Samsung Galaxy S3 Stripped of Local Search 243
DavidGilbert99 writes "Ahead of a legal battle with Apple, Samsung has begun disabling the local Google search functionality on the international version of the Galaxy S3. This mean S3 owners will no longer be able to search contacts, messages, or other content stored locally on their phones using the in-built Google app. The interesting thing is that Apple has yet to sue Samsung over this feature in the EU or the UK and so it seems as if Samsung is being ultra cautious ahead of the the companies' big court date on Monday next."
pre-emptive stripping (Score:2)
i don't know if that's a good thing or bad!!!
Re:pre-emptive stripping + unstrip with plugins (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a safe way would be to strip it and change the entire search framework to a plugin based system. later let third part apps put plugins into the search framework.
They already do this for sharing, facebook when install can add itself as a share provider and application wishing to share content automagically see facebook( or dropbox etc).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there is an app out there to take of it.
Re:pre-emptive stripping (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you that when my awesome, light powerful Samsung phone with a great screen, camera, lots of ram, fast processor etc.. is stripped of features because of Apple's bullshit, Apple have just won themselves a lifelong non-customer.
Fuck you Apple. I sincerely mean that, you money-grabbing cocksuckers. Make your shitty, locked-in products a reasonable price so that the n00bs that buy them can afford to eat. Pay your employees a decent wage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you, Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. though couldn't they just add a local search textbox right next to the web search textbox?
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
and Fuck "IP".
Time to mass-invalidate all software patents. This is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
*esoteric sneer*
- Apple
Re: (Score:2)
Man, this comment's gonna get modfucked into oblivion. Thou shalt not make fun of the Cult. Never make fun of the Cult.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
I second that. Fuck you, Apple
I second that too. Fuck you Apple.
Sent from my Iphone
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How can something as basic and obvious as performing a search of local system have a patent?
I cannot be more thoroughly disgusted by Apple. Just like everything else in society, it is the people who purport to provide something who are ultimately the ones responsible for its deprivation.
It is, for example, precisely because of the "healthcare" industry that there is so much actual deprivation of healthcare in our society. The deprivation would not be possible without it.
It is precisely because we have a g
Re: (Score:2)
And indeed Apple is one of the most talented at doing so and selling it for a premium.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is both the rules and those who exploit them.
Re: (Score:2)
I could exploit it and Apple couldn't get blood out of a turnip. Do a search, I'm sure someone already has wrote an app.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawful Evil is still evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple probably helped WRITE the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Lobbyists have bigger briefcases than voters do, you know that.
Re: (Score:3)
In which case Google should winning every legal battle against Apple, since they spend 10 times what Apple does on lobbying [cnn.com].
In fact, bureaucrats say Apple is virtually non-existent in Washington, and that their absence will bite them in the long run (translation: that's a nice operation you have, a shame if anything were to happen to it... where's my entitlement^Hbribe^Hpolitical contribution?)
Perhaps Apple is getting influence in more subtle ways, but lobbying is not it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced they are playing by the rules.
I think the game is probably better titled "I have a bigger legal bat than you do."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the "voice of reason" people who think we shouldn't judge companies based on their behavior. Apple is a company of fucksticks, and I will bad-mouth them and not buy any of their products. I'm not saying they should be shut down, though I'd laugh if they were sued for anti-trust issues.
I can multi-task in my hate. I can hate the laws, hate the idiots who passed them, and hate the scum companies who abuse them.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
How is being able to search for something "innovative"?
Apple shouldn't be able to have a monopoly on obvious features like this.
Re: (Score:2)
If this came to court, wouldn't the judge dismiss the patent because of its obviousness?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now whether or not they should have gotten a stupid patent on it (shouldn't) is a completely different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Edison didn't invent the first incandescent light bulb. Ford didn't invent the automobile. The Wright brothers didn't even invent the first experimental aircraft, they were just the first to get the thing off the ground reliably.
Jobs is not God, Apple is not good, and you sir are a terrible troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if AC is truly dumb, or just trolling.
I AM going to say that the inventors listed didn't invent the items listed.. because they didn't invent those things.
For once, I breathe a sigh of relief (Score:5, Funny)
Being that my version of the Galaxy S3 was purchased through Verizon, and they are notoriously slow with software updates, i can safely say that this feature will be present on my phone for a long time to come. Thanks for being lazy slackers, Verizon!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fast to take away, slow to give.
All hail the Nexus series, once again.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a matter of interest is it an OTA update? Because if it isn't then how is anyone going to be required to apply this update. "Here we're going to make your phone less functional because Apple says so" "fuck off I'm not applying the update".
Re: (Score:3)
Or you can just put Cyanogenmod on it and do whatever the hell you want with it afterwards (with the added feature of removing carrier specific crap).
didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? (Score:5, Insightful)
oh wait, that's why apple is suing them
seriously, google had local PC search like 10 years ago with google desktop. apple had it with finder i can't remember when.
unless samsung has really dumb lawyers that's prior art right there. local search has been on computers since the 1990's
Re:didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not local search that's the issue. It's searches on multiple databases from a single interface that are in question, specifically a single search UI that checks both local data and online for results. Apple had that with Sherlock back in 1997, and the patents being used in the various cases against Samsung go back that far in some cases.
As you said, local search has been around forever, but a single interface for simultaneous local and online searches is a newer thing, and Apple seems to think they own it. Considering they've already had a few rulings in their favor in the U.S. for these patents, you can't blame Samsung for playing it cautious. IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could be sued for knowingly infringing at this point, given that the other rulings have gone against them with regards to these patents.
Re:didn't i have local search on my Mac years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, if they have been granted a patent to it -- they effectively do.
Which is the most annoying thing about all of these lawsuits; they've all been granted ridiculous patents, that mostly seem to cover an idea, they all overlap, and the only thing corporations seem to understand now is to sue.
I honestly don't see a way out of this, unless companies just decide amongst themselves to play nice -- but with billions in product revenue at stake, everybody would rather sue everybody else to make sure nobody else sells a product like their.
Blame software patents. That's what is fundamentally broken here -- the companies are just looking out for their own interests, even if that means they're spending so much time in court.
Re: (Score:3)
A group of companies, including Apple, got
Re: (Score:2)
seriously, google had local PC search like 10 years ago with google desktop. apple had it with finder i can't remember when.
... and Microsoft has had it with Indexing for about the same amount of time.
The real story here is how the term "justice system" is no longer an accurate descriptor of American courts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple filed the patent in 2000. I'm guessing it had something to do with Spotlight.
Google Desktop Search came out in 2005, I think. Just before the Apple patent was finally approved.
It's still a bogus patent. It's even short enough to be readable, despite the legalese. It basically says, you enter a query into a box, and the "machine" looks in several different places for the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
10+ to be correct maybe 13 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Another victory for patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent holders win.
Consumers lose.
Where's profit?
Lawyers Profit (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers profit. It is their game.
1. Petition for patents on everything.
2. File Patent lawsuit with billable hours.
3. Profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent holders win. Consumers lose. Where's profit?
In the pockets of patent attorneys, of course.
Simple solution: we consumers quit our jobs, and all become patent attorneys. It's win-win!
Wackier then the Gong Show (Score:2)
Wait, I am a little confused and not only did I RTFA, but I did a Google search for more information.
Apple has a patent on searching local files for information? wtf? Did they get a patent for searching both the internet and the local files....I mean this must be a twisted reality when a grep or find type operation, which has been around for a looooooong time not only gets a patent, but stops another company from performing said function on its own machines.
Somehow we are getting to the point where comp
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, and I know this is a stretch, but maybe they issued a stability update which removed the feature, because it really was causing a stability issue. Crazy, right?
* nothing against the guy personally, I happen to think the vast majority of bloggers are jerk-offs.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I am a little confused and not only did I RTFA, but I did a Google search for more information.
Maybe Samsung disabled the ability to find useful results on the topic in Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a patent on searching local files for information? wtf?
They also have a patent for the rectangle.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be great if Xerox would rise up and strongarm everyone who's patented their prior art, and invalidate the patents.
Because Apple owns grep? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
will grep work searching the contents and metadata of email and mp3's?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's part of the actual file it will ... grep doesn't object to binary files last I knew.
It won't be broken out into nice fields like "Composer" or whatever, but grep will chew through files looking for text matches.
Can you search without it? (Score:2)
Does it have local search without using a specific google app?
I have a nexus one right now, and I can't search a damn thing with it. It drives me downright nuts. I've run into so many frustrating usability issues with android that I've decided I'm going to have to move away from it on my next purchase. It's really sad when the evil proprietary overlords support industry standards (eg: caldav) better than an open OS.
Turd (Score:2)
So basically, your evil overlord stops Android companies to implement search, then you support the evil lord for it.
Amazing, I never knew someone could actually fuck themselves with such a tiny dick.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize that case verdicts could go back in time and change things after the fact.
My Nexus ONE is on 2.3.7, and it doesn't have anything resembling decent device-wide search. As far as I'm concerned this court ruling hasn't changed anything because I haven't had this feature in the first place.
Furthermore, Apple cannot block google from implementing industry standards such as caldav and carddav, yet google hasn't implemented those. Yet Apple and Microsoft have. That's the other point I was tryin
What a Win for Apple (Score:3)
Their competitors are now scared to implement the most basic functions. Congratulations! Everybody else loses out, but fuck those guys and fuck society, am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
who said companies exist to help society?
you (and I) may think that's a great idea; but I assure you, those who run things DO NOT.
sorry. the world is not just or fair.
Re: (Score:2)
who said companies exist to help society?
No one, but when they actively hinder society then society should eliminate said company.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
this nonsense must stop
have spent a lot of money on their products
'Nuff said. Nothing will stop as long as you keep giving them money.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a n00b at being evil. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I guess "Hi I'm an iPhone, and I'm a Samsung Galaxy III" advertisements hit a snag with all the same features being there :)
Re: (Score:2)
Right on and Samsung holds plenty of hardware patents. Look out Apple.
Workaround (Score:5, Informative)
They (Samsung) should just implement an enabling code (like an easter egg), that is supposed to be secret, but "accidentally" ends up in the open. Entering this code on your phone will then enable all features owned by Apple. With this workaround, all Apple can do is blame the individual users. Btw, this is the same technique that has been used successfully by DVD player manufacturers for circumventing region-code restrictions enforced by trading authorities.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that there are many cases the "workaround" will not be acknowledged as a proper removal of the feature. You better have a good reason why you left a backdoor, and how come it was unintentional.
Remember the GTA hot coffee mod? They disabled the part of the game that was considered inappropriate for minors, but it didn't count as a proper removal, so they had their age ratings change until they completely removed it.
prior art? (Score:2)
For those claiming Samsung doesn't copy Apple... (Score:3)
...Google disagrees with you:
Before the legal fiasco began, Google warned Samsung not to copy Apple:
In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/25/before-the-legal-fiasco-began-google-warned-samsung-not-to-copy-apple/ [9to5mac.com]
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
They already have an injunction against it in the US, and due to various WTO agreements Apple will probably get that applied elsewhere.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
see, its not true that we don't make anything here in the US.
ask any lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, IANAL so I don't know, but it also should prevent Apple from being able to file an injunction against selling it (at least over this issue), since the function no longer exists on it. Samsung may figure it is easier to pay a small fee over prior "infringement" (quotes because the whole "patent on local search" is complete and utter bullshit) than to have their sales of the device blocked for weeks or months, losing them market share.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
It is hard not to infringe if you are writing a single search interface. Here's the patent. [uspto.gov] Apple is claiming to have invented executing searches on multiple sites from a single interface, of ranking and presenting the results in some order, and of being able to guesstimate what file type the user is trying to search for:
The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information....
...web-browser applications are not designed to search for non-web-based documents or applications located on the computer or an associated computer network and, conversely, File Find-type utility programs are not capable of searching the Internet for web-based documents or applications. There has been no combination of desktop find routines that presents a single interface and Internet browsing routines to allow a computer user to find a needed or desired item of information from among all different types of information storage systems. Additionally, there is no program which is able to process the user's input and then determine, using many different factors, including use of the Internet, the intent of the user as to the file to be retrieved. Accordingly, in order to present a more informative and personalized user interface, a unitary manner of finding a user's desired item of information is needed.
I have bolded the things that Apple claims did not exist before this invention.
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
as pointed out last time, Dogpile.com holds a massive amount of prior art if the claim is searching multiple sources with one interface.
(Not to mention as a programmer is damn obvious).
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dogpile just aggregates a bunch of search results.
Apple's patent is on refining results based on where the user is, the user's search history, etc...
For example, if you're in an airport and search for airplane, you are probably looking for information on airplanes, not Jefferson Airplane, or the movie Airplane, which is the first search result in Google.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the ads that now appear on site that are for things I have searched for? Wouldn't those ads be violating Apple's patent? It is funny to see ads for the items that I just searched for. I was looking up home NAS options. Then I get ads for NAS systems. I was looking up fishing lures. I then get ads for fishing lures. I don't think all the ad people have paid Apple.
All these legal moves by Apple point to one thing. Apple is blocking other companies from bringing products to market that might be bet
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote Steve Jobs, "Good artists copy, great artists steal". That company comes up with nothing original.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
It was actually Picasso who said that. Jobs stole it from... oooh.
Re: (Score:2)
in 97, I had a program called weasel. or maybe ferret? anyways, it search my desk top and any sites, or all available FTP port. Pretty much everything. So, Apple has invented, created, or even had an original idea regarding the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Desktop [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I like older versions of Android.
not at all (Score:2)
No way. Typically when you go to court to fight something you don't want to be doing what the plaintiff is complaining about at the same time.
Quit the speculation shit. In fact, doing what you're protesting at the same time is far more likely to be an admission of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
no
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's an indication that the patent system is completely insane.
Not only is it NOT encouraging innovation, but it's actually preventing innovations from being used.
How the hell does a local search infringe on anything. I search locally for my keys every morning. Do I owe Apple something for that?
Re: (Score:2)
duh, someone has to think it up, code it and make up an algorithm. takes time and money. not like the algorithm is there in the open
but this has been on PC's since at least 1995 or 1998. maybe on 3.1 as well. unless apple was the first one to do it for email and email content
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because if you attempt to invalidate a patent and fail, you become a sitting duck in federal court.
Apparently you lose the right to raise certain defenses such as invalidity and prior art if you strike out with a reexam at the USPTO.
Re: (Score:2)
well, ....
they DO allow getting multiple things from one box.
(yes, I'll take an aisle seat, thank you)
Re: (Score:2)
Real karma will set you on fire for a comment like that.
Re: (Score:2)
but it's on a computer so that makes it **new**.
Before I used to do "DIR *findme* /s" but now I need it on a mobile device and so I *NEED* a new invention for that.