Samsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for Siri
In its ongoing litigation against Samsung, Apple has added five new patents to its claims, targeting both the company's new flagship Galaxy S4 smartphone, as well as the Google Now service for Android.
Two of the patents specifically relate to Apple's voice-driven Siri personal assistant, as noted on Wednesday by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. They are U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604, and U.S. Patent No. 6,846,959, both of which are entitled "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."
Beyond Siri, the filing also alleges the infringement of three other Apple-owned patents:
"The Galaxy S4 product practices many of the same claims already asserted by Apple? in the same way as the already-accused Samsung devices," the filing states.
As for the inclusion of Google Now, the '604 and '959 patents related to Siri are also included in the filing because Google Now has replaced the Android Quick Search Box in some instances. That search box was previously targeted by Apple in its complaint.
A hearing to discuss Apple's motion has been scheduled for June 25 in a San Jose court in front of Judge Paul S. Grewal.
Apple first signaled to the court last week that it intended to add the Galaxy S4 to its existing patent infringement suit. This week's formal filing has revealed exactly what five patents the iPhone maker has accused Samsung's latest smartphone of violating.
Two of the patents specifically relate to Apple's voice-driven Siri personal assistant, as noted on Wednesday by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. They are U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604, and U.S. Patent No. 6,846,959, both of which are entitled "Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."
Beyond Siri, the filing also alleges the infringement of three other Apple-owned patents:
- U.S. Patent No. 5,666,502: "Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes"
- U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647: "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data"
- U.S. Patent No. 7,761,414: "Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices"
"The Galaxy S4 product practices many of the same claims already asserted by Apple? in the same way as the already-accused Samsung devices," the filing states.
As for the inclusion of Google Now, the '604 and '959 patents related to Siri are also included in the filing because Google Now has replaced the Android Quick Search Box in some instances. That search box was previously targeted by Apple in its complaint.
A hearing to discuss Apple's motion has been scheduled for June 25 in a San Jose court in front of Judge Paul S. Grewal.
Apple first signaled to the court last week that it intended to add the Galaxy S4 to its existing patent infringement suit. This week's formal filing has revealed exactly what five patents the iPhone maker has accused Samsung's latest smartphone of violating.
Comments
Didn't Samsung try to add the iPhone 5 to their suit before it was even announced?
Why don't Apple file this case when lots and lots of Samsung phones are sold?
They can show the number and gauge the damages, if they win the case.
I believe the patents in question were related to wireless tech and it was a safe assumption that Apple would build off the current, allegedly infringing tech, in new phones. So not that crazy sounding a move. Plus if it stopped or delayed the release of a new iPhone it would leave folks hopefully more willing to look at other models, like Samsung
Because it isn't about the actual money so much as the principle of the thing and the fear that once folks go to something like Samsung and Android they won't come back, particularly if they can, their eyes, get all the features of the iPhone for cheaper
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I believe the patents in question were related to wireless tech and it was a safe assumption that Apple would build off the current, allegedly infringing tech, in new phones. So not that crazy sounding a move. Plus if it stopped or delayed the release of a new iPhone it would leave folks hopefully more willing to look at other models, like Samsung
That's the alternative I was thinking, but in doing so they're implicitly admitting that said technology is standards-essential, and thus must be licensed under fair and reasonable terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Because it isn't about the actual money so much as the principle of the thing and the fear that once folks go to something like Samsung and Android they won't come back, particularly if they can, their eyes, get all the features of the iPhone for cheaper
So irritating that Google and Co. copied iOS and Apple to make their stand in industry and eating the market share with second grade OS and copy features.
When that happens the SG4 would be replaced with the SG5.
Patents are either standard or not. There is no implicit standard as Apple would have to agree to it.
Utter nonsense. Wireless Tech != Standards Essential
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puevlo
Asynchronous data synchronisation? Seems legit.
Asynchronous refers to data being sent in various chunks or sent only from one end. Not all at the same time or not from both ends at once. (Conversations are synchronous. Text messages are asynchronous.) And just to state the obvious, synchronization here refers to data being the same in both places. Asynchronous is the opposite of synchronous. It's not related to synchronized or synchronization in this sense.
It's not like the case is going to be heard today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA
Utter nonsense. Wireless Tech != Standards Essential
If they are assuming that an iPhone cannot be released without using their technology, that means that the technology must be essential for the operation of a smartphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Like Cook said before Congress, the IP court situation is such that by the time your case gets resolved, it's moot. Be nice if Congress would get some actual work done and fix this, but it's easier to sit there holding hearings and getting your face on TV.
And how are the courts funded? Taxes maybe? To enable a greater throughput, they might need to be more generously funded. Perhaps Tim could offer to provide the funding to get the end result he seems to want.
I am just curious how much Google is paying Samsung to fight their battles. We all know they apple has not directly attacked Google on most of these things since Google is the one who is fact creating the stuff that Samsung is using.
Yeah Google is attacking Apple via Motorola, but as we seen most of that has not gone anywhere. If anything the Motorola strategy has gotten google hands slapped a number of times by the courts was well the world Trade groups for unfair trade practices.
If I was Samsung and the reason they are battling Apple is due to features that Google developed, I would be making them pay to keep using their product.
Wonder if anyone done the math on if Samsung decide to move away from Android, what would Google Market share look like. Google has hitched its wagon to the Samsung horses at this point.
Don't kid yourself, it's always about money. Why aren't they going after HTC, Motorola, LG? Their phones have Google Now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I believe the patents in question were related to wireless tech and it was a safe assumption that Apple would build off the current, allegedly infringing tech, in new phones. So not that crazy sounding a move. Plus if it stopped or delayed the release of a new iPhone it would leave folks hopefully more willing to look at other models, like Samsung
I believe it is built into the Qualcom chip that Apple uses for iPhone 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
I seem to recall voice control functionality existing in android phones at least a year before Siri was released, so the notion anyone stole ip here is a bit silly. If apple holds the patent then it's fair game to go after anyone infringing on it, but to paint this as Samsung once again stealing from Apple's design prowess is a laughable assertion.
It doesn't matter. The matter was filed much earlier. You go by the date of the patent not the product.