Courts Side with Apple to Block Samsung Galaxy Nexus

[kingrob]

What is kind of interesting is that the patent was filed a couple of days after Google's desktop search application was released. In short, its Google's own anti patent stance they had at the start that is biting em now.

Because Google drives true innovations, while Apple prefer to steal someone else's idea and slap a patent on it.

I really hope Apple will disappear off the face of this earth & I make a pledge here to NEVER EVER buy anything from iScum again.

 

[Jola]

Because Google drives true innovations, while Apple prefer to steal someone else's idea and slap a patent on it.

I really hope Apple will disappear off the face of this earth & I make a pledge here to NEVER EVER buy anything from iScum again.

+1

 

[Maverick Jester]

The patent in question was filed by Apple back in 2004 and do not claim to be for mobile only its a general claim..

The reason for the block is because Apple claim they use Siri as a prime feature to sell the phones. Its the prime sales feature status of Siri that cause the injunction, without that claim it would have been sales as normal till the ruling.

What is kind of interesting is that the patent was filed a couple of days after Google's desktop search application was released. In short, its Google's own anti patent stance they had at the start that is biting em now.

So Apple were granted a patent for a general claim to intellectual property they didn't exactly own? Or am I misunderstanding?

Thanks for explaining the block more clearly, I did understand why it was given though. I just don't see how this patent was even issued.

Was not the reason that Google are anti patent is because of the open source nature of Android?

 

[undesign]

Wide-eyed naivety, take a bow.

You go to court, argue facts, win or lose. Suddenly everyone is a legal expert? Or is the judge now an Apple fanboi, because you don't like the result? Pfft. You play the tools you have in business, just like everyone else. If you want philanthropy go join a Buddhist Temple in the East somewhere.

“Google Now” Knows More About You Than Your Family Does - Are You OK With That?

The new Google Now feature unveiled this week at the Google I/O developers conference is designed to automatically present the information you need - even before you ask for it. The impressive results cover everything from helping you get to work to which sports teams you like - but they are possible only because Google knows so much about you. The vast extent of that knowledge is raising big red flags about privacy issues.

Google Now is tucked away inside the lastest version of Android, Google’s mobile operating system: Android 4.1, called “Jelly Bean,” was released this week.

Google Now automatically creates and presents a series of “cards” that try to organize your life by presenting information Google thinks you’ll need at that particular moment - based on the information it’s collected via how you use various Google services - in a context that it hopes you’ll find useful.

Google Now aggregates the information Google already collects about you on a daily basis: accessing your email, your calendar, your contacts, your text messages, your location, your shopping habits, your payment history, as well as your choices in music, movies and books. It can even scan your photos and automatically identify them based on their subject, not just the file name (in the Google I/O demo, Google Now correctly found a picture of the Great Pyramid). About the only aspect of your online life that Google hasn’t apparently assimilated yet is your opinions expressed on Google+. But that’s undoubtedly coming.

Google already knows where you live, for example, and constantly plots out the time it will take to return home. Google even knows your favorite routes to work and can suggest alternatives based on congestion. And it will figure out your favorite sports teams by the number of times you ask about them, without you ever having to explicitly identify them. Google’s recommendation engine, meanwhile, uses the information to suggest new content to purchase.

PS I agree that patent law needs an overhaul

 

[Elimentals]

So Apple were granted a patent for a general claim to intellectual property they didn't exactly own? Or am I misunderstanding?

Thanks for explaining the block more clearly, I did understand why it was given though. I just don't see how this patent was even issued.

Was not the reason that Google are anti patent is because of the open source nature of Android?

More like a general claim on something they did not invent. As for the Google issue, its more that at the time Google made it they did not even think that it was patent worthy. Google did not really file for patents before 2008, in fact they where anti patents and even sponsored Anti-patent groups. Was nothing about Android or Open source, just a point of view that has now come back and bit them where it hurts.

They not the only one that fell in this trap either. Even Microsoft was very anti-patents in the early 80's to mid 90's. They did not file for all their inventions either, well that was till Sun and IBM cleaned them out. Today they one of the bullies, so I expect Google to probibly follow suite. In 5 years from now people will get to hate Google just as much as they start bulling competition with patent stockpiles, its just how the world turns. <-- Also why I absolutely hate software patents as its anti competitive at its core esp for up starts, you know there where innovation truly happens.

 

[Elimentals]

Wide-eyed naivety, take a bow.

You go to court, argue facts, win or lose. Suddenly everyone is a legal expert? Or is the judge now an Apple fanboi, because you don't like the result? Pfft. You play the tools you have in business, just like everyone else. If you want philanthropy go join a Buddhist Temple in the East somewhere.

PS I agree that patent law needs an overhaul

Quick question:

Why are you including Google Now? It has nothing to do with the case at hand as for the info it holds, you think Apple and Microsoft do not build up their own databases on you? if you truly think Google is the only one, I have some shocking news for you, they are not.

 

[undesign]

Quick question:

Why are you including Google Now? It has nothing to do with the case at hand as for the info it holds, you think Apple and Microsoft do not build up their own databases on you? if you truly think Google is the only one, I have some shocking news for you, they are not.

Simply pointing out the "oh Apple is sooooooo bad, Google/Android are angels" hypocrisy evident in most of this thread.

 

[Elimentals]

Simply pointing out the "oh Apple is sooooooo bad, Google/Android are angels" hypocrisy evident in most of this thread.

I think its more anti competitive behavior that gets people upset than arguing who is angels and who is not.

 

[Maverick Jester]

More like a general claim on something they did not invent. As for the Google issue, its more that at the time Google made it they did not even think that it was patent worthy. Google did not really file for patents before 2008, in fact they where anti patents and even sponsored Anti-patent groups. Was nothing about Android or Open source, just a point of view that has now come back and bit them where it hurts.

They not the only one that fell in this trap either. Even Microsoft was very anti-patents in the early 80's to mid 90's. They did not file for all their inventions either, well that was till Sun and IBM cleaned them out. Today they one of the bullies, so I expect Google to probibly follow suite. In 5 years from now people will get to hate Google just as much as they start bulling competition with patent stockpiles, its just how the world turns. <-- Also why I absolutely hate software patents as its anti competitive at its core esp for up starts, you know there where innovation truly happens.

That's even worse then.. Patent law is terrible.

I agree that this patent law trolling will end up hurting proper innovation in the long term, if not already scaring a few smaller companies off.

 

[Maverick Jester]

I think its more anti competitive behavior that gets people upset than arguing who is angels and who is not.

+1.

Nothing against Apple products, but this patent trolling business is ridiculous.

 

[undesign]

I think its more anti competitive behavior that gets people upset than arguing who is angels and who is not.

All companies are anti-competitive, this is just - for a change - playing out in public. But, you have to ask yourself, if Apple didn't have a point why are they getting verdicts in their favour?

Do people for one minute think that Google isn't exploiting every conceivable advantage it has? If they for one moment thought more litigation might work to their favour they would go for it.

Most reactions are just pure fanboism cloaked in supposed indignant injustice...

 

[Maverick Jester]

All companies are anti-competitive, this is just - for a change - playing out in public. But, you have to ask yourself, if Apple didn't have a point why are they getting verdicts in their favour?

Do people for one minute think that Google isn't exploiting every conceivable advantage it has? If they for one moment thought more litigation might work to their favour they would go for it.

Most reactions are just pure fanboism cloaked in supposed indignant injustice...

Out of the multitude of court cases Apple have launched, only two were of benefit to them (including this injunction), and a third was a hollow victory (albeit granted by the same judge?). The rest were thrown out simply because patent process everywhere else except the USA is a bit better regulated.

Apple's point on a whole is very far fetched- given that they merely patented something that already existed, in the most general sense possible.

Do not forget the words of Steve Jobs himself: "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

[video=youtube;CW0DUg63lqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CW0DUg63lqU[/video]

But I digress- this is not fanboism. I just think it is wrong for Apple to sue for a technology they didn't even invent. It would be like Goodyear suing Michelin for designing a round tyre. No one with any sense would have even granted such a patent to begin with.

 

[Elimentals]

Out of the multitude of court cases Apple have launched, only two were of benefit to them (including this injunction), and a third was a hollow victory (albeit granted by the same judge?). The rest were thrown out simply because patent process everywhere else except the USA is a bit better regulated.

Apple's point on a whole is very far fetched- given that they merely patented something that already existed, in the most general sense possible.

Both is just an injunction, not a ban. So can still become available after the case, also does not stop people from getting it via gray importers. So in the end all this is doing is blocking you from getting it on a contract until the verdict.

Outright purchase still possible as well as getting other Android phones.

Hell you can even give em away on competitions. --> http://www.androidcentral.com/apple...alaxy-nexus-were-giving-one-away-right-second

Apple wins a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus; we're giving one away right this second!

Apple ... blah blah blah ... Google ... blah blah blah ... Patent ... blah blah blah ... Search ... blah blah blah ... Banned ... Blah blah blah.

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a ****. Lawyers are doing what lawyers are wont to do. This is only growing more ridiculous with each passing day.

In fact, here's how much I don't care. We're going to give away another Galaxy Nexus right here, right now. Because despite this ruling, they're still shipping. It's just lawyers being lawyers.

Here's how to win: Leave a comment in this post about how messed up all this patent nonsense is. We'll pick a winner by noon EST Saturday, June 30. Everyone's invited. Not just in the U.S.

 

[Maverick Jester]

Both is just an injunction, not a ban. So can still become available after the case, also does not stop people from getting it via gray importers. So in the end all this is doing is blocking you from getting it on a contract until the verdict.

Outright purchase still possible as well as getting other Android phones.

Hell you can even give em away on competitions. --> http://www.androidcentral.com/apple...alaxy-nexus-were-giving-one-away-right-second

Stalling for the sake of what though...

 

[Elimentals]

Stalling for the sake of what though...

More sales? Or trying to limit the damage before iPhone 5 comes out who knows what Apple is thinking. For one the Galaxy Nexus is the only phone that will get Jelly bean next month.

On Apple lawyers just saw this cool joke:

 

[Viva]

Fosspatents - Samsung appeals Galaxy Nexus ban and moves to stay the injunction

In the following I'll quote the short versions of each of the appellate arguments. I'll change the capitalization to make the arguments easier to read) and comment on them item by item:

- "The Court's finding that Apple will suffer irreparable harm was based on legally insufficient evidence that Samsung and Apple are competitors"

That argument sounds preposterous if you look at the short version above. It's still pretty weak, but a bit less preposterous, if one reads the details of Samsung's argument. It comes down to saying that Apple cannot prove a loss of market share to Samsung.

- "The Court's order is inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's directive that market share losses must be substantial"

This is about raising the standard for the harm Apple must prove: Samsung says an injunction is only justified under Federal Circuit law if the market share loss to be suffered in the absence of the injunction is "substantial". Also, Samsung insists that this substantial loss must be attributable to the "infringing feature", not just the presence of the infringing product on the market.

- "The Court's causation finding as to the '604 patent was erroneous, or at a minimum raises substantial questions"

Judge Koh had based her theory of irreparable harm on the relevance of Siri to the market potential of Apple's products. Samsung now insists that Siri is "different feature than the unified search covered by the '604 patent". Here, Samsung wants the appeals court to define the scope of the '604 patent as narrowly as possible -- and that approach would actually be consistent with how Judge Posner approached Apple's patents, particularly the '263 "realtime API" patent, which he distinguished from the feature of video streaming.

- "'People' and 'browser' are not infringing modules under the Court's construction"

This appears to be a rehash of an argument Samsung already made in its opposition to Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction.

- "The Court's infringement finding reads out the claim limitation of 'locating information in a network'"

Same situation as in the previous case.

- "The Court did not address Neal, which anticipates claim 6 under the court's construction"

By "Neal", Samsung means a prior art reference: U.S. Patent No. 6,324,534 on a "sequential subset catalog search engine". This is also a rehash. It's clear now that Samsung's invalidity argument at the appellate stage is going to be centered around the Neal patent.

- "There is at least a substantial issue regarding claim construction of the 'each' limitation"

The question here is whether the search heuristics must be different between the various modules. It's a claim construction issue.

 

[icyrus]

In 5 years from now people will get to hate Google just as much as they start bulling competition with patent stockpiles, its just how the world turns

5 years? See Google's current attempts using Motorola's FRAND patents.

Nothing against Apple products, but this patent trolling business is ridiculous.

I wish people would learn the actual definition of a patent troll.

 

[Elimentals]

5 years? See Google's current attempts using Motorola's FRAND patents.

You get forced to fork out $9 Billion and see if you can just sit idly by twiddling your thumbs, while someone else constantly try and kill your inventions left right and center. See how that work for you. I don't see them going after the small guy working out of the garage.

What they doing now is what they forced to do to stay alive, wait till they start going after everything that breaths like Apple and Microsoft is doing now, then we will talk again about what is evil.

In short Patent law is it stands now is just generating monsters to haunt the innovators of tomorrow.

 

[icyrus]

You get forced to fork out $9 Billion and see if you can just sit idly by twiddling your thumbs, while someone else constantly try and kill your inventions left right and center. See how that work for you. I don't see them going after the small guy working out of the garage.

What they doing now is what they forced to do to stay alive, wait till they start going after everything that breaths like Apple and Microsoft is doing now, then we will talk again about what is evil.

In short Patent law is it stands now is just generating monsters to haunt the innovators of tomorrow.

Which small companies are Apple & Microsoft suing?

Anyway the point was that there are no good guys in the patent games. Just those who actually make products and the trolls.

 

[Elimentals]

Which small companies are Apple & Microsoft suing?

Anyway the point was that there are no good guys in the patent games. Just those who actually make products and the trolls.

Well depends on your definition of small, HTC is one of em small companies if you compare it to the other 2. What about Barnes and Noble?

There are good guys in the patent game just that they always lose. The good guys is the ones that do not wanna play the game.

Please note I have no problem with hardware patents at all in fact I will encourage it, my issue is and always will be software patents. (Reason is because it kills what I hold dear ie: Collaboration in the form of Open source)