Legal Archive

Samsung’s iPhone-to-Galaxy SI comparison

"The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?

A visual guide to Apple’s IP claims

"Comparing Samsung's flagship products before and after release of the iPhone & iPad, and how Apple's intellectual property infringement claims hold up." A terrible visual guide that ignores not only Samsung's own pre-iPhone designs, but also - and worse yet - the thirty-odd years of mobile computing that preceded the iPhone. Typical of today's technology world: a complete and utter lack of historical sense. Worse yet are the claims about icons: only the phone icon is similar, but Apple did not invent the green phone icon. This is a remnant of virtually all earlier phones which use a green phone icon for initiate/answer call, and a red phone icon for terminate/reject call. Claiming this deserves IP protection is beyond ridiculous, and shows just how low Apple is willing to go.

How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android

Groklaw nails it: "In other words, want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.

Minecraft creator sued by Uniloc serial litigator

"Mojang is one of ten companies, including Electronic Arts, GameLoft and Square Enix, that have been named in the lawsuit. The patent that Uniloc claims Mojang and others are using without permission describes a way to check that a person wanting to play a game has the right to do so. If not, that person is locked out of the game. In its court papers, Uniloc says the version of Minecraft for Android mobile phones violates its patented technology. Throughout the court papers, Uniloc misspells the name of the hugely popular game as 'Mindcraft'." Markus Persson, known as Notch, has this to say: "Software patents are plain evil. Innovation within software is basically free, and it's growing incredibly rapid. Patents only slow it down." Notch added that he will throw piles of money at this case to make sure the trolls don't get a cent.

The Apple-Samsung trial: what Samsung will attempt to prove

Samsung's filings in one of the cases with Apple (I lost track because I have a life) are actually pretty cool. "Samsung has been researching and developing mobile telecommunications technology since at least as early as 1991 and invented much of the technology for today's smartphones. Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology." Another gem: "Contrary to the image it has cultivated in the popular press, Apple has admitted in internal documents that its strength is not in developing new technologies first, but in successfully commercializing them."

Apple must notify on its website Samsung didn’t copy the iPad

"A judge in Britain is forcing Apple to publicly acknowledge that Samsung didn't copy the iPad, according to a report by Bloomberg. A judge has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in British newspapers highlighting a recent ruling that Samsung didn't copy the iPad. Apple must leave that notice up on its website for the next six months." Apple can still appeal this decision, but I'm hoping it'll be denied. This is just too hilarious not to go through.

Judge blasts colleagues for allowing financial patent

"The nation's top patent court has stopped a lower court from throwing out four patents on financial software, used to sue a bank dealing in foreign currency exchanges. The controversial opinion, countered by a blistering dissent by one member of the three-judge panel, shows that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is in disarray about just what is patentable. An 'abstract idea' can't win a patent, but the judges on the court are in disagreement about just what that is." It seems that US judges are getting more and more vocal about the US Patent Mess. Interesting.

Why there are too many patents in America

Judge Richard Posner, who dismissed the lawsuit between Apple and Motorola, posits his solutions to the dysfunctional patent system. "There are a variety of measures that could be taken to alleviate the problems I've described. They include: reducing the patent term for inventors in industries that do not have the peculiar characteristics of pharmaceuticals that I described; instituting a system of compulsory licensing of patented inventions; eliminating court trials including jury trials in patent cases by expanding the authority and procedures of the Patent and Trademark Office to make it the trier of patent cases, subject to limited appellate review in the courts; forbidding patent trolling by requiring the patentee to produce the patented invention within a specified period, or lose the patent; and (what is beginning) provide special training for federal judges who volunteer to preside over patent litigation." I like this guy.

ACTA revived through Canada-EU trade agreement

"While the court referral has attracted the lion share of attention, my weekly technology law column reports that there is an alternate secret strategy in which Canada plays a key role. According to recently leaked documents, the EU plans to use the Canada - EU Trade Agreement, which is nearing its final stages of negotiation, as a backdoor mechanism to implement the ACTA provisions. The CETA IP chapter has already attracted attention due to EU pharmaceutical patent demands that could add billions to provincial health care costs, but the bigger story may be that the same chapter features a near word-for-word replica of ACTA." Democracy? Bah humbug!

IP law: undemocratic, totalitarian, and unethical

Yesterday, we were treated to another preliminary injunction on a product due to patent trolling. Over the past few years, some companies have resorted to patent trolling instead of competing on merit, using frivolous and obvious software and design patents to block competitors - even though this obviously shouldn't be legal. The fact that this is, in fact, legal, is baffling, and up until a few months ago, a regular topic here on OSNews. At some point - I stopped reporting on the matter. The reason for this is simple: I realised that intellectual property law exists outside of regular democratic processes and is, in fact, wholly and utterly totalitarian. What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?

Patent troll gets injuction on Galaxy Nexus

I stopped following all the patent trolling in the mobile industry months ago because, you know, I have a life, but apparently some big ruling just got handed down in the United States: using three software patents, a patent troll from Cupertino has been given an injunction on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, imposing a ban on the device. This patent trolling has to stop, blah, blah, we've all been here before. If you need me, I'll be over there on the sofa remembering the good old days when Cupertino was famous for great products, instead of infamous for its patent troll.

Apple patents laptop wedge shape

So, the next venue of patent trolling has just been opened. Apple has patented - quite specifically - the wedge shape of the MacBook Air. Not the general design or impression, no - just the wedge shape. This is interesting, because that wedge shape? Hit prior art in 3.2 seconds: the Vaio x505 from 2004. A wedge-shaped, superthin (for its day) laptop - exactly what Apple's design patent claims the company has invented.

The Oracle v. Google aftermath

"The Oracle v. Google patent and copyright trial is over, resulting in definitive wins for Google on both fronts. Ars interviewed two Google attorneys - general counsel Kent Walker, and litigation counsel Renny Hwang - asking for their sense of what the case could mean beyond its effects on the companies themselves." Would love to get Oracle's input on the matter (insert schadenfreude-tastic snicker).