- 5,050,889
REGISTERED - 54,707
ONLINE NOW
November 1, 2012 By: jerdog
Last week, we told you about Apple’s creative “apology.” We expressed our opinion that Apple failed at following the order from the UK Court of Appeals. The court felt the same way, and has ordered Apple to correct their statement within 48 hours. It must be in at least 11-point font instead of the small text used by Apple and ON the front page rather than a linked page as Apple attempted to do. They called the statement Apple posted as “untrue” and “incorrect” and were, to put it lightly, quite displeased. Judge Robin Jacob had this to say about Apple:
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this. That is a plain breach of the order.”
Apple’s lawyers said that it would take at least 14 days to comply with the order and requested that timeframe, to which the Court denied and had this to say in response:
“I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”
What also appears to be missing are the newspaper adverts that Apple was ordered to place, but no mention of them were made by the Court. We’ll have to stay tuned to see what else turns up in this now mind-boggling case.
October 27, 2012 By: jerdog
My wife and I thoroughly enjoy the movie The Legend of Bagger Vance. One of our favorite scenes is the following exchange between the two principal characters, Adele (played by Charlize Theron) and Rannulph (Matt Damon):
Rannulph: There something you wanted to tell me?
Adele: Well, I’m trying to think of how to say it, Junuh.
There is a purpose to this visit…
…and that’s to apologize.
I’m not an apologetic woman, it takes me longer to organize my thoughts.
I want to seem properly contrite for having gotten you into this match…
…but not seem what I did was ill-intentioned, since it wasn’t.
Rannulph: What exactly are you apologizing for?
Adele: For publicly humiliating you.
Rannulph: That’d be a good thing to apologize for.
Adele: However, I think that…
Basically, what I’m trying to say is…
…that I’m sorry.
But it’s not my fault.
You’re the one to blame.
Rannulph: That’s one hell of an apology, Adele.
While it’s not often that you see something from the silver screen play out in real life, that little exchange is essentially what happened. If you remember back in July, we told you about a judge in the UK telling Apple that they needed to publicly apologize to Samsung in newspapers and the Apple EU websites, stating that Samsung did in fact not copy the iPad. The judge clearly stated that the notice should provide details about the ruling that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets don’t infringe on Apple’s registered designs. Apple appealed the decision, but lost. They were then ordered to follow through with the judgement. Fast forward almost four months, and Apple has indeed published a notice. First off, let’s just post the full statement made by Apple on their UK website:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic(UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”
“The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.”
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.
Now I don’t know about you, but this is about the worst example of following a judge’s orders I have seen in a long time. Here’s exactly what the judge told Apple to do [bold is mine]:
Within seven days of the date of this Order the Defendant shall, at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites (“the Defendant’s Websites”), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant’s Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant’s Websites….
“On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].”
The defendant shall arrange for the following notice to be published in The Financial Times; the Daily Mail; The Guardian; Mobile Magazine; and T3 magazine:
“On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].”
Now one could argue that Apple complied with the judge’s order because they do in fact include the text from the judge. However, they then proceed to completely invalidate his statement by essentially stating that he was misinformed because other courts have found that Samsung does in fact copy Apple. Of course they neglect to mention anything about what the Court of Appeals had to say in their rejection of Apple’s appeal (emphasis is mine):
Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about. It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple’s iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not. Likewise there is no issue about infringement of any patent for an invention.
So this case is all about, and only about, Apple’s registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences – even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
What we have here is a blatant attempt by Apple to continue Steve Jobs’s legacy of a “reality distortion field” in how they view the world. The Court of Appeals went further to speak out against Apple’s attempts within the EU to go around the UK judge’s orders in sections 78-88 of the appeal ruling, stating that in order to make sure there was no doubt as to what the UK courts had ruled,
“Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse’s mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.”
I fully expect the UK Court of Appeals to come down hard on Apple with this notice, given that they did not make things clear. Instead they spent more time attempting to discredit the judgments and trying to save face. This could very well be grounds for the UK Court to hold Apple in contempt and impose heavy fines, so we shall see what the next few weeks brings.
I purposely left out the last bit of the exchange between Rannulph and Adele.
Adele: So, you want my apology or not?
Rannulph: No.
Does this seem fitting? Let’s see how Samsung responds.
October 23, 2012 By: egzthunder1
OK. This isn’t exactly a weekly update, but the battle that seemed to be over just a little over a month and change ago is still seeing some remnants of action. 10/11/12 was a fantastic day for Android enthusiasts as well as Samsung and Google since the patent-based ruling over the Global Search feature on Android was overturned by an Appeals Court in the US. When this happened, we all saw a faint ray of light coming in through the iCloud and hoped that it was only the beginning of something good. As it turns out, over the last week and a half, we can say with confidence that the iClouds are clearing a little, and more hope is coming through. In other words, people are beginning to realize that the entire ruling was absolutely off-base, inaccurate at best, and overall preposterous.
This is the first instance of sanity that we have seen since the Nexus was freed to be imported into the US, and it comes in the shape of a lost appeal courtesy of our friends on the other side of the pond (UK). This is sort of interesting, as it is the second time around that we see this news coming from the UK. The first time around, a UK court had ordered Apple to display ads essentially apologizing to Samsung and stating, in writing, that Korean giant did not infringe their patents. Such a thing must be done for 6 months. The ruling coming from the judge was dripping with sarcasm, as the main statement was that people could not possibly confuse the iPad with the Galaxy Tab due to the latter “not being cool enough.” Quite honestly, this writer is officially confused, as I am not sure if the judge was being serious or simply sarcastic. In any case, the ruling was appealed by Apple and just like it was ruled, the judges preceding the appeal process (all three of them) deemed that the original ruling was valid and will stand. Still, the punishment being imposed on Apple falls short in comparison to the one imparted against Samsung in the US by the country’s High Court. But wait! Don’t go away just yet, because there’s more!
Crossing back the Atlantic over to the US, we have yet witnessed a second sign that the entire thing was poorly handled from the start. The reason for this statement is very simple. If a patent is indeed valid and ruled as such, there should be no “back and forth” on the verdicts. No, with this I do not mean that people cannot appeal to a decision, but the patent is a black and white document that explicitly depicts the design, use(s), and considerations taken when a product is patented. As such, there is VERY little room for interpretation by the law, as the writing is not done in a subjective way that gives room for interpretation, but rather it is a set of solid facts. The first overturned patent, as stated before, was the ’604 patent. Today, we received news that a second patent has been overturned.
Patent number 7,469,381 is being deemed as invalid by by the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). This patent deals essentially with the “bouncing scroll” feature that we all love so much. As it turns out, re-investigations on these are revealing that this is not exactly an original feature and as such, the claims on this patent may end up going overboard and invalidated. This would also be fantastic news for HTC who is also being slapped for the same. According to the source, there will be a preliminary ruling on HTC’s case as well towards the end of November (right in time for Black Friday). Now, this is far from being final, as this is just now being investigated by the USPTO. It then needs to make its way to the court, the appeals court, go through the entire process of appealing (which I can only assume is already underway), and finally a ruling can be made based on the evidence. Everything and anything can happen in between, but as stated earlier, it is a ray of hope.
So, where do we go from here? There is the distinct possibility that our beloved justice system will cast the veil from their faces (and their heads from their rear ends), and start looking at evidence with both qualified and objective people, unlike their selection of jury from the past “main event.” Just think about this for a second: The UK justice system is not exactly new (they’ve been around for quite a little longer than its US counterpart), but yet they can see the rather obvious differences between two products, including the fact that one of them has an Apple logo in the back, whereas the other does not. The ruling of “confusing one with the other” is the intellectual equivalent of saying that you bought a Toyota instead of a Ford because it had wheels.
Well, we sincerely hope that the second set of good news amounts to something, and that US courts realize that 1 billion dollars is a lot of money to make someone pay, particularly when you do not even have your facts straight or use common sense while shelling out the sentence.
You can find more information in the original article from DailyMail and in the FOSS Patent website.
Thanks for reading.
Want something published in the Portal? Contact any News Writer.
October 21, 2012 By: jerdog
There has been a lot of discussion recently about Samsung and their lack of open source code for the Exynos processor on the Galaxy S2 i9100 and Galaxy S3 i9300. XDA-Developers is at the Big Android BBQ in Dallas, TX this weekend, and Samsung Developers is hosting a Q&A. We’ll be updating this LIVE, as often as we can and as the overloaded WiFi network allows. They have also let us know that they will be sharing news on Exynos and source code.
You can join in and view the event by visiting the live Google+ Hangout!
Post-Session Q&A
QUESTION: It’s great that you are releasing this development board, which is much like what NVIDIA does with their dev boards, but we’re wanting to know about phones like the i9100 and i9300. What is being done about those devices and Exynos source?
AGARWAL: From a SoC point of view, a lot of the code for the SoC (baseboard, the drivers, GPU, media binaries) remain common across the devices and the boards, and we are making an effort to make the code available for developers to enable them to run the Exynos, to enable them to get access to the GPU binaries. How OEM’s modify that and implement that is something that I will hand over to Hod to address.
HOD: [From the Android perspective] It’s a funny thing, and I don’t know if people understand, but when dealing with the Mobile side and the Hardware side, we’re almost like a customer of theirs….. Everybody that is here from Samsung is here because we feel it’s important and want to be a part of the community. There are obstacles, and we’re trying to do what we can to work on them. This is a great step, and we’ve been talking about other things we can work together with LSI and HQ and other channels and fighting as much as we can.
QUESTION: How much of S-Voice was pushed upstream for Google to use in Google Now?
LUDDON: It’s always up to Google to integrate what we’ve done, so I really can’t say. It’s up to the OS provider to choose which features make it back into the source upstream.
QUESTION: Will Samsung integrate the S-Pen SDK into AOSP?
LUDDON: Can’t comment on future plans, but the plan is to always integrate as much as we can with the platforms we are using.
QUESTION: Limited version of the SDK for phones which do not have an S-Pen?
LUDDON: Some of that functionality already exists so that you’re able to use those features.
QUESTION: Entropy512 asks why Samsung is using a proprietary S-Pen SDK when Android now has a built-in API for ICS and JB?
HOD: Samsung has put together a way of using hooks that allow you to use hooks that are already available in the SDK and created something before Google put something together in the Android source.
_________________________
2:26 PM – Samsung says they will provide Git server access starting in November 2012 at http://git.insignal.co.kr, and will have a dedicated site for the origenboard.org at www.origenboard.org
2:25 PM – NOTE: Working with origenboard has issues for what XDA-Developers would love to see since it has no RIL support or audio support.
2:17 PM – Michael Luddon is announcing Akshay Agarwal, Director, Samsung LSI’s Exynos Division who flew in specifically for this discussion.
2:15 PM – Mr. Agarwal is discussing an Exynos Developer Board (origenboard) that will be released with source code for the board to enable development for the Exynos platform. They are working with Insignal, Inc. to provide Proprietary binaries to enable complete system development on Exynos. Open Source for the Kernel and Platform (HAL, OMX, Framework Patches). The source code will be released under GPLv2 and Apache 2.0. Samsung will provide MALI GPU developer support as well.
2:10 PM – Hod Greeley is discussing the S-Pen SDK
2:03 PM – Samsung is talking about upcoming conferences they will be attending.
2:00 PM – As you all may be aware there have been some relative uproars about the lack of important Exynos sources for JB on the i9100 and 9300. Samsung knows there is a pending issue, and Michael Luddon (Marketing Manager from Samsung Developers US) is telling everyone to be nice and constructive and they will do what they can to answer.
October 15, 2012 By: Jimmy McGee
Unless you have been living under a rock, you know what Triangle Away is. If you don’t, Triangle Away is a way to reset the flash counter on Samsung devices. That’s right. In their infinite wisdom, Samsung decided to keep track of the number of times you flash custom firmware to your device. Obstinately, this is to allow them to deny warranties and blame the hardware issues on unauthorized firmware. The logic seems flawed with the solid firmware available on XDA.
Recently XDA Elite Recognized Developer Chainfire released an update to his Triangle Away application, ticking the version number to v2.05. This latest update adds support for the Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE GT-I9305 and the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 LTE GT-N7100. Chainfire says that this update should work on various Qualcomm-based Samsung devices. Chainfire could use your help to determine which of the Qualcomm-based Samsung devices this works on that haven’t been identified.
On October 9th the new 5.5 inch screen wielding Samsung Galaxy Note 2 GT-N7100 was added to the supported devices list. Since our last Triangle Away article support has also been added for the Samsung Galaxy S3 SHV-E210K, Samsung Galaxy S3 SHV-E210S, Samsung Galaxy Note GT-N8000 10.1″ 3G and Samsung Galaxy Note GT-N801x 10.1″ Wi-Fi.
Check out the application thread for more information and to help Chainfire find out what devices this latest update works on.
October 12, 2012 By: Joseph Hindy
The USB jig for Samsung devices can be immensely useful. When used properly, they force a Samsung device into download mode so you can flash firmware over Odin and restore it to working order. It is especially useful when you’ve broken pretty much everything and need a fresh start. Additionally, it completely resets your flash counter. There is an application that can do this called TriangeAway by XDA Elite Recognized Developer Chainfire, but it’s always good to have additional options.
If you find yourself wanting to enter download mode easily, you can build your own USB jigs. While making your own is nothing new, there is now a thread posted with a step-by-step photo guide to creating your own jig. It isn’t overly difficult, but does require some soldering. So if you do attempt it, be sure to read all the instructions first to make sure you know what you need to do. You can find the thread here.
Of course, whether you buy one or make one, you should also know how to use one. XDA Senior Member mattcfk has released a very generalized FAQ to help you use the USB jig to do anything from removing the yellow triangle to restoring a bricked device. You can find the full FAQ and support thread here.
Of course, if all else fails, there may be a forum member in your area that’ll let you borrow their jig for a one-time use. XDA Senior Member saywhatt has compiled a list of users around the world who have a USB jig that would be willing to meet up and let you use it. Of course, as with any meeting with a stranger, be cautious. If you’re looking for someone in your area, you can find that thread here.
Whether you build it, buy it, or borrow it, these USB jigs can mean the difference between a paperweight that you have to return and a fully functioning phone. If you own a Samsung device and don’t have one, you should look into it. They’re definitely useful little tools.
October 9, 2012 By: Will Verduzco
Those who have followed the Samsung development community recently have no doubt noticed the current difficulties caused by a lack of proper documentation for the Exynos SoC. While Samsung has traditionally acted favorably towards the community, the lack of documentation is hampering aftermarket development efforts.
Because lack of proper documentation makes it much more difficult (or impossible) for the developers to work with the devices, several high profile devs have expressed their distaste with the situation. In fact, XDA Elite Recognized Developer codeworkx of Team Hacksung and the CyanogenMod team has shared his difficulties, and stated his plans to drop support for Exynos devices such as the Galaxy S III and develop for Sony devices.
Thankfully as noted by codeworkx, Samsung has “heard” the concerns that have been voiced, and is discussing them with their team:
All is not well, however. While Samsung stated in a later Tweet that they are “working to resolve the situation,” they have not yet provided any additional documentation, nor have they detailed what exactly they plan on sharing.
In fact, XDA Elite Recognized Developer Entropy512 has publicly expressed his skepticism on Twitter, given their track record in the BrickBug issue:
At this point, you may be wondering what you can do to help the cause. Since the petition thread by XDA Senior Member AntonLiv92 has at least alerted Samsung that there is in fact a problem, we suggest continuing to let them know that this issue is important to you. However, the waiting game now begins, as we prepare for Samsung’s response.
To stay apprised with the latest news regarding the lacking Exynos documentation, be sure to visit the petition thread, as well as follow Entropy512 (Google+), codeworkx (Google+), and SamsungExynos.
[Thanks to XDA Elite Recognized Developer Chainfire for the tip!]
October 3, 2012 By: Jimmy McGee
On today’s XDA Developer TV, Mad Scientist Erica presents us another short documentary video. Today’s topic is screen display technologies, or more specifically mobile device display technologies. With a bevy of devices sporting differing screen display technologies, Erica delves into this topic showing the strengths and weaknesses of each product.
In this video Erica talks about what LCD and AMOLED screens are, how they are made, and the science behind them. Then, she talks about some common misconceptions of display technologies. Finally, Erica engages in some real world, side-by-side comparison tests. So check out this video, and learn some important information about screen technologies.
September 26, 2012 By: Jimmy McGee
According to most reports, Samsung has almost 45 to 50 percent of the Android phone market. Being the largest Android phone device creator has it benefits. Samsung has often cooperated with developers, and we have created a great relationship with them. This relationship has created many great results. However, there seems to be a growing apart in our relationship lately.
XDA Developer TV Producer azrienoch calls Samsung out. Azrienoch talks about Samsung’s past and gives them recommendations. What do developers and enthusiasts like to do with their phones? What is the point of open source software? To find out azrienoch’s answers to these questions, check out this video.
September 25, 2012 By: egzthunder1
Once upon a time, a white knight in shinning armor by the name of XDA Elite Recognized Developer AdamOutler brought us tons upon tons of knowledge on hardware specifications for the Samsung Galaxy Captivate and a few other related devices. He and a few other devs like XDA Forum Member TheBeano and Recognized Developer UberPinguin also brought us the key to opening up an door for hardware mischief, and in turn revealed an entire world of possibilities for aspiring devs and end users alike. Not every device is the same, and certainly setting up UART can have its set of complications, including but not limited to, messing your device up to the point of no return (also known as completely bricking it).
XDA Recognized Developer bhundven has decided to try and help pave the way for aspiring hardware developers who are not afraid of cracking their devices open and seeing what they had for lunch. Setting up USB UART this way should allow you to mess with most Galaxy S (not SII or SIII) devices with ease. The guide will teach you how to set things up, what programs to use, what hardware you will need, and certain commands for you to have some fun with once you mastered what you are doing (such as wiping the SBL partition completely clean).
Please, please, make sure that you read everything 2, 3, or as many times as you need to before you try doing any of this. You will be messing with the device’s internals, so it is incredibly easy to mess things up. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, have at it and good luck!
Hello, and welcome to my usb uart guide – aka, how to totally f’ your phone up, if you don’t think first!
You can find more information in the guide thread.
Want something published in the Portal? Contact any News Writer.
August 28, 2012 By: Haroon Q. Raja
Want to access and control your Samsung Android device from your PC? You can now do so easily and securely using TeamViewer QuickSupport, which was just released in the Google Play Store.
While TeamViewer has been available on Android for some time, previous versions only allowed you to remotely control your PC from your Android device. That is quite a useful feature, but at times when you’re working on your PC, it’s handy to be able to control your phone or tablet from the same screen without having to manage multiple devices and input methods. TeamViewer QuickSupport lets you do just that.
Unfortunately, the app only works on Samsung’ devices running stock TouchWiz ROMs based on Gingerbread or later. This means that it isn’t compatible with devices from other manufacturers, Nexus devices manufactured by Samsung, and Samsung’s own devices running custom ROMs. Hopefully, this limitation will be removed in a future version.
Those interested should head over to the discussion thread by XDA Senior Member sweetboy02125.
August 22, 2012 By: jerdog
Legend has it that Admiral Yamamoto made the following statement shortly after Japan’s 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” While the validity of the statement has never been verified, the principle remains that you should be careful that the enemy you try to tease and poke is not a lion ready to devour you. I have seen a lion first-hand in the wild, and their tails will swat at the flies with nary a concern in the world, but piss them off enough and they will go for blood.
In the last year and a half, Apple has filed over 20 lawsuits against smartphone manufacturers Samsung and HTC for the ways in which they have implemented their hardware designs and Android OS implementations. During that time Google has been largely silent, with the only thing closely resembling a corporate stance being a backhanded statement Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt made at a conference in Tokyo last year. When asked about whether Google would provide financial support to HTC should they lose a patent case with Apple, Schmidt said: “We will make sure they don’t lose, then.” That however has been the last statement made by Google about the whole mess. Until now.
When Google announced their deal to buy Motorola Mobility in August of 2011, speculation arose as to their motivation to do so, with the blogosphere exploding with word that Google’s true motivation was to gain control of over 17,000 patents that Motorola controlled. Google CEO Larry Page stated in a shareholder conference call about the acquisition:
“The combination of the two companies is going to create tremendous shareholder value, drive great user experiences and accelerate innovation. Motorola also has a strong patent portfolio, which will help protect Android from anticompetitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”
With the finalized acquisition of Motorola by Google in May, it seemed like it was only a matter of time before Google would stop letting its hardware partners be attacked by Apple and would take a stand. On Friday Google did just that, filing a patent-infringement lawsuit against Apple for the following seven patents: 5,883,580, 5,922,047, 6,425,002, 6,983,370, 6,493,673,7,007,064 and 7,383,983. The products they are seeking an import ban on are the Apple’s iPod Touch, the iPhone 3GS, 4 and 4S, the iPad 2 and the “new” iPad, as well as the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air and all other Apple devices “which utilize wireless communication technologies to manage various messages and content.” Motorola also argues Apple was fully aware of the patents in question.
The obvious worst-case scenario for Apple would be that all of their products would be banned in the U.S. until they resolve the issue. I don’t believe anyone sees the worst-case scenario happening, but it would not be surprising to see some sort of preliminary injunction until the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a ruling which is scheduled for August 24.
What is obviously interesting in this case, is that Apple would seem to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Concerning the filing, Motorola states:
“We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations.”
It is common practice for a manufacturer to negotiate a license with a patent holder so that they can use the invention or innovation in their products, but Apple seems unwilling to do that with anyone. Samsung also stated almost the same thing in a filing in their current court battle with Apple, that they offered in 2011 a “fair and reasonable” royalty rate for using their standards-essential mobile technology that ”is consistent with the royalty rates other companies charge.” The filing stated that Apple never made a counter-offer, but “Instead, it simply rejected Samsung’s opening offer, refused to negotiate further and to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.” Apple replied that ”Samsung’s royalty demands are multiple times more than Apple has paid any other patentees for licenses to their declared-essential patent portfolios.” That all sounds well and good, but the percentage Samsung was asking for was 2.4% of the entire selling price of Apple’s mobile products that utilized Samsung’s technology, amounting to roughly $16 per iPhone (and roughly $350 million dollars according to court records). Apple on the other hand tried to license to Samsung back in 2010 patents that it felt were being infringed upon, with a royalty fee of $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.
Now on the surface it sounds like both are seeking to be reasonable and offer licenses, but let’s look at this from a different perspective. Apple calls Samsung unfair for requesting royalties on industry standard-essential patents and cites their demands as being more than Apple has paid anyone else, but they were the ones who first tried to license to Samsung non-essential design patents which would be subject to perception for a fee which would be more than double what Samsung offered. Who’s really being unfair and unreasonable here?
So now we come back to the Motorola/Google vs. Apple case. With a precedent being shown that Apple is more than willing to try and license their patents and accept royalties, but unwilling to return the favor, I wonder how this case will play out. Google already has a very adept legal team, able to defend itself against baseless attacks (ala Oracle vs. Google), and Apple has been moderately successful around the world but has lost some very recent cases (ala Apple vs. HTC in the UK). Personally I do not feel that Apple will allow themselves to face seeing their main money-makers be banned in the U.S., but I also don’t see them stopping their baseless attacks on innovation around the world. I hope I am wrong, but I do see them turning around and unleashing on Google directly instead of attacking the partners like they have done, which will stifle innovation more than it already has. Seeing as that has been Apple’s modus operandi the last year and a half, it may not be far off from reality.
Sources:
[Image courtesy of Rule7Media]
August 8, 2012 By: Jimmy McGee
On today’s XDA Developer TV Erica is back to talk about the interesting topic of fast dormancy again. In last week’s video Erica gave an overview of Fast Dormancy, what it is and how it works. After weeks of research and hard work, Erica submits a great doctoral dissertation on Fast Dormancy.
In this video Erica talks demonstrates the 3G state changes and discusses their impacts on the phone and battery life. She talks about how her network changes 3G states. Finally, Erica talks about what happens if you disable or enable Fast Dormancy and how your cellular network provider’s policies can impact the state changes. Lastly a demonstration of XDA Elite Recognized Developer supercurio’s application Voodoo RRC Tool is given. Be sure to join in on the discussion in this thread.
YouTube
Follow
Like
Google+
