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."
First Post (Score:5, Funny)
From a non-Apple rectangular computing device with rounded corners.
So, sue me.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
check the patent office. samsung and everyone else have the same design patents on everything they sell. samsung has one on a refrigerator of all things. everyone has patented the rectangle and every other shape
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.
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: (Score:3)
Gees way to go with the bull buddy, from the court case itself, the jury said - "Like dude, all the prior art stuff, there was just to too much to deal with. It like made our brains hurt and the boss jury dude said, meh we can ignore all that 'PRIOR ART' stuff. Don't worry about it, all those other designs that were copied by Apple, meh, so what, the US patent office checked all that stuff. It's easy let's all stick it too the foreign company, nasty foreigners are always cheating good Americans and let's a
Re: (Score:3)
Why didn't Samsung point to any credible examples?
They [slashdot.org] did. [slashdot.org]
The jury didn't discuss prior art [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I have a refrigerator that is a big rectangle and has a touch screen on the front for controls. You can also make calls from it, but it's not very mobile. Hopefully, it doesn't infringe on the iPhone.
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.
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: (Score:3)
nope, check the patent office. samsung and everyone else gets a design patent on everything they make. the number is prefixed with a D and its a special patent.
you send photos to the patent office and your design is protected. the shape of the handles, exact layout of the interior, etc. anything that makes your product stand out in the store
Re: (Score:3)
So has the patent on phones, cell phones, and PDAs.
But this is a new patent. It's on rectangular devices with rounded corners.
***
Hey the Patent on assholes has expired, but you know what....the patent on apple shaped assholes is totally new!!!
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
I've never had a computing device that didn't have rounded corners. The only question is what the radius of curvature is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll go with a negative radius, myself, so that it winds up having very sharp points on the corners. Never you mind the fact that it would make it awfully convenient to throw at and lodge into the eye sockets of certain executives of a certain Cupertino-based marketing and design firm with delusions of being a technology company, I just think it'd be... neat to have one. Or a few.
Oh, and they'd be Android-powered.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung, for several devices (the ones that did look a bit more iphone-ish like the Fascinate) had oddly curved corners, not a perfect radius from the union of the two sides. Strangely, the courts didnt find this distinction sufficient (even though an Apple product would NEVER have anything but perfectly radius-ed corners.)
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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
Liar. (Score:3)
Apple licenses their design patents:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-design-patents-to-microsoft-in-anti-cloning-agreement/
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:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In short, Apple is still bitter about Microsoft stealing their UI, back in the late 80's. Bla Bla Apple took it from Xerox... Apple felt like Windows took their thunder away. After that Apple has gotten much harder in protecting their UI.
The players will play the game by using all the rules to their benefit. Fix the game not the players.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Actually, I thought they hadn't. And were sued. And Xerox lost.
Re:Before the Apple/Android flamewar starts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Difference is, Apple paid Xerox for the right to use it.
Has Samsung paid Apple for all the copying they did?
Errr.... no they didn't. They very blatantly stole it. I was programming Xerox kit in those days.
Re: (Score:3)
And the courts disagreed with you.
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: (Score:3)
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.
Apple tried to take on Nokia and lost. It ended with them paying Nokia.
http://247wallst.com/2012/08/27/nokia-rises-in-wake-of-apple-patent-win/ [247wallst.com]
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.
Bullshit. COMPARING your product to MAJOR competitor's products is what nearly ALL sane companies do in nearly ALL industries.
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: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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Which patents are under re-examination? (Score:3)
Question is, which patents are under re-examination? You never know...I could be of help.
Re: (Score:2)
He can cheer from the sidelines telling them how he could help them. rah rah rah
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.
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: (Score:3)
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 s
Re: (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: (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 no
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.
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. They most definitely did NOT ignore the prior art. They skipped some of it and then came back to it later. The quote to which you are referring (and several sensationalist write ups based entire screeds on) was taken out of context. They were talking about the order in which the address the different points on the 30ish page form, not whether they simply decided to ignore evidence as has been claimed.
3.
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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Right, the patent office never makes mistakes.
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.
Well, that's just, like, Apple's opinion, man.
Besides which such patents can be invalidated on a number of grounds, for example by having utility. Many of the elements Apple are claiming are covered by utility, and even if they are part of a whole that doesn't excuse them from this requirement.
Plus, the US law on design patents it stupid. Unfortunately that doesn't help Samsung legally.
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.
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: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".
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: (Score:3)
I've learned that the "Rounded Rectangles" patent was the ONE patent that was NOT upheld. So the jury agreed with the wise old patent veterans of
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: (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.
Apple following Micro$ofts footsteps (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
- clock (standard universal icon)
- phone (standard universal icon)
- calendar (the icon actually were totally different from my phone's, but was similar to earlier Samsung publicity photos)
None of the other icons
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Design patents have nothing to do with progress of science or useful arts. They are not the same as patents on inventions.
Jumping the gun (Score:2)
Everyone keeps reporting that the court has reached a ruling. This is not the case. The jury has reached a verdict, but the final judgement has not yet happened.
Google should worry, but not about rectangles... (Score:2)
The Apple v Samsung case had two facets to it. The first was Apple alleging infringement of it's "trade dress". This is a claim that Samsung made their products look like Apple products in the general sense, or "rounded rectangles" as everyone likes to call it. For these issues the physical form of the hardware is as important, if not more important than the software elements. The look of the product was decided almost entirely by Samsung, and thus Google and Android are probably largely unaffected by t
Apple did not invent pinch to zoom (Score:3)
There's more than one way to implement pinch-to-zoom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s [youtube.com]
Fast forward to 2:22: Pinch to zoom as demonstrated by Sony back in 2001; six years before Apple applied for the 7864163 [google.com] patent.
As this apparently doesn't qualify as prior art; Apple can't claim infringement either.
So specific implementation details must matter. The general idea cannot be what Apple claims ownership of. The idea has been around for a long long time (Minority Report from back in 2002 bein
Good thing these lawyers, judges, and juries... (Score:3)
On the other hand, war would have remained much more...personal...perhaps making it more difficult to invoke.
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:2)
Mind you, Google only did this AFTER #crApple decided to use the nuclear option against Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.xda-developers.com/announcements/motorolas-plans-to-sue-android-manufacturers-weekly-recap-12-august-2011/ [xda-developers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
Of course not, those would be harder to prove. This ruling sets precedent and, in addition to over a billion dollars, provides ammo for future action. If you think this is Apple's last suit, you're quite mistaken.
It makes sense that, if success tomorrow requires a win today, that you would start with the easiest to win and the proceed up the ladder.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Samsung was a supplier to Apple. Is that why the hardware is so similar?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my, um gee....it's got a full screen. Rounded edges. And a few buttons.
Um that describes just about 70% of the smart phones out there. Ironically, if you remove the antenna nub from my old HTC 6700 it looks a lot like the iPhone. Sure the screen is smaller, but that's because it's older tech.
Re: (Score:3)
Which item?
The gui made up of a grid of icons on a page with multiple pages? like my Palm Pilot from the 90's.
Oh, I know...the green dial and red hangup buttons.
Oh, perhaps it was the fact that things bounced/sprung back. Wait, that's called "easing", it's a digital design technique taught to 1st year design students for decades.
Oh please enlighten me as to what was so monumental?
Multi-touch...that one comes closest. But was demonstrated as early as the 1980's. Merely including it in a phone is not a patent
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia.
Not *yet*. The worrisome possibility is that they decided to go against Samsung because they saw it as the case they could most easily make, then plan to use those precedents to attack all other Android devices. Steve Jobs is on record as saying that he wanted Android destroyed totally.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Samsung that chose to copy Apple designs. Most other Android handset makers did not so slavishly copy the design of the iPhone in regards to hardware and software, so they are far more immune to being sued.
You don't see Apple suing Amazon over the Kindle Fire, or Nokia over the Lumia. It is quite possible to make distinctive designs that do not mirror the iPhone, and in fact preferable for long term health. If your product just looks and acts like an iPhone, eventually people will just switch to the "real thing". Far better to make it distinctive in a way that people may grow to prefer so moving to an iPhone would feel wrong to the user because it was different.
There are cross licensing agreements with most of the big names making tablets and cell phones, which is the reason you don't see those. Google "patent thicket" -- its the norm in industry, and has been for 200 yars.
You only see litigation like this show up when the two companies involved don't have equitable patent portfolios, and the one with the lesser portfolio does't want to pay for things. That's why you see various figures for how much every Android phone makes Microsoft in licensing -- the patent cr
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: (Score:3)
Bad Shill!
Apple has already made clear that they going after other companies next [theregister.co.uk].
Those are the words from Tim Cook, CEO of Apple to the employees of Apple regarding the verdict of the Samsung case. I assure you that Apple's lawyers are offering pre-appeal deals to every android manufacturer you can think of and several you can't this very week. Apple will try to squeeze other vendors for as much money as they can before this is inevitably overturned
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Out of curiosity, are they suing anyone because of it? That iOS notification system looks mighty familiar ...
Re: (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.
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Exactly right, specific to manufacturer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the jurors said that they stopped considering prior art as it was taking too much time. They also said that they wanted to send a message to Samsung to punish it (despite what the jury instructions -- which they did not read -- said).
The lawyers did not have time to defend/invalidate the patents -- they were given 25 hours total for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. A lot of evidence (internal designs, the Night Ridder, StarTrek PADD, 2001 device, etc.) was excluded.
Also, invalidati
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The patent system really needs more people to say this this patent is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here...or worse, I've had ideas that I know I'll never produce. But want to share with the world.
One simply Patent Office reform would fix 90% of the problems. "Free Patent Filing for Public Domain"
Essentially, if I am willing to give my idea to all of humanity, then I am allowed to file for free. It goes into a "prior art" database. And anyone can use the idea without threat of legal action. Would eliminate 90% of these patent trolling lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, I'm not familiar with Touchwiz. But the iPhone has an extremely rudimentary interface. Grid of icons on a page. Multiple pages.
Well, that should be eliminated from argument by the simple fact that it was a GUI used by Palm nearly 20 years ago.
As for the stupid bounce affect, it's called "easing" and is taught to first year design students.
Re: (Score:2)
Patenting a square is not innovation.
Nor is suing another company for "easing effects", several decades old and taught to first year design students.
Frankly, the best thing that could happen to American innovation is a for a bum to build a fire next to the patent office this winter, and a tragic accident result in the entire office going up in smoke.
This would do far more for the American public and innovation than all the lawsuits combined.
Re: (Score:2)
"Has anyone seriously taken the time to calculate the amount of money changing hands in these Technical Law Suits ? If they would simply STOP suing each other and start COLLABERATING they might find the world a better place to live."
No, Apple's belief is that it can crush Samsung, Motorola etc. in the courts and remove them from the equation altogether so that they can have the entire smartphone market to themselves. From their point of view, they believe they can win, and that if they win the world will be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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:Good... (Score:5, Informative)
They've invested more in R&D than anyone else in the industry
ORLY [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:3)
R&D quality is meaningless when you're dealing with a consumer commodity, such as the iPhone (or any smartphone). It's a race to the bottom every. single. time. That is what Apple is fighting.
Look at DVD players, or cassette tape players, for that matter. Sony had cassette players and later CD and DVD players locked up tight for the better part of 20 years through one means or another. At the end of their reign it was due to image more than any actual quality. But then media consumption became commodity
Re: (Score:3)
Do they have an internal team for making workable replacements for their own software and/or hardware, or do they forget the 'lessons learned' with each new iteration? Because their stuff tends to be the most frustrating to get to work with anything else (properly).
The best thing I can say about Apple is that they got VPN connectivity Right in both iOS and OSX. Beyond that, it's been a general bag of meh sprinkled with fail and incompatibility for the past 5 years.