EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.09.11

Steve Jobs’ Aggressive Legacy and Microsoft Boosters Continue to Haunt Linux Phones

Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Oracle at 11:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Android is still under patent artillery and those who are responsible for this are named

MR. Jobs died last week, but the mess he left behind him remains for us to tackle.

Google is under a patent assault from Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft, and well as some of the patent trolls Microsoft uses as proxies. Google’s main product to target is the Linux-powered Android platform. One new article bears a negative but clever headline (“Google’s Troubled Search for Valuable Patents”) and it says that “IPVision, which makes patent-analyzing software, says that the 1,029 patents that Google bought from IBM in July contain little that the company could use to either attack its competitors or defend its own products.” IBM and Google are both in the OIN and they have a shared interest in Linux. The transmission of patents from one to another was quite secretive and little is known about it. It’s actually a two-stage transmission that got noticed twice this year.

According to the following new reports, Jobs’ good friend Larry Ellison carries on suing Android, harassing yet more Android backers. Google will stand up against Apple, so we shall see how it ends.

  • Oracle v. Google – No Reconsideration for Oracle

    Just as quickly as Oracle served up its précis letter [PDF; text] requesting permission to file a motion to reconsider, Judge Alsup has swatted it back across the net with a passing shot [486 (PDF; text)]. Too little (did not show good cause) and too late (not timely). So the limits are set on Oracle’s infringement contentions.

  • Oracle Expert Drags LG, HTC, Motorola Devices; Google Objects

    Oracle has filed another brief to rely on an expert report in ongoing litigation with Google over alleged infringement of copyrighted Java in the Android operating system, the Courthouse News Service reports.

    A report by Oracle expert John Mitchell referred to three devices that Oracle had not initially named: the LG Optimus, the HTC Droid Incredible 2 and the Motoral Atrix.

  • Google joins HTC against Apple

    A significant turn has taken place in the HTC – Apple lawsuit. A slight recap on the same would lead us to the time when Cupertino-based, Apple had filed a lawsuit against popular smartphone manufacturer, HTC. Apple had alleged that HTC, by the way of the Android software used on its smartphones and other devices, had infringed on the patents owned by them. Now, search giant Google, who’s also the name behind the popular Android OS has joined forces with HTC against Apple.

Apple has perhaps innovated “embargo as competition” (although there is plenty of prior art). What a shameful, despicable strategy. If this is what makes Apple “successful”, then we should hope that Apple fails.

In other ‘news’ (fake news), Microsoft booster Matt Rosoff parrots the Microsoft Florian propaganda which characterises Google as an “investor” in the Microsoft patent troll which is attacking itself. Slow ‘news’ day for them, eh? They need to recycle some old FUD because of the Motorola lawsuit. This is just more of the disgusting Microsoft propaganda from Matt Rosoff and Microsoft Florian, whom he quotes for more of those same old lies. We saw that routine before. These people are not even worthy of a tabloid. Well, they could do a lot worse than a tabloid. They could run a pro-Apple Web site (where facts are a fantasy).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

22 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 9, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Gravatar

    Funny how you never mention how Apple did the right thing in giving Samsung a chance to do the right thing before anything went to court. That is right: even though Samsung was clearly copying Apple, Apple did not want to go to court – they wanted things to be settled in a much more amicable way.

    Samsung declined. They refused to do the right thing.

    And you blame Apple.

    BenderBendingRodriguez Reply:

    Last time i heard Samsung didn’t even know they have a case in court until Dusseldorf court decided to ban Galaxy Tab so no, Apple wen’t to cry to the court because Samsung has used round corners which is so amazing and innovative that it must have been patented. And just recently i read apple lawyers admitted that Samsung Galaxy Tab is just better and that iPad 2 can’t compete with features.

    Michael Reply:

    Last time you heard? From where? And patenting rounded corners? Oh, you have been listening to Roy’s lies on the matter. Got it.

    http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

    There is *no* doubt Samsung went out of their way to copy Apple. None.

    BenderBendingRodriguez Reply:

    Funny, Apple must go to court with every smartphone producer. Let’s be honest, you cant innovate with tablets since it’s just basically a screen Apple didn’t complain about anything else but the corners and forged evidence to make it look better. And if you want to read Apple’s lawyers response. there you go, http://news.techeye.net/mobile/apple-is-terrified-of-samsung . Since i’m writing this on a phone please excuse me my mistakes.

    Michael Reply:

    First: why ignore the comments I made?

    1) Nothing on your claim about “last time you heard”. From where? Nowhere. You made it up.

    2) Patenting rounded corners. Where did you get this? Again: it is complete false “advocate” FUD.

    3) You ignored the evidence Samsung copied Apple.

    Interesting. You pretty much went out of your way to admit you are just making things up as you go. Then you added:

    “Apple must go to court with every smartphone producer”

    Why? Are you saying everyone is copying Apple? Do you really think only Apple can be innovative? And then you claim forged evidence – an accusation which I have seen made but never supported (that *Apple* forged anything).

    Your typos are excused… your making things up is not. :)

  2. BenderBendingRodriguez said,

    October 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Gravatar

    1 Articles were all over the internet, can’t do everything for uou if you ignore it to support your point of view ergo Apple didn’t have to inform Samsung that they are being sued on grounds of community patent infringement (EU thing).
    2 Read first comment about community patent Apple received (community or something similar, might be wrong on how it is called but apple has been awarded it)
    3 Tablets then were produced on x86 CPUs which made them look bulky and because other OS was being usedo were additional buttons, the phones on picture were neither smartphone nor touchphones so using old samsung phones as to show their phones were different is pretty moot. Touchphones don’t require many buttons and it’s look is simple as with tablets, just a screen. We can finish the discussion later on if you wish, i’m going to sleep, have a good night and till later.

    Michael Reply:

    1) Right, the articles saying Jobs gave Samsung the chance to do the right thing were all over the place. You claimed to have information that contradicted that story. I am calling you on that claim. You cannot back it. You made it up. Here is just one of the stories that contradicts your claim.

    ——
    Apple’s then-CEO Steve Jobs personally got in touch with Samsung last year to try and head off a protracted legal battle
    —–

    So with #1: you made it up. You have no evidence and no point. Got it.

    2) Apple never claimed to have a patent on rounded corners. The rounded corner FUD came from Apple listing that as one of *many, many* elements that are the same. I already showed you the visual evidence of the massive amounts of copying: http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

    So with #2: you are repeating false “advocate” FUD which is, at best, an extreme bastardization of facts with one point taken completely out of context.

    3) You pretended that it is a given that smart phones will have fewer buttons. Do you know why the Blackberry is called the Blackberry? I mean, really, that is just silly. But if you want to show where Samsung’s products looked the way I show you in the image *before* Apple came out with theirs then by all means do so. If not, well, it is obvious Samsung copied Apple *greatly*. Given how the evidence is overwhelming and there is *no* counter evidence, how is it even worth debating?

    So there we have it: Samsung copied Apple. You denied this. Apple contacted Samsung and tried to work things out before taking them to court. You denied this.

    And then you repeated false “advocate” FUD about patenting rounded corners.

    In other words: the evidence is not at all in agreement with your views. I am OK with that if you are. And you seem to be.

  3. Mikko said,

    October 10, 2011 at 4:55 am

    Gravatar

    FUD and Lies from Appletrolls

    Michael Reply:

    if you think I am wrong then by all means show where. Defend your view.

    But you can only call people names. Interesting.

  4. Jose_X said,

    October 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Gravatar

    Michael, you keep mentioning that picture, but you ignore that most of the things we see there already existed before Apple produced their first such device (eg, phone or pad). I see black color, plastic, rectangles, software that looks just like software that has been used on desktops for ages. I also know there are other things not viewable in that picture but that Apple had not produced but other firms had. I also know that Apple has violated a ton of patents because software patents is a broken system — no, it would not be right for Samsung to agree to broken patents that very possibly would not be upheld in the SCOTUS if it was pushed to that level. Why do you ignore that Apple is violating so many patents and has copied so many features from others?

    Michael Reply:

    > Michael, you keep mentioning that picture, but you
    > ignore that most of the things we see there already
    > existed before Apple produced their first such device
    > (eg, phone or pad).

    I would love to see support for this. If true that the “after” images should really be in the “before” section it is very strong evidence against Apple’s claims. I admit I do not know the Samsung products well and was trusting this image (and some similar ones along with some reports) were correct. If you can show me otherwise I would be very interested in seeing it. And, yes, this would change my mind about Samsung copying Apple.

    To make it easy for others to follow, this is the image in discussion: http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

    > I see black color, plastic, rectangles, software that
    > looks just like software that has been used on
    > desktops for ages. I also know there are other things
    > not viewable in that picture but that Apple had not
    > produced but other firms had. I also know that Apple
    > has violated a ton of patents because software
    > patents is a broken system — no, it would not be
    > right for Samsung to agree to broken patents that
    > very possibly would not be upheld in the SCOTUS if it
    > was pushed to that level. Why do you ignore that
    > Apple is violating so many patents and has copied so
    > many features from others?

    I agree that the overall IP system is very broken – and do not excuse Apple for its wrong doing. Where did you get the idea that I did?

  5. Jose_X said,

    October 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Gravatar

    Micheal, you are aware that Apple filed misleading information in that Galaxy case, right?

    Are you aware that Samsung wasn’t afforded an opportunity to present their case before the ruling?

    Here is another story that covered this in the early days http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110418/15182213940/apple-sues-samsung-because-galaxy-tab-looks-too-much-like-ipad.shtml

    It also seems, to pick one example, that Apple copied a ton from the LG Praga http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/lg-ke850-prada-unlocked/4505-6454_7-32316442.html

    Michael Reply:

    > Micheal, you are aware that Apple filed misleading
    > information in that Galaxy case, right?
    >
    > Are you aware that Samsung wasn’t afforded an
    > opportunity to present their case before the ruling?
    >
    > Here is another story that covered this in the early
    > days
    > http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/
    > 20110418/15182213940/apple-sues-samsung-because-
    > galaxy-tab-looks-too-much-like-ipad.shtml

    I am aware of the images and agree they are not good ones to use. What I do not agree with is pointing fingers without evidence. Other reports claimed that Apple was denied access to the actual devices and was only allowed to receive images – and these were the images. If so, then the third party that provided these images is at fault. If Apple is at fault for this, then of course they should be held accountable. Elsewhere I have written that if Apple *did* forge this evidence or even used it knowing it was forged then the case should be tossed out (even if Apple had a legitimate point) and they should face fines or other repercussions.

    > It also seems, to pick one example, that Apple copied
    > a ton from the LG Praga
    > http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/lg-ke850-prada-
    > unlocked/4505-6454_7-32316442.html

    The article notes the iPhone had not yet been released… but there is no accusation of anyone copying anyone else. There is a difference, also, between two makers releasing two products that are similar vs. one company making a range of products that are, in looks, very much like the products of the top seller of such products. The first is, at least possibly, a coincidence (though if there is contrary evidence so be it)… the latter is obvious copying.

    Jose_X Reply:

    You support patents. You agree that there are problems, but you think if someone is a little earlier, that others should be barred for many years if the patent owner so wants that (or to pay their high fees for what was likely in the competitor’s lab for a while and in people’s minds for many years earlier). The concept that people needed Apple is laughable. I imagine you are bothered that Apple can’t have the market to themselves and people are following along after those products have been shown to be lucrative. But you are against competition, then! You are against people seeing others succeed in an area.. starting a fad (or maybe technology simply caught up and someone obviously had to be the “first” with success) and then competing in that market! You appear to be against what many would call a free market.

    The LG product is an example that Apple was not first in ways where many people believe they were. At some point someone is very successful and naturally introduces a thing or two (that likely have been in many engineer’s or artist’s minds for years). Why are you against competition? Why do you want one person to get a government enforced monopoly for being first on general ideas (not even on exact details)? Why do you think only the first to have success deserves a shot at that style? Why do you want to ignore the LG not very successful attempt but then support monopolies from Apple onward? Tell me you don’t have an Apple bias?

    I’ll answer your other comment here. Apple came into the phone business for the first time at some point in time. At that point, they copied a lot of features that existed in the market. Jobs did not conceive of a piggy-shape, coloring-book, phone that is held on your shoulders with a wire frame to be hands-free and uses a new type of “wire” and wire protocol and new concept of an operating system, buttons, calling, applications, etc. Instead, he essentially copied a phone and its features from what existed, adding a little twist based on existing ideas and prior art. Look at any phone and at software devices that existed before Apple got into the game and you will find huge overlap. Apple copied a LOT more than they contributed. This should be clear, yet you speak as if you have no clue that Apple possibly could have copied anyone.

    The patent system gives patent for things non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. That is a sadly low inventiveness standard and is one reason why getting a patent isn’t even a mark of serious innovation much less of promoting the progress (and because of the broken system, patent after patent are given even without due concern for the prior art). And in the case of software, we have abridgement of expression and swpats should be ruled unconstitutional, not just for not promoting the progress or being abstract or math, but for violating the duality between expression and idea as concerns speech.

    Michael Reply:

    > You support patents. You agree that there are
    > problems, but you think if someone is a little
    > earlier, that others should be barred for many years
    > if the patent owner so wants that (or to pay their
    > high fees for what was likely in the competitor’s lab
    > for a while and in people’s minds for many years
    > earlier).

    Not quite. I agree that there should be a system which does not allow those who have spent a lot of time, effort, creative energy or whatever into making a fairly complex system to be harmed greatly by those who just want to make knock-off systems.

    The Samsung products, if the before/after images are to be believed, clearly cross the line. I side with Apple there. The claims that the term “app store” should be proprietary, however, I thought were absurd and was very clear with that even before the courts shot Apple down there.

    > The concept that people needed Apple is laughable.

    Has anyone made that claim? I know many people who have rarely if ever used an Apple product (hmmm, they might have iTunes or QuickTime or something on their PCs – but you get the idea). They seem, in general, to be living pretty decent lives!

    > I imagine you are bothered that Apple can’t have the
    > market to themselves and people are following along
    > after those products have been shown to be lucrative.

    Quite an imagination you have there! :)

    No: I think Apple changed these markets greatly but the natural “evolution” of the market is to try to learn from successful (and no so successful) competitors and try to do better. So for others to make tablets which are inspired in many ways by what Apple did is, to me, fine. Heck, Android is *clearly* very heavily inspired by Apple, but I have heard few arguments that it crosses the line to just being a direct ripoff (though I have heard some say that… it is not the general consensus… I admit to not having enough experience with Android to have a strong opinion one way or the other – but given what I have read I doubt it has crossed the line).

    Your comments below are based on an incorrect “imagining” of my view:

    > But you are against competition, then! You are
    > against people seeing others succeed in an area..
    > starting a fad (or maybe technology simply caught up
    > and someone obviously had to be the “first” with
    > success) and then competing in that market! You
    > appear to be against what many would call a free
    > market.

    Do you see now why this assessment of my views is incorrect?

    > I’ll answer your other comment here. Apple came into
    > the phone business for the first time at some point
    > in time.

    Deep. :)

    > At that point, they copied a lot of features that
    > existed in the market. Jobs did not conceive of a
    > piggy-shape, coloring-book, phone that is held on
    > your shoulders with a wire frame to be hands-free and
    > uses a new type of “wire” and wire protocol and new
    > concept of an operating system, buttons, calling,
    > applications, etc.

    Well, he may have… but that is not what Apple got to market (not just Jobs – while he was certainly influential, it does not mean he did all the work on the iPhone that was released!)

    > Instead, he essentially copied a phone and its
    > features from what existed, adding a little twist
    > based on existing ideas and prior art. Look at any
    > phone and at software devices that existed before
    > Apple got into the game and you will find huge
    > overlap. Apple copied a LOT more than they
    > contributed. This should be clear, yet you speak as
    > if you have no clue that Apple possibly could have
    > copied anyone.

    Oh, I do not think anyone believes Jobs or Apple created the concept of the cell phone or even the smart phone.

    > The patent system gives patent for things non-obvious
    > to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

    And, given how different it was, clearly the iPhone was “non-obvious” – it was a massive game changer.

    > That is a sadly low inventiveness standard and is one
    > reason why getting a patent isn’t even a mark of
    > serious innovation much less of promoting the
    > progress (and because of the broken system, patent
    > after patent are given even without due concern for
    > the prior art).

    I agree the system is heavily broken.

    > And in the case of software, we have abridgement of
    > expression and swpats should be ruled
    > unconstitutional, not just for not promoting the
    > progress or being abstract or math, but for violating
    > the duality between expression and idea as concerns
    > speech.

    I will agree that the current IP protection laws (not just patents, by the way) need some serious overhauling.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Michael, I’m glad your position on patents doesn’t go to the extreme and that you say here you dislike specifically the very close product resemblance.

    Apple copied much from what existed before. Why should the line be drawn here or there? Where specifically is this line? There is much many would say Apple copied from that LG phone, and the *picture* you show of Apple and Samsung products don’t show identical products, just potentially similar ones but in superficial ways.. with much more overall copied from prior phones and software.

    Anyway, this website largely attacks Apple (in the recent Samsung context) for being a patent aggressor and attacking free software, I think. We can see that they borrowed much from earlier products yet are willing to take legal proactive (and injunction based) action to fully stop others from borrowing some of the bits they added. If we can now agree that many patents might be bad, it still seems Apple is the aggressor and is ignoring their own dependence on others.

    As a separate matter, I don’t want to rub your nose in anything, but it seems your position has wavered a little. I mentioned this last point in the context of you getting very aggressive with Roy, yet, even after looking at evidence http://techrights.org/2011/10/07/steve-jobs/comment-page-3/#comment-130953 , I don’t find you made a case there. Here I don’t see your case either.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    It is not so much about Samsung but about HTC and others. Apple is a patent aggressor.

    Michael Reply:

    > Michael, I’m glad your position on patents doesn’t go
    > to the extreme and that you say here you dislike
    > specifically the very close product resemblance.
    >
    > Apple copied much from what existed before. Why
    > should the line be drawn here or there?

    I admit – there are gray areas and I do not have all of the answers.

    I think it is safe to assume, though, that looking at the images of Samsung before and after the iPhone and iPad, they are very much copying Apple. The claim has been made that some of the “after” devices should be in the “before” and I am open to that – if there is evidence.

    > Where specifically is this line? There is much many
    > would say Apple copied from that LG phone, and the
    > *picture* you show of Apple and Samsung products
    > don’t show identical products, just potentially
    > similar ones but in superficial ways.. with much more
    > overall copied from prior phones and software.

    I think the similarities are far from “superficial”… in look. I would need to use them to talk about functionality.

    > Anyway, this website largely attacks Apple (in the
    > recent Samsung context) for being a patent aggressor
    > and attacking free software, I think. We can see that
    > they borrowed much from earlier products yet are
    > willing to take legal proactive (and injunction
    > based) action to fully stop others from borrowing
    > some of the bits they added. If we can now agree that
    > many patents might be bad, it still seems Apple is
    > the aggressor and is ignoring their own dependence on
    > others.

    How so? Apple is not saying others cannot learn from them (be “dependent on them” if you wish). They say they cannot “slavishly copy” them. And I agree. Doing so is wrong.

    Now the courts can decide if they Samsung really did “slavishly copy” Apple or not – but it seems Apple has a case to be made. I am not saying I think they should definitely win it, but that image, if true, is pretty damning evidence against Samsung.

    > As a separate matter, I don’t want to rub your nose
    > in anything, but it seems your position has wavered a
    > little. I mentioned this last point in the context of
    > you getting very aggressive with Roy, yet, even after
    > looking at evidence
    > http://techrights.org/2011/10/07/steve-jobs/comment-
    > page-3/#comment-130953 , I don’t find you made a case
    > there. Here I don’t see your case either.

    I think I have made very strong cases for:

    1) Roy accused me of lying about my KDE experience. His “evidence” did not support his accusation. I kindly assumed he was merely mistaken and chalked it up to that. Roy later became hostile when asked about it… and showed he had no evidence to back up his accusation. And he has none. Not a shred. He simply is lying

    2) Roy was incorrect about current PCLOS. It is far less consistent than he believed. He now refuses to comment on this. I was also incorrect – it has improved, in that area, more than I had expected it to.

    3) Roy was incorrect about older PCLOS. It was far less consistent than he believed. He now refuses to comment on this.

    4) Samsung, based on the before and after images, clearly has been copying Apple to a very strong degree. Roy also refuses to discuss this. He claims Apple is the aggressor but offers very little if any support, and, I believe, has never talked about how a company should defend itself from such copying.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Remember, Apple is violating patents, but they sued first and only got counter-sued as a result of their lawsuit. This supports calling them aggressors.

    Don’t forget Apple is a big boy and has made a ton of money for their investment. I don’t support those patents they are using to sue. They don’t need them to innovate and profit. They are using them to try and profit obscenely as they hold back progress and hurt consumers.

    Competition (and tapping into market tastes) means that eventually most cell phones, most shoes, most anything end up resembling each other in many ways, at least at some point in time. Apple appears to have “copied” from the LG phone and from many ideas and probably many concept drawings that have been created by engineers/artists/etc at various times independently of each other. Fact is that if you can have a slimmer phone, the market will produce one eventually.. and obviously someone has to be the first. Great, Apple got first mover advantage (putting LG aside for a moment) and made a ton of money. Now, let’s move on and keep competing instead of litigating. Apple is a big boy.

    Apple should not be suing. And in the end, it will likely hurt their brand among various groups and result in more counter-suits.

  6. Michael said,

    October 12, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Gravatar

    > Remember, Apple is violating patents, but they sued
    > first and only got counter-sued as a result of their
    > lawsuit. This supports calling them aggressors.

    A lot of assumptions here:

    1) Apple is violating patents
    2) They are getting sued as a result of this
    3) They are aggressors in this fight

    None of these are well supported. Remember, Apple contacted Samsung and tried to work things out outside of court.

    > Don’t forget Apple is a big boy and has made a ton of
    > money for their investment. I don’t support those
    > patents they are using to sue. They don’t need them
    > to innovate and profit. They are using them to try
    > and profit obscenely as they hold back progress and
    > hurt consumers.

    And I think this is the real problem you and Roy have with Apple – *not* anything really to do with patents or who is suing whom but the fact Apple makes a gob of money. They do so, of course, by making products that please customers more than any other products in the markets they are in – they almost always earn the highest user satisfaction ratings.

    They are successful – and this is a problem to many.

    > Competition (and tapping into market tastes) means
    > that eventually most cell phones, most shoes, most
    > anything end up resembling each other in many ways,
    > at least at some point in time.

    The resemble each other in some ways… and I have already talked about how I think it is fine to find inspiration in other’s products. I also admit the line where companies cross and do more than show they were inspired is a fuzzy one. I cannot draw or describe the line well – and this is a huge problem for me “solving” the IP issues. I simply do not have the answers.

    > Apple appears to have “copied” from the LG phone and
    > from many ideas and probably many concept drawings
    > that have been created by engineers/artists/etc at
    > various times independently of each other. Fact is
    > that if you can have a slimmer phone, the market will
    > produce one eventually.. and obviously someone has to
    > be the first. Great, Apple got first mover advantage
    > (putting LG aside for a moment) and made a ton of
    > money. Now, let’s move on and keep competing instead
    > of litigating. Apple is a big boy.

    I am all for competition. I am not for *unfair* competition, and I think this image shows Samsung crossed the line (as fuzzy as I admit it is):

    http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg

    Someone (you?) recently said the image was wrong and some of the “after” images should be in the “before” section. If so then my view is wrong – given that my view is largely tied to the idea that the image there is accurate. If it is not I would be interested in seeing evidence.

    > Apple should not be suing. And in the end, it will
    > likely hurt their brand among various groups and
    > result in more counter-suits.

    It might be a strategic mistake on their part… but that does not mean they might not very well be right.

    Jose_X Reply:

    The problem with patents is that they abridge people and hurt progress (swpat to a higher degree than traditional patents). It has nothing to do with Apple being wealthy. The reason to mention wealth is because the cost to society from a patent presumably could be justified if that is what it would take for investments to happen. I am pointing out that Apple is a big boy. They make investments because they know it will lead to money. Years ago, swpat were hardly used, yet much innovation happened and many firms and individuals much smaller than Apple is today took those risks and investments (heck, FOSS itself is based off such risks and investments). Apple, being so large, should not have the ability we might afford a ppor individual to block others.

    Now, this argument above is as concerns patents. I agree that the more narrow the focus, the less harm. It is not nearly as horrible to prevent “clones” if that were the case here, as would be the harm to enforce your typical vanilla swpat (which is what is the case here).

    BTW, I apologize for poking at you (figuratively) by bringing patents back in my last comment. We had sort of narrowed the argument down to high degree of copying. However, I want to quickly challenge 1, 2, and 3.

    1. If you know what a swpat is like, it’s hard to imagine you would doubt violations likely exist with a product as complex as a phone. At best you might be hinting that perhaps all such patents have been licensed by Apple already, but that is IMO less than 50% likely, knowing little about Apple but assuming they have already cross-licensed with many patents.

    2. I thought I had read that Samsung or someone else had already sued back. [In a popular diagram showing a bunch of firms suing each other, I think Apple is being sued by numerous firms.]

    3. If you draw first blood in court, you are an aggressor. I think you are trying to suggest Samsung, by copying so closely, might be the aggressor, but this ignores point 1 above or that almost surely in someone else’s opinion, Apple too has copied “too closely” to something that existed before.

    Anyway, we can keep arguing over subjective grays. I think we mostly agree swpats as a whole have high costs for society and at most we would want something fairly narrower.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> and at most we would want something fairly narrower.

    Should have been:

    and we would likely agree something fairly narrower would do a much better job.

What Else is New


  1. The Attacks on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Have Lost Momentum and the Patent Microcosm Begrudgingly Gives Up

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and now the Supreme Court as well, carries on preventing frivolous lawsuits; options for stopping PTAB have nearly been exhausted and it shows



  2. Software Patenting and Successful Litigation a Very Difficult Task Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

    Using loads of misleading terms or buzzwords such as "AI" the patent microcosm continues its software patents pursuits; but that's mostly failing, especially when courts come to assess pertinent claims made in the patents



  3. António Campinos Will Push Toward a France-Based Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    Frenchmen at EPO will try hard to bring momentum if not force to the Unified Patent Court; facts, however, aren't on their side (unlike Team UPC, which was always on Team Battistelli's side)



  4. In Apple v Samsung Patents That Should Never Have Been Granted May Result in a Billion Dollars in 'Damages'

    A roundup of news about Apple and its patent cases (especially Apple v Samsung), including Intel's role trying to intervene in Qualcomm v Apple



  5. Links 20/5/2018: KDevelop 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, FreeBSD 11.2 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  6. Aurélien Pétiaud's ILO Case (EPO Appeal) an Early Sign That ILO Protects Abusers and Power, Not Workers

    A famous EPO ‘disciplinary’ case is recalled; it’s another one of those EPO-leaning rulings from AT-ILO, which not only praises Battistelli amid very serious abuses but also lies on his behalf, leaving workers with no real access to justice but a mere illusion thereof



  7. LOT Network is a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

    Another reminder that the "LOT" is a whole lot more than it claims to be and in effect a reinforcer of the status quo



  8. 'Nokification' in Hong Kong and China (PRC)

    Chinese firms that are struggling resort to patent litigation, in effect repeating the same misguided trajectories which became so notorious in Western nations because they act as a form of taxation, discouraging actual innovation



  9. CIPU is Amplifying Misleading Propaganda From the Chamber of Commerce

    Another lobbying event is set up to alarm lawmakers and officials, telling them that the US dropped from first to twelfth using some dodgy yardstick which favours patent extremists



  10. Patent Law Firms That Profit From Software Patent Applications and Lawsuits Still 'Pull a Berkheimer' to Attract Business in Vain

    The Alice-inspired (Supreme Court) 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains unchanged, but the patent microcosm endlessly mentions a months-old decision from a lower court (than the Supreme Court) to 'sell' the impression that everything is changing and software patents have just found their 'teeth' again



  11. A Year After TC Heartland the Patent Microcosm is Trying to 'Dilute' This Supreme Court's Decision or Work Around It

    IAM, Patent Docs, Managing IP and Patently-O want more litigation (especially somewhere like the Eastern District of Texas), so in an effort to twist TC Heartland they latch onto ZTE and BigCommerce cases



  12. Microsoft Attacks the Vulnerable Using Software Patents in Order to Maintain Fear and Give the Perception of Microsoft 'Safety'

    The latest patent lawsuits from Microsoft and its patent trolls (which it financially backs); these are aimed at feeble and vulnerable rivals of Microsoft



  13. Links 19/5/2018: Mesa 18.0.4 and Vim 8.1

    Links for the day



  14. Système Battistelli (ENArque) at the EPO is Inspired by Système Lamy in Saint-Germain-en Laye

    Has the political culture of Battistelli's hometown in France contaminated the governance of the EPO?



  15. In Australia the Productivity Commission Decides/Guides Patent Law

    IP Australia, the patent office of Australia, considers abolishing "innovation patents" but has not done so yet (pending consultation)



  16. Fishy Things Noticed Ahead of the Passage of a Lot of EPO Budget (Applicants' Money) to Battistelli's Other (and Simultaneous) Employer

    Observations and odd facts regarding the affairs of the council in St Germain; it certainly looks like Battistelli as deputy mayor and the mayor (Arnaud Péricard) are attempting to hide something



  17. Links 18/5/2018: AsteroidOS 1.0 Released, More Snyk/Black Duck FUD

    Links for the day



  18. Today's EPO Financially Rewards Abuses and Violations of the Law

    Battistelli shredded the European Patent Convention (EPC) to pieces and he is being rewarded for it, perpetuating a pattern of abuses (and much worse) being rewarded by the European Patent Organisation



  19. So-Called 'System Battistelli' is Destroying the EPO, Warn Insiders

    Low-quality patent grants by the EPO are a road to nowhere but a litigious climate in Europe and an unattractive EPO



  20. Rise in Patent Trolls' Activity in Germany Noted Amid Declining Patent Quality at the EPO

    The UPC would turn Europe into some sort of litigation ‘super-state’ — one in which national patent laws are overridden by some central, immune-from-the-law bureaucracy like the EPO; but thankfully the UPC continues its slow collapse



  21. EPO's Battistelli Taking Days Off Work for Political 'Duties' (Parties) in His French Theatre Where He'll Bring Buckets of EPO Budget (EPO Stakeholders' Money)

    More tales from Saint-Germain-en-Laye...



  22. Links 16/5/2018: Cockpit 168, GCompris 0.91, DHCP Bug

    Links for the day



  23. The EPO's 'Inventor Award' Scam: Part III

    An addendum to the "inventor of the year" affair, namely the case of Remmal



  24. Apple and Microsoft Are Still Suing Companies -- Using Patents of Course -- Which 'Dare' Compete (by Leveraging GNU/Linux)

    The vanity of proprietary software giants — as the latest news serves to reveal — targeting companies with patent lawsuits, both directly and indirectly



  25. The Anti-PTAB (Patent Quality), Anti-§ 101 Lobby is Losing Its Mind and It Has Become Amusing to Observe

    The rants about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the courts and even the law itself have reached laughable levels; this reveals that the real agenda of patent maximalists is endless litigation and their methods boil down to those of an angry mob, not legal professionals



  26. EPO Has Become Overzealous About Software Patents, Probably More So Than Almost Anywhere Else

    The promotion of an extreme patent regime in Europe continues unabated; whether it succeeds or not depends on what EPO examiners and citizens of Europe can do



  27. Links 15/5/2018: Black Duck's Latest FUD and the EFF's EFFail FUD Debunked Further

    Links for the day



  28. Xiaomi, Samsung, TCL and Others Demonstrate That in a World With an Abundance of Stupid Patents Like Design Patents Nobody is Safe

    The "Cult of Patents" (typically a cabal of law firms looking to have everything on the planet patented) has created a battlefield in the mobile world; every company, once it gets big enough, faces a lot of patent lawsuits and dying companies resort to using whatever is in their "portfolio" to destroy everyone else inside the courtroom (or demand 'protection' money to avert lawsuits)



  29. A Google-Centric and Google-Led Patent Pool Won't Protect GNU/Linux But Merely 'Normalise' Software Patents

    Patent pools, which are basically the wrong solution to a very clear problem, continue to expand and promote themselves; the real solution, however, is elimination of abstract patents, notably software patents



  30. The Patent Microcosm is Still Looking for Ways to Bypass CAFC/PTAB Invalidation of Many US Patents

    In pursuit of patent maximalism (i.e. a status quo wherein US patents — no matter their age — are presumed valid and beyond scrutiny) pundits resort to new angles or attack vectors, ranging from the bottom (IPRs) to the top (Supreme Court)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts