Samsung Galaxy smartphones banned from sale in Europe in Apple suit - Page 2

Originally Posted by sranger

Well,

I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...

I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL

Originally Posted by walshbj

What if Galaxy phones became the new Coors and were highly coveted as irresistable forbidden contraband delivered by smugglers?

Originally Posted by d-range

Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?

Originally Posted by irnchriz

No reason for Samsung to continue to do this. They just need to make peace with Apple and tweak their designs a bit. Samsung should never have let it go this far.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

Originally Posted by jragosta

OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.

Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.

Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone

And the Nokia 7710?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.

If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.

Originally Posted by cooki3s

The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.

Originally Posted by cooki3s

The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.


As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.


As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.

Originally Posted by cooki3s

You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.

Originally Posted by cooki3s

As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:

". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.

The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

By the way it was written, I thought he was implying that there was a great underground desire for Coors in Europe. I can see how what I said makes no sense if that's not what was meant.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:

". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.

The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."

Originally Posted by umumum

my law:

intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable

Originally Posted by d-range

Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?

Originally Posted by Jexus

"A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008."

"It was first announced on December 12, 2006."

Why don't you try reading the article first next time.....

Originally Posted by umumum

intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.

It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.

Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.

This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.

Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.

Originally Posted by jragosta

So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg

I have never stated that it looks like it, just saying that your statement about the release date is incorrect. The prada isn't even mentioned in the court order.

If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.

The judge is just going over the design in parts; the comment about the icons is a part of why he/she thinks the patent isn't applicable. The judge also covers side views, back, front, things like audio jack placement, logo placement, etc.

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.

It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.

Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.

This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.

Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.

Originally Posted by Galbi

At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.

You, on the other hand, have none of that.

How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?

Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?

For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".

From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?

I'm sorry that Santa Claus wasn't real.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.

If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.

Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.

If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.

Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.

Originally Posted by d-range

Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?

Originally Posted by carolinehill

Its a very Shocking news for Samsung Galaxy smart phones buyers as they will not get such good business Phone.

Originally Posted by Doctor David

The photo viewer issue the judge ruled on in this case applies to all android models. Does anyone know if samsung can make the changes itself or do they need google to do it?

Originally Posted by jragosta

Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.

The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.



That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).

Originally Posted by hill60

Maybe they could get Skyhook to do it, they fit well in Android's "open" system.