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.
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.
I'm pretty sure that Notification Center was indeed in iOS 5
This is why Samsung says they need to see the source code for iOS6 too. I would assume they already know if iOS5 infringed if they got to look at all the code in the Australian case. Having said that I haven't seen anything stating whether their previous Aussie look was restricted to the questions in that specific case or not. If so perhaps Sammy never got a look at the code for Apple's notification center in iOS5.
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?
You're missing the fact that company or device specific modifications are not open code for anyone.
For example, Amazon is not required to reveal the changes they made to the original open source that they used as a base.
Or, say if you and I decided to create a startup making Android based phones, and we modified the code just for our device to make it run faster or to add some cool feature (like Samsung's video overlay window), then that code belongs to us. It's our choice whether to donate that code back or not.
--
Btw, I wouldn't call Android totally open, nor does Google in their FAQ. They point out that they often create private code branches in order to make new APIs without worrying about messing up developers while the APIs are being refined. Also, Google keeps their own apps (mail, maps, search) private.
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.
If Samsung has to show their source code, a person wouldn't have to actually read it, only look at the comments heading up the modules. Like, "Here is where we rip off Apple's scroll bounce."
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.
I'm with you on principal. But practice doesn't reasonably follow. The system (in software- not design or hardware) is used primarily to thwart competition much more so than to protect innovation. Its pretty ridiculous. One-click-purchase? Really???!!! Patents purely to thwart competition certainly happens in design/hardware as well, but in those areas I think the balance of power still lies firmly in 'protecting innovation' In software its not even close.
I'm with you on principal. But practice doesn't reasonably follow. The system (in software- not design or hardware) is used primarily to thwart competition much more so than to protect innovation. Its pretty ridiculous. One-click-purchase? Really???!!! Patents purely to thwart competition certainly happens in design/hardware as well, but in those areas I think the balance of power still lies firmly in 'protecting innovation' In software its not even close.
If by, "thwart competition," you mean, "keep people from stealing what you've invented," then I agree with you. What it thwarts is copying other people's hard work.
One-click is a poor example for you argument, since this is a patent that should probably never have been granted due to the volumes of prior art for "one-click" actions. But, Amazon often gets treatment that is, to say the least, mysterious.
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.
You and your trolls. Need an ego boost did we? Good for you. You got your jollies? What a big man. Why do you come here again???
You and your trolls. Need an ego boost did we? Good for you. You got your jollies? What a big man. Why do you come here again???
I would hope you could do better than simply visit to write insults, trolling members you disagree with. Some of your early posts here had good info, comments and sources, some of it new to me. It was appreciated. IMHO more of those and less of your more recent personal attacks that lack anything else would benefit the members.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948
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.
See post 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
I'm pretty sure that Notification Center was indeed in iOS 5
yep
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3576
Quote:
With iOS 5 or later, you can view the Notification Center by swiping down from the top of the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I'm pretty sure that Notification Center was indeed in iOS 5
yep
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3576
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/09/ios-6-notifications.html
This is why Samsung says they need to see the source code for iOS6 too. I would assume they already know if iOS5 infringed if they got to look at all the code in the Australian case. Having said that I haven't seen anything stating whether their previous Aussie look was restricted to the questions in that specific case or not. If so perhaps Sammy never got a look at the code for Apple's notification center in iOS5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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?
You're missing the fact that company or device specific modifications are not open code for anyone.
For example, Amazon is not required to reveal the changes they made to the original open source that they used as a base.
Or, say if you and I decided to create a startup making Android based phones, and we modified the code just for our device to make it run faster or to add some cool feature (like Samsung's video overlay window), then that code belongs to us. It's our choice whether to donate that code back or not.
--
Btw, I wouldn't call Android totally open, nor does Google in their FAQ. They point out that they often create private code branches in order to make new APIs without worrying about messing up developers while the APIs are being refined. Also, Google keeps their own apps (mail, maps, search) private.
You mean this : http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/22/google-ios-source-code/?
Crooks and liars of the world, unite!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
You mean this : http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/22/google-ios-source-code/?
Nope, that article is the opposite situation.
I gave this link in my post for the case where Apple subpoenaed Google for source code.
Samsung: Drop 'em and spread 'em.
Apple: Cheeky little bastards aren't you?
If Samsung has to show their source code, a person wouldn't have to actually read it, only look at the comments heading up the modules. Like, "Here is where we rip off Apple's scroll bounce."
These patents are not at an implementation level where the source code matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
I'm with you on principal. But practice doesn't reasonably follow. The system (in software- not design or hardware) is used primarily to thwart competition much more so than to protect innovation. Its pretty ridiculous. One-click-purchase? Really???!!! Patents purely to thwart competition certainly happens in design/hardware as well, but in those areas I think the balance of power still lies firmly in 'protecting innovation' In software its not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
I'm with you on principal. But practice doesn't reasonably follow. The system (in software- not design or hardware) is used primarily to thwart competition much more so than to protect innovation. Its pretty ridiculous. One-click-purchase? Really???!!! Patents purely to thwart competition certainly happens in design/hardware as well, but in those areas I think the balance of power still lies firmly in 'protecting innovation' In software its not even close.
If by, "thwart competition," you mean, "keep people from stealing what you've invented," then I agree with you. What it thwarts is copying other people's hard work.
One-click is a poor example for you argument, since this is a patent that should probably never have been granted due to the volumes of prior art for "one-click" actions. But, Amazon often gets treatment that is, to say the least, mysterious.
You and your trolls. Need an ego boost did we? Good for you. You got your jollies? What a big man. Why do you come here again???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00
You and your trolls. Need an ego boost did we? Good for you. You got your jollies? What a big man. Why do you come here again???
I would hope you could do better than simply visit to write insults, trolling members you disagree with. Some of your early posts here had good info, comments and sources, some of it new to me. It was appreciated. IMHO more of those and less of your more recent personal attacks that lack anything else would benefit the members.
Dear oh dear, this whole sue you, sue me is getting insane!
How about this, Zerox sues the whole IT industry for ripping GUI.
Come on, I appreciate innovation as much as the next guy. But Apple should forget about chasing parked cars and start sniffing out the next big thing.
If they don't come up with something "insanely great" within the next 5 years, they will get very stale very soon.