Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone

thewap said:
Question; explain claims construction order ;would equate to each parties certification of all claims that constitute the whole of an infringement upon a patent? Seems a difficult process to prove all claims made on a construction order to win an infringement case.
Click to expand...

Claim construction is the process and order by which the court (or tribunal) defines disputed terms in the patent. It is among, if not the, most important events in a patent lawsuit.

Here is an example from a patent at issue in a different Samsung/Apple fight. U.S. Patent No. 7,863,533 includes a claim that covers something called a "cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums." What does that mean? Claim construction tells you (or at least it should). Apple proposed a very narrow definition of that term: "causing the first and second distal ends to move so that more than one contact may be actuated at the same time." Samsung proposed a broader definition: "caused to move or depressed at the same time." Why did Apple want a narrow construction and Samsung want a broader construction? Apple is trying to avoid some prior art and Samsung wants to make the patent invalid under the prior art.

There are massive fights in patent cases over claim construction, and the applicable rules (at least in the US) are evolving and often difficult to apply. Courts many consider two broad types of evidence, intrinsic (the patent itself and any prosecution history) and extrinsic (testimony, expert opinion, how the term is/was commonly understood in the relevant art, etc.). Intrinsic evidence is more important, obviously, but these can be highly complex issues that often are not resolved until an appeal.

But, the point is: all of this belly aching about who copied what, etc., is really beside the point. Focus on the patent.

++++++

ETA: here is the full claim described above.

1. A cantilevered push button adapted for accepting one or more inputs on an electrical or electronic device, comprising: a button top component having a first distal end associated with a first user input and a second distal end opposite said first distal end and associated with a second user input separate from said first user input, wherein said button top component is disposed about an exterior surface of an electrical or electronic device and is accessible to a user, and wherein both of said first and second distal ends can be actuated simultaneously by a user during ordinary use of said electrical or electronic device; a first fulcrum located at said first distal end or between said first distal end and the midpoint of said button top component; a second fulcrum located at said second distal end or between said second distal end and said midpoint of said button top component; a first electrical contact associated with said first distal end of said button top component, wherein said button top component pivots about said second fulcrum and said first electrical contact is actuated when a user presses on said first distal end; and a second electrical contact associated with said second distal end of said button top component, wherein said button top component pivots about said first fulcrum and said second electrical contact is actuated when a user presses on said second distal end.
 
Last edited:
djphat2000 said:
What you say only half way works. If you want Apple to continue making great products, you have to have them protect what they sell. You can't have others copy (potentially) what they make and resell it as their own. Apple loses sales that way, and hence they don't make more products. As they come out with something new, someone else freely copies, and sells at a cheaper price and is Apple out of business. That's bad!
Click to expand...

Just stop with thin nonsense already. You're going in circles.

Firstly, you sound like you're saying Apple should have a monopoly on mobile innovation. Secondly, what makes Apple be the company that is allowed to copy other's ideas of which we have a lot of proof recently? Thirdly, you keep going on and on about what Android has stolen from iOS, yet when I keep asking for examples I only hear the popular yet very vague "look and feel" argument. Just give some precise examples already, then we can discuss the matter in more detail.
 
rkw0211 said:
For anyone saying that Android "blatantly copied" Apple, you are delusional. Android doesn't look, act, or feel anything like iOS (well except for the notification shade in iOS that Apple truly did BLATANTLY ripped off Android).

Further, this litigation has NOTHING to do with the physical design of these products (which, by the way, look nothing alike either).

I am not against companies "protecting technologies" and "true innovation" but the patents in question are very small pieces of the software that were clearly put together to ban a product that is competing against them. (As opposed to one that rips them off).

Anyway, hopefully Apple is prepared for Google to get involved. Especially when Google gets this patent granted:
Click to expand...


Again, this is "opinion" not fact. Its not "blatantly" until Google or whatever handset maker "sues" over it. If they have not, then there is nothing to discuss about it. We can have opinions about it, and we can argue over its similarities or none there of. But, its only opinion for now. Whether it looks, acts, or feels anything like iOS or Apples iPhone, is again "our" general opinion either way. NOT fact, NOT law. Until a court decides such (in either direction). its only opinions.
 
A large fraction of the posters here object to the very principal of Patents, so they will never agree with this on any level, and that also makes them extralegal.

A small fraction of posters generally agree with Patents but feel this application is in some way lacking. Those folks are simply wrong. That's why we have judges, and I point out the hill that has to be climbed in time, resources, and proof is VERY steep, and was accomplished.

There are the folks that point out that in Samsung's home country, overt copying is either widely tolerated or outright legal, including near exact copies of Apple products AND THEIR PACKAGING.

In this and most countries it is not. They deserve more punishment than they will get. Treaties and the law are weak in this area.

Rocketman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JZBLjxPBUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1gISYqsApI
 
Last edited:
Kurwenal said:
Claim construction is the process and order by which the court (or tribunal) defines disputed terms in the patent. It is among, if not the, most important events in a patent lawsuit.

Here is an example from a patent at issue in a different Samsung/Apple fight. U.S. Patent No. 7,863,533 includes a claim that covers something called a "cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums." What does that mean? Claim construction tells you (or at least it should). Apple proposed a very narrow definition of that term: "causing the first and second distal ends to move so that more than one contact may be actuated at the same time." Samsung proposed a broader definition: "caused to move or depressed at the same time." Why did Apple want a narrow construction and Samsung want a broader construction? Apple is trying to avoid some prior art and Samsung wants to make the patent invalid under the prior art.

There are massive fights in patent cases over claim construction, and the applicable rules (at least in the US) are evolving and often difficult to apply. Courts many consider two broad types of evidence, intrinsic (the patent itself and any prosecution history) and extrinsic (testimony, expert opinion, how the term is/was commonly understood in the relevant art, etc.). Intrinsic evidence is more important, obviously, but these can be highly complex issues that often are not resolved until an appeal.

But, the point is: all of this belly aching about who copied what, etc., is really beside the point. Focus on the patent.
Click to expand...
And this is the kind of posts I like. Detailed, based on actual knowledge and facts. Not those vague statements we keep getting all the time.
 
Kurwenal said:
Claim construction is the process and order by which the court (or tribunal) defines disputed terms in the patent. It is among, if not the, most important events in a patent lawsuit.

Here is an example from a patent at issue in a different Samsung/Apple fight. U.S. Patent No. 7,863,533 includes a claim that covers something called a "cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums." What does that mean? Claim construction tells you (or at least it should). Apple proposed a very narrow definition of that term: "causing the first and second distal ends to move so that more than one contact may be actuated at the same time." Samsung proposed a broader definition: "caused to move or depressed at the same time." Why did Apple want a narrow construction and Samsung want a broader construction? Apple is trying to avoid some prior art and Samsung wants to make the patent invalid under the prior art.

There are massive fights in patent cases over claim construction, and the applicable rules (at least in the US) are evolving and often difficult to apply. Courts many consider two broad types of evidence, intrinsic (the patent itself and any prosecution history) and extrinsic (testimony, expert opinion, how the term is/was commonly understood in the relevant art, etc.). Intrinsic evidence is more important, obviously, but these can be highly complex issues that often are not resolved until an appeal.

But, the point is: all of this belly aching about who copied what, etc., is really beside the point. Focus on the patent.
Click to expand...

Very interesting thank you , seems like patent cases are quite complex and lengthy.
 
Bezetos said:
Just stop with thin nonsense already. You're going in circles.

Firstly, you sound like you're saying Apple should have a monopoly on mobile innovation. Secondly, what makes Apple be the company that is allowed to copy other's ideas of which we have a lot of proof recently? Thirdly, you keep going on and on about what Android has stolen from iOS, yet when I keep asking for examples I only hear the popular yet very vague "look and feel" argument. Just give some precise examples already, then we can discuss the matter in more detail.
Click to expand...


Your going in circles.
No where did ever say or imply anyone should have a monopoly. As a matter of pure fact, this is the first time I have even typed MONOPOLY in these forums. So your just strait up lying about anything I have said to date.
What every proof you have of them coping, so long as its PROOF not OPINION, is fine. As the courts will make it so or not. NOT US! Not you, not I, not anyone other then the courts in which they are being heard. If you don't like it, too bad. Vote for someone that will claim to be able to change it and make it more to your liking. That's how it works ladies and gentlemen. Its not new!

The examples in which you seek are being heard in courts of law. When they decide that Apple has or has not infringed or some other company has or has not infringed, that's what it SHALL BE. Not what you think, or what you ask. It becomes what IS. Right now, its in court over whatever patents they are in dispute over. Plain and simple. The court currently has rule in Apples favor, it's now FACT and LAW till overturned (possibly) by another court. Simple. Why is that so hard to understand? Give up your opinion as fact logic and come to terms with the FACTS.

----------
Rocketman said:
A large fraction of the posters here object to the very principal of Patents, so they will never agree with this on any level, and that also makes them extralegal.

A small fraction of posters generally agree with Patents but feel this application is in some way lacking. Those folks are simply wrong. That's why we have judges, and I point out the hill that has to be climbed in time, resources, and proof is VERY steep, and was accomplished.

There are the folks that point out that in Samsung's home country, overt copying is either widely tolerated or outright legal, including near exact copies of Apple products AND THEIR PACKAGING.

In this and most countries it is not. They deserve more punishment than they will get. Treaties and the law are weak in this area.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

100% correct! Just amazing that people really believe there opinion, even in face of FACTS. Stop caring one way or another. It is what it is, if you don't like it, we can discuss it and what it should be, and maybe one day change it. But, why people "think" they "know" what they clearly do not is baffling. ;)
 
If you just remove a fanboy bias and look at it objectively, apple is just reacting to the fact that a lot of other phones now are much better at giving a great user experience then they do. And its just making them insecure.

The patents in question in this fight are so laughable that its almost as if apple had a knee jerk reaction that something came up that would totally cut iPhone sales by a major fraction, and they were not prepared for somebody else to come towards the fore of the race. They are just acting like the bad sportsman now who pushes and shoves others that are trying and succeeding in getting past.

Shame shame.

Typing this on my iPad just so you know.
 
rkw0211 said:
For anyone saying that Android "blatantly copied" Apple, you are delusional. Android doesn't look, act, or feel anything like iOS (well except for the notification shade in iOS that Apple truly did BLATANTLY ripped off Android).

Further, this litigation has NOTHING to do with the physical design of these products (which, by the way, look nothing alike either).

I am not against companies "protecting technologies" and "true innovation" but the patents in question are very small pieces of the software that were clearly put together to ban a product that is competing against them. (As opposed to one that rips them off).

Anyway, hopefully Apple is prepared for Google to get involved. Especially when Google gets this patent granted:
Click to expand...

So the notification shade looks the same but the icons do not? What are you smoking? BTW, thank WebOS for that notification shade, not Android.

Clearly, you are pulling it out of your ass when you state why Apple is suing Samsung over these devices. There's a much bigger picture here, Samsung stole a lot more than just these four items, these just happen to be what sticks in court. You might want to take off the Fandroid blinders.
 
LaDirection said:
They stole iOS, how was he wrong? Look at Windows phone, it's not an iOS rip off. Its possible to do something without stealing the ideas of people who worked hard and invested huge amounts of money in it.

Apple will win these lawsuits, Google and Samsung will have to pay damages which, guess what, they shouldn't have because even if it had been THEIR ideas to would have spent it creating and developing the products.
Click to expand...

iOS stole Palm OS. Look at WebOS and tell me, who stole off who?

Oh wait, that's inconvenient. We can only compare things to iOS, not things that Apple ripped off.
 
swerveut said:
If you just remove a fanboy bias and look at it objectively, apple is just reacting to the fact that a lot of other phones now are much better at giving a great user experience then they do. And its just making them insecure.

The patents in question in this fight are so laughable that its almost as if apple had a knee jerk reaction that something came up that would totally cut iPhone sales by a major fraction, and they were not prepared for somebody else to come towards the fore of the race. They are just acting like the bad sportsman now who pushes and shoves others that are trying and succeeding in getting past.

Shame shame.

Typing this on my iPad just so you know.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't react to competition by suing them, they react to blatant theft of their ideas and branding - which Samsung does repeatedly, and not just to Apple...only they usually get away with it.

What's laughable is people like yourself who do not understand the process here beyond a blurb in a blog...
 
djphat2000 said:
Your going in circles.
No where did ever say or imply anyone should have a monopoly. As a matter of pure fact, this is the first time I have even typed MONOPOLY in these forums. So your just strait up lying about anything I have said to date.
What every proof you have of them coping, so long as its PROOF not OPINION, is fine. As the courts will make it so or not. NOT US! Not you, not I, not anyone other then the courts in which they are being heard. If you don't like it, too bad. Vote for someone that will claim to be able to change it and make it more to your liking. That's how it works ladies and gentlemen. Its not new!

The examples in which you seek are being heard in courts of law. When they decide that Apple has or has not infringed or some other company has or has not infringed, that's what it SHALL BE. Not what you think, or what you ask. It becomes what IS. Right now, its in court over whatever patents they are in dispute over. Plain and simple. The court currently has rule in Apples favor, it's now FACT and LAW till overturned (possibly) by another court. Simple. Why is that so hard to understand? Give up your opinion as fact logic and come to terms with the FACTS.

----------



100% correct! Just amazing that people really believe there opinion, even in face of FACTS. Stop caring one way or another. It is what it is, if you don't like it, we can discuss it and what it should be, and maybe one day change it. But, why people "think" they "know" what they clearly do not is baffling. ;)
Click to expand...

Having worked on two commercials for the Korean market, it is for certain that the Korean corporations hold a lot of political pull in their own country (perhaps even equal to government power) due to their status as corporate giants. How they operate in their country really has no bearing on how they must operate in this country. Here they are subject to our laws...not theirs.
 
KanosWRX said:
It's interesting even on an apple forum the majority of people see the idiocracy of what Apple is doing.
Click to expand...

Nope. Looking at the up/down votes, it looks as if the majority here are on Apple's side; they're just voting with a click instead of writing a message.
 
MuppetGate said:
Nope. Looking at the up/down votes, it looks as if the majority here are on Apple's side; they're just voting with a click instead of writing a message.
Click to expand...
People already know that rotten apple is acting like a spoiled immature little kid.
 
swerveut said:
If you just remove a fanboy bias and look at it objectively, apple is just reacting to the fact that a lot of other phones now are much better at giving a great user experience then they do. And its just making them insecure.

The patents in question in this fight are so laughable that its almost as if apple had a knee jerk reaction that something came up that would totally cut iPhone sales by a major fraction, and they were not prepared for somebody else to come towards the fore of the race. They are just acting like the bad sportsman now who pushes and shoves others that are trying and succeeding in getting past.

Shame shame.

Typing this on my iPad just so you know.
Click to expand...

Completely an opinion. Not fact.
They may be laughable to you and to many but, they have patents, they can pursuer enforcement of said patents if they see fit to do so.
 
Lennholm said:
The very short section on the Android Wikipedia article doesn't state anything that supports your claim that Android was developed as the new OS for BB, in fact, the quote from Andy Rubin suggest that it was always intended to be independent.
You're completely wrong when you say pretty much every phone only had EDGE in 2007. 3G had been around for years, it was well established (well, maybe not in the US) and was considered a defining feature of a smartphone, pretty much every smartphone in 2007 had it.
EDGE is only good enough for WAP, so the iPhone's full HTML5 browsing SUCKED unless you were near a WiFi network you had access to, which isn't exactly the point of a cell phone.
Click to expand...


http://androidnewscenter.com/index....ndroid-phone-resembled-blackberry-not-iphone/
 
clibinarius said:
iOS stole Palm OS. Look at WebOS and tell me, who stole off who?

Oh wait, that's inconvenient. We can only compare things to iOS, not things that Apple ripped off.
Click to expand...

Apple stole PalmOS?

The Newton was released in 1993

266029-apple-newton.jpg


and the Palm was released in 1996:


Palm-OS.png


They look very similar, but which came first ? (There's a hint in the post.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back