Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the history-repeating dept.

Apple 490

walterbyrd writes "Apple Inc has asked a federal court in California to block Samsung Electronics Co Ltd from selling its new Galaxy Nexus smartphones, alleging patent violations. In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products. Those include the ability to unlock phones by sliding an image and to search for information by voice."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmmm (4, Insightful)

Tmann72 (2473512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019221)

These kinds of software patents are patently bogus.

Re:hmmm (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019459)

Let me slip on my patent penny loafers, This is going to be a long and bumpy ride.

Re:hmmm (4, Insightful)

JDAustin (468180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019705)

It's not that they are bogus but that there is substantial prior art for each of them that wasn't given to the patent office.

Re:hmmm (4, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019783)

Or...it was given but never looked at because the USPTO is buried with applications that they can't possibly devote the required resources to properly vet.

Re:hmmm (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019795)

It's not that they are bogus but that there is substantial prior art for each of them that wasn't given to the patent office.

Talking to computers may have cropped up in sci-fi once or twice. Possibly before we actually even had computers.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019227)

Jar-Jar Binks shot first!

Voice Search (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019229)

....has been on Android long before it was on iOS. I guess we know Apple is going to use their warchest to be anti-competitive.

Yay software patents.

No slide to unlock? Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.

Re:Voice Search (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019385)

No slide to unlock? Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.

Finally a use for that "embed an Arduino in womens clothing" idea that just won't go away and has mostly been used to implement flashing lights...

Re:Voice Search (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019543)

Let them keep it up. They're just building a case for patent misuse - the B&N case will be a simple how-to sue for patent misuse to be used on Apple.

Re:Voice Search (4, Insightful)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019665)

Yup. Now all the fanboys see Apple for what they are.

I just laugh at all the comments over the years. Every time Apple applies and gets a new patent, every Apple lover replies with "b-but but but they'll never use them! And they're probably doing it to protect themselves!" or some other lame excuse.

Well now the answer is clear. And they're worse than even SCO or Microsoft. At least they just wanted a cut of the money. Not Apple. They want to hinder one of the most useful and important things that benefit people today.

Though what is interesting is, *for Apple to do this*, must mean that they are scared. Very scared. Can't compete with inferior tech, so let's litigate. They wouldn't do this if they were confident that its product really is superior, and really is "magical."

Re:Voice Search (3, Informative)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019867)

whats even funnier is that Siri is just Wolfram alpha with a screen reader.

Re:Voice Search (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39020031)

Yup. Now all the fanboys see Apple for what they are.

If only that were true.

You need to remember that it's the fanboys that defended Apple's idiotic "look and feel" patent based on rounded fucking corners and square icons. They'll defend this just as insipidly.

They wouldn't see Apple for what they are if Zombie Steve Jobs came back to fuck them in the eye.

Re:Voice Search (4, Funny)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019815)

... Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.

Yeah, Lotsa prior art there. I could send you some.

Yawn. (4, Insightful)

piripiri (1476949) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019245)

This is starting to become childish.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019337)

Starting?
Apple has been 'childish' since they started giving away machines to schools. The constant back and forth of patents is old news. It was old when Apple and M$ were suing each other over who violated their GUI look and feel... that they both 'borrowed' from Xerox!!!

Re:Yawn. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019631)

Apple asked Xerox if they could make a GUI based on theirs, because Xerox were too dumb to realize what they had. They thought only commercial computers required a GUI.

And Microsoft simply copied the GUI from Apple without asking, i.e. the standard "Microsoft Innovation" pattern.

Re:Yawn. (2, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39020035)

Actually Apple hired Microsoft to help program the GUI. Microsoft in turn agreed not to create their own GUI OS and we all know how that turned out. But in case there are some who don't...Apple sued Microsoft over Windows and lost, and lost, and lost, and lost but never quite suing until it looked like they were going to win and so in 1997 Microsoft bought $150 Million non-voting Apple shares and promised to keep making MAC Office for at least 5 more years.

I find it interesting that Steve Jobs ultimately became very much like the image of the oppressor he created in the MAC 1984 commercial.

Trash Can Icon (3, Informative)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019841)

I remember when Amiga and Atari both came out with machines based on the Motorolla 68000 processer (the same as the first mac). I owned an Atari ST during that time. Apple sued Atari over the TOS desktop, specifically they were mad about the Trash Can icon (among other things).

Then there were the emulators. Since they shared the same processor it was only a matter of time before someone wrote an emulator to let Mac run on Atari. "Gadgets by Small" was hounded by Apple's lawyers when they published Spectre 128 and Magic Sac. The ST ran 68000 Mac software with very little impact in performance.

Re:Yawn. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019355)

This is long ago starting to become childish.

FTFY

Re:Yawn. (5, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019441)

You havent seen anything yet

Wait till Apple finds out that Samsung phones "allow people to communicate via text and voice"

Re:Yawn. (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019565)

Apple and Samsung are both overpriced but while they fight it out LG are quietly bringing out some really good cheap and cheerful phones with all the bells and whistles at much better prices.
http://www.lg.com/uk/mobile-phones/all-lg-phones/all-lg-phones.jsp [lg.com]

Re:Yawn. (3, Funny)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019651)

I prefer my mobile communication devices to be surly.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019729)

I prefer my mobile communication devices to be surly.

Gone are the good ole days when your satellite phone was a briefcase.

Facepalm (5, Insightful)

NF6X (725054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019255)

I like my Apple products, but this endless pissing match between them and Samsung doesn't endear them to me.

Re:Facepalm (3, Informative)

Truedat (2545458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019633)

I like my Apple products, but this endless pissing match between them and Samsung doesn't endear them to me.

The alternative is that they and similar companies silently cooperate with each other with practices like price fixing, cross licensing of patents and behaviour befitting a cartel.

So on balance I prefer it when these companies engage in a fight to the death, no one else is powerful enough to keep them honest.

Re:Facepalm (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019737)

No. The alternative is that they win the market BY BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT.

You're the perfect example of what's wrong with the current state of corrupt corporate culture. Actually competing on merit is something that isn't even considered.

Re:Facepalm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019781)

>> No. The alternative is that they win the market BY BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT.

Uh.. Have you seen Apple's sales figures? They've done exactly that. What, you think these lawsuits have had any effect on their market share?

Re:Facepalm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019757)

This. Thats exactly how the free market should work, and does work. Samsung and Apple can be at each others throats all they want. So far it's only been a benefit to consumers.

Re:Facepalm (2)

iapetus (24050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019769)

I'd prefer them to fight to the death on the quality of their products, not shitty overstretched patents that don't do the end user any good.

Apple, however, have clearly decided they're not capable of doing that any more.

Re:Facepalm (5, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39020007)

The alternative is that they and similar companies silently cooperate with each other with practices like price fixing, cross licensing of patents and behaviour befitting a cartel.

Cross-licensing of patents is actually a good thing, and something everybody in the cell phone market (except Qualcomm) was already doing for decades before Apple decided to enter the market. Price fixing, bad. But using ridiculous patents like "sliding an image to unlock the screen" is worse. They want to drive the competition out of business, and when they realized that they can't do that on the actual merit of their product, they have decided to resort to litigation. When they finally do establish the monopoly they seem to want, gods help us all.

The amusing part of it is that Samsung has a very large number of patents they can bring to bear against Apple, if they really wanted to go for a full on trade war. Samsung is trying to cooperate with them, but when they finally do realize what Apple's game is... how long do you suppose Apple could last if Samsung and LG decided to stop selling them LCD's? For anything, including their desktop and laptop computers. You do realize there's only two companies producing anything approaching a significant number of LCD panels in the world today, and that everybody else is just reselling either a Samsung or an LG panel?

It has pretty much stopped me from buying Apple (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019789)

I don't what it will take for you, but Apple has no allure for me anymore. I have had their products for many years and still have three in house, but I am done with buying their products going forward.

Fortunately Samsung just announced a Android 4 tablet coming in March, seven inch form factor which the Kindle Fire convinced we was best, so I may just be able to ditch that iPad.

This certainly ain't a property of Apple post Steve, they started down this road before he died and after reading quotes attributed to him I am quite sure this direction came from him too.

Blame Apple 100% (5, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019823)

Please do not blame Samsung, that is just not fair. If a guy gets mugged in an ally, and tries to fight back, do you blame the victim or the mugger? Apple is the mugger.

Actually... (3, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019869)

Actually, I hope that this results in an all-out patent war between the big players. Right now, they have little incentive to pour money into lobbying Congress to change the patent system because they're all benefiting from it. As long as they all don't sue each other and only pick on little guys, why would they want to upset the status quo?

However, if the mutual assured destruction scenario actually plays out and they all start suing the crap out of each other, only then would they finally realize that buying tens of thousands of patents as a defensive measure against getting sued is not an acceptable solution to the patent problem. Ultimately, the answer is that software/business process patents need to permanently go away. That can only happen when they stop spending so much on lawyers building, defending, and in some cases, using as weapons their patent portfolios and start actually making meaningful changes in the system.

Yes, they'd have more competition. Yes, that means that sometimes, competitors might mercilessly steal some of your clever ideas. But it also means that instead of spending billions of dollars on lawyers, you can now redirect that money towards research and development to blow competitors away with awesome products (thus gaining brand and product loyalty) instead of trying to blow them away in a courtroom (which is nothing but a colossal waste of time and money).

Searching by voice? (5, Funny)

nitsew (991812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019279)

That has been going on since the advent of language. Walk into a crowded room... "HAS ANYONE SEEN MY KEYS?!?"

Nothing new... :)

Re:Searching by voice? (2)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019465)

Maybe they got a patent on searching *by* the keys instead of searching for the keys. People these days are crazy.

More to follow? (5, Interesting)

jamesl (106902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019283)

This will become interesting only when Apple files suit against Microsoft (one if Apple's largest shareholders) for searching for information by voice -- a long time feature of Windows phones.

Re:More to follow? (4, Informative)

bkaul01 (619795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019415)

Even setting aside Apple having been last-to-market with voice search, don't Apple and Microsoft already have patent cross-licensing agreements in place? I'm pretty sure there are a number of Microsoft patents they'd rely on every bit as much as Microsoft might rely on theirs. Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.

Re:More to follow? (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019519)

apple has been making phones since what 2007? samsung/windows/rim/ pretty much everyone else in the game has been making phones since the 90s? moto in the 80s? I remember a phone I had in the late 90s I could do voice search on.

I am almost forgetting about sony being evil with every new lawsuit out of apple.

Re:More to follow? (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019555)

Even setting aside Apple having been last-to-market with voice search, don't Apple and Microsoft already have patent cross-licensing agreements in place? I'm pretty sure there are a number of Microsoft patents they'd rely on every bit as much as Microsoft might rely on theirs. Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.

Yup, which is why you don't see that happening with MSFT, and why you don't see Android licensing patents between MSFT and the companies that also sell PCs *and* have IP MSFT needs -- because they agreements are already there. Its just the newcomers that needed them. And like any patent licensing agreement, the dollar price is usually directly proportional to the IP imbalance between the two parties. I'd bet AAPL and MSFT very nearly wipe their hands in that arena.

Re:More to follow? (5, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019653)

Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.

Lax attitude towards patents? SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE PATENTED. Google just happens to be on the right side of that issue. Software is authored works and hence should be protected by copyright which it already is. Just like books and movies and music. So do you have a lax attitude towards the patenting of book story concepts? Or are you in favor or patenting the concept of a love story or wars in space or whatever. Lets just say the concept of wars in space was patented so no one could write a book about wars in space regardless of the content. Would you be lax about those patents? or would you support and cheer for them? Do you write software? would you like your code to become subject to trivial patents that claim wholesale ownership of your code?

Re:More to follow? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019895)

+1 insightful

Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019467)

Microsoft is one of Apple's largest shareholders? Are you talking about the stock they bought in the 90's? Because even then, they weren't one of the largest stockholders, and they sold that stock ages ago. I bet they wish they'd kept it now.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019759)

Ars technica reported, "All told, Microsoft spent a little over $151 million to acquire 18.2 million shares of Apple stock, for roughly $8.31 per share. Microsoft confirmed that it sold all of its AAPL holdings some time ago, and likely did so at a healthy profitâ"after all, AAPL has traded significantly higher than $8 for many years. But what if Microsoft had held on to that investment just a little longer?"
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019941)

Microsoft has bought $150 million of non-voting Apple stock in 1997 (which was about a 2% share of Apple back then), but they sold it a few years later. It would be $4.5 billion worth today:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft.ars
Microsoft was never among the largest shareholders of Apple, yet I keep hearing that BS since 15 years.

Re:More to follow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019533)

MS doesn't own any apple stock. Though like everyone else I bet they wish they did.

Re:More to follow? (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019731)

They won't. They know while Google may take it, MS will bury them into the ground in court. MS would probably at the end of the day prevent them from ever selling the iPhone at all. There goes 2/3 of Apple's future revenues.

Though maybe MS or other vendors should. Apple attempt is going to threaten the very core of the mobile future and make no mistake will prevent you from getting a Google or MS or any other smartphone. They're taking away competition and choice.

Re:More to follow? (2)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019749)

Except that the same agreement that you're alluding to with your mention of being Apple's largest shareholders (which, by the way, they are not), also included a cross-licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft, in order to make the QuickTime lawsuit go away.

Microsoft sold those shares long ago, at a nice profit.

Search via voice is something..... (4, Insightful)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019291)

That google has had for a long time, and they had search by image. Please apple try and infringe on this. I hope google sue you into oblivion.

Re:Search via voice is something..... (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019677)

Well as sofware-patents are rubbish Google is right now to file for patents on crap like this so they can't sue Apple.

Re:Search via voice is something..... (1)

Truedat (2545458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019859)

That google has had for a long time, and they had search by image. Please apple try and infringe on this. I hope google sue you into oblivion.

An alternative viewpoint is those companies that aren't actively engaged in patent litigation are instead involved in cross licensing agreements. BTW I find it hard to believe that there is a third category where the patent holder simply sits on their patents with no attempt to monetise them, although i have no evidence for this.

And isn't it the case that to join in this ecosystem of patent cross licensing you have to already be a big player with a large stake to put in the game? If that's true then I would say this silent cooperation is a bigger validation of a corrupt patent system than the legal dogfights that we are witnessing.

Apple vs Samsung. (3, Insightful)

jimpop (27817) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019307)

Apple is an outsourcing manufacturer of niche products. Samsung is a global innovator AND manufacturer.

Yay! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019311)

Go apple!

Missing: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019327)

Where is that innovation company we all learned to love (or hate) for the great products they make?

Re:Missing: (0)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019405)

Buried with Jobs, along with those awesome keynotes. Damn shame, but at least my stock is still climbing.

Re:Missing: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019643)

and the turtle necks, dont forget the poor turtle necks.

"search for information by voice" - telephone? (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019329)

"search for information by voice"?!

Telephones do that. We had automatic, electronic voices answering questions more than five years ago.

They were as stupid as Steve Jobs and Siri combined and either stood no Turing test at all.

Inevitable? (2)

accessbob (962147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019377)

As other manufacturers catch up and begin to take serious market-share from Apple, they'll fight back like the cornered animal they are.

It's not like Apple has the vision and single-mindedness of Steve Jobs to fall back on any more.

Apple, please just help stop the Patent Insanity (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019379)

In the end, this only benefits lawyers and kills future innovation.

I don't see how Apple is benefitting long-term from this mentality and cultural mindset. It's a shortterm win at best and then a death by a thousand cuts as any of it's own innovations will be dealt with the same way by other companies.

I don't particularly blame Apple for this, but they certainly could afford a few lobbyists to turn this crap system around.

They can't stop the insanity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019495)

Mod me down to a Higgs Boson, but Apple's lawyers have advised them as to a simple truth: If you don't zealously defend your intellectual property, you lose it. The system is hopelessly broken and needs to be fixed by the world's governments.

Re:They can't stop the insanity (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019627)

Most of the property they're "defending" is not really theirs.

Apple is using junk patents to abuse the system (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019883)

Apple is using Tonya Harding tactics, just like MS routinely does. Apple is abusing the system because Apple does not want to compete in a fair market.

These junk patents, and junk lawsuits, have nothing to do with Apple defending any real IP.

Re:They can't stop the insanity (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019893)

This isn't how patents work. You are confusing them with trademark law.

BS (5, Insightful)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019409)

Apple should of never been allowed to get that patient! I would say the ability to unlock a phone through touch motion is active public domain knowledge and should fall outside the requirement for filing a patient. I think it's time for some major change in the US patient office. Technically Apple can now block EVERY single touch screen phone on the market and being developed. They have been allowed to secure a monopoly in a growing field, how on earth it that fair? Whats next is Apple going to patient toilet paper and go to court with everyone who goes to the bathroom?

Re:BS (0)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019701)

What the hell is a "patient" in this context?

At Apple's lawyers know how to choose their words correctly.

Re:BS (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019863)

Sorry I meant patent

Whats this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019417)

No Bonch post the exact second the article is posted thats 3 pages long on how Samsung had it coming?

Re:Whats this? (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019745)

Yeah I was surprised at that myself. Maybe he's busy working some other forum and blogs.

bad first sentence (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019447)

What is up with the first sentence of TFA?

"In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products."

I think it's supposed to be saying "patents OF underling features THAT customers expect"... But this seems to imply that the reason that the patents are valid is because customers expect Apple to have the features that these patents cover, which is not a basis for a patent, and certainly not the basis for a patent infringement claim.

I am very, very frustrated with the state of tech reporting regarding patents, and the tortured English and tortured understanding of the nature of the suit even in the very first sentence of this article just makes it worse.

Re:bad first sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019981)

It looks to me like the writer thought "underlying" could be used as a verb.

Ars puts the story in some more context... (5, Informative)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019475)

Re:Ars puts the story in some more context... (2)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019657)

Interesting bit from FOSS Patents:

In light of all this, my personal feelings about preliminary injunction motions have changed from "negative" to "neutral", and my view of their tactical suitability has changed from "overly ambitious" to "apparently necessary". Apple needs to get leverage, especially in the United States, but also in other jurisdictions, before it comes under too much pressure due to some companies' FRAND abuse. (Again, without the things that happened during those past eight days, I would also have reacted differently to this week's motion).

HAL ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019477)

HAL 9000 ?

Didn't ork in the Netherlands, let's try CA? (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019485)

The Slide-to-unlock patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7657849.PN.&OS=PN/7657849&RS=PN/7657849 [uspto.gov]

It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.

Re:Didn't ork in the Netherlands, let's try CA? (2)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019797)

Are you sure that it was this patent that was ruled invalid? The patent that you've linked to seems to describe the use of a visual metaphor to implement the slide-to-unlock feature (like this one: http://css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/slidetounlock.png [css-tricks.com] ). The Neonode is similar, but doesn't have that - see this video review from 4 mins in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0 [youtube.com] .

I'll say it! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019491)

Hey Apple, Fuck You!

Not a valid legal argument, but it's the patent system. Not sure any of it is valid.

I wanna feel the heat with somebody... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019503)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com] [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power. "

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
-- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com] [imdb.com]

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man.'' -- Mel Gibson (from an interview)

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, CIA Director

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

We now return you Americans to your media, corporate, government sponsored and controlled (rigged) elections..

Most of you are all so asleep it's time you woke up!

Apple is anticompetitive at its core. (0, Flamebait)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019507)

This is purely anticompetitive on Apple's part. What is so despicable is that Apple relies on the IP of others. They built their current business on the backs of BSD developers/open source software. Those same developers are now at risk from getting SUED by apple over software patents. The hypocrisy of this company is astounding. They are trying to remove open source from the marketplace. They want to own all code. Its pathetic really. You write some code on your computer that is completely different from anything Apple has written. Your code becomes successful then here comes Apple trying to sue you out of the marketplace. Its incredible despicable and wholly egregious. Will I ever recommend another Apple product after seeing these practices? NO. I fully expect them to sue ANY linux distribution if it ever gets any decent marketshare. Both Microsoft and Apple HATE open source and this is their way to kill it. Will it work? who knows.

Re:Apple is anticompetitive at its core. (4, Informative)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019817)

Wow. What a nicely incoherent collection of rambling.

Patents may be "anti-competitive", but that's exactly what they are supposed to be! Thanks for the non sequitur.

It is not despicable that Apple relies (uses) the IP of others. No one creates in a vacuum. They publish the source code for all the Open Source code they use; even the BSD code. They do not (knowingly) violate software licenses. They purchased CUPS, and yet they still make their changes public. They are doing absolutely nothing to remove OS from the marketplace. Your ramblings about Apple's software strategy is completely nonsensical, and is not based in reality.

There is nothing what-so-ever to recommend about your post other than that it's a great essay for the entrance exam of your nearest Bigots-Are-Us club.

Re:Apple is anticompetitive at its core. (2)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019931)

Except that all of the mentioned patents are bull**** it is even worse that Android had voice search 1-2 years before Apple. Same goes for slide to unlock, a dutch court just threw apple out of the court after Samsung showed prior art regarding slide to unlock. What apple here simply does is landgrabbing and then suing people left and right and sometimes even people who have contracts with the original landowners.

GIMME A BREAK ALREADY! (4, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019509)

I am long time apple user. I love their OS, their software, and they way they implement those things on elegant hardware. I will probably always be a mac (and linux) user. (disclaimer: I use an android).

But all I can say anymore to mainly apple and a lesser extent other manufactures is:

Give me a fucking break already! Aim for cooperation and interoperability. Those two things would benefit end users on both sides more than spending billions on squabbling! All of these endless back and forth lawsuits is ruining both the mac and android experience for me. I know I'm kinda rambling but I'm getting to a tipping point. Looking forward to WebOS this September.

Re:GIMME A BREAK ALREADY! (1)

broseidon (2537346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019913)

Mod parent up. I was actually curious to see how people who prefer Apple are reacting to the overwhelming amount of lawsuits being filed, as I'm typically vendor neutral and just buy whatever suits my needs/wants. It's relieving to see all types of users getting annoyed by this.

Re:GIMME A BREAK ALREADY! (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019993)

All of these endless back and forth lawsuits

That makes it sound like both sides are to blame, which is far from the truth. Apple was hammering Android makers with bogus lawsuits long before Android makers even started to defend themselves.

This is 100% Apple's fault. Make no mistake about that. You cannot blame for mugging victim for trying to fight back against the mugger. And Apple is the mugger, you can be sure of that.

prior art... also obvious. (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019515)

"Search for information by voice"? Prior art: 411

Not to mention, of course, that the concept of making any sort of vocal request and having it acknowledged and responded to in a comprehensible fashion is entirely obvious, even if the exact implementation of how to get a computer to do it is not.

Re:prior art... also obvious. (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019851)

...even if the exact implementation of how to get a computer to do it is not.

That's exactly what would make it patentable. Patents (used to) protect specific implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.

Modern patent law and software patents are a whole 'nother question.

Re:prior art... also obvious. (1)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019947)

I'm not having a pop, because the linked article is poor and the summary worse, but it's not that simple. I believe this is the patent that is referred to and it's not even talking about voice, it's related to the search aspect of Siri: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604 [uspto.gov]

As the saying goes... (3, Insightful)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019547)

...
If you can't innovate
litigate!

Poor kitten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019579)

A kitten dies every time Apple sues Samsung!

Remember a Time... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019629)

... When tech companies actually sold products consumers wanted, instead of suing each other over the common features of said products?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Re:Remember a Time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019661)

Apple seems quite capable of both based on last quarter's (and the past few year's) profits.

Re:Remember a Time... (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019801)

the way it worked in the past is the US pioneers some new tech and the asians "steal" it with cheap copies, patent theft or idiocy on the part of US corporate management. back in the 80's by the time US companies won patent battles for consumer electronics they lost the market

apple, MS and google learned from the past. i like it that a US company rules consumer electronics and is keeping the asians from stealing their market

Re:Remember a Time... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39020029)

What state is Foxconn located in?

Apple is in the right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019645)

We may not completely understand Apples position.
Apple is a great company and they provide quality products.
I'm OK with the phone in my hand being a product of slaves. Successful nations and people groups (ie. companies) have been using cheap human labor for a very long time. How else do you expect companies to make a profit.
If apple is filing a claim then they have a good reason, after all they invented the smart phone, so everything it could possibly do is copyright by them.

Fixed headline. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019655)

(Cr)Apple Launches Another Illegal Attack On Samsung. There, fixed the headline for ya!

I guess this is what happens when you cannot competer on features, price, or quality, you try to use bogus patents and bogus litigation to stop your competitors who have vastly superior competing products fron wiping the floor with you (business wise).

It seems that even some (Cr)apple fanbois are seeing how bogus these attacks on Samsung are!

Die (Cr)apple Die!!

Hmmm Can Apple sue Bell? (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019807)

Can Apple sue Bell laboratories- the earliest phones were voice operated for searches.

"Operator, can you connect me to Oswaldina McWeaney in Memphis Tennessee please?"

- incidentally I wonder if any operator was named Siri?

The voice search is hilarious (2)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 2 years ago | (#39019879)

given that Android has had voice search for more than two years now (introduced i think in 2.0 or so) and Winmobile had it also for 7 or more years.
When will this patent madness finally end?

Attack vs defense bias (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39019917)

Not to be picky, but the title shows a clear bias. If there is such a thing as intellectual property, then this action is self-defense, not attack. In that case the title should read: Apples attempts to defend against Samsung with lawsuit.

Now, if intellectual property is illegitimate, inconsistent and arbitrary law which should be repealed (as I think), then Apple's action is indeed an attack. All patenting is trolling and should not exist in a society which respects individuals and property, and doesn't tolerate aggression.

Scaring off customers (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39020013)

I've been waiting a while for data plans to no longer cost extra (or at least minimal extra) before buying a smart phone.

Yes, I'm going to be a late adopter- but at one point I was fairly neutral in the whole Apple/Android debate. I wasn't keen on Apple's "everything goes through us" approach- but I was aware that Apple was, at least nominally, more sound. I had planned to research heavily prior to buying- but until then, take a hands-off approach.

I must say, whilst taking a back seat view with my pop-corn, I've been put off by apple. I was once a potential customer but their legal shenanigans have made it very unlikely (not impossible but unlikely) I would consider them when I finally do take the plunge and get a smartphone. In fact- despite previously being apple-neutral, this has put me off buying ANY of their products in the future. I don't want my hard-earned money going towards some lawsuit to squish innovation.

I wonder if I am an "odd one out" or if I represent a larger portion of society. At what point do their legal games drive away more customers than they gain by throwing out competitors from the ring? The consumer doesn't win; Samsung doesn't win; I'm not sure Apple wins- at the end of the day there are a lot of happy lawyers but everyone else misses out.

To be fair, just like the Foxconn scandals- Apple is not the only one to blame so I (and the public) are probably a little unfair- but Apple are the most prominent. Everyone sues everyone it seems- but Apple seems to be going "above and beyond". Is it because they are just more letigious- or because they have more resources to pay countless lawyers?

Either way- each lawsuit makes it less likely I will buy from them- and probably puts more people in the anti-apple camp. Even if they are the best- if they turn everyone towards the "anti-apple" castra; they will eventually marginalise themselves.

modZ do1wn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39020015)

and, 47ter initial
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?