Apple wins law suit

[Wish-I-Were-Fishn]

I read that Apple won their law suit against HTC and that if it sticks it places the entire Android operating system in jeopardy. I sure hope not!

Apple vs Android

[LMITOUT]

Looks like someone is a tad paranoid.

Apple also sued Samsung because they felt their new Tab was too similar to the iPad. Samsung counter-sued and said that they want to see the plans for Apple's future products so they don't accidentally copy their design again.

If you can't beat'm, sue'm!

[itchmesir]

As if I really needed one more reason to hate Apple

[Matt C]

Apple has Nothing on Android.

As limitout said "If you can't beat'm, sue'm!"

[LMITOUT]

Quote:

Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt may have primarily been at Google's Mobile Revolution conference in Tokyo to talk about the company's ambitious goals for Asia, but it turns out he was also quite ready to discuss the myriad of patent lawsuits swirling around the mobile industry these days -- or "legal fun," as Schmidt put it.

While not directly referring to any company by name, Schmidt said that because of Google's success with Android, "competitors are responding with lawsuits as they cannot respond through innovations," although he added that he's "not too worried about this." Schmidt did specifically comment on HTC's current situation, though, and said that "we will make sure they don't lose" in response to a question about whether Google would help foot HTC's legal bills if it lost its case before ITC.

[Nick Kuhn]

The two patents they won the suit on are very vague and say nothing about mobile devices. Furthermore there were already devices in existence making use of what the patent calls for at the time Apple received the patent. I would expect a successful appeal.

I believe one of Apple's suits against Samsung was that Samsung's phones were black and rectangular...

[SledNeck]

Anyone can see that samsung totally ripped off the iPhone design

[LMITOUT]

It was the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but it is also black (or white) and rectangular.

[SledNeck]

Nothing to see here

[LMITOUT]

Exactly right...there is nothing to see there. Square icons on a screen. Whoopdy doo. (See: Win 3.1)

Maybe MSFT, RIMM, and GOOG should sue APPL for adding "cut and paste" functionality to their device...albeit about five years later than everyone else had it. They're real innovators all right.

[Nick Kuhn]

Any piece of technology that requires frequent user input will become convergent in design. Other engineering firms do not have to go the extra mile to engineer something different than what they intuitively arrive at as a design just because someone else already used it.

[Shack]

A ton of this comes from the open source world and is used under licensing guidelines of GNU, BSN, Apache, NASA and a slue of others. Basically licensed as a free to use and make money from if you have a niche. Many software, firmware, code, etc. are created out of hobby and desire to do so.

On the other hand, shakith if you will, is lawsuits like this in a sense should be won. We may look at it is gready and cornering a market, but security becomes a factor as PS3 owners just found out. The hackers were not making a buck per-say, and minus the Federal laws they might have broke, they infringed on a patented source. A knock off company takes a certain software related platform, breaks or makes it their own but uses workarounds, compiles it on the net or in a majority of homes across America for every "geek" to take their turn with, what happens? Doing "good" for the better of man kind does not seem to be the overwhelming choice.

On the other~other hand, I have been seeking a (in short) patent clearance or freedom to operate opinion as a novel feature for an app a friend and I have spent the last year developing. It violates Apple Store policy because it infringes on "several" of Apple's patents (pretty much all in the same way) by the means of manipulation of a built in and existing processes from within the iPhone. Really stupid IMO but thanks to some Pro-Bono from a US patent Lawyer friend from High School, the fact it involves Apple, the quest is still going. Apple rejected our app saying it violated and infringed against "several" patents they hold, or does this within the written terms of said patent(s). Nothing related to us, as I am assume this has been an issue in the works prior, but earlier this year Apple released new patents which more clearly define they own something I believe is still not part of what our app does. It only grazes it . Without the Apple Store, the app ain't worth two bits because to make a buck at deploying and selling an App you need acceptance into the Apple store, then move on to other platforms such as Android and so on. The other option is to seek a patent licensing agreement with Apple on the way the processes are used, but that costs even more money and digs more skeletons up than it is worth. In the end it is just better to work with and seek permission with Apple because this is nothing that is earth shattering. Apple is strict for good reasons with allowing or disallowing apps within the Apple Store, but if there was no Apple Store acceptance needed, I would be issuing free app codes here at HSO right now. Our app started and was market towards ice fishing of all things and is so simply stupid, minus the genuineness behind the design and function, it doesn't even constitute all this. But in the end I have to give props to Apple because if someone does think of something and/or legally owns it, they should have the rights to it. I would expect nothing less.

IMO if anyone here finds themselves in a situation similar, go about obtaining a patent search and infringement clearance first, obtain your own patent prior to submitting to the Apple Store. Then you have grounds of ownership to stand on and against. That or at least the next Apple lawsuit on your hands and of course $20,000 to drop just to get you the subpoena.

In the end you will have your Samsungs and other knock offs, but it is part of the business world. Also part of the business world is ownership, which Apple seems to be having to refine its written ownership as it moves forward. I think for every 2000 patent apps Apple submits, which Apple submits patents all the time, they are granted a patent. Apple never forgets also. I just got word last week they went back were granted two more patents which covers portrait-landscape rotation heuristics and the other covers screen rotation gestures with the original 2007 iPhone. How are you supposed to approach a touch screen phone without the ability of having this? Two word: "Respect" and "Money", which Nokia after winning their lawsuit last month is making Apple show and pay. So Apple is not the mother of all invention as they are now paying substantially to work within Nokia's patents and this shows that even Apple has a skeleton or two, which trickles down and I believe just becomes the what rolls down the hill effect and into this. Why pay lawyers twice when you can use the ones already working and researching for the Nokia suit? One lawsuit shakes another lawsuits hand, yada~yada~!

[Shack]

Thought of this thread when I got wind of this piece:

Quote:

Microsoft and Google go tit-for-tat in patent spat

By: Jay Greene and Josh Lowensohn AUGUST 4, 2011 9:24 AM PDT

Rather than ignore an attack by Google's legal boss saying that it has conspired against the company in patent wars, Microsoft is ratcheting up the nastiness.

And Google is firing back, turning the discussion of patent strategy into a he said-she said battle of blog posts and tweets.

The software giant's top public relations executive took to Twitter last night to refute claims laid out by Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond that Microsoft is conspiring with Apple and others to keep patents away from the Web giant. Frank X. Shaw released an October e-mail from Google General Counsel Kent Walker to his counterpart at Microsoft, Brad Smith, cordially declining Microsoft's offer to jointly bid on patents from Novell.

In the e-mail, Walker writes, "After talking with people here, it sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn't be advisable for us on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we're open to discussing other similar opportunities in the future."

That would seem to refute Drummond's claims of "a hostile, organized campaign against Android," Google's mobile operating system, by Microsoft and others. And Shaw was happy to point that out in his tweet.

"Free advice for David Drummond--next time check with Kent Walker before you blog," Shaw wrote, before adding a smiley face to the message.

Earlier yesterday, Smith took to Twitter as well, to point out Google's inconsistencies. In his tweet, Smith noted that Google rejected Microsoft's offer to bid together on the Novell patents.

"Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no," Smith tweeted.

In an update today to the original Google post, Drummond claimed Microsoft's response was a means to "divert attention by pushing a false 'gotcha!' while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised."

Drummond then argued that if Google had been a part of the winning Novell deal along with Microsoft, it would have put Android at risk from legal attacks due to the group licensing rules.

"A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners," Drummond wrote. "Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android--and having us pay for the privilege--must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it."

[Nick Kuhn]

That article doesn't mention that since Apple won it's suit against HTC, HTC won a patent lawsuit against Apple.

[PierBridge]

Apple and Microsoft joining forces is about as Hilarius as it gets.. I liken that to a Yankee's and Red-Sox alliance.

Stay tuned on this one..

[PierBridge]

Rut-Ro...

http://news.yahoo.com/verdict-reached-apple-samsung-case-231108769--finance.html

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung Friday as a jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the U.S. company $1.051 billion in damages.

The verdict -- which came much sooner than expected -- could lead to an outright ban on sales of key Samsung products and will likely solidify Apple's dominance of the exploding mobile computing market.

Brian Love, a Santa Clara law school professor, described it as a crushing victory for Apple: "This is the best-case scenario Apple could have hoped for."

The jury deliberated less than three days before delivering the verdict on seven Apple patent claims and five Samsung patent claims -- suggesting that the nine-person panel had little difficulty in concluding that Samsung had copied the iPhone and the iPad.

The companies are rivals, but also have a $5 billion-plus supply relationship. Apple is Samsung's biggest customer for microprocessors and other parts central to Apple's devices.

[PierBridge]

..SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — After a year of scorched-earth litigation, a jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary iPhone and iPad.

The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion. An appeal is expected.

Apple Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April 2011 and engaged legions of the country's highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2.5 billion from its top smartphone competitor. Samsung Electronics Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million.

But verdict, however, belonged to Apple, as the jury rejected all Samsung's claim against Apple. Jurors also decided against some of Apple's claims involving the two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the full $2.5 billion Apple demanded.

However, the jury found that several Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a finger tap.

As part of its lawsuit, Apple also demanded that Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. A judge was expected to make that ruling at a later time.

During closing arguments at the trial, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed Samsung was having a "crisis of design" after the 2007 launch of the iPhone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device.

Samsung's lawyers countered that it was simply and legally giving consumers what they want: Smart phones with big screens. They said Samsung didn't violate any of Apple's patents and further alleged innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies.

Samsung has emerged as one of Apple's biggest rivals and has overtaken Apple as the leading smartphone maker.

Samsung's Galaxy line of phones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. has given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers.

Samsung conceded that Apple makes great products but said it doesn't have a monopoly on the design of rectangle phones with rounded corners that it claimed it created.

Google entered the smartphone market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip off of the iPhone's innovations.

After shoving Schmidt off Apple's board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to "thermonuclear war" to destroy Android and its allies.

The Apple-Samsung trial in San Jose came after each side filed a blizzard of legal motions and refused advisories by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to settle the dispute out of court. Deliberations by the jury of seven men and two women began Wednesday.

Samsung has sold 22.7 million smartphones and tablets that Apple claimed uses its technology. McElhinny said those devices accounted for $8.16 billion in sales since June 2010.

Apple and Samsung combined account for more than half of global smartphone sales.

From the beginning, legal experts and Wall Street analysts viewed Samsung as the underdog in the case. Apple's headquarters is a mere 10 miles from the courthouse, and jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley where Apple's late founder Steve Jobs is a revered technological pioneer.

While the legal and technological issues were complex, patent expert Alexander I. Poltorak previously said the case would likely boil down to whether jurors believed Samsung's products look and feel almost identical to Apple's iPhone and iPad.

To overcome that challenge at trial, Samsung's lawyers argued that many of Apple's claims of innovation were either obvious concepts or ideas stolen from Sony Corp. and others. Experts called that line of argument a high-risk strategy because of Apple's reputation as an innovator.

Apple's lawyers argued there is almost no difference between Samsung products and those of Apple, and presented internal Samsung documents they said showed it copied Apple designs. Samsung lawyers insisted that several other companies and inventors had previously developed much of the Apple technology at issue.

The U.S. trial is just the latest skirmish between the two tech giants over product designs. Apple and Samsung have filed similar lawsuits in eight other countries, including South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, France and Australia.

Samsung won a home court ruling Friday in the global patent battle against Apple.

Judges in Seoul said Samsung didn't copy the look and feel of the iPhone and ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung's wireless technology.

However, the judges also said Samsung violated Apple's technology behind the feature that causes a screen to bounce back when a user scrolls to an end image. Both sides were ordered to pay limited damages.

The Seoul ruling was a rare victory for Samsung in its fight with Apple. Those arguments previously have been shot down by courts in Europe, where judges have ruled that they are part of industry standards that must be licensed under fair terms to competitors.

The U.S. case is one of some 50 lawsuits among myriad telecommunications companies jockeying for position in the burgeoning $219 billion market for smartphones and computer tablets.

...

[LMITOUT]

Typical Apple. Petty items. Screen bounce? Really? Get over yourselves, your product isn't that great other than the fact that you figured out how to dumb down your OS enough for the sheeeple to understand how to use it. That isn't groundbreaking.

[CAMAN]

" The companies are rivals, but also have a $5 billion-plus supply relationship. Apple is Samsung's biggest customer for microprocessors and other parts central to Apple's devices."

What's that saying? Don't bite the hand that feeds you? Hopefully Sammy cuts off production immediately and sends A$$le scrambling to find another supplier that can keep up with demand. Worst thing that could happen to them is not having any inventory, causing the people to revolt.

[LMITOUT]

I'm sure crApple can round up plenty of 14 year-olds to work at Foxconn to build chips.

[Whoaru99]

" The companies are rivals, but also have a $5 billion-plus supply relationship. Apple is Samsung's biggest customer for microprocessors and other parts central to Apple's devices."

What's that saying? Don't bite the hand that feeds you? Hopefully Sammy cuts off production immediately and sends A$$le scrambling to find another supplier that can keep up with demand. Worst thing that could happen to them is not having any inventory, causing the people to revolt.

I'd guess Samsung isn't going to cut them off because $5B is a nice chunk of business. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple gets a nice price increase the next time they need a change. Instead of perhaps just doing it, Samsung may re-quote the item at a higher price with the change. Of course it's a fine balance in this sort of thing, as always.

Since Apple was already on my $hit list and Samsung made my list recently, I'll not knowingly spend another dime on products from either.

[PurpleFloyd]

[PierBridge]

I wonder if Apple is going to sue Amazon next for making a device that you can look at, hold in your hands, and it does things.

I'm sure they patented that too..

[Slabasaurus]

Typical Apple. Petty items. Screen bounce? Really? Get over yourselves, your product isn't that great other than the fact that you figured out how to dumb down your OS enough for the sheeeple to understand how to use it. That isn't groundbreaking.