Apple / Samsung Court Ruling

[JHBThree]

Can someone explain to me how Apple was able to patent "universal search"? Wouldn't Google's desktop search from 2004 constitute prior art? I'm not trying to knock Apple I'm just curious how this can be legal? Desktop search by google is essentially the same thing.

Apple applied for the patent before googles desktop search existed.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mzanette]

Apple applied for the patent before googles desktop search existed.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Ok but I used google desktop search as an example. Searching across multiple sources isn't something that apple invented nor should they be able to patent. There are fundamental things that computers do, searching is just one of them. There must be prior art involving searching of computer networks prior to apple filing its patent claim. It seems very silly to me.

 

[JHBThree]

Ok but I used google desktop search as an example. Searching across multiple sources isn't something that apple invented nor should they be able to patent. There are fundamental things that computers do, searching is just one of them. There must be prior art involving searching of computer networks prior to apple filing its patent claim. It seems very silly to me.

There isn't. Apples patent has very specific claims that no other patent or prior art invalidates.

Also, searching across multiple sources is a recent development. It is not, and has not, been a 'fundamental thing that a computer does'. Apple was the first company to integrate search into their OS in the way we know it, and predates Google desktop search.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ManBearPig618]

And you have no evidence that Apple is potentially infringing on anything related to LTE.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

Of course I don't. I haven't been inside a new iPhone, nor I do I know precisely how the LTE operates inside it.

But my point was never that Samsung was going to prevail on the merits. It was to rebut your assertion that Samsung would have filed a case by now if they were going to, which is simply factually incorrect.

 

[JHBThree]

Of course I don't. I haven't been inside a new iPhone, nor I do I know precisely how the LTE operates inside it.

But my point was never that Samsung was going to prevail on the merits. It was to rebut your assertion that Samsung would have filed a case by now if they were going to, which is simply factually incorrect.

No it isn't. The first question a court is going to ask is why Samsung didn't file against the LTE iPad, which uses the exact same LTE hardware the new iPhone will use.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mzanette]

There isn't. Apples patent has very specific claims that no other patent or prior art invalidates.

Also, searching across multiple sources is a recent development. It is not, and has not, been a 'fundamental thing that a computer does'. Apple was the first company to integrate search into their OS in the way we know it, and predates Google desktop search.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I'll take your word for it, but I read somewhere that google is challenging the validity of this patent, and I think they'll have a case here. This patent seems beyond silly.

 

[JHBThree]

I'll take your word for it, but I read somewhere that google is challenging the validity of this patent, and I think they'll have a case here. This patent seems beyond silly.

They don't have a case. Read the patent. Google is only challenging it because it has been used very effectively against android.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ManBearPig618]

No it isn't. The first question a court is going to ask is why Samsung didn't file against the LTE iPad, which uses the exact same LTE hardware the new iPhone will use.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

No, the court won't ask that. Samsung gets to choose whatever product it wants to sue on. The fact that they didn't file suit against the LTE iPad when it was released is irrelevant to the present matter.

Additionally, the statute of limitations hasn't expired, so Samsung could easily file a complaint including both the new iPhone and LTE-enabled iPad. Nice try though.

 

[JHBThree]

No, the court won't ask that. Samsung gets to choose whatever product it wants to sue on. The fact that they didn't file suit against the LTE iPad when it was released is irrelevant to the present matter.

Additionally, the statute of limitations hasn't expired, so Samsung could easily file a complaint including both the new iPhone and LTE-enabled iPad. Nice try though.

The court will certainly ask that. Of course Samsung can sue based on whatever products it wants, but they'll have to justify it in court since the iPhone will use the same hardware. The court will wonder why two different products using the same hardware are not being held to the same standard by Samsung, and Samsung will have difficulty answering that question.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ManBearPig618]

The court will certainly ask that. Of course Samsung can sue based on whatever products it wants, but they'll have to justify it in court since the iPhone will use the same hardware. The court will wonder why two different products using the same hardware are not being held to the same standard by Samsung, and Samsung will have difficulty answering that question.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

No, it's completely irrelevant. And as I already said, they are well within the statute of limitations so they can just add the iPad to the complaint if need be.

Samsung's not bringing suit thus far on the iPad isn't legally damning to any suit brought against the iPhone. That's just not the way it works. Trust me.

 

[JHBThree]

No, it's completely irrelevant. And as I already said, they are well within the statute of limitations so they can just add the iPad to the complaint if need be.

Samsung's not bringing suit thus far on the iPad isn't legally damning to any suit brought against the iPhone. That's just not the way it works. Trust me.

Yeah, I'm not going to trust you.

Given samsungs history of violating FRAND and their discriminatory licensing tactics with regards to apple, the very first question the court is going to want answered is why the iPad has not been targeted. And as I said, there is no answer Samsung can give that will end well for them.

 

[ManBearPig618]

Yeah, I'm not going to trust you.

Given samsungs history of violating FRAND and their discriminatory licensing tactics with regards to apple, the very first question the court is going to want answered is why the iPad has not been targeted. And as I said, there is no answer Samsung can give that will end well for them.

Their previous litigation history is completely irrelevant to the present issue. I can refer you to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence if for some reason this remains confusing to you.

They are within the statute of limitations. Try and understand this. They can add the iPad to the complaint if it becomes an issue. There is no legal principle that mandates you need to bring a claim as quickly as humanly possible or you forfeit the right to your day in court. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[JHBThree]

Their previous litigation history is completely irrelevant to the present issue. I can refer you to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence if for some reason this remains confusing to you.

They are within the statute of limitations. Try and understand this. They can add the iPad to the complaint if it becomes an issue. There is no legal principle that mandates you need to bring a claim as quickly as humanly possible or you forfeit the right to your day in court. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You misunderstand. The components between the two are identical. The court is going to want to know why, if the component infringes, samsung has not pursued it. The obvious answer is that it doesn't infringe, and samsung is targeting the iPhone for a specific reason.

Also, their litigation history is absolutely relevant, and was brought up in the case that just concluded for example. Samsung has been shown to violate FRAND and is under antitrust investigation for abusing their SEPs, and it is relevant to whether any case involving LTE is actually legitimate.

 

[ManBearPig618]

You misunderstand. The components between the two are identical. The court is going to want to know why, if the component infringes, samsung has not pursued it. The obvious answer is that it doesn't infringe, and samsung is targeting the iPhone for a specific reason.

Also, their litigation history is absolutely relevant, and was brought up in the case that just concluded for example. Samsung has been shown to violate FRAND and is under antitrust investigation for abusing their SEPs, and it is relevant to whether any case involving LTE is actually legitimate.

I don't misunderstand. If two products infringe on Comapny's patent (let's call them "A" and "B"), Company does not need to bring a claim against "A" in order to pursue against "B".

And even assuming, arguendo, that it did, Samsung is within the statute of limitations to be able to do so. Why aren't you getting this? They can still bring a claim against the iPad if whatever judge they are before happens to insist upon it's relevance. (which it isn't, because of the first paragraph). That isn't the way patent law, or any law for that matter, works.

And no, their litigation history isn't relevant to the merits of the case, and won't be admitted as substantive evidence. Some of it may be let in to impeach Samsung, but if so it will be accompanied by a limiting instruction. Sorry.

 

[JHBThree]

I don't misunderstand. If two products infringe on Comapny's patent (let's call them "A" and "B"), Company does not need to bring a claim against "A" in order to pursue against "B".

And even assuming, arguendo, that it did, Samsung is within the statute of limitations to be able to do so. Why aren't you getting this? They can still bring a claim against the iPad if whatever judge they are before happens to insist upon it's relevance. (which it isn't, because of the first paragraph). That isn't the way patent law, or any law for that matter, works.

And no, their litigation history isn't relevant to the merits of the case, and won't be admitted as substantive evidence. Some of it may be let in to impeach Samsung, but if so it will be accompanied by a limiting instruction. Sorry.

FYI, I wasn't referring specifically just to their litigation. I was also referring to ongoing antitrust investigations concerning samsungs conduct with regards to SEPs. The court would certainly be interested in the fact that Samsung has been abusing their patent portfolio to go after apple.


But, we're not going to change each others mind, so we might as well end is discussion. Its also irrelevant anyways, because Samsung isn't going to be suing apple over LTE.

 

[seriyb]

Apple is not scared of Samsung. Not in the slightest.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yep, that's exactly why they are all over Samsung and nobody else who "violates" (emphasis on quotes) their patents.

Apple basically wants all Samsung devices off the shelf. Not Moto, not HTC... Samsung.
Why? Because Samsung outsells them all.

Anyway, this conversation isn't going anywhere.

I'll just post this video once again because I find it very true and hypocritical
Steve Jobs: “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas” - The Next Web

 

[Ry]

Ok, I can kinda see why someone would agree with the latest Apple win and their request to ban Galaxy S2 (and the family). You say they look too much alike... ok.

So why go against Galaxy S3 and Note while not going against all other Android manufacturers? The patents Apple claims to have been "violated" have been "violated" by Motorola that you brought up and frankly by many others (swype to unlock is on every android).

'647 (Data detector)
'721 (Slide-to-unlock)
172 (Word completion)
'604 (Universal search)

I can tell you why. Because Apple is scared of Samsung. That's all it's about. This is not about seeking justice, it's about taming your competition.
Now please tell me this is not scummy.

I can see myself respect a company that is fighting hard (without discrimination) to defend its patents. But this is not even close.

Hopefully Samsung can "fix" this with minor SW changes to shut the F up Apple. Not even worth going to court over IMO. (Google already took care of the Universal Search it seems).

I posted that Apple isn't suing HTC and Motorola over trade-dress issues.

Last I heard, there were still open cases between Apple and HTC and between Apple and Motorola all over the world. I'm pretty sure trade-dress isn't a part of any of those cases.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[JHBThree]

Yep, that's exactly why they are all over Samsung and nobody else who "violates" (emphasis on quotes) their patents.

Apple basically wants all Samsung devices off the shelf. Not Moto, not HTC... Samsung.
Why? Because Samsung outsells them all.

Anyway, this conversation isn't going anywhere.

I'll just post this video once again because I find it very true and hypocritical
Steve Jobs: ?We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas? - The Next Web

...seriously? Apple has longstanding legal disputes with both HTC and Motorola over their android devices. They even managed to get an exclusion order against HTC for a whole raft of their devices that was enforced this past spring.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[seriyb]

Don't see these patents against Motorola. At least the Swype to unlock.
Not bothering to look up the rest.
In any case, Motorola is selling every device they make as far as i know. Samsung is under a heavy fire for a reason (biggest competition).

 

[Markster1]

Ok, i get it that Samsung has phones that look like iPhones but the one thing that was not mentioned was labeling.

You set the two phones side by side and while they may look similar one says Samsung, the other says Apple iPhone. How are you going to confuse the two?

We're not the idiots Apple insinuates we are!

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2