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.
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's because your understanding seems to be quite limited.
There is no copyright on the word "Candy". There is a trademark, and the trademark is in two areas - games and clothing.
You can start building computers, sell them under the name "The", and get a trademark on the word "The" in the computer area which means Apple's next computer can call their next computer "MacPro" but not "The". And Samsung can call their watch "Gear" but not "The".
I don't know why the Apple Corporation thinks that word suggestions is something that it can own completely. I can't even imagine for example if Ford had acted like Apple a century ago and started suing other car manufacturers for options like AC and power steering when they came along.
Only when it is reported wrongly.
If you wanted to call your next iOS game "Candy Fun", or "Candy Attack", or something similar, to trade on the reputation of "Candy Crash", then you are affected by this. Otherwise you're not.
I'd like to point out that this may seem 'so simple' from the user's point of view, but i could imagine, that coding the algorithm behind it was probably not done during lunch.
Especially Apple likes to make the technology behind its products invisible. Being stunned by the beautiful shell of Apple products and their beautiful UI (which is just the software SURFACE), people may forget that there IS incredible technology behind pretty much everything.
Personally, i would indeed see autocomplete worth patenting. Although, i don't get it why something this -nowadays- 'basic' hasn't been already patented before or -assuming that something similar HAS been patented before- how Apple's technique can be different enough to get a patent on it too.
The patent has nothing to do with the algorithm to implement it, this is the problem with software patents
Autocorrect / Autocomplete certainly isn't something Apple invented and they're not trying to claim patent rights over the concept as a whole. What they have got a patent on is the specific items listed in this post
The funny thing is that this was also happening back in 1900s, we just didn't hear about it often and they would be expired by now.
Actually, Ford did patent several basic stuff here: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/50893/Ford_Patent_Catalog_share_-78925.html
The main difference is that Ford were being sued all over, one for infringing on a basic patent on a gasoline car (yes): http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-henry-ford-zapped-a-licensing-monopoly#axzz2r8REB8BY
Ford was used for infringing on an patent recently: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/...ingement-on-fuel-injection-used-in-f-150.html
Apple does own the method of how to presnt suggestions based on the touch screen. It doesn't claim to own suggestions, just the presentation and how to interact with it on the touchscreen.
Here is the language:
Last edited:
Ain't she just the worst !
Every single time she sides with Apple no matter what the evidence is. Sometimes she won't even let Samsung present their evidence because it is "too damaging" CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT ??!!
In addition to calling the story 'boring', you might notice that I also contributed an opinion on the nature of these lawsuits. I didn't just say 'Slow news day?' or something similar. So go about your business, I'm not buzzing like a fridge.
Spot on. No one is stealing Apple's code.
And just imagine how crippled commercial industry would be had every nuance of every application of every idea been patented in this way over the last few centuries. Can you imagine a patent being awarded for the position of a gear stick in a car, and the mapping of the gears to the gear-stick's movement? Every car manufacturer would have had to come up with a unique way of implementing gear changes, and you'd have to relearn how to drive a car if you ever switched brands.
In principle, I like the theory behind patents—that you reward the most innovative companies for their independent research and development. But in practice the whole thing stinks.
Edit: Oops, hadn't noticed that you'd already used an illustration from the car industry before my previous comment. Hoping you don't sue!
If it is so simple, so why it wasn't invented before? Touch and pen-input displays have been forever, with on-screen keyboards long before the iPhone. So why didn't, for example, Microsoft, invented it for their Windows CE phones and PIM's?
It's like E=mc^2, it's simple after someone puts that in front of you, but coming up with that from nothing is a different game.
Where were you guys when "the appeals court ruled unanimously that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., made errors last year when she denied Apple's request for a court injunction against 26 Samsung products" when she "ruled Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents and denied additional damages" or when she tersely asked if the Apple lawyers are doing what the Toronto mayor likes to do.
What's particularly entertaining is in one of those news threads, another resident Apple skeptic is diligently telling us how correct Lucy Koh was in denying Apple's request to block some Samsung products even though the appeals court found otherwise. In this thread, the Apple skeptics are now telling us how wrong/biased judge Koh is.
You have to feel for Koh. I've seen people questioning her partialness to the case because of her Korean ethnicity, her qualifications and intelligence, and of course, that she's somehow bought out by Apple because she lives in California. I doubt she can win in the public eyes no matter what she does.
Last edited:
Read this, and understand exactly how the trademark system can be abused.
I mean they trademarked the word "saga" because all their games tag it on at the end of their titles. Then a game comes along that uses "saga" in its most literal, historic sense, and they're still able to say it violates their trademark. Or at least complain it does.
Quite simply, no one should be able to trademark common words. You can trademark "candy crush", "candy crush saga", but you shouldn't be able to trademark "candy" or "crush" or "saga".
The assumption, of course, is that if someone does try riding off another's reputation, it could confuse the general public. Like everyone is an idiot, and can't tell the difference between something official, and something obviously trying to create a quick buck off their name. Take Pac-Man for example. It was huge back in the day. Everyone knew who and what Pac-Man was. And the eventual release of Hack-Man or Fact-Man or whatever didn't do a thing to dilute the brand. The same thing applies here. Everyone knows what Candy Crush Saga is. So if someone were to come out with Candy Story, some people would play it, but no one would confuse the two. It's established in the public mind.
----------
It was. Autocorrect has been around practically as long as word processors. The only thing Apple should have a right to is their specific implementation, their method to achieve the end result, not the end result itself.
...which might be going on here, though I seriously doubt Samsung managed to lift Apple's implementation of autocorrect by complete accident, not unless it was incredibly generic to begin with.
Interesting how one judge can be part of what appear to be separate cases from two same companies. Once one ruling is made, any subsequent rulings can be seen as invalid due to bias or conflict of interest.
I dont think i understand the court system very well.
I dont think i understand the court system very well.
I think they hand out these cases in alphabetical order in California, and since there aren't any judges with names starting with A through J in her circuit, she ends up getting them all.
Interesting. You support protecting design elements such as rounded corners but not software elements such as autocomplete. Interesting.
In my opinion both hardware AND software elements are major factors in the overall user experience and should be protected within the confines of the current law.
I was gonna gonna write up a long post as to why software patents are idiotic, but....well, I'm lazy today, and Wikipedia already did the job for me.
"Software is different" is the best one.
Right. A better response to the OP's characteristic knee-jerk, prejudiced and jingoistic claim, would have been to point out that Judge Koh famously struck down a good part of the jury's original damage award against Samsung, as has been reported on this site prominently.
----------
You are presuming that a ruling is an indication of bias or personal interest in the litigants in a case? Why would you make that inference?
----------
Great response!