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:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Difference is that Samsung aren't suing Beko for making refrigerators, and your typical refrigerators are a lot closer in design than Apple seems to think is worth suing over.
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:1, Insightful)
They have BS patents on BS stuff and are using their market position and wealth to prevent the free flow of goods and consumer choice.
I happen to own a ton of Apple gear and really like their products but that is not the issue.
If it was a Microsoft product a consensus would be flipping their lids but somehow Apple gets a pass?
I guess their advertising really is that good.
Frustrating (Score:5, Insightful)
So I've tried hard not to throw my hat in the ring on all this crap between Apple and Samsung. Basically what it comes down to is two things. Google has worked hard to move away fromt he iOS look and feel every since Froyo because they new it was a hotbed and because Steve Jobs was moderately correct in calling out the vendors in their attempts to make Android look like iOS.
The war between these two isn't about functionality it's about aesthetics. Samsung makes their UI very iOS'ish. I bought an Epic 4G from Sprint last year and even I noticed it. This was purely Samsung though, most other vendors veered away from this, especially Motorola who used Motoblur instead.
Apple is all about aesthetics. So when Samsung, who had prior knowledge of and access to Apples plans as one of their close suppliers, started "copying" the look and feel, naturally Apple got pissed off. I'm ok with Apple kicking them in the balls over that. I'd feel the same way knowing the history of Samsung and their complete lack of originality in the marketplace.
However, this has shown some serious problems with patents. It never should have gone this far. Maybe i'm wrong but I've never seen Ford sue Chevy over the size and shape of their trucks. They all have similar features because they are friggin obvious. Enough is enough with this crap. I've sworn both companies off and will never buy anything from either of them again. I'm going strictly Nexus (non-Samsung Nexus that is) with Android from now on. When my Macbook Air is EOL I'll be looking into other solutions.
I'm done supporting this. I thoroughly believe it's only gotten this far and become this bad because the media love a fight and because Samsung is incapable of making money based on their own products aesthetics. Samsung has Apple envy and Apple has an inferiority complex. Fuck'em both.
The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
"The smoking ruins of Samsung's case"? Nope.
Samsung's case is not in ruins. There are so many errors that it is an appeal's dream.
To begin:
1. Prior art have been abundant, from Samsung and LG
2. The jury ignored the prior art as it was too tedious...
3. The jury tried to punish Samsung
etc.
No, there are no ruins here. Wait and see what happens in the appeal.
To Be Fair (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't think Google is squeaky-clean innocent in all of this, they did at least warn Samsung that they were too close to infringing on Apple's patents. They knew what was going to happen if Samsung didn't respect Apple's IP - Samsung just decided to ignore the warning...
As a related side note, as a consumer, I _WANT_ Samsung to be forced to design around Apple's patents (since I doubt they'll license them...). _THAT_ will lead to further innovation in the market and that is a good thing for me, as a consumer. Copying someone else doesn't provide innovation. Copying them without paying for the right to do so isn't innovative nor honourable. Anyhow, I look forward to the new innovations that Samsung (and probably others) are going to come up with in an effort to design around Apple's (and others') patents. That will lead to true consumer choice, product differentiation, and innovation.
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet. If this verdict stands I could easily see Apple attacking every Android-using company in the mobile space.
Apple has already lost to Nokia.
Of far more concern are how blindly the utility patents were upheld. An animated spring simulation, that doesn't even include code, is not worth giving Apple 20 years of protection.
Meanwhile in a garage (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile in a garage, another inventor has decided it just ain't worth it. The opportunity to be crushed by corporate behemoths just isn't that exciting. How's that encouraging progress in science and the arts working out for ya?
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that if you saw any of the other vendors you mention start to seriously threaten Apple's market share you would start to see litigation.
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Difference is, Apple paid Xerox for the right to use it.
Has Samsung paid Apple for all the copying they did?
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent on the refrigerator has long time been expired.
This is a prime example why reading any discussion about patents on Slashdot is just a pointless task - the parent post proves most Slashdot commenters have no fucking clue about what they are discussing...
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why they are now going after devices that look nothing like an iPhone?
The Galaxy Nexus does not have evenly rounded corners, no metal rim, it has a curved display, it does not have glass on the back. Still Apple claims it copies the iPhone somehow.
These patents are horse poop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Icons? Bounce-back scrolling? Rounded corners?
The Constitution makes this statement:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
How is any of this malarkey leading to the Progress of Science?
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
The huge problem here is the multi-touch patents Apple has. Consider that every modern smartphone uses multi-touch. Then consider the alternatives. You want to zoom in but can't use multi-touch, what are you going to do? Double-tap the screen? Nope, Apple has that patented too. (Here is one multi-touch patent, they have several) [google.com]. Mult-touch patents could seriously cause problems for the rest of the world. Apple might license them at $30-$50 per handset, if they license them at all.
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Post (Score:0, Insightful)
Difference is that Samsung aren't suing Beko for making refrigerators, and your typical refrigerators are a lot closer in design than Apple seems to think is worth suing over.
Apple simply doesn't know how to compete. It couldn't compete over ebooks, it can't compete over features in its smartphones. They use the only weapons at their disposal, courts and price fixing. They fuck their customers and everybody else in the process. It wouldn't be so tragic that they fuck their own customers (and said customers love being fucked over by Apple) but they also fuck everybody else in the meantime.
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't hate the players, hate the game.
Why can't we hate both the players and the game? While the patent (and copyright) system is currently a mess, Apple chose to get all sue-happy.
Re:Frustrating (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe i'm wrong but I've never seen Ford sue Chevy over the size and shape of their trucks. They all have similar features because they are friggin obvious.
That's because you're in tech. If you were in automotive engineering, you'd be laughing at the cute little patent scuffles the software space has gotten themselves into.
There are thousands, or tens of thousands, of patents covering every tiny little detail of a car you buy. Lawsuits have been the norm for a hundred years. You don't see it because there isn't a "slashcar.org" website, there are a lot fewer people in the middle of it, and most importantly there's a substantial patent thicket in the automotive industry. At this point each of the car companies has enough IP, their cross licensing agreements end up basically even and its all a wash. Innovation happens largely because it helps move that needle year-on-year. Ford and Toyota kept one-upping each other in the atkinson/electric hybrid space, and little bits of money flowed one way or the other over the years. Tesla now is making money from a bunch of companies because of their IP -- something that helps substantially when it comes to the IP they need to build their cars.
IMO, you see a lot of agression now in the consumer technology space because of Moore's law and the exponential growth going on -- you have a very narrow window to make a lot of money with something, and you need to use whatever tools you've got to justify the investment. Because of that, I expect it'll only get worse before things totally implode.
Re:Good... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:2, Insightful)
They all patent bullshit because the system allows it. So you can't complain that one company is doing something they all do. The system needs fixing.
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First Post (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot to add in the United States of America.
In other words, 5% of the world population will be limited to multi-touch devices from one manufacturer only. The other 95% will be free to choose between a multitude of vendors.
The land of the free... indeed.
Google is sure a great partner, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding #1, the LG Prada phone was properly disclosed as prior art in the relevant patent awarded to Apple, so since the patent examiner knew about it then, agreed that it did not invalidate the claims of the patent, and the situation hasn't changed in the last several years, there's no reason to believe their patent would suddenly be invalidated on that basis.
As for Samsung's prior art, it faces a number of issues:
1) Much of it post-dates Apple's patents on the subject, rendering it useless for prior art.
2) Much of it only existed in secret, meaning that they do not have a basis for claiming prior art (though they may be able to claim prior user rights).
3) Of those items that were publicly revealed, almost none exhibit sufficient characteristics to invalidate Apple's design patents.
Design patents are evaluated holistically, not in part, so demonstrating that previous Samsung phones had some elements claimed in the design patent would be insufficient to demonstrate prior art. You need to find a phone that demonstrates most or all of the claims in the design patent in order for it to be relevant. People pointing out that rounded corners and the like existed before the iPhone are merely demonstrating an ignorance of how the system works, since rounded corners by themselves are not sufficient for a claim of infringement. In fact, Apple cited the F700 (which has rounded corners) as a Samsung device that does not infringe, despite exhibiting several of the claimed characteristics made in the design patents.
Regarding your #2, you really need to read the quote you're referring to within context, rather than accepting it blindly. What they actually said was that they skipped the question of prior art on one particular point since they were getting bogged down and wanted to figure out whether the question of prior art mattered at all. In the end, they decided that the prior art didn't matter on that point since infringement didn't occur. Ironically, that particular part of the ruling was in Samsung's favor, yet it's being cited as evidence of an injustice against Samsung by people who can't be bothered to read it in context.
Finally, for #3, you're correct. That said, it's my understanding (IANAL) that quotes made by the jury are inadmissible for purposes of appeals, so while they have admitted to doing so, Samsung will be unable to use those quotes as grounds for an appeal. The fact that they can't be used pisses me off. I'm hoping the judge's ruling, which is still on the way, will address that issue, as well as some of the other various inconsistencies and problems in the jury's ruling. If anything, however, I would say that those inconsistencies could be used as a grounds for appeal, rather than any of the items you cited.
Give it some time... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
...yet. Now that they've won against Samsung, if the verdict stands, do you honestly think they won't start going after other companies? Mark my words, if this verdict stands, Samsung was just the first and we can look forward to a whole new slew of "trade dress" and patent lawsuits.
In fact, I'll even go so far as to predict that if this verdict stands, Apple will have basically hung themselves. Now, every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has ever built anything will be looking to patent the crap out of it all because it's clearly not acceptable any more to have something that cosmetically looks and vaguely works like something else any more. And when Tom, Dick, and Harry go looking for people to sue because hey, that thing has a triangle on it and my thing has a triangle on it, so they owe me a kazillion dollars!, who do you think they're going to go after? The companies with the deepest pockets, of course.
As has been pointed out a lot in these threads, a lot of Apple's products look almost identical [blogspot.com] to products that came before. Sure, Apple has endured some lawsuits, but nothing on the order of what they've just put Samsung through, and most people--especially large corporations who want to coexist with them--were content to just leave them alone. Not any more, though. The "thermonuclear war" of patent lawsuits among the big players is now starting, and this is inevitably going to do as much harm, if not more, to Apple as it is going to everyone else.
Also, I have to point out that I honestly believe that we had a so-called "runaway juror" running things. In an interview, the jury foreman told the local newspaper that he owns a patent. If you look up that patent, it is for a TiVo-like device that he patented several years after the TiVo was released. With such a large verdict, this opens the door for him to sue over his patent and get a crapton of money from it. Why Samsung didn't strike him from the jury is beyond me, but I wasn't there so I don't know. Other potential jurors may have been worse. At any rate, he is on the record that he wanted to "send a message," "we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist." This is in spite of the judge's instruction that damages shouldn't be assessed to punish the defendant. Other jurors have said that they were influenced by this guy. "He owned patents himself... so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier." Yeah, I'll bet it was.
I hope for the sake of everyone--including Apple--that this verdict is overturned and overturned quickly. As someone who grew up geeky and who loves technology, it scares me and angers me that we have gotten to the point where "it kind of looks and works like an X, but with these features and innovations" is the standard by which billion dollar-plus awards are given for "copying." I can't think of any modern device that we enjoy that hasn't come about by iterative innovation by multiple people and companies.
I own some Samsung devices, and I didn't buy them because they were "copies" of iDevices. If I wanted an iDevice, I'd buy an iDevice. If you present any iDevice and any Samsung device in front of me, I will immediately be able to tell you which is which. If you hold them up fifteen feet away, it might take me a second, but I could still do it. If you turn the device on, I could probably tell you which is which from 20 or more feet away, even on phones with relatively tiny screens. To someone who's not as familiar with mobile technology, maybe they couldn't at a quick glance, but within a minute or two, I could show them enough that they'd be able to tell you what the differences are between them, including advantages and disadvantages of each device. No one is going into stores wanting an iDevice and walking out with a Galaxy Whatever.
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Xerox were paid with Apple stock, which they unwisely sold off. They later tried to sue after they realised that not only did they let the UI cat out of the bag without making as much as they should have, they also sold off their Apple stock that became much more valuable after they sold it off cheaply.
Apple didn't do anything against Xerox, unless you consider bringing two of the things Xerox developed to market in a wildly successful manner - the GUI and the mouse.
Steve Jobs even told them outright that they were "sitting on a goldmine" and was amazed that they had no plans to bring the mouse to market, and said "do you mind if we do instead?"
It's hardly Apple's fault they were the ones to see the value in what Xerox had and were able to exploit it - they gave Xerox enough chances and did licence the GUI from them. It was only after all that messy "taking a risk in the market" stuff was all done with and the results turned out to be popular and profitable that Xerox suddenly said "hey wait a minute!".
It's one of the biggest cases of "we told you so" in history. Jobs was practically goading them into releasing the mouse he was so taken with how it was going to revolutionise interaction with computers.
Xerox lost their lawsuit because the law takes a dim view of seller's remorse and isn't in the business of protecting a company from its own mistakes and questionable business decisions.
Re:The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Samsung's case is not in ruins. There are so many errors that it is an appeal's dream.
To begin:
1. Prior art have been abundant, from Samsung and LG
2. The jury ignored the prior art as it was too tedious...
3. The jury tried to punish Samsung"
4. The case was held in Apples backyard, in an area funded by apple taxes, where apple is a major employer, in apple-fanboy central, in an area plastered with apple marketing for three decades, and in a state on the rocks dependent on apple's continued popularity.
With that much conflict of interest how could you expect the verdict to be anything else? Fact is the case should have been tried in the central or eastern US and if either one tries to build a data center/whatever within 500 miles they loose the case with a 50 billion dollar fine plus court costs. All it proved was a local popularity contest, congrats the home team beat the foreigners this round.
In all the /. posts I've seen over the last year very little has been said about this little tid-bit.
PS. Here's a question, if a jury is supposed to be filled peers of the accused, why aren't juries in corporate only cases filled with other corporations, that way they could lynch each other. Oh, and oversight that has terminal results(loss of charter, breakup, death of executives involved) for the participants for any malfeasance by the jury or either side run by an independent group custom setup on every trial.
Re:The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding point 3, no it was not the jury job to decide. In fact quite the opposite, the instructions specifically told them not to.
Re:First Post (Score:1, Insightful)
That's such a stupid take. I can understand hating Apple and their litigiousness, but you're letting hatred completely cloud your vision--you are in a Reality Distortion Field of your own.
Putting aside their insane profit share, margins, market capitalization, and other numbers, Apple CREATED the modern touch screen smartphone market. It wasn't there until iPhone. "Smartphone" users were using Treos and Blackberrys before 2007. I'll wait for you to finish talking about the LG Prada now... OK, so the passing physical resemblance there would only deceive you until you used each device. Apple shipped with a ground-up multi-touch-based OS. There were no scroll bars or other KVM-paradigm derivative leftovers--they re-thought the paradigm, innovated, and licensed technologies to bring a new HCI/UX vision to the market. Integrating threads that pre-existed and packaging them in a way that represented something new, and established a market does count as innovation, whatever your prejudices against Apple are. And even though others have now taken this paradigm and either ripped it off (Samsung) or innovated in new directions (Palm webOS, Microsoft Metro), Apple is still "competing" just fine, obliterating the competition in terms of profit share while continuing to maintain premium margins. Haters gonna hate, but they CAN and DO compete.
They didn't invent the MP3 player either, but no one ever figured out how to "compete" with them there, and it wasn't due to lawsuits, it was because Apple was better at creating and marketing a solution
Re:The law disagrees (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of evidence (internal designs, the Night Ridder, StarTrek PADD, 2001 device, etc.) was excluded
I should fucking hope so. Making a movie or demo video of with a bunch of special effects is hardly the same thing as making an actual real-life device that works and can be bought down at the store.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, one of the big patents under contention is the size and shape of the iPhone. It has nothing to do with being a modern touch screen smartphone, but a rectangular box with round corners. Many a digital camera had the same size and shape, so it isn't anything unique to Apple. As for Apple creaing the modern touch screen smartphone market, that is true. But the market isn't what the patent is about. It is about a touch screen smartphone, which was first commercially available to the general public in 1994 (IBM on AT&T), 13 years before the iPhone. Granted the form factor was similar to other phones of the day, unlike the iPhone, but unless you define "modern" as anything post iPhone, they definitely did not create the first product.
So, please, don't talk about others ripping off Apple, many of the features you claim they are ripping off were in their own products long before Apple released the iPhone. Did Apple do it better? Most definitely. Did they do it first? No. Is the US Patent System hopelessly broken? Most definitely. Will the Apple/Samsung case change that? No.
Re:Meanwhile in a garage (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a garage inventor and you give up because you're afraid of being crushed by corporate behemoths, you weren't going to succeed anyway.
Re:To Be Fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Lick to unlock
Smash to zoom
Squeeze to scroll
Mm...
Are your "innovation" desires limited to phones only? Wouldn't you want a single company have exclusive rights on 4 wheel cars? TV remote? Imagine how innovative would innovation be, once we give exclusive rights on something stupid and then try to "innovate" around those exclusive "innovations".