Apple Details Five Patents Violated by Samsung Galaxy S4 and Google Now

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 22, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Last week Apple told the U.S. District Court in California that it planned to add the Samsung Galaxy S4 to its patent lawsuit already underway against Samsung. As promised, Apple today filed a motion (via Foss Patents) that details five different patents that the S4 allegedly infringes on.

    The filing includes two Siri-related patents violated by Google Now, Google's robust voice activated search assistant. Patents '604 and '959 cover a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."

    The other three patents in the filing cover a "graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes ('502)," a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data ('647)." and "asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices ('414)." According to Apple, these are all claims that other Samsung devices already violate.
    Samsung and Apple were ordered to narrow the scope of their ongoing legal battle earlier this year and as a result, Apple has stated that it will remove one of the other 22 infringing devices from the lawsuit if it is permitted to add the Galaxy S4.

    There will be a hearing to discuss Apple's newly filed motion on June 25 in San Jose and the lawsuit, which covers newly released devices that were not a part of the original dispute, is expected to go to trial in March of 2014.

    Article Link: Apple Details Five Patents Violated by Samsung Galaxy S4 and Google Now
  2. macrumors 6502a


    Mar 23, 2007
    I'm excited to see another Apple vs Samsung legal battle.

    - said no one ever
  3. macrumors 68000

    Mar 5, 2012
    Central California
  4. macrumors regular

    Mar 7, 2012
  5. macrumors 68040

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Oct 4, 2007
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
  6. macrumors 604


    Mar 26, 2008
    ugh stupid software patents, so vague it could mean anything
  7. macrumors 6502a


    Jul 15, 2011
    Finally some lawsuit news. Was getting tired of the iMac wifi leak.
  8. macrumors regular


    Sep 29, 2008
    Toronto, Canada
    Patents '604 and '959 cover a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."

    My god... when will this crap ever end? These aren't inventions.

    How much more vague can this be?
  9. macrumors regular

    Jan 25, 2013
    If they violated the patents, Apple has every legal right to battle them in court. That's why you pay so much money for patents.

    Is this really a Mac Rumour though? I suppose when there are no new products for 6 months, this is what we get!

    Come on June!!
  10. macrumors member

    Oct 29, 2002
    Los Angeles, CA
    Okay. Please Apple. I am so tired of hearing about this ****. As much as I am an iPhone user and all, can we just make nice and be done with all this dumb legal action?

    As Larry Page said recently, "We should be building great things that don't exist." Not focusing on the platform wars or sniping with other companies. And iOS 6 was really boring.

    It starts seeming like Apple is spending more effort on lawsuits than new products and features. I am keeping my fingers crossed on iOS 7 and Jon Ive, but at the moment Google is pushing the envelope more than Apple and Apple is suing Samsung for Google Now?
  11. macrumors G3


    Jun 11, 2008
    Los Angeles, CA
    Yeah cause the lawyers are also the engineers
  12. macrumors G4


    Jun 12, 2012
    How can you patent something as broad as, "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system"

    ....they mine as well start suing all electronic companies.
  13. macrumors 68020

    May 23, 2011
  14. macrumors 68000


    Oct 1, 2004
    Mountains of Vermont
    Apple should focus on beating the competition into the ground in the market place. The governments should eliminate the patent system.
  15. macrumors 6502


    Apr 19, 2004
    Nottingham, UK
    Apple, get your *********g useless fingers out your ass ... You can't even be bothered to bring out your own decent S4 competitor; choosing to spend more time in court.

    Used to love Apple, hate them now!!!!
  16. charlituna, May 22, 2013
    Last edited: May 22, 2013

    macrumors G3


    Jun 11, 2008
    Los Angeles, CA
    Eliminate IP protection and no one has a reason to create anything. Because they would put it out in the world only to have to ripped off left and right.

    What we need is a better patent system. Clearer rules on what can receive protection, new system for public review of pending patents before they can be signed off, new rules for when you can file a complaint of violation and what kind of damages you can get.

    So for example
    patents on mere ideas are out the door. There has to be a specific and detailed tech described even if it is just theoretical at this time. And a violation requires at least 80% of those details to match exactly and a lack of proof of concurrent development.

    When a patent is submitted as part of the final review it is publicly revealed so other companies can object in the grounds they have prior art that would invalidate this new patent. A board reviews it and rejects the patent application if they agree or rejects the prior art claim. If anyone releases anything that violate the announced patent during this period and it is approved then it is still a violation. If someone falls to submit an objection during the public review they can't use it in a suit later unless they can prove there was no way for them to see clearly it was an issue until they saw the final product.

    And in regards to claims against companies for violations, a limit of say 3 years is put on filing a suit for violation from the time the tech in question was released to the public. Otherwise no statutory damages will be awarded, just actual. A blanket no injunctions on SEP related issues and statutory damages are only applicable if the owning company can prove that they did attempt to negotiate FRAND rates and the offender refused. Or the offending company attempted to offer FRAND rates and was refused. In the case of offense yes it might be possible for the court to decide a FRAND rate for the license and require payment AND at the same time find against the patent owner for failure to properly license depending on circumstances

    Same if there is clear evidence of patent exhaustion and the owners attempted to double dip with knowledge of the PE. And if any company, party or not, claims to have an applicable patent exhaustion, such as Apple and Lodsys, all cases are frozen (and no new ones can be filed) while the claim is reviewed. If it is shown that the owners falsely filed claims they have to pay all legal fees for those they filed against and a reasonable nuisance fine.
  17. macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Mar 2, 2010
    ...or for Macs & iDevices. We pay Apple for the unnecessary entertainment.
  18. macrumors regular

    Dec 18, 2007
    The patent descriptions sound so vague. I'm not saying that Samsung is the white-hat in this, but there has to be a line when it comes to technology. Patenting "auto complete" and suing because of it is just a jerk thing to do.

    So they patented:

    universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
    Looking up information on a computer system. Really? I'm pretty sure all computers do that. Even old less-smart phones had a search to get contacts and such. It just wasn't one-textbox to search everything-at-once. BUT... computers and PIM's have been doing that for years.

    graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
    Auto-complete showing historic entries. Really? Every browser since 1995 does that. Heck even some old less-smart phones did that.

    asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
    Your device syncs up with other similar devices via a cloud or something. Not really innovation.

    System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
    This is the only one I can't tell what they're saying. From a larger description it sounds like passing data-structure to a server, using that structured data to do something, and return it. That sounds like old-hat stuff as well, but I could be reading it incorrectly.
  19. macrumors 68020


    Aug 15, 2011
    These patent wars are getting out of hand. Seriously, patent right shouldn't be allowed for processes that are too generic.
  20. macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    You had me at "asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices."

    Actually, I don't ****ing get it and I wish Apple would **** already.
  21. macrumors regular

    Mar 12, 2011
    I need to patent a "device that does some stuff" and sue the hell out of everyone!
  22. macrumors 603


    Jan 8, 2009
    Apple, focus on quality products with current technology (I'm looking at you, Mac Pro's), instead of wasted time and money on these endless suits. Innovate, not mediate.

    Arn, there should be a "MacSuits" section. :p

    Attached Files:

  23. macrumors 65816

    Jul 23, 2012
    Apple's new business strategy. Apply for vague patents and then sue everyone.
  24. macrumors 6502

    Oct 28, 2011
    "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system." is PATENTED?!

    This is from The Onion..... right? :confused:
  25. macrumors 6502


    Aug 1, 2011
    Samsung fans are also keeping their fingers crossed...hoping some of those new iOS 7 features make it to the S5. :apple:

Share This Page