Dutch Court Says Android 2.3 Violates Apple Patents 195
jfruhlinger writes "A Dutch court came to some interesting conclusions in the Apple-Samsung patent case raging there. The court rejected claims that Samsung stole intellectual copyrights, or that it slavishly copied Apple's iPad and iPhone. It did decide that Android 2.3 violated an Apple photo management patent — but said that Samsung could get around this simply by upgrading its phones to Android 3.0."
Patent, singular (Score:5, Informative)
The court find that it violated one patent. It also decided that all of the other patents Apple cited were either not violated, or were likely to be invalid. Early days but it's pretty heavy stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of a dozen patents that should be either invalid or are invalid, the fact that the court recognized one as valid is still a loss, even if it is a small one. This is a victory for Apple, even if they "lost".
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP [espacenet.com]
Re:Patent, singular (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the court found the swipe to unlock gesture that was also under consideration 'obvious' while it held that the photo app used by Android was in violation. It's likely Android will simply update the app rather than license this from Apple. They are now getting into implementations rather than physical designs. I don't recall of the top of my head if there are any physical aspects to the Samsung lawsuits. I think those are currently going for Motorola or HTC in regards to slimline rocker switches. In any case, this was a natural extension of older physical methods being implemented in software. The next 20 years should prove interesting as more and more physical aspects of devices are implemented in software and digital realms.
For example, the swipe to unlock was lost due to a previous art that samsung submitted an image from a 1992 human interface design doc that discussed toggling 'switches' via a touch interface. This was the primary reason the judge found the patent 'obvious' and dismissed it.
I'm of two minds regarding software 'patents' when it comes to this sort of implementation. For instance, take something as simple as a music player of any type. Fully implemented in a digital medium now with only the 'box' holding the software itself doing all of the work where before with something like an 8-Track or Cassette required a full hardware implementation. I have to wonder if/when they will draw a line between the digital and physical realm for implementation.
In regards to the photo patent that Samsung lost on this one, it is yet another patent that was successfully leveraged against Android. Right or wrong, it is probably making smartphone vendors a bit nervous. There are some 50 lawsuits from various companies worldwide against Android. I'm doubtful that the Motorola purchase is going to be of much help against all of those, especially if they relate to Android rather than phone functinality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was always under the impression that patents were intended for inventions, formulas/equations, and processes.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Now, IANAL, and this could be a misinterpretation, but it sounds like "process" is just another word for "algorithm". Either way, you do have to ask, "why is it that we don't see new software as "digital inventions" if they do something that no previous software has done"? I shouldn't be able to patent an app that can accurately determine your life expectancy by scanning your palm, but I can patent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
disagree - anything a decent engineer can come up with to solve a problem can be patentable as long as he shows a full working system (even if not installed or directly implemented yet), and describes what it does.
what should not be patentable is the vague idea of something that someone might implement later.
In other words, if you actually do things, they should be patentable. If you just dream about them, they should not.
Re: (Score:2)
disagree - anything a decent engineer can come up with to solve a problem can be patentable as long as he shows a full working system (even if not installed or directly implemented yet), and describes what it does.
Except that "anything a decent engineer can come up with" is, by definition, not inventive, but merely the result of ordinary skill in the art.
Re: (Score:3)
If that were the case we wouldn't have any patents. That's something that I don't think would be good for business or competition. If someone (including an engineer) builds a system that performs some function and it turns out to be wildly successful, that person should have a short time of exclusivity to both reap reward from his or her idea, and to also allow time to recoup any research/development costs.
I do think the length of time now being used should be reduced to a sane amount of time (say 4-7 years
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but you've missed the point. Here's an example: Let's say that someone develops a system that can record smells - a camera for bouquet if you will - in a numerical format. At a similar time someone develops a system that can reproduce a huge range of smells based on a numerical input. For argument these inventions will be considered public domain - no patents, licenses etc. Using them has all the legal liabilities of using addition. Now to you, me and anyone who is still reading this gibberish i
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? The purpose of patents (in the US anyway) is to "Promote the progress of science and the useful arts". Progress happens in small steps as well as giant leaps. Furthermore, the patent law starts out with "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." It does not say "Whoever invents or dis
Just upgrade to a tablet OS... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... you do realize that Apple's lawsuit was about their contention that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was a ripoff of the iPad? Putting Honeycomb on a Galaxy Tab doesn't really seem like that much of a stretch....
Re: (Score:2)
Because as the court noted, their tablets are already under Android 3.0, and therefore are not affected by the patent. That's what they meant.
Re: (Score:2)
And the grand-grand-grand-parent reminds that Android 3.0 is a tablet operating system, not designed for phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but only the Gallery application is concerned by the violation. Thus it is not a OS problem, just changing the Gallery in Android 2.3.4 to match the version of Android 3.0. That is most probably trivial.
Apple lost in Dutch court, not the opposite (Score:5, Informative)
No matter what alarmists will tell you, net result is:
Samsung can continue to sell current Galaxy phones and must provide a trivial change to the picture gallery in the next 7 weeks.
Samsung can continue to sell the Gaöaxy Tab.
Apple has LOST all design and copyright related claims.
Apple has LOST the infringement claim on one patent and the court deemed a third patent broken anyway.
http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/08/samsung-v-apple-in-nl-happy-selling-samsung/ [wildeboer.net] [cache [googleusercontent.com]]
Apple lost, but software patents won! (Score:2)
You forget a major part here, sure Apple mostly lost because only one minor patent was upheld, but it still means that a judge in Europe considered (again) that a "software patent" is valid.
I would call this a victory!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Oups sorry for the cut.
I would call this a victory for patent trolls, big companies and lawyers, but a defeat for everyone else!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
it's an user interface patent. you know. like patenting rectangular pixel areas as meaningful. not sw!
on the upside, this is a highly visible case bringing attention to stupid patents and stupid design/patent law.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung can continue to sell current Galaxy phones and must provide a trivial change to the picture gallery in the next 7 weeks.
If they actually need to have end users updated I say good luck to them. Optus only recently rolled out 2.3.3. Virgin, Telstra and other Australian carriers still haven't made the switch. The firmware was released in Europe in March. The carriers are REALLY slow in rolling out updates provided by Samsung.
I fully anticipate 0.1% of Galaxy users to have non-infringing firmware by sometime next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
News reports are written for a deadline by people who know (sometimes) more than a layman in a given field and (usually much) less than an expert, often while using a standard template. They serve their purpose, but they aren't terribly accurate or reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
new android version for galaxy S II!
Don't get your hopes up - they'll probably just delete the "next picture" and "previous picture" preview in the photo application.
Software patents in the EU?? (Score:2)
I am really confused now. I thought software patents weren't valid in the EU? How can this happen? Did the members of the Europarliament sneakily approve software patents anyway? Wouldn't be the first time they ignored the population. (I didn't say voters; they are not elected and the EU is not democratic)
Can someone explain how software patents became valid in the EU?
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents aren't valid.
HOWEVER, if you can make your software patent sound like a normal patent you might get around it.
"Use of a computer device to display images controlled by swiping motions" (something I just made up) doesn't sound much like a software patent.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't. It's not a software patent [espacenet.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is. There are several things wrong with this patent.
1) "[0001] The disclosed embodiments relate generally to portable electronic devices, and more particularly, to portable devices for photo management, such as digital photographing, 5 photo editing, and emailing photos."
The Galaxy phone is a phone; not a portable device for photo management. Its main function is to call and provide PIM functionality. But this is not related to software patents.
2) "5 [0008] One aspect of the invention involves a comp
Re: (Score:2)
I am not going to comment on the validity of the patent as such and please don't take what I'm saying as implying in any way that I believe the patent is valid or invalid. I've not analysed it and it's not in my field of expertise anyway. Saying that, I do have a few patent law (and specifically, European patent law) related bits of info you might like to read:
1) In patent law the words "suitable for" are always implicitly present in a statement such as:
The disclosed embodiments relate generally to portable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And possibly just a little bit obvious
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. It's not a software patent [espacenet.com].
Hmm... quacks like a duck...
Re: (Score:2)
It amounts to a software claim in a patent for a whole device. It'll be interesting to see how the court takes the validity of that.
Re: (Score:2)
The members of the European Parliament are directly elected by the people of the EU. It is the European institution that has the best claim to democratic legitimacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in part because it also uses proportional representation so is far more democratic than even national institutions like the British parliament where a party with 30% support can get effective 100% of power, and where 60% of voters votes don't even count.
For many Europeans such as those Brits stuck under the fucked up first past the post system, they actually have more of a vote in the European Parliament than they do in their national parliaments because the proportional system much more fairly recogni
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say voters; they are not elected and the EU is not democratic
Not confused, clueless about the institutions. The European Parliament members are elected every 5 years by deirect election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009). You must mix up Parliament and Commission.
Re: (Score:2)
Not directly elected - Because this is Proportional Representation, you vote for a candidate, they get less votes than another candidate and get in anyway, or you vote for a candidate and another person from the same party gets in because of your vote ...
First past the post is at least a vote for a candidate not a party ...
Re: (Score:2)
am really confused now. I thought software patents weren't valid in the EU? How can this happen? Did the members of the Europarliament sneakily approve software patents anyway?
The law was never entirely clear. For a while it looked as though the way case law was going was that most software patents were invalid, with only a certain class valid (those that had a "technical effect", which is similar in some ways to the recent US appeal case that held that a mere calculation cannot be patented). Case law since then has widened the scope, but it's still much harder to get and enforce a software patent in the EU than it is in the US.
There was an effort a few years ago to get the eur
Re: (Score:3)
The patent system is rotten to the core. Not just software patents, the entire patent system. It needs to be done away with and replaced with nothing.
Um. No. I know we tend to think patents are terrible because... well... most software patents stifle new innovation and are granted on things that we think are so obvious we could come up with them in a few minutes given the problem conditions. But even if that were true for software, it's not true, for example, in biopharm. It costs hundreds of millions, or even billions, to bring a drug to market. You either need a very good government grant system that is willing to spend money on wacky ideas too oc
Re: (Score:2)
But even if that were true for software, it's not true, for example, in biopharm. It costs hundreds of millions, or even billions, to bring a drug to market.
Sure, like evergreening drug patents is an excellent way to bring drugs to the masses ...!
When big pharma spends more R&D money on evergreening than on new drug discovery (which is currently the case) then the patent system has problems. Big problems. I agree that we need pharma, and that drug design driven by pharma is vitally important as governments simply don't have the money. But the patent system as it applies to pharma is still rotten to the core.
Re: (Score:2)
> The impression is a result of your perception being biased by your knowledge.
Well, I would hope so, for all impressions that I get, although that is not one of them. =)
Software costs comparatively little to develop, with one or two major exceptions. Drugs cost a lot, with some exceptions.
Of course there will always be innovation, even with no patents, but the objective isn't just innovation, it's innovation even when a drug costs billions to bring to market. The drug will only be worth bringing to market if it can't be reverse engineered and copied quickly by competitors. This i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as while the EU parliament is elected, the council of ministers and the commissioners (who create the laws & policy) are appointed posts.
Yes?
They are appointed by the elected governments of the constituting EU nations.
A Victory for Consumers (Score:2)
"but said that Samsung could get around this simply by upgrading its phones to Android 3.0."
Good, I've been waiting for an upgrade to 3.0.
Thank you European Court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boy did you get this backwards.
Samsung will not upgrade to 3.0 (a tablet OS) for the phone. They will either simply remove their customized version of the gallery or release an update for it involving a whole 5min of coding.
Also how on earth can a court claim an animation that happens when a user doesn't flick his finger properly violates a patent be considered a win for consumers. If anything it just shows how absurd the patent system is and how trivial it is to reduce competition in the market.
This is about a preliminary injunction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect: the judge in this case rejected all the other patents Apple brought in... This was not for a preliminary injunction, that case is still pending in Germany and probably will be hugely influenced by this outcome...
Re: (Score:2)
that case is still pending in Germany and probably will be hugely influenced by this outcome
That's possible I suppose, but it shouldn't. The case in Germany is solely about the shape of the device, not about the software.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mod this up. The parent is right. These are expedited proceedings that only cover the question whether there is enough ground for a preliminary injunction.
IANAL, but here are some interesting snippets from the court's findings:
4.18 The court issues a preliminary judgement that the implementation used in the Galaxy S, SII and Ace is covered by EP868.
4.19 Samsung has posited that patent EP868 would be nullified by prior art WO458. However, WO458 does not in any way describe or allude to the "bounce on first m
Confusing (Score:2)
Looking at a 3.0 gallery app, and the 2.3 gallery app, they appear to do the same thing.
Wonder what the difference actually is that allows one to be ok and the other not.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that patents are supposed to be about how your invention does something and not what it does, one would hope that this sort of thing happened more often.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows, the patent [espacenet.com] seems to have some 40 claims to cover waving a fucking finger.
This is all very odd... (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong here - but I'm pretty sure that Android 3.0 is for tablets and not for phones.
Also why is Samsung being sued and found at fault for a software feature in an operating system that it does not own / write - its just a partner / vendor of Android - not the originator of the OS - so surely this should be a finding against Google - and not Samsung. I wonder what that dutch court is smoking...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the informative reply (I'd mod you up if I could) - I hadn't realised that patent law worked quite like that. I doubt that end users can be sued - unless they can be proven to be profiting directly from their end user activities that violate the patent - also I would imagine that this interpretation of patent law probably varies per country - which is another reason why a European ban enforced by a single European country based on patent law - is unusual - as the interpretation of patent law acro
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much that they can't be, more that it isn't profitable chasing each individual infringement one by one. The damages due for each individual infringement wouldn't pay enough for the lawyer's secretary to write "John Doe" on the court filing, let alone track them down and collect the damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope parent is right. End user's can be sued, and in rare cases HAVE been sued. It's very rare because there usually aren't enough of them but it has happened and can happen again.
There have even been cases where users of a piece of software received downgrades in the mail after the vendor's only recourse to a patent troll was to remove a feature, the downgrades came with a letter informing the users that removing the feature upstream protects the vendors but if they fail to install the downgrade they thems
Re: (Score:2)
>. It's very rare because there usually aren't enough of them but it has happened and can happen again.
Sorry, I put that horribly, I meant there usually aren't enough money to be made that way - you have to sue them individually for amounts they may actually pay. Generally the companies demand a license fee rather than going straight to filing suit and would only go to suit if the users don't pay the license fee.
That has happened many times already.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a Google-written application... it was written by Samsung, thus that's who got sued.
Re: (Score:2)
During the SCO case, Microsoft was touting that Windows provides "indemnification" against law suits. My memory is quite hazy, but that's where I first heard that term. Apparently, one of the advantages of closed source is that you can legally CYA better than with open source. In fact I wrote a paper discussing the possibility of a company intentionally contributing their own code to a competing open source project so that they would have the option to sue if the project got too big. (IANAL, btw)
Summary is quite bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, did the summary ever get this wrong. The court said that the Samsung supplied Photo Gallery application infringes on an Apple patent related to a swipe gesture to move from picture to picture that bounces back to the current picture if the swipe is not completed.
The default Android Photo Gallery application does not do this, but Samsung customized the version included on its phones with TouchWiz (hence the Nexus S does not infringe and is not part of the ban or the Tab 10.1 that uses stock Android too) to replicate this functionality of iOS.
Also, the solution is not to provide Android 3.0 for the phones, Samsung will simply remove this extra functionality from the application (either by reverting back to the stock Android application or by simply removing it from their customized app) and provide an update for the affected models, thus negating the ban.
Re: (Score:2)
They've already announced that an update is on the way for the affected devices, removing the offending animation. Given that the decision's not effective for about two months I think they'll have it fixed before it even becomes an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still bad that such simple idea is patentable according to the court.
1/10000 of the functionality (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
So one can block the sale of a device on a whole continent because it possibly infringes on a functionality that represents 1/10000 of the default functionality of the phone. My phone can call, video call, chat, do my email, take and edit videos, upload pictures to the net, scan bar codes for maintaining list of books and dvds, do anything a browser can do, play games like a console, be my alarm clock, and I can't buy it because of the way it reacts if I scroll half way my pictures in the photo editor ? This is just wrong.
No, it's fucking A right. Using existing law to reduce competition is morally, ethically, and economically sound. If you disagree with the existing law, get it changed.
Re: (Score:2)
"How Large" is very much something for the judge to decide. It is entirely up to him how punitive he wants to be and how much damage he wants to inflict on the "perpetrator". He has the option to act in a more just manner.
That's why he's there to begin with.
The idea that an OS should be banned because of something like minesweeper just shows a fundemental misunderstanding of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
"How Large" is very much something for the judge to decide. It is entirely up to him how punitive he wants to be and how much damage he wants to inflict on the "perpetrator". He has the option to act in a more just manner.
I don't know exactly how the courts for the EU and the individual members work, but in the United States, there are two "courts" for patent infringement, the regular judicial courts and the International Trade Comission (ITC). The ITC is part of the executive, and the only remedy it has is to block the import of products. A regular court could in theory award $100 in damages (not that they ever would award an amount that small, but you get the point), but the ITC has no authority to award damages.
The headline should read (Score:2)
The sensational half truths that pass for headlines these days make me think I've wandered onto Digg by mistake
Ruling (Score:2)
My dutch is very limited to sinaasappelsap but I believe this is the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62981838/KG-11-0730-en-11-731-Apple-Samsung [scribd.com]
Maybe some dutch person can translate the it?
This is supposed to be the patent (in english):
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP [espacenet.com]
What really bothers me is that this is clearly a software patent of the ridiculous kind (How to stroke a touch sensitive device h
It took a lot of ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't use those particular gestures. There is more to a patent than its title, you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I was answering the AC's question about why 3.0 doesn't infringe.
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone raise the PSM issue? Has that been decided by a court anywhere? Does it vary much by country?
I'm just thinking that in the US at least, there are strong arguments against patentability of a gesture.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the patent is about pre-showing the next or previous photo when sliding the current photo to the side. That's what Samsung was guilty off.
Digitus Impudicus (Score:2)
I show to Jobs a middle-finger-gesture - he should go and patent that!
Patenting that would require quite the reality distortion effect. There is prior art on the digitus impudicus [wikipedia.org] which has a document trail stretching back at least 2 millennia.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe it uses a different gallery interface.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
not to listen? They refused all claims except a rather trivial one that can be easily fixed. You should definately listen to us :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the wooden clad ones have earned high praise in my book today.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another reason not to listen to people who wear wooden shoes.
I'm sorry, but we have lost the right to make fun of other people's shoes [crocs.com].
Re: (Score:3)
the photo patent is just about a certain navigation? one that isn't particularly good either.
apples design is easy to infringe because it's actually got no design.. it's the bare minimum. galaxies have more stuff(two capacitive buttons).
Re: (Score:2)
[...] just have a look at a random phone vendor's page and see which ones look just like the iPhone... and blow me down [...]
I would but unfortunately this page is blocked in my country and all I can see is this message:
I really can't understand this obsession with blocking. They can't possible get enough traffic from outside of UK to justify it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because (shocking, I know) there is nothing distinctive enough in Apple's design.
There's plenty distinctive about the iPhone's design. Looks like the page I linked to above is blocked outside the UK, but try looking at the range of smartphones on the websites of some local vendors. There are plenty of competing smartphones that are, basically, dark colored rectangles with a large screen (as determined by function) yet still look nothing like an iPhone. There are a few, predominantly Samsung, that look remarkably like an iPhone, at least in the publicity photos.
It looks like Apple's p
Re:A fine example of... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no honest use for software patents.
Yes there is. Some software methods do require the investment and effort which patents are supposed to temporarily protect. The problem is the duration of "temporary"; only a few years should be enough for software IMHO. And ofcourse the issue that most software patents require very little investment and effort; their implementation may take more time and money, but that's what copyright is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The concept of patents is only valid if you buy into the obsolete idea that any kind of patents really serve the public interest. Propping up capitalist self interest by government interference this way is only justified by the idea that it serves the public interest. We are expected to believe that innovation will be stifled unless it feeds greed. Would the cotton gin not have been invented without patent protection? It seems perverse to think so. I certainly don't buy that idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to assume that it's a ploy to get them in trouble for spamming. The copy is way too close to sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually assumed that domainsbyproxy was a scam/spam intended to get the email addresses of the people offended enough to say something (ie, the ones who were paying attention).
They require a full name and email address to report a domain, and their "secure site" uses flash/javascript.
Of course, I could just be being paranoid... but not giving out my email address never got it phished.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but reporting the spam there requires full headers which are not available on a forum posting.
Re:I will never buy Apple products again (Score:4, Informative)
Right, because Samsung doesn't hold any patents and doesn't enforce them.
Unless you are an LCD maker, of course.
And they would never sue anyone for simple writing an article poking fun at their glorious leader. [consumerist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I didn't want to know that -- now I think a lot less of Samsung. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
All the companies suck :)
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as Android 3.0 reportedly does not work on phones, my suspicion is that you will just see the necessary changes backported to the 2.x series.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, especially 5.
Using the courts to stifle a competitor is cheap.
I thought Apple prided itself on making better products, but by bringing these cases before a judge they admit they are not competing on quality anymore.
Why do you feel that using the courts to stifle a competitor is incompatible with making a quality product? It seems to me if you want to optimize your profit, you do both.