or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for Siri
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for Siri - Page 2

post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Don't kid yourself, it's always about money. Why aren't they going after HTC, Motorola, LG? Their phones have Google Now.

 

Apple is going after Samsung for the same reason you kick the biggest guy in the balls at the start of a bar fight. It brings his buddies around to not fighting 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 #42 of 46
Originally Posted by petrosy View Post
What bull* as a developer myself I perform those mentioned patented tasks everyday. They are just waiting everyone's time.

 

Do you? You sure? 

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 #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Another thing copied from apple by google and its counterparts...

 

What about the patents in this trial that Samsung claims Apple infringed?  Did Apple search out and copy the methods in those patents?  No, it's a ridiculous idea about either side.

--

 

This trial is not about willful copying.  It's about infringement of a software patent, which is almost always accidental due to independent development.

 

It's about two companies, each trying to prove that the other one implemented some code method that the first company managed to get a software patent on.

 

Heck, it's not even about obvious infringement, because it boils down to two sets of lawyers arguing over detailed patent claim wording.  Even a misplaced comma can change whether or not infringement took place.  (*)

--
 
Non-developers seem to have a concept that developers have to copy to infringe on each other's code.  Far from it.  Developers invent methods every day that other developers also come up with.  It's the nature of software.  Software patents are about being the first one with the time and money to file, which other developers would have no time to search and find out about.
 
(*) That's why the judge limited the number of pre-trial claim construction arguments. Otherwise the trial might never even get started.  In this particular trial, the debate has even extended to which dictionary publishing date should be used.  On such trivia does infringement depend.

Edited by KDarling - 5/22/13 at 6:05pm
post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What about the patents in this trial that Samsung claims Apple infringed?  Did Apple search out and copy the methods in those patents?  No, it's a ridiculous idea about either side.

--

This trial is not about
 willful copying.  It's about infringement of a software patent, 
which is almost always accidental due to independent development.


It's about two companies, each trying to prove that the other one implemented some code method that the first company managed to get a software patent on.
 
Heck, it's not even about obvious infringement, because it boils down to two sets of lawyers arguing over detailed patent claim wording.  Even a misplaced comma can change whether or not infringement took place.  (*)
--
 
Non-developers seem to have a concept that developers have to copy to infringe on each other's code.  Far from it.  Developers invent methods every day that other developers also come up with.  It's the nature of software.  Software patents are about being the first one with the time and money to file, which other developers would have no time to search and find out about.
 
(*) That's why the judge limited the number of pre-trial claim construction arguments. Otherwise the trial might never even get started.  In this particular trial, the debate has even extended to which dictionary publishing date should be used.  On such trivia does infringement depend.

While I agree with some of what you say, I think the '959 patent against Google Now sounds pretty strong.

Refresher
Apple releases OS 8.5 in Fall of 1998. It includes Sherlock, which I think is the '959 which is eventually applied for in 2000 and published in 2005.

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

I think FOSSpatents wrongly calls this the Siri patent when it is the Sherlock patent.

Most of the "searching" (not location specific data) that Google Now uses, is specified in that 2000 patent.

Searching the computer, web, stocks, eBay, movie reviews, and multiple search engines at the same time from one unified interface.

You can debate if software patents should exist, or systems and methods are inevitable.

Google Now could be doing the same things and not infringe the '959 patent also.

I just find it interesting the Google Now is deemed "revolutionary" when Apple put the concept out there in 1998.

The key question is not how Google Now is different from Sherlock, but how is Google Now different from the '959 patent, which includes things that Apple never implemented.

Lets not fool ourselves, the '959 patent is a direct attack on Samsung and Apple's first major indirect attack on Google..
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


While I agree with some of what you say, I think the '959 patent against Google Now sounds pretty strong.

 

First, thank you for your reasoned and well written post.

 

I've commented on the related '604 patent claims before, here.  Also, here's my post about why appeals judges have rejected Apple's proposed trial claim construction.  (Here's another article about that rejection.)

 

The '959 patent's claim permutations seem even more obvious.

 

Quote:
Apple releases OS 8.5 in Fall of 1998. It includes Sherlock, which I think is the '959 which is eventually applied for in 2000 and published in 2005.

 

It was the era of local search engines becoming popular.  E.g. the desktop Copernic search app came out in 1996 for PCs.

 

Quote:
I think FOSSpatents wrongly calls this the Siri patent when it is the Sherlock patent.

 

Yep.  The only truly Siri related patent that I know of, is the one that was filed against Apple from two Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Professors, as reported here by Patently Apple last October.

 

Quote:
Lets not fool ourselves, the '959 patent is a direct attack on Samsung and Apple's first major indirect attack on Google..

 

Agreed, it's definitely an attack on Google.

 

It's also a poster child for why software patents should not be allowed.  Especially ones like this, where the claims are not about any detailed method, but are more of a general laundry list of search options that anyone... including code ignorant users... would think of.

 

Regards.

post #46 of 46

And siri was bought by apple from the app store, hmmmm this is how their makeing their money, sueing the crap out of everyone and everything. Their sueing samsung for rounded corners on their galaxy s2 was the blow decider for me to ditch my crappy iphone

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Samsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for Siri
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for Siri