US bans Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

[Pendleton]

This is my point. There isn't any one company at fault over the system here. The fault is a legal quagmire that cannot deal with abstract concepts in software engineering (or for that matter, copyright in an age of near unlimited digital copying capabilities).

This reform needs to come sooner rather than later, because more and more such suits are popping up over increasingly banal pieces of the ecosystem, not just pieces of hardware like chip architecture.

[Stark]

If the law allows you to do something that improves your company's performance, isnt it stupid NOT to do it? Should companies take the high moral ground when they have such tasty legal options because the law is dumb as hell?

I'm just surprised Samsung's legal team either didn't know or didn't warn strongly enough that this could happen. However dumb it might be, if it's the law, it's their job.

[Pendleton]

If the law allows you to do something that improves your company's performance, isnt it stupid NOT to do it? Should companies take the high moral ground when they have such tasty legal options because the law is dumb as hell?

Precisely. The same argument can be levelled at tax avoidance. Sure, you may morally outrage a nation, but can you blame people from gaining from such a loophole?

I'm just surprised Samsung's legal team either didn't know or didn't warn strongly enough that this could happen. However dumb it might be, if it's the law, it's their job.

Given even they couldn't tell an iPad from a Galaxy Tab at 10', I guess they're just not that sharp.

[Terralthra]

News on the patent litigation in the UK...

HTC defeats Apple in swipe-to-unlock patent dispute
The judge ruled in HTC's favour across all of the four disputed patents in the case
HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London.

The judge ruled that HTC had not infringed four technologies that Apple had claimed as its own.

He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an "obvious" development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset.

Apple has also cited the patent in disputes against firms using Google's Android system software.

Slide-to-unlock
HTC launched the London-based lawsuits a year ago as part of an effort to invalidate European patents Apple had referred to in a German court case. Apple subsequently countersued.

The four patents at stake were:

Unlocking a device by performing a gesture on an image.
The use of a multilingual keyboard offering different alphabets on portable devices, including mobile phones.
A system to determine which elements of a screen were activated by single-finger touches; which were activated multi-finger touches and which ignored touches altogether.
Letting a user drag an image beyond its limits and then showing it bounce back into place to illustrate that they had reached its furthest edge.

Apple had claimed HTC's Arc unlock mechanism infringed its technology
The judge ruled that the first three patents were invalid in this case, while the fourth did not apply to HTC's devices.

Lawyers fighting other lawsuits against Apple are likely to pay close attention to the decision regarding its slide-to-unlock patent.

The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004.

The Neonode N1 showed a padlock on its screen with the words "right sweep to unlock" when it was in its protected mode. A later version replaced the text with an arrow.

The judge said it would have been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that Apple later used.

He added that the concept of a "slider" was not new since it had already appeared in Microsoft's CE system.

As a result Apple's claim to the innovation was rejected.

'Limited impact'
A statement from the Taiwanese firm said: "HTC is pleased with the ruling, which provides further confirmation that Apple's claims against HTC are without merit. We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace."

Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

Apple has previously defended its slide-to-unlock patent in other disputes against Samsung, HTC and Google's Motorola unit with some success.

Most recently a US court ruled the patent was valid in a dispute that led to a sales ban being imposed on the Google-branded Nexus smartphone.

However, Andrew Alton, a lawyer at UK firm Urquhart-Dykes and Lord who used to do work for Apple, said the impact of the London ruling might be limited.

"National patent laws thematically are very similar, but can be applied very differently.

"Not only are the tests different but also the evidence that can be introduced in different courts varies. If the Neonode wasn't released in the US it might not be able to be cited there.

"So the fact that Apple has lost this particular patent battle in the UK shouldn't mean it should be seen to have lost the global war."

[Lord MJ]

Letting a user drag an image beyond its limits and then showing it bounce back into place to illustrate that they had reached its furthest edge.

Uh huh.... Really?

[sciguy]

There are no similarities. Copyright covers an attempt to cash in on someone else's trademark and customer goodwill, while patent covers actual invention. Style is not invention.

You are confusing utility patents (which protect inventions/technologies) with design patents (which protect only the aesthetics of a product so as to avoid consumer confusion). Trademarks don't generally cover the overall shape and appearance of a specific product. A design patent is like a trademark that covers the look of a specific product, so that a competitor can't make a product so similar-looking that consumers are fooled/confused about what they are buying. A design patent only covers the aesthetic aspects of the product that are unrelated to its function, so you can't use a design patent to stop a competitor from introducing another product that does the same things. Whether or not Apple's litigation has any merit in this particular case is another issue, but I don't think that the very concept of a design patent is bullshit. Companies shouldn't try to fool customers with look-alike products.

I agree that it is absurd to patent UI interactions, but I don't see why that's more absurd than patenting style and appearance.

The difference is that the slide-to-unlock patent is a utility patent, rather than a design patent.

[Ryan Thunder]

If the law allows you to do something that improves your company's performance, isnt it stupid NOT to do it? Should companies take the high moral ground when they have such tasty legal options because the law is dumb as hell?

Yes.

[Stark]

How would you encourage this behaviour? What factors exist to make it more or less likely?

[Phantasee]

We already know Ryan doesn't have the first clue about how business works, and is unequipped to explain how it should work, though he is very certain he knows what is best.

[Blayne]

Not sure if already linked: Judge declares patent system broken.

[Ryan Thunder]

How would you encourage this behaviour? What factors exist to make it more or less likely?

None, which is precisely the number of reasons why I should not still hold it against them.

[Stark]

That's funny, because encouraging ethical corporate behaviour is ... First year business. It's also the job of various government and industry bodies. This just isn't a good example, since the law is so dumb.

[Grumman]

We already know Ryan doesn't have the first clue about how business works, and is unequipped to explain how it should work, though he is very certain he knows what is best.

It's got nothing to do with business. Legality is not the same thing as morality. Something can be legal (like slavery was before abolition) and still be unethical.

[Phantasee]

You need to understand how business and decision-making in that context works so you can construct a framework and environment within which correct moral or ethical choices will be made regularly.

[General Zod]

We already know Ryan doesn't have the first clue about how business works, and is unequipped to explain how it should work, though he is very certain he knows what is best.

It's got nothing to do with business. Legality is not the same thing as morality. Something can be legal (like slavery was before abolition) and still be unethical.

If you didn't protect your idea what's stopping a patent troll from trying to sue you for millions in an expensive court battle based on nothing more than the fact that they copied your idea and patented the invention while you were asleep at the wheel? How do you determine whether something is too insignificant to patent and won't come back to bite you in the ass later?

[Irbis]

If you didn't protect your idea what's stopping a patent troll from trying to sue you for millions in an expensive court battle based on nothing more than the fact that they copied your idea and patented the invention while you were asleep at the wheel? How do you determine whether something is too insignificant to patent and won't come back to bite you in the ass later?

Hint - it's called 'prior art'. And the patent troll in this case tries exactly this, I hope their lawsuit is thrown out and some tidy punitive sum slapped on their arse.

[evilsoup]

I don't think there's anything wrong with building up a 'war-chest' of patents (well, there are systemic issues with that possibly stifling innovation, but it's not something I can really blame companies for) so that your company can counter-sue, but that's not the same as actually suing someone for bullshit reasons.

That said, I think Apple have a pretty good point with the phone at least.

[General Zod]

If you didn't protect your idea what's stopping a patent troll from trying to sue you for millions in an expensive court battle based on nothing more than the fact that they copied your idea and patented the invention while you were asleep at the wheel? How do you determine whether something is too insignificant to patent and won't come back to bite you in the ass later?

Hint - it's called 'prior art'. And the patent troll in this case tries exactly this, I hope their lawsuit is thrown out and some tidy punitive sum slapped on their arse.

Except Apple actually produces the products they own the patents for, so they don't qualify as a patent troll like you're trying to imply. And my point really applies towards things that there is no prior art for.

[Sarevok]

Money > morals in business. If anyone here thinks morality has anything to do with the ongoing storm of intellectual property lawsuits they are very naive.

[Losonti Tokash]

Sarevok, as someone who has directly profited from blatantly stealing the ideas and design work of other people, you are literally the last person on this board who should be complaining that the patent system isn't fair.

[Irbis]

Except Apple actually produces the products they own the patents for, so they don't qualify as a patent troll like you're trying to imply. And my point really applies towards things that there is no prior art for.

They might have patents but their claim that they invented 'slide to unlock' or 'multiple database search' is so laughable that it easily qualifies as 'troll who patents known things then sues others who were first'.

Quite frankly, outside of design bits, I can't recall any Apple "invention" in last decade that wouldn't look like this.

[Pendleton]

The idea that the iPad is even remotely analogous to the Windows tablets of lore is hilarious. There's a reason Apple is making Microsoft slowly die a death outside of their niche market monopolies: they made something people could actually use and want. I used plenty of touch screen phones and tablets circa 1999 and after XP was released and Windows Mobile replaced CE. They were all shit. Horribly so. Hell, the whole reason for Win 8 existing is because Win 7 was also horribly shit at being a tablet OS. Welcome to the party, MS. You get the lonely corner.

Not that patenting a gesture isn't asinine in the extreme along the same lines as "touch" Windows for serious work also. The patent disputes of late are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point I wonder if the main product of the infantile tech sector won't soon be litigation and Internet outrage.

But also, Apple not innovating at all now is just false to boot.

[Stark]

Yah, I used a Sony P800 nearly a decade ago and it was comically awful. The early tablets were terrible. Is like saying Ford invented the Model T and thus Toyota has never innovated.

[someone_else]

There's a reason Apple is making Microsoft slowly die a death outside of their niche market monopolies: they made something people could actually use and want.

Microsoft does mainly software, other than Xbox-related stuff (and recently has started making mice, keyboards, webcams and similar PC accessories). They do make concepts for others to grab and use, but that's it, they don't design and sell computer hardware on their own like Apple does.
This is the first reason they didn't exactly gave a flying fuck if the portable versions were total crap.

Second, it's indeed much more usable than portable MS crap back then, but its functions are still so fucking pointless on average that I still don't find any good reason to swap my netbook for a tablet. Any tablet. I mean, a consumer tablet costs like a high end netbook (with ION 2 GPU that mops the floor with anything less than gaming graphic cards) or a cheap laptop but can do what? Slightly more than smartphone-grade stuff? And if you want to type a bit without using the painful on-screen keyboard you also have to buy a fucking bluetooth keyboard? With a screen that sucks balls under direct sunshine when I can put e-ink screens in my netbook?
They also can easily have twice if not more of battery life than a tablet.
Really? Why is that better than a netbook again?

MS portable OS crap is totally obsolete since now you can easily make tablet-like computers (with netbook performance) that run plain Win 7 and that can do whatever the fuck you want them to (within perfromance limitations) since they aren't crippling the machine with a smartphone OS (which is good for smartphones, where you cannot turn a smartphone into a PC, but really cripples a tablet's usefulness). They cost a bit more, but they are worth something at least (the "a netbook is much better and cheaper" applies to them as well though).

As for the "people want" it's just smart marketing that turned something overall mediocre with good looks it into a staus symbol like say the Mini cars or All Star shoes. It's not that hard, and if Coca Cola managed to do it as well, then we have the proof that "people want" does not mean "product is worth shit".

I mean, Mac laptops do have areas where they have always been the absolute best (video and photo editing, music, artistic stuff in general). But Ipads? What's the point of Ipads?

Hell, the whole reason for Win 8 existing is because Win 7 was also horribly shit at being a tablet OS.

Uhm, No.
Win 8 is aimed at making the UI of a desktop all-in-one (a sector growing by 30+ percent per year, and they do pay attention to since it's well within their fucking monopoly) or a laptop with touchscreen into something more simlar to a tablet since there are inconfutable proofs that the average consumer likes being treated like a retard (I find this concept debatable, but hey, it's not that bad if they do it well). It may or may not work on tablets as it isn't their primary concern (most tablets don't have the raw power to run Win 8 anyway).

For the record, Win 8 is still unbelievably shit (UI-wise), since it's interface is basically Win 7 Phone's. The point is that a PC can do so much more things that a phone OS's UI (even if it's pretty damn good for a phone, if my experience with Lumias is worth something) just cannot do it without some serious overhaul.
You are all waaaah waaah about it, but newsflash: that's the same thing iOS and Android do in the end.

My personal opinion is that Win 8 is for true tablets what was Vista for PCs, a giant beta full of good concepts and bad issues, that after some more development could very well become an unbelievably decent OS like Win 7.

But also, Apple not innovating at all now is just false to boot.

They are exceptionally good at repacking old ideas with a new shiny look and market them so well they become mainstream. They did the same for smartphones (Blackberry were the first) and all-in-one PCs (Commodores were the first), tablets were no different. They know how to make something sell like cakes, but that's not accomplished by inventing stuff, it's usually more a "dumbing down" and "adding shiny things" on average.

So Apple can patent its cool design/software UI since that's their main effort and does deserve to be protected somehow but didn't really "invent" anything, either program or hardware.

Especially multi-database search.

Is like saying Ford invented the Model T and thus Toyota has never innovated.

Apart from the fact Toyota keeps ripping off looks from other cars, I would have used the Smart in the comparison. Short but not small, questionable looks and safety, same price of a car twice as big, same or worse performance on all worthy parameters (like say fuel consumption) to an average car. (the same applies to FIAT's new 500 as well)
It either becomes a status symbol or it's laughed off into oblivion.

[phongn]

There's a reason Apple is making Microsoft slowly die a death outside of their niche market monopolies: they made something people could actually use and want.

Microsoft does mainly software, other than Xbox-related stuff (and recently has started making mice, keyboards, webcams and similar PC accessories). They do make concepts for others to grab and use, but that's it, they don't design and sell computer hardware on their own like Apple does.

This is the first reason they didn't exactly gave a flying fuck if the portable versions were total crap.

As a minor nitpick, Microsoft has been making accessories for many years. They tend to be pretty decent little things, too, and occasionally have flashes of design excellence. For the main point: I hope like hell they did care that portable versions were good, because otherwise it meant they were deliberately shipping a terrible product. You make it sound like it's okay to do that!

Second, it's indeed much more usable than portable MS crap back then, but its functions are still so fucking pointless on average that I still don't find any good reason to swap my netbook for a tablet. Any tablet. I mean, a consumer tablet costs like a high end netbook (with ION 2 GPU that mops the floor with anything less than gaming graphic cards) or a cheap laptop but can do what? Slightly more than smartphone-grade stuff? And if you want to type a bit without using the painful on-screen keyboard you also have to buy a fucking bluetooth keyboard? With a screen that sucks balls under direct sunshine when I can put e-ink screens in my netbook?
They also can easily have twice if not more of battery life than a tablet.
Really? Why is that better than a netbook again?

A lot of people don't have trouble with the onscreen keyboard. You might, but please do not mistake that for the larger market as a whole. As for the rest of "tablet vs. netbook", they might want something that doesn't have terrible build quality. They might want something with a simplified interface. They might even prefer the touch-centric interface over the full desktop metaphor! They also tend to have long battery life (Nexus 7 and iPad are pretty long) and certainly enough for most of their intended use cases.

And transflective LCD hackery? Please. Don't make me laugh: the vast majority of people aren't going to swap displays.

As for the "people want" it's just smart marketing that turned something overall mediocre with good looks it into a staus symbol like say the Mini cars or All Star shoes. It's not that hard, and if Coca Cola managed to do it as well, then we have the proof that "people want" does not mean "product is worth shit".

You have zero understanding of what the larger market wants from computers. Hint: they want an appliance. Apple provides it.

I mean, Mac laptops do have areas where they have always been the absolute best (video and photo editing, music, artistic stuff in general). But Ipads? What's the point of Ipads?

A portable device with reasonable battery life, a superior display (high color gamut, high pixel density, wide viewing angle), fast-enough to perform tasks, touch-centric interface, no desktop metaphor, "walled-garden" approach that makes it more difficult to get malicious software?

Hell, the whole reason for Win 8 existing is because Win 7 was also horribly shit at being a tablet OS.

Uhm, No.
Win 8 is aimed at making the UI of a desktop all-in-one (a sector growing by 30+ percent per year, and they do pay attention to since it's well within their fucking monopoly) or a laptop with touchscreen into something more simlar to a tablet since there are inconfutable proofs that the average consumer likes being treated like a retard (I find this concept debatable, but hey, it's not that bad if they do it well). It may or may not work on tablets as it isn't their primary concern (most tablets don't have the raw power to run Win 8 anyway).

Your contempt at conventional users is absurd and ridiculous. Computers are supposed to make life easier, not force them to run through usability hurdles created by the priesthood of software engineers. Competent designers aren't treating them "like a retard", they're actually figuring out how people use computers and how to make their lives easier.

A desktop all-in-one does not need Metro (unless Microsoft wants to make them touchscreens). A laptop with a touchscreen (ideally convertible, e.g. X-series Tablet) does, yes, but that just underlines the earlier point. And yes, tablets have the power to run Windows 8 ... hence Windows 8 RT. Or a hypothetical x86 Windows 8 tablet (which are coming).

For the record, Win 8 is still unbelievably shit (UI-wise), since it's interface is basically Win 7 Phone's. The point is that a PC can do so much more things that a phone OS's UI (even if it's pretty damn good for a phone, if my experience with Lumias is worth something) just cannot do it without some serious overhaul.
You are all waaaah waaah about it, but newsflash: that's the same thing iOS and Android do in the end.

Newsflash: " I think interface X is shit because it looks like interface Y" is a horrible argument (and at any rate Windows 8' main problem is that the Metro and Desktop worlds do not well mesh together).

"waaah waaah" sounds like you ventilating, not everyone else.

But also, Apple not innovating at all now is just false to boot.

They are exceptionally good at repacking old ideas with a new shiny look and market them so well they become mainstream. They did the same for smartphones (Blackberry were the first) and all-in-one PCs (Commodores were the first), tablets were no different. They know how to make something sell like cakes, but that's not accomplished by inventing stuff, it's usually more a "dumbing down" and "adding shiny things" on average.

iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, it was the first that included reasonable computer power, a large display and touch-centric interface - and Blackberry was a constrained, email-centric device. All-in-one PCs? If you're referring to Macintosh, its great innovation was 'GUI for the masses', if you're referring to the Apple II series, it was simply an excellent machine for its time.

So Apple can patent its cool design/software UI since that's their main effort and does deserve to be protected somehow but didn't really "invent" anything, either program or hardware.

Design is not invention?

Is like saying Ford invented the Model T and thus Toyota has never innovated.

Apart from the fact Toyota keeps ripping off looks from other cars, I would have used the Smart in the comparison. Short but not small, questionable looks and safety, same price of a car twice as big, same or worse performance on all worthy parameters (like say fuel consumption) to an average car. (the same applies to FIAT's new 500 as well)
It either becomes a status symbol or it's laughed off into oblivion.

Unsurprisingly, you don't understand the appeal of very-small-cars for urban environments and apparently cannot comprehend his original point, anyways.