Steve Jobs Tried Unsuccessfully to Defuse Patent Dispute with Samsung in 2010

[Cartoonkid]

trying to fit a rectangular object in a rectangular box... hmm.. so you have problem with packaging now?

there must be 200 million ways to achieve that. yes?

what is is this "overall presentation"? can you be specific?

Did you even look at the pictures???

Aside from the Tab's box saying "Samsung Galaxy Tab" on the top of the box directly below the picture, do you not see similarities?

Yes I understand that rectangular boxes will all look similar. But did they have to put it in a white box that looks VERY similar (albeit, to the untrained eye) to the iPad's box? Why didn't they at least make an honest effort to distinguish their product from their competitor's?

And if there are "200 million ways" to achieve rectangular packaging, why did Samsung choose one so similar to Apple's?

 

[Oletros]

So, what exactly gives a company (Google) the right to enter a business in which that company has to use IP from other companies or entities without compensation? Is that basic OSS philosophy?

And exactly which IP are talking about?

 

[the8thark]

Yes, but you didn't start hearing about Apple's "new regime" until Jobs officially stepped down in late August.

That's correct. It existed before but Apple just kept it secret. Like they try to do with everything else, keep it secret.

 

[Oletros]

Again, no, they didn't. The offered an opinion that it was too minimalist. They ruled that it did not qualify for a preliminary injunction. The actual court case is a year or so away.

The non-infringement ruling on the Tab 10.1 was in reference to the photo swiping patent, not the community design.

Mmm, no, the non infringing ruling was on ALL Apple questioned

 

[kdarling]

The Community Design was just a handheld device drawing. No text description allowed, same as in the US. By itself, it only indicates a thin rounded rectangle with some kind of bezel.

Apple's German injunction request added trade dress claims like these, which of course a court can accept or not:

• An overall rectangular shape with four evenly rounded corners;
• A flat, clear surface that covers the front of the device;
• A display which is centered on the clear surface with neutral borders on all sides;
• A thin bezel surrounding the front surface;
• A back side, which is rounded at the corners;
• A thin profile.

 

[BaldiMac]

Mmm, no, the non infringing ruling was on ALL Apple questioned

That's not true. All of Apple's claims were rejected for a preliminary injunction except the photo swiping patent. That is not a finding of non-infringement. One patent was thrown out. Samsung was found to violate one photo swiping patent with certain smartphones. The Tab was not found to infringe on that patent.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/2...alaxy-smartphones-in-eu-set-for-october-13th/

 

[Oletros]

That's not true. All of Apple's claims were rejected for a preliminary injunction except the photo swiping patent. That is not a finding of non-infringement. One patent was thrown out. Samsung was found to violate one photo swiping patent with certain smartphones. The Tab was not found to infringe on that patent.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/2...alaxy-smartphones-in-eu-set-for-october-13th/

No, the court ruled using prior art that Samsung didn't infringe the claims Apple was saying

https://docs.google.com/a/viewer?ur...1-730,+KG+ZA+11-731+(Apple+tegen+Samsung).pdf

 

[samcraig]

The headline is interesting. Define "Tried Unsuccessfully to Defuse"

It could be that Jobs spoke to Samsung.
It could also be that Jobs tried to bully/threaten Samsung.

Have the full transcripts been released where it states what actually happened?

From Bloomberg:

“Samsung is an important supplier with whom we have a deep relationship,” Lutton testified in response to questioning by Samsung lawyer David Catterns. “We wanted to give them a chance to do the right thing.”

The talks were confidential, Lutton said. Once lawyers began to question him about the content of the negotiations, Bennett cleared the courtroom to allow the testimony in private. "

 

[BaldiMac]

No, the court ruled using prior art that Samsung didn't infringe the claims Apple was saying

https://docs.google.com/a/viewer?ur...1-730,+KG+ZA+11-731+(Apple+tegen+Samsung).pdf

That link did not work, but you are still misstating what the Dutch court ruled. The hearing was for a preliminary injunction. Only one patent was thrown out based on prior art. The full court case is still to come.

 

[gkpm]

Samsung's cable connector is PDMI, an industry standard. Gives a lot of credibility to that big picture you posted (use timg next time).

Ah misinformation from the usual suspect. Samsung's Galaxy Tab isn't even PDMI compatible.

Yes it just uses a PDMI form factor connector, but the actual electrical connections are different.

And guess what, PDMI came out way after - in 2010 - Apple had their connector.

 

[TMay]

And exactly which IP are talking about?

That would be Google.

 

[kdarling]

The Dutch court ruled that none of Apple's injunction related patents were infringed by Samsung, except for the gallery app.

As for slide-to-unlock patent, the court also judged no infringement, and added a comment that there was a "chance that it could be held invalid" if that patent was challenged. Their reasoning was very similar to an opinion I had previously posted about the patent:

The only difference (between the Neonode and the iPhone) is the use of an unlock image.

The judge finds that the application of such an unlock image is obvious. (...)

It would be trivial to work out the application of such a graphic element (feedback / interaction) from long-known virtual on / off slider buttons (on previous touch UIs). - Dutch court, 2011

Compare that to my own comments here, back in 2010:

As I've pointed out before, the Neonode N1 was using a horizontal swipe to unlock back in 2002.

The Apple patent is about moving a (optionally I think) visible object completely down a visible path in order to unlock.

(Which I personally consider obvious because if a boss came to a programmer and said "let's do an unlock swipe like the Neonode, but I want it incredibly obvious for the user to know what to do", then any programmer would've come up with the visible objects.) - kdarling 2010

 

[RearthChuck]

This is a battle between titans. Wonder if the consumer will win after their dispute is over?

 

[samcraig]

I love that I was down voted for suggesting Apple might have bullied Samsung. Please - down vote that more LOL

 

[hexx]

I love that I was down voted for suggesting Apple might have bullied Samsung. Please - down vote that more LOL

like you don't do the same thing when somebody disagrees with you

 

[BaldiMac]

The Dutch court ruled that none of Apple's injunction related patents were infringed by Samsung, except for the gallery app.

No, they didn't. The Dutch court ruled that Apple did not prove it's case for a preliminary injunction based on those patents. Full court case to follow.

 

[kdarling]

I love that I was down voted for suggesting Apple might have bullied Samsung. Please - down vote that more LOL

lol Who knows how people think? My post #107 above got down-voted even though all it did was blandly state the factual difference between the design document and Apple's injunction's trade dress claims.

I must say I have noticed that, unlike previous years when most naive and mean posts disappeared when the school year started in the Fall, this year those posts have continued unabated. It's almost as if every kid had an iPad and was posting here instead of listening in class

 

[samcraig]

like you don't do the same thing when somebody disagrees with you

I rarely RARELY use the down vote. I am more likely to use the up vote actually when appropriate.

 

[bruinsrme]

I love that I was down voted for suggesting Apple might have bullied Samsung. Please - down vote that more LOL

How could you even suggest the nice people at apple would resort to bullying.
It's not like they ever bullied others before, lol

 

[hexx]

lol Who knows how people think? My post #107 above got down-voted even though all it did was blandly state the factual difference between the design document and Apple's injunction's trade dress claims.

there's no logic or anything behind it. i noticed that if there are currently more ppl online who agree with me, my comments are up voted, and if there are currently more ppl online who disagree i'm down voted. but it's not as bad as on theregister.co.uk

----------

I rarely RARELY use the down vote. I am more likely to use the up vote actually when appropriate.

that's fine, i up voted you. i prefer sarcastic comments tbh, the ones that make me laugh

 

[TMay]

This is a battle between titans. Wonder if the consumer will win after their dispute is over?

The consumer won the day the iPhone was announced and killed the Blackberry paradigm, which coincidentally was the Android pre iPhone.

It doesn't take much to create a list of devices that the smartphone with touch has eliminated. Productivity was enhanced and saving accrued and it hasn't stopped yet.

 

[samcraig]

there's no logic or anything behind it. i noticed that if there are currently more ppl online who agree with me, my comments are up voted, and if there are currently more ppl online who disagree i'm down voted. but it's not as bad as on theregister.co.uk

----------



that's fine, i up voted you. i prefer sarcastic comments tbh, the ones that make me laugh

Funny enough - someone who doesn't care for me or my posts sent me a private message to "warn" me that my first post on the amazon fire thread clearly showed I hated Apple and that I (more or less) wasn't welcome to share my opinion. And that clearly all the downvotes would indicate that.

I tried to respond back - but he (cowardly) doesn't accept my PMs.

Too bad - because what I wrote was that I really didn't care if I was popular or whether I was up voted or down voted because my opinion is my opinion. And that this message board isn't just to discuss how wonderful Apple is - but to share opinions and ideas.

I did have to laugh though - because not more than an hour or so later - my first post in that thread had over 25 "ups." Again - doesn't matter to me - but I am sure that pissed this person off...

 

[kdarling]

No, they didn't. The Dutch court ruled that Apple did not prove it's case for a preliminary injunction based on those patents. Full court case to follow.

Yep, that's a good point.

My post was intended to make sure that everyone understood that when you said the slide patent was "thrown out", that it doesn't mean the patent no longer existed (yet).

 

[voonyx]

Ah misinformation from the usual suspect. Samsung's Galaxy Tab isn't even PDMI compatible.

Yes it just uses a PDMI form factor connector, but the actual electrical connections are different.

And guess what, PDMI came out way after - in 2010 - Apple had their connector.

It's like he's not even trying anymore

 

[hexx]

have you seen this http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/240750/tizen_a_viable_android_alternative_at_last.html ? looks very interesting. htc is said to be looking to buy mobile OS, samsung another android based phones seller signed deal with mircrosoft to pay $10 per device (if i recall correctly) and now this article. shake up would be good, i'd love to see htc buying webOs from HP, googlerola using android, winmo devices and another alternative based on pure linux with heavy support of HTML5 (well, html5, css3 and js).