Google prepping software patch to help Samsung dodge Galaxy Nexus injunction

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Jr, you might not be considering that unified search features were already part of Android (and probably most desktop search engines too. Microsoft Explorer does the same I believe) long before Apple was recently granted a patent for it. No one came in infringing Apple's IP.  They became infringer's only quite recently. 

    Please ask someone to explain the patent system to you. The patent in question was applied for in 2004. Google's Android didn't even exist until 2005. So your claim that they couldn't possibly have copied the patent because it wasn't granted is bogus. Google could have copied it any time after the date that it was published (which is within a few weeks of filing in most cases). As usual, you are wrong.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    As for your comment on Judge Koh, you vehemently claimed she was wrong the last time didn't agree with you when she ruled on Samsung and Apple, denying an injunction. What makes you so certain she couldn't be wrong yet again?

    Because she is now agreeing with me, so why would I say she's wrong? More importantly, she is now agreeing with the Court of Appeals now. What evidence do you have that she's going to change her mind or that she's wrong now?
    derekmorr wrote: »
    Uh, no. Just because an applicant has filed for a patent doesn't mean that the application is valid. The Patent Office denies patent applications all the time. Even for patents that are granted, many are subsequently invalidated or restricted in scope.

    I never said it was valid at the time that it was filed. The issue is that GoogleGuy claims that Google could not possibly have copied the patent before 2011 since the patent wasn't granted until 2011. In the real world, Google could have copied the patent at any time after publication - which would have been in 2004.
    derekmorr wrote: »
    Further, have you read the patent in question? It doesn't describe anything that's actually patentable. It's just a 10,000-foot level mess of hand-waving legalese. I'm simply dumbfounded that otherwise intelligent people are defending these low-quality patents. Our patent system has serious flaws, and no one wins when junk like this gets patented. Using software patents is playing with fire -- sooner or later, everyone gets burned.

    The patent office apparently disagrees with you. And the court declined to grant summary judgment to Samsung on the matter, so the court clearly doesn't agree that the patent has absolutely nothing valid. In the US, a patent is presumed to be valid from the day it is granted. It is up to the competitor to prove that it's not valid - and Samsung has not been able to do that. If you have real evidence that it's not valid, you'd better get it to Samsung's attorneys because they haven't been able to get it thrown out yet.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Ever the school-yard taunter Jr.

    Your lack of a good point is obvious. Present a reasoned argument why an individual or company should put any development of their own on hold until the patent office chooses to either approve or deny a patent, in whole or part, perhaps 6-10 years later or even more, so we have a real discussion. While you're at it what is your suggestion for a way for companies to keep track of the numerous claims included in each of the over 500,000 patents applied for in the US each year, much less the quarter of a million granted and the other 250,000+ applied for but denied?

    You don't seem to reason things out sometimes, hoping no one pays attention I suppose. The fact that a patent was applied for is no reason for the tech world to come to a halt and wait to see if it will be in the 50% that get approved...  assuming anyone even noted it was applied for in the first place. 

    Actually, you're the one who is not reasoning things out - Google presumably isn't paying you to do so.

    Under U.S. patent law, once a patent is applied for, if you continue to invest money in an infringing technology, it's at your risk. If the patent is eventually granted, you have to choose between scrapping the work or infringing and hoping you don't get caught. You may not like it, but that's the way the system works. Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents. I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.

    In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property.
  • Reply 62 of 96
    anonymouse wrote: »
    As though Google actually develops this stuff independently. Google's MO, as we all know, is to reverse engineer and, when possible (think books) simply outright steal. The culture at Google is a culture of thieves and vultures, not honest, hard working creative engineers.

    This is the difference between Apple and Google. Apple creates. Google copies and destroys.

    Every company steals even apple. Do you really think Apple invented th GUI and the mouse? lol read this article about how Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox.
    www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc

    The patents are ridiculous. Imagine if Google had patented searching in general. The ability to search for something shouldn't have a clause whether you're using a phone or a computer to do it. Searching is searching it doesn't matter what you search for or where.to
  • Reply 63 of 96


    Apple is cool - they follow/copy nobody.  (iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, MacBook Air, etc., etc.)


     


    Google/Android is uncool - they follow/copy everybody.  (Google+, Android, Google Docs, Chrome OS, etc., etc.)


     


    Android is by the nerds, for the nerds, and of the nerds.  

  • Reply 64 of 96

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post





    Every company steals even apple. Do you really think Apple invented th GUI and the mouse? lol read this article about how Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox.

    www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc


     


    Again with the "STEVE JOBS IS IN YER ZEROX STEELNG UR GUI"... It's like playing whack-a-mole. 

  • Reply 65 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Please ask someone to explain the patent system to you. The patent in question was applied for in 2004. Google's Android didn't even exist until 2005. So your claim that they couldn't possibly have copied the patent because it wasn't granted is bogus. Google could have copied it any time after the date that it was published (which is within a few weeks of filing in most cases). As usual, you are wrong.



    I never said it was valid at the time that it was filed. The issue is that GoogleGuy claims that Google could not possibly have copied the patent before 2011 since the patent wasn't granted until 2011. In the real world, Google could have copied the patent at any time after publication - which would have been in 2004 (No sir. Withj the application dated 




    Actually, you're the one who is not reasoning things out - Google presumably isn't paying you to do so.

    Under U.S. patent law, once a patent is applied for, if you continue to invest money in an infringing technology, it's at your risk. If the patent is eventually granted, you have to choose between scrapping the work or infringing and hoping you don't get caught. You may not like it, but that's the way the system works. Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents (applications?). I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.




    In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property.


    Jr, you're making stuff up again. Google could not have copied any Apple patent for unified search in the past few years because Apple didn't have a patent for unified search until Dec. 27 of 2011. That confuses you for some reason. If you apply for a passport, do you then head to the gate for a flight for China?  Apply for a mortgage and start putting up the fence?  Apply for a college and call yourself a Dr?


     


    Add this as another incorrect statement of yours: The USPTO began publishing patent applications in 2000, but not until 18 months after application. So the very earliest publication date for this search patent would have been sometime in mid-2006. It's not "within a few weeks of filing in most cases" as you told the forum. You're coming unarmed again.


    http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp


     


    And what evidence to you have that any company won't work on a tech feature or apply for a patent because someone else is also working in that field even on the same general idea and requesting patents too? When you can give a reasoned argument why Apple for instance should not be working on voice control for a TV simply because Google already applied for a patent on that feature we'll have a valid discussion point. 


     


    Then explain how  a reputable Apple gets blindsided by a patent claim they weren't aware of if it's so simple that even Jragosta could do it? It's not for lack of money. Or would you instead claim a reputable Apple knows about them but chooses to proceed and/or infringe anyway? Do a search for "Apple sued for patent infringement" then comment on whether any of those cases say:


     


    -Apple isn't reputable


    -Too cheap to pay for Nerac abstracts


    -Doesn't respect others IP


     


    ...or just perhaps can't possibly be aware of every patent application, claim and award. If keeping track of your competitors IP is so easy, how does Apple miss the much more obvious standard-essential ones like Nokia asserted against them?


     


    Apple may be the smartest, most focused and most organized tech player in the world, so if they get "surprise" IP claims from competitors how do you expect any of the others to avoid it?


     


    BTW, Android development didn't start in 2005. That's when Google bought the company. Android development itself goes back to 2003.

  • Reply 66 of 96
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,393member
    It's funny that whenever an interesting patent is applied for (not granted) we see articles on blogs with people wondering if the patent gives a clue about future products for that company.

    Yet for some reason, multi-billion dollar companies are unaware of patents in their field of expertise (search for Google) not are they awarE of patents their competitors have applied for.

    /S
  • Reply 67 of 96
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Apple had this years ago as part of OSX.

    iOS is OSX adapted for portable devices.

    In 2007 the iPhone had a green notification bar across the top of the screen if you accessed the menu during a call, performing a zero length swipe, dropped this notification down to reveal the in call menu.

    Apple did not take anything from Google.

    Please take your pathetic bleating somewhere else.

    No, you dreamt it. The iPhone had a bar (I'm not even sure it was green), but it didn't open up like a drawer. When touching it it just took you back to the call, like it does now.
  • Reply 68 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    clemynx wrote: »
    No, you dreamt it. The iPhone had a bar (I'm not even sure it was green), but it didn't open up like a drawer. When touching it it just took you back to the call, like it does now.

    He said zero-length swipe, which is a tap.
  • Reply 69 of 96
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    heisenberg wrote: »
    I am sorry that I dont have the time to follow these things closely, but isnt is obvious goggle is stealing from Apple? I watched this video posted and if this is the latest goggle phone then boy what a joke. Also did anyone notice that pre-written messages to send when you cant take a call (around 1:20), well Apple showed that with ios6, so clearly stolen by gogle. I guess it doesnt matter now that this phone is banned.

    Hum... I've had that function on my Nexus S for almost a year.
    It's very useful when needed, I use it a few times a month. Happy to see that iOS6 gets it.
  • Reply 70 of 96
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    He said zero-length swipe, which is a tap.

    Yes but he also talked about a drop down notification which never existed.
    I saw the first iPhone keynote the day it came out on february 2007 (and the same day I began coming to AI) and I surely remember that ????

    Yes, zero length swipe is a little odd expression, isn't it?
  • Reply 71 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    clemynx wrote: »
    Yes but he also talked about a drop down notification which never existed.

    Yeah, his wording's a little odd, but I get what he's saying.
    Yes, zero length swipe is a little odd expression, isn't it?

    You'd be surprised what you have to say to conform to legal definitions…
  • Reply 72 of 96
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    clemynx wrote: »
    Yes but he also talked about a drop down notification which never existed.
    I saw the first iPhone keynote the day it came out on february 2007 (and the same day I began coming to AI) and I surely remember that ????
    Yes, zero length swipe is a little odd expression, isn't it?

    Just like a punch to the face is a zero length caress.
  • Reply 73 of 96
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post





    Every company steals even apple. Do you really think Apple invented th GUI and the mouse? lol read this article about how Steve Jobs stole the idea from Xerox.

    www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc

    The patents are ridiculous. Imagine if Google had patented searching in general. The ability to search for something shouldn't have a clause whether you're using a phone or a computer to do it. Searching is searching it doesn't matter what you search for or where.to


     


    1) Do you even know about what was the deal between Xerox and Apple before SJ visited the Xerox Parc? They got their shares of profits with stocks. And do you know what exactly Apple did copy from Xerox? Menu Bar, the desktop, the trash, control panels, they all have been Apple creation, not Xerox.  True Xerox has the first GUI and Mouse, untrue Apple did copy Xerox Alto OS codes and design.


     


    2) Google do has patented their search algorithme and protect their business model where all users are money making sheeps for them. Searching isn't just about search, it's all about the result and making profit with targeted advertisements, but it don't seams to matter you much.

  • Reply 74 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Jr, you're making stuff up again. Google could not have copied any Apple patent for unified search in the past few years because Apple didn't have a patent for unified search until Dec. 27 of 2011. That confuses you for some reason. If you apply for a passport, do you then head to the gate for a flight for China?  Apply for a mortgage and start putting up the fence?  Apply for a college and call yourself a Dr?

    So even though it has been explained to you repeatedly, you still can't comprehend that Google could have started copying as soon as the application was published - long before it was actually granted?

    You even admit that it would have been published no later than 2006. So why do you continue to insist that Google couldn't possibly have copied it before it was granted in Dec, 2011?
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Add this as another incorrect statement of yours: The USPTO began publishing patent applications in 2000, but not until 18 months after application. So the very earliest publication date for this search patent would have been sometime in mid-2006. It's not "within a few weeks of filing in most cases" as you told the forum. You're coming unarmed again.
    http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2000/00-72.jsp

    I guess it's too much trouble for you to read your own link. Here, I'll post it for you:
    "Filers can also request that applications be published earlier than 18 months, a procedure that offers inventors provisional rights at an earlier stage." In those cases, it can be published as early as 14-16 weeks.

    More importantly, the actual time is irrelevant. The fact is that Google had access to it and could have copied it any time after publication (which was years before the grant date - even by your own estimate. Your continued assertion that Google couldn't have copied it until after it was granted is just plain ridiculous.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    And what evidence to you have that any company won't work on a tech feature or apply for a patent because someone else is also working in that field even on the same general idea and requesting patents too? When you can give a reasoned argument why Apple for instance should not be working on voice control for a TV simply because Google already applied for a patent on that feature we'll have a valid discussion point. 

    The evidence? The fact that I have managed companies that have declined to go after a technology after seeing a patent application from a competitor.

    You are, however, misquoting me, as usual. I never said that Apple shouldn't work on voice control, for example. They are free to work on any technology they wish - but a prudent company would make sure that their work did not infringe on someone else's patent or patent application. In fact, I specifically stated that they could use the published patent application to help them find a way around a given patent application.
  • Reply 75 of 96
    mrrodriguezmrrodriguez Posts: 215member
    bigmac2 wrote: »
    1) Do you even know about what was the deal between Xerox and Apple before SJ visited the Xerox Parc? They got their shares of profits with stocks. And do you know what exactly Apple did copy from Xerox? Menu Bar, the desktop, the trash, control panels, they all have been Apple creation, not Xerox.  True Xerox has the first GUI and Mouse, untrue Apple did copy Xerox Alto OS codes and design.

    2) Google do has patented their search algorithme and protect their business model where all users are money making sheeps for them. Searching isn't just about search, it's all about the result and making profit with targeted advertisements, but it don't seams to matter you much.

    I'm aware of Xerox compensation but regardless apple didn't invent the GUI. and wow i can't believe you mentioned the trash bin. What a laughable defense. To say that Apple invented an bitmap image that looks like a trash can where you drag a file and it performs a delete command is reaching at straws. Apple stole the FUNDAMENTALS of Hero's invention, Google stole the FUNDAMENTALS of iOS.

    Your second point proves how much of a better company Google is in that they patented the inner workings or their search engine rather gesture of searching the web. Google's patent is fair and should be protected as its essential to their business and success. Swiping your finger across a touch screen device to unlock it is not essential to iOS or iPhone success.

    patening Siri's algorithm for how it displays search results = legitimate
    patening Siri's local search functionality = frivolous and illegitimate

    HTC already won a case in the UK. Soon common sense Americans will be the jury in the case and will see how frivolous these Apple claims are.
  • Reply 76 of 96
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    I'm aware of Xerox compensation but regardless apple didn't invent the GUI. and wow i can't believe you mentioned the trash bin. What a laughable defense.

    You've no clue what you're talking about, you know. "Fundamentals". Hilarious.
    Soon common sense Americans will be the jury in the case and will see how frivolous these Apple claims are.

    I'm sure. *three pats*
  • Reply 77 of 96
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    The patent wasn't issued in 2004. 



    It was filed in 2004

  • Reply 78 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    It was filed in 2004



    Oh, it was applied for in Dec/2004. :) 

  • Reply 79 of 96
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    
    
    
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Oh, it was applied for in Dec/2004. :) 

    Released publicly as Apple's invention, open to be objected to or copied, obviously in this case by Google and/or Samsung.

    Since 2004, well before Android 'aquired' the same feature.
  • Reply 80 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    Code:


    Released publicly as Apple's invention, open to be objected to or copied, obviously in this case by Google and/or Samsung.

    Since 2004, well before Android 'aquired' the same feature.


    So you're claiming Google and Samsung saw that patent application (sometime in 2006 since it's 18 months to public notice as a rule), read all the claims, and recognized using "heuristics" to search for info on terms entered into a text box via keyboard, microphone or mouse was a unique and marvelous idea and sure to be approved. So they proceeded to copy Apple's brilliant patent application, studying it carefully to understand the proper way it should be done, knowing that it would be granted to Apple at some point and Apple could then sue to remove Samsung and /or Google products from the market.


     


    I think I understand now. . . 


     


     


    that your claim is nonsensical.

Sign In or Register to comment.