backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by SilthDraeth.. on Aug 3 at 4:16 PM


Samsung hopes to deploy a variant of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to escape Apple's patent litigation in Australia.  (Source: BGR)

A leading open source legal expert, though, sees the move differently. He sees Samsung's rhetoric as strawman arguments and says Samsung is effectively admitting guilt by failing to defend itself in court.  (Source: Constant Trek)
"You can't win, [Apple]. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Apple Inc's (AAPL) victory in banning the Australian sales of the hot Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet from Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (SEO:005930) may have been dealt a setback on Tuesday, when the South Korean manufacturer revealed a plan to allow the device to legally launch on the Aussie market.

I. Hope for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia?

Samsung, whose products are the subject of multiple Apple lawsuits [1][2], had previously agreed to comply to a preliminary injunction saying it would cease sales.  However, a spokesperson told AusDroid.net that a modified variant would launch shortly, skirting Apple's restrictions.

The spokesperson comments:
Apple Inc. filed a complaint with the Federal Court of Australia involving a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 variant that Samsung Electronics had no plans of selling in Australia. No injunction was issued by the court and the parties in the case reached a mutual agreement which stipulates that the variant in question will not be sold in Australia.

A Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future.

This undertaking does not affect any other Samsung smartphone or tablet available in the Australian market or other countries.

Samsung will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communication business.
Samsung, one of the world's largest intellectual property holders, is countersuing Apple.  However, Apple has a key advantage on holding patents on much of the multitouch technology smartphone users take for granted today.  While there's a great deal of prior art (similar work dates back to research institutions in the 1980s) and similar patents (Microsoft also holds multitouch IP, hence why Apple can't sue it), those sweeping patents are still dangerous to Android device makers, thanks to the messy state of international patent offices.

In order to avoid the injunction, Samsung might have to remove multi-touch from its device.  That would involve modifying the operating system, which in turn might necessitate removing Honeycomb (Android 3.x) for an older version of Google Inc.'s (GOOG) mobile operating system.

II. Is Samsung's Cooperation with Apple an Effective Admission of Guilt?

FOSS Patents, a blog of software legal experts who have been covering the case, criticizes Samsung's decision to cooperate with the injunction as an admission of guilt.  Writes Florian Mueller, "If Samsung believed that the U.S. version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't infringe any of Apple's rights, it would have defended itself as a matter of principle."

Further, he writes that the recent statement from Samsung was "very weak" and points out that the company has not announced any official date for the arrival of the new variant.  He also points out that Apple will likely have to approve of the modifications first.

Mr. Mueller accuses Samsung of construct "strawman argument[s]" against Apple -- misrepresenting its opponent's position and then claiming to contradict the misrepresentation.

He writes:

The Sydney Morning Herald listed Apple's patents-in-suit at the end of this article. Theoretically, Samsung could indeed build an Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 that would not infringe those patents, but in order to work around those patents, it wouldat least suffer serious degradations of the user experience, potentially even the removal of all multi-touch functionality. That kind of product could of course be built, but who would want to buy it?
...
I invite Samsung to explain why the Australian version of the product will be more defensible than the U.S. version as far as Apple's asserted, mostly multi-touch-related, patents are concerned. Absent a plausible explanation, Samsung's comment on the Australian situation only serves as additional confirmation that Apple is making headway (which doesn't necessarily mean that Apple will get an injunction, but Samsung doesn't exude confidence as far as the asserted patents are concerned).

So which is this latest tactic from Samsung -- a weak effort to save face or a legitimate strategy to safeguard its assets?  The answer is highly subjective and speculative.  But at the very least, Samsung isn't out of the woods yet, no matter how many modifications it makes.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

please
By sprockkets on 8/2/2011 3:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
Stop quoting from that dumbass at FOSSpatents. He turned into a FOSS troll years ago and all the real people in the open source community tell him to F off all the time. If you need any other reason to not use him, Steve's pet aka Tony Swash quotes from him.

Seriously, all apple has a patent on is pinch to zoom. They don't own multi-touch on anything else. And even then, that's just another bull-sh it "system and method" patent, aka, a software patent.




RE: please
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/2/2011 3:05:45 PM , Rating: 3
NPR has a great special on patents:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/epi...

Apparently the guy who invented the term "patent troll" has founded a company called Intellectual Ventures that has arguably engaged in mafioso-esque extortion and patent trolling itself.

Fascinating listen.

It discusses how many of these patents are complete garbage, but it's so expensive to challenge them in court, company just agree to pay licensing fees.

It even mentions the patent on toast (yes, there's a patent on "refreshing" bread... making toast). Don't you dare make toast, if you don't license, you IP thieves!!!
http://www.google.com/patents?id=IpwDAAAAEBAJ&prin...


RE: please
By sprockkets on 8/2/2011 3:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
Oh you don't have to tell me; the idiots at the patent office approved "Method for swinging on a swing." Yes, that's right, a swing like in a park.


RE: please
By B3an on 8/2/2011 4:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
Do you mean the five-year-old kid that patented a way of swinging on a child's swing?

Some other ridiculous patents:

The "comm over" that balding men do with there hair.

Amazon somehow patented the online shopping checkout.

A small company owns a patent for creating a single file from multiple files.

Theres a patent for automatic e-mail replies.

Yahoo patented sending people messages, when their friend joins an online game.

The wheel has been patented. Yes, the wheel, that round thing used on billions of things.

And it goes on and on...


RE: please
By Phoque on 8/2/2011 7:44:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Amazon somehow patented the online shopping checkout.


Ohh, I was so proud of our patent office when they refused it in Canada ( the one click checkout ).


RE: please
By Tony Swash on 8/3/2011 6:32:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Stop quoting from that dumbass at FOSSpatents. He turned into a FOSS troll years ago and all the real people in the open source community tell him to F off all the time. If you need any other reason to not use him, Steve's pet aka Tony Swash quotes from him.


You don't like FOSS Patents site because the writer knows what he is talking about, he writes informative and fact filled articles, and the picture he paints of the real world and the various patent battles going on does not match the world as you would like to think it is. Reading him and encountering the real world must hurt your head.

Readers interested as to which offers the best guide to the real world of the current patent battles should should simply visit FOSS Patents site and then read 'sprockkets' comments and decide which is the most informative and which is the least informative.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
       -- Terry Pratchett


RE: please
By sprockkets on 8/3/2011 10:45:12 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, really?

http://slushdot.com/article.php?story=201006280012...

That and he just said apple owns multi-touch, which they don't.

That and his stupid FUD against the whole Oracle/Google debacle claiming there was infringement when none existed.

And you are the last person to claim to have a non biased view of what's going on, RDF cock sucker.


RE: please
By Tony Swash on 8/3/2011 2:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
My dear spockkets what can I say. You seem to live in some strange world where name calling using terms like troll and FUD replaces rational discourse.

Again I just urge the readers to read the sort of articles that appear on FOSS Patents, which to me seem fairly knowledgable and fairly rational and very interesting, and then make their own minds up as to whether it's useful source of information or not.

quote:
That and his stupid FUD against the whole Oracle/Google debacle claiming there was infringement when none existed.


I hate to be the one to break this to you but unfortunately you won't be the one deciding whether Google infringed Oracle's IP when it decided to develop Android with out a Java license, it will be decided by due legal process.

If you read the transcripts of the recent remarks made by Judge Alsup who is hearing the case it doesn't look great for Google at the moment. Of course there are lots of very expensive and clever lawyers still locked in legal combat so anything might happen, it's just at the moment based on the evidence that we have things don't look too good for Google's case. See:

http://allthingsd.com/20110727/old-email-may-bite-...

The take away quote for me was this comment from Judge Alsup commenting on the content of some internal emails from Google between senior Google executives:

“You know what they used to say about Joe Alioto,” Alsup said, referring to the successful antitrust attorney. “In a big case like this, he only needed two documents: He needed a document like this, the one I just read, and the Magna Carta. And he won every case. And you are going to be on the losing end of this document with Andy Rubin on the stand. … If willful infringement is found, there are profound implications for a permanent injunction. So you better think about that.”

Now FUD or no FUD it's hard to spin that as looking good for Google is it?


RE: please
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2011 2:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Except you are forgetting the bit that the CEO of Sun at the time gave the approval for Google to use it. Remember the comment that Oracle removed from the servers. The worst thing that will happen is Oracle is going to tell Google it can no longer use it unless it wants to license it. Since Oracle probably will lose it is going to go for the licensing so it can get money.


RE: please
By Tony Swash on 8/3/2011 3:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except you are forgetting the bit that the CEO of Sun at the time gave the approval for Google to use it. Remember the comment that Oracle removed from the servers. The worst thing that will happen is Oracle is going to tell Google it can no longer use it unless it wants to license it. Since Oracle probably will lose it is going to go for the licensing so it can get money.


Are you talking to me or to Judge Alsup? Because he is the guy who counts. My opinion, your opinion, the opinion of every one reading this count for nothing. My reading of the situation is that Google's internal emails saying they would have to either get a licence for Java or use an entirely different development framework for Android looks like an admission that Google needed a licence, knew they needed it and chose to not get one. Hence the weight the judge is giving to this evidence.

If I was a betting man I would bet on Oracle and not Google on this one but one of the reasons I am not a betting man is because sometimes you lose bets.


RE: please
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2011 3:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
But it depends on when you are quoting the judge. The judge talked about the internal before he found out about what the CEO of Sun said. He did say some bad things about Oracle after that was found out.


RE: please
By sprockkets on 8/3/2011 2:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
There you go again - throwing up smoke and mirrors, avoiding my questions and deflecting them with pointless links to other information.

I didn't argue about the whole Google/Oracle dispute, I said Florian Mueller's evidence was a bunch of BS. He lost his reputation with me, regardless if he posts right information anymore or not.

Likewise, you think that after Steve Job's going "Minority Report" over a lost phone, his other hissy fit over his own apps in his own "sanitized" store collecting info they shouldn't thereby outing the ipad before it debuted, blocking Google Voice for no reason, blocking 3rd party dev tools for no good reason whatsoever until the feds got involved who helped them change their mind, I'm going to trust apple ever again? FUK NO!


RE: please
By Tony Swash on 8/3/2011 3:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't argue about the whole Google/Oracle dispute, I said Florian Mueller's evidence was a bunch of BS. He lost his reputation with me, regardless if he posts right information anymore or not.


Florian Mueller' isn't giving evidence at FOSS Patents - he is offering commentary and analysis. This article for example seems a very well written and very informative article which I find it hard to believe anyone would claim is BS.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/apples-fav...


WebOS?
By drycrust3 on 8/2/2011 4:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
HP is wanting to licence WebOS to other companies, so maybe Samsung could install that on their tablets in the interim.




Looks Like Samsung caved
By Tony Swash on 8/3/2011 1:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like Samsung's defiance lasted all of one day. I think they know they are legally vulnerable and not sure what to do.

ttp://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/sams ung.stalls.tab.101.event.indefinitely/




Please
By eldardude on 8/2/11, Rating: -1
RE: Please
By Mitch101 on 8/2/2011 4:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously Star Wars quote with Apple?
Apple is more like the Muffet of Battlestar Galactica.


RE: Please
By gorehound on 8/3/2011 2:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have a big dislike for APPLE,
poor apple and their dumb-ass IPHONE.
I will just not buy APPLE like I have been doing for years.
This is the way APPLE competes I guess.Just use your lame broad based software never should have been issued in the first place patent to get rid of competition.


They deserve to be sued
By saarek on 8/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: They deserve to be sued
By SilthDraeth on 8/3/2011 4:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone explain to me why a hardware vendor gets sued for the operating system it ships it's products with?

IF Google rips off IP, why is Samsung getting sued for utilizing it in their hardware?

For instance, most PC people buy use Windows, however, that very same PC can use OSX or Linux, or Unix, etc.

Is it because on mobile platforms the OS is more tightly integrated that makes it vulnerable to lawsuits based on software?


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki