But that ruling came before Apple was actually awarded the patent for "slide to unlock". Apple was awarded the patent in Oct.2011. The Dutch ruling (concerning the "slide to unlock") in favor of Samsung, came in Aug. 2011. So obviously the Dutch was wrong. The patent was not invalidated by any prior art. Not yet at least.
If you think it thru you will realize that you've misunderstood something. In this case you've confused the granting of an EU patent with the US version granted 10/11 you've referenced. If Apple didn't have an EU patent at the time how could they have asserted it against Samsung in Europe?
EDIT: I'll include the link to the Apple "slide-to-unlock" patent in Europe. Note the date: 2008.
Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.
Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.
This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed.
As you mentioned, and in my opinion (shared by Ars) the potential losers are smartphone users who might be unable to buy a phone that actually has all the features they want due to all these cross-claims of patents infringement.
This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed.
As you mentioned, and in my opinion (shared by Ars) the potential losers are smartphone users who might be unable to buy a phone that actually has all the features they want due to all these cross-claims of patents infringement.
I agree with you! I have owned several phones on from boths sides of this issue. BUT I really don't care who makes the phone as long as it has the features i want! Wouldn't it be awesome to have a phone that had all the best features of both major mobile phone OSes? The customers would benfit from this type of scenario. I know I left out all the R&D that goes into those features etc.....ect....
If you think it thru you will realize that you've misunderstood something. In this case you've confused the granting of an EU patent with the US version granted 10/11 you've referenced. If Apple didn't have an EU patent at the time how could they have asserted it against Samsung in Europe?
EDIT: I'll include the link to the Apple patent in Europe. Note the date: 2008.
But the question remains valid. Would the Dutch (I believe it was actually just a Judge) still rule in favor of Samsung today, based on the premise that Apple "slide to unlock" patent in the EU is most likely (or will likely be found) invalid due to prior art, now that Apple also has a US patent for "slide to unlock"? Having a US patent does carry some weight in the EU. Yes? Germany has no problem enforcing Apple "slide to unlock" patent on Motorola recently. Isn't Germany part of the same EU patent system? Or does every EU country have their own patent office?
But the question remains valid. Would the Dutch (I believe it was actually just a Judge) still rule in favor of Samsung today, based on the premise that Apple "slide to unlock" patent in the EU is most likely (or will likely be found) invalid due to prior art, now that Apple also has a US patent for "slide to unlock"? Having a US patent does carry some weight in the EU. Yes? Germany has no problem enforcing Apple "slide to unlock" patent on Motorola recently. Isn't Germany part of the same EU patent system? Or does every EU country have their own patent office?
The German Court made no judgement on validity. They operate under standards a bit different from most in Europe and were primarily concerned with whether a patent existed.
Some here give significant weight to FOSSPatents views, so I'll post his opinion for those that wish to know what he thinks:
"I believe that Samsung's defense against the slide-to-unlock patent could very well also convince U.S. juries."
He also believes that most patents are invalid as written, so the fact that one is granted isn't proof that it was properly granted and legitimate. That's a statement of his I agree with, tho 1/2 being invalid might be a stretch. I dunno.
EDIT: A minor correction to what Mueller said:
"The big problem with the American and German approach is that in this industry, a majority of all granted patent claims are invalid as granted."
If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?
See the workaround that Apple provided. As long as your device is the one that initiates the sync, it's OK. So set your device to sync once per hour (or whatever time you choose). This simply eliminates the push synchronization.
Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.
Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.
This is Global Thermonuclear War. Steve would not have started it unless he knew he could be the winner.
Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their
"slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.
1) It is a gesture, ie. it has to be done as a swipe in one go, like go back from the now playing screen in the music app, not like changing home screen pages (1:1)
2) On the NNN1, it is a generic OS-wide gesture for "Yes", the opposite is "No", and you can just press the "Yes" or "No" keys on the device instead. Apple has nothing remotely like this.
3) Whilst not sliding your finger all the way across the NNN1 will not unlock, this is a deliberate limitation of its weird 9x9 grid of IR sensors (similar to the Surface bathtub), not because it has an "unlocking zone" like apple's patent (and let's not forget, implementation)
4) The NNN1 provides no visualisation of any movement, just a very feature-phone-esque padlock screen. It may seem superficially similar, but is much more similar to "Press Unlock then *" than it is to "Slide to Unlock".
</RANT>
The gesture they use is also a complete one-to-one copy of the gesture that was used on the early Palm products, which was itself a rip off of the same thing on the Newton so it all comes back to Apple again anyway.
This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed....
If you read the hundreds of *more* intelligent replies on that article which all basically take the author to task for distorting the facts, you might get a different view.
It's worth nothing that the article in question wasn't written by any of the long-time "core" Ars Technica staff either. It's a very unusual, very poorly written and researched article that takes a very biased position. I'm not alone in being very surprised that they even printed it.
I did not realize Moto owned "push"; how does this affect MS ActiveSync?
It seems likely this is a chess move as Germany is th targeted location; German laws seem very favorable to an injection first, investigation second approach. Apple likewise has used this approach.
In the meantime, this doesn't seem to preclude "push" in general, but only for iCloud email accounts; Exchange accounts should be fine, no?
If you read the hundreds of *more* intelligent replies on that article which all basically take the author to task for distorting the facts, you might get a different view.
It's worth nothing that the article in question wasn't written by any of the long-time "core" Ars Technica staff either. It's a very unusual, very poorly written and researched article that takes a very biased position. I'm not alone in being very surprised that they even printed it.
I try to avoid the comments section just as I do at Engadget. There are generally too many from fanboys on either side that can't see any middle so I concentrate more on the articles and ideas themselves. Since you mentioned the facts were distorted and called out in the comments, I did take a look. I just don't see what you're referring to.
Some were of the opinion that Apple wasn't given enough credit and instead of the Simon more should have been said about the Newton. There's also comments that Apple had people working on groundfloor tech at the same time others were too, tho often without any citation. That's really of no matter. I don't see anyone disputing that the iPhone was made possible by building on the efforts and ideas of a lot of people with no connection to Apple.
Not everyone will agree with the opinions in it, but the facts themselves don't appear to be disputed. If your biggest complaint is that it wasn't pro-Apple enough then that doesn't mean it was either inaccurate or biased would it?
1. What about the story stands out to you as "poorly written and researched"?
Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.
I'm glad I don't depend on Apple services. I use them but not as mission critical applications. I just can't depend on them. I had eWorld.com mail address which they canceled, then .mac which changed to .me. Now I'm supposed to change to iCloud, except wait, it might be terminated due to a patent violation. No thanks. I'll stick with my home grown Linux solutions for mission critical services.
As far as push is concerned getting mail promptly is no problem. It is the contacts and calendars that is the real pain in the ass to have the rug pulled out from under you.
This stuff is getting so old. Everyone borrows, it is evident. Slide to unlock, yep Android "borrowed" it but what about iOS 5 "borrowing" Androids notification drop down? Who cares? These are all great features. Apple is not selling phones based on these small nuances, they sell because they have the best eco system on the planet. Android is not selling well because of these nuances, they sell because they are relatively inexpensive and highly customizable. Why can the consumer not win for a change?
Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.
...
I wonder if this had anything to do with the two hour iCloud, Siri, apple.com, and Apple forum outage we had yesterday.
Kind of funny how if things like this don't affect the US press, they are rarely mentioned.
Comments
But that ruling came before Apple was actually awarded the patent for "slide to unlock". Apple was awarded the patent in Oct.2011. The Dutch ruling (concerning the "slide to unlock") in favor of Samsung, came in Aug. 2011. So obviously the Dutch was wrong. The patent was not invalidated by any prior art. Not yet at least.
If you think it thru you will realize that you've misunderstood something. In this case you've confused the granting of an EU patent with the US version granted 10/11 you've referenced. If Apple didn't have an EU patent at the time how could they have asserted it against Samsung in Europe?
EDIT: I'll include the link to the Apple "slide-to-unlock" patent in Europe. Note the date: 2008.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...964022A1&KC=A1
Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.
This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...the-iphone.ars
As you mentioned, and in my opinion (shared by Ars) the potential losers are smartphone users who might be unable to buy a phone that actually has all the features they want due to all these cross-claims of patents infringement.
Motorola is absolutely right to go after copycats...
Ah, the irony.
This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...the-iphone.ars
As you mentioned, and in my opinion (shared by Ars) the potential losers are smartphone users who might be unable to buy a phone that actually has all the features they want due to all these cross-claims of patents infringement.
I agree with you! I have owned several phones on from boths sides of this issue. BUT I really don't care who makes the phone as long as it has the features i want! Wouldn't it be awesome to have a phone that had all the best features of both major mobile phone OSes? The customers would benfit from this type of scenario. I know I left out all the R&D that goes into those features etc.....ect....
If you think it thru you will realize that you've misunderstood something. In this case you've confused the granting of an EU patent with the US version granted 10/11 you've referenced. If Apple didn't have an EU patent at the time how could they have asserted it against Samsung in Europe?
EDIT: I'll include the link to the Apple patent in Europe. Note the date: 2008.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...964022A1&KC=A1
But the question remains valid. Would the Dutch (I believe it was actually just a Judge) still rule in favor of Samsung today, based on the premise that Apple "slide to unlock" patent in the EU is most likely (or will likely be found) invalid due to prior art, now that Apple also has a US patent for "slide to unlock"? Having a US patent does carry some weight in the EU. Yes? Germany has no problem enforcing Apple "slide to unlock" patent on Motorola recently. Isn't Germany part of the same EU patent system? Or does every EU country have their own patent office?
But the question remains valid. Would the Dutch (I believe it was actually just a Judge) still rule in favor of Samsung today, based on the premise that Apple "slide to unlock" patent in the EU is most likely (or will likely be found) invalid due to prior art, now that Apple also has a US patent for "slide to unlock"? Having a US patent does carry some weight in the EU. Yes? Germany has no problem enforcing Apple "slide to unlock" patent on Motorola recently. Isn't Germany part of the same EU patent system? Or does every EU country have their own patent office?
The German Court made no judgement on validity. They operate under standards a bit different from most in Europe and were primarily concerned with whether a patent existed.
Some here give significant weight to FOSSPatents views, so I'll post his opinion for those that wish to know what he thinks:
"I believe that Samsung's defense against the slide-to-unlock patent could very well also convince U.S. juries."
He also believes that most patents are invalid as written, so the fact that one is granted isn't proof that it was properly granted and legitimate. That's a statement of his I agree with, tho 1/2 being invalid might be a stretch. I dunno.
EDIT: A minor correction to what Mueller said:
"The big problem with the American and German approach is that in this industry, a majority of all granted patent claims are invalid as granted."
For God's sake.......
If push is unavailable, does calendar & address book auto syncing not work?
See the workaround that Apple provided. As long as your device is the one that initiates the sync, it's OK. So set your device to sync once per hour (or whatever time you choose). This simply eliminates the push synchronization.
Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.
Motorola has no choice but to enforce their IP!
Apple stole it.
Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.
Where else did Apple steal Motorola's tech? Can Motorola get iPush shut down in other countries too?
Hate to sound like a broken record but Apple's 'nuclear' litigation strategy will invaraibliy result in painful stalemates or if they're playing poker, I'll see your patent and raise you two more. The winners are the lawyers and the losers are the consumers that aren't able to use the promised services and features.
This is Global Thermonuclear War. Steve would not have started it unless he knew he could be the winner.
Some here give significant weight to FOSSPatents views, so I'll post his opinion for those that wish to know what he thinks:
"I believe that Samsung's defense against the slide-to-unlock patent could very well also convince U.S. juries."
Foss is always right.
Apple's slide to unlock patent is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Would the uninformed please stop bringing up the awful POS NeoNode N1. Their
"slide to unlock" bears little to no resemblance to the Apple patent.
1) It is a gesture, ie. it has to be done as a swipe in one go, like go back from the now playing screen in the music app, not like changing home screen pages (1:1)
2) On the NNN1, it is a generic OS-wide gesture for "Yes", the opposite is "No", and you can just press the "Yes" or "No" keys on the device instead. Apple has nothing remotely like this.
3) Whilst not sliding your finger all the way across the NNN1 will not unlock, this is a deliberate limitation of its weird 9x9 grid of IR sensors (similar to the Surface bathtub), not because it has an "unlocking zone" like apple's patent (and let's not forget, implementation)
4) The NNN1 provides no visualisation of any movement, just a very feature-phone-esque padlock screen. It may seem superficially similar, but is much more similar to "Press Unlock then *" than it is to "Slide to Unlock".
</RANT>
The gesture they use is also a complete one-to-one copy of the gesture that was used on the early Palm products, which was itself a rip off of the same thing on the Newton so it all comes back to Apple again anyway.
This ArsTechnica article from yesterday is suggested reading for anyone claiming Android "stole" from iOS or vice-versa. No fanboy claims on either side but instead a very well-balanced, plainly written opinion piece with a great timeline on how our smartphones developed....
If you read the hundreds of *more* intelligent replies on that article which all basically take the author to task for distorting the facts, you might get a different view.
It's worth nothing that the article in question wasn't written by any of the long-time "core" Ars Technica staff either. It's a very unusual, very poorly written and researched article that takes a very biased position. I'm not alone in being very surprised that they even printed it.
It seems likely this is a chess move as Germany is th targeted location; German laws seem very favorable to an injection first, investigation second approach. Apple likewise has used this approach.
In the meantime, this doesn't seem to preclude "push" in general, but only for iCloud email accounts; Exchange accounts should be fine, no?
If you read the hundreds of *more* intelligent replies on that article which all basically take the author to task for distorting the facts, you might get a different view.
It's worth nothing that the article in question wasn't written by any of the long-time "core" Ars Technica staff either. It's a very unusual, very poorly written and researched article that takes a very biased position. I'm not alone in being very surprised that they even printed it.
I try to avoid the comments section just as I do at Engadget. There are generally too many from fanboys on either side that can't see any middle so I concentrate more on the articles and ideas themselves. Since you mentioned the facts were distorted and called out in the comments, I did take a look. I just don't see what you're referring to.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...the-iphone.ars
Some were of the opinion that Apple wasn't given enough credit and instead of the Simon more should have been said about the Newton. There's also comments that Apple had people working on groundfloor tech at the same time others were too, tho often without any citation. That's really of no matter. I don't see anyone disputing that the iPhone was made possible by building on the efforts and ideas of a lot of people with no connection to Apple.
Not everyone will agree with the opinions in it, but the facts themselves don't appear to be disputed. If your biggest complaint is that it wasn't pro-Apple enough then that doesn't mean it was either inaccurate or biased would it?
1. What about the story stands out to you as "poorly written and researched"?
2. What in the story shows extreme bias?
Sad to say but I'm glad I don't live in Germany. My life practically depends on Push.
I'm glad I don't depend on Apple services. I use them but not as mission critical applications. I just can't depend on them. I had eWorld.com mail address which they canceled, then .mac which changed to .me. Now I'm supposed to change to iCloud, except wait, it might be terminated due to a patent violation. No thanks. I'll stick with my home grown Linux solutions for mission critical services.
As far as push is concerned getting mail promptly is no problem. It is the contacts and calendars that is the real pain in the ass to have the rug pulled out from under you.
Apple announced on Friday that it had shut down iCloud push services in Germany, explaining that the move was the direct result of a successful Motorola bid for an injunction against the cloud syncing service over data pushing technology.
...
I wonder if this had anything to do with the two hour iCloud, Siri, apple.com, and Apple forum outage we had yesterday.
Kind of funny how if things like this don't affect the US press, they are rarely mentioned.