

Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus - Cadsby
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/breaking-judge-grants-apple-an-injunction-against-the-galaxy-nexus/

======
thechut
These patent wars don't help anyone but Apple, and directly hurts consumers. I
don't think this is what anyone wants. It actually sickens me to see the law
enacted in this way.

I really hope this comes back to bit Apple in the ass. It seems there has been
a story about Apple doing something shitty everyday for the past few days, and
the taste it leaves in my mouth is just getting worse and worse.

~~~
flatline3
First, I'd like to note that the article provides a very poor summary of the
patents. That said, I'd like to throw this devil's argument out there as to
why these patent wars help consumers:

These patent wars might help consumers by allowing Apple to leverage the money
they spend on R&D, giving them the traction necessary to invest further R&D,
and pushing Apple's competitors to come up with new and _different_ ideas.

Apple has undeniably pushed the entire cell phone industry forward, and in the
process had a tremendous impact on the software, entertainment, and game
industries.

If everyone is free to copy their work and compete with them on price, and
Apple could lose the market position they (in theory) earned through
innovation, and may not be able to get it back. At the same time, if nobody
else is innovating to do things differently from Apple, all we get are clones.

~~~
marshray
To the contrary, what it tells me is that Apple has lost confidence in its own
ability to win on good ideas and good execution and is now being run by
investors looking for quarterly returns and lawyers thinking this is actually
a constructive way to "leverage the money they spend on R&D".

~~~
flatline3
Or, they're trying to prevent Windows 95 all over again.

~~~
smokeyj
Preventing Windows 95 would have been great for consumers, because competition
is bad.

~~~
flatline3
Actually, it would have been good because competition is good, and Microsoft
proceeded to sew up the market as a monopoly for decades, using a slew of
underhanded tricks to do so, and grossly undermining the position of the
primary innovator who held a far better product. It wasn't until Windows 2K
that MS even began to catch up to Apple's work, and then Apple leapfrogged
with the NeXT purchase.

~~~
smokeyj
> using a slew of underhanded tricks

You wouldn't be referring to IP shenanigans would you?

~~~
flatline3
No, I don't mean IP shenanigans:

[http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepape...](http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

------
DigitalSea
"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" nobody should own a patent on that, what the heck? The patent system
is seriously messed up. Don't get me started on the other patent: "A means of
searching multiple databases and sources for data." how can anyone be awarded
such a generic patent? I'm disgusted.

~~~
flatline3
The automatic touch screen-based linkification of phone numbers, addresses,
and calendar dates was fairly novel <edit> _for smartphones_ </edit> when
Apple introduced it. I don't believe anyone else was doing it <edit> _on
smartphones_ </edit> \-- and if they were, there's prior art, and the patent
should be invalidated.

What made it that especially interesting was that it alleviated a large part
of the need for copy+paste. If you'll recall, the first iPhone OS didn't ship
with copy+paste.

I'm having trouble figuring out what "A means of searching multiple databases
and sources for data" actually refers to.

~~~
creamyhorror
There was a whole HN thread throwing up prior art about the linkification
patent (and also on Reddit). Linkification was being done in the '80s, based
on one of the programs that someone managed to scrounge up in the thread, and
the '90s as well. No patents issued - people just did it.

The fact that these programs were written tells us that software writers
innovate regardless of whether patents are issued for their work or not.
That's the nature of software (and technology in general). The difference is,
some software makers don't expect to protect their new features from
competitors with patents. That's the crux of it, imo.

~~~
flatline3
Thanks. I have my own negative opinions about software patent novelty, I just
wanted to point out that it was somewhat unique on smart phones.

~~~
praptak
Suffixing an old idea with "on smart phones" is not innovation, even if you do
it first.

~~~
flatline3
I see your point. My counter-argument would be that it solved a unique touch-
screen problem of a lack of keyboard/mouse and a lack of an easy way to
highlight text.

I think the thing I'm hung up on is that Apple stormed into the phone market
and did a whole bunch of smart things that nobody had thought of, but are
obvious in retrospect.

I don't agree with software patents, but I can't help but hesitate before
agreeing that it's beneficial to the industry to let Apple's competitors
wholesale copy their work (even the small things).

------
habosa
So wrong. When will we have comprehensive reform on software-related patent
law? In this age everything is powered by a computer of some sort, and it's
very important to the intellectual future of the nation that we secure the
right for individuals and corporations to innovate without fear of a patent
lawsuit.

~~~
cremnob
Why is it wrong exactly?

~~~
josefresco
It's wrong because Apple isn't simply protecting their IP, they're waging a
litigious war against a legitimate competitor in hopes that the courts will
give them the edge in the marketplace and not their _superior_ products.

~~~
dedward
They are using the legal system - an important part of modern business. I can
assure you in economies with inefficient or nonexistent legal systems, things
get much worse and doing business is next to impossible.

Should apple not do this? This is hardball, we're talking billions... and they
know they have a limitied window to take advantage of this before they have to
continue. They'll make more than the hundred million they put up to do this in
the time it takes to settle things. No fanboy-ism here - but the iPhone DID
fundamentally change the close-minded walled-garden ripoff stagnant mobile
world to get off it's ass and innovate.

Are the patents absurd? Blame the patent system, not Apple for using it. Be
sure their competitors are just _waiting_ for a patent opportunity to come
along to smash Apple over the head with. Let the big boys play their game.
Apple anted up 95 million dollars that they lose if the case does not go in
their favour... this isn't a freebie by a longshot.

So until the legal system levels the playing field and fixes the patent system
or otherwise makes this type of action impossible, it's dog eat dog.

And in the end - the courts will decide. Don't like the patent system? talk to
your representatives in government. Don't want to do that because it "won't
matter"? Then you don't have much standing in my books to argue either way.
Think politicians care about money? they care about VOTES, which money really
helps buy - but convince them they have your votes and they money doesn't
matter, they don't need campaign money if they have their votes locked.

~~~
mayanksinghal
> Are the patents absurd? Blame the patent system, not Apple for using it.

I think viewpoints differ largely at this point. While I agree that Apple has
every right to use any and all legal ways to defend itself and potentially
harm competitors; given that everyone is aware of the absurdity of majority of
patents, it does seem wrong to use them offensively. There is no law against
being douch-stupid-ignorant; laws are not always moral/right - they follow
morality only slowly and caters to only the most easiest morality questions.
Rationality allows Apple to do whatever it can, only the current morality
doesn't.

------
moultano
When you work for a company that does this, you owe it to your integrity to
resign.

The government is too incompetent to fix this mess, and market pressure isn't
going to do it either. That leaves us, the actual engineers. It's our job to
tell the companies we work for that litigating instead of competing isn't
acceptable.

~~~
ciparis
Perhaps you should define "this".

~~~
moultano
Uses software patents offensively.

------
rayiner
This is a preliminary injunction. It doesn't mean Apple wins against Samsung.
From TFA:

"Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction,
which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed."

~~~
mechnik
Can consumers sue Apple for denying them the opportunity to acquire Galaxy
Nexus?

~~~
bane
Yes, in the U.S. you can sue for pretty much anything. You'll probably lose,
but you can at least give it a go.

------
ciparis
I was here when this all started.

When Android surfaced, it did not look blatantly like the iPhone. That is,
until the Galaxy appeared. From the moment I saw a Galaxy prototype it was
obvious: they were going to get sued.

Whether or not the iOS vs Android war makes sense at a high level is an
interesting discussion, but this is pretty simple: Samsung practically begged
to be the first to get sued. There isn't a lot to say about it after that.

------
bane
Too bad, just got one and by no possible stretch of the imagination is it an
iPhone. It's not that it's bad or good, just completely different.

------
ciparis
Without the iPhone, there would be no Galaxy series. If you don't get that,
you don't get that.

It's up to those two companies to work it out. Until that happens, this is
what we get -- and Samsung, at least, has little to complain about.

------
ken
I'm no lawyer. Is this ruling stating that the court believes the patents are
valid, or simply that if they are found to be valid that they are being
infringed in this case?

There's a huge difference between the two, and the article isn't quite clear
on what the finding is. The bond makes it sound like it could be the latter,
but everybody here seems to be assuming it's the former.

~~~
dedward
It's a preliminary injunction to prevent damages - the court has been
convinced that this will go to court and that the damage done to apple during
the time it takes to resolve the case warrants an injunction. They also wanted
a bond from apple in case it goes the other way so the opposition doesn't get
too screwed over if THEY win.... that's money in their pocket - not sure how
common that is... first time I've heard of it.

------
serge2k
2,3,4 and seem ridiculous.

------
rsanchez1
Well, better go out and buy a Galaxy Nexus, now that I am eligible for an
upgrade and now that Apple wants to take it away from me.

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

