Judge grants pre-trial injunction against sale of Galaxy Nexus!

Looks like the issue is the the ability to do a universal search (ie search files on the phone as well as online).

Google is said to push an OTA update as early as tonight to remove the local search portion and direct all searches to the web.

Kind of BS to have a patent on being able to do a universal search. But I guess it means Google will have to have a seperate app to search the local device.
 
I hope Lucy Koh Realizes she has made a fool of herself in front of the world Tech community. I really feel like writing a letter to her.
 
blackhand1001 said:
I hope Lucy Koh Realizes she has made a fool of herself in front of the world Tech community. I really feel like writing a letter to her.
Click to expand...

Watch someone hack the shit out of everything she owns lol. Seriously, she is so full of shit and I kind of agree with what someone said on another forum, this will more than likely be a temporary patch, and when it's all fixed so it can be sold, both Samsung and Google would probably give her and Apple a huge backlash to this kind of shit.

I will ask though, why the hell hasn't the US Patent Office been sued yet over this kind of shit (vague bullshit patents given to companies known to be patent trolls)?

I do have to ask, how can they sue something that is based on open source? Has MS sued Oracle yet for OpenOffice (if there has been one, sorry for not knowing)?
 
Sucks for Samsung. The standard for a preliminary injunction is pretty high, so Apple will probably win anyway.
 
SolidSnakeUS said:
Watch someone hack the shit out of everything she owns lol. Seriously, she is so full of shit and I kind of agree with what someone said on another forum, this will more than likely be a temporary patch, and when it's all fixed so it can be sold, both Samsung and Google would probably give her and Apple a huge backlash to this kind of shit.

I will ask though, why the hell hasn't the US Patent Office been sued yet over this kind of shit (vague bullshit patents given to companies known to be patent trolls)?

I do have to ask, how can they sue something that is based on open source? Has MS sued Oracle yet for OpenOffice (if there has been one, sorry for not knowing)?
Click to expand...

Are you a patent lawyer? I think this shit is dumb, but what I have read from people who actually know this stuff the judge is just following the law. And I'd be surprised if she wasn't .. If anything I blame the stupid software patents, not the judges that uphold the laws as they are required to do.
 
ObiDamnKenobi said:
Are you a patent lawyer? I think this shit is dumb, but what I have read from people who actually know this stuff the judge is just following the law. And I'd be surprised if she wasn't .. If anything I blame the stupid software patents, not the judges that uphold the laws as they are required to do.
Click to expand...

^^ This. don't hate the player, hate the game...
 
The phone cannot be imported until the injunction is lifted. Inventory that is already here can be sold.
 
Google are just being too nice about this. It's about time they unleashed their Motorola patent catalogue onto Apple and turn their devices into a Tonka toy. Not like it would make much difference.
 
Anybody remember Demolition Man (stallone and snipes action movie)? This mess reminds me of how in that movie the only restaurant was Taco Bell because it was the only one that survived the restaurant wars. If this shit keeps up (patent trolling) we might be headed that way. Takes just one judge to make one stupid ruling to open the door...
 
kilik64 said:
Anybody remember Demolition Man (stallone and snipes action movie)? This mess reminds me of how in that movie the only restaurant was Taco Bell because it was the only one that survived the restaurant wars. If this shit keeps up (patent trolling) we might be headed that way. Takes just one judge to make one stupid ruling to open the door...
Click to expand...

I doubt the consumer market would let it come to that. If forced to decide between an iPhone and a $20 flip phone, I would take the flip phone just to spite Apple for this BS they're pulling. I would hope there's plenty of people out there that would do the same (but prolly not :().
 
You didnt totally get what I was getting at.

In my scenario, there is NO $20 flip phone. Just the one. The Apple iPhone 8s5g. No one else is allowed to make them, at all.

Agree it should never get to that, but you never know...
 
A lot of people here have an inconsistent attitude on patents.

With Apple, you're certainly entitled to say that what it's doing isn't nice, and doesn't make you comfortable. I don't think we should really allow software patents as a general rule. They're either too easily wielded against others or too easily circumvented (just change a few lines of code). Just remember that those patents are ones Apple developed internally. and that it's using non-standards patents for every single lawsuit.

But how many of you are objecting to the Motorola and Samsung lawsuits? Those are based almost entirely around standards-based patents, where you're supposed to offer a reasonable rate and use a lawsuit only as a last resort. Clearly, the countersuits weren't the last-resort -- they were used as knee-jerk reactions by companies that didn't have many unique inventions to their name and which, mysteriously, had no problems forgetting to offer a license to Apple for years. They're being investigated by the EU and, from the sounds of it, the FTC. The ITU (i.e. the UN) is even holding a formal roundtable in October that will primarily tackle abuse of standards-based patents. It considers the Motorola and Samsung practices just that out of control.

You don't have to like what Apple's doing, but if you want to be consistent, you should also be demanding that Motorola (i.e. Google) and Samsung immediately drop their countersuits, since they're almost exclusively based on patents where it's mandatory, not just nice, to offer a fair royalty rate before suing. I would almost be as annoyed at them as at Apple -- there's a very real chance that they're going to lose it all should a government body step in and force them to drop their lawsuits. Remember, HTC, Motorola and Samsung are big corporations in it for the money. They aren't charities or communes.

And just to head off some preconceptions at the pass: I use both a Galaxy Nexus and an iPhone, and I like Android 4.0 for the most part.
 
Last edited:
Aurelius said:
Just remember that those patents are ones Apple developed internally. and that it's using non-standards patents for every single lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Not really. A good chunk of the patents thrown around these days are 30 year old ideas with "on mobile" slapped on the end of them.

Those are based almost entirely around standards-based patents, where you're supposed to offer a reasonable rate and use a lawsuit only as a last resort. Clearly, the countersuits weren't the last-resort
Click to expand...

Uh, no, that's exactly what they are doing with them - using them as a "last-resort". A counter-suit is a *defense*. Using patents for defensive purposes I'm fine with, at least until software patents are eliminated entirely.

they were used as knee-jerk reactions by companies that didn't have many unique inventions to their name and which, mysteriously, had no problems forgetting to offer a license to Apple for years.
Click to expand...

They had no problem licensing them to Apple when Apple wasn't suing them. Not a mystery at all.

Also, a chunk of those patents involved actually inventing stuff - which Apple's don't.

You don't have to like what Apple's doing, but if you want to be consistent, you should also be demanding that Motorola (i.e. Google) and Samsung immediately drop their countersuits, since they're almost exclusively based on patents where it's mandatory, not just nice, to offer a fair royalty rate before suing. I would almost be as annoyed at them as at Apple -- there's a very real chance that they're going to lose it all should a government body step in and force them to drop their lawsuits. Remember, HTC, Motorola and Samsung are big corporations in it for the money. They aren't charities or communes.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck would we demand companies roll over and take it from Apple? That's the dumbest shit I've heard all week. If they were using FRAND patents *offensively*, then yes, we should get pissed at them. But they aren't.
 
Samsung was granted a stay on the injunction. So for now at they can continue importing the GNex.
 
kllrnohj said:
Not really. A good chunk of the patents thrown around these days are 30 year old ideas with "on mobile" slapped on the end of them.
Click to expand...

Really? Including things like the bounce-back scrolling feedback that only appeared in the first iPhone and was only really intended for a handheld touchscreen device?

The point was that they are non-standards patents. You don't need them to create a smartphone or a tablet, even if they would be really helpful. Technically, you can't make a viable 3G smartphone or WiFi device without licensing a whole bunch of patents from a slew of companies. It's those last kinds of patents that Motorola and Samsung are using. Apple is only using non-standards patents and has publicly sworn off ever using a standards patent for a lawsuit. Not really that heroic, but the stand has been taken.



Uh, no, that's exactly what they are doing with them - using them as a "last-resort". A counter-suit is a *defense*. Using patents for defensive purposes I'm fine with, at least until software patents are eliminated entirely.
Click to expand...

That's what your gut tells you, but that doesn't make it any more legal. The requirements are that you must, absolutely must, offer a fair license before filing a lawsuit. It doesn't matter if you're using a standards patent in a countering lawsuit instead of an offensive one -- it's still intentionally breeching the rules to spite a competitor. Remember what the elementary school teacher says when she breaks up a fight during recess and sends both the bully and the retaliating kid to detention? "Hitting back doesn't make things okay again."



They had no problem licensing them to Apple when Apple wasn't suing them. Not a mystery at all.

Also, a chunk of those patents involved actually inventing stuff - which Apple's don't
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: even if they were licensing (they at least sometimes weren't), that still violates rules and corporate ethics. You can't have an existing, fairly negotiated license and suddenly decide to sue under the guise that a fair rate is actually much higher than it was just a couple of years ago -- you're breaking your licensing terms and could be accused of extortion.

Apple genuinely invented much of that technology, or brought it in through acquisitions (FingerWorks, for example, partly influenced Apple's multi-touch technology). Do you have examples of prior art? Preferably ones that don't involve gross simplifications: I've noticed that a lot of arguments against Apple immediately devolve into claims that it patented the rectangle, the touchscreen or something else overly basic. Some of Apple's design patents are on the borderline, but they're more specific than some think.



Why the fuck would we demand companies roll over and take it from Apple? That's the dumbest shit I've heard all week. If they were using FRAND patents *offensively*, then yes, we should get pissed at them. But they aren't.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should stop defending themselves. But they should defend in the lawsuits filed against them or solely with non-standards patents that can't be so easily shot down. You won't be very happy with Motorola or Samsung if the European Commission and FTC force a stop to the lawsuits altogether, will you?

To abuse another analogy: imagine if you're being mugged in a dark alley and someone steps in to save you... but he's foolhardy, and gets himself shot to death before you've even had a chance to run. Not only are you still going to be robbed, but there's a dead body now, too. I wouldn't call Apple a robber (the hyperbole of the irrational, Anything But Apple crowd notwithstanding), but Motorola and Samsung could be worse than useless as knights in shining armour if they have nothing but questionable uses of FRAND patents to work from. If those claims are dismissed in court or are deemed illegal by regulators, the companies will have wasted months of time in countersuits and might even face fines or other legal sanctions. Samsung has already lost multiple 3G-related complaints against Apple in France, Italy and the Netherlands for those reasons.

Less ambitious, non-FRAND countersuits might not deal as much of a theoretical blow, but they're much more likely to get a favourable verdict with minimal risk of an overturned decision. That's why I think Android fans should be angry with Motorola and Samsung. The two have actively drawn government scrutiny and could damage Android, not save it, in their rush to land as big a blow on Apple as possible without thinking about the possible risks. Many people will champion a high-rolling gambler on a winning streak until he loses everything -- it takes a smart person to urge safer bets.
 
Aurelius said:
Really? Including things like the bounce-back scrolling feedback that only appeared in the first iPhone and was only really intended for a handheld touchscreen device?
Click to expand...

1) Apple isn't suing anyone with that patent - at least not successfully, because nobody is shipping a product that copied it.

2) I wouldn't consider that a patentable invention. They are claiming to own an idea, and I would say obviousness is a factor with it. Kind of like how "slide to unlock" was thrown out for obviousness in the UK.

The point was that they are non-standards patents. You don't need them to create a smartphone or a tablet, even if they would be really helpful. Technically, you can't make a viable 3G smartphone or WiFi device without licensing a whole bunch of patents from a slew of companies. It's those last kinds of patents that Motorola and Samsung are using. Apple is only using non-standards patents and has publicly sworn off ever using a standards patent for a lawsuit. Not really that heroic, but the stand has been taken.
Click to expand...

You don't need to have WiFi or 3G in your tablet or smartphone, either. What makes those features more important than any other feature?

That's what your gut tells you, but that doesn't make it any more legal. The requirements are that you must, absolutely must, offer a fair license before filing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, you seem to think FRAND is something it isn't. FRAND isn't a law, it's more of a gentleman's agreement.

Here's the thing: even if they were licensing (they at least sometimes weren't), that still violates rules and corporate ethics. You can't have an existing, fairly negotiated license and suddenly decide to sue under the guise that a fair rate is actually much higher than it was just a couple of years ago -- you're breaking your licensing terms and could be accused of extortion.
Click to expand...

Not really - Apple changed the rules when they started suing. If you keep playing the same game when everyone's moved on to something else, you're not going to last very long.

Apple genuinely invented much of that technology, or brought it in through acquisitions (FingerWorks, for example, partly influenced Apple's multi-touch technology). Do you have examples of prior art?
Click to expand...

Apple didn't invent nearly as much as you think they did. Things like the multi-touch, pinch zoom, etc... were all shown off *before* the iPhone was released - academia had been exploring and playing with that stuff for years. For example: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html - and note the date. That was released well before the iPhone was demoed.

Despite what Apple fans and supporters claim, the touch stuff Apple did really wasn't the first the world had seen of that (first in mobile, sure - but again, slapping "on mobile" shouldn't make it patentable), nor was it all that innovative. The bulk of it is fairly obvious stuff - once you've got the technical aspects solved, the rest is pretty obvious.

To abuse another analogy: imagine if you're being mugged in a dark alley and someone steps in to save you... but he's foolhardy, and gets himself shot to death before you've even had a chance to run. Not only are you still going to be robbed, but there's a dead body now, too.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that analogy is just shit and doesn't reflect what's going on at all.

Less ambitious, non-FRAND countersuits might not deal as much of a theoretical blow, but they're much more likely to get a favourable verdict with minimal risk of an overturned decision. That's why I think Android fans should be angry with Motorola and Samsung. The two have actively drawn government scrutiny and could damage Android, not save it, in their rush to land as big a blow on Apple as possible without thinking about the possible risks. Many people will champion a high-rolling gambler on a winning streak until he loses everything -- it takes a smart person to urge safer bets.
Click to expand...

Why should we be upset with Motorola and Samsung? The idea is to throw as much at the wall and see what sticks - even if the FRAND stuff is overturned, there's no harm in trying. Why, exactly, are you so eager for Motorola and Samsung to not fight Apple?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top