I see two third party apps still in Beta testing. Neither was invented or patented by Apple or Google. Vlingo is the owner from Android, btw.
This is pointless though. The iFaithful will refuse to believe amy evidence of Apple wrongdoing, even if it is the exact same thing they are cheering for, because it is against Samsung or Google or HTC, hypocrits, the lot of ya. It's pathetically sad.
What you really had to notice is how S voice is just as big of a copy of Siri as iOS notification centre is copy of Android notifications. What does that make you? A JellyDroid?
I don't see why you have to give him a hard time when he's correct.
When Notification centre came out, even I went "Yup, thats Android!"
Smartphones have functionality that bleed together across all platforms because its to be expected of such a device; but there are things that are clearly ripped off from each other and both Apple and Google are guilty of this.
What you really had to notice is how S voice is just as big of a copy of Siri as iOS notification centre is copy of Android notifications. What does that make you? A JellyDroid?
S voice is Samsung, not Google...so the comparison isn't exactly apt...
Samsung is a slavish copying machine and I really wish they'd change their ways...their shitty skins scream so much of downright theft I'm shocked they haven't been banned from the USA entirely (disagree about the design of the tablets though as I don't think a minimal black rounded rectangle should be pantentable...imagine if Google got a patent on the Nexus Q being a sphere?
But yea...S voice sucks...and Samsung should feel bad...if they were Japanese they'd be expected to fall on a sword because they dishonored their families.
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
That may very well be the case and I can see an argument for being against the patent but the fact is the patent was granted, it was held up in court and a ban has been issued thus requiring a change in the code for sales to resume. The comment you make about it being overly broad just supports my original point about a work around will affect the Nexus product even more.
You're right. It does however point out the patent system needs some kind of overhaul, as there are currently hundreds of such patents. If all patents were to be used in the way Apple just used them in this case, US economy would grind to a complete stop in days, which is good for no one... I'm not saying Apple shouldn't defend their business, just that the system desperately needs some attention from people who understand it.
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
If nobody ever thought about a door hinge, yes, provided yours is the only reason why the other guy made a door hinge. Basically, patents that any engineer tasked with solving a problem would come up with without interference from said patent are supposed to be void and null. So if your problem is "preventing people from entering my house" and you invent a door that slides, fine. If you invent a door that rotates, fine. The rotating model will need a door hinge, which directly stems from the rotation requirements. "Directly stems" implies, a patent should be void and null for the hinge, but if doors have never been made rotating until you came along (say, because everyone thought sliding door were so much better, [only requiring a stylus to operate]), then that's what you should patent.
In our case, the touch interface for the iPhone obviously is the innovative part that should be protected and that Samsung copies blatantly, however the unified search feature (especially given the vague wording) basically seems like something that anyone with a computer would think of. Moreover, in English computers are called "computers" because they're seen as machines for calculating stuff. The French word is "ordinateur", because they're seen as machines for ordering and retrieving stuff. Unified search then is a basic feature, and even part of the definition, of the machine itself...
It seems to me that Google should have contested the patent itself via prior art (doesn't Microsoft's search feature fall under the broad definition of Apple's patent, which would kill it?)
Side note for historical purposes: the patent system issues aren't new. In the early 50's, a French engineer, composer, author, singer and political activist called Boris Vian obtained a patent for an inflatable device that would be used around wheels to reduce shocks. Yes, that's a tire. He did so by defining said tire in a very broad way, through very complicated words, just for the purpose of demonstrating the issues with the current patent system at the time. He also defined standards to be applied to parties and insults, while working at the national standardization body, for the same purpose of demonstrating the issues with the process.
Samsung's full statement...We will continue to pursue an appeal of the GALAXY Nexus preliminary injunction, which we filed on July 2 to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, we are also working closely with Google to resolve this matter, as the patent in question concerns Google's unified search function.
The problem is it's Apple's patented unified search function.
This is what Samsung should have done from the start got together with Google to remove offending functions and innovate their own.
A possible workaround is for Samsung to upload a phone's contents to the open web so Google's search engine can find it.
Of course there may be some privacy issues with contact lists being open to search but Google doesn't really care about people's privacy.
As in Apple assumes they can get away with stealing.
And then we have the many features Apple 'stole' for iOS6 from Android like email 'priority inbox' or as Apple calls it 'VIP mail', or the "call you later" text response to incoming calls or Face detection api or custom vibrations or multiple keyboard layouts or in-app bluetooth, etc... But, since it is Apple stealing Android's ideas, it's okay, right?
Don't be hypocritical.
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.
What in my post exactly gave you the idea that I condone stealing by Apple?
Or are you trying to justify Google's wrongs by other wrongs?
An eye for an eye? Like in socity codices from 5,000 years ago? Is that how far we progressed?!?
Cannot comment on notification center, but email priorities and groupimg by them is an old hat, so are text replies to incoming calls, as well as custom vibration alarms. Mobile phones even before the smart phome era could do that already. Those are likely just more examples of ideas Google 'borrowed' from others.
Isn't Apple's Notification Center a web app?
If so, then allegations of copying are redundant since its not part of the OS.
That's a very disingenuous way to phrase it. You make it sound like Google stole an implementation from Apple. Nothing of the sort happened. Apple's universal search patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604) is overly broad and shouldn't have been issued. Read the patent if you haven't already. It's essentially a vague, 10,000-foot level description of searching multiple repositories and sorting the results. It's full of empty phrases like "each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm" and "a ranking module configured to rank each candidate item located by the plurality of heuristic modules." But it never specifies what those algorithms are or how they work. It's ridiculous that such hand-waving is patent-able at all.
So your legal opinion is that the patent should not have been issued, as the description is too vague to tell one "knowledgeable in the art" (viz. , Google engineers) enough to enable them to build it.
I know nothing of your legalistic or technical skills in general, but what you quote is from the claims section, not intended to describe anything, but to set out the scope claims for the lawyers. What you ought to be reading is the Detailed Description on the Invention, and answering the question, does it make the idea specific and definite enough to enable a knowledgeable Google engineer to program it? I have not heard from anyone in a position to know that it does not. It looks pretty specific to me.
But if you are right, do tell Samsung in time for the trial. The court needs to know.
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
All that you have made is a paper tiger. The question is not the "end result" but the specific method patented, off limits for the term of the patent.
Got two words for you: 'Notification Center'
As in Apple assumes they can get away with stealing.
And then we have the many features Apple 'stole' for iOS6 from Android like email 'priority inbox' or as Apple calls it 'VIP mail', or the "call you later" text response to incoming calls or Face detection api or custom vibrations or multiple keyboard layouts or in-app bluetooth, etc... But, since it is Apple stealing Android's ideas, it's okay, right?
Don't be hypocritical.
Google doesn't implement notification center if it doesn't rip off the entire OS to begin with.
Hopefully there will be some sort of penalty by the courts.
Apple gets a patent, Google/Samsung ignore it, Apple has to spend $$$ in court to get an injunction and they come along with a "patch" to fix the issue as if nothing happened in the first place?
Local search already existed on Android before Apple got the patent to be best of my knowledge. I think it's extremely likely that at least some of the claims from this patent won't be ruled invalid by the time it's adjudicated. That won't be of much help now.
It certainly doesn't advance technology to try and claim that whether it's by entering text in a box or using your voice (Apple claims rights to both), someone searching for answers to a question is not entitled to find them. But until the actual court case is heard there may be little that can be done, thus the fastest way to deal with it is limit the device owners ability to find information stored on his own device.
This paragraph from Apple's patent claims just about covers every method of getting a complete answer to a query, whether entered with via keyboard (5), microphone (7) or mouse (3):
In general, the present invention provides a universal interface that enables the user to readily retrieve an item of desired information located on any of the various storage media that are accessible to the user's computer system, with minimal effort. The desired information could be an application that is stored on the local storage media 12, a file stored on the LAN storage volume 8, or a web page available through the Internet router 11. Rather than require a separate search mechanism to locate each of these different types of information, the present invention facilitates the user's ability to easily retrieve the information by means of a single universal interface which is capable of accessing files on all of these various storage resources.
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
Not sure. Who cares, though?
That's for the courts to decide. Patents are patents. There are billions of dollars at stake. Of course tech companies will do everything in their power to secure their piece of the pie or enlarge it. This is nothing new. If it isn't through patents, it'll be through some other legal means.
Local search already existed on Android before Apple got the patent to be best of my knowledge. I think it's extremely likely that at least some of the claims from this patent won't be ruled invalid by the time it's adjudicated. That won't be of much help now.
It certainly doesn't advance technology to try and claim that whether it's by entering text in a box or using your voice (Apple claims rights to both), someone searching for answers to a question is not entitled to find them. This patent essentially makes Apple the gatekeeper for knowledge search on an electronic device if all the claims it makes are valid IMHO. You'll only be allowed partial answers unless they're served by Apple.
Hopefully there will be some sort of penalty by the courts.
Apple gets a patent, Google/Samsung ignore it, Apple has to spend $$$ in court to get an injunction and they come along with a "patch" to fix the issue as if nothing happened in the first place?
Meanwhile, Google and all of its licensees have grabbed a great deal of market share from Apple that will be difficult, if not impossible, for Apple to recover. Thus, even if Apple wins all of these cases, they are permanently harmed.
I assume this work around isn't as good as the IP they are using from Apple or they'd have used it in the first place. I wonder how it will effect performance and usability once implemented.
How did it go when HTC implemented a work around for their previous ban?
The HTC 'work around' isn't resolved yet. HTC says that they are no longer infringing. Apple says they are. Either the courts or ITC will have to decide if the workaround really fixes the problem (I think it's ITC who's handling this one, but I'm not going to look it up).
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
No. Simply making a product which does the same thing is not patent infringement.
OTOH, if you have a patent on a door hinge and I make a product which infringes the specific claims in your patent, then you most certainly could sue me. Patents grant exclusivity on devices which fall under the specific claims of the patent.
Now, of course, if there were prior art, I could try to have the patent invalidated, but until that happens, the patent is valid and you would have every right to prevent me from using it. What part of 'patent' don't you understand?
Local search already existed on Android before Apple got the patent to be best of my knowledge. I think it's extremely likely that at least some of the claims from this patent won't be ruled invalid by the time it's adjudicated. That won't be of much help now.
Then you'd better run your evidence over to Google because they weren't able to convince Koh of that. Part of Koh's decision to issue an injunction involves the likelihood that Apple would prevail, so she apparently doesn't agree with you.
It certainly doesn't advance technology to try and claim that whether it's by entering text in a box or using your voice (Apple claims rights to both), someone searching for answers to a question is not entitled to find them.
It doesn't advance technology when companies are allowed to simply steal and use patented technology rather than investing in innovation. The entire patent system was set up on the premise that innovation is fostered when the innovator has an exclusive right to the invention for some period of time and therefore has an incentive to invent. If you take away that incentive (by allowing unrestricted copying), there would be less innovation.
So, yes, the patent system DOES encourage innovation.
This patent essentially makes Apple the gatekeeper for knowledge search on an electronic device if all the claims it makes are valid IMHO. You'll only be allowed partial answers unless they're served by Apple.
Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. If the patent is valid and it makes Apple the gatekeeper for knowledge search, that's too bad for the rest of the industry. That's what innovation and market leadership is all about. Maybe they should put their time and money into creating new things rather than simply copying.
Then you'd better run your evidence over to Google because they weren't able to convince Koh of that. Part of Koh's decision to issue an injunction involves the likelihood that Apple would prevail, so she apparently doesn't agree with you.
It doesn't advance technology when companies are allowed to simply steal and use patented technology rather than investing in innovation.
Maybe they should put their time and money into creating new things rather than simply copying.
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.
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?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Hypocrits, the lot of ya. It's pathetically sad.
The baby's crying again.
It's your turn to look after him...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I see two third party apps still in Beta testing. Neither was invented or patented by Apple or Google. Vlingo is the owner from Android, btw.
This is pointless though. The iFaithful will refuse to believe amy evidence of Apple wrongdoing, even if it is the exact same thing they are cheering for, because it is against Samsung or Google or HTC, hypocrits, the lot of ya. It's pathetically sad.
What you really had to notice is how S voice is just as big of a copy of Siri as iOS notification centre is copy of Android notifications. What does that make you? A JellyDroid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
The baby's crying again.
It's your turn to look after him...
I don't see why you have to give him a hard time when he's correct.
When Notification centre came out, even I went "Yup, thats Android!"
Smartphones have functionality that bleed together across all platforms because its to be expected of such a device; but there are things that are clearly ripped off from each other and both Apple and Google are guilty of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
What you really had to notice is how S voice is just as big of a copy of Siri as iOS notification centre is copy of Android notifications. What does that make you? A JellyDroid?
S voice is Samsung, not Google...so the comparison isn't exactly apt...
Samsung is a slavish copying machine and I really wish they'd change their ways...their shitty skins scream so much of downright theft I'm shocked they haven't been banned from the USA entirely (disagree about the design of the tablets though as I don't think a minimal black rounded rectangle should be pantentable...imagine if Google got a patent on the Nexus Q being a sphere?
But yea...S voice sucks...and Samsung should feel bad...if they were Japanese they'd be expected to fall on a sword because they dishonored their families.
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That may very well be the case and I can see an argument for being against the patent but the fact is the patent was granted, it was held up in court and a ban has been issued thus requiring a change in the code for sales to resume. The comment you make about it being overly broad just supports my original point about a work around will affect the Nexus product even more.
You're right. It does however point out the patent system needs some kind of overhaul, as there are currently hundreds of such patents. If all patents were to be used in the way Apple just used them in this case, US economy would grind to a complete stop in days, which is good for no one... I'm not saying Apple shouldn't defend their business, just that the system desperately needs some attention from people who understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
If nobody ever thought about a door hinge, yes, provided yours is the only reason why the other guy made a door hinge. Basically, patents that any engineer tasked with solving a problem would come up with without interference from said patent are supposed to be void and null. So if your problem is "preventing people from entering my house" and you invent a door that slides, fine. If you invent a door that rotates, fine. The rotating model will need a door hinge, which directly stems from the rotation requirements. "Directly stems" implies, a patent should be void and null for the hinge, but if doors have never been made rotating until you came along (say, because everyone thought sliding door were so much better, [only requiring a stylus to operate]), then that's what you should patent.
In our case, the touch interface for the iPhone obviously is the innovative part that should be protected and that Samsung copies blatantly, however the unified search feature (especially given the vague wording) basically seems like something that anyone with a computer would think of. Moreover, in English computers are called "computers" because they're seen as machines for calculating stuff. The French word is "ordinateur", because they're seen as machines for ordering and retrieving stuff. Unified search then is a basic feature, and even part of the definition, of the machine itself...
It seems to me that Google should have contested the patent itself via prior art (doesn't Microsoft's search feature fall under the broad definition of Apple's patent, which would kill it?)
Side note for historical purposes: the patent system issues aren't new. In the early 50's, a French engineer, composer, author, singer and political activist called Boris Vian obtained a patent for an inflatable device that would be used around wheels to reduce shocks. Yes, that's a tire. He did so by defining said tire in a very broad way, through very complicated words, just for the purpose of demonstrating the issues with the current patent system at the time. He also defined standards to be applied to parties and insults, while working at the national standardization body, for the same purpose of demonstrating the issues with the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Samsung's full statement...We will continue to pursue an appeal of the GALAXY Nexus preliminary injunction, which we filed on July 2 to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, we are also working closely with Google to resolve this matter, as the patent in question concerns Google's unified search function.
The problem is it's Apple's patented unified search function.
This is what Samsung should have done from the start got together with Google to remove offending functions and innovate their own.
A possible workaround is for Samsung to upload a phone's contents to the open web so Google's search engine can find it.
Of course there may be some privacy issues with contact lists being open to search but Google doesn't really care about people's privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How did it go when HTC implemented a work around for their previous ban?
They couldn't for the closed source Gmail application, Google has to fix that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Got two words for you: 'Notification Center'
As in Apple assumes they can get away with stealing.
And then we have the many features Apple 'stole' for iOS6 from Android like email 'priority inbox' or as Apple calls it 'VIP mail', or the "call you later" text response to incoming calls or Face detection api or custom vibrations or multiple keyboard layouts or in-app bluetooth, etc... But, since it is Apple stealing Android's ideas, it's okay, right?
Don't be hypocritical.
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.
Isn't Apple's Notification Center a web app?
If so, then allegations of copying are redundant since its not part of the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
That's a very disingenuous way to phrase it. You make it sound like Google stole an implementation from Apple. Nothing of the sort happened. Apple's universal search patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604) is overly broad and shouldn't have been issued. Read the patent if you haven't already. It's essentially a vague, 10,000-foot level description of searching multiple repositories and sorting the results. It's full of empty phrases like "each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm" and "a ranking module configured to rank each candidate item located by the plurality of heuristic modules." But it never specifies what those algorithms are or how they work. It's ridiculous that such hand-waving is patent-able at all.
So your legal opinion is that the patent should not have been issued, as the description is too vague to tell one "knowledgeable in the art" (viz. , Google engineers) enough to enable them to build it.
I know nothing of your legalistic or technical skills in general, but what you quote is from the claims section, not intended to describe anything, but to set out the scope claims for the lawyers. What you ought to be reading is the Detailed Description on the Invention, and answering the question, does it make the idea specific and definite enough to enable a knowledgeable Google engineer to program it? I have not heard from anyone in a position to know that it does not. It looks pretty specific to me.
But if you are right, do tell Samsung in time for the trial. The court needs to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
All that you have made is a paper tiger. The question is not the "end result" but the specific method patented, off limits for the term of the patent.
Google doesn't implement notification center if it doesn't rip off the entire OS to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Hopefully there will be some sort of penalty by the courts.
Apple gets a patent, Google/Samsung ignore it, Apple has to spend $$$ in court to get an injunction and they come along with a "patch" to fix the issue as if nothing happened in the first place?
Local search already existed on Android before Apple got the patent to be best of my knowledge. I think it's extremely likely that at least some of the claims from this patent won't be ruled invalid by the time it's adjudicated. That won't be of much help now.
It certainly doesn't advance technology to try and claim that whether it's by entering text in a box or using your voice (Apple claims rights to both), someone searching for answers to a question is not entitled to find them. But until the actual court case is heard there may be little that can be done, thus the fastest way to deal with it is limit the device owners ability to find information stored on his own device.
This paragraph from Apple's patent claims just about covers every method of getting a complete answer to a query, whether entered with via keyboard (5), microphone (7) or mouse (3):
In general, the present invention provides a universal interface that enables the user to readily retrieve an item of desired information located on any of the various storage media that are accessible to the user's computer system, with minimal effort. The desired information could be an application that is stored on the local storage media 12, a file stored on the LAN storage volume 8, or a web page available through the Internet router 11. Rather than require a separate search mechanism to locate each of these different types of information, the present invention facilitates the user's ability to easily retrieve the information by means of a single universal interface which is capable of accessing files on all of these various storage resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
If I make a door hinge and patent it and you make a door hinge should I be able to sue you because our two products do the exact same thing even if they have different everything but end result?
Not sure. Who cares, though?
That's for the courts to decide. Patents are patents. There are billions of dollars at stake. Of course tech companies will do everything in their power to secure their piece of the pie or enlarge it. This is nothing new. If it isn't through patents, it'll be through some other legal means.
The courts are there to settle disputes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Local search already existed on Android before Apple got the patent to be best of my knowledge. I think it's extremely likely that at least some of the claims from this patent won't be ruled invalid by the time it's adjudicated. That won't be of much help now.
It certainly doesn't advance technology to try and claim that whether it's by entering text in a box or using your voice (Apple claims rights to both), someone searching for answers to a question is not entitled to find them. This patent essentially makes Apple the gatekeeper for knowledge search on an electronic device if all the claims it makes are valid IMHO. You'll only be allowed partial answers unless they're served by Apple.
2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
2004
The patent wasn't issued in 2004.
Meanwhile, Google and all of its licensees have grabbed a great deal of market share from Apple that will be difficult, if not impossible, for Apple to recover. Thus, even if Apple wins all of these cases, they are permanently harmed.
The HTC 'work around' isn't resolved yet. HTC says that they are no longer infringing. Apple says they are. Either the courts or ITC will have to decide if the workaround really fixes the problem (I think it's ITC who's handling this one, but I'm not going to look it up).
No. Simply making a product which does the same thing is not patent infringement.
OTOH, if you have a patent on a door hinge and I make a product which infringes the specific claims in your patent, then you most certainly could sue me. Patents grant exclusivity on devices which fall under the specific claims of the patent.
Now, of course, if there were prior art, I could try to have the patent invalidated, but until that happens, the patent is valid and you would have every right to prevent me from using it. What part of 'patent' don't you understand?
Then you'd better run your evidence over to Google because they weren't able to convince Koh of that. Part of Koh's decision to issue an injunction involves the likelihood that Apple would prevail, so she apparently doesn't agree with you.
It doesn't advance technology when companies are allowed to simply steal and use patented technology rather than investing in innovation. The entire patent system was set up on the premise that innovation is fostered when the innovator has an exclusive right to the invention for some period of time and therefore has an incentive to invent. If you take away that incentive (by allowing unrestricted copying), there would be less innovation.
So, yes, the patent system DOES encourage innovation.
Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. If the patent is valid and it makes Apple the gatekeeper for knowledge search, that's too bad for the rest of the industry. That's what innovation and market leadership is all about. Maybe they should put their time and money into creating new things rather than simply copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Then you'd better run your evidence over to Google because they weren't able to convince Koh of that. Part of Koh's decision to issue an injunction involves the likelihood that Apple would prevail, so she apparently doesn't agree with you.
It doesn't advance technology when companies are allowed to simply steal and use patented technology rather than investing in innovation.
Maybe they should put their time and money into creating new things rather than simply copying.
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.
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?