its discretion in entering an injunction"."
Which, in Court Speak, is pretty bad. "Abused Discretion" is basically what we were all saying in Less-Safe-For-Work terms.
There's also an awesome phrase to keep an eye on. "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the â(TM)604 patentâ"not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."
So we have the BAREST beginnings of how to slow down patent abuse:
1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season" or something. Let's even say something like that is innovating, and not obvious - shake your phone at a bird and it falls out of the sky!?
OtherCorp says that the tech infringes on their other patent which got there first, *and then tries to ban sales of the whole phone.*I think this court case is saying that the grumpy corp has to prove that consumers basically stood in the mall and picked which phone to buy based on exactly that tech and no more. "Hmm, this one has a better screen, better sound, better camera, better maps, better music interface, Android store." "Yeah, but mine kills pigeons in the park." "Ooh, I'm sold, I'll do that!"

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 04:57 · Score: 0

something that has long been done.
Re:trade with asia? by MachDelta · 2012-10-12 04:57 · Score: 1

Apple phones, Samsung phones... ALL MADE IN TAIWA... uh, CHINA!
interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 05:05 · Score: 0

If you try to look at the Images for the patent, it requires Apple Quicktime.
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by berashith · 2012-10-12 05:15 · Score: 1

can i get one of these that can take out the squirrels in my garden and the neighbors dog that shits in my yard. That one feature would out rank everything else for me.
Compensation by ByteSlicer · 2012-10-12 05:26 · Score: 2

So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).
1. Re:Compensation by sribe · 2012-10-12 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).
  Apple was required to put up a bond before the injunction went into effect, for exactly this reason. That money is not going to be released to Samsung at this time, because the matter is not yet settled. This is a preliminary injunction on claims that have not yet gone to trial--it is not related to the recent verdict Apple won against Samsung.
2. Re:Compensation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Not that it matters. No compensation can account for the market share lost by making the product unavailable during the critical Apple launch window, not to mention the sullying of Samsung's reputation. This was a brilliant market strategy, and well worth the money Apple will spend "compensating" Samsung.
3. Re:Compensation by ThatsMyNick · 2012-10-12 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose they can sue the district court for abusing their discretion. But I dont think it has tried before, and I would expect the district court and the judges to have some immunity from prosecution.
4. Re:Compensation by tobiasly · 2012-10-12 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).
  Yes, but it was only actually banned for a few days. The appeals court stayed the injunction shortly after it was granted.
5. Re:Compensation by IndustrialComplex · 2012-10-12 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  It pisses me off because I know that a lot of potential accessories were held back from the market because the Nexus was banned.
  It's my one complaint about this phone atm, that there are so few things in the way of mounts, etc.
  (It's also why Apple's decision to go with thunderbolt is damned annoying. Nothing like seeing speakermounts which could be standard split into two 'camps' on store shelves)
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by rbrausse · 2012-10-12 05:42 · Score: 1

can i get one of these that can take out the squirrels in my garden and the neighbors dog that shits in my yard.
Cell Guns?
Re:trade with asia? by Mike+Buddha · 2012-10-12 05:48 · Score: 2

I hadn't realized that Korea was in Taiwan. Hmm...

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Re:trade with asia? by OrangeTide · 2012-10-12 06:37 · Score: 2

American Geography.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
A good example by argStyopa · 2012-10-12 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:A good example by FirstOne · 2012-10-12 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Frequently overturned judicial rulings will hurt that judge's chances for advancement.. If a complaint is filed, the chief judge(for the district) will assign it to an appointed judicial committee for review.. That proceeding can result in private or public censure..
  The Chief judge can also place that judge on low profile case list for an indefinite period.
2. Re:A good example by inetsoftsocial · 2012-10-12 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
  If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
  I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
  (If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.
  Well I believe if a judge is wrong then he should get some sort of punishment. I mean for all we know he could have been paid big $$$$ to make rulings like this.
3. Re:A good example by dkf · 2012-10-12 12:03 · Score: 2
  
  I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
  Because that's far too rigid. If the original case depended on a tricky point of an obscure law, it's quite possible for the trial judge to get it wrong in a subtle way. Or if there were two cases being brought at about the same time that tested a new law and two trials were decided in different directions based on different readings of the same law, that would require the superior court to describe which is actually correct. These are examples where counting them as "strikes against the judge" would be excessively harsh. OTOH, if a case is overturned because the trial judge took a bribe, giving them another two chances would be astoundingly lenient. Judicial malfeasance should be cracked down on extremely hard as soon as it is detected.
  The case in TFA is between these extremes. The judge didn't commit a crime, but did get a substantive reprimand over misapplication of the rules for injunctive remedies.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:trade with asia? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:14 · Score: 3, Funny

I hadn't realized that Korea was in Taiwan. Hmm...
It certainly is, according to my iPhone 5.
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by CowTipperGore · 2012-10-12 07:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Perhaps more interesting was the court's commentary on Apple's practice of using the courts to completely block competitors from the market, saying that it is necessary to determine if the claims of harm are relevant or "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant." In other words, you may still be entitled to damages but you are not allowed to use one minor feature to completely eliminate your competition.
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by cheesecake23 · 2012-10-12 08:33 · Score: 1

1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season"

Seriously, you gotta pitch that at the Kickstarter crowd. Best app idea ever.
WAT by warrax_666 · 2012-10-12 09:27 · Score: 2

" a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large

What, you mean fucking combining fucking results from several fucking searches? That's not a fucking invention -- that's fucking obvious. Fuck.

--
HAND.
Class Action by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 11:11 · Score: 1

We (who wanted to buy a Samsung product, but who were unable to because of the legal shenanigans of Apple Corp.) should file a class-action law suit against Apple, naming as a codefendant every employee of Apple, every Apple store, their lawyers, and so on, for statutory and punitive damages for presuming to restrict our freedoms laboring under the sadly mistaken assumption that we would buy Apple's products if there weren't an alternative.
There's always an alternative to buying Apple products: NOT buying Apple products, and that alternative has existed way longer than Samsung, Android, and cell phones put together. Over two thousand years ago, the Romans lived their entire lives without buying an Apple product, as have every other group of people on earth up until pretty recently. We could all get along, (whether or not some cult members are willing to believe it) without Apple. They weren't needed then, they're not needed now, they won't be needed in the future. If life exists elsewhere in the universe, they likewise don't need Apple products, and may have lived countless aeons without them. Apple needs to be bitchslapped to help it get over itself, and I would personally like to get in on such a CALS. Let's get it started!
1. Re:Class Action by arekin · 2012-10-12 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  If life exists elsewhere in the universe, they likewise don't need Apple products
  Apple disagrees, everyone wants to purchase apple products, even if they don't know it.
  
  --
  Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
But Apple did not invent the SmartPhone by walterbyrd · 2012-10-12 11:55 · Score: 1

Apple's so-called "inventions" are things like the shape of an icon, silly crap like that.
But Apple wants to keep all other smart phones off the market, as if Apple "invented" the smart phone.
1. Re:But Apple did not invent the SmartPhone by billd10 · 2012-10-15 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  Apple has been one of the biggest pirates in Silicon Valley over the years. Steve Jobs was a first rate marketer, not a first rate inventor.
Samsung are thieves by jsepeta · 2012-10-13 03:55 · Score: 0

This still doesn't disprove the fact that Samsung are thieves who don't care whose features they steal from. We should not look to corporations as being good or evil -- they're all evil.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Re:Laugh patents are specified in Article I Sec. 8 by elwinc · 2012-10-13 06:12 · Score: 1

I find it rather amusing to read all this libertarian commentary treating the patent system as some form of "government regulation" as if it were some afterthought tacked on by politicians not as wise as the Founding Fathers.
The fact is patents championed by Thomas Jefferson http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/classes/tcc313/200Rprojs/jefferson_invent/patent.html and enshrined in Article I Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It may or may not be wise to eradicate patents, but doing so will require a Constitutional Amendment.
Regulations, on the other hand, are generally understood to be created by the bureaucracy without having been voted on by Congress nor signed by the President. Sorry, but if patents are a government regulation then so is the Second Amendment.

--
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Re:Laugh patents are specified in Article I Sec. 8 by Rockoon · 2012-10-13 09:48 · Score: 1

I find it rather amusing to read all this libertarian commentary treating the patent system as some form of "government regulation" as if it were some afterthought tacked on by politicians not as wise as the Founding Fathers.
The original patents were utility patents, not design patents. You are uninformed and you need to come to terms with that, such as not spitting ignorant bullshit at others thats based completely on incomplete information.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Laugh patents are specified in Article I Sec. 8 by elwinc · 2012-10-13 12:27 · Score: 1

The original patents were utility patents, not design patents. You are uninformed and you need to come to terms with that, such as not spitting ignorant bullshit at others thats based completely on incomplete information.
Ummm ... the so called '604 patent that sparked the ban of the Galaxy Nexus is a utility patent. It's a patent about the utility of unified search and spoken results on a smartphone.

--
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
stop juggling terms by shiming927 · 2012-10-13 15:32 · Score: 1

at the far end, money goes into lawyers' pocket or developers'? It inspires more graduates to be lawyers or developers?
1. Re:stop juggling terms by sribe · 2012-10-14 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  at the far end, money goes into lawyers' pocket or developers'? It inspires more graduates to be lawyers or developers?
  You're the one who's juggling terms, desperately I might add. A patent is not a "legal service" any more than a lease is. And no, all the money most certainly does not go into lawyer's pockets at the far end.
  Some small fraction of it does of course, and that fraction is what would be referred to as legal costs, but the money we're discussing went to the selling companies as revenue, and from there, a tiny fraction went to the lawyers, the rest went to marketing, share holders, whatever expenses the company chose, perhaps even R&D. So, for all we know, had these sales not taken place, the selling companies might have slashed their R&D. For all we know, these sales funded R&D at the other end--not that funding R&D in companies that are failing in the market is necessarily the best use of anyone's money ;-)
  But in the end, one thing is certain, continuing to refer to all of this money as "legal expenses" is just plain dishonest. The initial headline was ambiguous and many people misinterpreted it without reading the article (or without reading it carefully)--honest mistakes based on a headline that would have better read: "such and such companies spent more acquiring patents than on R&D" or "spent more acquiring & litigating patents than on R&D"--although the second is still somewhat misleading, since the litigation costs are tiny compared to the acquisition transactions. Anyway, taking a mistaken conclusion from an ambiguous headline that is clearly open to it is one thing, insistently pushing a falsehood long after the clarification is quite another.
2. Re:stop juggling terms by shiming927 · 2012-10-14 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  appreciated for the detailed reply, agree with the misleading headline, but still the other side of argument is "anything not goes to R&D are a waste at some point".