Breaking news from my 
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-07-13
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2007-09-06
I'll offer an uneducated guess:
Android 2.x - transition affect between images in gallery app looks too similar to IOS transition affect between images in gallery app.
Android 3.x - transition affect between images in gallery app does not look too similar to IOS transition affect between images in gallery app.
Either way, I can't see how flipping between displayed images using a touch interface can justify a truly non-obvious unique method which justifies patent protection. Do they also take medical advice from crackheads because that apears to be the maximum qualification one needs to issue or make legal decision on patents these days.
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:2005-07-06
I agree. These types of patents are so full of bullshit anyways.
Apple, what a stupid company. They didn't accomplish anything with this ridiculous lawsuit. Maybe they should spend more time innovating instead of crippling the better competition through litigation.
Edited 2011-08-26 05:33 UTC
Member since:
2008-02-05
How utterly ridiculous.
I would never have thought a European court would have the same respect for software patents as some American courts seem to have.
Now Apple has won this suit against Samsung, they're in a position to prohibit sales of any Android 2.x phones of other manufacturers as well, aren't they?
Member since:2007-09-06
It won't happen - motivation to sell new units not update ones already sold and all that - but imagine of the phone makers called Apple's bluff and all shipped 3.x firmware updates for existing phone models.
Now that would really be a case of Apple and the other phone manufacturers truly doing something to benefit the device owner.
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2007-09-06
yup. read that bit after. It's just the image viewer that infringes rather than the whole software stack and Samsung will have that application replaces in short order.
Still.. because an image not dragged off the majority of the screen returns to view instead of switching to the next image in order.
So boo.. no letigious motivation for shipping timely firmware updates.
Member since:2007-09-22
Member since:2009-05-19
Actually we(EU) do grant software patents. Philips of The Netherlands is the biggest offender in that area, by the way...
It's just it's a lot harder to do and overcomplicated language just results in a longer review of the patent. A real inventive step is required these days, though some older patents with ridiculous claims exist.
Member since:
2006-05-18
Member since:
2006-08-15
Wow, the utter stupidity of this judgement leads me to believe that the judge had to have received a bribe from Apple.
It's like telling Ford they can't sell their cars in Europe because BMW has a patent on cars with 4 wheels. Ford, you're gonna have to go to 3-wheel cars to do business here, understand!?
Member since:2011-05-31
Member since:
2011-05-12
It's strange Samsung gets punished for this.
Sure they copied Apple in design and this helps customers spend money on Samsung products instead of Apple stuff, but this photo thing certainly doesn't.
At least I can't imagine someone opting for an Samsung phone because of that little effect while I can imagine someone picking up a Galaxy S because it looks like an iPhone.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Don't worry guys, all is okay: it's only the Gallery photo application that's affected, and Samsung will be replacing it right away. Sales won't even be interrupted.
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/76361/samsung-blijft-galaxy-s-ii-in-nede...
Working on the item!
Member since:2006-07-13
exactly. only gallery.apl is affected. It's all about the way the gestures and so work on this particular thing.
That's the only thing. Nothing to worry about. And also the reason why android 3.x isn't affected -- it does it in a different way.
Anyways, patents suck and the judge luckily dismissed all oher things as well. fsck apple. Stay in your fruit basket.
Member since:2006-06-09
Member since:2006-11-02
Member since:2006-06-09
Member since:2010-07-16
The rubber-band patent was filed in December 2007. Compiz, the Linux compositing manager, has such an effect. Compiz was released at the beginning of 2006, so almost two years before.
Also CyanogenMod7 uses a different overscroll effect, which I actually prefer to rubber-banding.
Though you do make a good point. There was always that certain something about Apple interfaces, in OSX already, even before iOS. It's subtleties in the animations. If you remove those, it's as you say - the functionality is the same, but the feel is different.
Edited 2011-08-24 16:42 UTC
Member since:2009-08-22
Also CyanogenMod7 uses a different overscroll effect, which I actually prefer to rubber-banding.
Apple seem to think that they have a strong case, and it what wins legally that counts. My main point is about what Apple is trying to achieve through these legal actions. Just blocking competing products may be part of the strategy but there is more to it than that. Apple wants product differentiation.
Member since:2010-10-05
I actually hate that bounce back effect, it seems annoying and childish, and I'd like to see it removed or made optional. But still, giving a for-profit company a *monopoly* on the bounce back effect? That is ridiculous.
Also, the patent claim in the story (you need to drag a photo more than a certain distance to switch to the next one) is not any kind of invention -- the same idea is used a lot in mouse-based interfaces, e.g. for double-click and drag-and-drop.
Member since:2010-06-01
Apple can not demand for whole world to stop designing materialistically.
Right now Apple cut off lots of unnecessary stuff, good for Apple!
But demanding that others keep that stuff, just to differentiate from Apple is pure silly.
There should be law that disable all patents, design patents, industry rights, etc. for minimalistic designs.
If Apple would be in car business it would sued all others that they use the same number of wheels as Apple, and demand ban on selling cars with the same number of wheels.
Member since:2005-07-06
So Apple are happy with every little victory that chips away at the Android interface, knocking off features taken from iOS one by one, because at the end Apple know they will have the polished UI that delights and Androids UI will plod.
The problem is that Apple is not the only boy in town that can come up with good design. Look at the new notification sytem in iOS, that they have copied from Android, or the Command Shell in OS-X Lion that they copied from Gnome Shell, or the new Lion account settings panel that they copied from KDE.
If companies start to fight over such trivialities we will end up with products that have less than optimal user interfaces regardless if they com from Apple or someplace else.
The level for what should be unique and patentable must be raised or both the consumers and the manefacturers will suffer.
Member since:2005-07-12
All good points. I have no doubt that is Apple's strategy. But now that Google has Motorola's 24,000+ mobile patents, Google's going to turn around do the exact same thing to Apple, to the point of rendering iPhones utterly useless.
But ultimately, it will all be cross licensed, or settled out of court ("lets call a truce"), and they'll get back to the important business of making great products.
Member since:2009-05-19
A) That is NOT Android core feature. Samsung TouchWiz != Android.
B) Android 2.3 responce to bounceback is the highlight effect, it's as visually indicative as the bounceback effect. The bounceback effect is just bling from a certain point.
C) Again, different != inferior. Apple however really tries to convince that their is superior and different is inferior.
D) The Nexus line does exactly what it does, tries to come up with best solution differently. And so far, I've not seen a phone working radically better then my Nexus S. iPhone4 or any of the WP7 phones are pretty much the same in performance...
Member since:2005-07-09
Hey guys am I mistaken or that fancy gallery app is what ALL Android phones come with by default and I am talking about AOSP Roms? Or am I totally mistaken? So that means that Samsung is not the one at fault, but rather Google and Android? Can some one please clarify this for me?
Member since:2009-05-19
Just checked on my Nexus S, the default galery app does not have a bounceback effect. And it never had it. I actually had a thorough review of the code of the Cooliris gallery app starting with Android 2.1.
They should take a pge out of Cooliris design and make where bounceback is a 3D turn....
PS: Picturen on Android does violate that patent BTW. As well as a bunch of other apps....
Edited 2011-08-24 23:49 UTC
Member since:
2010-06-08
Member since:2011-05-12
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2010-10-05
Only because Microsoft beat them to it: <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/08/microsoft-tries-to-patent-virtual-...
Member since:2009-04-17
Member since:
2011-08-11
Member since:2010-06-19
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2010-01-12
When I get my patent on space and time, I will own your sweet asses!
1. I will sue you all for taking my time.
2. And I will sue your ass again for invading my space!
3. Finally (and this is where my master plan really shines) I will get a Texan judge to put a ban on time-traveling
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:
2005-11-18
This is mostly a win for Samsung. Still I have a sour taste in my mouth. The photo browsing patent is still somewhat between a design and software patent. This confirms what we already knew or suspected: software patents are enforceable in at least some EU countries.
It's a good day for Samsung, it's a bad day for software developers.
Member since:
2011-08-18
Member since:2005-06-29
MDN:
Big win for Apple: Dutch court orders EU-wide preliminary injunction against Samsung Galaxy smartphones
OSN:
Apple Scores Meaningless Dutch Court Victory Against Samsung
The difference is explained easily, even if you ignore the obvious fact that MDN is a massive Apple troll.
First, they have no Dutch editors, we do.
Second, they rely entirely on Florian Mueller, we don't.
Third, MDN is a pile of shit. We are awesome.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2009-05-19
On of those times where they didn't read Florian's post fully, thus giving Florian bad rep for their own fault*.
Because even Florian said that it only means that Samsung might need to rearrange their logistics operations at worst and that patent is not valid in a crapload of countries. You can actually read his post on the matter without facepalming....
PS: EPO != EU organization.
* - I'm not saying that FM does not make stupid statements on his blog, but not this time...
Member since:2010-06-01
Member since:2010-01-12
Member since:
2006-01-29
While Apple may have technically scored a victory in this case, I think it is really a win for Samsung and everybody else. You may even go as far as calling it a loss for Apple, for having parts of their IP effectively invalidated, with only a small bit upheld that is apparently easily worked around. Apple may have forgotten that the most effective way to fight using IP is FUD (as in "We have a lot of patents so you must infringe on some of them"), and that there is a reason why tech companies, while holding large patent portfolios, usually refrain from actual litigation regarding those patents. It seems to me that they shot themselves in the foot by suing Samsung and ends up with less rather than more. And I haven't even mentioned the publicity effect it made for Samsung.
Ideally, meaningless patent/design applications would be rejected by the registration offices, not invalidated by the courts after registration. While I find it unfortunate that it has to be decided this way, I'm glad that at least a little bit of meaningless IP is invalidated. I hope that this decision will encourage market players to focus on developing better products rather than trying to hinder competitors by litigation.
Member since:2005-11-12
Well it is a meaningless win for Apple because they went out to stop Samsung selling their devices. Samsung can just change the gallery in an update.
Some people just design the same ways without even meaning they infringe on a patent, since their design might just be logical. Apple failed, good for us.
Member since:
2007-08-20
Member since:2005-07-06
While you can not patent software - you can patent a function in a hardware device, even if that functionality is based on software. Which means that any application that violates a US software patent, can be safely distributed in Europe as long as it does not come with a device.
Member since:2009-07-18
Does that imply that it would be OK to stop bundling the gallery application and make it downloadable instead? The distinction is rather blurry to me.
What I personally see as innovative is: "an input screen that generates coordinates when touching it with your finger". Everything else simply uses those coordinates to do something with it, independent of how those coordinates were obtained.
The swiping simply detects a linear pattern in a bunch of coordinates. Regression analysis has prior art all the way back to the 18th century (and probably before).
The animation between switching photos is the result of a swipe event - basically a line segement represented as [Point start, Point end, bool fingerDown]. This is independent of how that swipe action was calculated. And an animation itself is just a transformation (shift/rotate/project...) in some space (2d, 3d, or even colour spaces like RGB and YCBCR). It's abstract and pure mathematics, and does not depend on a device.
This is my main issue with software patents. Software is designed to be abstract and modular. Bundling a few modules together does not make it innovative, nor does it mean you suddenly require a device. The only software that may violate a "software" patent is spaghetti code that's irrevocably attached to the hardware itself.
Too bad the lawyers/judges don't see it that way. Perhaps a course in a pure functional language such as Haskell (where unpure IO code is separated from the application logic) should be a requirement before someone is allowed to judge abstract software patent cases. Although I doubt there would be many cases (nor judges) still standing if that were the case.
Edited 2011-08-24 21:26 UTC
Member since:2009-05-19
Pretty much yes. As long as the device is unknown at the moment of development. If it's firmware for a very specific model of device then it's patentable. (Or at least, that is how I understand EPO's and other courts' explanations)
So, if you have a patent on a device function by software all iOS apps will infringe, while Android apps will not. iOS is a device specific OS, Android is a generic OS. (My interpretation)
Member since:2009-07-18
I doubt that all of iOS's code and modules depend on a specific device. If that were the case it would be a horrible, unmaintainable software architecture. The point was that there's only a very small layer that directly depends on the hardware (the firmware). Everything else is just built upon (several) abstraction layer(s). In that respect, I fail to see how any software patent is still valid.
From quickly reading through the specific patent, it appears to be a software problem disguised as "device specific" because it states that it needs I/O interaction. Every application does, that doesn't mean it's linked directly to the hardware and hence should not be patentable.
So yeah, I agree with you that firmware is (or should be) the only patentable software, but anything above that no longer communicates with the hardware directly, which in turn makes it device independent - all you need is the same API. The very fact that Samsung implemented it on Android without violating touchscreen firmware patents pretty much proves its independence.
A software patent is just maths obfuscated in lawyerspeak.
Edited 2011-08-25 17:00 UTC
Member since:2009-05-19
My statement does not rationalize the software patents.
However, in the current interpretation - whenever the device is known at the time of writing the code the device and the code can be considered as "one physical device with certain functions implemented in software"(in EU).
All iOS applications are written with a very restricted number of devices in mind(2 iPads, 4 generations of iPhone and 4 generations of iPod Touch), therefore making the author know what device the code will run.
Android software tends to be less device specific, for obvious reasons...
Member since:
2006-01-10
Verizon is now saying with all these patents lawsuits, all phones could be blocked in the USA (iPhones, Android phones) and wants Obama to block the courts from blocking imports. Patent violators would only have to pay royalties.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903327904576526130093...
Edited 2011-08-24 19:33 UTC
Member since:2010-03-08
Member since:
2007-07-19
Member since:
2009-05-19
Android can't be the one that is infringing.
Apple requested an injunction on the full range on Samsung smartphones. However only the phones with TouchWiz are in the list.
Notably Samsung Nexus S is NOT in the list. Most probably because it does not have TouchWiz...
PS: So they did file in the CD elected court? Maaan... Why did they reference the court under another name... other than the name on the OHIM list of CD courts. Damn you Nederlandse volk!
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:
2011-02-13
Member since:
2007-01-13
Way back in 1983.
"You're ripping us off!", Steve (Jobs) shouted, raising his voice even higher. "I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!"
But Bill Gates just stood there coolly, looking Steve directly in the eye, before starting to speak in his squeaky voice.
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=A_Rich...
Member since:2010-03-08
Member since:
2006-01-04
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/us-samsung-court-idUSTRE7...
~~~
"(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics shares rose sharply on Thursday, amid a rally in South Korean large cap stocks and analysts said it received a boost from a Dutch patent ruling and the decision by Apple's Steve Jobs to step down.
Apple and Samsung are fighting a series of legal battles over patents with U.S. market leader Apple and South Korea's Samsung slugging it out in courtrooms spanning the United States, Europe and Asia. At the center of the disputes are claims and counterclaims of patent infringements on smartphone and tablet designs and copyright issues.
Samsung scored what it claims is a partial victory in the Netherlands on Wednesday after a court ruled its smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace had broken just one of three patents at issue. The court said it found no infringement for Samsung's tablets."
~~~
Well, investors seem to see this as a win for Samsung.