Apple targets four Samsung products with preliminary injunction

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    The problem with that analogy is you can't copy right a food recipe. Cheers.



    You'd think by now that most of us here would understand how useless most attempts at analogies are.\
  • Reply 42 of 66
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Wow. Best post yet.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Ok - people seem to be wandering very far from what this injunction is actually about, it doesn't reference icons or accessories, it is limited to just four of the patents that Apple included in the original complaint.



    Only two of those patents are relevant for the 10.1. The first is D504,889 which is the design patent for the iPad. It covers the overall minimialist design of the iPad, the edge to edge glass, the ratio of margin to screen, the rounded corners and the extremely unornamented design in general.



    The requirements here for Apple are that the patent be both non-obvious and describe the 10.1. They've covered the former with a big prior-art reference to tablet PCs, which I think we have to grant them tended to look very different from the Apple device. Historically tablet PCs had bezels, often very big decorative bezels. They tended to be pretty chunky and they had a lot of buttons scattered here and there and other doo-dads like pen holders and whatnot. Apple has a pretty good claim that their patent is valid.



    Infringement will depend on whether the slight differences between the patent and the 10.1 are enough to be material. The 10.1 is a little bigger and quite a lot thinner than the device described in the patent, which was the iPad-1. Apple contends that those differences aren't material, Samsung will argue otherwise.



    The 2nd relevant patent is 7,469,381, which is a software patent describing scrolling behaviour. My non-lawyer reading of this is it covers the behaviour when you scroll off the edge of a page on a touchscreen and a see some sort of blank area then get rubber-banded back onto the page when you lift your finger. I'll be pretty amazed if there's no prior art invalidating this, but then I'm routinely amazed at the software patents that pass muster are survive invalidation attempts, so don't read too much into that.



  • Reply 43 of 66
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Android doesn't do the rubber banding (probably because of this patent). If you try to scroll past the end, the edge of the box glows orange to signify you can't scroll further. Maybe Samsung added rubber banding to Touchwiz but the Galaxy 10.1 isn't running Touchwiz.



    Reading the injunction on this detail, it seems Apple's example is in the 'Gallery' application. Does that app exist on the 10.1? Does it definitely not exhibit the behaviour? Apple are definitely claiming infringement on this patent by the 10.1, and I wouldn't expect them to do that if it was obviously untrue.
  • Reply 44 of 66
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The picture of the "standard" you linked to clearly shows two buttons, one on either side, which look like some sort of release mechanism, where are these protrusions on Apple's dock connector, where are these protrusions on Samsung's cable?







    This is not a picture of the standard, it's a picture of the logo:



    http://www.displayport.org/cms/sites...l_Overview.pdf



    Page 75
  • Reply 45 of 66
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Reading the injunction on this detail, it seems Apple's example is in the 'Gallery' application. Does that app exist on the 10.1? Does it definitely not exhibit the behaviour? Apple are definitely claiming infringement on this patent by the 10.1, and I wouldn't expect them to do that if it was obviously untrue.



    Gallery application on the 10.1 is the standard Android gallery application and it doesn't have this behavior, if you try to scroll past the albums or the photos, they rotate slightly with the rotation axe perpendicular to your movement



    EDIT: The behavior explained on patent 381 is exhibit when you have a photography, but still is the standard Android behavior
  • Reply 46 of 66
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    Gallery application on the 10.1 is the standard Android gallery application and it doesn't have this behavior, if you try to scroll past the albums or the photos, they rotate slightly with the rotation axe perpendicular to your movement



    Video of the gallery app (it is nexus one but I'd assume the Galaxy 10.1 is the same) showing the photos tilting when you go passed the end.



    http://youtu.be/1E1mSSBKEPU
  • Reply 47 of 66
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Video of the gallery app (it is nexus one but I'd assume the Galaxy 10.1 is the same) showing the photos tilting when you go passed the end.



    http://youtu.be/1E1mSSBKEPU



    Ok, but that doesn't actually show the case that I think Apple is using in their documentation. What happens if I select a photo, zoom in and then attempt to scroll off the edge? Also the screenshots shown in Apple's submission show distinctly different menus at the bottom than those shown in the video - so possible Samsung customized this app?



    Also it's possible that the behaviour that they're complaining about is that exhibited when panning between photos, since if you don't pan far enough over to initiate the switch then you do get rubber banding.
  • Reply 48 of 66
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    EDIT: The behavior explained on patent 381 is exhibit when you have a photography, but still is the standard Android behavior



    Patent fights entail high degrees of strategy. For example, suppose Apple is very sure of the strength of their design patents in this case which only really impact Samsung and really want to strengthen this utility patent which they can use against any Android handset. If they can force Samsung to settle on this case then it may result in Samsung recognising the validity of the Utility patent, making it harder for other handset makers to dispute it.



    This is just an example, I'm not saying that this is exactly what is happening, but it is my understanding that companies seeking to defend a potentially valuable patent will go to considerable effort to pick their fights in order to strengthen it.
  • Reply 49 of 66
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,000member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


    you think Mc Donald's burger looks distinctly different from Burger King's burger?



    Yes, it does.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post






    ...Whats a better example?



    Both have buns (display), meat (OS) and vegatables (peripherals sockets).

    They may have different sauces ( exterior design) but both are burgers and serve one purpose: to quench hunger (mobile tablet computing)



    That's a horrible example, actually. The burger is not patentable because any such changes constitute a "minor and obvious variation," among a host of other reasons. This prevents companies from patenting similar items with minor changes (e.g. a company patents a type of 32GB memory card. The card is square in shape and has a 16 pin connector. Another company cannot then say "well, here ya go...here's our patent app for a 64 GB card with the same specs).



    Edit: The above is VASTLY simplified and only to illustrate a point.
  • Reply 50 of 66
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Yes, it does.







    That's a horrible example, actually. The burger is not patentable because any such changes constitute a "minor and obvious variation," among a host of other reasons. This prevents companies from patenting similar items with minor changes (e.g. a company patents a type of 32GB memory card. The card is square in shape and has a 16 pin connector. Another company cannot then say "well, here ya go...here's our patent app for a 64 GB card with the same specs).



    Edit: The above is VASTLY simplified and only to illustrate a point.



    lol. hey, i wasn't saying a burger is patentable.

    rather, what i was trying to impress was that patenting a generic product design, (or allowing such patents from the beginning) is a ridiculous thing to do, if not absurd.



    an analogy cannot be 100% mirror-image.

    of course, you may come up with more sophisticated, more matching analogy to the current situation. but that is not the point of the analogy i used.

    i simply WANTED TO MOCK this whole situation.



    to me, at least, allowing such look-and-feel patent was stupid, and if the court actually upheld preliminary injunction against Samsung for look-and-feel infringement, i will laugh and then cry.



    ffs, did Samsung CONFUSE you, or do you think Samsung tried to do so?







    but then i realized you said the two burgers look distinctly different and now i feel like why i was bothered to write this reply.
  • Reply 51 of 66
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Yep. And then Burger King got this wild idea to make their burgers triangles not squares or circles and to put them in Green boxes made out of eco friendly paperboard with a little top part for the veggies so folks could put their burger together they like it.



    And a month after they announce their Tri-Burger, McDonalds is doing the exact same thing. Only they made their box blue so 'it isn't the same at all'



    I think what you are saying describes the situation better and more fully than mine.

    but then let me ask you, so what?



    i mean it is more like a moral thing not to do rather than a legal thing.



    no?

    why bother wasting our tax with such absurd lawsuit?

    do you really think customers are dumb enough to proudly buy into KIRF (if Samsung's were really)?



    if Samsung's act hurts Apple's business, sure, Apple should definitely seek some sort of legal remedy. But can Apple prove that? Really?



    You think just because McDonalds now uses same exact thing, people would buy McDonalds rather than Burger King?



    There are enough taste differences between the two products just like how Apple's and Samsung's are.



    From the very beginning, this fight should have been kept between the two companies, not something our precious court to be involved.
  • Reply 52 of 66
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


    if Samsung's act hurts Apple's business, sure, Apple should definitely seek some sort of legal remedy. But can Apple prove that? Really?



    It's a patent violation so the burden of proof isn't on Apple to demonstrate harm, it's on Apple to demonstrate violation. Even harmless violations of IP are still actionable, which is why an angry Nokia employee was able to get VLC off the App Store, in spite of the fact that the guys at VideoLan wanted it there.



    To get an injunction stopping importation Apple may need to show that the harm that Samsung is creating cannot be retrospectively repaired with a cash settlement, but they claim to have case law on their side there



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple's motion


    The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that threatened loss of market share and goodwillsupports a finding of irreparable harm in patent cases. For example, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the district court that the availability of damagesand the fact that other competitors were already in the market “do not negate” the irreparableharm from lost market share that would ensue absent a preliminary injunction.



    If Apple is right all it has to do is show that Samsung is impacting the iPad's market share or could impact that market share and there is enough harm for an injunction.



    Quote:

    From the very beginning, this fight should have been kept between the two companies, not something our precious court to be involved.



    Huh? What is the point having IP law if you can't go to court?
  • Reply 53 of 66
    eliangonzaleliangonzal Posts: 490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mimsyswallows View Post


    You think that makes sense? I can't even start to explain this to you if you really think that is a rational argument.



    I don't think you need to; it's purely rhetorical, which is clearly a dying art.
  • Reply 54 of 66
    ecphorizerecphorizer Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    THe Galaxy S i9000 (shown in the picture) with its Touchwiz interface certainly looks similar to theiPhone 3G



    "touchwiz"? Are you serious? (Answering self) : this is indeed serious.



    I mean, this name fails on so many levels. Sounds like urolagnia (golden showers) to this professional kink.
  • Reply 55 of 66
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post


    "touchwiz"? Are you serious? (Answering self) : this is indeed serious.



    I mean, this name fails on so many levels. Sounds like urolagnia (golden showers) to this professional kink.



    You know I never wanted to say that, but that was exactly what I thought when I heard the name
  • Reply 56 of 66
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


    so you find patenting a look of burger is absurd.







    don't bother. i don't think you can explain nor persuade.



    The person bereft of technical knowledge and patents is you. The recipe of food is what is trade secret, not the look.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    I will take some popcorn please with some butter and a bag of M&M's. I like to go to the movies and watch the drama unfold. I think itnis very serious entertainment. Keep up the good work boys.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    The person bereft of technical knowledge and patents is you. The recipe of food is what is trade secret, not the look.



    Patents by definition aren't secret
  • Reply 59 of 66
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by REC View Post


    Thats easy. You could make a keyboard or your own proprietary "30 pin connector" shaped however you want, any color you want. In both cases theirs looks almost exactly like the Apple product.



    The 30 pin connector is synonymous with ipods, iphones and Apple gear. These microconnectors can be literally almost any shape. Theirs looks EXACTLY like Apple's. That is beyond blatant.



    That keyboard looks too close to the Apple wireless keyboard, ridiculously close to it.



    Some of the other hardware claims are probably frivolous, but these are obvious. They're right to sue over these bits of hardware if nothing else.



    That connector will ultimately sink Samsung (In this case). This probably why they are starting to pull back some of their more absurd counter-suits so they can work on settling.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post






    Huh? What is the point having IP law if you can't go to court?



    I found that a little mind boggling too.



    Apple believes Samsung is copying their stuff and Samsung does not want to stop, what are they supposed to do. While I can't prove it, I am sure Apple asked more then once for them to knock it off.
Sign In or Register to comment.