Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

slashgear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#161

Post by Symmetry »

bishnu wrote: post #66
SoapSeller wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM Simon(1993/4) also had the same functionality[0]. Also, it seems that their main patent(8,086,604[1]) for this case describe a metasearch engine, something that have been around at least since the mid 90s(long before the patent was filled in 2004). [0] http://youtu.be/wnFsJ9z_caY?t=1m57s (warning: terrible video quality ahead) [1] http://goo.gl/jjG1P

Is this kind of stuff not brought up in court? How can you possibly patent something that already existed?

In theory the Patent Office is supposed to check for prior art, but in practice the Patent Office's budget has remained constant for the last few decades while the number of patents they had to deal with increased exponentially. At first this resulted in a backlog, but then Congress passed a law saying that they couldn't have a backlog. So now patents are subject to less and less scrutiny.

The unfortunate thing is that our other laws assume that the Patent Office is able to do its job - patents are presumed to be valid unless you go through the legal hoops necessary to invalidate one. And being in the process of going through those legal hoops isn't a defense when the patent holder sues you for infringement, so there's really little benefit for you to go through them in the first place.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#163

Post by Symmetry »

slavak wrote: post #158
chj wrote: post #38

What A Patent Hell. FYI: The patents held against Android: 1. 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 2. A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data. 3. A slide to unlock feature. 4. An autocorrect-type function that completes the word as a user types and allows the user to accept…

Seems like the reason the US patent system is so fucked-up is the logical disconnect between the two following concepts: * The USPTO approves most patents applications without the most cursory examination by a qualified person. * Patents granted by the USPTO are assumed to be valid unless overturned by a court of law. You can't have it both ways and still expect a logical result. And seriously, how the hell did #4 up…

As to (4), patent attorneys earn the big bucks for writing the patents in as obfuscated a manner as possible. That lets them get the patent past the Patent Office by saying "Look how very narrow our patent is" and its granted on those grounds, but when they go to sue other companies they choose an interpretation that amounts to the text in the grandparent, so that they can sue the maximum number of people.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#164

Post by Tichy »

raganwald wrote: post #18
ars wrote: post #4

I'm starting to hate Apple more and more. Apple: Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? I think it may be time for high profile developers to boycott Apple till they stop acting like this.

Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and scandium framed models on the market. Are my products terrible? Obviously not! Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue. Am I…

It's obviously a ridiculous patent, so Apple can not possibly claim their competitors are piggy backing on their expensive research in this case.

Also, let's ride with the carbon fibre example. Is it really desirable that the world will have to wait for 50+ years until carbon fibre bicycles can be made accessible to the mainstream? Let's not forget that it is the public, proxied by the government, who grants patents, so obviously they should only grant patents if it benefits the public. This is not the case with patent trolling, because it only stiffles innovation (basically you need an army of lawyers to do anything interesting) and drives up prices.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#165

Post by raganwald »

talentdeficit wrote: post #106
notatoad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, th…

don't hate the playa, hate the game none of these companies are leveraging truly novel patents in their lawsuits. few of these companies are even generating novel patents. they're all accumulating (likely bogus) patents to wield as a club against their competitors. the theory was mutual assured destruction would keep all parties in line but Intellectual Ventures pioneered tactical patent strikes that forced all playe…

don't hate the playa, hate the game

That is by far the most despicable cliché I know. You choose which games to play and how to play them. The whole point of having principles is that sometimes you do things that aren’t optimal game strategies.

For example, you choose not to murder your business competitors. You choose not to sell products that kill your customers. Do we let tobacco executives off the hook because they’re just “playing the game?” How about the cocaine cartel?

A gentle way to put it is, “This is a false dichotomy. Hate them both."

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#166

Post by bergie »

rimantas wrote: post #153
ericdykstra wrote: post #40

Does this kind of thing make anyone happy? Does anyone feel better about Apple the company because of this? It would be nice if supposedly innovative companies could, you know, just keep innovating instead of worrying about copycats catching up on stale technology (in this case, I don't think it's even clear that there is any sort of copycat-like activity). Apple makes a few excellent products, but this kind of thing…

For all those "I am not buying Apple product anymore"—will you please also shut up about Apple then? Thanks. Because if you truly cared you would go for fixing situation with pattents.

Consumer boycotts against companies abusing the patent system might be a very effective way to start. Suddenly companies might be interested in fixing the system in order to repair their tarnished reputations.

Not that the idea of a boycott against Apple would ever fly.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#167

Post by rosejn »

Apple Corp. sucks as a member of society. As one of the wealthiest and most successful companies on earth they continue to play dirty by abusing the patent system for their advantage. Most of the patents they are "protecting" are describing pretty obvious ideas that any group of good engineers working on this class of devices would bump into, and this behavior does not benefit society in any way. They are clearly protecting a virtual monopoly on tablets by fighting with patents rather than focusing on out innovating the competition. I hope their will one day be real competition in this space.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#168

Post by paulgb »

creamyhorror wrote: post #92

I am absolutely going to persuade my mother to switch to an Android in a few months' time. And then recommend it to every friend of mine who's upgrading their phone, mentioning in passing that Apple has actually gotten Galaxy Nexuses and Tabs blocked in the US. I'm glad Android is actually good enough at this stage for me to do this. The '604 search patent is a big hot mess of ideas thrown together to cover all sorts…

> Does anyone know of prior art (prior to Dec '04) for a search mechanism that obtains search results from multiple domains using sub-plugins and combines them into a list?

Google was doing this two months prior to Apple's filing: http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/desktopsearch.html

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#169

Post by mdkess »

What is the effect of this ruling, if it is upheld? Will Samsung have to disable this functionality? I imagine that they are not doing that immediately because that seems like an admission of guilt. Will they be able to ship their devices without software and have users install the software in question?
Post reply on HN