Apple wins injunction against Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbyrn 

"Google sues tiny indie label"

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/06/google_sues_blues_label/

Sorry, still not a competitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage, but it was pretty funny and also pretty predictable to read some of the whiny and hateful comments being made by the butthurt Fandroids there. Hopefully there are more bans and injunctions coming in the future, it makes me feel good to see other ignorant people mad.

And you are just as low as them now for the comments you just said.  Face it, Apple is afraid of competition and so they try to sue anyone that gets in their way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nagromme 

So what are the specific issues in this instance? UI stuff? Packaging? Cables/accessories? The handset hardware itself actually seems reasonably different for once!

 

(Obviously I realize that the whole thing exists in imitation of Apple regardless... but that’s not the same as specific claims that would lead to an injunction.)

Read the article. the patents are there for you to see. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetz 

I gotta hand it to Apple.  Kudos on the timing.  And just as the Galaxy Nexus drops to $350 too.....

the Judge is the only one that gets credit for this. She's had this motion for a while and handed down her decision today. Apple was no part of the timing

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacBook Pro 


As it should be. Innovate, don't recreate.
Google literally has dozens of pending lawsuits of which this is only one.

Which lawsuits has Google initiated? Certainly not dozens, nor even half a dozen. There's one (perhaps two?) against a government agency, and apparently a couple over the years against companies who were not competition for reasons other than keeping them out of their "market". Did they inherit some on-going cases with the MM purchase? Yes they did. For you to extend that into a claim that Google filed suit is disingenuous. Find the cases that Google themselves filed and then do another count. Try to get past 4 in over a dozen years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by animatedude 

can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?

So this is a prelim injunction. Basically Apple went to the Judge and said "hey so why should Samsung be able to sell their phones and make phone when they stole our tech" and the Judge agreed that yes it was very possible that that would be the final vote at the actual case and is barring Samsung from selling this phone. But right now that is just the Judge's opinion and the jury could decide otherwise. And if they decide that then in hindsight it was wrong to have barred the sales of the phone.  So Apple has to bank money with the court that will be used to pay Samsung if Apple loses. It's a common practice in this kind of case. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacBook Pro 


Apparently not. If Google thought the Notification Center was a copy of Google's prior art they should sue. As far as I know Google hasn't sued, nor have Google's legal entities sued them for patent infringement regarding the Notification Center.

exactly. And it isn't really like they took the look and feel or the coding that makes it work. 

so many folks are yelling about how Android's grid isn't the same as iOS cause you have to hit an icon to make it pop up so turn it around and look at the two versions of notification. in Android you have your little badge bar and then you swipe down to see details. in iOS you see badges on the actual app etc. not the same structure. 

google did file for a patent like 4 years ago but it hasn't been granted yet. Which is a factor in why they haven't sued because you can't sue over a patent you don't actually have. But one wonders why it hasn't been granted yet and exactly what they are claiming in the patent. And whether Apple, which has a lot of patents in their portfolio might have a similar one pre the Google application. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by specter2009 

Face it, Apple is afraid of competition and so they try to sue anyone that gets in their way.

Nope, when you invent things, you patent certain things, so that you will have legal protection in case somebody else comes along and decides to implement your ideas without your permission or compensation. That's how things work in civilized, modern societies.

If people couldn't protect their ideas, then nobody would ever spend any time and money on coming up with any new ideas, if other people could simply rip them off afterwards with little or no effort at all. No company would bother to spend years of research and a ton of money on making new products, nobody would bother to discover any new medicines etc. Millions of people would die if we lived by ignorant Fandroid rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


Regardless as to how want to cleverly replace nouns until the statement is technically correct your premise has no barring on anything. I've never sued anyone but that doesn't mean I'm more altruistic, fair or more in-the-right than someone who has sued another.
A company that feels their IP is being violated should seek legal action so each case needs to be considered individually. That means the number of times a company has sued or has been sued should ever be made part of any reasonable discussion.

Of course it is. Otherwise you'd have to deny the existence of individuals and/or companies who use the courts for a living. Slip and fall claims, phantom car accident injuries, the neighbor who sues over the tree in your yard, extending all the way to companies like Core Wireless whose entire business plan revolves around mandatory infringement suits at  Microsoft and Nokia's behest. Some people and companies have a reputation for litigation rather than negotiation, quick to call the attorney for any perceived slight or trivial injury. Others do not even tho they may suffer the same harm or the same insult.  Google's approach is pretty clear. Courtrooms aren't their first choice when disagreements occur. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 

 

Posner has a terrible record as far as I'm concerned. Look. I don't care how many books or arguments he's made:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15cncwarren.html?_r=1&ref=richardaposner

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/books/review/Ferguson-t.html?ref=richardaposner

 

In addition, he loses all credibility with me for his Keynesian positions.

You loose all credibility with me for this nutty post. 

http://youtu.be/NMiY1kSTHZw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

Nope, when you invent things, you patent certain things, so that you will have legal protection in case somebody else comes along and decides to implement your ideas without your permission or compensation. That's how things work in civilized, modern societies.

 

If people couldn't protect their ideas, then nobody would ever spend any time and money on coming up with any new ideas, if other people could simply rip them off afterwards with little or no effort at all. No company would bother to spend years of research and a ton of money on making new products, nobody would bother to discover any new medicines etc. Millions of people would die if we lived by ignorant Fandroid rules.

Then explain to me why Apple infringed on the Jail Break community and Android and is playing catchup and using Google's ideas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by specter2009 

Then explain to me why Apple infringed on the Jail Break community and Android and is playing catchup and using Google's ideas?

I've never claimed that Apple has never borrowed any ideas from other sources. If anybody believes that they have legitimate claims against Apple, then they are free to sue. I don't have any issues with that, as long as we're not talking about FRAND patents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubernabei 

Lets face it, Apple wouldn't be investing millions to continue to innovate and release the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S... if there wasn't healthy competition from Android phones.  Competition = good for the consumer like you and me.  Stop being a nerd.

talk about a reality distortion field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Of course it is. Otherwise you'd have to deny the existence of individuals and/or companies who use the courts for a living. Slip and fall claims, phantom car accident injuries, the neighbor who sues over the tree in your yard, extending all the way to companies like Core Wireless whose entire business plan revolves around mandatory infringement suits at  Microsoft and Nokia's behest. Some people and companies have a reputation for litigation rather than negotiation, quick to call the attorney for any perceived slight or trivial injury. Others do not even tho they may suffer the same harm or the same insult.  Google's approach is pretty clear. Courtrooms aren't their first choice when disagreements occur. 

• http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-57365978-248/motorola-sues-apple-over-iphone-4s-icloud/

no—i mean, yes. i mean—YES!

(420 time.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacBook Pro 

a device...is in competition with
a company...

you see, there's the flaw in your argument—huge—huge flaw—some would say gargantuan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specter2009 

Face it, Apple is afraid of competition and so they try to sue anyone that gets in their way.

Fandroid 1: "Apple sues because they're afraid of competition"

Fandroid 2: "Apple sues because they're a patent troll"

Well which is it? Because it can't be both.

Patent trolls don't use their patents to strategically differentiate their products (if they even sell products), because patent licensing is their source of income.

If you sell products using those patents, then patent litigation involving those patents serves to protect innovation. After all, that's why patents are granted. Apple is afraid of IP theft, not "competition."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellacool 


Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.

The also obtained the people too. And if you notice, they didn't just buy the technology and cram it into iOS. They made improvements and integrated it into iOS. Siri, pre-Apple, was a starting point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeniThings 

One of my animators is from South Korea and she just told me she's embarrissed to be Korean. Seriously. She said Samsung is a huge and corrupt mega company who even make cars (only for Korea) and are run by a mafia family who's CEOs have been jailed but were quickly released because of their wealth and deep ties to government. She said she had first hand looks at Samsung's tablets when they first came out and was amazed by what Apple ripoffs they were. She said the Galaxy Tab she saw was basically an iPad, right down to the packaging.
She also said Samsung is relentless in their pursuit to be a monopoly and routinely break the law to get what they want.
It's no wonder Samsung has no problem stealing Apple's IP. They're basically crooks to begin with.

Did she see one of these too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage

You should be right at home at Engadget...

But instead you choose the tech world's stormfront...aka Appleinsider...

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

 

exactly. And it isn't really like they took the look and feel or the coding that makes it work. 

 

 

If that's how the world worked Apple would literally have no case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacBook Pro 


He conveniently ignores any post which contradicts his self affirming reality. I already posted several examples earlier. A very good reason to have such people blocked.
Google generally initiates lawsuits through partners and subsidiaries though. Google's model makes lawsuits almost completely unnecessary though as Google's products are consumers. You can't patent "consumers." You can patent data gathering technologies including the architecture and infrastructure but few care about the underpinnings of technology. Fortunately, few technology companies are contemptuous toward consumers enough to base their business model on compromising their integrity, morality and principles.

Citation needed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Which lawsuits has Google initiated?

What about Google "assigning" patents to HTC so HTC could sue Apple? Or is suing by proxy not the same thing as suing directly?

And what about Google officially backing up Motorola long before their acquisition was finalized (you know, where Google stood behind Moto's universally criticized 2.25% royalty demands).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellacool 


Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.

As someone mentioned, Apple didn't just "buy" Siri - they buy companies and then integrate their IP into their own products/services. Just look at their acquisitions of PA Semi, Anobit or Chomp as examples.

However, Apple is a lightweight when compared to Google. There are currently 113 companies Google has bought. That must make Google "very innovative".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google

This sucks.

Not because of the Apple versus Samsung thing - frankly, Samsung has been more shameless than most in knocking off Apple products. I thought that the Galaxy Tab lawsuit was pretty silly, but then I was in Best Buy, and I walked past one and did a double take - my first thought was "something looks wrong with that iPad". Compare this to the Kindle Fire, or the Asus Transformer - at least the other companies are trying something different.

But anyway, I digress. This sucks because it's the first time that a software patent has been this heavily enforced, and that's a scary thing. Read the patent in question - it's trivial, it's intentionally vague, and it's overly broad. Yet this is the world that we are in.

So what happens when this sort of practice becomes commonplace? At least Apple and Google and Samsung and Microsoft have the money to defend themselves, but when little companies get caught in the crossfire, it'll destroy them. Samsung is going to survive this, so is Google, and so is Apple. With this heating up, it is very much going to stifle innovation. Imagine you wanted to create the next great mobile operating system. You were going to write it from scratch - the question is, could you? Every interaction, every tiny feature (bounciness on lists, tapping the screen, having a popup window of apps, long pressing items, etc., etc.) is patented. For the most part, this was reactive - a mutually assured destruction strategy - but Apple is now the first real player to press the launch button, and things are going to change.

Samsung deserves a lot of the criticism that they get - even now I think that they bring less to the table than other Android manufacturers in terms of design innovation. Litigation through the enforcement of vague patents is not the way to do this, it's going to hurt everybody in the end. Licensing fees will increase the cost of devices. Small companies will stay out of the market and decrease competition. Patent lawsuits will decrease payroll at companies and cause reduced employment. Everybody loses.

Except for the patent lawyers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacBook Pro 


May I suggest reviewing the patent again? i recognize the patent language and images which describe the framework of Siri. This is one of the important components of Siri and the reason we don't see this level of integration on competing platforms. The patent relates the unique architecture and infrastructure of Siri which was developed at the behest of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency by dozens of brilliant engineers at top engineering universities over a decade at an estimated cost of USD $200 million. I suggest that while much of the effort depends upon prior art the sum is greater than the parts.
I think there is a lot of innovation small companies can do but no mom and pop business is going to start designing or manufacturing mobile phones. Innovation actually seems to be growing at a very quick pace rather than slowing. The difference seems to be that large companies are quick to identify potential advantages in the marketplace and quickly acquire potentially revolutionary products and services whenever possible.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but while Siri is certainly covered by this patent, I feel like it doesn't just cover Siri.

When I was in university - before the iPhone was rumored to exist - I made a program that would tell you when someone was born. You would enter "Gandhi", and it would (with a little luck) say October 2, 1869. My technique was pretty simple: I kicked off a Google search for "When was X born?", crawled the first five results for dates (by matching MM/DD/YYYY and various permutations of that), and returned the most common date. This didn't work too well, but it worked sometimes and was fun to write. It took about 4 hours from idea to code complete, and maybe 100 lines of code.

From my understanding of the patent, my tool would also be infringing if it was released today. At a very abstract level, it is meta-search with a heuristic. While I am not claiming prior art - Siri is certainly much more advanced than this - it is pretty scary that the patent would cover my silly application as well. That's my problem with how broad it is. It could apply to nearly any filtering of search results, and it doesn't even mention any of the heuristics that are used, just "various heuristics" for filtering results.

"Apple has made a clear showing that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, it is likely to lose substantial market share in the smartphone market and to lose substantial downstream sales of future smartphone purchases and tag-along products," Judge Koh said in Friday's ruling.

Who is still buying the Samsung Galaxy Nexus? I can see "lose substantial market share" if this was a PI against the S3 that is currently selling millions, but the Galaxy Nexus???