Samsung tries to get peek at iOS source code in Korean patent suit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a request to the Seoul Central District Court on Friday, Samsung asked to see the source code for Apple's latest iOS, claiming that it needed access to the extremely sensitive data to confirm that the operating system infringes on a software patent.

Notification Center


In response, Apple vehemently denied the request, calling it "ridiculous" as the source code is among the company's most guarded assets, reports The Korea Times.

Court officials quoted Apple counsel as saying, "[The request] doesn?t make any sense. Samsung is saying that we should give up protecting our most important data." The court asked that Apple provide its software designers and engineers for testimony, but the company refused.

The request comes one day after Samsung lawyers said it would be impossible to determine whether the Korean tech giant's patent was infringed upon without the source code. Apple reportedly called the plea "insane."

At issue is Apple's implementation of Notification Center, which allows users to swipe down from the top of any iDevice screen to access a host of updates including weather, email and push notifications, among others. Samsung first filed suit against the Cupertino company in December, claiming Notification Center infringed on patented technology.

Apple introduced Notification Center with iOS 5 in 2011, some time after a similar solution was seen in handsets running Google's Android. Earlier this month AppleInsider discovered an Apple patent application for the iOS notification system, but it is unclear if the filing has any relation to Samsung's Korean suit.

Samsung claimed that it patented an identical feature in November 2006 that was later used in Android devices including the company's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Apple rebutted and accused Samsung of taking ownership of a technology already in use throughout the industry.

The Seoul court did not issue a ruling regarding the matter and an official timeline for a determination has yet to be announced.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,614member


    This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.


     


    EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case

  • Reply 2 of 34


    one word - 


     


    don'tnoain'tgonna

  • Reply 3 of 34
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member


    "John, go downstairs and give Samsung the "source code"."

  • Reply 4 of 34


    Apple lawyer:  "Oh, sure... I have a copy right here... It's kind of tattered... Why don't I send you a "fresh" copy in the morning?  Are there any sections you would like me to highlight?  Do you need help preparing your brief?"


     


    "Oh, can I have some of what you're snorting?"


     


    "There's a hole in Sammy's arm where all the money goes..."


     


     


    Edit:  I am listening to this right now... If you substitute Samsung for for "San Stone" "Daddy" it really fits:


     


    Quote:


    Sam Stone by Al Kooper 


     


    Sam Stone came home, 

    To his wife and family 

    After serving in the conflict overseas. 

    And in the time that he had served, 

    It had shattered all his nerves, 

    And it left a little shrapnel in his knee. 

    Oh, but the morphine eased the pain, 

    And the grass grew round his brain, 

    And it gave him all the comfort as he lacked, 

    With a purple heart and a monkey on his back. 



    Chorus: 

    There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes, 

    Jesus Christ died for nothin' I suppose. 

    Little pitchers have big ears, 

    But don't you stop to count the years, 

    Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios. 

    Mmm.... 



    Sam Stone's welcome home 

    Didn't last too long. 

    No he went to work after he spent his last dime 

    And Sammy took to stealing 

    When he get’ that empty feeling 

    For a hundred dollar habit without overtime. 

    And the cold rolled through his veins 

    Like a thousand railroad trains, 

    And it eased his mind in the hours that it shows, 

    While his kids ran around wearin' other peoples' clothes... 



    Repeat chorus: 



    Sam Stone was alone 

    When he broke his gas balloon 

    Climbing walls while he sat there in a chair 

    Well, he played his last request 

    While the room stonk just like death 

    With an overdose just hoverin’ in the air 

    But life had lost it's fun 

    And there was nothing to be done 

    But to trade his house that he bought on the GI-bill 

    For what, a flag draped casket on a local heroes' hill 



    Repeat chorus 



    Sam Stone, ah 

    Sam Stone



  • Reply 5 of 34
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,587member
    It will be a cold day in hell before Apple would release the crown jewels to this thieving company.
  • Reply 6 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,614member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post



    It will be a cold day in hell before Apple would release the crown jewels to this thieving company.


    They already did. See post 1

  • Reply 7 of 34
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.


     


    EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case



    They obviously didn't get a long enough look.

  • Reply 8 of 34
    froodfrood Posts: 771member

    Quote:

    . Apple rebutted and accused Samsung of taking ownership of a technology already in use throughout the industry.



     


     


    Did anyone else laugh at the irony in this?


     


     


    In this case I happen to agree with Apple and think pretty much all software patents are bogus.


     


    What happens when companies start going after universities or even high schools.  Their grant money is just as green as other businesses.  Your average simple CS homework assignment probably violates about 50 of their 'amazingly inventive' patents.


     


     


    I'm going to file for a patent:


     


    A method for adding 1 to a variable.


     


    x=x+1;


     


    Hmmmm let me check Apples source code and sue them!


     


    The judge found infringement, I'll be rich unless Apple can find a way to not violate my patent!


     


    Apple:


     


    x= x+3-2;


    Patented.


     


    Doh!!

  • Reply 9 of 34
    drblank wrote: »
    gatorguy wrote: »
    This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.

    EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.

    http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case
    They obviously didn't get a long enough look.

    One wonders how well lawyers can read code -- especially in two different OSes, two different languages, and two different APIs. I suspect that even a coding expert would have difficulty with this...

    I don't believe that Apple would find any Android code "good enough" to be copied line-for-line -- even if it were possible.

    So, If ideas are not patentable... Only implementations... What's the likelihood of success, here?
  • Reply 10 of 34
    frood wrote: »
    . Apple rebutted and accused Samsung of taking ownership of a technology already in use throughout the industry.


     

    Did anyone else laugh at the irony in this?


    In this case I happen to agree with Apple and think pretty much all software patents are bogus.

    What happens when companies start going after universities or even high schools.  Their grant money is just as green as other businesses.  Your average simple CS homework assignment probably violates about 50 of their 'amazingly inventive' patents.


    I'm going to file for a patent:

    A method for adding 1 to a variable.

    x=x+1;

    Hmmmm let me check Apples source code and sue them!

    The judge found infringement, I'll be rich unless Apple can find a way to not violate my patent!

    Apple:

    x= x+3-2;
    Patented.

    Doh!!

    X++;
  • Reply 11 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,614member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    They obviously didn't get a long enough look.



    The code for integrating the "notification center" feature that Samsung is complaining about wasn't in iOS5. That's why they want to have a look at iOS6 too. It does seem like a reasonable request if it's the only way to prove/disprove infringement. That doesn't mean the court will order it. The Australians felt it was necessary, but the Korean court may find differently.

  • Reply 12 of 34
    froodfrood Posts: 771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    X++;


     


    Showoff.

  • Reply 13 of 34
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member
    SameSong
  • Reply 14 of 34
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member


    The burden of proof should be on the accuser. Make them buy an iPhone, jailbreak it, reverse engineer the binaries, and prove it, if they think Apple stole their algorithm. 

  • Reply 15 of 34
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member


    What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


     


    Apple tried to subpoena Google for Nexus source code last year, along with requesting documentation on how Samsung's version was different from the public Android source.


     


    ---


     


    Sure seems like either side could just disassemble the other's code, though I suppose that violates one or more customer terms, which of course lawyers probably see as an obstacle.

  • Reply 16 of 34
    frood wrote: »
    X++;

    Showoff.

    I spent 2 days refactoring my code!
  • Reply 17 of 34


    Originally Posted by drblank View Post

    They obviously didn't get a long enough look.


     


    Flatbed scanners only work so fast…

  • Reply 18 of 34
    gatorguy wrote: »
    This already came up in Australia, maybe early last year? I thought Samsung already got a peek at the source code. Perhaps it was restricted to a 3rd party exam, dunno.

    EDIT: Yup, an Australian court ordered Apple to hand over iOS5 source code to Samsung in Nov/11, which they did. Hardly a new issue, and one that Apple has already complied with before.

    http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2555493/samsung-wins-some-and-loses-some-in-australia-infringement-case

    Reread the article. It deals with code for the 4s as of 11/12/2011. That would be iOS 5. The current iOS version is 6. The article says "current" code. One would assume they asked for iOS 6. Version 5 should be sufficient to assert the claim if it supports the claim.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post


     


    Did anyone else laugh at the irony in this?


     


     


    In this case I happen to agree with Apple and think pretty much all software patents are bogus.


     


     


     



     


    I disagree. Software should be patentable. That's not the issue. It's the level of the software that is the issue. Like all else in IP it should be more than just an idea. It should be a specific and fully explained methodology. And infringement should only be if it copies the specifics. Rather like how copyrights don't cover ideas such as 'a huge comet that is going to kill all life is going to hit Earth' but the specific story of the characters, their history, what they do, what they say. Or even how in Germany (Poland?) they rejected Apple's 'swipe your finger on the screen to unlock your device' but did approve 'a specific preset swipe programmed into the software and unchangeable by the user, the location and direction of which is explained using a combination of onscreen graphics and/or text' versus the non infringing (generally used) Android version of 'a gesture set by the user which can encompass any portion of the screen or movement the user desires, can be changed by the user at any time and is not referenced on screen in regards to location or direction of movement'


     


    By a similar token, and it feels like the courts are agreeing, design patents should be detailed, specific and taken in the totality. That another tablet or phone is a rectangle with rounded corners is, to me, not enough. That it is that, has a thickness of whatever, a ratio of that, a flat glass front, and, and, and. If it hits everything, illegal infringement. especially if, as happened with Samsung, there's smoking gun evidence they examined the item in detail for design cues. If not, then leave it to the court of public opinion where folks can clearly see inspiration and decide if they want the original thinker or not. 


     


    And so on. 

  • Reply 20 of 34

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


     


    Apple tried to subpoena Google for Nexus source code last year, along with requesting documentation on how Samsung's version was different from the public Android source.


     


    ---


     


    Sure seems like either side could just disassemble the other's code, though I suppose that violates one or more customer terms, which of course lawyers probably see as an obstacle.



    I think you're dissembling here. Google claims it is open source, does it not? Isn't that the basis for how everyone from Samsung to Amazon, is able to use it to build their operating systems? What am I missing?

Sign In or Register to comment.