Apple sues Samsung for $1 billion

[Maharishi]

I meant link an article that explains all the "stolen" patents. How can you "patent' something so vague as "electronic device"?

It's complex legal stuff involving dozens of devices, many pantents and several trade dress issues. I don't know of a quick good summary: this podcast is decent http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/32...gust-24th-2012

There's a whole series of these podcasts specifically for apple v samsung.

[Badpaladin]

Apple came out with scroll bounce. It makes their phones easier to use, Samsung comes out with scroll bounce at a later date, all the while apple holds a patent to scroll bouncing. If Samsung wanted to use scroll bouncing all they had to do was fucking pay Apple; however, greed has cost them.

The scroll bounce certainly isn't limited to Samsung. The original Droid features the same software technology, as have pretty much every Android device up until version 2.3 (many of which came out before Samsung's device).

The difference is Samsung is the company that outsold them with the Galaxy S2, something no other phone company had done before. It's a business tactic, and a wise one at that.

And while we're at it, Apple completely ripped off the slide-down notifications menu. Considering how many devices run iOS 5, they owe Google a great deal of money.

[Maharishi]

So, I can't really bother to look, but what has Microsoft (or any OS since with a GUI/Windowed interface) given to Apple since Windows uses a GUI, or is a GUI something that's so vague/simple you can't patent it in the first place?

Apple and MS sued the living hell out of each other in the 90's, and ended up agreeing to fully cross license all of their patents.

Edit: Also, the apple lisa predates any windows GUI. Xerox is the only company who could claim a right to a GUI patent, but that may just be too broad and obvious to actually patent.

[Horrid Crow]

You've got to admit that a lot of recent Samsung phones really looked like iPhones... without the typical iPhone button they would look identical.

[Dazzy]

I'm really confused on the issue because from reading the 2 pages worth of comments here, people said Apple sued over the way "scrolling" or "bounce-back" works, and maybe in technology words (i.e. not simply the word "scrolling" or "bounce-back") they somehow made a case, but just reading the few comments that (hopefully used simplistic wording) I don't see how Apple could patent any of those "features". I mean, let's pretend Windows was the very first GUI/Windowed OS. They can patent a GUI/Windowed UI? Hell, maybe the company who came up with a GUI/Windowed UI did patent that and every company since is paying them to be able to mimic that.

I guess the hangup for me is trying to interpret patents on a piece of "software" (iOS) in terms of how it "scrolls" and "bounces back" when it reaches the end of a page/image.

That's like saying I can patent a special "walk"/"dance", no?

They can and did, why do you think it is there are only 1 or 2 other windowed type os's? It takes apple years to develop an operating system due to the fact they have to work around all of microsofts patents and copyrights.

Microsoft introduced windows 3.1 after jobs took his mouse and left, microsoft only won their court battle to use the mouse because they let the software run it, not the hardware, like apple, microsoft then patented/copyrighted every tiny bit of it. Just think, if Steve Jobs had thought to have the software drivers run the mouse, apple computers and os' would outnumber windows 100 to 1 in the world.

[Aeriel]

I do have issue with some of the gesture patents, mostly because they would seem to predate the iphone in a lot of cases. Things like "scroll bounce" should be patentable though, as they are the result of R&D money, and have a significant impact in look and feel. It's no less valid than patenting a 3g antenna.

This is the basis of the lawsuit, and where it should have fallen apart before going to court. Every single technology has items that were patented by another company, and these lawsuits typically fall apart as part of trade negotiations. Every electronics, and software company, has reverse engineers on their payroll that are there entirely to "repurpose" another company's technology. The idea is that they tweak the tech just enough to call it their own. Typically, this does not happen, and the original company sues them in order to gain a small piece of their profit.

Traditionally this scenario ends with trade agreements based on how integral the tech is to the product, but this is a rare case in which the lawsuit went fully to court. This happens constantly and in every realm of industry. The questions comes down to 1) who made a working model first, 2) who filed the working model, and 3) how different is one company's version from another. Microsoft (just for example, but I believe that is right) has a patent on the concept of GUIs, so they make a, very, small residual profit from each operating system that includes a GUI.

[Themius]

Ok, so since this is a gaming forum and all, and maybe someone with patent experience could answer this, can the first MMO with "raiding" or "dungeons" patent that? Can a game patent the leveling system? Talent trees?

I don't see how it's really any different than (in the case of bounce-back) any of those?

I make a product/game. I make the product/game have a (I don't think anyone could disagree) simple "feature" as "scroll bounce"/"raiding", and then I can sue the next game company that has a feature similar to raiding?

If you patented the format for scroll raiding and every game followed it, then yes. Most game makers try to make things unique or slightly different so they don't infringe. There are cases like this... where game makers have sued over copyright infringements. I don't see why not if raiding was patented. You'd likely run into copyright issues though but most games that are similar makes things just different enough that they don't run into that issue.

There are also issues were patents aren't everywhere.

tf2 has a complete rip off, they can't do much about it though because they don't own a chinese copyright

[alturic]

Apple and MS sued the living hell out of each other in the 90's, and ended up agreeing to fully cross license all of their patents.

Very interesting. Funny though how if Apple was suing over the nature of Windows and how it worked they surely couldn't have lost if they were the first successful company using a GUI/Windowed OS, but that would again depend on if they held the patent.

[Themius]

The scroll bounce certainly isn't limited to Samsung. The original Droid features the same software technology, as have pretty much every Android device up until version 2.3 (many of which came out before Samsung's device).

The difference is Samsung is the company that outsold them with the Galaxy S2, something no other phone company had done before. It's a business tactic, and a wise one at that.

And while we're at it, Apple completely ripped off the slide-down notifications menu. Considering how many devices run iOS 5, they owe Google a great deal of money.

Apple isn't only suing Samsung. They will likely move onto google eventually. Htc, Motorola, Samsung, it's just a matter of time.

[Badpaladin]

Apple isn't only suing Samsung. They will likely move onto google eventually. Htc, Motorola, Samsung, it's just a matter of time.

Hahahhaha, oh man.

[Deleted]

Yes, keep on fighting, it is not like we just went to mars.You know, we might send a rectangular phone to mars.

[Themius]

Very interesting. Funny though how if Apple was suing over the nature of Windows and how it worked they surely couldn't have lost if they were the first successful company using a GUI/Windowed OS, but that would again depend on if they held the patent.

Very very very very very very minute differences can mean the win or a loss, it can mean a completely new patent or you losing out because you didn't do your research.

[alturic]

They can and did, why do you think it is there are only 1 or 2 other windowed type os's? It takes apple years to develop an operating system due to the fact they have to work around all of microsofts patents and copyrights.

Microsoft introduced windows 3.1 after jobs took his mouse and left, microsoft only won their court battle to use the mouse because they let the software run it, not the hardware, like apple, microsoft then patented/copyrighted every tiny bit of it. Just think, if Steve Jobs had thought to have the software drivers run the mouse, apple computers and os' would outnumber windows 100 to 1 in the world.

I don't see how (since it certainly seems like you are implying it) Apple having a mouse ran by software over hardware would make Apple the de facto consumer OS?

See, that's my point entirely, the mouse itself, the design (imo, and I understand computers have been around way before Apple/Microsoft) is something that should have been patented, not how the mouse "interacted" with the machine.

[Themius]

Hahahhaha, oh man.

HTC has obvious patent issues with Apple. They even tried to use borrowed patents of Google to fight Apple; however, these were thrown out. Think about it, HTC can't stand on it's own in this case and so they go to big brother Google to get material that he didn't have when Apple filed their case so that they could have a fighting chance.

[Maharishi]

Hahahhaha, oh man.

The galaxy nexus trial has already been tossed out, i think.

But after how absurdly google ripped off orcale, I don't have much sympathy for them in the realm of patents and copyrights.

[alturic]

Very very very very very very minute differences can mean the win or a loss, it can mean a completely new patent or you losing out because you didn't do your research.

I always thought you patented something so someone couldn't just come in and almost basically copy your idea outside of minute differences. So, I have no clue how this "scroll bounce" works, but let's pretend when you reach the bottom of the page it bounces upward a bit. If Samsung and other smart-phone manufacturers made their devices bounce downward a bit, would that be infringing? Hell, I'll just leave the thread lol, in my business I haven't had the need to patent anything ever, so I have no clue how basic patent law works. :P

[Badpaladin]

HTC has obvious patent issues with Apple. They even tried to use borrowed patents of Google to fight Apple; however, these were thrown out. Think about it, HTC can't stand on it's own in this case and so they go to big brother Google to get material that he didn't have when Apple filed their case so that they could have a fighting chance.

Apple isn't going to do anything. Samsung is the company that outsold them, not HTC. It's not worth the legal costs, especially when they take on a company whose UI looks completely different (and operates differently as well).

The galaxy nexus trial has already been tossed out, i think.

But after how absurdly google ripped off orcale, I don't have much sympathy for them in the realm of patents and copyrights.

Well yeah, of course it's been tossed out. "Universal Search" didn't hold water to stay a ban for more than a day. There are a lot of reasons for that, but mainly because there's a difference between patenting specific UI elements and general concepts, the latter of which was something Apple is attempting.

[Vargur]

I'm going to apply for a patent for thinking.

You'll still be poor. True story.

[Aeriel]

Apple isn't only suing Samsung. They will likely move onto google eventually. Htc, Motorola, Samsung, it's just a matter of time.

Motorola has already sued Apple, and it ended in trade/license agreements. Nokia has sued everyone. HTC, as the newest in the game, has the weakest batch of patents, and most of those are shared with Google.

Google and Apple already have many licensing agreements, but there will be more litigation eventually. Trust that they both make money off of each other's platform, but they make MORE off of their own.

[Themius]

I always thought you patented something so someone couldn't just come in and almost basically copy your idea outside of minute differences. So, I have no clue how this "scroll bounce" works, but let's pretend when you reach the bottom of the page it bounces upward a bit. If Samsung and other smart-phone manufacturers made their devices bounce downward a bit, would that be infringing? Hell, I'll just leave the thread lol, in my business I haven't had the need to patent anything ever, so I have no clue how basic patent law works. :P

Let me give you an example.

Someone patents an umbrella with 8 spokes that are anchored by fabric and sleeves which move the spokes up.

Someone comes out with an umbrella with 8 spokes which connect to midpost and are pushed by with sleeves

If you can prove the latter is an improvement. NEW PATENT!

Someone can't just come and copy, that's why they come out and change very very very minute things. I have seen new patents issued because of 1-2 additions. I have seen umbrella patents with fans where each fan has a different shape and each fan works slightly different, they all do the same thing they all look very similar but those VERY VERY VERY VERY minute differences in each gets awarded a new patent.

The patent system is extremely anal and you need to cover all bases in order to not be a victim.