Do you expect me to buy that boring book just to respond?
Either post what you think is relevant, or give up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you expect me to buy that boring book just to respond?
Either post what you think is relevant, or give up.
You can go on making legally incorrect statements as long as you want, but that doesn't make them right. I will correct this one more statement -- after that you have to start paying me to do legal work for you.
First, Apple's motion could never be a permanent injunction because the rule under which the motion was filed does not provide for permanent injunctions.
Second, with respect to whether I accurately described Judge Koh's ruling, I will just let the judge speak for herself:
"[T]he Federal Circuit's remand . . . did not invite a reopening of the D'899 infringement, validity, and irreparable harm findings. . . .The Federal Circuit upheld the Court's findings of infringement and irreparable harm. . . . In combination with the Federal Circuit's determination that the D'899 Patent will likely withstand Samsung's validity challenge, Apple has established a strong claim on the merits." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88436, *12-14 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2012).
It's plain you have not read the opinions. I will repeat my offer to email you copies if you PM your email address to me.
Which of course brings up the question: are you yourself a patent litigator?
We used to have CMAIER here, but I think one of the companies being discussed hired him. He used to give us insight into the decision process.
---
As for the three judges, they only disagreed with Koh that the Knight-Ridder (aka Fidler) tablet design bore the same visual impression as the Apple Design Patent.
Therfore, as I'm sure you know, two of the judges were fine with remanding the case back to Koh for further proceedings. Sure enough, at first Koh scheduled more input from the lawyers on each side, and Samsung thought they'd be able to bring up more prior art.
Then she suddenly changed her mind, canceled further hearings, and went with the single dissenting judge who thought it was time for an immediate injunction.
Last edited:
I like apple, but i prefer android. And this is ridiculous, there anyone ever seen those ipad clones called zeepad and epad and tpad? Why aren't apple suing them? Some of Huawei's latest phone resembles the iPhone, but I bet apple won't sue them. They go for the big companies like Sammy and HTC. So that right there should automatically tell you that they're doing itbecause they're afraid of competition. Because if it was really about patents they would sue those cheap ass companies like huawei and zte or even lg. I've seen some iphone clones from lg. And the new Google voice search that tears siri into pieces, is a google product, so why not sue Google?
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple is a scummy company. Thats all there is to it. Typical.
The company reminds me of crap Micro$oft 10 years ago when they thought they owned the entire industry and tried to push other companies out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed. Though it was more like 13 years ago, and alittle before then.,
Though. Microsoft cleaned up their act big time.
Not only did they clean up their act, they turned into a pretty awesome company that makes some kickass products. ( Windows 7, The Xbox Series. The new Windows Phones and Tablet looks epic )
I concur, there would be no Microsoft today if they had kept going down that road
I wonder if apple employees read MR...
Do they feel ashamed of their company? With the way Apple is going, Apple employees will soon feel unwelcome in any company and will be forced to hide the fact that they work for Apple (or risk public condemnation).
Do they feel ashamed of their company? With the way Apple is going, Apple employees will soon feel unwelcome in any company and will be forced to hide the fact that they work for Apple (or risk public condemnation).
When Apple introduced iPhone, they took a huge risk by doing things no-one ever would ever do at that moment - and it could have killed their brand and so their company.
Remember that all the competition was ridiculizing the machine. Ballmer was positively laughing. Not anyone else would have ever chosen to build a smartphone without a keyboard and with so much emphasis on browsing standard big screen html if Apple had not.
It's very probable that smartphones would still have keyboards and appeal to a small audience today, if Apple had not taken this risk.
The only way they could justify that risk was to pledge that they would defend their patents to absurd degrees like they are, and they did - with a lot of emphasis, during the iPhone's introduction in 2007.
Even if the patents don't really refer to what made iPhone so earth shaking, I think Apple should try and find compensation for the risk they took and use the system to their advance as much as they can.
Remember that all the competition was ridiculizing the machine. Ballmer was positively laughing. Not anyone else would have ever chosen to build a smartphone without a keyboard and with so much emphasis on browsing standard big screen html if Apple had not.
It's very probable that smartphones would still have keyboards and appeal to a small audience today, if Apple had not taken this risk.
The only way they could justify that risk was to pledge that they would defend their patents to absurd degrees like they are, and they did - with a lot of emphasis, during the iPhone's introduction in 2007.
Even if the patents don't really refer to what made iPhone so earth shaking, I think Apple should try and find compensation for the risk they took and use the system to their advance as much as they can.
What a list of junk patents. Just to take the first one for example, they had to stick "on a portable electronic device" in front of it just to make it valid. Or swipe gestures to specifically do X, Y and Z.
I worked on this kind of stuff in UI research 15 years ago, at one of the top 5 companies for patents. At the time, they said nobody is patenting this kind of stuff. Stupid me, I should've insisted on patenting every swipe to do A through Z possibility. Gesture-based input is nothing new. Nobody thought of using these kinds of junk patents to go on the offensive to attack other technology companies.
There ought to be a junk UI patent dictionary:
- "on a" or "from a" - we took someone else's interaction design but stuck it on slightly different device
- "interaction X for Y" - we took someone else's clever X interaction but now it initiates Y instead
- "universal" - we took someone else's very specific work where they have a patent and made it even more generic
I think a lot of this may stem from the fact that they got burnt with the first MS fight over Windows. So, they are way more active in protecting there IP then maybe they would have otherwise. It very well could be a junk UI patent. But, if they were allowed to patent it, then so be it.
New here. Been reading a few threads and finally found something to comment on.
Now, I see there is a lot of loyalty with some people, so I'm going to preface my comment with a disclaimer. I like Android phones. I like Mac computers. I like Windows OS. I have nothing against any of the companies.
That said, does anyone think that these patents that tech companies have are just ridiculous? In the case of Apple, universal search seems fairly doable for a software programmer with at least a Bachelor's. And judging by the size of these companies, they are most likely hiring kids with 6+ years of schooling and multiple people are working on one thing at the same time.
Whether or not Android is copied will probably never be known. The time to find that out was 2007. But as far as software patents go, I think the U.S. should follow the example set by other countries. Because tech progresses so quickly, a tech company shouldn't have a patent for longer than 2-3 years, and for minor stuff like universal search, shouldn't it just be a FRAND patent at the most?
The other thing is, how does universal search hurt Apple's sales? I just don't get that part. People don't buy one phone over another because of the universal search feature. I think Koh was tired of dealing with this, and decided to put it someone else's hands. So if a higher court wanted to uphold or freeze the ban, she wouldn't have to worry about it.
Now, I see there is a lot of loyalty with some people, so I'm going to preface my comment with a disclaimer. I like Android phones. I like Mac computers. I like Windows OS. I have nothing against any of the companies.
That said, does anyone think that these patents that tech companies have are just ridiculous? In the case of Apple, universal search seems fairly doable for a software programmer with at least a Bachelor's. And judging by the size of these companies, they are most likely hiring kids with 6+ years of schooling and multiple people are working on one thing at the same time.
Whether or not Android is copied will probably never be known. The time to find that out was 2007. But as far as software patents go, I think the U.S. should follow the example set by other countries. Because tech progresses so quickly, a tech company shouldn't have a patent for longer than 2-3 years, and for minor stuff like universal search, shouldn't it just be a FRAND patent at the most?
The other thing is, how does universal search hurt Apple's sales? I just don't get that part. People don't buy one phone over another because of the universal search feature. I think Koh was tired of dealing with this, and decided to put it someone else's hands. So if a higher court wanted to uphold or freeze the ban, she wouldn't have to worry about it.
Apple are engaging in the same scummy, anti-competitive practices Microsoft did in the 90s.
Apple took no risk at all with the iPhone. They had the priceless advantage of having no legacy phones to stay compatible with, which is what had held back their competition.
Of course, it's five years later, and now Apple's in the same legacy position brought on by marketing and lack of resolution independence. That's why they had to do silly stuff like pixel-doubling, and we're unlikely to see any radical UI change.
I'm not a Ballmer fan, but he was partly laughing at the price, and he was right. Within a few months, the iPhone stopped selling and Apple had to radically drop the price to kickstart sales again.
There were lots of touch phones without a keyboard at the time. Their screens were getting bigger, with WVGA+ resolution, and the browsers were improving all the time.
The biggest difference with the iPhone (again due to not having to support old phones going back to tiny screens and no touch) was that Apple was free to implement a finger-friendly UI.
Apple likes closed markets that they totally control, so they can decide when to trickle out new features. The smartphone market moves much faster than that.
$100+ billion in the bank because of monster profit margins.
Bingo. Exactly what I keep saying. I've been doing touch input since the early 1980s, touchscreens (including capacitive) since the early 1990s, and mobile touch devices since the mid 1990s.
Almost every single thing that Apple has come up with, is apparent to anyone with touch experience... yet only Apple applied for patents for gestures like rotating a virtual knob with two fingers, etc. Thank goodness, the USPTO has denied a lot of their apps, but they've also allowed too many.
Apple doesn't even detail any specific methods in their applications; they just give general words like "heuristics".
As I've said many times, gestures should not be patentable. They should be a common vocabulary between all devices. Can you imagine if every device required swiping in a different direction to scroll?
Yes, Microsoft did clean up their act, and turned themselves into a pretty great company.
Rather than going crazy with Lawsuits until it killed them, the brought out awesome products like win2k,xp, server 03, the xbox and more lately windows 7.
Hopefully Apple won't keep this up. If they do, I can see it destroying their image
A little history refresher
A lot of people like to bring up Windows Mobile as prior art but Windows Mobile only dates back to 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile
Then others try to bring up Palm but Palm OS only dates back to 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_OS
But everyone seems to have forgotten about the Newton which debuted in 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)
The Newton went on to be the inspiration for the iOS platform many year later.
Apple invented what we considered a modern PDA. While there might have been text based devices on the market prior to the newton, the newton really defined the category and Apple even coined the term PDA or Personal Data Assistant.
A lot of people like to bring up Windows Mobile as prior art but Windows Mobile only dates back to 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile
Then others try to bring up Palm but Palm OS only dates back to 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_OS
But everyone seems to have forgotten about the Newton which debuted in 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)
The Newton went on to be the inspiration for the iOS platform many year later.
Apple invented what we considered a modern PDA. While there might have been text based devices on the market prior to the newton, the newton really defined the category and Apple even coined the term PDA or Personal Data Assistant.
Newton would be prior art and I would like to point out that any patent from the Newton would of long since expired.
He was great for asking questions. I miss having him in technical discussions.
Long since? General patent terms are 20 years from filing, so patents filed around the launch of the Newton would be expiring in the next year or so.
No, they didn't. They're just more careful not to get caught up in the same anti-competitive practices that got them in trouble with the DOJ and the EU. Now that the DOJ has dropped "monopoly watch", they're pretty much back to their old shenanigans :
http://arstechnica.com/information-...raises-concerns-about-distro-implementations/
Imagine if you bought a machine and the only OS it could run was Windows. No other OS would be authorized.
Wait, this is a graphical device and it's 2 years before Apple's NewtonOS :
This one was released in 1993, same year as the NewtonOS. Notice it's a series 3 (released in 1991, this 3a version is 1993 like the Newton) (third generation) device :
While Apple did have a play in the history of PDAs (John Sculley did coin the term PDA), they far from "invented" it like you're claiming. People here really need to stop looking at the world constantly thinking everything comes from Apple. Apple rarely invents. Apple polishes and markets.
The Newton was large, heavy, not finger friendly and not a phone. More like a 6" stylus tablet. (Maybe that's why Jobs dissed tablets of that size.)
The IBM Simon touchscreen phone was shown off as a prototype at the 1992 COMDEX, and was sold between 1994-95.
Wait, this is a graphical device and it's 2 years before Apple's NewtonOS :
This one was released in 1993, same year as the NewtonOS. Notice it's a series 3 (released in 1991, this 3a version is 1993 like the Newton) (third generation) device :
While Apple did have a play in the history of PDAs (John Sculley did coin the term PDA), they far from "invented" it like you're claiming. People here really need to stop looking at the world constantly thinking everything comes from Apple. Apple rarely invents. Apple polishes and markets.
OMG I used to sell those Psion's. LOL
They are allowed to patent it, and that's the problem. This is a legal war, stretching the laws as far as they can to achieve a victory.
Just because they can patent those trivial things and it's completely legal doesn't mean that it's not stupid. In Greene during a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks. In Texas, one must acknowledge a supreme being before being able to hold public office. In Oklahoma people who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed. In Cathedral City in California it is prohibited to sleep in a parked vehicle. In Kansas City minors are not allowed to purchase cap pistols, however they may buy shotguns freely.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not stupid or morally correct. And this is what most people opposing the court's decision are saying.