
Apple asks court to ban Samsung’s Galaxy Note and Galaxy S III from US - riyadparvez
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/apple-asks-court-to-ban-samsungs-galaxy-note-and-galaxy-s-iii-from-us/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
======
beedogs
I used to be on Apple's side; now they're just bullies.

I don't think I'll buy anything from them ever again.

~~~
bo1024
I'm certainly disappointed in Apple's use of the patent system here, but we
need to fix the patent system as a whole. Apple wouldn't have acted this way
unless our patent system created the opportunity and the incentive. And if it
wasn't Apple, it would have been someone else sooner or later.

So you can be mad at Apple if you want, but what's really messed up is a
patent system that makes this behavior profitable.

~~~
lusr
I don't follow this logic. "I'm certainly disappointed in the pervert's use of
the open curtains here, but we need to fix open curtains as a whole." Apple
are still responsible for the ethics of their actions, regardless of the
legality of those actions.

~~~
bo1024
Our legal system has no room for ethics. If the rules of the game make it
profitable to be evil, companies will probably be evil. They might not be, but
it'll be an uphill battle. If we redesign the rules so that being evil is not
profitable, that will make it a whole lot easier on everyone.

Of course, actually doing so won't be easy, because the status quo benefits
most influential players...

~~~
EdiX
> Our legal system has no room for ethics.

But your brain does.

~~~
KeithMajhor
I don't think he's saying it's _ok_. He's saying that in spite of Apple being
unethical the present condition is an inevitability. We can try to shame Apple
into doing the right thing but it won't fix the real problem.

------
cageface
Absolutely the last straw for me here. I've changed the price of all my apps
to $999 and edited their descriptions to inform potential buyers that I'm
pulling my apps in protest of Apple's policies.

If the Apple gestapo doesn't yank my apps for me for this I'll pull them
completely from the store myself as long as I've posted any updates for my
existing customers required for iOS 6.

Fun discovery made in the process: Apple won't allow you to use the word
"Android" in the app description.

Bye!

~~~
v0cab
And how about Samsung? Their business practices are disgusting.

~~~
r0s
Care to elaborate?

------
modarts
What the hell is up with Apple? I'm usually all for fierce competition, but
this vindictive bullshit goes above and beyond that.

~~~
gurkendoktor
The tool they're using to deliver the punch sucks (software patents).

But I'm honestly baffled that HN doesn't _emotionally_ understand Apple
(maybe: Steve Jobs). Samsung has ripped off Apple wherever it could _while
being one of Apple's trusted suppliers_ , to the point where the SGS2 was
considered THE iPhone contender. (Mostly anecdotal, though see [1].) Now Apple
is throwing whatever they have at Samsung, this happens to include software
patents.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4VHzNEWIqA> ...?

~~~
jlgreco
There seems to be an odd mix of sentiment being expressed here in this
discussion. On one hand some are suggesting that expecting ethics from a
corporation is foolish, but on the other hand you are attributing their
actions to an emotional response.

Surely if the AAPL corporation is capable of experiencing emotion, it is
capable of acting in an ethical manner instead of just a profit-seeking
manner.

~~~
gurkendoktor
> On one hand some are suggesting that expecting ethics from a corporation is
> foolish, but on the other hand you are attributing their actions to an
> emotional response.

Different people saying different things is not new :) But this wouldn't be a
contradiction if we were the same person either. Someone without ethics can
very well react emotionally. I'm only speculating about the emotions at play -
which I think do exist - I have no interest in judging ethics this time.

------
dakrisht
The biggest patent troll of the past 10 years. I'm ashamed of all the Apple
products I own after what's been going on.

------
vlad
Something that hasn't been discussed: Samsung Galaxy Nexus (aka Google's
phone) is on this list as well.

~~~
cageface
I hope the people that have been dismissing Apple's recent win as a deserved
and minor comeuppance for Samsung will at last see the light after this latest
round of developments. Apple is clearly out to destroy Android, not just
Samsung, and even a child can see that the S3 and the Note are not clones of
anything Apple's made but instead products filling a demand Apple has refused
to meet.

~~~
kybernetikos
In particular the note is pretty innovative (in the apple sense) in it's own
right.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It is, and it holds little similarity to the iPhone.

------
mrich
More detailed info would be helpful. What infringement is Apple alleging in
this case? For the S III, they have to rely more and more on bogus software
patents since it is very different from an iPhone. Their fear is very visible.

~~~
josephlord
In what way are they bogus?

Because all software patents shouldn't be granted?

Because you have studied them deeply, fully understand their claims and
believe there is prior art or no inventive step (the current requirement for
the inventive step seem very low, do you think that this is not being met or
you believe the standard should be higher)?

The patents have now withstood not only the flawed patent office examination
but have been tested in court. The presumption should now be that they are
valid and not bogus unless you provide justification or at least explanation
of your view.

Samsung/Google should also presume validity and develop a workaround while the
case is pending to strengthen their negotiating position and remove risk of a
ban. This doesn't mean that they have to stop fighting legally.

Edit: A reply suggests I may have been wrong to believe that these are the
patents that were tested in court. If I was wrong the advice would probably be
to plan potential workarounds but not carry them out.

~~~
mrich
"Slide to unlock" has been thrown out in the UK

[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/05/slide-to-
unlo...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/05/slide-to-unlock-
invalid)

"Data detectors" looks completely ridiculous to everyone who has programmed
for more than a year. I would be shocked if this stands, although I have heard
that HTC modified their skin because of it.

"Unified search" is the classic "X + on a phone" patent, where X is something
that has been done for decades. I hope this is challenged and closely
examined. I would not be surprised if there is prior art even for phones.

"Word completion" is very obvious too, they have included details of their
implementation in the claims so it will be easy to workaround.

But why would Apple sue over these patents? The best they can get are slight
modifications to the software, which will not alter the experience or the look
and feel much. Meanwhile they are losing goodwill and making people aware that
there are better alternatives out there. All this because the former CEO felt
slighted? As a stockholder I would be a little mad.

~~~
corporalagumbo
Yeah but the average person I'm sure doesn't follow tech news as carefully as
you or me - and doesn't get worked up about this sort of stuff either. Any
damage to Apple's reputation will be negligible, wouldn't you think?

~~~
mrich
Customers will become aware of this more and more, and Apple's trials are
further helping it. It is a slow process, but it happens. Microsoft also
seemed invincible once but they lost the goodwill of developers and customers
over the years.

~~~
greedo
I don't think this is the awareness that Apple's competitors want. What Joe
SixPack heard this week in the news is that Samsung got its ass kicked by
Apple for copying. J6P doesn't understand prior art, voir dire, trade dress,
etc. They just know that Samsung is currently on the hook for $1 billion. This
makes Samsung look bad, and Apple look good.

Thinking that even 1% of the populace understands patent law, much less how
the US legal system functions is going to leave you disappointed. No matter
how Samsung tries to spin this, no matter how many articles appear on Groklaw
or HN, this is a bad PR scene for Samsung.

------
mtkd
What makes me rage about this more than anything is that there is no viable
alt (for me) to OSX right now - for what I do.

My next phone is an S3 though.

Must be painful for Woz to watch.

~~~
TobbenTM
If I may ask, what is it you do?

~~~
dsirijus
Well, I'm guessing he's either developing iOS or OSX apps.

------
hadem
Even as a fan of Apple, I find this ridiculous.

It will be the consumers who lose if Apple wins.

~~~
v0cab
Consumers are also people who need jobs.

If Asian companies can just clone our products and block our products from
sale in their countries, there will be fewer jobs for Americans, Europeans and
Australians.

~~~
jlgreco
Ah yes, when in doubt, fall back on good old xenophobia. It was only a matter
of time really, you can always count on _somebody_ dredging up xenophobia if
there are not rational arguments to be made.

~~~
v0cab
What do you classify as 'xenophobia'? How can I avoid falling victim to it?
How can I make my arguments more rational in future?

For what it's worth, I have lived in Asia for several years, speak three
languages, and my opinions are influenced by the Korean economist Ha-Joon
Chang, so I'm trying my best.

~~~
jlgreco
Next time try to present an argument that has substance beyond _"people from
the 'wrong' continent will be making the money"_.

~~~
v0cab
Is there something wrong with wishing to be economically prosperous now?

------
logn
It's too bad it's not the iPad being banned or people might actually care and
we'd get some badly needed IP reform.

~~~
corporalagumbo
Never fear, I actually patented thin rectangular prisms 20 years ago - my
lawyers are preparing the case now.

(Of course, Apple is only one of many, many companies who will soon be paying
for their insipid copycatting)

------
stinos
I find the worst part about this whole war is that in the end it's purely
about money and nothing else. So now, because some dickheads want more of it
while they already have enough, people are denied access to what seems a
pretty decent device.

~~~
Tichy
I found it funny when the jury foreman said "we only wanted to award a
reasonable amount of damages". One billion dollars for rounded corners? I
wonder if one billion dollars would have seemed like a reasonable amount of
money before the financial crisis with it's monster bailouts.

~~~
sbuk
If you took the time to _actually_ read the verdict, you'd see that claim was
dismissed. Also, it's not a patent on rounded corners, it's a _design_ patent,
which is essentially a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional
item that pretty much every other manufacture has managed not to plagiarise.
And what the hell has the "financial crisis" got to do with this? Is suppose
that's the jury's fault too now?

edit: language

~~~
Tichy
Financial crisis: because one billion dollar suddenly is "a reasonable amount
of money".

~~~
sbuk
I'd suggest that the figure became a reasonable amount when both litigant
started turning over several multiples of that figure _per quarter_. It's the
effect of general inflatin on economies.

------
mtgx
This is getting ridiculous. It would be one thing if they went after TouchWiz,
because I'd actually like Samsung give up on it, but going after them with
these patents? I can't see how this is helping innovation at all. It's simply
about blocking the competition from the market, plain and simple.

------
codeka
So this is the same case being tried in front of Judge Koh?

I'm not sure what patents in particular they say are being infringed here, but
it can't be the trade dress stuff -- Samsung's stuff have moved away from
being obvious ripoffs of Apple's products and the Galaxy SIII looks no more
like an iPhone than any other smartphone from any other manufacturer.

If it's the pinch-to-zoom and bounce-back patents (etc) then it shouldn't be
hard for Samsung to issue an update to workaround those patents.

In fact, I mentioned in another comment[1] but I'm pretty sure Android (not
sure about Samsung's modified version of Android) doesn't infringe on the
pinch-to-zoom patent anyway, because Android allows scrolling with two
fingers. Obviously, I'm no patent expert, though...

[1]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4441202>

------
tsotha
Litigious bastards.

~~~
sbuk
And Samsung are plagiarising parasites.

~~~
aviraldg
I've used an iPhone and I own a Galaxy Note, and I can tell you that it is
_nothing_ like the former.

------
danmaz74
At this point, I hope that Samsung will be able to obtain bans for the future
Apple LTE products, at least in Europe. MAYBE this way Apple will stop being
the bully it is.

~~~
v0cab
Let us remember that Samsung have the South Korean government in their pocket,
and they already acted to stop the iPhone from being sold for two years in
South Korea when it was released, to give Samsung a chance to catch up and
make more money from the domestic (South Korean) market.

Why on earth is HackerNews so pro-Samsung?

~~~
coopdog
I think it's more being against validating ridiculous patents than being pro
samsung

~~~
v0cab
Yeah but my parent poster described Apple as a bully, when Samsung initiated
this whole thing.

------
capo
_The four new patents Apple is leveraging against Samsung include the '647
"Data Detectors" patent, the '721 "Slide-to-unlock" property, the '172 "Word
completion" invention and the '604 "Universal search" patent._

[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/31/apple_adds_sam...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/31/apple_adds_samsungs_flagship_galaxy_s_iii_galaxy_note_to_amended_galaxy_nexus_complaint.html)

Just broad nonsensical software patents that shouldn't have been granted in
the first place.

I hope Samsung fights this as I think they have a much better chance in
winning even a jury trial against these, I mean why hasn't anyone invalidated
these patents yet?!

P.S.

I'm not clear as to when Apple is hoping to ban these devices, at the December
hearing? earlier? next year? I would appreciate a clarification.

Edit: trial date is set for March 2014 according to this
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044361860457762...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443618604577624410538954138.html)

~~~
josephlord
Slide to unlock doesn't seem broad to me. It seems easy to workaround by
requiring a swipe but not moving the image until the end of the swipe or
requiring a pattern of taps.

There may be prior art as another poster claims, I haven't studied it but it
doesn't look too broad to me.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
It may not be broad but it's trivial and obvious. It's like dismissing a
dialog box by pressing the enter key.

~~~
josephlord
I'm not sure it is obvious.

There is quite a bit of detail specified (e.g. continuous movement of the
image along the path) and it wasn't the approach taken by Ericsson, Palm or
Microsoft in their previous touch devices so it isn't clear to me that it is
obvious (at least in the detail).

To me it is better to have narrow specific patents even if they aren't
completely revolutionary than massively broad ones claiming whole areas of
technology.

Again - I haven't studied the prior art either listed in the patent or
suggested by others so that may rule it out but as a concept and as patents go
it seems like quite a reasonable one.

That isn't to say I don't think the patent system needs major reform and may
generally be doing more harm than good but this specific patent seems to me to
be the wrong example to pick as an example of what is wrong with the system.

~~~
SeanDav
Desktop computers have had the concept of moving your mouse to "wake up" a
sleeping computer for years. How much of a leap is it translate that to moving
your finger to unlock a phone?

Pretty darn obvious I would say.

~~~
josephlord
Does the mouse have to move over a specific part of the screen? Does it move
an image as it moves to wake it up? From a quick glance at the patent these
seem to be essential parts and are the non-trivial parts of the patent that
make it easier to work around and a more reasonable patent than is suggested
by many commentators.

Again I'm not saying that slide to unlock is definitely valid as there may be
prior art but I really find the arguments based on a straw man of what the
patent is to be really unhelpful to the discussion.

~~~
jkn
Well here is a video of the Neonode prior art:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tj-
KS2kfIr0#t=250s)

It's unlocked with a left to right swipe. Contrary to the iPhone there is no
image moving with the finger. I don't think that difference is worth a patent.
Moving things (i.e. images) around with the finger is a pretty obvious concept
for a purely touch-based device. See for example the Microsoft Surface (now
renamed to PixelSense) from 2008:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zxk_WywMTzc#t=290)

~~~
josephlord
Looked at the first video and for me it wouldn't count as prior art because it
doesn't include the image showing the path or an object being dragged along.
If I was on a jury I would say that the Neonode wasn't prior art for this
patent.

To be clear though this is based on an understanding of the patent covering
only swipe to unlock with an image and a dragged object.

Haven't looked at the MS video but are you sure 2008 is early enough for prior
art for this patent in the US where the first to invent rather than first to
file priority was in place at that time?

There may also be other prior art but this alone doesn't convince me that this
should be invalidated.

~~~
jkn
Thanks for having a look! I guess I was not clear... The point of the first
video was to show that the moving image is the only thing missing from the
Neonode prior art.

The point of the second video was to show that moving an image on a touch
screen with a finger was known to the industry before the iPhone was
introduced[1].

This means that Apple's slide to unlock is nothing more than the combination
of two known concepts: swipe to unlock and moving an image with the finger.
Certainly not worthy of a patent in my opinion.

[1] Linking to the MS video was a mistake of mine, since the device was
actually introduced after the iPhone. But please, do have a look at this
wonderful summary of the history of multi-touch technology (especially the
list of devices in the second half of the page):
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsR...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsRZhKYJ:www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html)

There's also an impressive TED video from early 2006:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html)

------
mlab
Faulty patent system IS NOT an excuse for Apple. Aftern Jobs died - real
company face has revealed, not even worth to spit at. My iPhone is last device
from this manufacturer, Samsung is so much superior, they also act like
humans.

~~~
rustynails77
Let me gladly say "thank goodness for Apple - they force everyone to lift
their game". Look at Apple's warranty - it's very good (eg. a "new for old"
device swap for AU $180 when the device is out of warranty - even if you
destroyed it yourself).

Do not heap too much praise on Samsung - they have a very chequered history.

Do not let Apple's reprehensible behaviour in this instance undermine the
value that Apple has added in other ways. I would still consider buying an
iPhone - and I recognise Apple for their unique talent in high polish of a
product.

I just want fair competition - I'd love Apple to think and act the same way.

~~~
throwaway64
there is only one thing a corporation responds to meaningfully, loss or gain
of money.

Why would they give a flying fuck what you would "love them to be" if you
still shovel fistfulls of money at them?

