backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Dec 14 at 9:01 AM

Judge calls out Apple on its ubiquitous design claims

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has fallen behind top Android smartphone manufacturer Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) in global sales.  Analysts say it could face a similar fate in the tablet market by 2014 or 2015.  Apple insists that Android is only beating it in sales because it "stole" its intellectual property.  

Unable to stop the Android juggernaut on the market, it has taken the top Android smartphone manufacturers to court [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] [9][10][11], trying to prove they infringed on its often ubiquitous patents, which included claims of inventing multi-touch and the swipe unlock.  The Android manufacturers have fought back: Samsung and Apple have over 80 smartphone-related suits and counter-suits to date in courts around the world, since the start of the war.

I. Samsung Can Continue to Sell its Products

Late Friday in the U.S., a judge in Northern District Californian federal courtJudge Lucy H. Koh, dealt a major setback to Apple's international campaign against Samsung.  Following earlier statements where she said she would "likely" deny Apple's request for preliminary injunction, she made it final -- no injunction for Apple.

An injunction could have allowed Apple to ban the sale of all Samsung smartphones in the U.S., as well as imports, without Apple having to work through the full standard due process procedure.   Instead, the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets and other popular models like the Infuse 4G and Droid Charge will continue to be available to holiday shoppers.

Samsung spokersperson Jason Kim told Reuters in an email, "This ruling confirms our long-held view that Apple's arguments lack merit."

Apple's spokesperson Kristin Huguet disappointedly parrotted her company's previous statement: "[Samsung] blatant copying (Apple) is wrong."

The full PDF of the ruling is available here.

II. Samsung Likely Infringes Apple's Technology, But Not Its Design

While Judge Koh didn't necessarily dismiss the merits of Apple's lone technology patent in the case -- U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which covers a menu bounce animation -- she raised serious concerns about what she viewed as Apple's attempts to position itself as the lone manufacture of functional tablets and smartphones.

She comments that "a size that can be handheld, a screen that encompasses a large portion of the front face of the smartphone, and a speaker on the upper portion of the front face of the product" are functional characteristics, not aesthetic ones and thus should not be protected by Apple's design patents.

Apple asserts that it owns the exclusive rights internationally to produce "minimalist" (that term being the summary of Apple's more verbose claim by a judge in Germany) tablets -- thin, rectangular touch-screen driven tablets with few face buttons.  Thus far Germany has been the only nation to buy such a claim.

Judge Koh's comments call into question whether Apple will be able to successfully prove that Samsung is infringing its design patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677D593,087, and D504,889 -- given the compelling differences that exist between Samsung and Apple's product lines once you look past basic form factor.

As for the technology claim, Judge Koh ruled that the menu animation wasn't enough to cause "irreparable harm" to Apple, necessitating a sales ban.  She comments, "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed."

She did however indicate that Samsung likely infringed on the patent by including a similar animation in its distribution of the Android operatings system.  She wrote, "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial."

Apple must now wait until July 30, 2012 to wrap up that case, though.

III. Legal Situation Grows Dire For Apple

Things are looking bad internationally for Apple's legal campaign against Android.  So far its only victories have been relatively inconsequential ones, with one exception.

A victory in Australian court, in which a single judge granted a preliminary injunction banning Samsung tablet sales was overturned by a three judge panel earlier this week.  While an appeal from Apple puts Samsung's sales down under on ice until Dec. 9, it seems unlikely that Apple will be able to sway the three judge panel, given how critical they were of the idea of a preliminary injunction.  Assuming Samsung's triumph is preserved, it will be able hit the market just in time for the final leg of holiday sales.

Elsewhere, in the Netherlands Samsung has escaped a sales ban by modifying its phones' Android distribution to remove the aforementioned "bounce" animation.  It looks likely that a similar loss, modification, and market reinstatement will occur for Samsung in the U.S.  Such a process does little to help Apple as it offers virtually no sales delay for Samsung and no serious damage to the quality of Samsung's product.

The lone sign of hope for Apple comes in Germany, Europe's third largest tablet market.  A German court ruled in a lawsuit solely dealing with Samsung's tablets that all of Samsung's tablets violated the design (not technology) patents held by Apple in the European Union.  This rulign was the polar opposite of the decision by a Netherlands court, which ruled, like the U.S. court, that Apple's design claims were too broad.

Samsung yielded to the German Judge's ruling, redesigning its product to have a different frame and repositioning its elements such as the speaker and buttons.  Apple however has filed a second suit against the new design, which should soon go on sale.  It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern tablet (primarily touch driven, thin, rectangular), regardless of whether the modern tablet looks different from the iPad.  The German justice system has not yet decided whether or not to authorize Apple's request for a new preliminary injunction.

If Apple continues to lose or post inconsequential wins in the majority of its court cases the company may be forced to decide between financial success and continuing its personal legal vendetta against Android.  Late company co-founder and CEO Steve P. Jobs, described his final plan for his beloved company remarking, "I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product." 

His successors could be forced to make the tough decision of whether to follow that plan -- whether to exhaust all of the company's fortune on trying to "out-sue" its Android rivals.

Sources: Ruling via The Verge, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


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

Moving the goal posts.
By drycrust3 on 12/4/2011 12:45:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"[Samsung] blatant copying (Apple) is wrong."


This is an interesting comment, not because of the accusation, but because the words used have meanings which match what most of us understand them to mean. However, if we go to the patent 7,469,381, we find statements like "translating the electronic document", where the meaning doesn't mean what we expect it to mean. Believe it or not, this isn't about translating an electronic document from one language to another, e.g. from Spanish into English, which is what one would expect when one sees the word "translate", nor is it about translating a document from one format to another (e.g. from Microsoft Word format to PDF), but it is just the moving of a "page" of an electronic document around on the computer screen.
Another example is the famous "gesture", which isn't about a non-physically contacting hand signal meant to convey information, but the brushing of one's finger across a touch sensitive display.
These aren't isolated cases either. If we look at the patent above, we see page after page filled with careful phrasing that is hard to understand.
Where words or phrases are used which have some special meaning that is different from what one normally expects or understands them to be (both in general and within that industry), then one would expect such a list to either be near the start of the patent or at the end, but I haven't seen any in any of the patents I've looked at.
The problem, then, is that when someone reads a patent with page after page of words and phrases with intentionally blurred and indistinct meaning (and moreso when the patent is then translated into another language, e.g. German), then no one can be sure of whether someone is infringing upon a patent or not unless the writer of the patent says so, which is a ludicrous state of affairs.
Imagine the situation where someone, e.g. Apple, could just say someone else, e.g. Samsung, was infringing upon their patents just because, and the latter would find it very difficult to disprove the charge because no one, except the patent applicant, in this case Apple, understands what is said in the patent. How is Samsung supposed to avoid a patent that no one understands?
To make matters worse, since the applicant is the only one who understands what is written, they can easily change their way of interpreting the meaning of the patent and it is very difficult to prove this because only they understand what it means. For example, we find that part of Apple's application for banning the sale of Samsung tablets involved their use of "menu animation", yet the words "menu animation" don't appear in the patent at all, only the word "animation" is mentioned once, in a context unrelated specifically to menus, so how was Samsung supposed to avoid infringing upon an invention where only half of its name is mentioned in the patent covering it?




RE: Moving the goal posts.
By honkj on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Moving the goal posts.
By honkj on 12/4/2011 1:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
two patents on tech, and one design patent..


that should say: "two patents, one tech, and one design patent..."

also
quote:
it is because everyone, including the judge knows Apple blatantly stole Apple design and tech.... EVERYONE including the JUDGE mind you...


sould be: it is because everyone, including the judge knows Samsung blatantly stole Apple design and tech.... EVERYONE including the JUDGE mind you... (and she has said as much)


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By Helbore on 12/5/2011 6:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a challenge for you. Go stand in an electronics store and look at some TVs from a distance where you can't read the manufacturer's branding on them. Can you identify the difference? Do you know which is the Sony TV and which is the Samsung? Can you pick out the LG unit from Panasonic?

In some cases you might (a Samsung D8000 has a ridiculously think silver bezel, for example), but in most cases they will all look identical. A rectangular screen with a black bezel.

Should the first company to make an LCD TV with a black bezel be able to sue everyone else because they also have a TV with a black bezel? How about the form-factor? The fist company was the first to produce an LCD TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Should everyone else make triangular TVs to avoid infringing on their patent? Or is the patent ridiculous and clearly just intended to try and create a monopoly for company 1?


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By Wondering Fool on 12/4/2011 2:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern tablet (primarily touch driven, thin, rectangular), regardless of whether the modern tablet looks different from the iPad.


...And this is why those very patents are being challenged in court. That description covers EVERY variation that you can think of. Not to mention that no ONE company can claim to have solely invented that design. Just think what the auto industry would be like today if Ford had a patent on (manually controlled, able to hold people, rectangular) machines.


RE: Moving the goal posts.
RE: Moving the goal posts.
By seamonkey79 on 12/4/2011 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_p...

Think of how stunted and limited both automobiles and airplanes (aeroplanes for non-US persons) would be if companies like Ford and Curtis and Lockheed and Boeing, et al, had been disallowed from production because a couple of people (literally five for automobiles and two for airplanes) decided that because they used an engine that ran on gasoline vapor or a wire to tug on a control surface, even though developed simply and separately from the patented tech, the fact that the end result was the same meant they were infringing...


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By seamonkey79 on 12/4/2011 1:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, forgot the part about Curtiss and other air companies coming up with a manner of roll control that effected the same results as the Wright's, but in an completely different manner. The Wright's patent was on warping the shape of the wing, and Curtiss and others developed the ailerons that we still use today. Same result, different method. It gets even better when you look into the more recent history and see that multi-touch is 25 years or so old, icon based interfaces are 20+ years old, LCDs have been wrapped in a thin, black (or otherwise) border for 15+ years... the only thing I've seen that started on an Apple device is the bounceback when scrolling around, so if Android manufacturers have to remove that, so be it... I've always done what I can to turn it off anyway because it bugs me.


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By drycrust3 on 12/4/2011 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And this is why those very patents are being challenged in court.

The grounds for the injunction were that the Galaxy infringed on Apple's patented "menu animation", but those exact words never ever appear in the sited patent. Go and read it yourself!
So where does the idea of "menu animation" come from?
This is the nearest I can find:
quote:
Bookmarks icon 3918 that when activated (e.g., by a finger tap on the icon) initiates display of a bookmarks list or menu for the browser;

So here, after the user taps on the menu or icon, a list appears. Personally, I don't think you can classify that as "unique and original". To me, this isn't even "menu animation", it's just a fancy term for a pop up or drop down menu, which were around long before this 2008 patent. So it's as I said, Apple can suddenly interpret this patent to mean pretty well anything they like because it's so difficult to know exactly what actually is the "orginal and unique" development they are trying to protect. Why would you want to hide a unique and original technological breakthrough? Wouldn't you want it in plain sight so everyone knows you discovered it?


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By DeluxeTea on 12/4/2011 9:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would you want to hide a unique and original technological breakthrough? Wouldn't you want it in plain sight so everyone knows you discovered it?


Only reason I can think of is to wait until someone else comes up with something similar, then slam a lawsuit on their face. Pretty much what Apple is doing today. Even worse, that patented idea isn't even "unique and original", just some vague yet fancy wording on an existing technology.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














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