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."
Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:2, Interesting)
However you feel about Apple, iOS, Samsung, Google or whomever else, keep in mind how broken the technology patent system is. Most of us have known this for years and this trial only serves to highlight this point over and over again.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. Don't focus your hate on the companies involved. Focus on reforming the horribly broken patent system.
Re:The smoking ruins of Samsung's case? Nope. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. You're ahead of me, with better formatting.
There were some really shady problems going on for a case of this level. (One Billion Dollars - Cue MiniMe!) So you'd think that some part of the procedures would have really tried to put Quality Control into the process. I think the Judge made a couple of mistakes, and the Jury made a couple of mistakes, I won't go quite as far as to say as it was a total sham.
But "Mistakes" are different between Small Claims Court and the Future of Mobile Computing. Sorry, but you just have to apply a little more policy than happened here. Industrial contracts for 100K get more review!
So Samsung has a few nice openings to weaken the damage. I think they'll lose and I think I see why, but maybe they can take it down from One Billion Dollars (with pinky) to something "boring" like 50 million.
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:5, Interesting)
You do see Motorola Mobility with a motion for an injunction against all ipads, iphones, and most apple laptops from being sold in the US for patent violation.
Apples iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2 are already banned from sale in South Korea due to patent infringement, and Google (the owner of Motorola Mobility) has picked only patents that seem to at first glance fit the following criteria:
It will be interesting to watch that case, as the goal seems to be to cause maximum pain, as a loss by Apple in that case would probably force them to cross license all there patents to all android phones.
It will be interesting if the press reports it as Google v. Apple or Motorola v. Apple.
It will be ironic if the courts uphold the injunction against Samsung and cites that case in granting Motorola Mobilities injunction against Apple.
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Interesting)
To Microsoft's credit though, Bill Gates was an excellent businessperson (better than Jobs ever was). The only reason Microsoft "won" that case was that Jobs needed apps on the Mac, and ended up signing a contract crafted by Gates where Microsoft would write the apps, and inherit a license to the UI.
That was why Microsoft won - Apple licensed the UI stuff to Microsoft. All Microsoft did was point out the contract that said so, game over. Perfectly legal transaction.
Windows stealing the thunder? The joke that was Windows 1.0 would've dissuaded you on that (no overlapping windows, to begin with. It was actually closer to the Xerox model (also no overlapping windows) than Mac). Windows 2.0 wasn't much better. Windows 3 got somewhere, and Windows 95 and NT blew OS X out of the water (mock all you want, at least 95 had protected memory and preemptive multitasking, two things that MacOS lacked until OS X's release 6 years later. And the NT line...). All Apple had was a crusty OS, a dead-in-the-water rewrite (Copland) and really nowhere to go. They had to buy the next MacOS (from NeXT) to get this stuff (after attempts to buy BeOS failed when Be got a bit greedy).
Though, you can be sure Apple was not going to do THAT again. (And Apple didn't take it from Xerox - they licensed it for Apple stock).
Re:Good thing these lawyers, judges, and juries... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine the state of automobile development if these lawyers, judges, and juries had been around to rule that the first one out the door with a four-wheeled design incorporating an engine and a forward-facing screen owned the automotive universe?
That happened. See Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers [wikipedia.org]. And it happened with the telephone (Bell won big), radio (Marconi had a monopoly in the early days), copiers (Xerox), and ink-jet printers (HP).
Apple's claims are much weaker; there were phones with screens long before the iPhone, and a whole history of PDA devices.
It's silly that Android phones have to mimic the iPhone so closely. Why not cover the entire face of the phone with screen, get rid of the pushbutton, and move the speaker to the edge of the bezel? (Nikon makes cameras with screens out to the edge, and ASUS builds a phone like that.) And why not do something other than that stupid grid of square icons? (What is this mania for a grid of square icons as the UI for everything?) Or make a round phone, like a pocket watch? Not seeing much innovation here.
Nokia (Score:5, Interesting)
Difference is, Apple paid Xerox for the right to use it.
Has Samsung paid Apple for all the copying they did?
To further make the point
1) Nokia chose to lic apple patents and to obtain others via use of MS windows (which also lic apple patents). This was a slower approach than the android approach and they lost market share to samsung which played fast and loose. Nokia was punished worse than apple for being IP sensitive.
2) Samsungs internal documents compared their in house design to the Apple one and recommended chucking many design elements in favor of copying apple. Thus evidently some (not all) of the apple design exceeded what Samsung could do. it was not obvious evidently. So please stop saying this is all about rounded corners or that someone somewhere implemented pinch zooming on a 40" surface monitor. Getting all these things to work as a whole on a small pocket size device is a matter of careful selection of feature integration and attention to details. Samsung failed on their own to hit the sweet spot and said so in their own documents.
3) The pre-2010 samsung phones and tablets look like crap.
Re:First Post (Score:2, Interesting)
I've never had a computing device that didn't have rounded corners. The only question is what the radius of curvature is.
While posted to be funny, you do have a point. Would the US Government allow you to sell a phone with sharp pointy corners? Wouldn't that be considered dangerous? As such, wouldn't rounded corners be a requirement of any consumer device sold and therefore not patentable because of public safety issues?
Re:Frustrating (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a fun set of lawsuits a few years back over the lights with the turn signals in them. A supplier developed the tech to put the turn signal behind the mirror and then teamed up with someone (Ford maybe?), others copied, and they sued. Then folks patented the signal on the end of the mirror, then the bottom of the mirror, then IIRC the original partner got in a dispute with the supplier. Huge mess. But if you look at truck mirrors today you'll notice no two do the turn signal in the mirror the same way.
On a related note, design patents remind me of visual trademarks ...
Jeep has a trademark on a "seven vertical slot grill" ... they feel this appearance (provided this is being displayed in a sans serif font): ...
OlllllllO
is enough to identify a vehicle as a Jeep in the eyes of the marketplace.
Glancing at that, Jeep might be right
Re:Frustrating (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in automotive engineering, and while Ford may not be suing Chevy, they have successfully sought injunctions on JAC [autoguide.com] (a car maker from China). This isn't just something that is specific to the tech industry; it's happening in automotive as well.
Looks are a big part of what sells a car, and for those who don't know, there are many Chinese car makers who are blatantly ripping off designs from established car companies. There are rip offs of BMWs, Toyotas, Fords and Rolls Royces (and many others). It's not just Ford vs JAC; injunctions on Chinese imports have been sought in other markets too.
The real argument (from Apple's point of view) is not about patent infringement but rather Samsung's blatant copying of the iPhone, and it's really hard to defend Samsung because it's obvious that their strategy has been to just "copy Apple".