• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Apple files request to block gnex sales

Thai said:
Here is a good look at the suit: Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet

An interesting comment:

"Regardless, Abramsky believes that Apple will "continue its barrage of patent litigation," and may use feedback from the court to file even stronger motions for preliminary injunctions against Android devices in the future."

If true, then this kinda explains what Apple has been doing. Basically, the early suits were to test the water and get feedback. The big and major suits are coming soon.

The above suit and this one (Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal) will be interesting to watch.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything pointing to this lawsuit being the strongest yet, other than this one analyst's opinion. The article doesn't give any analysis of the actual technical aspects involved in the patents, to allow the reader to vet his statements. The technical analysis I have seen so far seems to indicate that at least two are non-starters, because Google voice actions were implemented prior to Siri, and so the patent will be held invalid, and the slide to unlock was previously found invalid in europe because it was implemented by nokia prior to the patent being granted, and most likely will be the same here.
 
Thai said:
Here is a good look at the suit: Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet

An interesting comment:

"Regardless, Abramsky believes that Apple will "continue its barrage of patent litigation," and may use feedback from the court to file even stronger motions for preliminary injunctions against Android devices in the future."

If true, then this kinda explains what Apple has been doing. Basically, the early suits were to test the water and get feedback. The big and major suits are coming soon.

The above suit and this one (Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal) will be interesting to watch.
Click to expand...
That article doesn't particularly point out anything other than speculation on Apple's strategy. Apple may be walking into a legal/PR "fork" here (they will have to choose to maintain either public image or legal standing). If they maintain this case, they have to show that they have been and stand to have "real" (monetary/property) damages- impacts from the current and future sales of Galaxy Nexus devices (and only this device, the motion is not against Android or any other device) have to be of sufficient or expectedly sufficient volume to be hurting their market share- admitting that this is a real competitor to and likely to eclipse their product (branding loss by implying a better trajectory/product) at the supposed expense of their IP. Conversely, if this moves forward and they maintain that stance but their claims of the Galaxy Nexus' trajectory don't pan out, they lose their standing (not actually being that hurt by it) and look a little foolish (like they don't already).

Then there is still the issue that these patents are for software elements that are not proprietary- I am not sure Samsung is the one that can be sued here. These elements are part of the AOSP code, right? And as such are not owned by any one company (Samsung), so are they suing them because they chose to use a free and available option? This would be like Microsoft suing Dell because it put Linux on some of its computers, some parts of which have over-lapping functionality with Microsoft products, and so caused Microsoft to lose market share. I wish the court filing was available for the perusing, just to see what claims they are using for standing and the rational for naming Samsung as the defendant.
 
Actual wording of the slide to unlock patent:

"A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture. In addition, there is a need for sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that is required for the transition to occur."

I read somewhere that this concept was invented by Apple.
 
Thai said:
Actual wording of the slide to unlock patent:

"A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture. In addition, there is a need for sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that is required for the transition to occur."

I read somewhere that this concept was invented by Apple.
Click to expand...

A Dutch court ruled an earlier Apple patent on the slide to unlock gesture was invalid because of prior art. Apple repackaged it and re-applied, and that is the one you see here (notice they specify "image"). However it is most likely that it will be ruled invalid just like the first one, as by the time Apple resubmitted the patent it was already in common use.

This just goes to show how incredibly stupid the patent system in the US is. They automatically grant patents and let the judges decide what is valid or not, meanwhile lawyers make a killing off the fees. THe slide to unlock patent is just one more in a long line of patents that should never have been granted in the first place.
 
Thai said:
I read somewhere that this concept was invented by Apple.
Click to expand...
The Dutch didn't think so. And I don't have it anymore but my iPAQ PDA from Compaq way back in the day (~2002) had an unlock option in which you draw a pattern on the screen with the stylus, which would violate that vague patent Apple was granted. In fact, they didn't even invent the layout/arrangement of the icons on the iOS home screen, or the use of "touch" to activate them- that was all Xerox (whom Apple had licenses from) and Palm.
 
binary visions said:
Jeez, guys, you know - I totally get the difficulty in moderating and determining what goes where. But a thread can take a natural course of discussion. It started with a directly-Nexus-related topic.

Threads are going to progress between related subjects. If we spent another 30 posts talking about garage door openers, okay, I'd say it's definitely a Lounge thread. In this case, though, we're talking about subjects related to the Nexus lawsuit. They may not be on that specific lawsuit, but they are around it.

Just my $0.02. Half the threads in any forum would have to get moved to the Lounge if a rabid policy of only discussion around the topical device were allowed.
Click to expand...

Very fair points.

Should a natural progression occur, we would not be stepping in.

In this case, the thread was the target of a hijacking with impolite hyperbole, subject now on probation for making a habit of it, and so we didn't see that as a natural thread progression.

Thanks for your understanding of this unique case in our moderation, let's return to where we were.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personally, I think that the HTC sales downturn last year correlated to an Apple legal attack, and their turnaround corresponded to a settlement.

I think that Apple wants a lot of press here to hurt Nexus sales and by extension, all Samsung and Android.
 
EarlyMon said:
Personally, I think that the HTC sales downturn last year correlated to an Apple legal attack, and their turnaround corresponded to a settlement.

I think that Apple wants a lot of press here to hurt Nexus sales and by extension, all Samsung and Android.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but the few conversations I have had with people, including some apple fans, they are more annoyed with Apple at the constant lawsuits, than the fact that Samsung, or HTC, or anyone else copied Apple. Maybe its because we are in aviation, and what happened to the Wright Bros is well known to us, but we all agree the lawsuits need to stop, and will once Apple stops, since most of the Samsung, HTC, and Moto ones are just countersuits.

I wonder if Apple attacking the GNex is going to induce Google to finally get involved as a primary party. This is their baby after all.
 
AntimonyER said:
I wonder if Apple attacking the GNex is going to induce Google to finally get involved as a primary party. This is their baby after all.
Click to expand...
I can't decide if that is Apple's ultimate goal (it sure as heck seems like it), but Google really can't step in unless a lawsuit deals with their proprietary parts of the OS (the "gapps" package). The rest of Android is open domain (other than the carrier's proprietary bits relating to the radios, especially CDMA). This is also partially the reason Apple can't sue Google directly, none of the gapps can be seen to infringe upon anything of Apple's, and those are the only parts Google (as owner) is liable for. The other reason is because the elements that could be seen to maybe infringe Apple's patents are in the AOSP, part of the OHA (not Google, although Google is Android's lead developer, maintainer, and curator), which is protected by some licenses and by nature because software patents are generally unclear (the patent system was developed for physical, tangible products).
I am still trying to get Apple's legal argument here, is it that Samsung chose to use possibly (if found to be the same) patented elements- implying ownership of the choice, not the software? But Samsung did not develop these elements, and they should be protected aspects of Android under copyleft agreements (provided Samsung shares their source code within a reasonable time frame). Imagine a Pepsi sales rep suing you [as a soft drink vendor] because you fill your own cup with Coca-Cola, not Pepsi- [because Pepsi refuses to license with you], hurting his sales. That is essentially the situation here, Apple needs to sue the OHA or AOSP (which I don't think they can, or they would have).
 
Google swings new mobile unlock patent punch at Apple ? The Register

From the article:

Google filed the patent back in August 6, 2010, 11 days before Apple was awarded the slide-to-unlock patent on 17 August 2010 which has caused so many lawsuits in the past 18 months. The uniqueness of Google's new unlock idea comes from bundling the unlock command with a second command to launch an application. To open the device, the user might drag an icon (say email) over the unlock button and simultaneously unlock the phone while firing up their email account.
Click to expand...

The example quoted sure seems very similar to how the ICS lockscreen on the GNexus (and HTC's Sense 3.x lockscreen) work.....
 
Slug said:
Google swings new mobile unlock patent punch at Apple ? The Register

From the article:



The example quoted sure seems very similar to how the ICS lockscreen on the GNexus (and HTC's Sense 3.x lockscreen) work.....
Click to expand...
Very true, opening to Camera is certainly activating an application. [isn't the Launcher technically an application- making ALL unlocks falling under Google's patent?- in Android at least, not sure how Blackberry/WP7/iOS "homes" work) Food for thought, isn't there an option in iOS 5 for unlocking to the camera?
 
After digesting this a little more- this is a defensive measure, Google won't pursue it against anyone.
Keep in mind my points above about the Open Source licensing, with ownership of this patent I look for Google take ownership of elements of Android (making it proprietary bit-by-bit, as patents are granted) and license the use of those functions back to the OHA AOSP. This would mean that Google can use its legal weight to protect Android bit-by-bit, as it comes under attack.

That fight I said won't happen above might just be coming after all...
 
Thai said:
Here is a good look at the suit: Apple's latest patent suit against Samsung seen as its strongest case yet

An interesting comment:

"Regardless, Abramsky believes that Apple will "continue its barrage of patent litigation," and may use feedback from the court to file even stronger motions for preliminary injunctions against Android devices in the future."

If true, then this kinda explains what Apple has been doing. Basically, the early suits were to test the water and get feedback. The big and major suits are coming soon.

The above suit and this one (Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal) will be interesting to watch.
Click to expand...

to me its more like... they're suing for everything.. and one of these days 1 of em will convince judge in their favor.
apple has tons of cash compare to other smartphone manufacturers, and basically they dont want their competitors to grow in anyway possible.

Apple Forces Pegatron to Stop Making ASUS Zenbooks - Softpedia

like this..
forcing sub contractor to stop making rival's product ROFL..
apple amuses me with those kind of acts than their products nowadays.
 
Thai said:
Link: FOSS Patents: Last week's Apple-Samsung lawsuit involves eight patents, 17 products -- bid for Nexus ban is based on only a subset

And it looks like Apple is winning the slide-to-unlock suit so far, at least against Moto: Apple Secures Win Against Motorola Over 'Slide-to-Unlock' Patent | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

None of us are patent experts nor do we know enough about the technology involved to claim to be an expert...but it is clear that Apple has some truth to their claims....
Click to expand...

This isn't clear at all. The only thing that's clear is that we need tort reform as these companies keep suing the hell out of each other all over the globe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom