or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google, Sprint file briefs opposing injunction of Samsung Galaxy Nexus
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google, Sprint file briefs opposing injunction of Samsung Galaxy Nexus

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Google and Sprint have submitted briefs in defense of Samsung and opposing a preliminary sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone that was recently granted to Apple.

District Court Judge Lucy Koh issued the injunction late last month on the grounds that the device likely infringes one of Apple's universal search patent. Though the district court initially denied a motion from Samsung to stay the ban while it sought an appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did grant temporary relief at least until Apple responds to the appeal motion later this week.

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reported on Tuesday that Google, which makes the Android operating system and partnered with Samsung on the Galaxy Nexus, and wireless carrier Sprint have filed briefs opposing the sales ban.

In its filing, Google dismissed the alleged infringement as a "trivial patented aspect of a single application on the phone" and claimed there was no evidence that the search feature had "influenced sales." The Mountain View, Calif., company did admit that Apple's iPhone and the Galaxy Nexus "may compete for the same customers," but it challenged the assumption that buyers of either device would look for the same features.

However, Mueller called the claim a "bit of a stretch," noting that Google's claim that unified search is trivial has been undermined by the fact that the "allegedly unimportant feature" hasn't simply been removed to avoid possible infringement.

Galaxy Nexus


In fact, Google revealed last week that it will "imminently" release a software patch intended to remove the contested feature from the Galaxy Nexus. Android Central reported on Tuesday that a recent "security update" for another flagship Samsung smartphone, the Galaxy S III, removed the ability to search locally on the phone from the homescreen's search bar.

The move was presumably an attempt to preemptively avoid any sales bans on the Galaxy S III, since Apple is also seeking an injunction against the device.

As for Sprint, the wireless operator claimed in its amicus curiae brief that it would suffer harm from an injunction of the Galaxy Nexus. The company also cautioned that the practice of preliminary injunctions against smartphones should not be a regular occurrence in the "smartphone wars."

In an effort to demonstrate its fairness, the carrier asserted that it would make the same arguments even in the event of a Samsung sales ban against Apple's iPhone. According to the report, Sprint believes it is an "unwitting victim."

Sprint claimed that it takes "hundreds of people approximately 9-12 months" to see a smartphone through to market and an injunction would "substantially and irreparably" harm Sprint because it would leave a "void" in its smartphone portfolio.

Mueller remarked that he "can understand" Sprint and other carriers' interest in keeping devices on the market, but he also said that he is sympathetic to Apple's efforts for preliminary injunction because patent litigation in the U.S. is "so incredibly slow."

Both Google and Samsung showed off the Galaxy Nexus last October, touting it as the reference device for Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich.

The rivalry between Apple and Samsung has spilled over into courtrooms in more than 10 countries. Samsung is also fighting a preliminary injunction in the U.S. against its Galaxy Tab tablet.

The current state of patent litigation has drawn the attention of the government. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on whether injunctions should be allowed for standards-essential patent claims.
post #2 of 25
Why didn't they ask Samsung to stop copying? Why did Google provide software that would entice Samsung to copy?
post #3 of 25
Good look with your next round of negotiations, Sprint.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #4 of 25

"Yes, we copied Apple but those features aren't what customers are looking for so we think the lawsuit should be thrown out."

Pffftt... they sink to new lows.

post #5 of 25

Searching through apps via search bar on the home screen was around before Apple's version. Apple simply patented it first. Please do not speak without knowing what you speak of.

post #6 of 25

Something this obvious and trivial should never be patentable.

post #7 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Why didn't they ask Samsung to stop copying? Why did Google provide software that would entice Samsung to copy?

Google didn't tell them to make Touch Wiz look so much like iOS.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Something this obvious and trivial should never be patentable.

If it is so trivial, then why not remove it or why build such a small thing into a phone and risk a lawsuit?
post #9 of 25

Unimportant feature? Then get rid of it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #10 of 25

Searching through apps via search bar on the home screen was around before Apple's version. Apple simply patented it first. Please do not speak without knowing what you speak of.

post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Good look with your next round of negotiations, Sprint.

 

I almost feel sorry for them. But then again as my granpappy would say 'Son, if you sleep with the town whore, you should expect to get crabs'

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Something this obvious and trivial should never be patentable.

 

Yeah, so obvious that nobody ever bothered to patent it before.

 

Here's a tip: All good inventions are obvious. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" That's the key point - why didn't anyone think of it before. Everything is obvious after you've seen it.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Yeah, so obvious that nobody ever bothered to patent it before.

 

Here's a tip: All good inventions are obvious. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" That's the key point - why didn't anyone think of it before. Everything is obvious after you've seen it.

 

But this was obvious before you've seen it. To patent an idea it needs to be non-obvious to someone skilled in this area and there is nothing non-obvious about this particular patent.

post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

"Yes, we copied Apple but those features aren't what customers are looking for so we think the lawsuit should be thrown out."

Pffftt... they sink to new lows.

Like I've said before, if we're gonna throw the word "copy" around then people have to admit to the theft of Android features such as Notification Center, OTA updates and wireless syncing, widgets, slide to camera from the lock screen, notifications from the lock screen, custom notification sounds, etc. I wonder if everyone will have the same stance when Google's notification patent goes through (possibly within a year) and they sue Apple?

post #15 of 25

A quick reminder:

 

 
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
 
What? Did they think Steve was joking?
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Yeah, so obvious that nobody ever bothered to patent it before.

 

Here's a tip: All good inventions are obvious. That's why people go "why didn't I think of that?" That's the key point - why didn't anyone think of it before. Everything is obvious after you've seen it.

 

 

But that has nothing at all to do with what the word means in the context of patent law.  

post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


People here point out many, many things that Steve said which turned out to not be true.  To think that this statement is true, without further verification, is overly credulous, considering the source.

They turn out to be 'not true' mostly because the context of the statement changes thus allowing that previously stated item to be negated. Defending IP to the full extent of the law is context that rarely to never changes, at least in terms of the desire.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Why didn't they ask Samsung to stop copying? Why did Google provide software that would entice Samsung to copy?

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what this case is even about and have some sort of knee jerk reaction to reading "Samsung" in any article.
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


People here point out many, many things that Steve said which turned out to not be true.  To think that this statement is true, without further verification, is overly credulous, considering the source.

Not sure what you mean. This was said at the first iPhone reveal and is all over YouTube.

He said it and the competition should have taken him at his word
post #20 of 25

Are you crazy??

TouchWiz is much better, looking and customizing than iOS... iOS is a simple interface software going side to side, were Android with TouchWiz is a completely customizable and modifiable interface.

You have to see and touch a TouchWiz enable phone before to talk... many of you even have touched an Android phone.

post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Google didn't tell them to make Touch Wiz look so much like iOS.

 

Are you crazy??

TouchWiz is much better, looking and customizing than iOS... iOS is a simple interface software going side to side, were Android with TouchWiz is a completely customizable and modifiable interface.

You have to see and touch a TouchWiz enable phone before to talk... many of you even have touched an Android phone.

post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperTomcat View Post

TouchWiz is much better, looking and customizing than iOS…

Couldn't care less. I want the one that is much better operating.
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Thomas View Post

Searching through apps via search bar on the home screen was around before Apple's version. Apple simply patented it first. Please do not speak without knowing what you speak of.

 

if what you say is really true,

 

then apple's patent is invalid because they patented a published prior art.

 

which Samsung and Google failed to prove.

 

so please do not speak without knowing what you speak of.

 

 

oh and btw, that's not the patent Samsung is found to be infringing on.

post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

 

if what you say is really true,

 

then apple's patent is invalid because they patented a published prior art.

 

which Samsung and Google failed to prove.

 

so please do not speak without knowing what you speak of.

 

 

oh and btw, that's not the patent Samsung is found to be infringing on.

 

If you clicked the first link in the article, you would find that Universal Search in indeed the patent in question here. The fact that a patent was issued for this is ABSURD, and regardless of your sentiments towards Apple, any support for this level of patent trolling is repulsive.

 

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling..

 

And for the record, Samsung hasn't been 'found' infringing any patent. That is not what a PI implies.

 

"so please do not speak without knowing what you speak of"

post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

If you clicked the first link in the article, you would find that Universal Search in indeed the patent in question here. The fact that a patent was issued for this is ABSURD, and regardless of your sentiments towards Apple, any support for this level of patent trolling is repulsive.

 

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling..

 

And for the record, Samsung hasn't been 'found' infringing any patent. That is not what a PI implies.

 

"so please do not speak without knowing what you speak of"

 

that guy said searching through apps from a search bar.

how is this patent about that? retrieving information stored inside the device from the search bar is the key of this patent as you can see from the independent Claim 1.

 

i don't like apple's patents either and you can find if you search my posts how i always bash apple off when it comes to,, everything nowadays.

 

think harder before you write.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google, Sprint file briefs opposing injunction of Samsung Galaxy Nexus