What I'd like for Christmas....
Well actually I'd like it before then. A ban on Apple vs Samsung news from El Reg until 20th September.
US Judge Lucy Koh has postponed any decision to permanently ban sales of Samsung's mobiles until 6 December - just in time for the Christmas rush. The request to remove Sammy's gear from shop shelves came from Apple, which had just trounced its tech rival in their ongoing epic patent lawsuit. The judge said that since both …
Let's get this straight:
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was found not to infringe any patents and is due to be overturned on 20 Sept (I fail to see how it could be extended given the Jury clearly exhonourated it).
Save for the Galaxy SII (which is coming close to the end of it's retail shelf life) all of the other phones are no longer selling in any meaningful quantities to the 'ban' won't affect Samsung's P&L in any meaningful sense.
A pyric victory for Apple. Given the now-widely-reported-but-not-by-The-Register interview to Bloomber by the Jury Foreman it is almost a 'lay down misere' for a dismissal of verdict.
You'll be please to know that the Reg has stopped sending large intimidating men and woman around to it's readers houses and workplaces to force them to read articles about Samsung and Apple.
Instead, like many other individuals with a free will you can choose not to read the articles in future.
While this won't allow you to vent your frustration, a similar number of people will care what you think....
Seems the single head jury member that lead all the others into their decision based HIS decision on a flawed understanding of how prior art works.. There is no way this could stand, given that a) a single jury member influenced all the others.. b) his understaning of Prior art was flawed and inconsistent with the paperwork they were given (but clearly couldn't be arsed to read as they had already decided the outcome on day 1)
Mistrial in 22.214.171.124.1.....
Ah yes, Groklaw, that highly impartial (read: rabidly partisan in Samsung's favour) organ.
Try watching the full interview that the foreman gave Bloomberg ( http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jury-foreman-discusses-apple-samsung-trial-verdict-ikNjTofgRRecKM4cFXZoZA.html ), from which Groklaw cherry pick in an attempt to prove the verdict wrong. It ain't going to happen.
I did. I watched it a couple of times. On that man's logic, Samsung software will not run on Apple hardware, so Samsung can not infringe. Likewise, Apple does not infringe because Apple software can not run on Samsung hardware. Now, you go and watch it yourself, please, from beginning to end. Thanks.
Yowch - from the patenspostgrant article:
"After September 16th, defendants will have a choice to continue on to roll the dice at the district court with a jury trial of laypeople, or avail themselves of the new USPTO patentability trials of the AIA. The new trial proceedings of the AIA will be completed within 12-18 months of initiation and will be conducted before the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).
Unlike jurors, the decision makers of the PTAB are not laypeople. Rather, PTAB judges are experienced in the application of U.S. patent law and must additionally have an engineering and/or science background. In addition to the established expertise in technology and patent law, unlike the courts, PTAB judges do not accord patents a presumption of validity, nor do they require clear and convincing evidence to invalidate a patent. Indeed, patent claims are accorded a broadest reasonable interpretation at the USPTO, which makes them that much easier to invalidate."
Trans: If Samsung aren't retarded and push for an AIA/PTAB hearing (as is their right as defendant), Apple are fucked six ways from Sunday.
This is going to drag on for years!
Progress is always built on the shoulders of others. Trying to prevent this through dubious patents is pure protectionism. The entire Japanese motorcycle industry was built on the back of European motorcycle designs, and then improved upon.
BTW I couldn't help notice that a drag down notification bar put in an appearance on the iPhone in IOS4... I wonder where they got that idea from *cough* Android *cough*. Mind the dismount, those high horses are a dangerous thing to ride.
Oh yes, the notification bar. One thing that Google has applied for a patent in 2009 but not been granted so far.
When, and if, it is granted I'm sure Apple will have to change theirs enough so it doesn't infringe anymore, or they can license it from Google. That's how the industry works and Apple has to play that game like any other company (remember when Nokia sued Apple and got 600 million?)
How many features - many already granted - did Samsung copy however? More than 80 according to their own documents, and that's not even going into trade dress or design.
That's amazing. Apple seem to be granted patents for every random obvious thing they come up with and there's not a moment's delay, but Google come up with a functional design and put it into use and it takes three years. Rather appropriate that Ghostbusters was on Antique Code Show today, as this quote springs to mind:
"Do you know how much a patent clerk earns?"
Seems to me that Apple do, and they're happy to generously supplement that wage as the need arises.
I've heard it all now, not satisfied with claiming the judge and jury had been bought now you're moved on to claiming Apple has bought the patent office. The president himself can't be too far.
Reality however is patents take whatever time they take to get through, some of Apple's have taken much longer than that. But yes, keep coming up with excuses and ignoring the actual issues that got Samsung fingers burnt in this case.
ps: You'll have to explain how showing a notification at the top of the screen and pulling down box with past notification is less obvious than what Apple has patented, but maybe another day. I'm already over the daily dose of hypocrisy allowed by my doctor.
You'll have to explain how showing a notification at the top of the screen and pulling down box with past notification is less obvious than what Apple has patented, but maybe another day. I'm already over the daily dose of hypocrisy allowed by my doctor
It is no less obvious than round corners or "look and feel" characteristics that Apple is suing on. Somehow it is OK for Apple but not for google?
Also, the Brits copied a lot of German motorbike designs, like DKW. And the Germans probably copied features of the Czech Tatra T77 for the Beetle.... or 911 as some like to call the newer versions these days ;)
And why are Porsche, VW and Audi not suing each other for the Cayenne, Touareg and Q7? Something to do with them all being related companies and building all 3 in the same factory in Bratislava ;)
"And why are Porsche, VW and Audi not suing each other for the Cayenne, Touareg and Q7?" That's because Porche is practically owned by Volkswagen (soon to merge to VW as Porche was about to go titsup by trying to buy all shares of VW) and two latter ones belong to the VAG GmbH (Vokswagen-Audi Group). Also Seat and Bugatti are owned by Volkswagen. There might be also some other brands owned by VAG that I can not remember at the moment.
The only thing I have never got was the fact that Ford Galaxy was long time basically the same product with Seat Alhambra and Volkswagen Sahran. All were built in same Spanish factory and on top of the same chasssis. Only body and interior were changed according to the product specs.
No wonder my Bantam fell to bits.
There were a couple of bullet holes in the drawings.
The early (1950..1960) Japanese motorcycles did a lot of borrowing from Britbikes, and to a lesser extent German designs. And Suzuki gained quite a bit of technology when Ernst Degner defected from East Germany and went to work for them, bringing a fair pile of two-stroke knowhow with him (the DDR-based MZ factory had, at that time, arguably the best two-stroke engineering in the world, and despite shortcomings in manufacturing had managed to win a significant number of races). Don't know what kind and amount of fuss was raised by the DDR over this, but I doubt they filed lawsuits.
And then there's the Russian Ural motorcycle, based on a pre-war BMW. It's still debated whether Germany actually licensed the design (as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact), or that a number were smuggled out of Germany and reverse-engineered. Initially the Germans would likely have cared little if the latter was the case, and after
initiating their self-destruction declaring war on the Russians a lawsuit over a copied design wouldn't have had any additional impact whatsoever.
I remember how phones looked before the iPhone came out, and I remember all the doubts being expressed about a touch-screen phone when the iPhone did come out. It's success was not a foregone conclusion, though with 20-20 hindsight, the success of Apple's MP3 players would have been a hint. There were smart phones from Nokia, and phones did have screens with icons, but they weren't touch screens. Looking at iPhones and Android phones (I have a Galaxy SII), it is obvious to me that Google copied the iPhone look and feel. Which means that Google and/or Samsung did rip off Apple.
I say that while not being an Apple fan, because I have never liked Apple's closed system philosophy since day 1, back before they even had the first Mac. I will never buy an iPad because I am not going to be forced to transfer files through iTunes software, and also because I won't pay outrageous prices for more RAM. I admire the products, but consider them overpriced and too restrictive. So if a competitor makes something almost as good, without the restrictions, I'll buy it.
In the case of the Galaxy SII, in my opinion it is BETTER than an iPhone, in every respect.
So Google did rip off the look and feel, but then Samsung took the idea and ran with it, and has been making the phones better, which is the only way to actually get people to buy them. Nobody wants second best.
What bugs me is this: I have the sneaking suspicion that the courts support whichever side is based in their own country. Apple got ripped off on the iPhone name in China. Now I think Samsung has not gotten a fair hearing in the U.S. I'm not saying I think they should have won, I'm saying the U.S. jury was biased and probably had made up its mind to vote for the home-town hero regardless.
I have a couple of Apple MP3 players. But this lawsuit won't make me want to go out and buy more Apple products, quite the reverse.
"What bugs me is this: I have the sneaking suspicion that the courts support whichever side is based in their own country."
Didn't South Korea tell Samsung and Apple not to be naughty and fine both of them? Or is my memory a bit addled thanks to a stupid day of work....
The universe of people who had a non-smart Nokia phone or a Sony Ericsson phone with a small color screen, which did show icons for various functions, and cursor keys or a little nub to push with your thumb in order to select the icon, before then clicking some OK button or select button to pull up whatever that icon did. You might be thinking, duh, but my first mobile phone only had text, no graphics at all, and was totally menu driven. So I was making the point that Apple didn't invent the idea of using icons (versus a hierarchy of text menus), but they did pioneer the use of touch screens for activating those icons. See the difference? Perhaps you were born after text menus had died out.
Scott Pedigo - "So I was making the point that Apple didn't invent the idea of using icons (versus a hierarchy of text menus), but they did pioneer the use of touch screens for activating those icons. See the difference?"
So, my Sony Ericsson P800 (and all the P series) didn't have icons and a touch screen:
Nor all my Xda's which I had from the practically unusable original (2003?) to the Xda Exec and Xda mini S, which was released in 2005, nearly 2 years before the iphone.
Did Apple pioneer the pinch function, or did they pinch it?
I had a Sony_Ericsson_P800 back in the early 2000`s.
It had rounded corners and a touchscreen with a grid of icons. Prior art, or am I missing something?
Apple are so full of shit, I really hope google/samsung throw a spanner in the next Iphone launch by presenting something that gets it removed from sale.
What goes around comes around as the saying goes.
"Scott Pedigo - "So I was making the point that Apple didn't invent the idea of using icons (versus a hierarchy of text menus), but they did pioneer the use of touch screens for activating those icons. See the difference?"
2 words for you Scott - Palm Pilot. Palm was using icons on a touch screen a decade before the iphone was even thought of.
I remember how my Palm Tungsten T5 looked before the iPhone came out and I thought the iPhone looked just a little too similar. Sure, the iPhone was optimized to be used with your finger instead of stylus and had multitouch but the form factor was close and the interface was a grid of icons. I chalked up as a natural evolution of technology and didn't cry foul.
Agree 100% about Samsung et al. making better gear spooking Apple. And with it looking like an international trade war with folks taking sides, with "patents" as the official reason.
And yes, I don't think this is going to encourage anyone to buy Apple gear. After all this, why?
"Looking at iPhones and Android phones (I have a Galaxy SII), it is obvious to me that Google copied the iPhone look and feel"
You mean apart from having multiple homes screens as well as a launcher, the device theme being predominately black, widgets, facial recognition, different fonts being used, multiple 3rd party launcher/homescreens, etc etc etc
- ie completely different.
I call BS on you owning a Galaxy SII - you are too much of an Apple fanboi...
the Galaxy SII has a glass/metal case, external aerial that you need to hold in a particular way, the same size screen, weighs the same, and has the same operating system
After the careful application with a miniature disc cutter hobby tool and some very fine sanding my Samsung is now very much octagonal - does that mean I can keep it please Mr Apples. (I've also been along to the local patent office, so there)
Logo - cos i was wearin me safety goggles wern it.
Intellectual property is seriously out of control. All this legal nonsense is ultimately paid for by the consumer, whilst the leeches, ahem, lawyers, end up as winners on both sides. It's a disgrace.
Worth a look:
Orley Ashenfelter, David Bloom, "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game"
"There were smart phones from Nokia, and phones did have screens with icons, but they weren't touch screens. Looking at iPhones and Android phones (I have a Galaxy SII), it is obvious to me that Google copied the iPhone look and feel. Which means that Google and/or Samsung did rip off Apple."
Wrong assessment: Nokia launched 2003 infamous Series 90 7700 "ear phone" that was ridiculed out of market and upgraded to Nokia 7710 next year (2004). Not to mention Nokia 770 Internet Tablet (2006).
All of which were introduced before iPhone (2007).
More about Nokia product range:
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm sure Koh started the ball rolling by siding with Apple at the start.
The wise cracks were very much out of balance to a serious situation.
The whole thing is an only in America farce.
Apple have also swiped NFC with their new patent for an old new way to empty your wallet.
This post has been deleted by its author
How can anyone in Apple, Samsung or any other tech company claim to have originated any of this stuff? Touch screen tablet devices? Touch screen phones (in reality little more than shrunken touch screen tablets with phone capability)?
The concepts that these devices lean upon existed long before anyone had the technology necessary to put an actual device together. That's kind of the thing about science fiction, you know? PADDs, Tricorders, and so on and so forth. The concepts embodied in the fictional devices ultimately lead to real devices once the technology is there to support it.
As for obviousness, if you have a roughly pad sized touch screen device, and you're using a GUI related to a WIMP interface, then a grid of icons that you select by tapping is a completely obvious solution. So's that rectangular shape. I mean really none of this should be patentable at all, all this BS with software patents has gone too far, there are so many applications that the USPTO can't properly evaluate them, and then corporates choose to use these horribly weak, but granted, patents in legal action against their competition. Pretty bloody sad that they can;t compete with products and choose instead to compete with dubious patents in and attempt to bully competitors.
Pathetic. USPTO should be ashamed, US legislature should be ashamed, US courts should be ashamed, Apple should be ashamed. It's time that this nonsense stopped, patents are becoming meaningless.
I know that, you know that, every other person apart from iFans, some gimp who has an overly broad invalid patent himself, doesn't understand how they work then .somehow. got himself appointed jury foreman, and Lucy Koh, trying desperately to make sure no-one thinks she's siding with the Korean company know that.
To any sane person this is all bullshit. The only way Samsung could have copied Apple's trade dress was by selling phones branded as Apple iPhones. And then software shouldn't be patentable anyway.
Most courts have Rules and in these Rules are specifications for paperwork submitted to the court.
They also prefer printed material to handwritten submissions. Some even welcome CD/DVD filings.
I was sued by Sabre, the airline reservation people, and after some printer tweaking, fiddling with wont sizes and styles, and line spacing as well as carefully narrowing the margins, I found I could get almost a full page of single line spaced text into a court acceptable "double spaced" specification.
Fortunately, many courts do not stipulate fonts and the narrow versions really work wonders.
P.S. I won the case brought by Sabre.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021