I think the end game for patents is upon us...

[Pliablemoose]

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...eliminary.html

Apple has brought a motion in the United States for a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, the official Android 4.0 ("Ice Cream Sandwich") lead device developed by Samsung in close cooperation with Google. A public redacted version of the filing, which was made on Thursday with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, became available late on Friday. I believe the court will rule on this motion within a matter of months.

The motion is based on four patents, which are the patent equivalent of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

the "data tapping" patent based on which the ITC ordered an import ban against HTC

a patent related to Siri and unified search, which must be of huge concern to Google with a view to its core business

a new slide-to-unlock patent that even had the head of the Taiwanese government profoundly worried

a word completion patent that provides major speed improvements for touchscreen text entry

Should be interesting.

[foghorn67]

I don't think I'll be reading foss for that.

[alent1234]

So Samsung only has to show they implemented their features in a different way with different algorithms than apple did

[postmortemIA]

pattens for solutions to common problems should be banned.

[swanysto]

Yay! Let's fatten the pockets of our poor lawyers.

[Phynaz]

Originally Posted by postmortemIA

pattens for solutions to common problems should be banned.

Why?

[podspi]

Algorithms should be patentable, general solutions to problems should not.

Ex: Text prediction should not be patentable. A specific algorithm for text prediction should.

Slide-to-unlock should not be something that is patentable, imho.

[soccerballtux]

Originally Posted by podspi

Algorithms should be patentable, general solutions to problems should not.

Ex: Text prediction should not be patentable. A specific algorithm for text prediction should.

Slide-to-unlock should not be something that is patentable, imho.

algorithms aren't patentable

[Bateluer]

Originally Posted by soccerballtux

algorithms aren't patentable

They seem to be.

Also, rectangles, specific colors, pictures(any) on a screen are patentable. So sayeth the Mighty Apple.

[Puddle Jumper]

I'm not sure if the other patents are as worthless as the slide to unlock one but at least in that case there is plenty of prior art available that should make it easy to have the patent invalidated.

If Apple is successful in this lawsuit I hope it pisses oiff enough people that way start to see some serious malware targeting OSX and iOS.

[Pliablemoose]

Originally Posted by Puddle Jumper

I'm not sure if the other patents are as worthless as the slide to unlock one but at least in that case there is plenty of prior art available that should make it easy to have the patent invalidated.

If Apple is successful in this lawsuit I hope it pisses oiff enough people that way start to see some serious malware targeting OSX and iOS.

Meh, don't hate the player, hate the game

The first patent has already been used successfully against HTC, it's likely a slam dunk, the others are new and unproven.

This one directly targets ICS and the GN, and asks for injunctive relief.

I do find it interesting that Apple has continued with the patent war since the passing of Jobs, I have had this sneaking suspicion that Cook made a deathbed promise to Jobs that he'd carry on the fight. Cook seems pragmatic enough to not push some of these patents, I think he's keeping his promise to a dying Steve Jobs. If that's the case we won't know about it for a long time.

[notposting]

I just think the most interesting aspect is that thus far Apple seems to have no interest in tangling with MS again...wonder if that will change if WP7/8 ever gets going. Even though things like the phone number or the text prediction could probably carry over.

[soccerballtux]

Originally Posted by Bateluer

They seem to be.

I know, but they're not patentable. What they're getting away with is a patent on a specific method of doing something. For example, 20 mathematical algorithms applied to music decoding would be patentable, but the cosign transform function itself wouldn't be. An ultra-efficient means of performing a transform might be patentable.

[Patranus]

Originally Posted by notposting

I just think the most interesting aspect is that thus far Apple seems to have no interest in tangling with MS again...wonder if that will change if WP7/8 ever gets going. Even though things like the phone number or the text prediction could probably carry over.

To be fair, I don't think that the CEO of MS was on their board of directors pillaging their intellectual property.

[Puddle Jumper]

Originally Posted by notposting

I just think the most interesting aspect is that thus far Apple seems to have no interest in tangling with MS again...wonder if that will change if WP7/8 ever gets going. Even though things like the phone number or the text prediction could probably carry over.

I don't think Apple will ever try this approach against Microsoft since it's not a fight they would be guaranteed to win. All Microsoft would need to do is find that Apple is infringing on a couple of key operating system related patents and they could completely destroy Apple's current sucess.

I do agree with Pliablemoose that it's interesting that Cook has continued this. I expected him to focus on going after Google by making better products rather than try to win in court.

[smartpatrol]

Originally Posted by notposting

I just think the most interesting aspect is that thus far Apple seems to have no interest in tangling with MS again...wonder if that will change if WP7/8 ever gets going. Even though things like the phone number or the text prediction could probably carry over.

It seems that MS has a very powerful patent portfolio. It's strong enough that nearly every Android OEM pays them protection money. They also offer indemnification to their handset partners, so Apple would have to sue MS themselves rather than the OEMs.

Apple going after MS would be mutually assured destruction.

[Pliablemoose]

Here's a write up by Apple Insider, (yes, they have an Apple bias, but they try to be objective) that sums up the case pretty clearly.

The thing it does is put MMI in the sights of the European anti trust folks, and they're getting pretty irritated with companies using FRAND patents to leverage cases.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_damages.html

[hans007]

i hope steve jobs feels warm in hell because this patent fight he started with all these ridiculous design patents just makes me angry in general.

[annomander]

Originally Posted by smartpatrol

It seems that MS has a very powerful patent portfolio. It's strong enough that nearly every Android OEM pays them protection money. They also offer indemnification to their handset partners, so Apple would have to sue MS themselves rather than the OEMs.

Apple going after MS would be mutually assured destruction.

Apple and Microsoft had a patent sharing pact in place.

[annomander]

Originally Posted by Bateluer

They seem to be.

Also, rectangles, specific colors, pictures(any) on a screen are patentable. So sayeth the Mighty Apple.

You know, repeating it time and time again doesn't make it right, its just as wrong as the first time you said it, but I think you know that already, just makes you look a bit daft.

[annomander]

Originally Posted by Puddle Jumper

I don't think Apple will ever try this approach against Microsoft since it's not a fight they would be guaranteed to win. All Microsoft would need to do is find that Apple is infringing on a couple of key operating system related patents and they could completely destroy Apple's current sucess.

Besides the agreement in placce, you don't think Apple has as many Operating system related patents as Microsoft.

[Rick James Astley]

Apple is doing this because xerox didn't, Apple is doing this because the pre 2007 mobile players didn't. Instead, touch screen interactions, accelerometer and countless other functions were left wide open for Apple to cherry pick and claim as their own.

Ultimately the consumers will suffer, even the ones approving of the patent war though they may not realize that just yet. Launching nukes at Asian OEM's, as appealing as it may be to some won't do the consumer any good.

[Puddle Jumper]

Originally Posted by annomander

Apple and Microsoft had a patent sharing pact in place.

If that is true I am amazed the EU or FTC hasn't nailed them for it since it's the definition of anti competitive behavior.

[Pliablemoose]

Originally Posted by Puddle Jumper

If that is true I am amazed the EU or FTC hasn't nailed them for it since it's the definition of anti competitive behavior.

It's called cross licensing, and it's the way technology patents work, there are a gazillion patents, if you want to use it, you license it or enter into a sharing agreement.

[Brian Stirling]

Originally Posted by Rick James Astley

Apple is doing this because xerox didn't, Apple is doing this because the pre 2007 mobile players didn't. Instead, touch screen interactions, accelerometer and countless other functions were left wide open for Apple to cherry pick and claim as their own.

Ultimately the consumers will suffer, even the ones approving of the patent war though they may not realize that just yet. Launching nukes at Asian OEM's, as appealing as it may be to some won't do the consumer any good.

Bingo!


Apple and M$ both borrowed heavily from Xerox and now that Apple is in the mobile space they want everyone else to get out or refrain from making smart phones and tablets. If Apple is successful at getting ownership of rounded rectangular slabs and the other patents designed to box in/out the competition we the customer will pay a heavy price.

But these legal wars worry me beyond the mobile space as this legal practice, if successful, could be taken up by many companies in many industries and that could cost us 100's of billions, even trillions and 10's or even 100's of millions of jobs.


Brian