Netherlands judge rules Samsung Galaxy S, S II violate Apple patents, bans sales(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Netherlands judge rules Samsung Galaxy S, S II violate Apple patents, bans sales
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/netherlands-judge-rules-that-samsung-galaxy-s-s-ii-violate-appl/
17 comments
Headlines are written for brevity and to get you to read the article. However, you'll note the corrections made to the article indicate the original version said that Samsung violated other Apple patents and that the ban was immediate. Only once the Dutch was properly translated did the corrections render the headline a bit off.
... Because it was multiple patents. And because a ban was indeed made (with a fairly standard delay enabling them to change the product).
This is so ridiculous. I cant decide between a S2 and a Iphone 5 anyway but this makes me lean heavily towards the Samsung device.
Patenting the way to unlock a phone via dragging an image ? God, i need to puke.
This is indeed ridiculous.
I've always been pretty neutral towards Apple but I this is just appalling. Seemingly they cannot compete with Android in the normal way so they try the patent troll angle. I hope this backfires on them big time.
I don't want to live in Apple's locked-down walled garden.
I've always been pretty neutral towards Apple but I this is just appalling. Seemingly they cannot compete with Android in the normal way so they try the patent troll angle. I hope this backfires on them big time.
I don't want to live in Apple's locked-down walled garden.
Hardly surprising[1]. And I don't think this will make a big splash against them. The public doesn't care and Apple fanboys will be Apple fanboys. I expect some apologetics any moment on Daring Fireball any moment now…
NB: I'm typing this on a Mac. I really like the OS and the desktop/laptop systems, but since they've become the big mobile player, there's not a lot of progress in those fields and they're getting increasingly litigious. Time to install Arch on some spare machine again…
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
NB: I'm typing this on a Mac. I really like the OS and the desktop/laptop systems, but since they've become the big mobile player, there's not a lot of progress in those fields and they're getting increasingly litigious. Time to install Arch on some spare machine again…
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...
"The public doesn't care": it seems they do, at least here in the Netherlands I see a lot of people (non-techies) angrily complaining about Apple now. There are a few fanboys/apologetics, but most people realize that competition in the smartphone arena is good and Apple is trying to sabotage this by litigation.
This is not what "patent troll" means. Apple is not a non-practicing entity.
Apple can't compete with Android? That's your conclusion? Maybe you should revisit that thought, I mean considering the mountain of evidence (money) to the contrary?
Apple is coming under increasing competition in the mobile phone market, specifically from Android. Despite the buckets of cash Apple has on hand, it is a fair assumption that Apple is increasingly focused on taking down Android by any means possible, including buying tons of patents and taking Android handset OEMs to court.
That Apple has competition does not mean that they are unable to compete. They are _extremely_ able to compete.
especially when they block competition via court orders..
Litigation does not mean that Apple are unable to compete on equal terms. They are just being jerks and using everything in their arsenal possible to increase what lead they have. They are just another jerky corporation.
[deleted]
Seemingly they cannot compete with Android in the normal way so they try the patent troll angle.
Ah yes, it's overwhelmingly obvious that Apple is the underdog in the mobile phone space! They've never been able to compete on their own, and that's why they resort to such tactics.
Look, everyone is suing everyone in utterly ridiculous greed/patent-lawsuits: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...
It's just the way the sad, sad game is played.
Ah yes, it's overwhelmingly obvious that Apple is the underdog in the mobile phone space! They've never been able to compete on their own, and that's why they resort to such tactics.
Look, everyone is suing everyone in utterly ridiculous greed/patent-lawsuits: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...
It's just the way the sad, sad game is played.
Just remember Apple is being sued as much as it's suing. Yes, it is disgusting business practice across the industry, but nobody is immune and nobody is pure. Apple gets the most air time because they are Apple.
Take some of your anger and let your representatives know how sick the patent system is. Then do it again and again. We need to get the message to them!
EDIT: Yes, this case is Europe, but if America became more intelligent with patents, Europe, who already is more intelligent, would likely follow.
Take some of your anger and let your representatives know how sick the patent system is. Then do it again and again. We need to get the message to them!
EDIT: Yes, this case is Europe, but if America became more intelligent with patents, Europe, who already is more intelligent, would likely follow.
> Just remember Apple is being sued as much as it's suing.
That doesn't make it acceptable. I'm tired of making excuses for Apple, personally. I like their products, but they've worn my goodwill towards their brand down to a nub by being one of the most ruthless and (in my opinion) unethical brandishers of patents worldwide.
That doesn't make it acceptable. I'm tired of making excuses for Apple, personally. I like their products, but they've worn my goodwill towards their brand down to a nub by being one of the most ruthless and (in my opinion) unethical brandishers of patents worldwide.
What I would really like to see is more information on who the aggressors are in all the cases. While I can find who is suing whom, I can't find who started suits in the cases of counter-suits having been filed.
There is no doubt Apple is in the middle of things and they are being extremely aggressive, and this particular suit seems over the top. However, I can't judge all of Apple's lawsuits with the current information I have. They are too prominent in the press and too little real information is being presented there.
Put another way, if we assume all the patents were valid (which is the lawyerly assumption) and companies really are infringing, is Apple wrong? If we were talking about people stealing the core of Mr. Fusion and putting out Mrs. Fusors, would Mr. Fusion be in the wrong to sue?
I would love nothing more than for all software patents to get dumped, but until that day comes, they are part of the rules of business. Apple could choose not to fight, but I don't think that would be keeping with fiduciary responsibility.
(Re-reading this, I realized it kind of turned into a stream of consciousness thing. Hopefully there is something to follow here).
There is no doubt Apple is in the middle of things and they are being extremely aggressive, and this particular suit seems over the top. However, I can't judge all of Apple's lawsuits with the current information I have. They are too prominent in the press and too little real information is being presented there.
Put another way, if we assume all the patents were valid (which is the lawyerly assumption) and companies really are infringing, is Apple wrong? If we were talking about people stealing the core of Mr. Fusion and putting out Mrs. Fusors, would Mr. Fusion be in the wrong to sue?
I would love nothing more than for all software patents to get dumped, but until that day comes, they are part of the rules of business. Apple could choose not to fight, but I don't think that would be keeping with fiduciary responsibility.
(Re-reading this, I realized it kind of turned into a stream of consciousness thing. Hopefully there is something to follow here).
graph of parties to patent litigation: http://news.designlanguage.com/post/1473307539
That is awesome, and better than the other one I found (though slightly out of date), but it still doesn't identify the instigators. I would love to see an interactive graph like this, with the arrows drawing out over time.
Interesting to note at that point, Apple was being sued over twice as much as it was suing. Patents are so screwed up right now.
Interesting to note at that point, Apple was being sued over twice as much as it was suing. Patents are so screwed up right now.
Yep, while I love and use apple products, I'll drop them like a rock like I dropped Windows for Linux in 1999-2000 if things get too bad with them.
What I find annoying with the patent situation is the fact that people seem to think this is something new with Apple for example. If they would compare the situation with other businesses they would note that patent suits are really common. Just on design patents alone car companies make the computer industry look like a kiddy playbox. The major auto manufacturers seem to love suing for the most basic of similarities. Which might explain why almost all cars are universally ugly in some way. But I digress.
What I find annoying with the patent situation is the fact that people seem to think this is something new with Apple for example. If they would compare the situation with other businesses they would note that patent suits are really common. Just on design patents alone car companies make the computer industry look like a kiddy playbox. The major auto manufacturers seem to love suing for the most basic of similarities. Which might explain why almost all cars are universally ugly in some way. But I digress.
Of the major (non patent-troll) companies, Nokia, Motorola and Kodak sued Apple first (although Kodak is basically a patent troll now; cite Sun case).
Apple sued Samsung & HTC first (although Samsung isn't shown on that diagram for some reason)
Apple sued Samsung & HTC first (although Samsung isn't shown on that diagram for some reason)
So Apple doing bad things makes you mad at Apple. But the fact that other companies also play the same game, some less successfully and most importantly, with less press, doesn't impact your opinion of those companies?
You should direct your anger at the source of the issue, software patents. Getting angry at companies doing what they need to in the current environment isn't very productive.
You should direct your anger at the source of the issue, software patents. Getting angry at companies doing what they need to in the current environment isn't very productive.
> So Apple doing bad things makes you mad at Apple. But the fact that other companies also play the same game, some less successfully and most importantly, with less press, doesn't impact your opinion of those companies?
Since when has "everyone else is doing it" been a good justification? I'm tired of this kind of lowest-common-denominator-thinking in business. I'm tired of this implicit assumption that the only rational purpose for companies is to maximize profit and minimize their competition.
Maybe that's unfair, ridiculous, or childish. I don't really know.
> You should direct your anger at the source of the issue, software patents.
I do. I've also sunk software patents. While working at Microsoft I worked hard to find prior art for every patent proposed from any work I touched.
> Getting angry at companies doing what they need to in the current environment isn't very productive.
What's unproductive is maintaining the status quo. Apple is using patents to tactically bludgeon their strongest competition, and raising the cost of innovation in the process. This translates into less innovation, less competition, and higher prices for consumers in the mobile space.
Since when has "everyone else is doing it" been a good justification? I'm tired of this kind of lowest-common-denominator-thinking in business. I'm tired of this implicit assumption that the only rational purpose for companies is to maximize profit and minimize their competition.
Maybe that's unfair, ridiculous, or childish. I don't really know.
> You should direct your anger at the source of the issue, software patents.
I do. I've also sunk software patents. While working at Microsoft I worked hard to find prior art for every patent proposed from any work I touched.
> Getting angry at companies doing what they need to in the current environment isn't very productive.
What's unproductive is maintaining the status quo. Apple is using patents to tactically bludgeon their strongest competition, and raising the cost of innovation in the process. This translates into less innovation, less competition, and higher prices for consumers in the mobile space.
What they "need to do"? Why did Apple need to sue Samsung? Apple doesn't need the cash, Samsung's tablets aren't hurting iPad sales very much, and Samsung didn't show any inclination to pre-emptively sue Apple.
If you don't enforce your patents there isn't much point to having a patent.
It has less to do with sales. The whole patent suit situation is systemic to the patent system. That and Apple tends to get into the news often it becomes "newsworthy" enough to report.
It has less to do with sales. The whole patent suit situation is systemic to the patent system. That and Apple tends to get into the news often it becomes "newsworthy" enough to report.
> That and Apple tends to get into the news often it becomes "newsworthy" enough to report
Oh? Not simply because they are one of the worst offenders?
How may patent law suits is Google engaged in right now that is instigated by Google?
Oh? Not simply because they are one of the worst offenders?
How may patent law suits is Google engaged in right now that is instigated by Google?
>Just remember Apple is being sued as much as it's suing. Yes, it is disgusting business practice across the industry, but nobody is immune and nobody is pure. Apple gets the most air time because they are Apple.
Samsung didn't sue Apple until Apple sued them. This kind of "everybody's doing it" thing doesn't quite wash. Google, for example, isn't playing this cheap game.
Samsung didn't sue Apple until Apple sued them. This kind of "everybody's doing it" thing doesn't quite wash. Google, for example, isn't playing this cheap game.
That is a very disingenuous thing to say. Apple sued HTC, Samsung and Motorola. The only lawsuits against Apple are the countersuits in the cases that Apple started.
There is plenty of reason to be mad primarily at Apple.
There is plenty of reason to be mad primarily at Apple.
There's a difference between suing and counter-suing. Apple is clearly a patent aggressor in this arena. The system is clearly broken, but Apple is rich and powerful enough to be able to choose whether to get involved and can be held accountable for those decisions.
Most of the suits against Apple are defensive. Apple was definitely the aggressor in this battle.
Yeah I'm part of the Apple cult, but if Apple keeps this legal circus up, as much as I'd hate to, I'm probably going to leave it.
I've never bought Apple, but I've recommended them to non-tech friends and family that sought my advice. From now on, no more recommendations from me.
When next time you are going to recommend some Galaxy Tab for them rember this: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/06/29/samsung-complaint-cal...
Apple did not invent the patent system, nor did they bought that court decision.
Apple did not invent the patent system, nor did they bought that court decision.
If this litigation influences you against Apple and in favor of Samsung, then you must either think that Samsung is a more ethical company, or you are holding Apple to a higher standard. I think you'll find that neither position can be logically justified.
Given that the ban starts only on October 13 and Android 3.0 does not violate the relevant patents (according to Dutch news sites). Couldn't Samsung just update the firmware in the meanwhile to change the behavior of touch-based photo browsing to whatever Android 3.0 uses?
Edit: according to the judgment summary the Galaxy Tab does not violate said patents.
Edit: according to the judgment summary the Galaxy Tab does not violate said patents.
Yes, this is exactly what they're going to do. They've already said they'll update the firmware before the deadline to remove the scrolling behavior, so their phones won't get taken out of the stores.
[1] Dutch: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/76361/samsung-blijft-galaxy-s-ii-...
[2] Translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...
[1] Dutch: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/76361/samsung-blijft-galaxy-s-ii-...
[2] Translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...
As ridiculous as this is, I hope that this at least means we'll get the 3.0 update sooner to our SGSII phones ...
Based on how long they took to upgrade the Galaxy S (Captivate) to 2.2, no. That may have been mostly due to AT&T's involvement, though.
There were the violations by Samsung of the Apple patent:
EP 2,058,868 - method of scrolling / browsing gallery;
EP 2098948 - recording a "flag" in connection with multiple screen taps, of which Samsung would use the system by using Android 2.3 or later version;
EP 1,964,022 - method of "unlocking" of a portable device through the touch screen an "unlock image" in a way to drag.
Patenting phone unlock and how to browse through pictures is a douche move.
EP 2,058,868 - method of scrolling / browsing gallery;
EP 2098948 - recording a "flag" in connection with multiple screen taps, of which Samsung would use the system by using Android 2.3 or later version;
EP 1,964,022 - method of "unlocking" of a portable device through the touch screen an "unlock image" in a way to drag.
Patenting phone unlock and how to browse through pictures is a douche move.
Yeah, it is a dick move. At the same time if it moves the whole industry forward then it's good for us as well. Mixed feelings.
Do you remember how we unlocked phones before the iPhone? On Nokia phones it was Menu, * which was great but my mom never remembered to use it and was always pocket-calling me. I promise you that problem has not occurred since she got an iPhone. The first time I saw slide to unlock I was amazed, yes over such a small thing. And it's a great example of why I like Apple's products. They take the time to find good solutions to common, everyday problems.
Now everyone uses slide to unlock. I like competition as much as the next guy but it's hard to see how most of Apple's competition is not riding on their coattails with Android. We all know what Android was going to be prior to the iPhone's release, a BlackBerry wannabe.
Microsoft is notably not just copying Apple. HP/Palm also. Mostly just the Android OEMs who seem to wish Android were iOS.
Do you remember how we unlocked phones before the iPhone? On Nokia phones it was Menu, * which was great but my mom never remembered to use it and was always pocket-calling me. I promise you that problem has not occurred since she got an iPhone. The first time I saw slide to unlock I was amazed, yes over such a small thing. And it's a great example of why I like Apple's products. They take the time to find good solutions to common, everyday problems.
Now everyone uses slide to unlock. I like competition as much as the next guy but it's hard to see how most of Apple's competition is not riding on their coattails with Android. We all know what Android was going to be prior to the iPhone's release, a BlackBerry wannabe.
Microsoft is notably not just copying Apple. HP/Palm also. Mostly just the Android OEMs who seem to wish Android were iOS.
Nokia did have slide to unlock way before the iPhone: http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/cellphone_design/...
This is a clear case of adding "...on a computer" like that was some great revolutionary advance. It isn't. It's the obvious translation of an existing concept.
This is a clear case of adding "...on a computer" like that was some great revolutionary advance. It isn't. It's the obvious translation of an existing concept.
Many great ideas are obvious in hindsight. If it was so obvious why had nobody done it?
Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."
My mom owned a Nokia slider back in the late 1900s, but the model preceding that one. If Nokia had kept making top-end phones like those were in their day I would probably still be buying Nokias. I swore by them. You could drop them, throw them, soak them, anything. Dry it out, take it apart, and it was fine. About 7-10 years ago, with a lot of their models, the worst case scenario was you bought a new case. And the UI was actually quite good, definitely superior to other phones of the time (that I tried anyway).
I had a Nokia phone from the late 1900s until 2008. The last Nokia product I bought is the n810 and it was not very good. I loved the idea but the execution was poor (and I got the 3rd version). I rarely used it and then never used it once I got an iPhone. The iPhone 3GS was a better browser than the Internet Tablet, better GPS (it's using other location data but I don't care, it's still better), and happened to also be my mp3 player and phone.
It's sad to see Nokia today, I really hope they can turn around but I have less hope for Nokia than I do for webOS :(
Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."
My mom owned a Nokia slider back in the late 1900s, but the model preceding that one. If Nokia had kept making top-end phones like those were in their day I would probably still be buying Nokias. I swore by them. You could drop them, throw them, soak them, anything. Dry it out, take it apart, and it was fine. About 7-10 years ago, with a lot of their models, the worst case scenario was you bought a new case. And the UI was actually quite good, definitely superior to other phones of the time (that I tried anyway).
I had a Nokia phone from the late 1900s until 2008. The last Nokia product I bought is the n810 and it was not very good. I loved the idea but the execution was poor (and I got the 3rd version). I rarely used it and then never used it once I got an iPhone. The iPhone 3GS was a better browser than the Internet Tablet, better GPS (it's using other location data but I don't care, it's still better), and happened to also be my mp3 player and phone.
It's sad to see Nokia today, I really hope they can turn around but I have less hope for Nokia than I do for webOS :(
>Many great ideas are obvious in hindsight. If it was so obvious why had nobody done it?
Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking. Just look at the best smartphones of 2007: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6452_7-6600061.html
>Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."
Basically, yes. Other people had the same idea, and there were other ecommerce websites launched before or at the same time. It was a matter of understanding sales - particularly mail order - and the Web, which wasn't exactly common.
Was it innovative? Yeah. Was it innovative enough to get a 20 years monopoly over it? No. Is Apple's slide to unlock innovative enough for that? Hell no.
Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking. Just look at the best smartphones of 2007: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6452_7-6600061.html
>Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."
Basically, yes. Other people had the same idea, and there were other ecommerce websites launched before or at the same time. It was a matter of understanding sales - particularly mail order - and the Web, which wasn't exactly common.
Was it innovative? Yeah. Was it innovative enough to get a 20 years monopoly over it? No. Is Apple's slide to unlock innovative enough for that? Hell no.
> Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking.
Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.
Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation. I'm not saying it warrants a patent and I never did say that. You say it's not innovative but it clearly is. As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.
This is what innovation looks like, the iPhone changed the status quo: http://www.marco.org/2010/08/19/a-smartphone-retrospective
Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.
Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation. I'm not saying it warrants a patent and I never did say that. You say it's not innovative but it clearly is. As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.
This is what innovation looks like, the iPhone changed the status quo: http://www.marco.org/2010/08/19/a-smartphone-retrospective
You're confusing things. Having a big, capacitive touch screen was in fact an innovation. But having that, Slide to Unlock is obvious.
Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.
But they did that because they were limited by the keyboard, and Apple did not innovate on "ways to unlock the screen using a keyboard". They innovated on a different part of the phone, which allowed them to take a different approach on phone unlocking.
Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation.
Unless it's obvious, which taking as the starting point the actual innovation - the big capacitive screen - it was.
As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.
Well, exactly. But the patent, which is what's being discussed, is only about slide to unlock, nothing else.
Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.
But they did that because they were limited by the keyboard, and Apple did not innovate on "ways to unlock the screen using a keyboard". They innovated on a different part of the phone, which allowed them to take a different approach on phone unlocking.
Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation.
Unless it's obvious, which taking as the starting point the actual innovation - the big capacitive screen - it was.
As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.
Well, exactly. But the patent, which is what's being discussed, is only about slide to unlock, nothing else.
Good design seems obvious in hindsight, but there is no denying that Apple are often the first to either do something, or the first to make something work. And then everyone copies that thing.
Doesn't mean I like software patents, just saying.
Doesn't mean I like software patents, just saying.
My ancient Dell laptop has a "slide to unlock" mechanical catch on it, and seen such catches on old storage boxes, etc. I fail to see how making a soft analog of it constitutes non-obvious innovation.
All I know is that locking and unlocking a phone used to be a problem for some people, and they no longer have a problem with Apple's solution. I don't care what you call it, my mom can actually use this version of locking and unlocking her phone without remembering some cryptic combination of keys on the keypad.
>I like competition as much as the next guy but it's hard to see how most of Apple's competition is not riding on their coattails with Android.
You don't see movie producers suing eachother for incorporating eachother's plot devices... it's ridiculous. If someone is incorporating design elements with intent to confuse the consumer, or incorporating complex design elements, then I am prepared to entertain the validity of legal action.
You don't see movie producers suing eachother for incorporating eachother's plot devices... it's ridiculous. If someone is incorporating design elements with intent to confuse the consumer, or incorporating complex design elements, then I am prepared to entertain the validity of legal action.
The post says that Samsung was found guilty of violating 2,058,868, not the other two, and that 1,964,022 was rules to be null and void and Apple can no longer make claims in the Netherlands based on that patent.
That's pretty incorrect. The judge did find that Samsung only violated EP 2,058,868 - method of scrolling / browsing gallery, but not the other two. In fact EP 1,964,022 was declared null and void, meaning "Apple can no longer make claims in the Netherlands based on this patent".
>Patenting phone unlock and how to browse through pictures is a douche move.
But they did invent the "Swipe to Unlock" interaction did they not?
Previous to that it was always a clunky button combination (Menu + * on the old Nokia handsets) and this is an elegant alternative.
Why can't other manufacturers come up with a new, novel unlock method like Apple did?
But they did invent the "Swipe to Unlock" interaction did they not?
Previous to that it was always a clunky button combination (Menu + * on the old Nokia handsets) and this is an elegant alternative.
Why can't other manufacturers come up with a new, novel unlock method like Apple did?
Yeah Apple invented it, i give them that. But do they need to patent it and sue manufactures of other smartphones that use the same technique ?
Sadly, Apple became the new MS years ago..
'Invented'. For fuck sake, how else were you going to do it on a touch screen phone?
Hindsight bias.
[deleted]
The point is that it's not worth a patent.
Maybe there is different version of the galaxy with a slider that more closely resembles the Apple version?
For mine, I just have to rub my thumb along anywhere on the screen to open it, and I can choose a special pattern if I want (I really don't trust that one to work).
How else would you open a screen without buttons? By tapping on it in a pattern? Or by rubbing it in a pattern? Tap-rub-tap just to avoid a patent?
For mine, I just have to rub my thumb along anywhere on the screen to open it, and I can choose a special pattern if I want (I really don't trust that one to work).
How else would you open a screen without buttons? By tapping on it in a pattern? Or by rubbing it in a pattern? Tap-rub-tap just to avoid a patent?
With the proliferation of buttons on most android phones I've seen, they could have easily added a hardware unlock button.
Expensive. Touchscreen phones have few parts, less assembly, less testing... even if the hardware costs more, the design and labour surely costs less?
Downvoted! Harsh.
I know I'm swimming against the tide here, and actually I think there are huge problems with the patent system globally.
BUT - I find it a little strange that company A invents something, protects it, then company B does the exact same thing - knowing there's a patent.. should we be surprised that Apple are using that which the law allows them?
I know I'm swimming against the tide here, and actually I think there are huge problems with the patent system globally.
BUT - I find it a little strange that company A invents something, protects it, then company B does the exact same thing - knowing there's a patent.. should we be surprised that Apple are using that which the law allows them?
> should we be surprised that Apple are using that which the law allows them
Yes. Your argument seems to be that we should expect companies to behave exactly as badly as the law can possibly let them do so and that they should receive no reproach for doing that. If you use this argument then you are implying that the law should enforce good behavior in every single thing every company does, since there is no other force to make them do good things (remember, you just argued that nobody should complain about what Apple does because it is legal).
Clearly the above is ridiculous and the whole premise of "free" societies is that people and companies are granted wide freedom to do things and the law only regulates the most severe of these and that people will motivate good behavior by each other and companies by shaming them and judging them and refusing to deal with them when they behave poorly.
So yes - when Apple behaves badly they need to feel judgement from the community and this is how it happens. The company does something bad (suing over a frivolous feature to block an entire competitor's product), and we express surprise and shock that it did such a bad thing.
Yes. Your argument seems to be that we should expect companies to behave exactly as badly as the law can possibly let them do so and that they should receive no reproach for doing that. If you use this argument then you are implying that the law should enforce good behavior in every single thing every company does, since there is no other force to make them do good things (remember, you just argued that nobody should complain about what Apple does because it is legal).
Clearly the above is ridiculous and the whole premise of "free" societies is that people and companies are granted wide freedom to do things and the law only regulates the most severe of these and that people will motivate good behavior by each other and companies by shaming them and judging them and refusing to deal with them when they behave poorly.
So yes - when Apple behaves badly they need to feel judgement from the community and this is how it happens. The company does something bad (suing over a frivolous feature to block an entire competitor's product), and we express surprise and shock that it did such a bad thing.
the "interaction" is a virtual representation of a sliding lock. apple did not invent the sliding lock.
From an ethical perspective, I find Samsung's inability to innovate and subsequent willingness to carbon-copy the iPhone and iPad to be reprehensible and wrong. It's sad that Samsung seemingly can't come up with much original on their own.
From the perspective of fostering general innovation in the marketplace and increasing the greater good, software and design patents need to go bye-bye. Apple's just playing the game according to the current rules, and the current rules really need to change.
From the perspective of fostering general innovation in the marketplace and increasing the greater good, software and design patents need to go bye-bye. Apple's just playing the game according to the current rules, and the current rules really need to change.
My G2 has a back button, a home button and an options button below the screen which takes up most of the device. An iPhone doesn't.
The battery is user replaceable. I can plug in an sd card. On an iPhone I can't.
On the G2 I can switch between recent applications by holding the home button. I can access the contents of my phone by using a web browser. I can sync without iTunes.
Doesn't sound like a carbon copy to me.
The battery is user replaceable. I can plug in an sd card. On an iPhone I can't.
On the G2 I can switch between recent applications by holding the home button. I can access the contents of my phone by using a web browser. I can sync without iTunes.
Doesn't sound like a carbon copy to me.
Samsung didn't invent any of that.
I'm sorry, why the downvote? This is about Samsung creating a product that's not a copy of Apple right?
The Home, Back and Menu actions are required by Google and who suggests manufacturers make them hardware inputs. They're not "differentiating their product from Apple", they're complying with the specified requirements to run the OS they chose. They could have innovated by making them gestures or a touchpad or something, but they didn't.
Switching applications with home buttons and other OS behaviors are not Samsung's ideas, they're part of the stock Android OS.
For Samsung's actual contributions to the product, compare their first Android device, the I7500, to their Galaxy II line. Which direction did the design travel?
I7500: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/04/i7500_...
iPhone: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/iphone...
Galaxy II: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/04/11z428...
The Home, Back and Menu actions are required by Google and who suggests manufacturers make them hardware inputs. They're not "differentiating their product from Apple", they're complying with the specified requirements to run the OS they chose. They could have innovated by making them gestures or a touchpad or something, but they didn't.
Switching applications with home buttons and other OS behaviors are not Samsung's ideas, they're part of the stock Android OS.
For Samsung's actual contributions to the product, compare their first Android device, the I7500, to their Galaxy II line. Which direction did the design travel?
I7500: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/04/i7500_...
iPhone: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/iphone...
Galaxy II: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/04/11z428...
I didn't downvote you, but I guess the reason is that it's irrelevant which parts Samsung invented, and which parts Google invented since the point is that Apple didn't.
But Apple's new version of iOS "copies" several of the features from my phone.
But Apple's new version of iOS "copies" several of the features from my phone.
You original reply was to this:
I find Samsung's inability to innovate and subsequent willingness to carbon-copy the iPhone and iPad to be reprehensible and wrong. It's sad that Samsung seemingly can't come up with much original on their own.
And you countered with an HTC G2 example, tangential to the Samsung vs. Apple story. My point was circling back around to the linked story and GP post which was Samsung vs. Apple. Feature copying between Google and Apple is an entirely different debate.
Samsung is very clearly trying to ride Apple's coat tails in ways that HTC and Google are not.
I find Samsung's inability to innovate and subsequent willingness to carbon-copy the iPhone and iPad to be reprehensible and wrong. It's sad that Samsung seemingly can't come up with much original on their own.
And you countered with an HTC G2 example, tangential to the Samsung vs. Apple story. My point was circling back around to the linked story and GP post which was Samsung vs. Apple. Feature copying between Google and Apple is an entirely different debate.
Samsung is very clearly trying to ride Apple's coat tails in ways that HTC and Google are not.
This is simply untrue. The Galaxy S2 is much more feature-rich than any iPhone to Date.
The Voice Control and Speech-To-Text Functions are outstanding.
The HDMI Output via MHL Port is useful, i've used it as a backup for holding a presentation once now and was glad that it was possible... there are so much features i love about this device that i can't fathom why someone would say that Samsung isn't innovating...
Did Samsung add voice control and speech-to-text functions, or is that part of the Android OS that Google provides Samsung for free?
While I don't have any need for HDMI output on my phone, I applaud Samsung's efforts to add differentiating features. That said, adding an HDMI port falls short of the type of innovation to which I referred in my original comment.
Look at the following photo and tell me that Samsung didn't completely rip off the iPhone's look and feel, right down to the icon layout:
http://www.gadgetfolder.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Samsu...
Samsung had an opportunity to innovate in a way that would make the Galaxy S2 look and feel nothing like an iPhone and instead look and feel like a new, innovative product. They clearly didn't do that.
Comments like "My G2 has a back button unlike the iPhone" or "But the icons have square corners instead of rounded corners!!", in my opinion, completely miss the point. I'm not claiming that Samsung copies Apple's products down to the last molecule/pixel, nor do I believe that Samsung is incapable of adding ports/buttons that Apple chooses to omit.
The point is that Samsung is clearly trying their hardest to make their products look very similar to Apple's products. I personally believe Samsung should try to imbue their products with their own brand design/identity.
While I don't have any need for HDMI output on my phone, I applaud Samsung's efforts to add differentiating features. That said, adding an HDMI port falls short of the type of innovation to which I referred in my original comment.
Look at the following photo and tell me that Samsung didn't completely rip off the iPhone's look and feel, right down to the icon layout:
http://www.gadgetfolder.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Samsu...
Samsung had an opportunity to innovate in a way that would make the Galaxy S2 look and feel nothing like an iPhone and instead look and feel like a new, innovative product. They clearly didn't do that.
Comments like "My G2 has a back button unlike the iPhone" or "But the icons have square corners instead of rounded corners!!", in my opinion, completely miss the point. I'm not claiming that Samsung copies Apple's products down to the last molecule/pixel, nor do I believe that Samsung is incapable of adding ports/buttons that Apple chooses to omit.
The point is that Samsung is clearly trying their hardest to make their products look very similar to Apple's products. I personally believe Samsung should try to imbue their products with their own brand design/identity.
> Look at the following photo and tell me that Samsung
> didn't completely rip off the iPhone's look and feel,
> right down to the icon layout
> Samsung had an opportunity to innovate in a way that
> would make the Galaxy S2 look and feel nothing like an
> iPhone and instead look and feel like a new, innovative
> product. They clearly didn't do that.
> Comments like "My G2 has a back button unlike the iPhone"
> or "But the icons have square corners instead of rounded
> corners!!", in my opinion, completely miss the point.
> The point is that Samsung is clearly trying their hardest to make their
> products look very similar to Apple's products.
A grid of icons with text underneath is considered *ripping off*
Apple now? Are you serious?
It's not just the app icon layout. It should be obvious to any
casual observer just how many things Samsung copied: the
highlighting on the bottom row of icons, the dots that represent
different pages of apps, the overall aesthetics of the handset
itself, etc.
Pointing out one of these things and saying "Should Apple have a
monopoly on X?" is, once again, missing the point. It's the
combination of X, Y, and Z that makes the product look like an
iPhone instead of a differentiated product.
Have you actually used a Samsung Android phone? The "look and
feel" is nothing like an iPhone. [...] Just because one screen
happens to look similar to an iPhone doesn't mean the entire UI
is copied.
You can not say on one hand that Samsung is incapable of
differentiating their product, and then wave away all the ways in
which their product is differentiated.
In any case, I'm guessing we disagree on how much differentiation Samsung has done here, but different opinions are what make the world go 'round. :)
Recall that iOS 5 has been announced with a notification tray
that is a carbon copy of Android's notification tray. Taking good
features from the competition and iterating on them is par for
the course.
> If Samsung's Android phones have differentiated user experiences that aren't evident from the home screen, then I applaud them. That doesn't, in my opinion, negate the fact that their home screen and phone design looks entirely too similar to the iPhone.
why would you expect these two products to be differentiated on every feature? do you actually expect two touch screen phones to be different in every way? is it ridiculous that iphone's voice calling feature (where you can talk, and someone on the other side can hear you) is a "carbon copy" of old dumb phones?
why would you expect these two products to be differentiated on every feature? do you actually expect two touch screen phones to be different in every way? is it ridiculous that iphone's voice calling feature (where you can talk, and someone on the other side can hear you) is a "carbon copy" of old dumb phones?
> their home screen [...] looks entirely too similar to the iPhone
Maybe that's a small nit, but Samsungs's home screen looks nothing at all like the iPhone. You have to go to the less used "applications list screen" on their phones and compare that to the iPhone's default home screen so that they look similar. It is less used because on android you put you most accessed stuff on the main screen and click the icons/widgets form there.
Here is a pic: http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/iPhone_vs_Galaxy-...
Left is iPhone's main screen, middle is Samsung's application list (I heard it repeated so much even I used to think that was Samsung's home screen), right is Samsung's actual home screen which is very different.
Maybe that's a small nit, but Samsungs's home screen looks nothing at all like the iPhone. You have to go to the less used "applications list screen" on their phones and compare that to the iPhone's default home screen so that they look similar. It is less used because on android you put you most accessed stuff on the main screen and click the icons/widgets form there.
Here is a pic: http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/iPhone_vs_Galaxy-...
Left is iPhone's main screen, middle is Samsung's application list (I heard it repeated so much even I used to think that was Samsung's home screen), right is Samsung's actual home screen which is very different.
> A grid of icons with text underneath is considered ripping off Apple now? Are you serious?
People keep using this same argument, but there's a little more too it than that. For example, if a graphic designer took the Coca-Cola logo and changed it just slightly. By your logic, they are in the clear because it's just "type", it's not like Coca-Cola invented fonts, right?
I think most people agree that there are enough similarities between the phones that it could be confusing, hence Apple is trying to protect it. You don't hear anyone complaining that MS ripped off Apple. MS came up with something that is different. All though it's still just a "grid of icons with text underneath".
People keep using this same argument, but there's a little more too it than that. For example, if a graphic designer took the Coca-Cola logo and changed it just slightly. By your logic, they are in the clear because it's just "type", it's not like Coca-Cola invented fonts, right?
I think most people agree that there are enough similarities between the phones that it could be confusing, hence Apple is trying to protect it. You don't hear anyone complaining that MS ripped off Apple. MS came up with something that is different. All though it's still just a "grid of icons with text underneath".
A grid of icons with text underneath has been with us since the start of WIMP interfaces, and every OS that has a GUI has displayed this. Comparing it to the static image of a highly-stylised corporate logo is utter nonsense.
But they're entirely the point! You can not say on one hand that Samsung is incapable of differentiating their product, and then wave away all the ways in which their product is differentiated.
You can unless the difference is attributable to Samsung. The back button was present on Android prototypes in 2007. Samsung didn't hop on the Android bandwagon until 2009.
You can unless the difference is attributable to Samsung. The back button was present on Android prototypes in 2007. Samsung didn't hop on the Android bandwagon until 2009.
The screens are always going to be black. Is having a black surround to match exclusive to Apple?
The device is always going to have corners; are Apple the only ones who are allowed to evenly round the corners? I'm viewing this on a Samsung monitor, which has evenly rounded corners...
I don't deny the Samsung device has similarities, but... Apple have gone out of their way to make the iPhone look very, very generic quite frankly. Call it minimalist if you want, but it has so few visible features as a piece of hardware that if you're going to produce a competing device then there really aren't very many ways to make sure it doesn't look at least slightly like one or other design generation of iPhone.
The device is always going to have corners; are Apple the only ones who are allowed to evenly round the corners? I'm viewing this on a Samsung monitor, which has evenly rounded corners...
I don't deny the Samsung device has similarities, but... Apple have gone out of their way to make the iPhone look very, very generic quite frankly. Call it minimalist if you want, but it has so few visible features as a piece of hardware that if you're going to produce a competing device then there really aren't very many ways to make sure it doesn't look at least slightly like one or other design generation of iPhone.
Windows Phone 7 has proven that it is very possible to innovate on interface. I really don't think the physical similarity really matters -- they're mostly just black slabs with screens. Doesn't seem like copying to me. The interface, on the other hand, looks almost exactly like the iPhone.
The Voice-Features on the G2 are mixed Google and Vlingo products.
Samsung chose to incorporate Vlingos Technology in addition to Googles since it allows for easier in-car usage of the Phone.
Why do people always compare the Applists? There are not many ways to display a list of icons in a meaningful way. The Windows Desktop has had a grid of icons for years and there was much else like that beforehand, but in addition the Android handsets offer more useful ways of using the screen when not starting apps(widgets&live backgrounds).
I won't admit that Samsung sure took inspiration from Apple, but that is true for most of the things, if not only because of usability reasons. There are just some design patterns that have proven to work and which people have come to expect. The race should be about who makes the best phone, not who made the first design patents.
Apple didn't have copy and paste on a mobile phone long after windows mobile had it... should microsoft have sued because of that?
I just want the best of all worlds and Samsung delivers there. If they have to stop selling the Galaxies in Europe, i'd import them from Asia.
Why do people always compare the Applists? There are not many ways to display a list of icons in a meaningful way. The Windows Desktop has had a grid of icons for years and there was much else like that beforehand, but in addition the Android handsets offer more useful ways of using the screen when not starting apps(widgets&live backgrounds).
I won't admit that Samsung sure took inspiration from Apple, but that is true for most of the things, if not only because of usability reasons. There are just some design patterns that have proven to work and which people have come to expect. The race should be about who makes the best phone, not who made the first design patents.
Apple didn't have copy and paste on a mobile phone long after windows mobile had it... should microsoft have sued because of that?
I just want the best of all worlds and Samsung delivers there. If they have to stop selling the Galaxies in Europe, i'd import them from Asia.
It's not just the app icon layout. It should be obvious to any casual observer just how many things Samsung copied: the highlighting on the bottom row of icons, the dots that represent different pages of apps, the overall aesthetics of the handset itself, etc.
Pointing out one of these things and saying "Should Apple have a monopoly on X?" is, once again, missing the point. It's the combination of X, Y, and Z that makes the product look like an iPhone instead of a differentiated product.
Defending this practice with "There aren't many ways to do X" doesn't seem like a very persuasive argument. Before the iPhone was introduced, companies seemed to find a myriad of ways to do these same things. Once the iPhone became overwhelmingly popular, however, companies like Samsung stopped trying to raise the bar and just made their products as Apple-like as possible.
So to reiterate my original point, I think Samsung should differentiate their design functions and aesthetics instead of mimicking Apple. Samsung isn't going to hit the ball out of the park if they keep making conservative bets -- they should take some chances.
But as I said from the very beginning, the common good is better served without all this software patent litigation crap. As much as I think Samsung does itself a disservice by mimicking Apple so closely, it probably should be regulated to a moral question rather than a legal one.
Pointing out one of these things and saying "Should Apple have a monopoly on X?" is, once again, missing the point. It's the combination of X, Y, and Z that makes the product look like an iPhone instead of a differentiated product.
Defending this practice with "There aren't many ways to do X" doesn't seem like a very persuasive argument. Before the iPhone was introduced, companies seemed to find a myriad of ways to do these same things. Once the iPhone became overwhelmingly popular, however, companies like Samsung stopped trying to raise the bar and just made their products as Apple-like as possible.
So to reiterate my original point, I think Samsung should differentiate their design functions and aesthetics instead of mimicking Apple. Samsung isn't going to hit the ball out of the park if they keep making conservative bets -- they should take some chances.
But as I said from the very beginning, the common good is better served without all this software patent litigation crap. As much as I think Samsung does itself a disservice by mimicking Apple so closely, it probably should be regulated to a moral question rather than a legal one.
I find my Samsung Galaxy S really different to the iphones I have tried, and to have a similarity to the samsung netbook I have kicking around at home. These patent infringements seem absurdly minor to me.
It could be a consequence of actually building a third of the iphone. (I know the above statement isn't exact.)
[deleted]
Can anyone speculate on the likelyhood of Apple getting such a ban enacted in the US? If it looks impending I want to order one before it happens.
If there is any chance that this will lead to some people in power realizing the ridiculousness of it all then it was all worth it.
Companies should make phones completely without an OS and allow people to load them up with the OS of their choice. Something like Cyanogenmod on a blank phone would be awesome.
I'd pay extra not to have to bother spending 8 weeks compiling gentoo.
Why the downvote. He has a point. Preinstalled operating systems are incredibly convenient, something the average user doesn't want to have to do.
Seems like the violations are software-only (slide to unlock for example), so an Android update by October 13 should solve their problem...or am I missing something?
What I don't understand is, if EU don't have software patents, how that ruling is even possible ?
They have design patents, which are even more insidious. These were added in 2003 and didn't get much interest accept from the big fashion houses trying to stop counterfeits from entering their territory.
As you can see the law has been widely spun out of it's original scope to include all types of things design related.
As you can see the law has been widely spun out of it's original scope to include all types of things design related.
And initially I thought that EPO patents didn't applied to my country (Switzerland), being outside of the EU: well, I'm wrong...
Slide to unlock was not found to be a violation.
Do you think Samsung could get an update out in under two months?
In most circumstances, no. When the motivation is update or have your products removed from stores, I'd think you'd be surprised how quick Samsung can be.
In addition, they don't have to update EVERYTHING, just those few things... The next update could be an emergency release addressing just those things, and then a later update could bring everything they've been working on.
That's how I'd do it, unless the next update already had those fixed and it was very, very close anyhow.
That's how I'd do it, unless the next update already had those fixed and it was very, very close anyhow.
It's likely they have been working on a fix "just in case" even before the ruling was delivered.
actually, yes! see pieter's remark up top and this (translated) article where their lawyer says they'll do just that:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...
Maybe.
Seeing how much difficulty they had supporting the 1st Generation Galaxy and updating the device in a timely manner, probably not.
Seeing how much difficulty they had supporting the 1st Generation Galaxy and updating the device in a timely manner, probably not.
If it's only the gallery that need an update, they could push it through the market I think.
International law is something I'm trying to improve my knowledge of. Can someone explain why it is that a judge in the Netherlands can block the sales of the Samsung Galaxy throughout Europe?
All the stuff shipped into Europe by Samsung (and by many other companies) goes through the Netherlands. If you ban import into the Netherlands you would need to route around it. Setting up an entire operation in another country is hard enough to make it unprofitable to do for a few models.
The Netherlands has Europe's largest port (Rotterdam) owing to its lucky geographic position at the end of the Rhine and Meuse, two of the largest rivers. Since transportation by boat is several times cheaper than rail or truck this has caused most logistics companies to set up shop there.
The Netherlands has Europe's largest port (Rotterdam) owing to its lucky geographic position at the end of the Rhine and Meuse, two of the largest rivers. Since transportation by boat is several times cheaper than rail or truck this has caused most logistics companies to set up shop there.
Because “European Union” is not just a name.
(At its core the EU is all about creating a common market. Harmonized patent law and enforcement is obviously a big part of that.)
(At its core the EU is all about creating a common market. Harmonized patent law and enforcement is obviously a big part of that.)
I'm not clear on if there's any direct effect on the rest of the EU from this ruling, however the Netherlands happens to be Samsung's primary hub in the EU. So even if the ban has no legal weight in other countries, Samsung would need to re-route their supply chain through another country to continue bringing their phones into the rest of the EU.
The Netherlands is the Dutch uncle of Europe so naturally they are taken seriously throughout the continent.
Kidding aside, I believe since the NL is part of the European Union the judicial rulings passed there apply to the other countries-members of the E.U..
Guess what I just invented a new way of opening my kitchen door, just press it with your butt. Now I'm going sue the remaining of you 5, 999, 999, 999 humans.
Seriously though they say that the thing with th gallery is the default in android 2.3. So it is more like they are suing google?
Its it time google sued someone for violating the mobile phone patent they acquired from motorola? they can do it in a small country like Nicaragua, u know, just to send a msg of intent
[deleted](2)
Original FOSS article: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/dutch-court-orders-e...
That article makes the interesting point (which I'll repeat here for those who can't be bothered to read it) that Samsung logistics use the Netherlands as a hub for Europe.
While the ban doesn't stretch across Europe, they would have to change that to get devices into other European countries.
While the ban doesn't stretch across Europe, they would have to change that to get devices into other European countries.
I think that if they don't generate the sales from that hub and only from the subsidiaries on each country then they can still use it...
No, they aren't allowed to import them into the Netherlands at all for any reason so long as the ban is in place.
So does anyone know if Samsung's decision to bring Cyanogenmod aboard was prompted by the events leading up to this? Any links/reading/conjecture on the matter?
Didn't apple do a blatant rip off of Android notification center concept?
I didn't see any outrage from Apple fanboys then.
I didn't see any outrage from Apple fanboys then.
Well, you see, Apple never steals ideas, they just invent them out of chronological order sometimes. </snark>
Patent laws should be ignored. Run your company pseudonymously, and violate patents all you want. No one will be able to stop you.
I think this will be a minority report but:
Although I hate Apple's heavy-handed approach to this, I also like the message that this sends to Asian companies, who have quite a cavalier approach when it comes to "borrowing & adapting" the designs and innovations from others. The list is long and is by no means limited to Apple: Routers from Cisco, phone designs from Motorola, etc. etc.
It may be impossible to properly enforce copyright and trademarks in China and other neighbors but at least this shows that Europe may be a different battle ground.
Although I hate Apple's heavy-handed approach to this, I also like the message that this sends to Asian companies, who have quite a cavalier approach when it comes to "borrowing & adapting" the designs and innovations from others. The list is long and is by no means limited to Apple: Routers from Cisco, phone designs from Motorola, etc. etc.
It may be impossible to properly enforce copyright and trademarks in China and other neighbors but at least this shows that Europe may be a different battle ground.
This to me feels different than fake cisco gear. In the case of the fake cisco gear they are built to look and pass for cicso gear even running stolen copies of cisco catalyst and IOS software. Samsung isn't claiming their phone is an iPhone. You can tell they are different and the OS looks different. Customers are not getting fooled into buying Samsung phone thinking it's a real iPhone.
I was referring to not selling fake Cisco gear but the theft of Cisco router code and using it on Huawei's routers. According to some estimates 40% of the code on those routers were Cisco's. This was a famous case and everybody knew about it but Cisco couldn't do anything!
I still think that kind of thing is very different than what is going on here. That's theft, and it's not patent infringement but copyright infringement. If apple had claim that their code or that the chips in samsung's phones were taken from Apple I'd think it's warranted to go after them but suing for someone using the same swipe move as you?
You are right, it is tangentially relevant to this particular case. Yet the fact remains that there is a certain mindset in some Asian companies. I am not saying that was the case here.
"They hanged the man and flogged the woman,
Who stole the goose from off the common.
But they let the greater villain loose,
Who stole the common from under the goose."
Or to relate it to this case, how is claiming that only you can make rectangles or any of these patent hold-ups not "theft" that everyone knows about but can't do anything about?
Or to relate it to this case, how is claiming that only you can make rectangles or any of these patent hold-ups not "theft" that everyone knows about but can't do anything about?
BTW, in this case it looks like Google (you know, from California) is doing the copying. Samsung is just shipping it.
In this very particular case you're right, as far as I understand the situation the infringing Gallery app is a standard Android app.
However, why did Apple focus on Samsung? Yes they are #2, but could it also be how the original looked imitated an iPhone, e.g. http://www.edibleapple.com/did-samsung-make-last-minute-desi...? Compare these looks with a aMotorola Droid 3.
However, why did Apple focus on Samsung? Yes they are #2, but could it also be how the original looked imitated an iPhone, e.g. http://www.edibleapple.com/did-samsung-make-last-minute-desi...? Compare these looks with a aMotorola Droid 3.
I'd love to hear from people who are downvoting you. Why are they downvoting you?
I've been on HN for some time and haven't formed a good theory about downvoting behavior here. I think in this particular case people are so anti-{apple, software patents} that they automatically resist looking at it from another angle. Same usually happens when you mention FB in a positive light on HN.
EDIT: As I've said in my comment, this doesn't mean that I think Apple's ruthless approach to patents and its draconian methods of platform control are good things. It's just that the other guys do have a copy and paste problem. Maybe not in this case, but generally definitely they do.
EDIT: As I've said in my comment, this doesn't mean that I think Apple's ruthless approach to patents and its draconian methods of platform control are good things. It's just that the other guys do have a copy and paste problem. Maybe not in this case, but generally definitely they do.
I almost never downvote, and didn't in this case, but I don't think this is sending the right message. Android is not a copy and adds more than enough of its own twists and innovations to justify its existence. If anything losing on trivial patents like this this is going to send the message to Asian companies that the Western markets are stacked against them no matter what they do.
"the message to Asian companies that the Western markets are stacked against them no matter what they do"
Given how successful they are, that's very unlikely. However, the converse is actually true, China is quite hostile to Western business, you can read up on this on the many articles published, e.g. on the Economist. If you want to be treated fairly, you have to treat others so, too, isn't this the golden rule?
Given how successful they are, that's very unlikely. However, the converse is actually true, China is quite hostile to Western business, you can read up on this on the many articles published, e.g. on the Economist. If you want to be treated fairly, you have to treat others so, too, isn't this the golden rule?
Economist is not exactly an etalon of unbiased reporting. They have very Anglo-Saxon centred optics.
It does not change the fact, that yes, China is very hostile to Western businesses.
It does not change the fact, that yes, China is very hostile to Western businesses.
How do etalons and optics apply here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etalon
Etalon also means standard, benchmark data, other instances are compared to this one. Originally from French.
Admittedly there's some asymmetry there. A better way to say this is that it would be easy for Asian companies to conclude that there's no incentive for them to develop original IP because they're just going to get crushed in the IP courts in the West anyway.
This is about Samsung using Google's software and getting sued for it. How is that "teaching the East a lesson"? That's framing it as some cultural pudding match that makes no sense to most HN readers (or else he'd have a positive ranking.)
Add in the fact that most people here think software patents have serious problems, at the least... And it's pretty easy to see why it was down-voted to me.
Add in the fact that most people here think software patents have serious problems, at the least... And it's pretty easy to see why it was down-voted to me.
Samsung does not violate Apple patents, it just violates one patent.
And sales are not banned, they are just to be banned (in more than a month's time), if Samsung does not make changes.
But it made me click through, which is probably what all those inaccuracies had been introduced for.