Courtroom wars between Samsung and Apple

[amirm]

Likely one day will get settled with a cross license but until then a bunch of positioning here and there....

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383964,00.asp

Samsung this week countersued Apple for infringing on five patents relating to wireless networking technology.

In total, Samsung filed suits in three separate courts: in the Seoul Central District Court in Korea citing five patent infringements; in a Tokyo, Japan court citing two patent infringements; and in Manheim, Germany citing three patent infringements.

"Samsung is responding actively to the legal action taken against us in order to protect our intellectual property and to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communications business," a spokeswoman said via email.

Infringements cited in the filings include: HSPA telecommunications technology for transmission optimization and reduction of power usage during data transmission; WCDMA telecommunications technology for reducing date transmission errors; and technology for tethering a mobile phone to a PC to enable the PC to utilize the phone's wireless data connection, Samsung said.

The lawsuits come several days after Apple sued Samsung for copying the look and feel of its iPhone and iPad with its Galaxy S line of smartphones and tablets, among other devices.

"Instead of pursuing independent product development, Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple's innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple's intellectual property rights," according to Apple's suit, which was filed in a California district court.

Specifically, Apple said Samsung infringes upon its patents via the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Vibrant, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Indulge, Mesmerize, Showcase, Fascinate, Nexus S, Gem, Transform, Intercept, and Acclaim smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Tab tablet.

"Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products," Apple said. "The copying is so pervasive that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products."

Samsung, not surprisingly, disagreed. "Samsung's development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success," the company said in a statement earlier this week.

For more, see PCMag mobile analyst Sascha Segan's take on this topic in Apple's Sloppy, Fearful Samsung Lawsuit: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383820,00.asp

 

[Orb]

Quite shocking that Apple are allowed to patent the look-size-feel of the ipad, imagine if this had happened with televisions, front doors ,laptops, certain mobile phones, etc; the list is pretty large.

Anyway, looks like Apple has succeeded locking out competitors delivering a slimline small form factor tablet, will be interesting to see where this goes from here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/.../Vodafone-suspends-Galaxy-Tab-10.1-sales.html

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quite shocking that Apple are allowed to patent the look-size-feel of the ipad, imagine if this had happened with televisions, front doors ,laptops, certain mobile phones, etc; the list is pretty large.[

It will be shocking if the outcome is that Apple is given exclusive rights to the size/shape/concept of a "pad," but that outcome is almost impossible to imagine. If, however, they are protected from others creating products that could easily be mistaken for an iPad (Samsung's smartphone's look compared to an iPhone comes to mind), or if they are protected from other companies copying their user interface (the gesture system, automatic portrait/landscape shifting, one-button scrolling through modes etc.), that won't be shocking at all. That will be intellectual property laws doing exactly what they were created for.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Given the "half- life" of computers they'll be obsolete before this winds its way through the courts. Sounds like someone is just "firing a shot across the bow."

 

[Orb]

Yeah Tim,
but it seems your fine ignoring all examples of incredibly similar laptops,TVs such as modern plasma-LCDs, and importantly mobile phones before the iphone and the original company never seeked injuctions due to similar looks - it can be very difficult to tell some of the modern mobiles apart due to the form factor and style consumers want.
No-one locked out each other for using same form factor or style, and from what I understand the buttons are not in the same position between Samsung Galaxy and ipad (going by other's comments), nor is the OS based on same as Apples.
As I said there are many other examples out there, and Apple should not be one to be allowed to get away with it.

I think the link shows there are equal enough differences between these two products as there has been in the past for those other products I mentioned; it cannot be confused with an ipad.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/samsung-galaxy-tab-vs-apple-ipad/

Here is Steve Jobs summary on those like Galaxy, no mention about conflicting with ipad and in fact mentioning the size difference to be a benefit for the ipad as the Galaxy is too small in his opinion.
http://macdailynews.com/2010/10/18/...ing_us_android_is_a_fragmented_mess_7-inch_t/
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As I said there are many other examples out there, and Apple should not be one to be allowed to get away with it.

I'm basing my assumption on the Samsung phone, which could easily be mistaken for an iPhone and is as much a copy as the "Rolex" on the arm of a street vendor (yes, I exagerate for effect). I'm also wondering aloud if any of these competitors are copying Apple's gesture interface, which is unique, highly evolved and is protectable intellectual property if I've ever seen any. It is at the very heart of what defines the iPad as a device and Apple as a company.

If none of the above applies in this case and nothing here deserves to be protected, hopefully Apple won't get away with it. But if they do, they won't be alone. A pretty strong argument can be made that Windows was far too close to Apple's user interface at the time, and that MS should have been paying Apple royalties all these years. Obviously, that argument lost in court.

Tim

 

[amirm]

If none of the above applies in this case and nothing here deserves to be protected, hopefully Apple won't get away with it. But if they do, they won't be alone. A pretty strong argument can be made that Windows was far too close to Apple's user interface at the time, and that MS should have been paying Apple royalties all these years. Obviously, that argument lost in court.

Tim

If I recall correctly, that was a copyright claim on behalf of Apple, not patent. Proving copyright violation is a very different animal than patents.

 

[Orb]

Ah, but this case is talking about the Samsung Galaxy, which is being blocked by Apple for infringing the ipad.
And yes there was the case of the Microsoft interface, but ironically the patent originated from Xerox even before Apple, I think it was Xerox but anyway they both copied another developed interface.
Touch interfaces will always be tricky as there is only so much ergonomic functionality you can apply, so there will always be overlap; as seen with various mobile phones and apple just took earlier mobile concepts to another stage.

But that said, lets see how this unfolds, because if the Apple case is upheld I think we are going to see a nasty fight from the various manufacturers and developers using similar tactics to protect their own sale avenues and delay competition.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

If I recall correctly, that was a copyright claim on behalf of Apple, not patent. Proving copyright violation is a very different animal than patents.

Just to add as my earlier post was at same time as Amir so did not see his.
I think there has been some leniency to Apple in the past and still continuing.
Just did a quick check on the Xerox patent that came up in the original Apple-Microsoft fight and quoting Wiki, which I normally do not like to use, but I remember now Apple did also have to pay financial compensation;

The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent- protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."[1] In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's.[2] The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's, since the latter licensed it to the former back in 1979 for pre-IPO stock.[3] Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994,[1] and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Actual Xerox complaint: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3538913398421433687&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
The loser out of all of this was Xerox, and if the same recent rules were applied back then as now in the Samsung case, this would had been a serious blow for both Microsoft and Apple.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ah, but this case is talking about the Samsung Galaxy, which is being blocked by Apple for infringing the ipad.
And yes there was the case of the Microsoft interface, but ironically the patent originated from Xerox even before Apple, I think it was Xerox but anyway they both copied another developed interface.

Good historical knowledge, but you missed a key point: 1) Apple entered into a joint venture with Xerox and paid for the right to use the mouse/windows interface in consumer products.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Tim it is much more complex than that.
The court case ignored the actual infringement to the gui.
It was never a joint venture relating to that and had been developed before Apple even considered theirs.
What was forced on Apple was to provide financial compensation, when if using today's rules Xerox would had Apple blocked from using the GUI they did.
As part of the case here is the quote of one aspect of Xerox patent/copyright:

Another Xerox research project, Star, was developed at PARC in the late 1970s. Star included a mouse-driven computer that was allegedly the first to introduce fanciful visual displays and graphical images to aid user interaction with the computer. Star was first published by Xerox on April 27, 1981 and since then has contained a notice of copyright. Xerox applied for copyright registration of the Star 8010 Professional Workstation program on April 28, 1986, and was granted Registration No. TX 2-428-306. This program was never licensed to Apple.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

I appreciate we are digressing by focusing more now on an historical event, so last link that shows a nice historical-legal development relating to Xerox Star (again wiki bah);
It shows how Xerox were limited on what they could apply for on the patent forcing copyright, and how they then lost out on a technicality when suing Apple as it was outside the 3 year period, truly Xerox were the ones shafted IMO and Apple had a lucky break.
Ironically it was Apple back then playing hardball (in trying to block Microsoft) as they are again now with Samsung.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I appreciate we are digressing by focusing more now on an historical event, so last link that shows a nice historical-legal development relating to Xerox Star (again wiki bah);
It shows how Xerox were limited on what they could apply for on the patent forcing copyright, and how they then lost out on a technicality when suing Apple as it was outside the 3 year period, truly Xerox were the ones shafted IMO and Apple had a lucky break.
Ironically it was Apple back then playing hardball (in trying to block Microsoft) as they are again now with Samsung.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star

Cheers
Orb

Curses! Out-Googled again!

Tim

 

[amirm]

Good historical knowledge, but you missed a key point: 1) Apple entered into a joint venture with Xerox and paid for the right to use the mouse/windows interface in consumer products.

Tim

As did Microsoft with Apple. Apple disputed that it didn't extent to follow on revisions but the original contract did give Microsoft a license to use.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As did Microsoft with Apple. Apple disputed that it didn't extent to follow on revisions but the original contract did give Microsoft a license to use.

Never knew that.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Curses! Out-Googled again!

Tim

It helps that I remember a fair bit of the case when it happened, and from a technology development perspective.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Well,
the German court has lifted its earlier decision for a blanket wide European injunction and now only applies to Germany, while it reviews if there is a case for an injunction even in Germany.
The funny part of all of this is that somehow Apple presented the Samsung aspect ratio wrongly and so it made it seem Samsung were using a very similar look to the ipad, in reality one could be described as landscape while the other is portrait, and further compounded that Samsung were not informed of the injunction or made aware of the court case to defend themselves.
One may think Apple did this error deliberately along with Samsung being kept in the dark
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/369340/updated-judge-did-see-tablets-in-samsung-patent-case

However the judge did say he had a visual of both products, makes me wonder though if they had power, as Apple presented the two images where one is the incorrect Samsung (and that is being generous as it is missing a fair bit from the actual Samsung including the logo), correct Samsung is the top right image in link.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Update that Apple bid to ban Galaxy rejected in US court.
Samsung up after Apple's bid to ban Galaxy rejected.

The U.S. court ruling deprived the iPhone and iPad maker of crucial leverage in a global patent battle between the two companies, and paved the way for Samsung to sustain its strong smarpthone sales momentum

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/uk-samsung-shares-idUKTRE7B401A20111205

Cheers
Orb