or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung tries to get peek at iOS source code in Korean patent suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung tries to get peek at iOS source code in Korean patent suit

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
In a request to the Seoul Central District Court on Friday, Samsung asked to see the source code for Apple's latest iOS, claiming that it needed access to the extremely sensitive data to confirm that the operating system infringes on a software patent.

Notification Center


In response, Apple vehemently denied the request, calling it "ridiculous" as the source code is among the company's most guarded assets, reports The Korea Times.

Court officials quoted Apple counsel as saying, "[The request] doesn?t make any sense. Samsung is saying that we should give up protecting our most important data." The court asked that Apple provide its software designers and engineers for testimony, but the company refused.

The request comes one day after Samsung lawyers said it would be impossible to determine whether the Korean tech giant's patent was infringed upon without the source code. Apple reportedly called the plea "insane."

At issue is Apple's implementation of Notification Center, which allows users to swipe down from the top of any iDevice screen to access a host of updates including weather, email and push notifications, among others. Samsung first filed suit against the Cupertino company in December, claiming Notification Center infringed on patented technology.

Apple introduced Notification Center with iOS 5 in 2011, some time after a similar solution was seen in handsets running Google's Android. Earlier this month AppleInsider discovered an Apple patent application for the iOS notification system, but it is unclear if the filing has any relation to Samsung's Korean suit.

Samsung claimed that it patented an identical feature in November 2006 that was later used in Android devices including the company's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Apple rebutted and accused Samsung of taking ownership of a technology already in use throughout the industry.

The Seoul court did not issue a ruling regarding the matter and an official timeline for a determination has yet to be announced.
post #2 of 32

This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.

 

EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/25/13 at 4:53pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 32

one word - 

 

don'tnoain'tgonna

post #4 of 32

"John, go downstairs and give Samsung the "source code"."

post #5 of 32

Apple lawyer:  "Oh, sure... I have a copy right here... It's kind of tattered... Why don't I send you a "fresh" copy in the morning?  Are there any sections you would like me to highlight?  Do you need help preparing your brief?"

 

"Oh, can I have some of what you're snorting?"

 

"There's a hole in Sammy's arm where all the money goes..."

 

 

Edit:  I am listening to this right now... If you substitute Samsung for for "San Stone" "Daddy" it really fits:

 

Quote:

Sam Stone by Al Kooper 

 

Sam Stone came home, 
To his wife and family 
After serving in the conflict overseas. 
And in the time that he had served, 
It had shattered all his nerves, 
And it left a little shrapnel in his knee. 
Oh, but the morphine eased the pain, 
And the grass grew round his brain, 
And it gave him all the comfort as he lacked, 
With a purple heart and a monkey on his back. 

Chorus: 
There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes, 
Jesus Christ died for nothin' I suppose. 
Little pitchers have big ears, 
But don't you stop to count the years, 
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios. 
Mmm.... 

Sam Stone's welcome home 
Didn't last too long. 
No he went to work after he spent his last dime 
And Sammy took to stealing 
When he get’ that empty feeling 
For a hundred dollar habit without overtime. 
And the cold rolled through his veins 
Like a thousand railroad trains, 
And it eased his mind in the hours that it shows, 
While his kids ran around wearin' other peoples' clothes... 

Repeat chorus: 

Sam Stone was alone 
When he broke his gas balloon 
Climbing walls while he sat there in a chair 
Well, he played his last request 
While the room stonk just like death 
With an overdose just hoverin’ in the air 
But life had lost it's fun 
And there was nothing to be done 
But to trade his house that he bought on the GI-bill 
For what, a flag draped casket on a local heroes' hill 

Repeat chorus 

Sam Stone, ah 
Sam Stone


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/25/13 at 4:59pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #6 of 32
It will be a cold day in hell before Apple would release the crown jewels to this thieving company.
post #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

It will be a cold day in hell before Apple would release the crown jewels to this thieving company.

They already did. See post 1

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.

 

EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case

They obviously didn't get a long enough look.

post #9 of 32
Quote:
. Apple rebutted and accused Samsung of taking ownership of a technology already in use throughout the industry.

 

 

Did anyone else laugh at the irony in this?

 

 

In this case I happen to agree with Apple and think pretty much all software patents are bogus.

 

What happens when companies start going after universities or even high schools.  Their grant money is just as green as other businesses.  Your average simple CS homework assignment probably violates about 50 of their 'amazingly inventive' patents.

 

 

I'm going to file for a patent:

 

A method for adding 1 to a variable.

 

x=x+1;

 

Hmmmm let me check Apples source code and sue them!

 

The judge found infringement, I'll be rich unless Apple can find a way to not violate my patent!

 

Apple:

 

x= x+3-2;

Patented.

 

Doh!!

post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.

EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case
They obviously didn't get a long enough look.

One wonders how well lawyers can read code -- especially in two different OSes, two different languages, and two different APIs. I suspect that even a coding expert would have difficulty with this...

I don't believe that Apple would find any Android code "good enough" to be copied line-for-line -- even if it were possible.

So, If ideas are not patentable... Only implementations... What's the likelihood of success, here?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Quote:
. Apple rebutted and accused Samsung of taking ownership of a technology already in use throughout the industry.


 

Did anyone else laugh at the irony in this?


In this case I happen to agree with Apple and think pretty much all software patents are bogus.

What happens when companies start going after universities or even high schools.  Their grant money is just as green as other businesses.  Your average simple CS homework assignment probably violates about 50 of their 'amazingly inventive' patents.


I'm going to file for a patent:

A method for adding 1 to a variable.

x=x+1;

Hmmmm let me check Apples source code and sue them!

The judge found infringement, I'll be rich unless Apple can find a way to not violate my patent!

Apple:

x= x+3-2;
Patented.

Doh!!

X++;
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

They obviously didn't get a long enough look.

The code for integrating the "notification center" feature that Samsung is complaining about wasn't in iOS5. That's why they want to have a look at iOS6 too. It does seem like a reasonable request if it's the only way to prove/disprove infringement. That doesn't mean the court will order it. The Australians felt it was necessary, but the Korean court may find differently.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


X++;

 

Showoff.

post #14 of 32
SameSong
post #15 of 32

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. Make them buy an iPhone, jailbreak it, reverse engineer the binaries, and prove it, if they think Apple stole their algorithm. 

post #16 of 32

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

Apple tried to subpoena Google for Nexus source code last year, along with requesting documentation on how Samsung's version was different from the public Android source.

 

---

 

Sure seems like either side could just disassemble the other's code, though I suppose that violates one or more customer terms, which of course lawyers probably see as an obstacle.

post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

X++;

Showoff.

I spent 2 days refactoring my code!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #18 of 32
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
They obviously didn't get a long enough look.

 

Flatbed scanners only work so fast…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.

EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case

Reread the article. It deals with code for the 4s as of 11/12/2011. That would be iOS 5. The current iOS version is 6. The article says "current" code. One would assume they asked for iOS 6. Version 5 should be sufficient to assert the claim if it supports the claim.
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

Did anyone else laugh at the irony in this?

 

 

In this case I happen to agree with Apple and think pretty much all software patents are bogus.

 

 

 

 

I disagree. Software should be patentable. That's not the issue. It's the level of the software that is the issue. Like all else in IP it should be more than just an idea. It should be a specific and fully explained methodology. And infringement should only be if it copies the specifics. Rather like how copyrights don't cover ideas such as 'a huge comet that is going to kill all life is going to hit Earth' but the specific story of the characters, their history, what they do, what they say. Or even how in Germany (Poland?) they rejected Apple's 'swipe your finger on the screen to unlock your device' but did approve 'a specific preset swipe programmed into the software and unchangeable by the user, the location and direction of which is explained using a combination of onscreen graphics and/or text' versus the non infringing (generally used) Android version of 'a gesture set by the user which can encompass any portion of the screen or movement the user desires, can be changed by the user at any time and is not referenced on screen in regards to location or direction of movement'

 

By a similar token, and it feels like the courts are agreeing, design patents should be detailed, specific and taken in the totality. That another tablet or phone is a rectangle with rounded corners is, to me, not enough. That it is that, has a thickness of whatever, a ratio of that, a flat glass front, and, and, and. If it hits everything, illegal infringement. especially if, as happened with Samsung, there's smoking gun evidence they examined the item in detail for design cues. If not, then leave it to the court of public opinion where folks can clearly see inspiration and decide if they want the original thinker or not. 

 

And so on. 

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 #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

Apple tried to subpoena Google for Nexus source code last year, along with requesting documentation on how Samsung's version was different from the public Android source.

 

---

 

Sure seems like either side could just disassemble the other's code, though I suppose that violates one or more customer terms, which of course lawyers probably see as an obstacle.

I think you're dissembling here. Google claims it is open source, does it not? Isn't that the basis for how everyone from Samsung to Amazon, is able to use it to build their operating systems? What am I missing?

post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post


Reread the article. It deals with code for the 4s as of 11/12/2011. That would be iOS 5. The current iOS version is 6. The article says "current" code. One would assume they asked for iOS 6. Version 5 should be sufficient to assert the claim if it supports the claim.

See post 12

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The code for integrating the "notification center" feature that Samsung is complaining about wasn't in iOS5. That's why they want to have a look at iOS6 too. It does seem like a reasonable request if it's the only way to prove/disprove infringement. That doesn't mean the court will order it. The Australians felt it was necessary, but the Korean court may find differently.

 

I'm pretty sure that Notification Center was indeed in iOS 5

 

yep

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3576

 

 

Quote:
With iOS 5 or later, you can view the Notification Center by swiping down from the top of the screen.

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 #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

I'm pretty sure that Notification Center was indeed in iOS 5

 

yep

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3576

 

 

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/09/ios-6-notifications.html

This is why Samsung says they need to see the source code for iOS6 too. I would assume they already know if iOS5 infringed if they got to look at all the code in the Australian case. Having said that I haven't seen anything stating whether their previous Aussie look was restricted to the questions in that specific case or not.  If so perhaps Sammy never got a look at the code for Apple's notification center in iOS5.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/25/13 at 8:13pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I think you're dissembling here. Google claims it is open source, does it not? Isn't that the basis for how everyone from Samsung to Amazon, is able to use it to build their operating systems? What am I missing?

 

You're missing the fact that company or device specific modifications are not open code for anyone.

 

For example, Amazon is not required to reveal the changes they made to the original open source that they used as a base.

 

Or, say if you and I decided to create a startup making Android based phones, and we modified the code just for our device to make it run faster or to add some cool feature (like Samsung's video overlay window), then that code belongs to us.   It's our choice whether to donate that code back or not.

 

--

 

Btw, I wouldn't call Android totally open, nor does Google in their FAQ.   They point out that they often create private code branches in order to make new APIs without worrying about messing up developers while the APIs are being refined.  Also, Google keeps their own apps (mail, maps, search) private.


Edited by KDarling - 1/25/13 at 9:10pm
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Apple tried to subpoena Google for Nexus source code last year, along with requesting documentation on how Samsung's version was different from the public Android source.

---


Sure seems like either side could just disassemble the other's code, though I suppose that violates one or more customer terms, which of course lawyers probably see as an obstacle.

You mean this : http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/22/google-ios-source-code/?

Crooks and liars of the world, unite!
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

You mean this : http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/22/google-ios-source-code/?

 

Nope, that article is the opposite situation.  

 

I gave this link in my post for the case where Apple subpoenaed Google for source code.

post #28 of 32

Samsung: Drop 'em and spread 'em.

 

Apple: Cheeky little bastards aren't you?

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #29 of 32

If Samsung has to show their source code, a person wouldn't have to actually read it, only look at the comments heading up the modules. Like, "Here is where we rip off Apple's scroll bounce."

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #30 of 32

These patents are not at an implementation level where the source code matters.

post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

I disagree. Software should be patentable. That's not the issue. It's the level of the software that is the issue. Like all else in IP it should be more than just an idea. It should be a specific and fully explained methodology. And infringement should only be if it copies the specifics. Rather like how copyrights don't cover ideas such as 'a huge comet that is going to kill all life is going to hit Earth' but the specific story of the characters, their history, what they do, what they say. Or even how in Germany (Poland?) they rejected Apple's 'swipe your finger on the screen to unlock your device' but did approve 'a specific preset swipe programmed into the software and unchangeable by the user, the location and direction of which is explained using a combination of onscreen graphics and/or text' versus the non infringing (generally used) Android version of 'a gesture set by the user which can encompass any portion of the screen or movement the user desires, can be changed by the user at any time and is not referenced on screen in regards to location or direction of movement'

 

By a similar token, and it feels like the courts are agreeing, design patents should be detailed, specific and taken in the totality. That another tablet or phone is a rectangle with rounded corners is, to me, not enough. That it is that, has a thickness of whatever, a ratio of that, a flat glass front, and, and, and. If it hits everything, illegal infringement. especially if, as happened with Samsung, there's smoking gun evidence they examined the item in detail for design cues. If not, then leave it to the court of public opinion where folks can clearly see inspiration and decide if they want the original thinker or not. 

 

And so on. 

I'm with you on principal.  But practice doesn't reasonably follow.  The system (in software- not design or hardware) is used primarily to thwart competition much more so than to protect innovation.  Its pretty ridiculous.  One-click-purchase?  Really???!!!   Patents purely to thwart competition certainly happens in design/hardware as well, but in those areas I think the balance of power still lies firmly in 'protecting innovation'  In software its not even close.

post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

I'm with you on principal.  But practice doesn't reasonably follow.  The system (in software- not design or hardware) is used primarily to thwart competition much more so than to protect innovation.  Its pretty ridiculous.  One-click-purchase?  Really???!!!   Patents purely to thwart competition certainly happens in design/hardware as well, but in those areas I think the balance of power still lies firmly in 'protecting innovation'  In software its not even close.

 

If by, "thwart competition," you mean, "keep people from stealing what you've invented," then I agree with you. What it thwarts is copying other people's hard work.

 

One-click is a poor example for you argument, since this is a patent that should probably never have been granted due to the volumes of prior art for "one-click" actions. But, Amazon often gets treatment that is, to say the least, mysterious.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung tries to get peek at iOS source code in Korean patent suit