Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Aug 2011 13:58 UTC
Legal Breaking news from my swamp home country The Netherlands: the Dutch court has just banned the sales of all Galaxy S, SII and Ace smartphones in the entire European Union. The judge has ruled that Android 2.x violates Apple's 868 patent which covers scrolling through photos on a touchscreen. Only this one patent is violated - the complaints about two other patents as well as the design patents has been thrown out. In other words, the judge did not agree with Apple that Samsung is copying Apple's design. The injunction only covers the Galaxy smartphones, since they run Android 2.x; Android 3.0 does not violate the patent in question, and hence, sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 can continue. In fact, only the Gallery application violates the patent in question, and Samsung has already stated it is going to replace this application on all new Galaxy smartphones from now on - sales won't even be interrupted. In other words - two patents thrown out, design stuff rejected, and only one patent complaint upheld which will cause no harm to Samsung. Apple just scored a meaningless victory. The Dutch court order is here. The pictures speak thousands of words.
Thread beginning with comment 486627
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No worries!
by Tony Swash on Wed 24th Aug 2011 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No worries!"
Tony Swash
Member since:

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.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: No worries!
by some1 on Thu 25th Aug 2011 00:15 in reply to "RE[3]: No worries!"
some1 Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No worries!
by przemo_li on Thu 25th Aug 2011 21:04 in reply to "RE[3]: No worries!"
przemo_li Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1