Google Distances Android From Samsung Patent Verdict 404
Nerval's Lobster writes "On August 24, a California court ruled in favor of Apple in its patent-infringement case against Samsung, hitting the latter with a $1.05 billion fine. Tech pundits spent the weekend chattering about the possible repercussions of the decision, which Samsung will surely appeal. One of the biggest issues under discussion: how Apple's victory will affect Google Android, the operating system that powers the majority of Samsung's mobile devices, and itself a player in the patent-infringement actions shaking the tech world. For its part, Google made every effort to create some distance between Android and the smoking ruins of Samsung's case. 'The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims' the company wrote in a widely circulated statement. 'Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office.' Google didn't end there. 'The mobile industry is moving fast and all players—including newcomers—are building upon ideas that have been around for decades,' the statement continued. 'We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that."
Re:The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:3, Informative)
Comments from a jury cannot be used as evidence in either the appeal or a later trial. The prior art has already been reviewed by a jury, which rejected them as invalidating. An appellate court cannot replace its own findings over that of the jury unless it is very clear that the jury is wrong.
Completely correct. (Score:2, Informative)
However, it doesn't take anyone more than five minutes to notice that Samsung ripped off of Apple's stuff nearly-wholesale since their first Galaxy S device.
Re:Completely correct. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:1, Informative)
The jury ignored the prior art as it was too tedious...
No they didn't. They moved on in the discussion because that subject bogged things down and they were making no progress. They returned and completed the discussion after resolving various other issues.
Feel free to spread your lies but intelligent people know the truth.
Re:To Be Fair (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I'm not sure they should have won, but a jury decided the case, and an appeal is a certainty. Being trollish about the facts of the case is just silly at this point. Especially since both companies can be accused of being bad actors, and don't really need fans sniping on their behalf.
Re:Google should worry, but not about rectangles.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good... (Score:3, Informative)
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
Citation please?
obviously did something significant to have redefined the marketplace.
Citation please?
far more has been copied from them than MS.
Citation please?
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, but did you see the same sales numbers for Samsung's tablets as everyone else did? They're barely in the noise at the baseline of the graph.
Phones maybe - Samsung are certainly head and shoulders above everyone else except Apple (ie, other phone makers), depending on what time of year you look at the figures. If it's nearing an iPhone refresh, Apple goes down, if it's just after, Apple goes up. Either way, they tend to share the top few spots between themselves.
Re:Good... (Score:5, Informative)
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
ORLY [engadget.com]
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 95 and NT blew OS X out of the water
Just to be clear (and given the rest of the post, I'm sure you already know), it wasn't OSX, it was 'Classic MacOS' for lack of a better term. The original MacOS that was probably still stuck on version 7 at that point. As you pointed out OSX was the re-purposed OS from NeXT and only had a resemblance to classic macos after much work to the Finder, and shoehorning old APIs into it.
I'll just throw in there- people forget how important Gil Amelio was to Apple. He recognized that classic macos was a dead end product, and that the rewrite was a disaster. His response was the best thing that ever happened to apple: He bought NeXT, and got Steve Jobs (who took over and fired Gil shortly after), and what became OSX. If Gil hadn't given up on classic macos, Apple wouldn't be here today.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Informative)
What, are you serious? Or 12?
Symbian and Windows Mobile were both extensively used on cell phones. You had many apps available, and could add more (through side-loading or direct download).
The only thing Apple has done in the phone market which is in the least bit revolutionary, from an implementation standpoint, was to be the first to implement
The general feature set now offered in smartphones was available in 1993 from a number of vendors, in 1993 context (most notably because small color touchscreens and ubiquitous cellular networks were not yet invented). From the wiki article on the Sharp Zaurus:
In September 1993, Sharp introduced the PI-3000, the first in the Zaurus line of PDAs, as a follow-on to Sharp's earlier Wizard line of PDAs (the Wizard also influenced Apple's Newton). Featuring a black and white LCD screen, handwriting recognition, and optical communication capabilities among its features, the Zaurus soon became one of Sharp's flagship products.
The PI-4000, released in 1994, expanded the Zaurus' features with a built-in modem and facsimile functions. This was succeeded in 1995 by the PI-5000, which had e-mail and mobile phone interfaces, as well as PC linking capability. The Zaurus K-PDA was the first Zaurus to have a built-in keyboard in addition to handwriting recognition; the PI-6000 and PI-7000 brought in additional improvements.
There's also the IBM Simon [wikipedia.org], from just recently - 1994. That couldn't possibly predate Apple's invention of the smartphone in 2007, nevermind that the first product to be called a smartphone in 1994 with Ericsson's GS88.
The fact that the IBM Simon has an almost identical corner radius as the iPhone is, I'm sure, purely coincidental. It has nothing to do with what a person might consider to be prior art, nothing at all.
Then there's the iPaq h6315, which was a decent enough device, in 2004. You may not know this, but iPaq devices were the shit for about 4-6 years there, from around 1999-2005. They were the desirable portable device and basically single-handedly ended the geekly quest for "wearable computers" due to its broad capabilities. It was a cellphone, a PDA, and had installable applications. Bluetooth, wireless, color touchscreen - and so on. Yes, it ran Windows Mobile 5.0, but that was not only the best but the only thing out there which could even approach its general cabailities..
This was all years before Apple even got on its feet again with PC sales, while the iPod was just Yet Another MP3 Player. Apple didn't step out until it basically adopted cable TV's content delivery scheme to mobile devices with the iStore.