I agree. I would actually prefer touching the side of the touch screen to change to the next photo instead of swiping but somebody probably patented that too.
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.
Ban on Sale of Samsung Galaxy Smartphones in EU Set for October 13th
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. I would actually prefer touching the side of the touch screen to change to the next photo instead of swiping but somebody probably patented that too.
Do you get a different image each time you swipe??
No, it's the same ****** every time.
Are you crazy do you realize how vast Samsung is ? Honestly all the suppliers should blacklist Apple.
Agree with you. Shame on Samsung, invent something different!
Disclaimer: I own Apple shares!
From this is my next:
Article source:
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/76361/samsung-blijft-galaxy-s-ii-in-nederland-verkopen.html
Potential non issue?
Article source:
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/76361/samsung-blijft-galaxy-s-ii-in-nederland-verkopen.html
Potential non issue?
"Because if you allow obvious patents it will be very difficult to invent anything new."
I can't go with you there, at all. If it was so obvious, why was Apple the first company to pour buckets of money into R&D to bring it to market? I suspect that it's only "obvious" to some now, because it works so well.
Don't punish a company because they executed so flawlessly that you can't imagine how you lived before their invention.
"Your financial incentive for inventing stuff would be pretty much gone, whereas patenting something obvious would be much more lucrative."
Apple didn't patent a technology, and they're not suing over protecting a technology, that they merely conceived and stuffed in a drawer. They patented a product that they've brought to market. They invented something. They're selling that something and they're selling a lot of it.
By no stretch of the imagination should that make it permissible to invalidate Apple's right to sell a unique product, that they conceived of, invented, and have brought to market.
If someone wants to bring a groundbreaking technology to market and have it be an open technology, that decision should be made by the inventing company and not the desires of every company that wished that they had invented that technology.
I can't go with you there, at all. If it was so obvious, why was Apple the first company to pour buckets of money into R&D to bring it to market? I suspect that it's only "obvious" to some now, because it works so well.
Don't punish a company because they executed so flawlessly that you can't imagine how you lived before their invention.
"Your financial incentive for inventing stuff would be pretty much gone, whereas patenting something obvious would be much more lucrative."
Apple didn't patent a technology, and they're not suing over protecting a technology, that they merely conceived and stuffed in a drawer. They patented a product that they've brought to market. They invented something. They're selling that something and they're selling a lot of it.
By no stretch of the imagination should that make it permissible to invalidate Apple's right to sell a unique product, that they conceived of, invented, and have brought to market.
If someone wants to bring a groundbreaking technology to market and have it be an open technology, that decision should be made by the inventing company and not the desires of every company that wished that they had invented that technology.
Out of 3 patents in question, only 1 is applicable. Patent 2,058,868 (the Gallery *****) is what Samsung (or should I say all 2.3 phones) infringing upon.
Rest 2 patents - 1,964,922 and 2,098,948 are not being infringed upon. Over that the design and "designs, copyrights and slavish (style) imitation" were all ignored by the court. So, no physical change needs to done in any of the models. All those rectengular, thing and black/chrome border is null and void now - a very good thing. And, the gallery app is not TW4 thing, default 2.3 app. So, Google should actually get their act together. Samsung is actually going to update the gallery apk before the preliminary injunction takes effect.
I think this is not too bad. Also, note that this is NOT across all EU. Apple did not produce enough documents in all countries or did not pay the bill at other places.
This gallery patent is still NOT applicable in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain.
Infact, I now see that Engadget has reported 1,964,922 is null and void for apple.
UPDATE: Samsung lawyer has already mentioned in http://goo.gl/eZrek that Samsung will NOT stop selling. They are going to update the gallery apk soon.
Sources:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...eliminary.html
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107696/re...ii-en-ace.html
http://translate.google.nl/translate...-verkopen.html
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisati...,SIIenAce.aspx
Rest 2 patents - 1,964,922 and 2,098,948 are not being infringed upon. Over that the design and "designs, copyrights and slavish (style) imitation" were all ignored by the court. So, no physical change needs to done in any of the models. All those rectengular, thing and black/chrome border is null and void now - a very good thing. And, the gallery app is not TW4 thing, default 2.3 app. So, Google should actually get their act together. Samsung is actually going to update the gallery apk before the preliminary injunction takes effect.
I think this is not too bad. Also, note that this is NOT across all EU. Apple did not produce enough documents in all countries or did not pay the bill at other places.
This gallery patent is still NOT applicable in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain.
Infact, I now see that Engadget has reported 1,964,922 is null and void for apple.
UPDATE: Samsung lawyer has already mentioned in http://goo.gl/eZrek that Samsung will NOT stop selling. They are going to update the gallery apk soon.
Sources:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...eliminary.html
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107696/re...ii-en-ace.html
http://translate.google.nl/translate...-verkopen.html
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisati...,SIIenAce.aspx
Hang on, so Apple lose pretty much all of their claim EXCEPT for the one gesture related to the gallery and people think Apple have won?! Are you choosing to ignore the various other claims which Apple brought so vociferously to court?
23 August - Samsung injunction based on gallery App
24 August - minor software update to change gallery
25 August - whole Apple claim is rendered useless and Samsung go on selling phones.
23 August - Samsung injunction based on gallery App
24 August - minor software update to change gallery
25 August - whole Apple claim is rendered useless and Samsung go on selling phones.
While we are at it, Apple obviously stole swiping from Opera and its mouse gestures (which it added back in 2000)...
Same idea, different approach really.
Same idea, different approach really.
Exactly, first words of sense posted here! So much of a non-issue for Samsung, its actually quite funny watching LTD get his panties in a twist.
Suspect that your wife will tell you that that is trademarks, where defense is mandated in the laws. But not so much patents, where trolls will ignore an offense until the offender is making bank (even if it is years later) and it isn't tossed out on the 'ignore' defense. If anything he trolls get away with claiming it wasn't until all the big press that they knew there was an issue
Wow this is ridiculous, swiping? The same exact gesture you make when you turn a page in a book?
Why can you even patent something so insignificant? The entire system is broken beyond belief and with this things are going to spiral out of control. I wonder if Google has any patents on something a bit more significant, like say the notification bar that they blatantly stole from Android?
Why can you even patent something so insignificant? The entire system is broken beyond belief and with this things are going to spiral out of control. I wonder if Google has any patents on something a bit more significant, like say the notification bar that they blatantly stole from Android?
Yes you are correct, however Google's and Android's OS direction was going the blackberry route which didn't worry Apple. I'm guessing that Apple didn't see Android as a threat at that point. Early Android was terrible (IMO) and not at all like what they have today. With the iPhone, that all changed and Android did a 180.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the theory that Android being so much like iOS was a total accident.
Again, a lot of what both Android and iPhones do seems obvious NOW. It wasn't so obvilous before the iPhone however.
All of this is just my personal opinion. I've been wrong before, just ask my ex-wife.
Android is software. Software is not hardware. Android OS runs on anything from tablet to a "bb-phone". It is not Android (read Google) that is making the devices, it is the OEMs.
As for being "so much like iphone" i dont get what youre getting at. The GUI is anything but innovative. So, then it comes down to touch. How many (sensible) ways can you think of while using touch to navigate a device?
Looks like it. An EU-wide injunction is what it is.
Of course, Samsung can choose to modify whatever element they're infringing on.
One wonders what Samsung will be hit with next.
Here is the patent: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2008030779
Note that Apple has also patented viewing a specific picture by touching a thumbnail of that picture.
Now, who would have thought of that? No one, that's who.
Note that Apple has also patented viewing a specific picture by touching a thumbnail of that picture.
Now, who would have thought of that? No one, that's who.
You're the only one narrow minded enough to see this as a victory. Most of Apples claims were dismissed and the ones that weren't are easy to get around. This was a victory for Samsung your little Apple programmed brain just isn't able to comprehend it yet.
Ps you're a fag
Last edited:
Get over this whole "but they did patent it". No, they probably didnt patent that, nor did they patent the wheel. You see, most of us dont think that the obvious should be patentable.
Here is the patent: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2008030779
Note that Apple has also patented viewing a specific picture by touching a thumbnail of that picture.
Now, who would have thought of that? No one, that's who.
Nobody is as innovative as Apple. Thumbnails, it just works!
Define Swipe
Out of all the pattents Samsung "might" be violating with their phones this one is the dumbest for a judge to rule on. Define a "Swipe", is it a straight line movement from left to right/right to left? does it involve any sort of upward stroke like a J type motion? Placing a pattent on a gesture is rediculous, especially when THESE PHONES DONT HAVE BUTTONS, and your only way of navigating involves gestures/taps. I really think apple has it in their head that they're the only company allowed to produce touchscreen smartphones and everyone else is just ripping them off.
I understand Apple doing everything in its power to defend it self from a falling market share, but the pattent should have never been given in the first place.
If i were Granny Smith Apple Co. i'd be sueing apple for placing that little logo on everyone of its products giving them a taste of their own frivolous legal practices.
Out of all the pattents Samsung "might" be violating with their phones this one is the dumbest for a judge to rule on. Define a "Swipe", is it a straight line movement from left to right/right to left? does it involve any sort of upward stroke like a J type motion? Placing a pattent on a gesture is rediculous, especially when THESE PHONES DONT HAVE BUTTONS, and your only way of navigating involves gestures/taps. I really think apple has it in their head that they're the only company allowed to produce touchscreen smartphones and everyone else is just ripping them off.
I understand Apple doing everything in its power to defend it self from a falling market share, but the pattent should have never been given in the first place.
If i were Granny Smith Apple Co. i'd be sueing apple for placing that little logo on everyone of its products giving them a taste of their own frivolous legal practices.
interesting; did not expect the judge's decision on just that patent.
When the Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant arrived in the US BestBuy store, a lot of customers went in trying to buy the iphone4 (which was sold out at that time) and ask 'I want to buy that iphone'. The sales guy said, 'oh, that's not the Apple iphone'. and most customers would respond, 'it's not? it looks like it'.
I was there myself with my wife looking for an iphone 4 to see if it happens to be in stock when i saw the Galaxy S Vibrant, and at first sight, it looks like the iphone 3GS! Only at closer look could I tell it was different in the back and bigger (not counting the logo and Andriod home, back, etc buttons placements.
The people that bought the Galaxy S Vibrant bought it because they wanted an iphone, but it was not avail (or because they wanted to be on t-mobile) and the Sales guy was able to convince them that it's close enough and could do everything the iphone could.
I witness the Galaxy S indirectly riding on the resemblance of it to the iphone 3GS to lure customers in and catch a few buyers because they were so similar.
Compared to HTC, Motorola, LG, Samsung's Vibrant resembles the iphone the most.
Since Apple release the iphone4 design, Samsung also release at least 1 new phone that resembles the iphone4 in look. I know it's hard to prove in court, but it was so obvious it was trying to look as much as the iphone 4 as possible (much like the vibrant tried to look like the 3GS), so non-technical would think they are almost buying the same phone with the same functions.
Granted, Samsung makes other phones that do not resemble the iphone(s).
So based on this decision on the Ban; couldn't samsung just recall the phones, and remove/replace their photo app(s) that uses swipe and then sell them again. It sounds technically that is all that is preventing them from selling their phones in EU.
When the Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant arrived in the US BestBuy store, a lot of customers went in trying to buy the iphone4 (which was sold out at that time) and ask 'I want to buy that iphone'. The sales guy said, 'oh, that's not the Apple iphone'. and most customers would respond, 'it's not? it looks like it'.
I was there myself with my wife looking for an iphone 4 to see if it happens to be in stock when i saw the Galaxy S Vibrant, and at first sight, it looks like the iphone 3GS! Only at closer look could I tell it was different in the back and bigger (not counting the logo and Andriod home, back, etc buttons placements.
The people that bought the Galaxy S Vibrant bought it because they wanted an iphone, but it was not avail (or because they wanted to be on t-mobile) and the Sales guy was able to convince them that it's close enough and could do everything the iphone could.
I witness the Galaxy S indirectly riding on the resemblance of it to the iphone 3GS to lure customers in and catch a few buyers because they were so similar.
Compared to HTC, Motorola, LG, Samsung's Vibrant resembles the iphone the most.
Since Apple release the iphone4 design, Samsung also release at least 1 new phone that resembles the iphone4 in look. I know it's hard to prove in court, but it was so obvious it was trying to look as much as the iphone 4 as possible (much like the vibrant tried to look like the 3GS), so non-technical would think they are almost buying the same phone with the same functions.
Granted, Samsung makes other phones that do not resemble the iphone(s).
So based on this decision on the Ban; couldn't samsung just recall the phones, and remove/replace their photo app(s) that uses swipe and then sell them again. It sounds technically that is all that is preventing them from selling their phones in EU.