Ban on Galaxy Nexus U.S. Sales Upheld, Software Patch to Circumvent Forthcoming

[Reason077]

And how the hell are you supposed to do a unified search if it doesnt come from one box? You can't, so therefore it won't be a unified search anymore.

You can still have one box. All that Google/Samsung need to do to be in compliance is add a drop-down or an icon to specify what you want to search for. ie: "g" icon for a web search, contacts icon for a contacts search, etc.

So basically apple owns the idea to unified search... does that seem right to you?

Absolutely. It's their invention, they patented it, and assuming the patent is shown to be legitimate (no prior art etc). People were able to search just fine for many years before Spotlight came along.

The question is whether the level of protection such patents confer is appropriate. Patents can last for 14 or 20 years, which is perhaps reasonable for some inventions, but may be excessive here.

Perhaps there should be a requirement to license under FRAND terms (i.e. allow competitors to use the invention for a fair and reasonable fee), after a limited period of exclusivity.

 

[charlituna]

Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents?

You assume that Apple didn't first notify Google, etc of the issue in a nice friendly 'we know you didn't mean to do it' letter only to be told to bugger off cause they're stupid and no one copied jack.

For all we know they did, for all we know they were told. And this is them buggering the other side, so to speak, to get the issue settled.

 

[kdarling]

Apple really should be doing cross licencing with their competitors. That is the norm in the industry before Apple became rich.

Apple rarely licenses out anything unless forced to. Whatever they get a patent on, they want to be the only ones using it.

On the other hand, Apple is quite happy to license patents from others.

For example, the iPhone wouldn't have much business presence without Microsoft allowing Apple to license ActiveSync.

Ironically, Apple's mobile products couldn't exist without all the billions of dollars and decades of effort that other companies put into radio networks, building up a cellular phone market, and so forth... all done by sharing patents.

It's possible that Apple's search patent will get thrown out in the trial by jury. Common folk do have common sense. By then it won't matter to Apple, since their primary purpose is to delay or degrade their competition in any way possible, even temporarily.

 

[KnightWRX]

Basically yes.

But here's the rub. If they can write a patch to get around this injunction and are willing to do that then why didn't they just use that 'patch' as THE software in the first place and avoid all this fuss.

2 things come to mind :

- They didn't know about this patent when they initially made the functionality
- They don't feel they infringe on the patent as the claims are worded and as their implementation works.

Until a court rules if there is infringement or not, all they can do is appease the judge to get the injunction lifted, hence the patch.

 

[charlituna]

It's a shame that the industry has gone to this instead of actually innovating.

The last time I checked, a company's IP lawyers and R&D engineers were not the same group of folks. Makes it easy to do both things at the same time

 

[KnightWRX]

The fact that time slows as you approach the speed of light seems obvious when explained, but I wouldn't think of it myself. Everything is obvious once you've seen it.

In programming, sometimes, things are plainly obvious. Go to a college that gives Computer Science, present a problem to the students, and ask them to write a program that solves it.

I bet half the programs will do it in a way that is very similar to each other, if not all of them. Sometimes, the answer is pretty obvious.

----------

And recording to reports Apple started working on their touchscreen project

This has nothing to do with touch screens, touch input or touch at all.

 

[charlituna]

Apple isn't even offering licenses to Android manufacturers. As Steve Jobs said, Apple's strategy is thermonuclear war, which is anticompetitive at best, and grossly monopolistic at worst.

Apple isn't required by any law in any land to patent non FRAND tech at any cost. So they are in their legal rights and it is neither monopolistic or anticompetitive (unlike Samsung and Motorola's FRAND suits which might be 100% both and have triggered FTC etc investigations into said matter). Android OEMs have no choice but to get over it and non use said tech or use it and risk the lawsuits they get served with when they are caught. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[PJMAN2952]

Android > iOS

All I want to say is FU Apple! You are too scared of competition and your only solution is to ban Android. Don't you get it? Android 4.0 is far more advanced than your crappy iOS.

 

[charlituna]

That is valid and you are correct I am sure. That does not mean, however, that in my opinion it is right (not that anyone really needs my opinion, lol).

So it is your opinion that the 'winner' should be the person that gets it to the public first. Not the person that thought of it first.

Classy.

 

[KnightWRX]

On the other hand, Apple is quite happy to license patents from others.

[...]

Ironically, Apple's mobile products couldn't exist without all the billions of dollars and decades of effort that other companies put into radio networks, building up a cellular phone market, and so forth... all done by sharing patents.

Also ironically, Apple will go to court over FRAND patents and argue that they are getting ripped off. They don't contribute any to the industry wide patent pools, they don't cross-license or license out their patents, but expect low rates on the patents they do need to license, going so far as to argue FRAND abuse at every turn, against every player.

 

[charlituna]

T
I'm aware of the frequency of corporate litigation, and I wish the Apple enthusiast sites had some better topics. The writers don't know much about litigation. Most of the readers know next to nothing. The articles themselves are poorly detailed, and no one would possibly draw real conclusions from them on who is right.

Detailing who is right or wrong etc isn't the point.

The point is 100% page hits. That's all. They want to draw eyes to the articles and get folks to debate so they will create more and more page hits in those ad based payment systems.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple isn't required by any law in any land to patent non FRAND tech at any cost. So they are in their legal rights and it is neither monopolistic or anticompetitive (unlike Samsung and Motorola's FRAND suits which might be 100% both and have triggered FTC etc investigations into said matter).

FRAND doesn't mean free or lawsuit free. You still need to license them to use them. Apple does not pay licensing rights to Motorola and Samsung, and didn't pay Nokia back before that lawsuit was settled.

The fact that Apple cries because they don't like the rates they are getting offered does not mean Motorola and Samsung aren't justified in their lawsuits.

 

[charlituna]

Apple really needs to stop with all this suing BS. Smh. The last couple of years that's all we hear about them doing. Just wait until the Surface comes out, they will sue Microsoft as well.

Every company has been suing each other, including suing Apple, just as much. It doesn't get page hits like mentioning Apple does so we don't hear about it. But it does happen.

Also if Apple had any intention of suing Microsoft over Surface (out of fear I suppose), they would have done it already. Why let something release when you can ban it while it is still basically vaporware.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

FRAND doesn't mean free or lawsuit free. You still need to license them to use them. Apple does not pay licensing rights to Motorola and Samsung, and didn't pay Nokia back before that lawsuit was settled.

The fact that Apple cries because they don't like the rates they are getting offered does not mean Motorola and Samsung aren't justified in their lawsuits.

yeah what Apple wants is the low rates Motorola Samsung and Nokia are paying but they do not want to put any patents in the pool.

Sorry Apple if you want the low rates you need to offer patents like everyone else.

 

[KnightWRX]

Also if Apple had any intention of suing Microsoft over Surface (out of fear I suppose), they would have done it already. Why let something release when you can ban it while it is still basically vaporware.

Because aside from design patents, they can't exactly sue over method patents until they've seen and analyzed the product ?

 

[charlituna]

You mean USPTO 12/363,325 (filed January 2009, 2 and a half years before iOS 5 ?) :
It's coming.

If it ever gets approved, until then Google can't do jack anyone. And even then, depending on how they worked the patent they might still not be able to if they wrote themselves in a corner with the specifics.

Those specifics, which are already public knowledge due to the filing, are likely why Apple had no qualms about releasing iOS 5. They know that they didn't violate the patent as it was specifically filed.

 

[unicorn025]

Htc was found not to infringe on apples .

http://www.zdnet.com/htc-phones-do-not-infringe-apple-patents-says-uk-judge-7000000270/

dont know if this will help samsung or google on this case but it seem that 3 of apple patents were invalidated

BREAKING NEWS: Global ZDNet launches

Topic: Apple

Follow via:
RSS
Email Alert

HTC phones do not infringe Apple patents, says UK judge

Summary: Apple has been defeated by HTC in a patent infringement suit at the U.K.'s High Court. But bad news for Apple as three of the four patents under the spotlight were deemed invalid.
Zack Whittaker

By Zack Whittaker for London Calling | July 4, 2012 -- Updated 14:03 GMT (07:03 PDT)
Follow @zackwhittaker
3Comments
1 Vote
inShare
more +

HTC has won a U.K. High Court case after a judge said that the Taiwanese smartphone maker has not infringed Apple's patents.

Apple had claimed HTC infringed four of its patents. However, Judge Christopher Floyd said that three of the four patents were invalid, according to Bloomberg.

The only patent that was ruled to be valid relates to Apple's photo-management software, but HTC did not infringe on it.

The other three invalid patents relate to Apple's multi-touch software, alphabet-changing software, and the iPhone and iPad's slide-to-unlock feature.

The same four patents are to be tested in a German court later this year.

 

[KnightWRX]

If it ever gets approved, until then Google can't do jack anyone. And even then, depending on how they worked the patent they might still not be able to if they wrote themselves in a corner with the specifics.

Just like Google might not infringe on Apple's search patent depending how Apple wrote themselves into a corner with the specifics ? Too bad we have to suffer this injunction until it gets to trial and validity/infringement is proven/disproven.

 

[nfl46]

Every company has been suing each other, including suing Apple, just as much. It doesn't get page hits like mentioning Apple does so we don't hear about it. But it does happen.

Also if Apple had any intention of suing Microsoft over Surface (out of fear I suppose), they would have done it already. Why let something release when you can ban it while it is still basically vaporware.

We shall see...do you SIRIoulsly think Apple won't sue Microsoft over the Surface?

 

[mstrmac]

Basically yes.

But here's the rub. If they can write a patch to get around this injunction and are willing to do that then why didn't they just use that 'patch' as THE software in the first place and avoid all this fuss.

----------



Apple won't drop the case. Why? Because patching something doesn't mean that they weren't violating before. Apple will want the final verdict handed down so that Samsung doesn't go back and remove the patch later because no one said that they couldn't.

----------



So you think that it's bad for consumers to have a choice in tech because companies should be allowed to just copy each other's stuff whenever they want.

Rather than having to develop their own stuff which might actually be better than the status quo. Something we consumers will be denied because the companies aren't forced to develop their own stuff and why should they waste the money on R&D if they don't have to.

----------



The comical part is that Apple will use that patch against Google and Samsung. Clearly if it was so easy to rewrite the software to create this non infringing patch shows that it wasn't really necessary to use Apple's tech to achieve the same end and thus there goes any arguments to that effect.

----------



But was it in Android before it was in Mac OS. Because Apple can and likely will have a patent dating back to those days and it very likely doesn't restrict use to just computers in the desktop/notebook sense.

+1 Probably the most articulate and reasonable post yet. Very good.

 

[charlituna]

They don't contribute any to the industry wide patent pools,

Perhaps because they aren't part of the industries for which FRAND is applicable. They don't develop wireless tech etc.

they don't cross-license or license out their patents

Because, as their patents aren't FRAND, they aren't legally required to license their IP if they don't want to.

, but expect low rates on the patents they do need to license, going so far as to argue FRAND abuse at every turn, against every player.

if the IP is under FRAND and they are being asked for what they feel are high rates that are neither fair nor reasonable then that is FRAND abuse and they have both a legal right and some would argue requirement to call out the abusers to benefit everyone using or wishing to use the items in question

 

[G51989]

We shall see...do you SIRIoulsly think Apple won't sue Microsoft over the Surface?

Apple won't sue Microsoft over the Surface, because its not infringing on anything Apple has done.

 

[Dbrown]

Y


Absolutely. It's their invention, they patented it, and assuming the patent is shown to be legitimate (no prior art etc). People were able to search just fine for many years before Spotlight came along.

No one should be able to exclude anyone from something as basic as searching for information. You can't patent searching the web. You can't patent searching a device, so how is it now you can patent both because now its done from one box instead of two?

That's supposed to be novel an un-obvious? Even my mom could figure that one out, and she barely knows how to use a computer.

 

[djphat2000]

I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

C'mon? Really?

 

[charlituna]

FRAND doesn't mean free or lawsuit free. You still need to license them to use them. Apple does not pay licensing rights to Motorola and Samsung, and didn't pay Nokia back before that lawsuit was settled.

And who are you to say that the reason they didn't pay was because the rates being asked for were neither fair nor reasonable. For all we know they were asking for a cut of the final sale price of the items in question which we know is generally well about all other companies products meaning that yes it could be unfair to Apple to ask for that 'same percent everyone pays'. For all we know Samsung etc tried to force Apple to cross license non FRAND tech they don't have to legally license to get said FRAND license (a violation of FRAND rules) etc.

For all we know Apple was willing to pay but not under terms they felt were not true to the rules of FRAND. It is a common practice in such cases for a company to not pay, use the tech and force a lawsuit because they can't get access to confidential licensing terms with other companies to prove their point. But the courts can demand access. And they can demand a 'settlement' at appropriate terms.

----------

yeah what Apple wants is the low rates Motorola Samsung and Nokia are paying but they do not want to put any patents in the pool.

And if the patents are under FRAND that is what Apple should be paying.

Sorry Apple if you want the low rates you need to offer patents like everyone else.

When Apple develops tech that is required for a standard like 802.11 etc then they will contribute. But so far nothing Apple has done has been a vital and necessary part of building a standard for such issues.

However in terms of media like audio or video files they have developed a number of things that have been entered as part of various standards. They have even in a few cases taken tech they solely developed and offered it out as a standard for anyone that wants to use it.