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

[KnightWRX]

Apple is correct in this case.

Correct about what exactly ? Correct in asking for an injunction because people are choosing Galaxy Nexus phones over the iPhone 4S and Siri because of the Google search box ?

Because that is what they argued and the basis for the injunction. Are you saying people are really comparing Siri with the Android 1.0 search box and going for the Android version, resulting in lost sales for Apple ?

Android came to be because they basically stole the idea of iOS from Apple.

What idea ? The idea of a mobile OS ? I think those were around before iOS. In fact, Android, if anything, is "stolen" from the Danger Inc. HipTop software, after one of the co-founders of Danger Inc. left and founded Android Inc. in 2003 (oh wait no, he's the guy behind both OSes...).

 

[faroZ06]

Wait, you're saying a US District court Finding of Facts is incorrect ? After lawyers argued for both sides, provided evidence to prove/disprove the basis and that a judge with full knowledge of Anti-trust laws and legal definitions of what is and isn't a monopoly, what is and isn't abuse and relevant control of market, after weighing all of this, came to this conclusion, YOU are saying it is incorrect ?

Pray tell, on what facts and basis do you provide this sudden insight ? Look, maybe you don't know about Microsoft's history or what a monopoly is, but don't deny the FACTS.

The ruling is an opinion, not a collection of facts. And, believe it or not, there are plenty of lawyers and judges who know nothing about technology. Companies could get sued for millions or even billions if an employee takes a makefile from another company that he worked for. The makefiles actually provide no description of the software itself.

 

[Oletros]

Apple is correct in this case.

Android came to be because they basically stole the idea of iOS from Apple. I have absolutely NO respect for Google because they are the worst of the worst.

They're not interested in moving the web forward - they're interested in controlling the internet with unoriginal ideas.

Still trying to embarrass yourself?

 

[faroZ06]

Apple is correct in this case.

Android came to be because they basically stole the idea of iOS from Apple. I have absolutely NO respect for Google because they are the worst of the worst.

They're not interested in moving the web forward - they're interested in controlling the internet with unoriginal ideas.

Your second two statements are true, but the first is not necessarily true. If the patents are indeed being clearly violated, Samsung devices should be blocked, but I'm not going to pretend that I know all of the details of this case. I don't think anyone here does.

To clarify and reduce replies, the fact that you have no respect for Google is true, but I am not saying that it is justified. I respect Google, just not Android or Picasa.

----------

What idea ? The idea of a mobile OS ? I think those were around before iOS. In fact, Android, if anything, is "stolen" from the Danger Inc. HipTop software, after one of the co-founders of Danger Inc. left and founded Android Inc. in 2003 (oh wait no, he's the guy behind both OSes...).

They didn't steal the idea exactly, but they stole the ideas. Look at mobile OSs before and after iPhone OS, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[kis]

In other news: UK high court invalidates slide-to-unlock patent - saying that it was there long before Apple got its hands on it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...h-Court-defeat-over-prize-iPhone-patents.html

This just shows, once more, how ridiculous most of Apple's claims are.

"Slide-to-unlock" happens to be one of the two patents that caused the Galaxy Nexus to be banned in the US. The other one being integrated search - which is even more ridiculous. Seriously - do some of the authors here who think Apple is right really believe what they're writing or are they employed by Apple to post here?

“We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace.”

that says it all.

 

[Renzatic]

The ruling is an opinion, not a collection of facts. And, believe it or not, there are plenty of lawyers and judges who know nothing about technology.

A judge doesn't have to be an IT expert to understand MS' actions in the marketplace. They had nearly complete control of the computer market, could wield their vast power and influence to bend any 3rd party to their will, could oust any competition with barely any effort, and could do it all without consequence.

They were just about the very definition of a monopoly.

They didn't steal the idea exactly, but they stole the ideas. Look at mobile OSs before and after iPhone OS, and you'll see what I mean.

Considering the march of technology, capacitive touchscreen based smartphones would've likely taken roughly a year longer to show up had the iPhone never been released. There were already a small handful of very iOS like devices even before iOS arrived on the scene.

 

[bergmef]

*laughing* Yeah, I noticed that later on and changed it to the correct "bowl".

Good thing it wasn't a "loose" one.

As long as I was not the one close to the door!

 

[ChazUK]

In other news: UK high court invalidates slide-to-unlock patent - saying that it was there long before Apple got its hands on it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...h-Court-defeat-over-prize-iPhone-patents.html

This just shows, once more, how ridiculous most of Apple's claims are.

"Slide-to-unlock" happens to be one of the two patents that caused the Galaxy Nexus to be banned in the US. The other one being integrated search - which is even more ridiculous. Seriously - do some of the authors here who think Apple is right really believe what they're writing or are they employed by Apple to post here?

“We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace.”

that says it all.

LOL.

"We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

3 patents invalidated and one not infringed upon and this is still the line they put out.

 

[Oletros]

They didn't steal the idea exactly, but they stole the ideas. Look at mobile OSs before and after iPhone OS, and you'll see what I mean.

And what do you mean?

----------

LOL.

"We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

3 patents invalidated and one not infringed upon and this is still the line they put out.

It is copy&paste from all the rulings despite the result

 

[faroZ06]

A judge doesn't have to be an IT expert to understand MS' actions in the marketplace. They had nearly complete control of the computer market, could wield their vast power and influence to bend any 3rd party to their will, could oust any competition with barely any effort, and could do it all without consequence.

They were just about the very definition of a monopoly.

If you are going to call Microsoft a monopoly because of that, then you'd have to call Apple a monopoly because of their iPod and Google a monopoly because of their search. No new company that makes a digital music player or internet search could ever get any customers now. Everyone will use GMAIL soon, too. Even I'm switching from AOL, which is better than GMAIL in some ways, since AOL mail has suddenly been very unreliable.

 

[Oletros]

If you are going to call Microsoft a monopoly because of that, then you'd have to call Apple a monopoly because of their iPod and Google a monopoly because of their search.

I think you have to check those claims and re read what Renzatic has said.

 

[KnightWRX]

The ruling is an opinion, not a collection of facts. And, believe it or not, there are plenty of lawyers and judges who know nothing about technology. Companies could get sued for millions or even billions if an employee takes a makefile from another company that he worked for. The makefiles actually provide no description of the software itself.

No, I'm sorry, the ruling is not an opinion :

findings of fact legal definition
noun

The conclusions of a judge, jury, or administrative tribunal regarding the underlying facts of the case under consideration.

The facts were presented and weighed according to the laws in place. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly not because of lack of other players in the market, but because of their control over the markets and their freedom to set market pricing for their offerings in opposition to the laws of competition and offer and demand.

You have no credibility anymore. I'm sorry, none whatsoever. Who are you to say after a summary observation of the market that "Microsoft was never a monopoly" after a Judge sat there for months listening to motions, looking through evidence provided by both sides, sitting through testimonies by experts in both technology and law ?

Seriously, who do you think you are ? What is your background ? Law ? Tech ? Because obviously, in both areas you have shown to be lacking.

----------

They didn't steal the idea exactly, but they stole the ideas. Look at mobile OSs before and after iPhone OS, and you'll see what I mean.

I'm looking. What am I missing ? I'm just not seeing it... Android and iOS are quite different beasts from each other, both from an internal OS design standpoint to UI paradigms in place. I have already written a long post on the subject, don't make me dig it out.

----------

Considering the march of technology, capacitive touchscreen based smartphones would've likely taken roughly a year longer to show up had the iPhone never been released.

Android is not a capacitive touchscreen based smartphone though. It's a mobile OS. I think the claim was that Android's idea was stolen from iOS, which is also not a capacitive touchscreen based smartphone but also a mobile OS.

About the only thing in common both have as far as ideas go are that they are both mobile OSes. They differ in their implementation details and chosen technologies and paradigms.

 

[Renzatic]

You seem to be confusing mindshare and popularity with a monopoly. Apple isn't guilty of controlling the MP3 market just because everyone bought iPods over Zens and Zunes. They made a great product everyone wanted to buy, but didn't influence the market in any other way. There was still plenty of room for competition.

It's the same issue with the iPad. They can't be victimized by the government over their own success, specially when you as a consumer have tons of other tablets to choose from. It's not Apple's fault people aren't buying the competition.

Now if Apple had enough influence over the market to tell Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. to only carry iPods and iPads, and could threaten to pull their products from their stores if they chose to do otherwise with the risk of this threat actually damaging the company, then yes. Apple might very well have a monopoly.

MS could do that back in the late 90's, early 00's. 99% of the software you could buy was built for Windows. You couldn't find a Linux box at an OEM shop. Apple was marginal at best. They had complete control of the market, and could do as they pleased. A brick and mortar store could only support Windows PC simply because there was no other viable option. If they wanted to stay in business, it was all Windows, all the time.

Now if Apple were to suddenly pull iPads from store shelves and sell them exclusively at Apple stores, all that would happen would be more people would buy Galaxy Tabs, Transformer Primes, and now Nexus 7's.

 

[KnightWRX]

LOL.

"We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

3 patents invalidated and one not infringed upon and this is still the line they put out.

What line do you expect from them ? They aren't going to say "well, maybe we did go a bit crazy there for a second... Maybe we aren't as entitled to be the only players in the market as we thought we were...".

----------

Now if Apple had enough influence over the market to tell Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. to only carry iPods and iPads, and could threaten to pull their products from their stores if they chose to do otherwise with the risk of this threat actually damaging the company, then yes. Apple might very well have a monopoly.

This paragraph needs to be read, read again, and again. And if you still think Apple and Microsoft's position is analogous, please don't post anything, read this paragraph again until you understand it.

 

[MacDav]

Famous Last Words

Android has had unified search in android long before it was in iOS.

Android engineer#1 " We had unified search in Android long before Apple did".

Android engineer#2 " Yes, but Apples version is better".

Android engineer#3 " Well lets just copy Apples version. Nobody will care".

Android engineer#4 " Oops! They do care. Let's patch it back to the original version".

 

[KnightWRX]

Android engineer#1 " We had unified search in Android long before Apple did.

Android engineer#2 " Yes, but Apples version is better.

Android engineer#3 " Well lets just copy Apples version. Nobody will care".

*sigh*. The Android 1.0 search box is as much in infringement of Apple's patent as the latest one. There was no "let's copy Apple's version" here. This infringement wasn't even intentional in all probability. Heck, there isn't yet a ruling on the validity of the patent nor on the definitive infringement of its claims, this is a preliminary injunction pending trial.

Can we at least understand the facts before launching wild accusations ?

 

[ChazUK]

What line do you expect from them ? They aren't going to say "well, maybe we did go a bit crazy there for a second... Maybe we aren't as entitled to be the only players in the market as we thought we were...".

The statement makes total sense in the event of a positive court ruling.
Something more along the lines of the below makes sense to me.

"We are disappointed with today's ruling and will seek to protect our innovations whenever possible"

To say that others shouldn't copy them when they were found not to copy just seems odd.

 

[KnightWRX]

To say that others shouldn't copy them when they were found not to copy just seems odd.

To me it says "these 4 patents may not have stuck with this judge, but don't worry, they copied and we'll find other patents to prove it!".

Seems to me to be a battle cry if anything. A sign that this isn't over yet.

 

[ChazUK]

To me it says "these 4 patents may not have stuck with this judge, but don't worry, they copied and we'll find other patents to prove it!".

Seems to me to be a battle cry if anything. A sign that this isn't over yet.

That did pop into my head. How long until round 2?

To be 100% honest, I think Apple deserve to act upon every legal win they get in the cases of genuine infringement. I do believe there are innovative ways the competition can work round (and improve upon) some of these patents and would love to see a manufacturer go towards that line of thinking, they could end up producing something truly game changing.

 

[MacDav]

Relax

*sigh*. The Android 1.0 search box is as much in infringement of Apple's patent as the latest one. There was no "let's copy Apple's version" here. This infringement wasn't even intentional in all probability. Heck, there isn't yet a ruling on the validity of the patent nor on the definitive infringement of its claims, this is a preliminary injunction pending trial.

Can we at least understand the facts before launching wild accusations ?

*sigh* Lighten up Mr.Serious. I'm just kidding around. This is not a life or death situation. I think the whole thing is kind of funny. Apparently you don't.

 

[MacNewsFix]

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 ?

Consumers are also harmed when companies infringe on another company's R&D. It gives companies' less incentive to invest and the reason patents have existed for nearly 2,500 years.

To spare everyone of possible redundancy elsewhere in the thread, I'm leaving out images of the the obvious ripoffs by Samsung in instances concerning product packaging, connection cables, power plugs, individual program UI, etc.

Meanwhile, Microsoft came up with something possessing at least a modicum of originality:

 

[kdarling]

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.

True, the contract must cover the same things, but the rates can be different, plus they're often tied to the price of a phone as a percentage. (So yes, high end makers would have to pay more.)

As you noted, FRAND is not a standalone legal requirement, but a voluntary legal agreement. Once a company voluntarily submits its standards related patents to a Standards Group, they must then abide by the group's IP Policy.

In the case of ETSI, a group for radio standards, the IP policy (Section 6) states that the company must then be "prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions ..."

ETSI FRAND Terms

Note that ETSI's FRAND pricing terms are not spelled out, except for this single line: "The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate", which drives Apple crazy because they don't want to be required to cross license anything (*)... despite the fact that probably every other ETSI member has done so in order to keep IP costs lower. (**) Unsurprisingly, now that Apple is in the game, they want to change the rules.

FAIR and NON-DISCRIMINATORY

What the license covers has to be fair and non-discriminatory. In other words, they can't unfairly require buying non-related products or require unfair product restrictions. They must also not discriminate as to who can get a license.

REASONABLE

• ETSI doesn't set rates. Neither do courts. Fees just have to be reasonable... or more importantly, in a court's eyes they have to be not unreasonable.
  
• Fees don't have to be the same for everyone. Cross-licensing is one common way to lower rates. Another is of course to have good credit, buy in quantity, and/or be a longterm licensee.
  
• What is ‘fair and reasonable’ after a legal infringement challenge, can be higher than it was before that challenge. Sue, and your rate can go up.

(*) It is generally reported that Apple ended up cross-licensing some of its IP to Nokia in return for a lower rate on FRAND patents. In addition to future royalties, Apple also paid back royalties of an estimated $500-750 million, or about $5 per phone.
(**) Patent licenses can amount to 20-30% of the cost of a phone. Recently we learned that MMI/Google asks 2.25% for their wireless patents. For comparison, Qualcomm gets 3.4% of the total cost for their IP.

 

[KnightWRX]

[Repeating Apple's claims as if they were fact...]

Fixed that there for you. No really, let's at least wait until a court rules in Apple's favor on trademark/trade dress issues before we declare a party guilty ?

 

[Renzatic]

Android is not a capacitive touchscreen based smartphone though. It's a mobile OS. I think the claim was that Android's idea was stolen from iOS, which is also not a capacitive touchscreen based smartphone but also a mobile OS.

I think it's more the fact that some of these people see the BB style prototype Android, which they assume was the only idea manufacturers had for smartphone form factors at that point, then see the touch oriented Android that became the standard after the iPhone arrived on the scene.

To those that scream copy every chance they get, it doesn't matter that Android is a platform agnostic mobile OS that can run on a wide variety of form factors. They see it as two companies copying off Apple, the hardware designers for making a capacitive touchscreen smartphone (which apparently they believe never existed before the iPhone), and Google for creating the software capable of running on it in a superfically similar fashion to iOS (touch based input built around icons to launch applications and so on).

It's a copy to them because, regardless of the nuances of the OS and it how it got to the point it currently stands at, it's similar to the iPhone.

About the only thing in common both have as far as ideas go are that they are both mobile OSes. They differ in their implementation details and chosen technologies and paradigms.

You and I know that, but explain that to them.

 

[KnightWRX]

It's a copy to them because, regardless of the nuances of the OS and it how it got to the point it currently stands at, it's similar to the iPhone.

Precisely why when challenged no one can ever come up with an actual intelligent statement on what is copied, always vague "Touch ? Derrr... I can't say icons because those have been around for so long..."

You and I know that, but explain that to them.

I tried many times as you know.