Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung 490

Posted by samzenpus
from the history-repeating dept.
walterbyrd writes "Apple Inc has asked a federal court in California to block Samsung Electronics Co Ltd from selling its new Galaxy Nexus smartphones, alleging patent violations. In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products. Those include the ability to unlock phones by sliding an image and to search for information by voice."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

Comments Filter:
  • Re:More to follow? (Score:5, Informative)

    by bkaul01 (619795) on Monday February 13, 2012 @11:33AM (#39019415)
    Even setting aside Apple having been last-to-market with voice search, don't Apple and Microsoft already have patent cross-licensing agreements in place? I'm pretty sure there are a number of Microsoft patents they'd rely on every bit as much as Microsoft might rely on theirs. Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.
  • by icebraining (1313345) on Monday February 13, 2012 @11:38AM (#39019485) Homepage

    The Slide-to-unlock patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7657849.PN.&OS=PN/7657849&RS=PN/7657849 [uspto.gov]

    It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.

  • Re:Yawn. (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2012 @11:46AM (#39019631)

    Apple asked Xerox if they could make a GUI based on theirs, because Xerox were too dumb to realize what they had. They thought only commercial computers required a GUI.

    And Microsoft simply copied the GUI from Apple without asking, i.e. the standard "Microsoft Innovation" pattern.

  • Re:Facepalm (Score:3, Informative)

    by Truedat (2545458) on Monday February 13, 2012 @11:46AM (#39019633)

    I like my Apple products, but this endless pissing match between them and Samsung doesn't endear them to me.

    The alternative is that they and similar companies silently cooperate with each other with practices like price fixing, cross licensing of patents and behaviour befitting a cartel.

    So on balance I prefer it when these companies engage in a fight to the death, no one else is powerful enough to keep them honest.

  • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

    by jamesl (106902) on Monday February 13, 2012 @11:56AM (#39019759)

    Ars technica reported, "All told, Microsoft spent a little over $151 million to acquire 18.2 million shares of Apple stock, for roughly $8.31 per share. Microsoft confirmed that it sold all of its AAPL holdings some time ago, and likely did so at a healthy profitâ"after all, AAPL has traded significantly higher than $8 for many years. But what if Microsoft had held on to that investment just a little longer?"
    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft.ars [arstechnica.com]

  • by Dog-Cow (21281) on Monday February 13, 2012 @11:59AM (#39019817)

    Wow. What a nicely incoherent collection of rambling.

    Patents may be "anti-competitive", but that's exactly what they are supposed to be! Thanks for the non sequitur.

    It is not despicable that Apple relies (uses) the IP of others. No one creates in a vacuum. They publish the source code for all the Open Source code they use; even the BSD code. They do not (knowingly) violate software licenses. They purchased CUPS, and yet they still make their changes public. They are doing absolutely nothing to remove OS from the marketplace. Your ramblings about Apple's software strategy is completely nonsensical, and is not based in reality.

    There is nothing what-so-ever to recommend about your post other than that it's a great essay for the entrance exam of your nearest Bigots-Are-Us club.

  • Trash Can Icon (Score:4, Informative)

    by Picass0 (147474) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:01PM (#39019841) Homepage Journal

    I remember when Amiga and Atari both came out with machines based on the Motorolla 68000 processer (the same as the first mac). I owned an Atari ST during that time. Apple sued Atari over the TOS desktop, specifically they were mad about the Trash Can icon (among other things).

    Then there were the emulators. Since they shared the same processor it was only a matter of time before someone wrote an emulator to let Mac run on Atari. "Gadgets by Small" was hounded by Apple's lawyers when they published Spectre 128 and Magic Sac. The ST ran 68000 Mac software with very little impact in performance.

  • Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Informative)

    by Canazza (1428553) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:03PM (#39019867)

    whats even funnier is that Siri is just Wolfram alpha with a screen reader.

  • Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Informative)

    by ArhcAngel (247594) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:13PM (#39020035)
    Actually Apple hired Microsoft to help program the GUI. Microsoft in turn agreed not to create their own GUI OS and we all know how that turned out. But in case there are some who don't...Apple sued Microsoft over Windows and lost, and lost, and lost, and lost but never quite suing until it looked like they were going to win and so in 1997 Microsoft bought $150 Million non-voting Apple shares and promised to keep making MAC Office for at least 5 more years.

    I find it interesting that Steve Jobs ultimately became very much like the image of the oppressor he created in the MAC 1984 commercial.
  • Re:Voice Search (Score:2, Informative)

    by nemui-chan (550759) on Monday February 13, 2012 @12:36PM (#39020361) Homepage

    Yup. Now all the fanboys see Apple for what they are.

    I just laugh at all the comments over the years. Every time Apple applies and gets a new patent, every Apple lover replies with "b-but but but they'll never use them! And they're probably doing it to protect themselves!" or some other lame excuse.

    ... .No they don't. That's why they're by definition, 'fanboys'. They'll claim that Samsung is infringing upon the Apple patents regardless of prior proof. We've seen Google fanboys do it all over the place whenever someone says something bad about Google or Google does something questionable. A fanboy is a fanboy.

  • Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Informative)

    by MogNuts (97512) on Monday February 13, 2012 @01:13PM (#39020869)

    An apologist or misguided, I don't know which one you are. No, Apple has a history of *litigation.* NOT being a patent troll who flat-out is attempting to block out an entire industry. And on top of that, why are you defending this anyway? You think this is ok?

    Witness the countless times Apple has ruined other businesses via litigation, especially small businesses only attempting to make a living off its ecosystem and making a contribution, from the earliest days. Via litigation.

    And patent enforcers goal is to extract fees or a cut of the revenue. Again, even the slimiest of the slimy, SCO, wasn't even attempting what Apple wants. They simply wanted a piece of the pie. Not to throw all the pies on the ground in a temper tantrum, stomp on it, rub it in your face, and then offer their own strudel instead.

  • Re:Facepalm (Score:4, Informative)

    by Necroman (61604) on Monday February 13, 2012 @03:48PM (#39023421)

    I think you should read up what the First To File change actually has to do with. Prior Art is still considered. If I develop and ship a product, then Company B comes around and patents something already in my product (that I didn't patent), their patent can be invalidated by my product as prior art.

    What this really is supposed to "fix" is 2 companies that develop the same tech around the same time and file for patents around the same time (lets say within a year of one another), but before either has gone to market. In the system prior to "First to file", a really expensive and long lawsuit would have to occur where each side had to try and prove that they invented the patented idea first. This would involve both sides submitting design documents, emails, and any other forms of recorded communications that could be used to prove they invented it first. This was a timely and expensive battle.

    With First to File, whoever filed the patent first (assuming there is no prior art) will win, keeping lawyer fees down. This also puts us in line with the rest of the world as to how to handle similar patents filed near one another.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...