ITC judge finds Samsung to be infringing Apple text-selection patent
An International Trade Commission judge has ruled that Samsung infringed on an Apple patent by including a text-selection feature in its mobile devices.
In a decision issued on March 26 but kept confidential until Thursday, an ITC judge gave a preliminary decision that found Samsung to be infringing on one of two Apple patents in question. Depending on the decision of the full ITC commission, the devices that include the infringing technology ? including Samsung's Galaxy, Transform, and Nexus devices, as well as others ? could face import bans in the United States, Reuters reported on Friday.
The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. RE41,922, covering a "method and apparatus for providing translucent images on a computer display." Patent litigation commentator Florian Mueller notes that Samsung features found particularly to be in violation are the text selection feature of the Android Browser application and the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery.
The same decision found that Samsung did not infringe on a second Apple patent in which a device can tell whether a microphone or other attachment is plugged into its microphone jack. While the ruling was issued on March 26, it was kept confidential until Thursday in order to allow Apple and Samsung to redact sensitive business information.
The full commission will decide whether to uphold or overturn the judge's decision, with a final decision expected in August.
In a decision issued on March 26 but kept confidential until Thursday, an ITC judge gave a preliminary decision that found Samsung to be infringing on one of two Apple patents in question. Depending on the decision of the full ITC commission, the devices that include the infringing technology ? including Samsung's Galaxy, Transform, and Nexus devices, as well as others ? could face import bans in the United States, Reuters reported on Friday.
The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. RE41,922, covering a "method and apparatus for providing translucent images on a computer display." Patent litigation commentator Florian Mueller notes that Samsung features found particularly to be in violation are the text selection feature of the Android Browser application and the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery.
The same decision found that Samsung did not infringe on a second Apple patent in which a device can tell whether a microphone or other attachment is plugged into its microphone jack. While the ruling was issued on March 26, it was kept confidential until Thursday in order to allow Apple and Samsung to redact sensitive business information.
The full commission will decide whether to uphold or overturn the judge's decision, with a final decision expected in August.
Comments
Quote:
ITC judge finds Samsung to be infringing
We found it when it was released itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. RE41,922, covering a "method and apparatus for providing translucent images on a computer display."
There's no actual method or apparatus claimed in this updated patent.
The patent simply claims various combinations of the idea of putting a translucent window or image on top of others, with or without input.
This claim of owning translucent overlays is a prime example of a software patent that should never have been granted.
However, the ITC often overturns preliminary judge findings, so we'll see what actually ends up happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
Sadly all decisions in favor of Apple are overturned eventually.
Because most of the patents are silly.
Translucent images and text selection... Really? How are these even patents to begin with?
Edit: from the diagram in this article it may be that the "Blending Engine" is the mechanics for this patent. Urgh. Blending Engine. Blending Engine. Wow. What do I know? I just think Apple makes great products.
I own the patent to the blinking line that designates where the next character typed will go. Pay up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100
Odd. It does seem like so much prior art. Like from desktop computers. On a mobile computer that's not really different. If there was something about the mechanics I might understand. There are unique and great touches in the UI -- the "handles" for selecting text, the fisheye lens for help when placing a cursor just so, for example -- but this seem peculiar.
Edit: from the diagram in this article it may be that the "Blending Engine" is the mechanics for this patent. Urgh. Blending Engine. Blending Engine. Wow. What do I know? I just think Apple makes great products.
You should check out the images in the patent. It is a patent stemming from Desktops, using OS 7 or 8 type art.
I feel this patent should have been granted as it was, but I don't think it applies in this case. Maybe it does as they have more information of HOW Samsung applied it than I do.
Edit: I take that back, it's OS 6 type art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... Samsung infringed on an Apple patent by including a text-selection feature in its mobile devices. ...
Incorrect grammar.
This should read "... Samsung infringed on an Apple patent when it includ(ed) a text-selection feature in its mobile devices."
(using "by" directly implies that the inclusion of any text selection feature is a problem)
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
How about a patent to pick your nose? This is utterly ridiculous. I don't have any respect for Apple along these lines and I am a long time Apple product owner.
Samsung sues, Apple sues. It is like the threat of mutually assured destruction. They have to keep the balance of power or the other side will overtake them. Neither side has a choice at this point for fear that their products will be banned in each country one by one. If Apple decided not to fight back they would be destroyed in the courts in no time. As it is now, each ruling sets precedent for the next case.
Originally Posted by NotScott
I own the patent to the blinking line that designates where the next character typed will go. Pay up.
No, you own a patent on an implementation of that. If I make my own that isn't yours, I don't have to pay you anything.
If that were how it worked, the lawsuit in the OP (as well as most of these software patent lawsuits) wouldn't exist.
Or did you think that Samsung actually somehow acquired Apple's source code for drawing text selections and used that instead of writing their own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Samsung carbon copied Apple store setup inside BestBuy.
Did Apple patent that too?
Samsung copies everything Apple anyway.
This is nothing new. It's a shame though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Did Apple patent that too?
Samsung copies Apple whether there is a patent.
Does that apply to swiping to unlock and have an image bounce back?Come on Apple where are all the cutting edge devices you used to release?...
.Apple is nothing more than a technology repackager...where as Samsung at least invents stuff.
It's been a long time since Apple invented anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
How about a patent to pick your nose? This is utterly ridiculous. I don't have any respect for Apple along these lines
It's ridiculous because they filed and were granted a patent and you have no respect for them because they are trying to enforce that patent? (which was initially granted and now has been preliminarily decided that Samsung is infringing that patent)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If Apple decided not to fight back they would be destroyed in the courts in no time. As it is now, each ruling sets precedent for the next case.
If Apple decided to not fight back, they wouldn't be in court. (to get destroyed)
Everyone would simply rip them off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If Apple decided not to fight back they would be destroyed in the courts in no time. As it is now, each ruling sets precedent for the next case.
If Apple decided to not fight back, they wouldn't be in court. (to get destroyed)
Everyone would simply rip them off.
That's a possibility but I was suggesting that even if Apple did not fight back with their own suits, Samsung and Motorola would continue to seek injunctions against them.