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

[Rodimus Prime]

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.

Most of those patents and Frand terms were set up to encourge company to make cheap phones for developing countries *aka 40 buck phones.

Top it off those other companies put patents in the pool. Apple wants the dirt cheap access with out putting any patents in the pool.

Apple is a very greedy company.

Frand does not many everyone pays the same. If Apple put patents in the pool their frand rate is lower. Apple wants frand pay rate of companies that put patents in the pool. Sorry but with no patents in the pool you have to pay a hire rate.

 

[cgk.emu]

Amen. I love apple but this is getting out of hand. Id prefer all of this money and time that they are taking to monopolize the world, be put into philanthropy

Tell ya what, go ahead and start donating half your check to charity every month, then call Apple greedy for protecting their IP.

 

[charlituna]

Most of those patents and Frand terms were set up to encourge company to make cheap phones for developing countries *aka 40 buck phones.

It doesn't matter what the intention was. Once you agree to put a patent into FRAND you don't get to put conditions on it and say things like 'but there will be different terms for those making high end smart phones versus those making cheap flip phones' because that violates the Non Discriminatory part of the FRAND rules.

 

[cgk.emu]

Can you show some web links to back up your statement? If not, are you just assuming? I'm just trying to get the facts.

There are all kinds of things wrong with his original post, I wouldn't put too much thought into it.

 

[NumberNine]

Yeah you are right. Should probably keep your Nexus with its patent infringement software. Good call.

Oh don't forget - or do u even know- that your beloved iPad 2 runs on that old bag iOS.

Ummmm, did I say I even owned a Nexus? I don't but I have used one extensively. I do however have an HTC Rezound.

Apple didn't copy pull down notification center?

Give me a break...if Apple copies it's revolutionary and amazing, if anyone else copies Apple takes their ball and goes home.

Yeah, I love my iPad but I think iOS is getting tired looking. You see, you can like a company/product yet still be critical...it's quite OK.

You don't need to be a sycophant.

 

[KnightWRX]

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

If they aren't part of the industry, then it's FAIR and REASONABLE that they don't get the same discounts as players who contribute right ?

Because, as their patents aren't FRAND

Patents aren't FRAND. FRAND is not a patent type. FRAND is a licensing term for patents submitted into a pool managed by an industry standard body required by a certain standard implementation (say UMTS or LTE, etc..).

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

Nope, what Apple feels are high rates does not mean there was FRAND abuse. It only means Apple feels the rates are high.

But get this, 3 friends go on a camping trip. One brings the tent and sleeping bags, the other the propane BBQ and propane tank and the 3rd one doesn't bring squat. The 2 first ask the 3rd one to pay for the beer and campsite. He gets pissed and says that's not fair as the other two aren't paying anything. You know what ? That doesn't make it unfair at all.

There is no abuse until there is a ruling of abuse. As it stands, Apple still needs to pay and if they don't and can't agree on a price with the licensor, they are still infringing by shipping the iPhone/iPad/MacBooks on these patents, FRAND licensing or not. They can and will be brought to court. You can sue over patents that require to be licensed under FRAND terms if someone infringes and does not hold a license. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.

It's even worse, because unlike the search patent Samsung is getting sued over, Apple knows very well about the radio patents they need and they refuse to pay what they feel is a high price but the licensor feels is a FAIR and REASONABLE price considering Apple's lack of industry participation.

----------

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.

I'm no one, that's what they said in their motions during the Nokia case before settlement, that the reason they weren't licensing the patents was because they felt Nokia was asking too much.

 

[RBR2]

So it looks a lot like an iPhone. So what!

Cars look a lot alike. Almost all of them have 4 wheels, a steering wheel and a windshield. The function defines a lot of the appearance of any device. Who would want a phone with a small screen that has a huge bezel that does nothing? There are only so many ways to have control switches on the outside and touch screen devices follow a pretty simple logic. There is simply nothing so unique as to warrant either a patent or the court's action. These things are so obvious as to be inevitable.

I look forward to the court's decision being overturned on appeal. Let's see Apple and the rest compete with products that raise the bar of performance and pricing for consumers. Competition is good.

 

[KnightWRX]

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

FRAND does not mean that Apple gets to pay the same rates as everyone else. Just that the terms must be FAIR and REASONABLE. It is quite fair and reasonable to ask someone who contributes nothing back to pay a bit more than players who do contribute back patents and cross-licenses them.

----------

So it looks a lot like an iPhone. So what!

Yeah, so what. This is not about how the Galaxy Nexus looks at all, the injunction is not over the design or the looks or trade dress or trademarks.

 

[iansilv]

I love reading about every tenth comment planted here by posters who are clearly plants working to enforce Samsung's side...

Like this from the first page:

"How dissapointing as an owner of iPhone4s, iPad Retina, Apple tv 2 & 3, a macbook pro, and iMac. This is bad for all consumers."

There's another obvious plant on page one as well.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

It doesn't matter what the intention was. Once you agree to put a patent into FRAND you don't get to put conditions on it and say things like 'but there will be different terms for those making high end smart phones versus those making cheap flip phones' because that violates the Non Discriminatory part of the FRAND rules.

And guess what those FRAND terms were the ones put in place.
FRAND does not mean same price for everyone. They are telling Apple if you want the cheap rates you have to trade patents like everyone else.

 

[KnightWRX]

I love reading about every tenth comment planted here by posters who are clearly plants working to enforce Samsung's side...

Like this from the first page:

"How dissapointing as an owner of iPhone4s, iPad Retina, Apple tv 2 & 3, a macbook pro, and iMac. This is bad for all consumers."

There's another obvious plant on page one as well.

So really no one that owns an Apple product can genuinely not approve of Apple's obvious delay and litigious practices ? If you don't agree with their methods of protecting their IP (getting preliminary injunctions which harm consumer choices rather than waiting for actual infringement rulings and getting damages), you're a plant ?

Is that really your logic ?

So I guess by that token, everyone who's saying Apple is right to defend their IP are Apple plants ? You're an Apple plant for even suggesting there's Samsung plants ?

I see...

 

[MacCurry]

I love reading about every tenth comment planted here by posters who are clearly plants working to enforce Samsung's side...

Like this from the first page:

"How dissapointing as an owner of iPhone4s, iPad Retina, Apple tv 2 & 3, a macbook pro, and iMac. This is bad for all consumers."

There's another obvious plant on page one as well.

What nonsense. Some of us are early adopters to iOS from the day it was made available and have been since. You also have not travelled outside of the US where Samsung mobile devices are ubiquitous.

 

[notabadname]

Your post implies you support the court's decision. If so, haven't you fallen into the same trap? You've decided the court was correct without ALL the facts. I may have misread your post.

Very Fair question. But no, my post would have said the same thing regarding people critizing the court and judge, while not having all the facts, even if they had ruled against Apple. I know it would have been a far more informed decision than the one I may have wished for if Apple had lost. I, and most members here, do not possess a Juris Doctorate or access to all the facts of the case.

 

[feszty]

No winners

I keep thinking about this and I find this more and more disturbing. Patents, at least at one point, were for ground breaking things. Now they are deluted to obvious and trivial things. Are these four patents that google violates, the essence of the iPhone? Slide to unlock? Auto correct? One search field that searches the emails, messages, notes and phone book? Come on. I would by the iPhone without these, these are not features that make people buy one phone over the other. These are used by Apple to lock the competition out of the market, which is not good for the customer. It these things were really ground-breaking ideas, I would agree, but most of these were either already implemented in one form or another (T9 predictive text for example), or are so obvoius that is shouldn't have received a patent.

I just hope that this nonsense will stop and Apple will try to keep the competition at bay by making a great phone, instead of trying to ban them using BS.

 

[CountSessine]

Just minutes after the decision, AllThingsD also reported that Google and Samsung have developed a software workaround they believe will satisfactorily address the infringement issue being claimed by Apple, which involves a unified search function related to Siri's abilities.

Niiiiice!

I had a Galaxy Nexus for about 4 months after launch. It crashed and rebooted at least once a day. It silently fell off the cell network about once a week ("hope you didn't need to get all those calls..."). Do a web search for "Galaxy Nexus random reboot" and you'll find that I'm not alone. In March Google finally fesses-up and says that they're working on a patch. I'd had enough and dumped mine for a iPhone 4S.

This whole sales-ban problem lights a fire under them, though - NOW they have a ****ing patch when it's their wallet and their earnings that are at stake.

With apologies to Johnny Carson, "Got no job? We don't care. Got a bad credit rating? We don't care. Got a prison record? We don't care. Got no cell signal? We don't care. Got random reboots? We don't care. Going to affect our quarterly earnings? THAT'S when we care!"


What a bunch of dicks.

 

[Oletros]

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.

Perhaps Google thought the same about the unified search.

 

[Millah]

Apple didn't copy pull down notification center?

Give me a break...if Apple copies it's revolutionary and amazing, if anyone else copies Apple takes their ball and goes home

Uh God. I can't stand this excuse for an argument. The Apple haters all say this same thing every time. "When Apple copies it's groundbreaking, when others do its infringement." Boo hoo, the world is SO unfair, right?

No. When Apple copies, they copy. It's not groundbreaking and no one ever claims it is. But when Apple does create something revolutionary and groundbreaking, those are the things people give Apple credit for. And people like you seem to NOT give Apple any credit, because you never think it's amazing. Like the people who all used BB/Windows Mobile and said "touch screens are a fad." Well now look at what they use, probably an Android phone which is touchscreen and functions very similarly to that first iPhone they previously were condemning.

It's just funny to me. I can't count how many times people use notification center to try to throw mud on Apple. Ok wow, they copied a single gesture from Android. But you don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Android borrowed heavily from the entire interface language and user experience conceived in the first iPhone. Multitouch, inertial scrolling, WebKit browser, app store, and the list goes on. But I'm sure it's because all those things are "so obvious" no brainers that anyone could have thought of right? Well I guess I could argue the same thing for notification center.

 

[Oletros]

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.

Apple did in their fillings

----------

But you don't seem to have a problem with the fact that Android borrowed heavily from the entire interface language and user experience conceived in the first iPhone. Multitouch, inertial scrolling, WebKit browser, app store, and the list goes on.

Are you saying that Apple invented multitouch, inertial scrolling and app stores?

Mmm, webkit is an open source browser based in other open source framework

 

[sazivad]

[I'm] glad Apple won. [I'm also] glad Google can write their own code work-around to satisfy the courts. Sounds like a win-win...

Why you are getting down voted for this, I am not sure.

I guess people on MacRumors don't like it when someone finds the middle ground

 

[jhende7]

Lol at everybody saying this is bad for the consumer.

If companies couldn't monetize their ideas without fear of someones stealing their hard work and R&D dollars, then there would be no innovation and therefore consumers would suffer.

Companies like Apple invest a lot of time and money into their products, before they are even close to ready for prime time. If other companies were free to piggy back on all that R&D, they could afford to offer the same or similar products for a lower price, because there would be no R&D costs to cover.

If patents didn't exist, companies like Apple wouldn't be in business, and phones would still look like blackberry bolds; would this be good for consumers?

 

[blackhand1001]

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.



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.

They already have a drop down option on the search box actually. The whole patent on this is ridiculous, I used programs prior to 2000 that had the same functionality. Either way, having the idea of a program that can search multiple things be patentable is ridiculous. Googles code for search is not the same as apples. The specific code apple used being patentable is one thing but patenting the idea is ridiculous and I guarantee when this goes to trial it will get thrown out. Of course that trial isn't until 2014 which is ridiculous for the tech industry. Things move way to fast for it to take that long. Pretty much every programmer in the world during the 90's thought about being able to search multiple sources.

 

[Piggie]

Something puzzles me.

Again and again on these forums we see the new stories about Apple Banning or trying to ban a product, and when they manage to win their court case.

So how come this story about the UK Judge who has not sided with Apple seems to be ignored and not put up as a current/latest news story?

UK judge rules HTC doesn't violate Apple's patents, invalidates Cupertino's claims

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/04/uk-judge-rules-htc-doesnt-violate-apples-patents-invalidates/

 

[blackhand1001]

Lol at everybody saying this is bad for the consumer.

If companies couldn't monetize their ideas without fear of someones stealing their hard work and R&D dollars, then there would be no innovation and therefore consumers would suffer.

Companies like Apple invest a lot of time and money into their products, before they are even close to ready for prime time. If other companies were free to piggy back on all that R&D, they could afford to offer the same or similar products for a lower price, because there would be no R&D costs to cover.

If patents didn't exist, companies like Apple wouldn't be in business, and phones would still look like blackberry bolds; would this be good for consumers?

Have you read the patent in question. Apple did not invent this functionality and android has this functionality before the iPhone did. Also they made improvements to it which in itself makes apples patent not apply. Apple knows this, but they also know the trial isn't until 2014. They are taking advantage of the slow legal system in the United States by getting a product banned and they know that by the time the trial is over that product will be all but a distant memory.

 

[w00master]

I am 100% against software patents. A good example are recipes which are not patentable but are copyrightable. If Coca-Cola could survive this long without patenting its recipe don't you think these tech companies could do the same?

It's a shame that Apple is gone this route. Apple used to be about innovation now it's about suing everyone.

W00master

 

[KnightWRX]

Why you are getting down voted for this, I am not sure.

I guess people on MacRumors don't like it when someone finds the middle ground

He's getting downvoted because Apple hasn't won. Apple has managed to get a preliminary injunction before the trial in case their patent might have been infringed and their patent is valid (non-obvious and no prior art).