Apple levels its latest patent complaints at Samsung’s Galaxy S4

New motion suggests Samsung's version of Google Now is a Siri impostor.

Read the whole story

 

[cecilroytoo]

zeit37[/url]":1tt3w9mq]i have not bought an apple product in a couple of years and doubt i will anytime soon. I love my nexus 4 and love android 4.2

I'm so happy for you.

 

[fteoOpty64]

Apple's own attorneys are either incompetent or do not the legal responsibilities of the company. This looks like Apple being taken for a ride by external legal firms to fight such patents that they clearly CANNOT ever win. The term "heuristic algorithm" can mean a lot of things and is very general, It must be specific, once Apple attorneys decide on a specific legal mean, then Google can argue completely against that and win their argument by not using the same words at all. In stead of "ranking", they can use "relevance" or "indexed value", "weighted value counts", "statistical associativeness" etc etc.

Just go about reading this and since Apple's algorithms are way back 1984, the mathematics of the Google algoriths are 10K times more complex to the tune that it will spin the judge's head. He then has to concede that violation is out-of-the question. This is like comparing a horse carriage to a ferrari where the claim is both are "vehicles" used to carry people using forward motion. The plaintiff attorney will then argue that both said vehicles are powered by animals. One horses, then other feces of dead animals millions of years ago.

 

[Magic Man]

infernallexicon[/url]":14twrvn9]
I was even initially disappointed with my Samsung device because it lacks a search button, as I was a former Motorola user.

Press and hold the menu button (left button) or press and hold the main button and then use the Google now shortcut.

I have the grey Galaxy Note II from Sprint and when I opened the box and saw a white charging cable and white headphones with remote and mic, I thought, "Really, Samsung?" I don't know why they're trying to emulate Apple so much. They have so much more going for them.

They do make a white Note II as well - they just decided to do the cables in only one colour - and Apple doesn't own nor did it invent 'white'...

 

[Benneb]

Random question which ties into both this and the Tax thing from the other day:

Is the company doing the suing AOI? (Apple sommat Ireland)
I only ask as I swear I read the other day that the reason they don't pay much in the way of tax is their IP is held/owned by the Irish based company or something.

If that is the case, how are Apple able to sue for infrigement? Are the patents not part of the IP or are they being licensed to the Irish company?

I probably have this all completely wrong in my head; I do so love confusing the hell out of myself.

 

[Sodium]

At the minute there's nothing I'd love to do more than get all the heads of these businesses together that keep bringing these patent cases up and just clash their heads together and just tell them to just shut the fcuk up and get on with developing.

it would be less tedious than trying to reason with my five year old son. Because that's never a circular argument.

 

[PhoenixPath]

Apple, Samsung! You're both pretty!

Can we go now??

 

[tului]

Sodium[/url]":1avxrjrq]At the minute there's nothing I'd love to do more than get all the heads of these businesses together that keep bringing these patent cases up and just clash their heads together and just tell them to just shut the fcuk up and get on with developing.

it would be less tedious than trying to reason with my five year old son. Because that's never a circular argument.

I'd applaud a terrorist group killing CEOs and other executives of patent troll companies.

 

[brazuca]

infernallexicon[/url]":2p4hywe2]

brazuca[/url]":2p4hywe2]Man, what a Samsung love fest! One of the most corrupt companies on the planet (making oil companies look bad) is found guilty of infringing, which is exactly in one with its business model since it started in consumer tech (ask Sony), and people think that they are the good guys?

If someone stole something from you you would all go straight to court. But Apple cannot, because GOOGLE!

Apple has been vindicated. It proved that it was right. And now it thinks, and will get a chance to prove, that Samsung will never stop stealing.

You mean, the Apple that has billions of dollars in offshore subsidiaries that it's paying virtually no taxes on? The Apple that had some patents, such as the "rubber-band" effect, invalidated by the USPTO? This isn't about any particular fan or any particular company. This is about Apple hindering competition and basically resembling a patent troll.

Your straw men have what to do with Samsung infringing in valid, non SEP patents?

 

[tenoch]

Really Apple, really? Give it a rest already, the man that started this ridiculous war against Android is dead and buried let his egotisitcal crusade die as well. Use the money you are spending on lawyers and hire some engineers instead, the lifespan of these devices is so small you are best served by giving customers a better device than trying to litigate yourself into profits.

 

[Rabbiddog]

Apple can file as many lawsuits as it wants in attempts to stifle competition. It's not working. 10 Million S4s sold in a month. I'd say they're (Apple) just banging their heads against a very thick wall.

 

[soulsabr]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":zc2brhcu]Well, the Galaxy S4 does have rounded corners. Samsung should've known better.

I know, really? I wanted to be able to use my Galaxy S4 as a throwing weapon if I was ever in danger. I sure hope Apple wins and teaches them a lesson.

 

[kiddcodel]

Shudder[/url]"av65yns]

nibb[/url]"av65yns]

The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information.

they basically tried to patent thinking. There goes any chance of robots

Every technical website I visit with a discussion about patents has a thread like this. Often times one of the commenters merely reads the title of the patent or the first sentence or two and then passes judgement on it that it's "obvious" or that it "patents thinking" or other such nonsense. This is not the point of this section of the patent. This introduction is meant to give a broad overview of the subject matter of the patent.

If you keep reading, you will start to see context descriptions that narrow down the scope and focus of the patent, with diagrams to help explain exactly what they're talking about, and then finally towards the end, you will find the claims. The claims reference the descriptive part of the patent to provide a clear, concise view of what the patent actually claims.

Now, I haven't read this particular patent, but it is clear from your post that you haven't arrived at the claims section. Claims are numbered short sentences, each successive one refining the latter. And the claims are the part of the patent that has weight in court. A judge will never make a ruling based on the summary text at the beginning that you pasted.

I don't want to tell you what you should think about this patent, or about patents in general, but if you're going to make an argument about them in a public forum, you should look at the claims section.

 

[larsonjs]

It's time for a rewrite of our Patent laws. Apple has not only stopped innovating, they are now attempting to stop their competition from innovating. The Samsung GS4 is so far beyond anything Apple has ever produced that those involved with the case have to be covering their mouths to keep from laughing out loud. In fact, the GS3 is far beyond anything that Apple has produced. My great hope is that this will finally convince all the fanboys of the world that Apple is actually detrimental to the advancement of technology!

 

[john82]

I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

 

[AnthonyInVA]

According to Apple lawyers, the Google "Quick Search Box," and the later Google Now function, infringes two Apple patents.

The Cupertino company went on to say that Samsung's latest iterations of Google's operating system infringe upon two patents—numbers 8,086,604 and 6,847,959—in ways that satisfied a Federal Circuit's narrowed definitions of Apple's claims. Both the '604 and '959 patents deal with selectively presenting information from a search to suit the user's most relevant needs.

All I got from this was that software should not be patentable.

A quick search box infringes patents? Really?

 

[ArchimaX]

What a load of crapple.

The S4 is miles ahead of anything apple has to offer.

 

[bettercitizens]

HisDivineOrder[/url]":3q09bjpw]Too bad Apple thinks they invented everything. Perhaps they might innovate again if they stopped litigating so much...

Apple Computer, Inc. now Apple, Inc.did not invent everything... as everyone knows Al Gore, who sits on the Board of Directors of Apple, Inc; invented the Internet! ;-P

 

[bettercitizens]

ArchimaX[/url]":1ytit97v]What a load of crapple.

The S4 is miles ahead of anything apple has to offer.

Great! All the better for Apple, Inc. to copy, patent and then sue Samsung over! Keep innovating Samsung

 

[yoshipod]

siliconaddict[/url]":2n7mktjy]

yoshipod[/url]":2n7mktjy]

But I am sure you are fine with the fact that Microsoft goes around to every Android OEM and threatens to sue them unless they sign a license agreement. At least Apple discloses the patents they claim infringe. We have no idea what MS claims. They even got Foxconn to sign a license agreement and they just put the damn things together.

Many estimates put the revenue that MS generates from Android OEMs at over $1B per year.

Yah whatever. Microsoft hasn't been looking at trying to ban products. Apple hasn't been approaching companies with the intent on licensing. Per Steve "The Douche" Jobs's decree: they want to crush Android. That's the difference. MS wants to make money off Android. Apple wants to kill it.

Apple did offer to license some patents to Samsung and were turned down. Go check out the trial proceedings.

Apple's approach to IP is for others to make their own, MS is to license and get paid no matter what.

As to MS and banning products, go check out the spat with Google Maps in Germany. That could be banned due to MS patents.

I am not saying that Apple is right, just pointing out that all companies try and protect their IP. There are just different ways of doing it. So many just hate Apple for this, but seem to excuse other companies protecting their IP.

 

[bettercitizens]

john82[/url]":1h9to41h]I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

All of the comments that have been generated since Steve Jobs stated that he was going thermonuclear on the patents are meaningless. What matters is the basis of the arguments of Apple Inc. and Samsung in court. Apple did win the recent lawsuit and initially $1.05 Billion. However that was later reduced. As matter of fact my comments here are meaningless too - "all sound and fury signifying nothing..."

With the amount of money that both Apple, Inc. and Samsung generate they can afford to sue each other forever - and they probably will. Kinda reminds me of the Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" where the one guy was half black on the left side and half white on the right side and his nemesis was half white on the left side and half black on the right side. The guy who was half black on the right side at one point states to Kirk can you not see, Kirk shrugs, then he states something like but I'm half black on the right side. Kirk goes so what. Then the two guys go off to fight each other ad infinitum...kinda like Apple Inc. and Samsung!

 

[doppio]

 

[Vycia]

I don't understand all the "it's within the law, so there's no reason not to do it". Do folks really believe that companies should have no obligation to behave ethically?

At any rate, I remember reading Tim Cook regretted getting into those lawsuits, so I guess if that guy ever becomes CEO, things should get better.

 

[lemonickous]

nibb[/url]":3tdhuboi]Someone on this planet needs to put a stop to this. In particular to Apple which is abusing the patent system from left to right. I really hope allot of companies come together in a partnership and sue Apple for everything and make them an example to the world.

I'm secretly hoping that someone high up in Apple has this sly strategy that its Patent trolling will bring about Patent reform. I mean think about it, the public outcries of late against Apple's practices have been greater with each iteration, now that is only possible because Apple is a large company. Thousands of smaller patent trolls go unnoticed and unreported every year. Apple can afford the ire because of it's clever positioning in the market. It keeps making more and more blatantly humorous and joke-worthy patent claims by the year.

It's clear that Apple's secret intention is benign.


Right? :-(

 

[EatABanana]

john82[/url]":1vcd0oge]I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

This one just seems a little more silly. I tried reading the patents and didn't fully comprehend all the language but I got the general idea it tied to a search function. (any clarity would be greatly appreciated and will google myself on my lunch break) I don't really see what the endgame is when, like others have mentioned, product cycles are so short. I don't think labeling Samsung as an infringer damages their reputation but is counterproductive to Apple. They are seen as the agressor and are grouped in with unsavory patent litigators making headlines everyday.

Off topic, I've gotten a good chuckle reading some of the comments about tax dodging. That leads me to believe some people are reading headlines, not articles and are making misinformed comments. Yeah I know it's the internet.

 

[brazuca]

john82[/url]":27aslyw9]I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

Yeah. And Samsung were convicted and will have to pay a large sum.

Samsung and Google sue Apple using SEPs. Get smacked down at every turn, investigated for antitrust, etc.

The result of all that: Apple is the bad guy.

The Apple hate is really strong these days. Familiar territory for Apple, who enjoyed a few years of respite after the PC/Mac days.

 

[brazuca]

AnthonyInVA[/url]":3l3k2n2d]

According to Apple lawyers, the Google "Quick Search Box," and the later Google Now function, infringes two Apple patents.

The Cupertino company went on to say that Samsung's latest iterations of Google's operating system infringe upon two patents—numbers 8,086,604 and 6,847,959—in ways that satisfied a Federal Circuit's narrowed definitions of Apple's claims. Both the '604 and '959 patents deal with selectively presenting information from a search to suit the user's most relevant needs.

All I got from this was that software should not be patentable.

A quick search box infringes patents? Really?

*If the patent if valid*, than an infringing application of the patent should not be allowed without the permission of the patent holder.

A court can decide on validity and infringement claims.

What part of this do you disagree with?

 

[brazuca]

ArchimaX[/url]":3s1yoavw]What a load of crapple.

The S4 is miles ahead of anything apple has to offer.

ha! The S4 barely matches with Apple's 6 month old product.

Unless you count being able to watch your eyes and pause a movie. DON'T TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE SCREEN

 

[brazuca]

bettercitizens[/url]":6hfzd6p5]

HisDivineOrder[/url]":6hfzd6p5]Too bad Apple thinks they invented everything. Perhaps they might innovate again if they stopped litigating so much...

Apple Computer, Inc. now Apple, Inc.did not invent everything... as everyone knows Al Gore, who sits on the Board of Directors of Apple, Inc; invented the Internet! ;-P

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

 

[brazuca]

I like Ars, but this thread is phenomenally bad. What a train wreck. Looks like a Verge thread.

 

[brazuca]

bettercitizens[/url]":8dddln4h]

john82[/url]":8dddln4h]I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

All of the comments that have been generated since Steve Jobs stated that he was going thermonuclear on the patents are meaningless. What matters is the basis of the arguments of Apple Inc. and Samsung in court. Apple did win the recent lawsuit and initially $1.05 Billion. However that was later reduced.

Quick correction: it was not reduced. Some part of it was remanded for a new damages trial. The outcome will determine if the amount is reduced, maintained, or increased.

Regardless of the amount, the trial proved that Samsung infringed. That is beyond dispute.

 

[crhilton]

Psykhe[/url]":2182rim9]

crhilton[/url]":2182rim9]

Pubert[/url]":2182rim9]

HisDivineOrder[/url]":2182rim9]Too bad Apple thinks they invented everything. Perhaps they might innovate again if they stopped litigating so much...

Don't be so quick to dismiss.
I recall vividly the industry reaction when the first iPhone came out. Many players disbelieved what it was claimed to do. Specifically Nokia. For nearly 2 years the manufacturers were in chaos formulating a reaction plan.
Microsoft went comatose. Samsung decided to reverse engineer.

What did they reverse engineer? I can certainly see how Apple paved the way for Samsung to make a similar product. But it wasn't a technical revolution that needed reverse engineering. It was a PDA with a phone...

To be honest, the icons they use for their Android skin are rather (too) similar to Apples. However, that is more a case of trade dress than an actual patent.

That's just straight up copying, not reverse engineering.

 

[brazuca]

EatABanana[/url]":mpb8q1du]

john82[/url]":mpb8q1du]I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

This one just seems a little more silly. I tried reading the patents and didn't fully comprehend all the language but I got the general idea it tied to a search function. (any clarity would be greatly appreciated and will google myself on my lunch break) I don't really see what the endgame is when, like others have mentioned, product cycles are so short. I don't think labeling Samsung as an infringer damages their reputation but is counterproductive to Apple. They are seen as the agressor and are grouped in with unsavory patent litigators making headlines everyday.

Off topic, I've gotten a good chuckle reading some of the comments about tax dodging. That leads me to believe some people are reading headlines, not articles and are making misinformed comments. Yeah I know it's the internet.

The patents can be challenged, either with the PTO or at the courts. If the patents are ridiculous, all the easier they will be to be declared invalidated.

But if the patents are not invalid (yet?), why the hell should Apple not fight to keep its competitors from using its IP?

You invent something, your competitor copies it (again, repeatedly), and you would do what? Sit back?

 

[Mr. Stinky Pants]

lpeabody[/url]":mqf57f5y]

zeit37[/url]":mqf57f5y]i have not bought an apple product in a couple of years and doubt i will anytime soon. I love my nexus 4 and love android 4.2

What does that have to do with anything?

On a more serious note, I'm really tired of hearing about these patent lawsuits... Need software patent reform ASAP.

I think he might be implying that Apple's many patent lawsuits are beginning to leave many people with a negative opinion of Apple -- to the point where they won't even consider buying an Apple product in the future.

That's pretty much the case with me. I actually bought an Apple TV just prior to the big Apple/Samsung lawsuit and my many debates with Apple Supporters and Software and Design Patent Lovers on this forum has soured me greatly on Apple to the point that I regret buying that Apple TV. I actually haven't used it much (haven't watched even one show yet -- I just played around with the UI and played back some trailers). I originally bought it because I buy a lot of DVDs and Blu-rays and many now come with digital copies -- so I have a lot of digital copies on iTunes and an Apple TV was the only way to play them on my TV.

 

[fferitt25]

carlisimo[/url]":1o5dasih]I'm not opposed to defending patents in principle, but those patents look to me like they're either obvious and unprotectable, or that it'll be difficult to prove that Samsung (or Google) have used the same mechanisms and therefore violated the patent. But it's not my field, and I had a really hard time understanding the patent text.

An "obvious" patent ONLY looks obvious in retro-spect otherwise we'd all be talking about the obviousness well before the products ever came along - which we were not.

 

[Rookie_MIB]

OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. ENOUGH ALREADY.

If this situation isn't proof enough that software shouldn't be patentable I don't know what is.

 

[Ironicending]

I think the courts right now are just booking trial dates between Apple and Samsung in advance just knowing there will be more coming. All they will leave blank int he documentation is the specific patent number that is being addressed in the suit.

 

[bettercitizens]

Vycia[/url]":3cvevwvg]I don't understand all the "it's within the law, so there's no reason not to do it". Do folks really believe that companies should have no obligation to behave ethically?

At any rate, I remember reading Tim Cook regretted getting into those lawsuits, so I guess if that guy ever becomes CEO, things should get better.

1. Tim Cook IS the CEO of Apple, Inc.

2. Is it not ethical for a company to protect the Intellectual Property that it cost money to produce? It is unethical and further a breach of fiduciary duty to let others steal and use company produced IP and do nothing to protect it. Further it is not right for the shareholders if management would allow the IP of the company to be ripped off, IP that management spent money on and now would let be abused. Such management should be replaced, starting with the Board of Directors that allowed such management to abuse IP that cost the company money to produce.

3. Companies have a responsibility to behave ethically, although not all do.

4. Although unrelated Mr. Cook testified that he would not repatriate any of Apple, Inc's. 100 Billion + back to the US at the current 35% tax rate. It would have been unethical for Mr. Cook to give over such a large amount of money to the US Treasury when other means are available, such as the 17 Billion bond offering at 2%, to accomplish the purposes of the company. The spread between the current 35% tax rate and the 2% Apple, Inc. can borrow at shows that the repatriation tax would need to be reduced to a low single digit in order to entice any company to repatriate their overseas post-tax earnings. Besides if Mr. Cook were to repatriate at 35% and the Board agreed their heads would roll - the investors would consider such an action unethical and it may be a breach of fiduciary duty.

 

[poadi]

Magic Man[/url]":3q6f3x1f]Apple doesn't own nor did it invent 'white'...

...but I'm pretty sure they have a patent on it somewhere...

 

[bettercitizens]

Rookie_MIB[/url]":1gszuuo1]OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. ENOUGH ALREADY.

What does this have to do with you, or I, or even God?

Apple, Inc. is well within their right to assert their patents and protect their IP. So is Samsung. Motorola, Google, etc. As matter of fact these cases happen all the time it is just because it is Apple, Inc. that it generates a lot of sensationalism.

Interestingly we do not see Apple and Microsoft going after each other because they cross-licensed their IP many years ago.

I wonder what people would say if the current Apple, Inc. was like the old Apple Computer, Inc. weak and going after Microsoft in the "look & feel" case over Windows, which Apple ultimately lost. If Apple, Inc. were weak and the underdog TODAY would the comments be different?

Finally this does not currently affect the products on the market in the US - you can buy a Nexus 4, a Galaxy S4 or an iPhone 5 TODAY, without restriction. You have to pay more for these devices because of the patents that are already licensed, such as the cost of the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor amortizing the cost to develop the IP and the cost of the license when the chip is bought, etc.

 

[bettercitizens]

brazuca[/url]":3mz8uz3z]

bettercitizens[/url]":3mz8uz3z]

john82[/url]":3mz8uz3z]I feel like the general reader opinion has shifted from apple fanboyism to reason, based on most of these comments. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think when apple vs samsung law suite first reared its ugly head more people were saying shame on samsung for copying apple.

All of the comments that have been generated since Steve Jobs stated that he was going thermonuclear on the patents are meaningless. What matters is the basis of the arguments of Apple Inc. and Samsung in court. Apple did win the recent lawsuit and initially $1.05 Billion. However that was later reduced.

Quick correction: it was not reduced. Some part of it was remanded for a new damages trial. The outcome will determine if the amount is reduced, maintained, or increased.

Regardless of the amount, the trial proved that Samsung infringed. That is beyond dispute.

Thanks for the correction - good point!