Well, I answered Andrews comment before this one showed up, but the bottom line is that Apple has lost in reality, Samsung won't even notice the blip, but we now have a pure software patent running wild in Europe - sad times.
A Dutch court has warmed the hearts of Apple's patent Nazis, issuing a preliminary injunction against the sale of three Samsung Android phones: the Galaxy S, the Galaxy S II, and the Ace. As noticed by the ubiquitous Florian Mueller, the injunction is due to take affect in the middle of October, but it only applies to certain …
"but we now have a pure software patent running wild in Europe - sad times."
Hmm, you got a good point there. Then how come the patent was'nt invalidated?
That got to be joke, just the possibility of getting sued, if, and only if, someone visits a site with a touch thingy (unless that person uses a BT-mouse).
From what I understand the patent in question - EP 2059868 - is a device patent and not a software patent. details here: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP
Ultimately you are correct IMO 'we now have a [pure] software patent running wild in Europe - sad times', but my question is, why was a patent that is essentially a software patent granted as a device patent in the first place?
I fully understand the need for a patent system, but really, software and gesture patents? Absurd.
WOW!!! crApple are really running scared of the Samsung Galaxy, it must be really good.
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I’d say that, having had a quick look at the patent, that crApple have tried to patent both the software for recognising movment of a finger on a touch screen and the actual gestures.
"5 programs. The one or more program are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors. The one or more programs include: instructions for displaying an array of thumbnail images corresponding to a set of photographic images; instructions for detecting a scrolling gesture comprising a substantially vertical movement of user contact with the touch screen display; and instructions for responding to the scrolling"
Thankfully crAppple haven't taken out a patent for a scrolling gesture comprising substantially vertical movement of the hand with the middle finger extended which is about the only gesture I’ll ever make to an iFad or ANY of their products.
Apple lost here not Samsung! 2 of the patents were thrown out, basically stating that Apple does not have these patents because of prior devices already doing it. They also lost the "you made it look like ours" claim for the same reasons. Samsung was already planning on changing the app in question and will have it done before the injunction is in force in October. The judge actually said that because of the ipad design it "makes it self less viable for design protect". Apple lost big time here with its claims of uniqueness and innovation with its patents.
that Apple borrowed heavily from the movie in making its iPad...
(apologies if it is already in this or the similar threads...)
I wnoder if this will have retroactive implications with Motorola's 1999-ish Star Tac and Star Trek's communicator, that then fast forward past 2005's devices....
If Apple are so great and innovative, they wouldn't be worried about things like this... the fact that they are suggests that they have absolutely nothing new and exciting to look forward to in the future.
If they won cases like this, it would just mean they can screw Apple fan boys even more than they do now!
Unnecessary waste of time and energy - could be invested in something worthwhile.
Previously open minded to Apple - but not now...
If Apple were innovative, they would worry about things like this because patents exist to allow people who innovate to realise the benefit of their new methods, ideas or products.
The issues here are more whether the type of ideas in this particular case should be ownable and, if so, whether Apple owns them.
I end up being a moderate. The iPad's look shouldn't be a protectable form factor. Similarly, rounded icons are not some attempt at passing off. But some of the concepts that FingerWorks spent real money and time developing should be protectable (by Apple now by way of purchase) in a suitably constrained short term that I accept may already have passed.
Quickest way to spot a troll: look for anyone asserting simultaneously that Apple shouldn't have the patents because they've "stolen" all their ideas and Samsung should be in the clear because they haven't "stolen" anything.
You have to understand that the patents, even dubious patents serve a purpose. It slows down the competition by raising the barrier to entry.
If you were Apple, millions/billions on the line, what would you do?
(Its a rhetorical question)
Don't blame Apple, blame the patent process.
Let's look at what Google has done.
They have millions/billions on the line, and were competing against the best selling phone of all time. They didn't hoard patents, they made an excellent OS and many devices began using it. Even now that they are the best selling mobile operating system, they have not initiated any lawsuits with other companies over their phones. Even when iOS started directly copying things from the Android OS (notifications, iCloud, etc.), they did not litigate. They take it as a compliment and continue to improve.
So no, nobody is forcing Apple to sue everybody.
If only Google had managed to make this excellent OS 'before' Apple came up with iOS. You say "Even when iOS started directly copying things from the Android OS". Can you say that hasn't happened the other way around as well ? I don't think even the most rabid Apple hater could argue Andriod wouldn't look the way it is now without "borrowing" from Apple's ideas.
It's pretty much a matter of record that Android's general format was heavily inspired by iOS, comparing the handsets demoed and photographed before the iPhone was announced and those afterwards.
That said, Google's position has almost always one contrary to restrictions on intellectual property so the fact that you can draw a line from the iPhone to Android for some features isn't an issue. There's no "well what about Google?" line to be taken here. I think the poster's point is that it is hypocritical for Apple simultaneously to borrow ideas from the competition and to try legally to block the competition from borrowing anything in return. Conversely it is not hypocritical for Google to borrow ideas from the competition and then not to kick up a fuss if ideas are borrowed back.
Android and iOS may have been in development at the same time, but that just makes it a case of parallel evolution - separate developers coming to the same, obvious solution. Apple would have to prove espionage on Samsung's part to win this case.
Meanwhile, back in the courtroom: why are Apple not suing everyone else using this variant of Android? I can tell you: as I said in the iPad vs Galaxy Tab thread, it's because Apple don't care about competitors who are regarded as inferior. However, when someone releases a product of equal or greater quality at equal or lesser cost, Apple immediately reach for the legal team because they do not innovate and hence cannot keep up. Their ongoing legal battle with Samsung is nothing more or less than an attempt to eliminate from the market any product that is considered better than their own - namely, the Galaxy Tab and the Galaxy S2.
Hate to burst a bubble, but Apple had Xerox PARC engineers help them create their GUI because Xerox invested in Apple as a start-up venture capital thing.
For better or worse, Xerox decided that they didn't want to be in the computer arena at that time so they put their money and expertise in a number of start-ups, Apple being just one of them.
Not that it has any bearing on this case anyway.
They have ignored patent altogether and have pretty much stolen ideas rather than innovate.
Sorry but as a software professional, I believe that Oracle's lawsuit has merit against Google. Will Oracle win? I don't know and I'm not in the fortune telling business. The point I'm raising is that on a first blush review of Oracle's complaint, if taken as true, they have raised enough arguments for their case to proceed to trial.
Google has also refused to indemnify those that built phones on Android as well as not treated vendors equally when releasing android. Google also has shown a total disregard for the law in other instances.
The point is that Google has shown a behavioral pattern of disregard for the law.
But this is outside of the scope.
The point I was trying to make was that companies are filing patents on things that shouldn't get patent approval on the off chance that they get a patent. The whole issue of the patent 'war chest' is that you now create artificial barriers to entry such that you have a competitive advantage in being first to market. Its not about protecting the innovator and allowing them to recoup their investment, but slowing down the rate competitors can compete.
Even if ultimately Apple loses the lawsuits and Samsung can sell their tablets, the damage is already done.
You're right, no one is forcing Apple to sue, but Apple is choosing to sue because they'll end up making more money by 'protecting' their rights.
> I believe that Oracle's lawsuit has merit against Google.
Errr - you do know that this is an article about Apple and Samsung, right? Oracle vs. Google doesn't come into it...
> on a first blush review of Oracle's complaint, if taken as true, they have raised
> enough arguments for their case to proceed to trial.
That's true of every accusation ever made against anyone anywhere.
The point is - and this is a subtle one, I'll grant you - not every allegation is true. Sometimes, defendants are innocent. That's sorta the point about having a justice system; allegations get tried, rather than the defendants just getting punished because someone made an allegation.
Now if we look at the last few days' activity in Oracle vs. Google, we see that two more of Oracle's patents (the '447 and '205 ones) bit the dust in their entirety. Every single claim of those patents wiped out. So what we can see straight away is that at least some of Oracle's complaint is not true.
The score so far is that 39% of Oracle's independent claims have been rejected, compared to just 3.6% confirmed. Of the dependent claims, 79% have been rejected, compared to just 14.3% confirmed. And of that tiny amount that has withstood re-examination, Oracle still has to prove a case of infringement; these rejections are about the patents being invalid, not about infringement or otherwise.
So whilst we've all gotten used to your love of bashing Google, you really might like to keep your attacks pertinent to the articles where you're commenting, and - if it's not too much to ask - how about backing up your assertions of certain doom for Google with a little bit of data?
The comment was in response to an earlier post raising Google vs Apple.
To your point... I said the case has merit, meaning that its not frivolous. You really don't know much about US law.
Also to your point, it only takes one count of guilty and if you can raise 50-100 counts that past the first blush test... you will win.
But getting back to my original point that started this thread.
Even if Apple loses their suit against Samsung, they still win. For Apple, it doesn't matter how real or valid the patent is. It allows them to control for the short term, the market and raises the barrier to entry. I'm going to assume that if you sat down, had your cup of tea and thought about the economics involved, Apple could fund the lawsuit from the *profits* of just keeping competitors out of the market.
But its not just Apple. Look at any other company that has a patent war chest and wants to keep competitors out of their markets. IBM (Mainframe) , Microsoft just to name two others.
There's more to this, but it would go over your head...
I can think of 2 example off the top of my head where companies go head to head competing on merit without resorting to the courts.
The BMW X5 and the Kia X5 - Both vehicles, both 4x4 and even have the same name. NO court action, BMW are confident enough in their product and their brand.
The Nikon Coolpix S2500 and the Fujifilm Finepix S2500 - both cameras, same model number, different markets. Fujifilm are confident enough that people can tell the difference between the Nikon Everyday compact camera and their more professional one. Again, NO court action
I am sure there are other examples out there. Any more excuses apologists?
The only area the judge found legal issue with was the gallery - the rest was thrown out. All Samsung have to do is alter the gallery application, and the issue goes away, and they're legally free to continue selling.
That can easily be done before the injunction comes into play, so this won't even factor on their radar.
This is an interim judgment; the full case still has to be decided on the merits, so all of Apple's original claims are still part of the suit and will still be argued in front of the court.
To put it another way: the court hasn't told Apple that they're wrong, just that they're not sufficiently obviously right and that they'll return to the topic in the future.
Wronger than a wrong 'un - you're thinking of the case concerning the Galaxy Tab - that is a preliminary injunction, with a full case to be decided in the next month or two. That said, I have the 25th August in my head for some reason - ie. today.
Oh well, you're still very wrong, and I may just be a bit wrong, so I win.
"A Dutch court has warmed the hearts of Apple's patent Nazis, issuing a preliminary injunction against the sale of three Samsung Android phones"
This is a preliminary decision, just like that in the Galaxy Tab case. So the decisions made here are preliminary, exactly as in the Galaxy Tab case.
This costly court debacle will be fun and en(d)ga(u)ging or end-gouging for some..
Either way, for some, it's gonna be an end-junction... if a few on-staff attorneys gets sacked for tactical or strategic failures... leading to a point being up-ended... and not appended...
Now, side-loading (I don't know the analogous German word for (phonetically) frutily-flower) to the rest-cue.... when one gets torn ass-under
So, when the dust settles, and (most likely) Samsung wins, then, looking back, if Sam sang, what song had Sam Sung?
(I hope I got the splits/conjugations bits right/correct...)
"To put it another way: the court hasn't told Apple that they're wrong, just that they're not sufficiently obviously right and that they'll return to the topic in the future."
Not quite true. When the courts grant a TRO, they do so for a couple of reasons. With respect to this case, it means that the judge feels that based on the evidence of the case as presented to the courts that Apple would most likely win in court. Therefore they are granted a TRO in an effort to stop further damages from happening.
This isn't to say that Apple is going to win, but that Samsung wasn't able to refute Apple's claims at the time of the TRO request.
You are correct in that the judge based its TRO on the other counts than what people see as being dismissed.
The law isn't always a simple thing to follow....
Specific patents may look stupid, but they are the only weapon when a competitor copies your product. Apple just wants other manufacturers to make their own, recognisably different designs, not simply make Apple device clones.
When Android wasn't popular enough, Google copied iPhone designs into Android. And when Samsung's Android phones weren't selling well enough, Samsung deliberately copied iPhone so as to benefit from punter's recognition of iPhone. Then they copied iPad, and when iPad 2 came out, they copied again.
I have a little bit of sympathy for HTC, but for Samsung, none at all. They deserve the injunctions.
"Specific patents may look stupid, but they are the only weapon when a competitor copies your product."
That's funny - historically, pointing and laughing worked quite well.
The world would probably be a better place if people generally approached things with the attitude 'if everyone else is copying what I did yesterday, all I have to do to stay ahead is keep doing awesome stuff today'.
It's only when you decide to get lazy, quit coming up with new stuff, and live on your laurels for eternity that you start worrying about 'protecting' the incredible ideas you came up with ten years ago.
Apple would probably benefit far more from a PR campaign which essentially said 'look, everyone else is doing what we did yesterday, while we work on the cool new stuff of tomorrow. Which company would you rather be with?'
It wouldn't be at all true, of course, but since when has that been a major issue for a PR campaign?
Patents offer absolutely no protection for look-a-likes. That is the realm of trademarks. As for innovation - who makes the fucking processors and memory chips in the Iphones? That would be Samsung then. Oh, and Samsung *owns* AMOLED screens. Yes, "retina" is catchy but I'll take real blacks every time.
As for the injunction - October? i.e. giving Samsung enough time to shift inventory and stock up on modified product.
Billboards in Germany are currently pimping the Samsung Galaxy S II as the thinnest, bad-assest mobile around. It's dual-core, not that really matters except that the Iphone isn't. While the ads are different in style to last year's Applegasm ones, the one they do have in common is that they are run simultaneously by different networks. Yes, Apple has a better brand than any of the networks but they, too, do have value. Are the injunctions related to getting the much trailed Iphone 5 as much limelight as possible?
ARM designs the chips, and TSMC "makes" or produces them to silicon, samsung, texas instruments, Nvidia, Apple et cetra may have a say, but are just are middlemen.
Nvidia Tegra 2 = ARM cortex A9
Apple A4 A5 = ARM cortex A8 & A9
Qualcom Snapdragon = ARM A8 & A9
TI OMAP = ARM
Chances are your "cable box" has an ARM unit in it also.
I specifically bought the s1 and the s2 becuase they did all the things an iPhone cannot or will not.
Faster, smoother, unrestricted and way way better than the Apple product.
The problem here is progress, if this was motor cars then Ford would be wanting us all in Model T's
Apple is seriously worried that the hardware they sell is now way behind the other suppliers and with an OS that evolves as rapidly as Android ones do with so many different branches to choose from its little wonder they are scared.
Look at the WebOS experiment, a £100 tablet flew off the shelves and that has shown that people want tablets but dont want to pay Apple prices, lets see Samsung do similar with the new Galaxy Tab and then both sides can burn money in the retail wars instead (to the benefit of the consumer)
This was a preliminary hearing, and they got a partial injunction. This is the precursor to the actual hearing.
What this _preliminary_ hearing upheld was the obvious infringements, eg the sliding of the photographs. However, just because it ruled against the other areas, does not mean they are invalidated. Far from it, those other areas will be investigated in more detail at the full hearing.
Name me one thing that Apple didn't copy from somebody else. I am not talking about the legal side of it, no arguments about xerox etc I know they have licensed things from other companies (usually when forced) I just want to know what Apple have ever come up with first and on their own merit. I can't think of a single thing. What they are good at is nicely packaging the work of others.
Wherever they can get away with it Apple will quite happily steal anothers work and pass it off as their own. When they get caught out they pay the fine but they hardly ever approach a company and say 'we like that, can we license it'.
In St Jobs own words Good artists copy great artists steal
And in Krytens words an apt description of the company known as Apple:
a disgusting, pus-filled bubo who has all the wit, charm and self-possession of an Alsatian dog after a head-swap operation
I think that in any argument like this, the concept of an invention becomes so debatable that you end up thinking nobody invented anything at any point.
For example, it's fact that Apple designed the Firewire port. But that's clearly just a development of the SCSI line of thought. Though on the other side, USB conceptually looks a lot like ADB, so should we award Apple credit for that?
How about the canvas tag? OpenCL? Pull-down menus? The modern laptop form? The Clang compiler front end? The scroll wheel?
> For example, it's fact that Apple designed the Firewire port.
FireWire is Apple's implementation of (what was then) P1394. 1394 came from a multitude of sources; it's not Apple's invention, although they were a significant part of the WG, and drove much of the innovation.
Had Sony not been such utter dicks about how they marketed stuff, we might well have been calling it i.Link now. But that's Sony for you...
 I was working for Sony at the time, and was tasked with trying to find appropriate uses for i.Link. But I wasn't allowed to let on that i.Link was 1394 - they wanted it seen as a Sony proprietary technology, even though it wasn't :-(
Firewire - already answered by somebody else. Thanks
Canvas - a different software method to do something that is already done differently elsewhere (SVG, which most people wanted to be developed further but Apple wanted their own proprietary version and I know that isn't entirely correct but its close enough) so that's a no. Not to mention they patented it and wanted license fees until W3C said if they did that they wouldn't include it in the html5 spec and so they backed down on the fees, but kept the patent. BAD APPLE, software patents are BAD.
Open CL - Apple own the trademark and nothing else. AMD, IBM, Intel, and Nvidia worked together to create it as Apple couldn't do it on their own.
Pull down menus - As first seen on the original Xerox PARC GUI (You know the one that Apple liked so much they asked if they could use it)
The modern laptop form - are you serious? Try Compaq with the SLT/286 (1988) or if that isn't quite close enough to a modern laptop try the NEC Ultralite (1989). The first Mac portable was in September 1989 AFTER the other two.
Clang - Sponsored by Apple, created by the community but given Apples heavy involvement I will give you that one. it's nothing but a front end and that's what Apple are good at, putting a new covering over other peoples work.
The scroll wheel - Prepare yourself for a shock, created by MICROSOFT in 1993
1 out of 7 and even the 1 is debatable, oh dear. try harder next time.
You're all good but for the pull down menus. Apple absconded with it. XRX took them to court. WHY XRX woke up one day and fond GET THIS: APPLE WAS SUING MS OVER MS TAKING "APPLE'S" IP. BUT WAIT IT WAS XRX. APPLE HAD STOLEN IT FROM XRX!!! XRX was a tech Co. and (NOT like GATES FOLKS, ATTY'S) Courts indicated XRX had let the statute of limitations expire on Apple.
DO YOU SEE. APPLE STEALS THEN says "IT'S MINE"
ALSO COURTS WERn'T so patent ( ip) hip then.So listen to St. Steve talk here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y
Apples culture's die is cast. APPLE isn't ashamed to take another's idea.
Apple designed the IEEE 1394 port with the help of several other companies.
ADB was NOT hot-swappable and too slow to support anything past a simple graphics tablet.
And laptop form? Sorry, Toshiba beat them to that by four years.
Pull down menus? QuickTab by about two years.
Canvas Tags? Sorry again, that was W3C.
Scroll wheel? Oh, that was Kensington.
OpenCL? Well, Apple did get the ball rolling on that one, but again, a LARGE GROUP was involved in it actually being made.
And the CCFE? Wow, really reaching there.
Know before you speak. Spouting off incorrect "facts" that aren't actually facts is quite close to propaganda.
And Apple should design and create their own hardware instead of sourcing it out cheap and then charging outrageous amounts for it. Well, I guess that's what you pay for something being "pretty" and "cool". Look back at Apple's history, they ALWAYS charge at LEAST a 33% premium for "their" product. You know, at least when Apple started, they had good, well made products and actually were creative. Now, they just hobble existing tech together, make it look smooth, and color it white, and then call it innovative. I'm going to create a tablet computer that has lights around the irregular edge and call it innovative. Apple innovates like I digest, they take one thing in, and then pop something different out. About the same quality too. Except I flush what I do.
It is actually quite a good result for Samsung. The Galaxy Tab running Android 3.0 does not have the offending photo viewing interface, only the phones running Android 2.3. The problem with the phones can be fixed by a software update.
The lawyer for Samsung (Bas Berghuis van Woortman) made the point that most consumer electronics are shipped just-in-time to distribution centres in the Netherlands. So the number of the offending phones shipped to the Netherlands is quite small and hence applying the software updates to the phones already in the Netherlands will not take long. The planned launch date should not be affected.
The important point of the ruling is that all the other 'look and feel' claims by Apple, (supported by the doctored photos) have been thrown out by court, for both the Galaxy Tab and the phones.
You know, I just thought about it, pulled out my own TX and WHO WOULD OF GUESSED?!?! The icons for the programs are ROUNDED!!! The device is ROUNDED!! There's a button in the middle bottom of the device!! HP needs to sue Apple now for being a TX patent troll. I think Apple shouldn't have hired all those lawyers from Rambus.
as Florian Mueller says on his blog, the ruling only applies in Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Netherlands.
It does not apply in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain because in those countries Apple has abandoned the patent registration process mid-way and it lapsed.
quote from INPADOC LEGAL status: EP 2059868 (A2) for those countries:
LAPSED BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT
apple suing over everything rectangular still... over gloss and rounded corners.. to any court who has the time to listen..
Some where across the internet apple fanboys pleasure themselves to this bs.
It really shows how draconian the patent & court systems are.
It shows how afraid of competition and unamerican apple has become.
Apple is trying to rewrite history if it thinks its the first to create a tablet or smartphone with a touchscreen. When you cannot innovate, just litigate. sue the competition, deny the consumer a better product, for as long as you can.
Apple and Microsoft played silly buggers over mouse driven GUI interfaces. Xerox kicked in and said behave or we will sue the Sh1t out of you both. They behaved.
Please let there be a 'Xerox' in this field too. It is needed to ensure the consumer is protected from the anal antics of the major players
No, apple, you not only screwed the pooch, you emerged from the other side of the pooch's mouth, and fired your wad everywhere. If an iphone existed in 2008 or 2009 for Sprint, I might have bought one. But, your bullying attitude, damaging Samsung and other tablet makers is PISSING ME OFF. NO iphone for me, EVER.
apple, not only is your firey wad from behind emerging from the pooch mouth, the force is ejecting the dog's blood toward the crowd and passersby.
Maybe, what Samsung should do is support manufacturers who make HIGHLY COMMODITIZED components and parts so people can construct their OWN smartphones and tablets. Then, suddenly, 25,000 or more variations will exist, and be the oil that loosens apple's grip off the virtual loin of any company trying to sell tablets that don't trap people in a walled garden.
Samsung and others may not be angels, but they DAMNED SURE deserve to play on a field where consumers WANT the products and where companies aren't barring their users from escaping the garden.
So aside from being unpatentably obvious, and easily by-passed by making the image viewer an 'optional' downloaded component (no longer a device, and unpatentable as mere software), you could actually get round this patent by making the thumbnails scroll horizontally with a vertical swipe to next/previous picture. How dismal
I do feel the device is VERY look-alike externally. I went to Best Buy last weekend and sort of was confused, except there was no middle-bottom dimple button.
Samsung should add ports or more ports, slots, and maybe something non-symmetrical just to further erode the onslaught that is just wasting Samsungs money fighting litigation.
Windows, doors, office partitions, tin cans, cardboard boxes, and filing cabinets are tough to innovate to extremes without losing money. But, computers, phones, toothbrushes, combs, and numerous other things simply by ergonomics, economics, attractiveness will have not much wiggle room.
I wen to Best Buy this morning and look at the TV, they all look a like...Sony, Samsung, LG...and they all had a moving images on them....so confusing....and all I wanted is a Sony TV...when does the madness stop......
I got Galaxy Tab cause I didn't want iPad, not because it look like iPad.
(No i didn't get that TV, i'll just stick to the internet Pron....I know they all look the same but oh well).
"SAMSUNG, maintain course and KEEP ON cloning the iPad".
That'd be counter to common sense. The Galaxy Tab II DID confuse me, but I found if FUNNY. I cannot afford to buy either, and personally, I don't want to be forced to use Wi-Fi, yet I am loath to sign up for another 2-year contract, so my confusion doesn't impact either company, as neither is getting my money.
Now, to me, the Lenovo tablet looks really nice because it is ThinkPad-ish and has accessory ports that *might* come in handy. I don't want to be compelled to move my data via bluetooth. Some don't mind. Lenovo found it economically sound to do so, and some others did, too. That the Galaxy tab 2 looks like an iPad is a calculated risk Samsung took, and, seemingly, it is not ultimately the big worry anymore. It now seems the SOFTWARE (which seemingly will be rectified by software changes) is the issue. But, depending on the court, it very EASILY could have been deemed that the Tab II is sufficiently close enough to confuse.
However, at $499 a pop, only a dolt would buy either tablet and think it was the other's tablet being bought. The sales rep would be discussing warranties, benefits, accessories, air charge rates, user interfaces, training on offer, and so many more details as to make it clear to a Samsung consumer that is was not an iPad. And, honestly, HOW MANY iPad pursuers or Apple fans and consumers would by something that LOOKED like an iPad but WASN'T an iPad when the purchaser clearly said s/he is intent on having an iPad?
All those east coast temblors and minor quakes were caused by Steve Jobs' jumping up and down and throwing fit that some of his USA-annointed patents were tossed out in parts of Europe due to apple's failure to submit translations or pay required fees... Amazing. Going thru ALL the trouble to be 'better' or 'different' and fracking up on the paperwork.
...have been slapped down for this 'look and feel' nonsense I hope Meizu will finally release their M9 in Europe. Top end android phone with the kind of low price you'd expect from an obscure Chinese manufacturer. It does look a little too much like an iphone 4 for comfort though.
I just can't believe you can patent the sliding of a picture from one side of a screen to the other. I assume that the left to right wipe on PowerPoint and other slide presentations is also banned now?
APPLE YOU ARE PATHETIC AND THE MORE YOU DO THIS KIND OF STUFF THE MORE YOU WILL BE SEEN AS SUCH - I was going to buy a Mac later this year but if you keep this up you can forget it....
That exists in Linux... I forgot what app it is, but I use it subconsciously out of fun... Oh, yeh, in Compiz, I used it in one of the Metisse effects, too. Way the hell back in 2007, IIRC.
How the hell can a company's legal team expect to get away with this crap?
In Compiz and Metisse, once you have the effect settings just so, then, IIRC, right-clicking or a shortcut key and a right click with dragging off center makes the window snap and bounce. AFAIAC, a file manager window in the background snapping is not different than the photo or the app containing the photo. The judge seeing this case should be informed of the prior art existence of this effect.
So if this is the patent that has been enforced. http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP
What's that portable glass panel displaying thumbnail images which are then manipulated by a computer program with hand gestures doing at 00:37 in this YouTube clip? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ
Samsung really must get some better lawyers.
There's already a small update underway that will kill this patent suit anyway, so no major issues here. I have now actually taken it upon myself to start a crusade against all Apple products (no, even more then I've done up till now). I'm calling for a general boycott of any and all Apple products, as for anything they make, there's a competing product that's not made by these semi-scientologists.
Please people, leave all that Apple crap to the fanbois and rejoin us in the civilized world, no good will ever come from using Apple products.
"wherein the different photographic image is selected in accordance with a scrolling gesture comprising a substantially horizontal movement of user contact with the touch screen display"
(Which, while only a tiny extract, appears to be the crux of the patent).
So, albeit in a very specific context, that's basically scrolling, then.
If using a mouse, you'd be clicking and holding the button down, and moving the mouse to drag the display in one direction, but here what Apple have done is said is that if you use your finger on a touchscreen instead of using a mouse, and the displayed content is thumbnails, then THOU SHALT NOT SCROLL.
..or is anyone else so sick and tired of Apples arsy attitude, their over priced toys, the anal ill informed banter of fanboi zombies, and all the pointless trivia everyday on IT sites about apples legal nazi's - this company has no integrity, it's just a greedy, whiny, underhanded producer of 'style over content' gadgetry. I used to think they were ok (technically, they are) I would even have recommended them to aged or dull relatives (saves me having to explain the more complex Windows OS to them, and saves me having to attend for repairs when they do something stupid - I can say, soz, i don't know anything about them, and point them to a Mac shop :-)
I will never buy another apple product or provide support or advise.
total fruit based FAIL
If this really is easily rectified through a software update, then samsung are the major winners in this case. The are getting masses of free publicity and apple are being made to look like petty bullies. The end result will be more sales for samsung and a tarnished image for apple.
...I had my eye on a S2 when upgrade season rolls around, it's not quite yet, so hopefully this will be sorted quick sharp by a common sense judge (oxymoron I know). If not, then I know for certain that I won't be getting an iPhone, I can't abide the way that Apple conduct business, they never actually innovate any more, just stifle the innovators until they have caught up.
"The Galaxy Tab running Android 3.0 does not have the offending photo viewing interface"
I don't understand that. I've Android 2.3 on HTC Desire HD and Android 3.2 on Asus Transformer Tablet and the scrolling in the HTC gallery app seems identical to the Asus. (Also applies to V 3.0 and 3.1 which didn't change this AFAIK)
Whilst we are on the subject - I had 2 iphones before the HTC, 3G and 3GS (my wife and daughter now have them) and I don't miss them at all. There's nothing I could do on them, that I cannot do on the HTC, and the OS is stable and runs for weeks and weeks on end continously.
I remember also the Apple 3G crashing now and then. I was going to get the iPhone 4, but worked out that 2 years 3G service with internet access at 3GB/Month was much cheaper than buying the iPhone 4 as pay as you go!
There's plenty I CAN do with the HTC that I could not do with the Apple. View flash web sites, for example. Install what I want. Write my own programmes easily, and give then to my friends to install on thier android phones. The same applies to the Asus, versus an iPad.
The only phone I would currently consider now would be a Galaxy S2.
As for these software patents, well they are ridiculous, and I always beleved they were not allowed in Europe, especially such trivial ones as the one that Apple did succeed with.
Looking round the internet it appears that a lot of Apple fans have been upset by recent actions by Apple. I am sure they belived that Apple didn't need to take action against such trivial matters, and would continue to try and lead the market by innovation, rather than incrimination and bully boy tactics, and I would agree with them. Having no competition is no good for anyone, dedicated Apple users included.
To quote from Webwereld.nl
"Android 3.x maakt geen inbreuk
De inbreuk geldt dus alleen voor Samsung's smartphones die Android 2.3 draaien. Android 3.x, dat op de tablet draait, maakt geen inbreuk."
Which translates approximately as:
Android 3.x does not infringe (the Apple patent)
The (patent) infringement is only relevent for Samsung's smartphones that run Android 2.3. Android 3.0, as used by the Galaxy Tab does not infringe the patent.
I've never been an Apple hater. Microsnot, OTOH ...
But I'm fast becoming one.
As others have said, where do Apple innovate? Clever design and great marketing, sure, but innovate? I don't see much.
Apple are starting to make Microsoft look good (and, which is really, really annoying to a MS hater, Bill Gates is a great philanthropist, damn him). Also I'm starting to think that the Samsung products must be miles better than the Apple competition. Time to go and buy one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022