29 replies to this topic 1 votes

[(Spork)]

http://www.reuters.c...E88001020120901

(Reuters) - Seeking to capitalize on a major legal victory over its rival Samsung Electronics Ltd, Apple Inc has asked a federal court in a separate case to find that four additional Samsung products, including the Galaxy S III, infringe Apple's patents.

In February, Apple alleged that at least 17 Samsung products infringe its patents. In a court filing made in San Jose federal court on Friday, Apple added four more products to the list of allegedly infringing products that have been released beginning in August 2011 and continuing through this month.
Apple won a major victory over Samsung last Friday in a separate case when a jury found that the South Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the U.S. company $1.05 billion in damages.
Samsung representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case is U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Ltd, et al 12-00630.
(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Richard Chang)



ibet i know one that they are going after


http://assets.sbnati...1329077/261.pdf

[Growled]

Apple is going nuclear over this. They may yet regret doing so.

[dfuk]

here we go again. i wonder if they will make a person with no idea of what prior art really means, it doesn't mean that the software from the old equipment must be able to run on the new item and vise versa for the prior art to be valid, which seems to be the case with the last trial, forman interview BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-19425052

Quote

Prior art was considered.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

So we all will see what cr@p the lawyers come out with this time and as usual the only people to benefit will be the lawyers.

Also worth a look http://nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk/

[+techbeck]

Quote

http://www.theverge....es-infringement

• Galaxy S III
  
• Galaxy S III (Verizon)
  
• Galaxy Note
  
• Galaxy S II Skyrocket
  
• Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch
  
• Galaxy S II
  
• Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
  
• Galaxy S II (AT&T)
  
• Galaxy Nexus,
  
• Illusion
  
• Captivate Glide
  
• Exhibit II 4G
  
• Stratosphere
  
• Transform Ultra
  
• Admire
  
• Conquer 4G
  
• Dart
  
• Galaxy Player 4.0
  
• Galaxy Player 5.0
  
• Galaxy Note 10.1
  
• Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus
  
• Galaxy Tab 8.9

Looks like Google may be getting involved. Depending on how much they had to do with the Galaxy Nexus design...which looks NOTHING like the iPhone.

[omgben]

techbeck, on 01 September 2012 - 03:11, said:

Looks like Google may be getting involved. Depending on how much they had to do with the Galaxy Nexus design...which looks NOTHING like the iPhone.

Agreed about the looks. Me thinks it not about that, though. But if it is, they're dumb.

I guess someone at Apple realized that they got a bunch of Samsung devices in the hot seat that were fading away from existence, and they were like, "OH SHEET!"

[(Spork)]

new it was a matter of time before the SGS3 was on the list looks NOTHING like and iphone

[+techbeck]

Quote

http://www.appleinsi..._complaint.html

The four new patents Apple is leveraging against Samsung include the '647 "Data Detectors" patent, the '721 "Slide-to-unlock" property, the '172 "Word completion" invention and the '604 "Universal search" patent. The Cupertino tech giant successfully wielded the '721 "Data Detectors" patent to obtain an ITC sales ban against certain Android-based HTC handsets in December, however Google continued to implement the feature in its mobile operating system despite the suit's outcome.

Slide to unlock looks WAY different. I knew this would just open Apple up for more lawsuits and patent trolling. Just waiting on them to go after other companies now since the same slide to unlock feature is available on all androids.

omgben, on 01 September 2012 - 03:17, said:

Agreed about the looks. Me thinks it not about that, though. But if it is, they're dumb.

I guess someone at Apple realized that they got a bunch of Samsung devices in the hot seat that were fading away from existence, and they were like, "OH SHEET!"

This one doesnt appear to be about trade dress.

[Kondrath]

Years from now, this should be turned into an anime like DBZ. Apple will be the main villain, and then it'll be up to Samsung, Microsoft, and Google to combine their powers and save the earth.

[+techbeck]

And speaking of slide to unlock....love how now iOS 5 you can access the camera from swiping to the right from the lock screen. Something that has been part of Android for years.

[Xerxes]

I can't help but laugh at the irony of this though, Samsung designed the S3 [best they could] to avoid Apple patent lawsuits, including reworking the TouchWiz UI. Yet, Apple still sues....to me this has nothing todo with patents and is personal. Apple wants Samsung out the picture, permanently. That is my take.

[+techbeck]

Xerxes, on 01 September 2012 - 03:36, said:

I can't help but laugh at the irony of this though, Samsung designed the S3 [best they could] to avoid Apple patent lawsuits, including reworking the TouchWiz UI. Yet, Apple still sues....to me this has nothing todo with patents and is personal. Apple wants Samsung out the picture, permanently. That is my take.

Its not so much about the hardware design as it is the software. AT least thats what I read on a couple sites. And now they are attacking the GNEX which is a Google phone so you can bet Google will be getting involved if their current talks do not work out.

[Praetor]

techbeck, on 01 September 2012 - 03:23, said:

Slide to unlock looks WAY different. I knew this would just open Apple up for more lawsuits and patent trolling. Just waiting on them to go after other companies now since the same slide to unlock feature is available on all androids.



This one doesnt appear to be about trade dress.

Patent 172 is utter crap, Apple invented T9? are you kidding me??

techbeck, on 01 September 2012 - 03:28, said:

And speaking of slide to unlock....love how now iOS 5 you can access the camera from swiping to the right from the lock screen. Something that has been part of Android for years.

and the notification system as well. like many said Apple can copy and it's fine but when other do? sue them!

[Xerxes]

techbeck, on 01 September 2012 - 03:38, said:

Its not so much about the hardware design as it is the software. AT least thats what I read on a couple sites. And now they are attacking the GNEX which is a Google phone so you can bet Google will be getting involved if their current talks do not work out.

Ah ok. Google are getting involved, they are preparing a lawsuit of their own directly against Apple. Apple wants "thermonuclear war" with Google? well Google are arming their nukes...

[jon.01]

Praetor, on 01 September 2012 - 03:41, said:

Patent 172 is utter crap, Apple invented T9? are you kidding me??



and the notification system as well. like many said Apple can copy and it's fine but when other do? sue them!

But since Android is open source Apple can steal whatever they want?

[Xerxes]

jon.01, on 01 September 2012 - 03:56, said:

But since Android is open source Apple can steal whatever they want?

The problem is worse then that. The problem is the other companies are not smart enough to patent their own ideas (because at the time they didn't see the potential) and Apple roll by, steal it and patent it as their own, suing anyone (including the original owner) for using it. Apple get away with it because they a) own the patent and b) were allowed to patent it. That is overly simplified of cause but my take on it (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).