or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google,...

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 
Samsung on Friday brought up VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer as its first witness in the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial in a bid to prove the Korean company's devices did not copy Apple's. The main argument: Google invented certain features before Apple patented them.

Samsung Amethyst 2010 iPhone copy doc
Internal Samsung "copy cat" document presented as evidence by Apple.


Just as Apple's Human Interface chief Greg Christie explained iOS to the Apple v. Samsung jury last week, Lockheimer did the same for Google's Android, reports CNET.

Lockheimer spent a good chunk of time detailing the differences between Android and iOS, especially focusing on the early days of the project. He noted that the team of engineers working on the project made a concerted effort to make Android a discrete operating system.

"We liked to have our own identity, we liked to have our own ideas," Lockheimer said. "We were very passionate about what we were doing, and it was important that we have our own ideas."

According to in-court reports from The Verge, Lockheimer said his first brush with Android was in January 2006, when founder Andy Rubin asked him to view a demo of the OS. At the time, Lockheimer was working for digital security firm Good Technology, but promptly left for Google after being "blown away" by Android.

In the beginning, the team consisted of about 20 to 30 people, a number that grew to 70 people by the time the first Android phone debuted in 2008.

"People tend to thing of Google as a big company, but we were a small team," Lockheimer said. "We were autonomous, and the company let us do our own thing."

From there, the group ballooned to hundreds of people. Currently, Lockheimer said between 600 and 700 people answer to him for various software tasks.

The testimony was designed to prove some phone features Apple is suing Samsung over were already a part of the Android operating system used in certain devices, like the Galaxy Nexus. Further, specific features -- except "slide-to-unlock -- were invented by Google before being patented by Apple.

Apple rested its case on Friday, which asserts five patents against a number of Samsung products. The company is seeking $2.191 billion in damages associated with royalties and lost profits.

Samsung will continue its case on Monday when court reconvenes. Attorneys for the company said as many as 17 witnesses may be trotted out by the end of Monday -- most through deposition --though presiding Judge Lucy Koh wants that number pared down.
post #2 of 103

I'm confident this engineers testimony will be shredded to pieces by Apple's lawyers next week.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #3 of 103
Apple says this is more than about financial compensation, then apple should sue Google and get this over with.

Samsung is doing a great job making this about Google vs apple as it should be.
post #4 of 103

apple wont get paid if they sue google for android....as they give it away for free...or thats what i hear.

post #5 of 103
I need popcorn
post #6 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

I need popcorn

 

Don't do what Samsung would do. Make your own :lol:

post #7 of 103

The ONE instance in which it would have been great for Forstall to have been picked up by Google. :lol:

 

Samsung’s lawyer: Now, Mr. Forstall, as a representative of Android, can you tell us just who created these features?

Forstall: Sure can. Apple.

Samsung’s lawyer: N-now, now, Mr. Forstall… surely these features on exhibit here were present in devices before Apple’s implementation! Nay, present even in Android before Apple used them!

Forstall: Nope. We were the first. ‘We’ meaning ‘Apple’, here, if it please the court.

Samsung’s lawyer: And just how do you think you know this, hmm?!

Forstall: Well, for one, you called me up here, so is it in your best interest to question me, and two, take a wild guess as to how I’d know that.

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 #8 of 103
This court is very bad by stupid samsung phone company:( I am not very happy camper.
post #9 of 103
LOL
post #10 of 103
"We liked to have our own identity, we liked to have our own ideas," Lockheimer said. "We were very passionate about what we were doing, and it was important that we have our own ideas."

Meaning BlackBerry/Windows in 2006, and iOS in 2007? Great "identity"
post #11 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey View Post

apple wont get paid if they sue google for android....as they give it away for free...or thats what i hear.

They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.
"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 #12 of 103

Take-home lessons here:

(1) It took a huge team of experts at Google to re-invent the Apple-patented technology -- the technology is non-obvious even to experts in the art

(2) Google invented some of the disputed technology before Apple patented it

(3) Google did not publicly disclose the technology until after Apple filed for the patent(s)

(4) Apple invented the disputed technology before Google re-invented it

(5) Apple wins the patent because it was first-to-invent (as well as first to file for the patent(s))

(6) As a seller of patented technology, Samsung loses

(7) Ignorance is not an excuse under the law

post #13 of 103
The Samsung is bad company. What I say the samsung is destroy my America way. I want my America way products instead South Korea Samsung products. I am going not to buy any samsung products.
post #14 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tastowe View Post

What I say the samsung is destroy my America way.

 

I love it!  :lol:

post #15 of 103

"We liked to have our own identity, we liked to have our own ideas," Lockheimer said. "We were very passionate about what we were doing, and it was important that we have our own ideas."

 

This is why Apple is suing Samsung here. Samsung took the things that were different about Android and changed them on their own to be more like iOS. They're just helping to prove Apple's case here.

post #16 of 103

Saying a feature came from Android is no defence:

 

Apple -> Andy Rubin -> Google -> Samsung

post #17 of 103
"We liked to have our own identity, we liked to have our own ideas," Lockheimer said.

And he said it with a straight face!
post #18 of 103
Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.
post #19 of 103
Originally Posted by Ryan96 View Post
Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars.

 

Children are one of the most vehemently expressive groups when it comes to property.

 

I would imagine that Apple takes being called childish in regard to patents as a compliment.

 
…why patent an idea…

 

Because it’s their idea.

 
But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else.

 

We’re customers. We care. End of your argument.

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 #20 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The ONE instance in which it would have been great for Forstall to have been picked up by Google. lol.gif

Samsung’s lawyer: Now, Mr. Forstall, as a representative of Android, can you tell us just who created these features?
Forstall: Sure can. Apple.
Samsung’s lawyer: N-now, now, Mr. Forstall… surely these features on exhibit here were present in devices before Apple’s implementation! Nay, present even in Android before Apple used them!
Forstall: Nope. We were the first. ‘We’ meaning ‘Apple’, here, if it please the court.
Samsung’s lawyer: And just how do you think you know this, hmm?!
Forstall: Well, for one, you called me up here, so is it in your best interest to question me, and two, take a wild guess as to how I’d know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Children are one of the most vehemently expressive groups when it comes to property.

I would imagine that Apple takes being called childish in regard to patents as a compliment.

Because it’s their idea.

We’re customers. We care. End of your argument.

HEAR, HEAR, HEAR!!!!!

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply
post #21 of 103
Own idea means - Apple innovated, we don't do that, we copy...case rested
post #22 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Saying a feature came from Android is no defence:

Apple -> Andy Rubin -> Google -> Samsung

Andy "I guess we're not gonna be shipping that phone now" Rubin.

FTFY

"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 #23 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan96 View Post

Ok. Let me say what were all thinking..

How about you just stick to what you're thinking because no one else here thinks like you. Sorry but I do not and will not purchase anything from a company that does not run I it's own merit. Samsung has proven they are unethical and only do things for the money. This trial is important to me because it underscores the very essentials of capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit.
post #24 of 103
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post

Unfortunately for you (& Apple), you can't patent an idea.

 

Of course you can.

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 #25 of 103

NEWS FLASH:
"Samsung throws Google under the bus." Details at 11:00 PM.

 

I hope Samsung's lawyers call Eric Schmidt, the Apple mole, to testify... I'd buy popcorn to watch that.
 

"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 #26 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Of course you can.

I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.
post #27 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan96 View Post

Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape ... more brain farts...

 

The iPhone shape was only a tiny part of the "trade dress" issue. I micturate on the rest of your drivel...

"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 #28 of 103

So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #29 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Take-home lessons here:

(1) It took a huge team of experts at Google to re-invent the Apple-patented technology -- the technology is non-obvious even to experts in the art

(2) Google invented some of the disputed technology before Apple patented it

(3) Google did not publicly disclose the technology until after Apple filed for the patent(s)

(4) Apple invented the disputed technology before Google re-invented it

(5) Apple wins the patent because it was first-to-invent (as well as first to file for the patent(s))

(6) As a seller of patented technology, Samsung loses

(7) Ignorance is not an excuse under the law

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
 

So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?


Come on now, you can't expect Google to give details on how they spy ! :rolleyes:

post #30 of 103

Since Google isn't a party to this case, I'm not sure that this is even relevant.

post #31 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.

You are right. But it's difficult for people to catch the difference.
post #32 of 103
By the time this case wraps up, I'm fairly sure the legal fees will exceed any punitive charges.
post #33 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

 

Well, Apple is asking for $2.2B in damages, and treble damages ($6.6B) are available.

 

Even the most white shoe law firm in the world doesn't charge that.

post #34 of 103
One question how are they going to determine damages when the slide to lock patent keeps on being found invalid in the EU for example?
post #35 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.

 

I think it's called 'flogging your customers' details for fun and profit'.

 

Don't think there's an abbreviation though.

post #36 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshA View Post
 

 


Come on now, you can't expect Google to give details on how they spy ! :rolleyes:

If he or Google expects anyone, including the court, to even begin to consider his claims as even remotely credible I can.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #37 of 103
I have read stories about Samsung faking production and sales figures. They manufacture products for Apple. There are stories about Android being a crib of Apple software. What is going on? The only people profiting from this unholy mess are the lawyers.

I am happy with my interconnected iMacs, iPads and iPhone, the rest can go hang.
post #38 of 103

Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not Apple

 

All he did was tell a story which really sounded like a fairy tale to me. Terrible title for the article as the article does not mention that he ever even attempted to provide any proof in court to back up what he claims occurred. 

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #39 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.


That is correct, strictly speaking you cannot patent an idea only a specific implementation. But as it stands right now (with how the patent system works at this moment in time) it does seem that patents that are too broad slip trough the nets, and if a patent is too broad then you aren't patenting a specific implementation and are basically patenting an idea.

If the system worked as it should your statement would absolutely be correct.

post #40 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.


From how I understand it Google could be sued. It's just that the possible damages are going to be a lot lower. When you can prove that a company made significant profits from using your patents you will be able to ask for more compensation. With Google not making any profit on Android (only Google Services), if found to infringe, the amount of damages would be limited and could even result in the court being content if Google adapted their software so it doesn't infringe anymore and at most a small compensation.

That's why Apple goes after Samsung.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung calls on Android exec in patent trial to prove certain features were created by Google, not Apple