OSNews

I'm Dutch. Android is perfectly free here as courts have reaffirmed a few times already by throwing out this Cupertino patent troll's claims.

This happened in the US. I don't get your point.

Android is free to me, and most of the world. Can't help it that one German city and the US have fcuked up patent laws.

Don't affect me, so don't care.

Maybe to you, I think "the rest of the world" is an exaggeration.

These are the kind of comments that make me think you have a religious hatred of Android and are in fact a troll. Which is why I called you out in the Nexus 7 comments.

No, the rest of the world is larger than the US and its broken patent system.

Edited 2012-06-30 03:13 UTC

You forget there's litigation going on all over the world?

Right. Quiet now.

I was referring to these:

Thom:

Nelson:

Enough context for you?

Edited 2012-06-30 03:55 UTC

I'm missing the part that allows you to make the apparent leap of logic that litigation automatically implies fault. Anyone can sue for pretty much anything. Doesn't mean they're going to win

Go have a look at the figures. Samsung invests a whole lot more in R&D so you have clearly not read enough . . . .

Apple invests mainly in marketing, they were never innovative.

Use Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo and you will find.

That's not even remotely true you could tell by looking at who is copying who. Apple been innovating in computing before Samsung even thought of shipping its first personal computer. Smartphones are an extension of computers not mobile phones.

One of the reasons why Apple is so profitable, it is because they invest ridiculously (relatively) little on R&D. In fact most of of it is D (either Design or Development) and very little to no R (as in Research).


I find fascinating the quasi-religious corporate worshiping of Apple fans (or Android/Microsoft for that matter).

I think you need to double check your sources. The only market that matter is the one in where Apple is loosing market share:

In the US Apple’s share grew to 36% from only 25%, while in the UK it rose to 31% from 21% in the 12 weeks to end-November.
However in Europe’s biggest markets - Germany and France - the iPhone has lost some ground. In Germany the drop was from 27% to 22% and in France it was even bigger - Apple’s share slipped to 20% from 29%.

IF you don't care because you don't live in the US, then why do you spend so much tikme making posts about this stuff? If Holland has no software patent law, and therefore you don't care, then maybe you can move on to other topics?

Holland has no patent law ? Since when?

Thom,
Whiles I respect your POV I'm sorry, Android is not free.
Well, not to the likes of Samsung etc.
They have to pay Microsoft a tithe for every device they sell. That is not free IMHO.

What is worse is that in the battle between WinRT and Android tablets, the ONLY clear winner is Microsoft.
You either pay MS directly and use a WinRT device or you use an Android device and pay them indirectly.

IMHO that is a worse situation than the battles with Apple.

The Android makers could produce a design of H/W that does not infringe Apple's 'rounded corners' or other design patents (And some have done exactly that) but as it stands there is no way for an Android device maker to escape the MS Patent Tax.

Finally, my message to Microsoft, Google et al in the android camp and Apple in respect of these silly patents is 'A plague on all your houses'.

In this Tricentenary Year of the Newcomen Steam Engine the head honchos in those companies could do well to read the history of 'Boulton & Watt' vs Richard Trethivick and how he innovated to make their patents irrlevant. He also invented devices that made Steam Boilers safter that he deliberately didn't patent because they were vital to the future of steam power. I take my hat off(Brunel stove pipe naturally) to him.

You miss why they have to pay. There is a long list of reasons and the actual reasons behind the decision is why I have a big issue with Microsoft's business practices.

Maybe in the long-term, if Microsoft's Surface tablet starts to gain significant market share, Apple will lose interest in attacking Samsung and go after Microsoft instead.

Um, the Nexus is at end of life - we bought one a couple of months ago for $200 off. I thing Samsung has pretty much ridden that horse to market and back, but your concern for Samsung's healthy profit margins is commendable.

I loved Apple's statement - "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface".

I wish in creating my old Treo Palm had thought of a rectangular shape, with rows of icons to launch apps, a settings page for configuring the device, and a web browser. How innovative Apple was in creating my iPad - they stood not on the shoulders of giants, but the base of the Grand Canyon! /sarcasm

Yes, however there's the legal costs they were wrapped up in. In multiple countries. All over the world.

Plus, please tell me you don't think that this is exclusively applicable to the Galaxy Nexus? The only reason the Nexus is specifically mentioned is because it is all that existed when this suit was filed.

They can easily extend it to other devices, as Apple has done in other places around the world.



On the very front page of this website there's an article which praises Apple for their contribution to the smartphone market. Apple undoubtedly innovated in this area, and I think its pigheaded to simply brush aside those innovations.

They did most of the legwork for Android user interaction today, and as such, they deserve some credit.

Well, no, they did not. Apple did not invent the touch interface, they did something else. They created a market for smartphones. They made a simple polished device, targeted at an average guy/gal, not at power users like the smartphones before them. Then they did a massive marketing push (including staged queues at mobile shops) to convince an average user that he/she *needs* a smartphone. Now they are understandably pissed that other companies also benefit from their multi-billion investment, but I don't think there's a legal protection for hype.

Last I checked, the fundamentals were similar but they are not wholesale copies for sure.

Different along the margins, but there is very little in Android that's fundamentally different from a UX perspective.

Technically speaking the basics behind all touch oriented platforms are exactly the same. These basics make up the bulk of the UX.

Especially when Google acquired Android, Inc before Apple had a product and Crunchpad was designed before there was an iPad

No. If you do even a bit of research, you'll find that Apple invented very little, if anything at all. Much of the interaction stuff goes back into 70s (e.g. http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/24/3040959/dataland-mits-70s-media-r...).
Apple proved that current technology was sufficient to put all of that into a phone. For that they are rewarded with market share and healthy profits, but they don't own the concepts. Also, look at the patents in the injunction -- half are not about touch UI at all.


Much of Android was developed before iOS was made public, so it's unfair to call that "copying." After both platforms were released Apple was copying significant ideas from Android too. Google should have patented the idea of "multitasking in a touch screen smartphone operating system" and sue the hell out of Apple later =)

Innovation does not require invention. Innovation is about the application of an idea.



Products are about more than ideas, or concepts. Apple put it into a cohesive product, and improved on the ideas. There are subtleties in the patent applications (esp. the gesture ones and data tapping) which show this if people would bother to go into them.




I don't think it has much bearing. Android is a product that isn't "done", it's still in constant development, and its still copying. Jellybean copies the Photo view from Windows Phone 7. It copied the fast Camera launching from lockscreen before that. A lot of the Holo theme is directly inspired from Windows Phone.

Android looked radically different pre-iPhone than it did post-iPhone.



But are they copying an idea patented and protected by Google? Unlikely, or else Google would've forced Apple into a mutual license.

Eh... Camera launching from lock-screen is a copy from Sense, not WP7.


The theme? Hardly. Some apps bear resemblance, but not the theme.

Edited 2012-06-30 07:22 UTC

"Innovation" is a PR-speak that doesn't mean anything. Patents require invention. Recall, this is a thread about injunction based on patents.


Oh, WP7 fan, I see. I'm sure you think that WP7 is radically different from iOS, just because it uses tiles instead of icons. Well, take a look at the patents asserted against Samsung. They all apply equally well against WP7 phones.

Innovation? Really? No doubt that Apple have changed the smartphone market dramatically. But being the first to demonstrate that something can be viable and desirable, is not the same as innovating.

Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Early_years

The only real difference between IBM's Simon (1992), and the iPhone is the 15 years of technology and manufacturing advances that made it possible, and Google technology. Conceptually, they are the same device - multifunction, touchscreen only.

And even if you want to talk about multi-touch gestures, Apple certainly didn't invent them. Apple *bought* the company that did most of the work in the early 2000s, only 2 years before launching the iPhone.

Although Pierre Wellner published a paper covering the same ground - in 1991.

No doubt Apple have pushed the boundaries of what is physically achievable at (high end) consumer prices, and built a formidable business. And they make some very good products. But they are nowhere near as innovative as they have successfully fooled people into believing.

You can be innovative in how you execute, bringing something to mass market, making it consumable, and usable. That's something to be lauded.

Sure there have been touch screens, and gestures, and whatever else, but there are very specific nuances in Apple's applications of these concepts if you look beyond the abstracts of the patents they hold. There is some real thoughtfulness.

To me, being able to bring all this together into a cohesive product at the time was unspeakable. Apple shook the mobile world hard, and altered the roadmap of every mobile company in the industry.

You can't patent what you just mentioned. So Apple has no right to patent idea's that they got from other companies.
Idea patents are just indefensible

Welcome to OSNews, where everyone is a patent law expert.

You should've been representing Samsung, maybe they would've won their case.

Call me when Apple actually manufactures its own products again.

And this comes from someone who has spent some 20 posts arguing that the lawsuits against android are valid...

Innovation? Really? No doubt that Apple have changed the smartphone market dramatically. But being the first to demonstrate that something can be viable and desirable, is not the same as innovating. "

Bullshit. That is the definition of innovation.

n·no·vate   [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.


The anti-apple pro android shills are out is full force with no understanding of what things are.. OSnews jumped the shark ever since Thom took over. It's become the gossip rag of the technology world.

Does 150 billions iPhone sales not enough credit?
Or only an all-credits-monopole?

Because, they can't claim *all* merits. Prior arts forbid that. And it's hard to buy past history.

What prior art? Stop saying that. Present legally valid prior art, and I suggest you fax your information over to Samsung's lawyers. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Yeah, right, there were absolutely zero mobile device that have a touch screen before the iPhone, everybody knows that.
As there is no mobile device with icons & gesture UI before the iPhone.
As the iPad was the absolute first tablet device.

Yeah, right.

I didn't read the patents fully but the integrated search boxes have appeared in various Linux distros (throug KDE integrated search frameworks) long time ago. Don't know if it was as early as 2000 though.

Nexus is still the present Google flagship without any follower announced. It's also the only phone to carry 4.1 announced fluidness to the masses, and is uber important to developers, nevermind the bad publicity giving fuel claims to trolls that chose to compete in court instead free market.
So the injunction if it passes is very much a big hit to Google. Biggest to date.

Until IOS can handle widgets, there is nothing similar to the user interface, as for icons,those have been around long before Jobs had his wet dreams of IOS or any of the "i" products

You could also call it an idiotic-patent-system tax.

All of this could be avoided if Google stepped up to the plate. If they hold that Apple's asserted patents are invalid, then present the proof.

Instead they sit idly by while OEMs take it from Apple.

That stupid google is just sitting there spending billions of dollars to get patents.

Useless patents everyone has already licensed. And Motorola, who is under investigation in the US and the EU for abusing FRAND patents.

Big. fucking. deal.

FTFY.

Perhaps because Apple are suing the OEMs and not Google?

And I'm not sure how rounded corner patents are any of Google's business.

This injunction is based off Siri patents and UI patents.

Apple has filed a motion to extend this to the Galaxy S III, something which given today's ruling, doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

A GS3 injunction in the US would be huge.

If google doesn't ask money for their software it is gratis software. Google wrote that software and did not copy it from anybody else. Now the ideas in the software are of course from thousands of people that have shaped how computers work for over 70+ years.

You pay the programmers to get code. Then you can decide if you want money for that code or if you want to give it away for free.

That is just mincing words, no one is stupid. Google makes billions off that software through the services built into it and the license fees for those services. No different then when MS tied IE to windows.

So its not actually free. And because of this they need to stop pretending like it is. Everyone else pays licensing fees to other companies. Its time for Google to pay up!

Also hello we know that Google copied Java, even the courts have said that. Because they didn't get punished for it does not make it right.

Everyone from Apple down (Microsoft punished for IE even) has been punished at some point for the same thing. Its Googles turn. Pay up!

Did you read what the judge said? His comment was that the code that was copied could have been written in minutes by the judge.
Everything else Google copied was GPL so they did right.

None of those companies should have paid for idea patents. Idea patents stifle innovation and cost us all a lot of money for nothing in return.

So they were guilty but not guilty. LOL! They were required to pay upwards of 30 million but Oracle took 0 to appeal, so that means nothing. LOL. And that was just on Java.

Last I looked Android has now been found to infringe at least 11 patents and counting. LOL!

I am not understanding why everyone is in denial. Yeah the patent system is a mess, so knowing this why would you do stuff to get you and your OEMS all caught up in the mess of it? Just plain dumb!

Now its time for Google and the OEMS to pay their dues.

Remember MS has been saying for years that Linux and other free software skirts their patents, everyone on sites like this has been asking MS to prove it, now its time for the proving to happen.

MS has almost EVERY major Android OEM paying them besides Moto and thats about to happen (July 17th when the ruling comes down on the FAT patent that almost put Tom Tom out of business)

MS is proving it and everyone is now whining that companies like MS and Apple are patent tolls. LOL! Hey everyone asked them to prove it! They proving it.

Don't be mad now...

Edited 2012-07-01 16:51 UTC

Apple spend millions of dollares in R&D to come up wiht the "ideas" in question. Those ideas didn't just materialize out of thin air. (Or, if you're in the school of thought that says that all ideas already exist, but they're just waiting to be discovered, then Apple spent millions of dollars in R&D "discovering" those ideas, they didn't just come to light out of thin air). Google spent zero in copying those ideas that Apple created (or "discovered"). Code is different from ideas, but they BOTH have value. It's not the case that only "code" has value (in fact, it's absurd).

As for Google giving their software away for free, yes, that's how they get away with infringing on patents left and right, but too bad they don't indemnify their hardware partners who are selling said code (as part of their hardware device product), and are therefore liable to be sued for Google's malificence. (is that a word? hehe)

So you are in favor of idea patents?

Please think about what it would mean if idea patents became the norm.

Also I don't believe Apple spend millions of dollars on ideas. They spend it on research, code, hardware etc. It is nice that your product was the first with the bouncy screen but if a competitor makes his own implementation with his own research, code, hardware etc. what makes you think you own his work?

If you really think idea patents should become the norm I am scared for the future because there might be more people that think like you.

Yeah, usually Apple stole them from somewhere as Steve Jobs has so proudly proclaimed...
Also, ideas are supposedly not patent-able.

Edited 2012-07-02 13:41 UTC

If you type for more than an hour punching out code - in US you already have infringed on at least one patent.

Welcome to the USPTO that grants patents on ridiculously low standards, compared to the rest of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfH8iyNjpYo
http://www.pubpat.org/

Edited 2012-06-30 07:30 UTC

Patents can be infringed upon and at the same time be invalid. The concept is not mutually exclusive.

If you can prove prior art, obviousness, or anything like that, you can prevail in court.

If you can't, take a license.

You have now pretty much explained the whole absurdity and uncompetitiveness of this system.

Thanks...

Every tech product is a legal minefiled with the current patent system. Especially if they compete with companies like Apple and Microsoft.

Not exactly, most companies play ball and license the patents they infringe upon if they're deemed valid. Every big player (sans Google) does.

I wish I could flag trolls so I could ignore them. There is no interesting discussion to be had with you and your information is flawed.

Some mean guy on the internet disagrees with me, I can't believe it. I wish I didn't have to see his text.

In the above-mentioned troll (Nelson) "Ignore User by IP, MAC address and ISP RADIUS user name" would have been a *very* welcome addition.

Why that admins @OSNews haven't banned him for spamming (opening multiple threads on the same subjects) is beyond me.

- Gilboa

And I suppose your useless, say-nothing post is much better? Right?

Not really. It's useless to block by MAC address since a MAC address is never seen outside the local network segment and I would certainly hope that no ISP is leaking radius user names to the Internet. That leaves us with the IP address which is trivial to work around by using something like Tor.



As much as I disagree with Nelson that's really not a good measurement for banning anyone.

Not really. It's useless to block by MAC address since a MAC address is never seen outside the local network segment and I would certainly hope that no ISP is leaking radius user names to the Internet. That leaves us with the IP address which is trivial to work around by using something like Tor. "

I was kidding.
I am well aware that RADIUS cs/id/hostname, MAC and IP are either only visible within (parts of the ISP) network or are easily circumvented.

- Gilboa

Oh. Shame on me

Wow, hit a raw nerve, eh?

No, you just posted a useless comment, and I sought to put a comedic spin on it .

Comedy is supposed to make you laugh.

Yeah, you know everything about those, don't you?



Don't quit your day job.

I assume you've identified and submitted the prior art to the USPTO? You've done the research to ensure the patent in question is partially or completely invalidated by your claim of prior art?

No?

Do you think if it was that easy, Samsung wouldn't have invalidated it long ago?

The over simplification of patent law on this website is egregious.

...And I find it amusing ones that support patent trolling. Well, From 39 comment that I read, I can assume that fanboism's like that.

And another "fanboy" comment without any actual substance. Why are you allowed to post at all?

Well, If people like you can post, why-not-me?
Maybe you can start telling people here why you love apple that much? How their legal dispute is honorable? They sued just because they "HAVE TO" sue? And.. Err.. Please, tell us with good reasoning.

I don't love Apple. I don't particularly agree with their decisions, but they are sound legally (Doesn't make them moral)

However, I also think it's unfair to say that Android is "free" when there is so much legal mystery surrounding Android. At least other players in the industry license the patents they need so OEMs have a little more peace of mind.

Sound legally doesn't make them right. Sure, the root of the problem is US Patent System. But when you get the patent, you can use it wisely--not with what Apple did here.
Rare we see one abuse patent like Apple did. And they won't stop. Please read they case carefully and judge with you heart.
And, IMHO, when google abuse their patent, google will have 'special treat' here on OSNews, too

Edited 2012-07-01 12:05 UTC

Pretty much, that's not far from how shareholders-owned corporate system works, part of behaviours it promotes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film) )

I take it you're a patent lawyer by day?

You've replied to me a few times in these comments, and every time you've dissapointed. Try again.

I'm getting more of a "I'm lovin' it" vibe, really.

Here's a link to an early Anglo Saxon door latch (c.420-650AD) http://www.picturesofengland.com/England/Suffolk/West_Stow/West_Sto... not old enough here's Roman http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdugan/3975042663/lightbox/

The idea of using objects say Windows for example, as analogies on computers is not exactly new - so where is the innovation? I think the innovation is restricted only to the patent trolling

You didn't answer my question. Answer it.

No I don't think it's easy, but the fact that it isn't easy overturn these ridiculous patents, but easy to get them is not a strength of the US patent system but a weakness.

I agree, but I've also seen a lot of what people claim is "prior art" not actually be prior art.

I think the patent system could use some work, but some people who advocate the abolishment of it altogether are going to extremes.

The pilot programs to help with things like sourcing prior art during patent submissions are helpful, I'd like to see more of that. I'm hopeful the string of litigation will help spark some political will.

I'm not really as cynical as others.

I'm sorry, are you not aware of the costs of a patent invalidation in US? Are you aware of the costs of acquiring a patent? A dud granted patent in US is a ridiculously powerful tool.

Watch the tech talk from an actual patent expert(linked above).

This is Samsung we're talking about. They're not exactly broke. I'm fully confident that unless their lawyers are incompetent, they would've pointed out any prior art they were made aware of. If some existed.

Prior art is a tricky thing in patent law.

Allowing abuse, so that unprincipled companies can get spurious patents to stifle competition. Competitors can then both be harmed by the application of spurious patents and the process of overturning them.

However, its not hard to see where this will go. When the developing economies are sufficiently important they will not tolerate paying an IP Tax to US companies for trivia like slide to unlock or making a rectangular phone with rounded corners. The US patent system will be rejected in total and then US companies that have generated real innovation by serious R&D will suffer, as will the American people and the West in general, but who cares if Apple can make a quick buck now - right?

Well, slide to unlock just sucks. Both Maemo and WP7 had this solved better. Google just dropped the ball here.

Unless you can quote your definition from a legitimate dictionary, anyone can make up their own definition of what is a patent troll.

Heck, I can say that your trolling of this patent issue makes you a patent troll.

Edited 2012-07-01 09:08 UTC

Now..?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovate

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=innovate&ie=UTF...


By your definition there is nothing innovative about Android. everything android has done has been done before.

Though it perhaps gets more complicated, with how Apple quite openly desires to prevent most people from having access at all to many tech advancements...
(Apple openly states their aim to target only the most profitable people; they also openly act, as you say, to block - not license or such - any supposed innovation they bring from being used by other manufacturers; getting those two facts to their logical synthesis...)

Well, looks like IT is now the mainstream, like cloth manuf. during industrial revolution, car industry, energy etc.

How do you all guys fell to be part of it?

Isn't there a growing mutuality with NK, too? (isn't it already something like "they're embarrassing, but they're a neighbour that must be taken into account" with PRC & NK?)