
Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus - jtsai256
http://www.slashgear.com/apple-granted-preliminary-sales-ban-of-galaxy-nexus-29236534/
======
jellicle
>According to Judge Koh, “Apple has articulated a plausible theory of
irreparable harm” in its argument against Samsung and the Galaxy Nexus,
because of “long-term loss of market share” along with “losses of downstream
sales.”

This is not what "irreparable harm" used to mean. Apple's lawyers are
celebrating tonight.

EDIT: If I plan to kill a cat, and you file a lawsuit to stop me, the judge
may issue an injunction for me not to kill the cat until the lawsuit is
complete. Humanity does not know how to unkill a cat, so if I did so while the
lawsuit was pending, I would make the lawsuit moot and evade justice. That is
"irreparable harm", at least if it's your cat.

On the other hand, if my actions are causing you mere monetary harm, we know
exactly how to repair that: take money from me and give it to you. Injunctions
should not be issued in such cases, because the plaintiff can always be made
whole later on by simply receiving an appropriate amount of money.

Apple has managed to have a bogus patent issued - the patent, as far as I can
tell, covers any sort of "search-as-you-type" system. Any sort. The Firefox
awesome bar, Android search (every Android device that exists), Google
Instant, any webpage with javascript autocomplete... you're all violating
Apple's patent. And if Apple can find judges as friendly as Ms. Koh, all of
these products can be taken off the market indefinitely.

And now they're grabbing up that stick and going to town with it.

~~~
mythz
It is irreparable harm considering they can't get back the monopoly/leading
market-share effect at this very young stage of the tablet market.

i.e. Sales and profits now is a lot more important than Sales and Money later.

~~~
FaceKicker
Doesn't that just mean _more_ money though? I'd agree that the analysis of the
damages would get pretty fuzzy at best if you're trying to account for such
factors, but it's still ultimately just a loss of money.

~~~
flatline3
That's the problem -- how do you calculate the lifetime value of that? It's
not just lost sales, it's a substantial shift in the position of a huge
corporation.

Here's another example -- Imagine how different things _could_ be today if the
AT&T lawsuits hadn't temporarily paralyzed the BSDs just as Linux was also
emerging.

I can't even begin to quantify the cost of what _could_ have happened if the
lawsuit hadn't been filed by AT&T.

~~~
shurane
Can you tell some more detail about this AT&T lawsuit against BSD?

~~~
flatline3
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi>

This stalled BSD development/adoption for 2 years while the legal status was
in question.

------
creamyhorror
I am absolutely going to persuade my mother to switch to an Android in a few
months' time. And then recommend it to every friend of mine who's upgrading
their phone, mentioning in passing that Apple has actually gotten Galaxy
Nexuses and Tabs blocked in the US. I'm glad Android is actually good enough
at this stage for me to do this.

The '604 search patent is a big hot mess of ideas thrown together to cover all
sorts of "maybe-this-maybe-that" use cases and potential improvements. It
basically means having a unified search system that relies upon "search
heuristics" for multiple domains. Like the other allegedly infringing patents
in the case, it's another broken patent that IMO shouldn't have been granted.
Does anyone know of prior art (prior to Dec '04) for a search mechanism that
obtains search results from multiple domains using sub-plugins and combines
them into a list? That seems to be the core of the idea, and further ideas are
thrown on top of it in the patent application thereafter.

Read it yourself at [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...](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)

~~~
ralfd
Well, in the mobile space everyone is suing everyone else. Google is using
Motorola for that and are banning in Germany important parts of Apples e-mail
and iCloud services.

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/german-court-extends-
pu...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/german-court-extends-push-e-mail-
injunction-against-icloud-mobileme/)

Because of that and as a German I wont ever buy Android and also telling my
friends.

~~~
cskau
> [..] in the mobile space everyone is suing everyone else. [..]

> Because of that and as a German I wont ever buy Android and also telling my
> friends.

So you won't ever buy anything ever again? As you say yourself it's the whole
industry that is playing this game, so it seems unfair to take it out on just
one company. Biased much?

------
kenster07
Apple is implicitly admitting Samsung is a huge threat to them.

Apple has intelligent people making these decisions. So they know in their
heart of hearts that the patents they hold are overly broad to the point of
bogusness. They know that the majority of the tech market is also intelligent
enough to come to this same realization. They have an awareness that lawsuits
exercising these quasi-bogus patents will have a negative impact on Apple's
public image. Therefore, the only logical reason for going through with the
lawsuits is because they have concluded that the alternative -- letting
Samsung + Google have their way in the mobile market -- would be far more
damaging to Apple.

Apple's interests aside, is this good for society at large? Doubtful.

~~~
MBCook
You don't have to be a huge threat to be worth squeezing money out of. Huge
threat? I don't think so.

Samsung is the only other player making any real profit in the industry, so
they are definitely Apple's largest competition at this point. Unless MS does
something crazy with Windows Phone 8. They're important.

But I don't agree with huge threat. At this point, Apple may be able to take a
year off from releasing a new iPhone (despite not having true 4G) and not
suffer significantly in the long term. It's not a good idea, but I bet they
could.

~~~
kenster07
m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/samsung-apple-smartphone-sales-
profit?cat=technology&type=article

~~~
cageface
Exactly right Apple is scared about this. The phone market is slipping through
their fingers and they're willing to do whatever it takes to get their grip
back.

It turns out their one-size-fits-all approach really doesn't fit all so they
go patent nuclear on Android while borrowing a lot of Android's ideas along
the way. I'd love to see Google sue the shit out of them for stealing their
notification system.

------
ars
I'm starting to hate Apple more and more.

Apple: Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them
by preventing any other competition?

I think it may be time for high profile developers to boycott Apple till they
stop acting like this.

~~~
raganwald
_Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by
preventing any other competition?_

Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of
it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and
scandium framed models on the market.

Are my products terrible? Obviously not!

Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue.
Am I saying that my products are terrible and can’t compete? No, I’m saying my
products are excellent and can easily compete against my competitors’ actual
products.

But obviously I’m going to be less successful competing against my own product
and my own inventions, which is what happens when my competitors simply copy
my ideas.

This specific case is one where Apple alleges it is competing against its own
innovations. It’s fair to argue that the competition didn’t copy them. But if
we accept the court’s ruling that the competing products _are_ infringing on
Apple’s patents, then Apple is not making “terrible” products that can’t
compete against its competition, Apple is making excellent products that are
obviously going to be less successful competing against itself.

~~~
notatoad
Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor,
apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants.
Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they
got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out
of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a
bicycle that is even remotely competitive, they get sued.

Do you really think that apple invented search-as-you-type? Did they invent
the concept of using a date picker to set a meeting? Do they really deserve a
patent on thin rectangular things? No, that is all bullshit and it is shameful
that the courts are willing to be bullied (or bought) into playing along with
this farce.

~~~
raganwald
Those are fine arguments against Apple’s business strategies, but not
arguments that Apple’s products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not
arguments that Apple’s products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its
competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.

~~~
pm90
Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business
strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least. I think the reason why
ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not
partake in such activities. And please please don't give me the argument that
Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways
to maximize your profit without being so paranoid

~~~
raganwald
I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you
have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition.”

I accept that you don’t say that their products are terrible. I certainly like
their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The
eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for
humankind.

~~~
runevault
I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so
little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though
perhaps I'm being too generous.

~~~
raganwald
I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion
is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their
competitor’s original designs and products.

The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against
companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or
restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that
its products can compete against its products.

------
ddlatham
Make no mistake - all the major smartphones out there are infringing someone
else's patent. If this is the precedent, next thing we'll have iPhones banned
for infringing on Motorola, and Windows Phones banned for infringing on RIM
patents.

This is bad news for consumers, bad news for innovators.

Everyone loses.

~~~
bstar77
I support your comment, but the lawyers are making a killing.

------
arpit
For the last couple of years I have been trying to stay objective about this
(I actually do quite a bit of iOS programming in my day job in addition to
Android) and have always tried to be more pro-android than anti-Apple, but I
am finally done trying to walk the fence. Enough of this bullshit. Its time
for consumers to be aware that every time they buy an Apple product, they are
damaging the software industry and the spirit of innovation. Its like buying
blood diamonds. Sure they are pretty but the cost isnt worth it.

My question: Is there a central point for sending out this message? I would
love to see someone setup a messaging page like "Say No to Apple" or something
like that that I can link to. Some activity the level of the SOPA blackouts
would be awesome (though probably not realistic, but hey, I can dream), with
JavaScript popups for idevices etc.What about things like Twitter badges or
sidebar widgets that we can install on our blogs, profile pages etc?

I think the normal folks (consumers) don't get how bad this is.

~~~
prodigal_erik
For all that time, Apple's iOS strategy has been reducing developers to
sharecroppers and selling deliberately crippled appliances instead of human-
worthy tools. The average consumer is fine with that; there isn't even a
majority of _hackers here_ somewhat troubled like you were. So why would this
suddenly be objectionable to them?

------
cromwellian
Boy, they are getting a lot of mileage out of that regular expression "data
tapping" patent, even though people were doing the same thing years before,
including a NeXTStep app released with source and published on USENET in 1995
1 year before the Apple patent was filed

[https://groups.google.com/group/comp.archives/browse_thread/...](https://groups.google.com/group/comp.archives/browse_thread/thread/40eec7c07815ae25/68b1e859b82d3a3e)

~~~
SoapSeller
IBM Simon(1993/4) also had the same functionality[0].

Also, it seems that their main patent(8,086,604[1]) for this case describe a
metasearch engine, something that have been around at least since the mid
90s(long before the patent was filled in 2004).

[0] <http://youtu.be/wnFsJ9z_caY?t=1m57s> (warning: terrible video quality
ahead) [1] <http://goo.gl/jjG1P>

~~~
bishnu
Is this kind of stuff not brought up in court? How can you possibly patent
something that already existed?

~~~
vibrunazo
IANAL, but as far as I my very limited understanding goes. Prior art isn't
verified when a patent application is applied. Only after that, when someone
files a suit trying to invalidate the patent. Which is a separate case from
the injunction. So Samsung would have to file a separate suit to invalidate
the patents. If then win that, then and only then, they'll be able to stop the
injunction by saying Apple patents are invalid. Which of course, would cost
Samsung a lot of money and time.

So you can file any bogus patent, the USPTO won't verify. They'll only check
if all the paperwork is in order. It will only matter if your patents are
bogus if someone tries to invalidate it.

Or am I talking crap? Please correct me where I'm wrong, I'd love to learn
more.

~~~
detst
IANAL either but I'd say you've basically got it right that the USPTO is happy
to give out patents that a court will invalidate when someone with the money
to shoot them down is involved. But I wouldn't go as far as to say "you can
file any bogus patent, the USPTO won't verify". They're simply more forgiving
with what constitutes novelty and non-obviousness.

I'd also think that the injunction could be removed if Samsung can show that
they aren't causing irreparable harm, even if they are indeed infringing a
legitimate patent.

------
ericdykstra
Does this kind of thing make anyone happy? Does anyone feel better about Apple
the company because of this?

It would be nice if supposedly innovative companies could, you know, just keep
innovating instead of worrying about copycats catching up on stale technology
(in this case, I don't think it's even clear that there is any sort of
copycat-like activity).

Apple makes a few excellent products, but this kind of thing lowers my
impression of the brand overall.

~~~
jsz0
Since everyone is suing everyone else I don't know why people want to single
out Apple. They got hit pretty hard by Nokia a couple years ago. I think they
learned a hard lesson about how the game really works. I don't know how to
draw the distinction between Apple offensively suing Samsung and Motorola
offensively suing Apple -- or for that matter Samsung counter-suing Apple.
It's all the same game and everyone is playing by the same rules. It seems the
biggest difference is Apple (and Microsoft via licensing) are having success
while companies who were best known for selling microwaves 5 years ago are
losing. I don't mean to mock Samsung because they do make pretty good devices
but the time-line is simply on Apple's side here.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Actually, IMO the Nokia lawsuit is a great example of why everybody picks on
Apple and how Apple has changed the rules of the game.

The old rules of the game were that

1) all the big guys cross-licensed each other's patents 2) the big guys got
together to create standards and used patents to monetize these standards.

Note that the old rules of the game weren't particularly fair to the little
guys, but at least they weren't the mutual destruction that Apple has started.

Apple is a big player in #2, receiving a fair portion of the MP4 licensing
profits, for example.

But of course, Apple being a relatively new phone maker doesn't have any skin
in the "phone standards" game, and has to license them from the older players
like Qualcomm, Nokia & Motorola. The standards agreement force these guys to
license in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory fashion (FRAND).

Nokia said that a patent cross-license was FRAND. If Apple were good guys,
they would have agreed -- they could get these phone-essential patents for
less or even no money. However, they were reserving these patents for
offensive purposes, so Nokia & Apple couldn't come to an agreement,
essentially forcing Nokia to sue them.

------
tikhonj
This is particularly sad because the Galaxy Nexus is a brilliant phone running
_stock_ Android. I've found the stock Android ICS experience to be much better
than what you can find with a version of Android modified by the vendor (at
least for the other phones I've seen). I'm pretty sure it's one of the best
options for Android phones, period.

~~~
karolist
What other options have you tried? My experience with stock ICS (AOSP based
ROMs) are terrible, the GUI is unintuitive, simplistic to the point of being
ugly and rather limited in functionality as opposed to older versions of MIUI
(not based on ICS). Sense is not only ugly, but slow too, I have not tried
touchwiz to comment on that.

------
chj
What A Patent Hell.

FYI: The patents held against Android:

1\. A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail
address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is
clicked

2\. A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data.

3\. A slide to unlock feature.

4\. An autocorrect-type function that completes the word as a user types and
allows the user to accept or reject the word.

This must be a joke!

~~~
slavak
Seems like the reason the US patent system is so fucked-up is the logical
disconnect between the two following concepts:

* The USPTO approves most patents applications without the most cursory examination by a qualified person. * Patents granted by the USPTO are assumed to be valid unless overturned by a court of law.

You can't have it both ways and still expect a logical result.

And seriously, how the hell did #4 up there even get approved? Did the
examiner rubber-stamping that mess seriously never in his entire life use
Microsoft Word?

~~~
Symmetry
As to (4), patent attorneys earn the big bucks for writing the patents in as
obfuscated a manner as possible. That lets them get the patent past the Patent
Office by saying "Look how very narrow our patent is" and its granted on those
grounds, but when they go to sue other companies they choose an interpretation
that amounts to the text in the grandparent, so that they can sue the maximum
number of people.

------
guelo
Judge Koh was a Silicon Valley patent litigator from 2000-2008 before being
appointed a judge. Makes me wonder what companies she represented.

~~~
jusben1369
Rather than cast aspersions on her credibility I think this actually bolsters
it to learn this. At least she has deep expertise in a (very flawed) system.

------
MattLaroche
The Galaxy Nexus is stock Android. Apple is suing Samsung because of stock
Android software - not firmware, not hardware, but software.

Is there a legal reason Apple is suing Samsung instead of Google, or is it
tactical / political?

~~~
azakai
Because Samsung is shipping a device with the software. Parent law does
require that the patent be tied to a physical device. IANAL.

~~~
jrockway
Indeed. Source code is speech, and speech cannot infringe patents. (Not saying
this is logical, that's just what the case law says.)

That's why you can build an mp3 player from source without paying the license
fee, but Debian can't ship you a compiled mp3 player.

~~~
ConstantineXVI
So if shipping source only is perfectly legal, what's to stop OEMs from simply
shipping infringing components as source only and compiling on first boot?
Strictly speaking, the user initiated the compile (by powering on the device),
so Samsung would be in the clear. Technically legal, but I have the feeling
this wouldn't survive court.

------
zmmmmm
This seems to be based on the most bogus of Apple's patents - things like
"slide to unlock" (something used on physical door's for hundreds of years,
moving it to pixels doesn't suddenly make it inventive) and auto-converting
data to links (well documented back into the 90's.

It's a shame that the places where Apple really moved forward are not where
they are exploiting their patents. It seems, those ideas were already beyond
Apple's ability to patent, so instead they got a bunch of bogus stuff through
and are using it anyway. It really besmirches their actual amazing record of
inventiveness that they take rubbish like this forward. I hope these all get
overturned.

------
Calamitous
Those who can compete, do. Those who can't litigate.

~~~
praxulus
Given their profitability, Apple is just doing both.

------
aristidb
So this actually _is_ about software patents this time, and clearly anti-
innovation. I dare anybody to argue that the patent system as it is does not
hinder innovation in software.

~~~
rbanffy
I don't think it's a software patent problem. But it is a ridiculous patent
problem. Who could consider checking two databases is a significant innovation
over consulting one.

------
josteink
Apple has clearly lost it. Whatever once made them cool and different is long
gone and all that remains is a pseudo-legalese ganster, using its giant pool
of money to hinder software development at the cost of everyone else.

You cannot be a software-developer and support this monster with your money.
As a software developer there should be no way you can support this.

Apple is the SCO of this decade.

------
redthrowaway
I guess not every judge can be an Alsup.

~~~
noonespecial
Koh was a patent litigator before becoming a judge, Alsup is a mathematician
who served as a special counsel in the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice.

Her bias is showing. How embarrassing.

------
LVB
I really wish I hadn't read this just as I start the weekend. I've been
irreparably harmed by the high blood pressure it has caused within me.

------
DenisM
Ok, so I just went ahead and ordered a Galaxy Nexus phone. I've been meaning
to do this for a while now to see if I want to port my apps to the Android
platform, and here Apple just pushed me to do it. :/

------
methodin
This actually got me wondering if Google has ever sued someone in the same
manner and it does not appear as if they have. I find that very interesting -
does anyone have any links to the contrary?

~~~
evmar
Google (like many tech companies, I think?) promises their employees that
patents will only be used defensively.

The only related example is that Motorola Mobility recently began a patent
suit against Microsoft and then Google acquired them (in that order) so it's
unclear whether that promise applies.

------
mharmon14
Irreparable harm seems to imply that this could hurt Apple in a major way.

But it's easy to see what game-changing technology is. Look at what people
want in a phone:

[http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/iphone-5-wish-list-starts-
wit...](http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/iphone-5-wish-list-starts-with-4g-and-
bigger-screen/)

There's tens of similar surveys published online. None of them include
"search-as-u-go". In fact Apple doesn't seem to think that it's that big
enough of a deal to promote. They advertise tens of features & this isn't one
of them. And that's because it's expected (everyone uses it already) or it's
not that important to a buyer when choosing a phone to purchase.

It's just not reasonable to assume that the "search-as-u-go" technology could
give any sort of significant advantage to Samsung to be the cause of a shift
in market share or something with similarly unascertainable consequences,
which is precisely what the ruling of irreparable damage relies on.

------
roguecoder
How have we not abolished patents yet? This is ridiculous, and everyone
appears to know it except that judge.

------
kombine
Especially sad considering how people in the tech industry use and promote
Apple products. Sadly, I'm a user of MBP too. All of the "hackers" these days
use Mac laptops to write in Javascript/Ruby/other_todays_hyped_language. All
to satisfy the consumeristic needs of population. And frankly you can't do
much with the platform anyway - Apple disallows JIT and other low level stuff
on iOS. They move towards the same restrictions on MacOS X, starting with Mac
App Store Apps. I wouldn't be surprised if in few years they disallow
installing apps not through the app store. Fuck you, Apple! Your soul interest
is to make more and more cash.

------
rosejn
Apple Corp. sucks as a member of society. As one of the wealthiest and most
successful companies on earth they continue to play dirty by abusing the
patent system for their advantage. Most of the patents they are "protecting"
are describing pretty obvious ideas that any group of good engineers working
on this class of devices would bump into, and this behavior does not benefit
society in any way. They are clearly protecting a virtual monopoly on tablets
by fighting with patents rather than focusing on out innovating the
competition. I hope their will one day be real competition in this space.

------
beedogs
If Apple keeps pissing off all the vendors it needs to work with, pretty soon
they'll have to start fabbing their own fucking chips for their phones.

This is getting out of hand. And I'm blaming Apple for most of the lunacy.

------
oemera
You are all way to biased about the whole thing. Thing about it. They just
freaking copied Siri. Would you feel cool if someone else just copies your
innovative product feature. Apple has all right to sue them and get them
blocked.

You can hate my comment. You can down vote me. You can hate Apple as much as
you like but all of you know before there was iPhone and iPad there was
nothing close to any of it. So how can anyone say all other companies aren't
copying? Eric Schmidt just stole every inch of the iPhone...

~~~
pook1e
> They just freaking copied Siri.

This article is about the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which doesn't have any
integrated voice assistant as far as I am aware.

> Eric Schmidt just stole every inch of the iPhone...

While it may be true that Android has "stolen" certain things from the iPhone,
there are also plenty of things that the iPhone has also "stolen" from
Android. Saying Android copies everything that Apple does while Apple
continues to build everything from the ground up is completely unfair.

~~~
oemera
AFAIK you would voice assistant in Android 4.1 which is damn similar what
Apple introduced with Siri. I really can't understand how some people can just
ignore the fact that there happens a big stolen product here. How on earth
will you argue that Google has now a similar voice assistant like Siri without
copying Siri. You don't want to say it is coincendence, do you?

People always claim Apple had stolen from Android too but they never can give
any evidence. What did Apple copy from Android which become a major selling
factor? Copy paste? No. Multi touch? No. Multitasking? No. App Store? Hello
no!

Please just tell me how entrepreneurs all seem to hate Apple because Apple
just fighting for there right. The right to say: Hey if you want to make a
product, but don't just copy our product!

Apple didn't sued Microsoft over WP7 cause they didn't just copy The iPhone.
They found something new. Something different. But Android And Google just
trying to copy the hell of iOS as much as possible.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with being a die-hard Apple guy. Everyone should
have the right to fight copy cats. Or would like it that your product is
getting copied and you as a the creator earn just nothing from it at all. Not
even the respect that it was your idea and your product.

~~~
gergles
You can't own an idea. The idea of 'searching with your voice' is not
something Apple can own.

They can own a specific implementation of searching with your voice, but
that's it. The general concept of "doing this thing" is not something that is
protectable.

Also, not that it is really relevant, but selling point Apple copied from
Android? Notification center. A direct, 'slavish' copy (to use Koh's own
terms), but you're not jumping up to defend Google's 'innovations' in the
untamed wilderness of "use part of the screen to tell you what's happening".

~~~
oemera
5 years of iOS work and the only thing you can find is "notification center"?
It's not even a copy. It's not close to what it is on Android.

I just stop here. It doesn't make any sense to argue about this anymore. I
just hope this copying just stops and everyone can have it's own innovative
feature and not copied crap!

~~~
Maascamp
Are you 6?

~~~
rimantas
So, what else was stolen? And compare Android before iPhone anouncement and
after.

------
DenisM
Galaxy Nexus is a direct competitor to the iPhone, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a
direct competitor to the iPad.

Now, if Apple goes after Nexus 7, we will know that they are planning a 7"
iPad-mini.

------
Tichy
Sounds like they managed to get a patent on machine learning 101.

I am sorry, but stuff like that just makes me despise Apple. Maybe the greater
public will eventually catch on, too.

------
JabavuAdams
Slightly unrelated question: where does this "make you whole" language come
from? It seems to be cropping up more and more recently, but I hadn't heard it
before about 2 years ago. Perhaps it's a term of art that I just didn't know
about?

It's a bizarre and clumsy piece of corporate-speak. Money can't make one
whole. It could set things right, though.

~~~
gergles
It's a legal term of art. Search around for the "make-whole doctrine".

------
mdkess
What is the effect of this ruling, if it is upheld? Will Samsung have to
disable this functionality? I imagine that they are not doing that immediately
because that seems like an admission of guilt. Will they be able to ship their
devices without software and have users install the software in question?

------
dobalina
I picked up my new Galaxy Nexus (phone) today. Loving it so far! Decided to go
with the Nexus over the S3. Better price/performance ratio, and of course
better support from Google on the pure Android experience. :)

------
bryans
This is starting to read like a Rod Serling original.

------
saket123
This is a sad news. One that feels me with disdain. The conceptual patent
thing is such a farce.

Didn't google just reduce the price of this phone to $349. I am pretty sure it
was not due to lack of demand. The phone is beautiful, feels different then
previous versions of Android and looks different then Apple's iPhone. The
judge involved here is the same judge who did the same thing to Galaxy Tab
(which sucked anyway). But doing this to such a good phone which could have
brought smartphone to life of millions of people is shameful. Its not the
intellectual property , its a anti-competitive move.

------
gcb
Hope you felt good upvoting all those articles stating how ridiculous patent
law is FROM YOUR DAMN APPLE DEVICES

Time to vote with your wallet is way overdue.

And while you're at it may think about the Sony stuff you own.

~~~
tikhonj
Sony may be evil, but they're much less insidious than Apple. Why? Simple:
Apple is, whether we like it or not, popular. Sony isn't. The real problem is
not just Apple's behavior, but also how many people like them _despite_ their
behavior.

Of course, I won't claim any moral superiority here. While I don't have any
Apple devices, it's not because of moral reasons but simply because I am
genuinely unimpressed with their efforts. Overrated, over-hyped and
fashionable, but never practical or optimal.

~~~
gonzo
A bit over 15 years ago, Sony was extremely popular.

------
saket123
Do anyone here thinks that it will lead to rise in sales of Galaxy Nexus for
remaining stock and it will sell very very quickly. Couple of my friends are
already ordering one. If this patent battle turns out to be farce for Apple,
this could be lightning in dark clouds.

------
rogerchucker
Can Google not sue to invalidate that "Siri" patent because of prior art? I
thought this kind of unified search existed back in the days of Google
Desktop...

~~~
dguaraglia
Back in the day of Copernicus if you want to go far enough (lol, I wonder how
many people would actually get that reference... it was an old program that'd
search for your terms in a bunch of search engines and display the results in
a unified interface)

------
jQueryIsAwesome
Maybe if a big enough amount of people gave them some bad PR they would stop
doing this monopolistic and unethical actions. I propose to make
#AppleIsAnUglyTroll a trend on Twitter (for the masses "Ugly Troll" is more
appealing than "Patent Troll")

------
ThePherocity
There is no abuse of the law, there is law, and there is not law. Using the
law is not an abuse, regardless of what it may seem from the cheap seats where
we are all sitting.

If you don't like it, fix the laws.

~~~
gergles
The law is intended, in the Constitution, to 'promote the progress of
[technology]'.

Using the patent system to browbeat your competitors out of business by
wielding bullshit imaginary software patents does not promote the progress of
anything but Apple's business.

Therefore, it is clearly an abuse of the law.

~~~
rimantas
Well, fix the courts then. They should make sure laws are applied as
intendend, shouldn't they?

------
hastur
I will never buy an Apple product again.

Their tactics are pathetic.

------
rogerchucker
When will Anonymous take down Apple?

------
bstar77
I got annoyed when this happened to HTC, but Samsung is a different story.
Their entire business model is based on dumpster diving at 1 infinity loop. I
agree that these patents look silly on their own, but when you add them all up
you see a concerted effort to copy apples products, and in some cases deceive
the ignorant.

