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,... - Page 3

post #81 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

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

Samsung is involving google in this case as there defense saying that they didn't invent these features google did and hence apple should sue google not samsung, which is baloney.  Samsungs phones use touchwiz interface developed by samsung.  The fact that Samsung has already changed some of there interface because of previous trials says otherwise.  Even if they did not invent the infringing parts there guilty because they use them and are still violating a patented item by its use.  Also lets not forget that they are a convicted patent infringer from the first trial.  Also in the damages adjustment trial just concluded they admitted they were guilty in court of infringing Apples patents.

post #82 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 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

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

i agree Macky the Macky, Ryan 96 is being obsequious to Samsung, and in the process obfuscating the trurh...
post #83 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Ummm, , , Isn't that the same thing I noted? There's a purpose served by design patents and Apple was able to get one for what is literally a simple rounded rectangle. So would you like to offer a personal opinion on the questions surrounding ir?

Ummmmmmmmmmm no

What you tried to do is discredit apple and the us parent system
by reducing the application down to a single "funny" aspect.

There are 5 figures depicting the manufactured product
none of which emphasized the corners.

My opinion is that you are a paid troll,
fed links which seem to be sooo true, until you look into the details.
YMMV
post #84 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank pope View Post

Ummmmmmmmmmm no

What you tried to do is discredit apple and the us parent system
by reducing the application down to a single "funny" aspect.

There are 5 figures depicting the manufactured product
none of which emphasized the corners.

My opinion is that you are a paid troll,
fed links which seem to be sooo true, until you look into the details.
YMMV

Which part of the design that Apple lays claim to do you consider to be unique, novel?

Examine the details for yourself. The only elements Apple is applying for protection of are denoted by solid lines. That would omit elements drawn with superfluous dotted lines that indicate where inapplicable items such as a speaker, or display or microphone or button might go. The only thing drawn with solid lines and thus claimed by Apple as a novel design is what sir? To me (and others) it sure looks like a simple rectangle with no other embellishments connected to it. it's really OK to admit you see it. The examiner apparently did not based on the comments attached to the approval,

And to be clear it's not Apple's fault for asking for it. There's nothing wrong with applying for everything, throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. II's the USPTO's IMHO inexcusable issuance of one. No major issue in any event since Apple is highly unlikely to try and assert that design patent against any competitor. It does serve as evidence of the quality of some patent examinations and the level of training those examiners receive in how to read an application.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/13/14 at 11:48am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #85 of 103
Blah blah blah.

Who cares if Google was working on the same ideas. It's IRRELEVANT. All that matters if who has a patent on it. If Google did in fact come up with it earlier, then they are stupid (or incompetent) for not applying for a patent.

This happens all the time in the real world - when you have multiple companies all trying to solve various problems it's inevitable that sometimes two people come up with the same idea. However, the first person to patent it is the one who gains all the benefits.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #86 of 103
My thoughts are is that apple is going to keep sueing Samsung until Samsung drops android from all its devices in favor of its own south Korean is which will assumably be no match for iOS which will end the success of the Samsung galaxy devices.
post #87 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Blah blah blah.

Who cares if Google was working on the same ideas. It's IRRELEVANT. All that matters if who has a patent on it..

Not true at all. If someone can show use of the innovation prior to the patentee applying for a patent (prior art) the law has long allowed for it to serve as a possible basis for invalidating at least business method patents (software).. It's even more significant for all types of patents issued after September 16th, 2011. Whether a business method patent of not, those accused of patent infringement can now challenge validity by "establishing it commercially used, in good faith, a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter that is asserted to infringe the patent at least 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public (whichever is earlier)."

In this case even if Google cannot prove they were using the patented methods at least a year before Apple applied for a patent, possibly invalidating it it may be enough to show the jury they were at least actively developing it before the patent application was known, helping limit any damage finding.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/13/14 at 12:25pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post


You are right. But it's difficult for people to catch the difference.

Actually, on AI it's quite simple to catch the difference... just by ignoring it :lol:

post #89 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Which part of the design that Apple lays claim to do you consider to be unique, novel?

Examine the details for yourself. The only elements Apple is applying for protection of are denoted by solid lines. That would omit elements drawn with superfluous dotted lines that indicate where inapplicable items such as a speaker, or display or microphone or button might go. The only thing drawn with solid lines and thus claimed by Apple as a novel design is what sir? To me (and others) it sure looks like a simple rectangle with no other embellishments connected to it. it's really OK to admit you see it. The examiner apparently did not based on the comments attached to the approval,

And to be clear it's not Apple's fault for asking for it. There's nothing wrong with applying for everything, throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. II's the USPTO's IMHO inexcusable issuance of one. No major issue in any event since Apple is highly unlikely to try and assert that design patent against any competitor. It does serve as evidence of the quality of some patent examinations and the level of training those examiners receive in how to read an application.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/

Let's try the original

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=D0504889&IDKey=FF23CAE24AB1%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3DD504%2C889.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD504%2C889%2526RS%3DPN%2FD504%2C889

And how exactly would you describe an iPad?

Does your boyfriend have a knock off Gucci?
It's just a bag right, everyone deserves a Gucci,
and they just do not make enough
so everyone should be able to copy Gucci.
Gosh does the vaunted euro standard protect Gucci?
Tell me it's not so!
post #90 of 103
The '889 patent you've linked is not the same as the '286 we were discussing. If they were then one ot the other would be invalid. I've no problem with Apple protecting a novel design in any event. Not sure why I'm bothering to ask you again as I suspect the same non-answer.but here 'ya go anyway: What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Not true at all. If someone can show use of the innovation prior to the patentee applying for a patent (prior art) the law has long allowed for it to serve as a possible basis for invalidating at least business method patents (software).. It's even more significant for all types of patents issued after September 16th, 2011. Whether a business method patent of not, those accused of patent infringement can now challenge validity by "establishing it commercially used, in good faith, a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter that is asserted to infringe the patent at least 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public (whichever is earlier)."

In this case even if Google cannot prove they were using the patented methods at least a year before Apple applied for a patent, possibly invalidating it it may be enough to show the jury they were at least actively developing it before the patent application was known, helping limit any damage finding.

The first iPhone came to market in 2007. They started working on it in 2003-2004? If Google's claims are relevant why not put Rubin on the stand? Why not bring this up in earlier proceedings? Sounds & smells like BS. A Hail Mary pass. Also, the patent does matter. Does the name Alexander Graham Bell sound familiar?

post #92 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The '889 patent you've linked is not the same as the '286 we were discussing. If they were then one ot the other would be invalid. I've no problem with Apple protecting a novel design in any event. Not sure why I'm bothering to ask you again as I suspect the same non-answer.but here 'ya go anyway: What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?

Sorry, the first link in the article you linked to is bad,
goes to a Vizio patent.
How about this.

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=D0670286&IDKey=A07377D7535C%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3DD670%2C286.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD670%2C286%2526RS%3DPN%2FD670%2C286

Right patent, same story.

And I think you are right.
I had a handheld display device just like this in the 60's.
That and my phaser ; )
Edited by Frank pope - 4/13/14 at 4:47pm
post #93 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

The first iPhone came to market in 2007. They started working on it in 2003-2004? If Google's claims are relevant why not put Rubin on the stand? Why not bring this up in earlier proceedings? Sounds & smells like BS. A Hail Mary pass. Also, the patent does matter. Does the name Alexander Graham Bell sound familiar?

Certainly possible it's all being brought up to confuse the jury and there's not much at all to support the claims. I'm sure things will be clearer after this next week's testimony where at least a few more Google folk have been ordered to appear.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #94 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Certainly possible it's all being brought up to confuse the jury and there's not much at all to support the claims. I'm sure things will be clearer after this next week's testimony where at least a few more Google folk have been ordered to appear.

Should get interesting. The problem with Rubin may be that he was working at Apple , in the same dept (I think) when they were working on data detectors.

post #95 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Should get interesting. The problem with Rubin may be that he was working at Apple , in the same dept (I think) when they were working on data detectors.

Apple had commented about Rubin's past employment during an ITC hearing a couple years back. The claim is that he worked as a low-level engineer during the time his bosses invented the methods in the '263 patent, commonly called the Real Time API patent. Apple doesn't go so far as to say he helped in creating it or even that he would have been aware of their work on it. But the hi-level folks he answered to at that time were listed as the inventors. I've never seen a claim he was involved in any way with developing data detectors or answered to that engineering team.

There's a pretty good article on his background here if you or anyone else is interested. It dates back to before the first Android phone and offers a nice view of the landscape at the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/technology/04google.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/13/14 at 4:00pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #96 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
 


If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why.... :s

 

This is the correct strategy for Apple.  Patents gain their strength by being upheld in court.  Every court victory is another tightening of the noose around Google's neck.   Apple has to go after the manufacturers first, then, when there are enough wins there, google will either settle, or will go into a court battle that it will lose quite spectacularly. 

 

This isn't Apple's fault, it's the way the system is set up.

 

And it's unfair.  Google should already have been bankrupted for their crimes.

post #97 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?

 

You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them.  Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice.   "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent.

 

You're debating a design patent.  A design patent is quite different.  It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent.

 

Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple attempted to patent the rounded rect.

 

Especially given the fact that if you'd bothered to read the patent application you'd find pages of references to prior design patents going back years.

post #98 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them.  Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice.   "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent.

You're debating a design patent.  A design patent is quite different.  It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent.

Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple attempted to patent the rounded rect.

Especially given the fact that if you'd bothered to read the patent application you'd find pages of references to prior design patents going back years.

I find it "profoundly troubling" that you'd jump in to denigrate another member on a subject you apparently aren't as familiar with as you imagine you are. Ignorance or dishonesty?

Jessi, what unique ornamental element(s) does the '286 patent offer protection for? Yes, design patent applications require that the protected design be unique, as the USPTO words it " new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."

That's both logical and required. All the cites of prior art and multiple renderings of items with broken lines don't describe what Apple would like to receive patent protection for. Apple specifically stated in the application that items with broken lines were not submitted for consideration. They just added more confusion than clarity to this particular application as evidenced by the examiners references to elements that Apple is not even attempting to claim. 1hmm.gif

So do you see any requested protection for anything ornamental described by Apple's application other than a simple rectangle? Hint: Look for the only ornamental element in the drawings denoted by a solid line. If you're gonna talk the talk. . .
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/pdf/brochure_05.pdf

EDIT: Why am I not surprised you declined to answer. 1rolleyes.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/20/14 at 7:16am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 103
A few more Google folk called to testify today. Bringert,who worked on search at Google says they worked with Samsung to make sure they weren't infringing on Apple patent claims. Went into some detail too on how Google developed text prompt recognition several years ago without any Apple assistance. On cross Apple didn't challenge the claims, but did note that Google is not the one being accused in this trial.

Dianne Hackborn was next up discussing Android development and how they came up with "intents" and the clipboard feature that allows sharing between apps, even 3rd party ones. Again no challenge to her claims on Apple cross-exam, but attorney again pointed out that Google is not being accused of anything. Same with Westbrook and GMail sync, developed in-house by Google without any use of Apple patented methods. Between the three Hackborn was probably the most effective noting when questioned by Apple attorneys that some of the supposedly infringed features are "very core to Android and you can't change the way they work." Doesn't sound as tho she's too afraid of those words coming back to bite Google. As noted by a courtroom reporter she's "a smart person".

At the end of the day the only thing important is whether the jury cares.

BTW, I had no idea that Samsung's chief marketing exec (testifying a few minutes ago) is a 15-year veteran of Nike. Apple said his testimony didn't matter either and deserved no consideration by the jury. Strange day. . . Looks as tho anything not speaking directly to Samsung's inclusion of supposedly infringing features should have no bearing according to Apple counsel. Good plan really, keep the focus solely on Samsung and their devices and keep the jury distraction to a minimum.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #100 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why.... :s

Back in 2007, Apple and Google were close allies. Google's maps data and search were big deals for the iPhone then. Imagine if Google had never invented Android. I bet Apple would have forged a much closer alliance with Google over the years and that Google's profits would have been substantially higher as a result. So maybe Apple doesn't want to burn its bridges completely. I think it should, though. Despite Job's advice to Cook to do his own thing, I think Cook should honour the greatest injustice to befall Jobs, and go thermonuclear.
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
Reply
post #101 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A few more Google folk called to testify today. Bringert,who worked on search at Google says they worked with Samsung to make sure they weren't infringing on Apple patent claims. Went into some detail too on how Google developed text prompt recognition several years ago without any Apple assistance. On cross Apple didn't challenge the claims, but did note that Google is not the one being accused in this trial.

Dianne Hackborn was next up discussing Android development and how they came up with "intents" and the clipboard feature that allows sharing between apps, even 3rd party ones. Again no challenge to her claims on Apple cross-exam, but attorney again pointed out that Google is not being accused of anything. Same with Westbrook and GMail sync, developed in-house by Google without any use of Apple patented methods. Between the three Hackborn was probably the most effective noting when questioned by Apple attorneys that some of the supposedly infringed features are "very core to Android and you can't change the way they work." Doesn't sound as tho she's too afraid of those words coming back to bite Google. As noted by a courtroom reporter she's "a smart person".

At the end of the day the only thing important is whether the jury cares.

BTW, I had no idea that Samsung's chief marketing exec (testifying a few minutes ago) is a 15-year veteran of Nike. Apple said his testimony didn't matter either and deserved no consideration by the jury. Strange day. . . Looks as tho anything not speaking directly to Samsung's inclusion of supposedly infringing features should have no bearing according to Apple counsel. Good plan really, keep the focus solely on Samsung and their devices and keep the jury distraction to a minimum.

From the paltry and incomplete reporting I've read on the current case, I notice Samsung is making a grand attempt to throw jurors off by larding up with loads of testimony that seems to have nothing to do with the trial. Why Apple's lawyers are not constantly objecting is odd.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #102 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


From the paltry and incomplete reporting I've read on the current case, I notice Samsung is making a grand attempt to throw jurors off by larding up with loads of testimony that seems to have nothing to do with the trial. Why Apple's lawyers are not constantly objecting is odd.

 

Maybe they just want Samsung to use up their allotted time so they can come in and attack, leaving Samsung with little recourse.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #103 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Maybe they just want Samsung to use up their allotted time so they can come in and attack, leaving Samsung with little recourse.

Very good point.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
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