>According to Judge Koh, “Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm” in its argument against Samsung and the Galaxy Nexus, because of “long-term loss of market share” along with “losses of downstream sales.”
This is not what "irreparable harm" used to mean. Apple's lawyers are celebrating tonight.
EDIT: If I plan to kill a cat, and you file a lawsuit to stop me, the judge may issue an injunction for me not to kill the cat until the lawsuit is complete. Humanity does not know how to unkill a cat, so if I did so while the lawsuit was pending, I would make the lawsuit moot and evade justice. That is "irreparable harm", at least if it's your cat.
On the other hand, if my actions are causing you mere monetary harm, we know exactly how to repair that: take money from me and give it to you. Injunctions should not be issued in such cases, because the plaintiff can always be made whole later on by simply receiving an appropriate amount of money.
Apple has managed to have a bogus patent issued - the patent, as far as I can tell, covers any sort of "search-as-you-type" system. Any sort. The Firefox awesome bar, Android search (every Android device that exists), Google Instant, any webpage with javascript autocomplete... you're all violating Apple's patent. And if Apple can find judges as friendly as Ms. Koh, all of these products can be taken off the market indefinitely.
And now they're grabbing up that stick and going to town with it.
Your exact claim has been taken into account, just the opposite direction: "Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed."
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 of "maybe-this-maybe-that" use cases and potential improvements. It basically means having a unified search system that relies upon "search heuristics" for multiple domains. Like the other allegedly infringing patents in the case, it's another broken patent that IMO shouldn't have been granted. 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? That seems to be the core of the idea, and further ideas are thrown on top of it in the patent application thereafter.
> 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?
Well, in the mobile space everyone is suing everyone else. Google is using Motorola for that and are banning in Germany important parts of Apples e-mail and iCloud services.
Apple is implicitly admitting Samsung is a huge threat to them.
Apple has intelligent people making these decisions. So they know in their heart of hearts that the patents they hold are overly broad to the point of bogusness. They know that the majority of the tech market is also intelligent enough to come to this same realization. They have an awareness that lawsuits exercising these quasi-bogus patents will have a negative impact on Apple's public image. Therefore, the only logical reason for going through with the lawsuits is because they have concluded that the alternative -- letting Samsung + Google have their way in the mobile market -- would be far more damaging to Apple.
Apple's interests aside, is this good for society at large? Doubtful.
You don't have to be a huge threat to be worth squeezing money out of. Huge threat? I don't think so.
Samsung is the only other player making any real profit in the industry, so they are definitely Apple's largest competition at this point. Unless MS does something crazy with Windows Phone 8. They're important.
But I don't agree with huge threat. At this point, Apple may be able to take a year off from releasing a new iPhone (despite not having true 4G) and not suffer significantly in the long term. It's not a good idea, but I bet they could.
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 saying that my products are terrible and can’t compete? No, I’m saying my products are excellent and can easily compete against my competitors’ actual products.
But obviously I’m going to be less successful competing against my own product and my own inventions, which is what happens when my competitors simply copy my ideas.
This specific case is one where Apple alleges it is competing against its own innovations. It’s fair to argue that the competition didn’t copy them. But if we accept the court’s ruling that the competing products are infringing on Apple’s patents, then Apple is not making “terrible” products that can’t compete against its competition, Apple is making excellent products that are obviously going to be less successful competing against itself.
So boycott Apple and do what. Jump over to Android ?
Would that be the same Android platform that has the main OEMs (Samsung, HTC, Google) under FTC/EU investigation for anti competitive behaviour due to FRAND abuses. Abuses which undermine the entire foundation of key IT/CE standards.
The fact is that nobody's hands are clean. It's a bloody mess that is only going to get worse.
While I share a similar sentiment of disliking Apple's litigious nature as of late, can you really blame the company for attempting to protect its intellectual property?
Make no mistake - all the major smartphones out there are infringing someone else's patent. If this is the precedent, next thing we'll have iPhones banned for infringing on Motorola, and Windows Phones banned for infringing on RIM patents.
This is bad news for consumers, bad news for innovators.
Infringing on patents pooled to create standards is different (viz Motorola). your patent goes into the standard in exchange for your agreeing to make it available for a reasonable price. This is obviously a Good Thing or standards would not be created or adopted.
Similarly, the price of simpy ditching patents would be the proliferation of trade secrets and obfuscated mechanisms.
For the last couple of years I have been trying to stay objective about this (I actually do quite a bit of iOS programming in my day job in addition to Android) and have always tried to be more pro-android than anti-Apple, but I am finally done trying to walk the fence. Enough of this bullshit. Its time for consumers to be aware that every time they buy an Apple product, they are damaging the software industry and the spirit of innovation. Its like buying blood diamonds. Sure they are pretty but the cost isnt worth it.
My question: Is there a central point for sending out this message? I would love to see someone setup a messaging page like "Say No to Apple" or something like that that I can link to. Some activity the level of the SOPA blackouts would be awesome (though probably not realistic, but hey, I can dream), with JavaScript popups for idevices etc.What about things like Twitter badges or sidebar widgets that we can install on our blogs, profile pages etc?
I think the normal folks (consumers) don't get how bad this is.
Boy, they are getting a lot of mileage out of that regular expression "data tapping" patent, even though people were doing the same thing years before, including a NeXTStep app released with source and published on USENET in 1995 1 year before the Apple patent was filed
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 lowers my impression of the brand overall.
Since everyone is suing everyone else I don't know why people want to single out Apple. They got hit pretty hard by Nokia a couple years ago. I think they learned a hard lesson about how the game really works. I don't know how to draw the distinction between Apple offensively suing Samsung and Motorola offensively suing Apple -- or for that matter Samsung counter-suing Apple. It's all the same game and everyone is playing by the same rules. It seems the biggest difference is Apple (and Microsoft via licensing) are having success while companies who were best known for selling microwaves 5 years ago are losing. I don't mean to mock Samsung because they do make pretty good devices but the time-line is simply on Apple's side here.
What if you are the innovative company and somebody is coming along and stealing every innovation you put in front of the market? Since they are one step behind, they don't have to spend money on the innovations that fail, thereby having much lower costs than you do?
This is much more complicated than "Dude, Apple are such duches. They can't think of anything new so they just sue everybody."
IP protection in the US (and world, thanks to treaties) is seriously messed up. Apple is aggressive, but it is naïve to think any large company wouldn't be (and small companies need to recognize that!).
It makes me happy. They're beginning their transition away from being a tech company to being IBM. 100 million is a drop in their bucket full of cash. However, 100 million is a few insanely great engineers and a product they're never going to build. because they're starting to move away from the "just be better" method of making stuff.
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.
This is particularly sad because the Galaxy Nexus is a brilliant phone running stock Android. I've found the stock Android ICS experience to be much better than what you can find with a version of Android modified by the vendor (at least for the other phones I've seen). I'm pretty sure it's one of the best options for Android phones, period.
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 or reject the word.
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 there even get approved? Did the examiner rubber-stamping that mess seriously never in his entire life use Microsoft Word?
Rather than cast aspersions on her credibility I think this actually bolsters it to learn this. At least she has deep expertise in a (very flawed) system.
This pathetic innuendo is typical of so much of contemporary American debate. If you have something to say, say it. This "makes me wonder" style is just a gutless, moronic attempt at mud slinging.
This seems to be based on the most bogus of Apple's patents - things like "slide to unlock" (something used on physical door's for hundreds of years, moving it to pixels doesn't suddenly make it inventive) and auto-converting data to links (well documented back into the 90's.
It's a shame that the places where Apple really moved forward are not where they are exploiting their patents. It seems, those ideas were already beyond Apple's ability to patent, so instead they got a bunch of bogus stuff through and are using it anyway. It really besmirches their actual amazing record of inventiveness that they take rubbish like this forward. I hope these all get overturned.
So this actually _is_ about software patents this time, and clearly anti-innovation. I dare anybody to argue that the patent system as it is does not hinder innovation in software.
I don't think it's a software patent problem. But it is a ridiculous patent problem. Who could consider checking two databases is a significant innovation over consulting one.
Apple has clearly lost it. Whatever once made them cool and different is long gone and all that remains is a pseudo-legalese ganster, using its giant pool of money to hinder software development at the cost of everyone else.
You cannot be a software-developer and support this monster with your money. As a software developer there should be no way you can support this.
Koh was a patent litigator before becoming a judge, Alsup is a mathematician who served as a special counsel in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
Ok, so I just went ahead and ordered a Galaxy Nexus phone. I've been meaning to do this for a while now to see if I want to port my apps to the Android platform, and here Apple just pushed me to do it. :/
This actually got me wondering if Google has ever sued someone in the same manner and it does not appear as if they have. I find that very interesting - does anyone have any links to the contrary?
[+] [-] jellicle|13 years ago|reply
This is not what "irreparable harm" used to mean. Apple's lawyers are celebrating tonight.
EDIT: If I plan to kill a cat, and you file a lawsuit to stop me, the judge may issue an injunction for me not to kill the cat until the lawsuit is complete. Humanity does not know how to unkill a cat, so if I did so while the lawsuit was pending, I would make the lawsuit moot and evade justice. That is "irreparable harm", at least if it's your cat.
On the other hand, if my actions are causing you mere monetary harm, we know exactly how to repair that: take money from me and give it to you. Injunctions should not be issued in such cases, because the plaintiff can always be made whole later on by simply receiving an appropriate amount of money.
Apple has managed to have a bogus patent issued - the patent, as far as I can tell, covers any sort of "search-as-you-type" system. Any sort. The Firefox awesome bar, Android search (every Android device that exists), Google Instant, any webpage with javascript autocomplete... you're all violating Apple's patent. And if Apple can find judges as friendly as Ms. Koh, all of these products can be taken off the market indefinitely.
And now they're grabbing up that stick and going to town with it.
[+] [-] mythz|13 years ago|reply
i.e. Sales and profits now is a lot more important than Sales and Money later.
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|13 years ago|reply
Is this from reading the claims, or from reading the introduction (whatever that's called)?
[+] [-] chacham15|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Apple can't get back lost sales and revenue as a result of patent infringement by their direct competitor.
[+] [-] creamyhorror|13 years ago|reply
The '604 search patent is a big hot mess of ideas thrown together to cover all sorts of "maybe-this-maybe-that" use cases and potential improvements. It basically means having a unified search system that relies upon "search heuristics" for multiple domains. Like the other allegedly infringing patents in the case, it's another broken patent that IMO shouldn't have been granted. 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? That seems to be the core of the idea, and further ideas are thrown on top of it in the patent application thereafter.
Read it yourself at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
[+] [-] paulgb|13 years ago|reply
Google was doing this two months prior to Apple's filing: http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/desktopsearch.html
[+] [-] ralfd|13 years ago|reply
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/german-court-extends-pu...
Because of that and as a German I wont ever buy Android and also telling my friends.
[+] [-] pbz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenster07|13 years ago|reply
Apple has intelligent people making these decisions. So they know in their heart of hearts that the patents they hold are overly broad to the point of bogusness. They know that the majority of the tech market is also intelligent enough to come to this same realization. They have an awareness that lawsuits exercising these quasi-bogus patents will have a negative impact on Apple's public image. Therefore, the only logical reason for going through with the lawsuits is because they have concluded that the alternative -- letting Samsung + Google have their way in the mobile market -- would be far more damaging to Apple.
Apple's interests aside, is this good for society at large? Doubtful.
[+] [-] MBCook|13 years ago|reply
Samsung is the only other player making any real profit in the industry, so they are definitely Apple's largest competition at this point. Unless MS does something crazy with Windows Phone 8. They're important.
But I don't agree with huge threat. At this point, Apple may be able to take a year off from releasing a new iPhone (despite not having true 4G) and not suffer significantly in the long term. It's not a good idea, but I bet they could.
[+] [-] jpxxx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enraged_camel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] raganwald|13 years ago|reply
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 saying that my products are terrible and can’t compete? No, I’m saying my products are excellent and can easily compete against my competitors’ actual products.
But obviously I’m going to be less successful competing against my own product and my own inventions, which is what happens when my competitors simply copy my ideas.
This specific case is one where Apple alleges it is competing against its own innovations. It’s fair to argue that the competition didn’t copy them. But if we accept the court’s ruling that the competing products are infringing on Apple’s patents, then Apple is not making “terrible” products that can’t compete against its competition, Apple is making excellent products that are obviously going to be less successful competing against itself.
[+] [-] thechut|13 years ago|reply
Consumers have the right to choose what products they want to buy.
I have been slowly switching away from the Apple products I own. And this just reaffirms that I will never buy another Apple product.
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Would that be the same Android platform that has the main OEMs (Samsung, HTC, Google) under FTC/EU investigation for anti competitive behaviour due to FRAND abuses. Abuses which undermine the entire foundation of key IT/CE standards.
The fact is that nobody's hands are clean. It's a bloody mess that is only going to get worse.
[+] [-] jtsai256|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddlatham|13 years ago|reply
This is bad news for consumers, bad news for innovators.
Everyone loses.
[+] [-] bstar77|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tloewald|13 years ago|reply
Similarly, the price of simpy ditching patents would be the proliferation of trade secrets and obfuscated mechanisms.
[+] [-] arpit|13 years ago|reply
My question: Is there a central point for sending out this message? I would love to see someone setup a messaging page like "Say No to Apple" or something like that that I can link to. Some activity the level of the SOPA blackouts would be awesome (though probably not realistic, but hey, I can dream), with JavaScript popups for idevices etc.What about things like Twitter badges or sidebar widgets that we can install on our blogs, profile pages etc?
I think the normal folks (consumers) don't get how bad this is.
[+] [-] cromwellian|13 years ago|reply
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.archives/browse_thread/...
[+] [-] ericdykstra|13 years ago|reply
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 lowers my impression of the brand overall.
[+] [-] jsz0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
This is much more complicated than "Dude, Apple are such duches. They can't think of anything new so they just sue everybody."
IP protection in the US (and world, thanks to treaties) is seriously messed up. Apple is aggressive, but it is naïve to think any large company wouldn't be (and small companies need to recognize that!).
[+] [-] jfoutz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rorrr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tikhonj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chj|13 years ago|reply
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 or reject the word.
This must be a joke!
[+] [-] slavak|13 years ago|reply
* 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 there even get approved? Did the examiner rubber-stamping that mess seriously never in his entire life use Microsoft Word?
[+] [-] epo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattLaroche|13 years ago|reply
Is there a legal reason Apple is suing Samsung instead of Google, or is it tactical / political?
[+] [-] zmmmmm|13 years ago|reply
It's a shame that the places where Apple really moved forward are not where they are exploiting their patents. It seems, those ideas were already beyond Apple's ability to patent, so instead they got a bunch of bogus stuff through and are using it anyway. It really besmirches their actual amazing record of inventiveness that they take rubbish like this forward. I hope these all get overturned.
[+] [-] Calamitous|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] praxulus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aristidb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|13 years ago|reply
You cannot be a software-developer and support this monster with your money. As a software developer there should be no way you can support this.
Apple is the SCO of this decade.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
Her bias is showing. How embarrassing.
[+] [-] LVB|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DenisM|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] methodin|13 years ago|reply