Potentially Grim News for Android: Apple Blocks Sale of Samsung Galaxy Nexus in U.S.

[Jeyman]

I would like to no how $100 million is good? There is a lot more at stack then that, Google and Samsung are worth billions and this is a flagship device. Taking this product undermines all of android and Samsung. This bond should be placed much higher.

 

[jseah]

I would like to no how $100 million is good? There is a lot more at stack then that, Google and Samsung are worth billions and this is a flagship device. Taking this product undermines all of android and Samsung. This bond should be placed much higher.

The bond is supposed to cover any losses that Samsung may incur during the period of time in which the injunction is in place if the injunction is deemed to be invalid upon appeal should Samsung not be able to sell the Nexus. It is not supposed to reimburse Samsung for all losses amongst their entire product line. When the injunction for the Galaxy tab was put in place, Apple only had to post, I believe, a $2.6 million bond. That was lower because the expected loss in sales was lower since the tab was essentially an outdated product.

 

[silverfang77]

If the injunction lasts longer than six months, the phone that's been banned will be obsolete by the time it's allowed back in. That's one way for Apple to kill off the competition.

 

[nikecar]

Everyone with a nexus should take a picture of it either on top of a smashed or rotted apple. Like the highlander. Only one remains. Then send the picture to apple corporate hq so they can see their fruit is bad.

 

[hazydave]

I wish I were a lawyer so I could figure this out. I tried searching for info on the patents and came up with this article that goes into more detail on them: FOSS Patents: Apple requests U.S. preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus based on four high-power patents

One of the things it mentions is that the patent involving siri could be a big problem for Google since Google's main deal is the search engine. THAT DOESNT MAKE ANY FREAKING SENSE!!! GOOGLE HAS HAD THEIR SEARCH ENGINE AROUND FOREVER!!! SIRI JUST CAME OUT!

At least part of this may be the patent system. The US Patent system is so overloaded, the primary research for granting a new patent is a search among existing patents. While it's entirely true that "prior art" (eg, the "invention" already in use) will invalidate a patent, there's a process gap here. If your patent is granted, the presumption from then on is that you have a 20-year monopoly (from the date of application) on that invention.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am an Engineer who's been involved in patents from both sides. Year ago, I was the technical liaison for my company's legal team, going up against a gigantic company that decided to sue us. More recently, I have written a number of patents.

In this specific case, it's very possible, perhaps even likely, that Google has been doing the same thing as SIRI since before SIRI. There's no guarantee -- I haven't read the patents in question, or done any other analysis, just suggesting what might be. Google has had voice-directed search in Android nearly since the beginning, and it has improved. Could be that they just didn't file any patents on this, thinking it well represented in the prior art (in theory, the patent applicant has to disclose all knowledge of applicable prior art as part of the patent application, but I know of a large number of patents filed on things "obvious to one skilled in the art" with no such disclosure, which would have been rejected given that disclosure).

And so Apple, even acting on their best behavior, comes up with the same basic idea, and, not knowing (again, in theory) about Google's work, files and receives patents. They shouldn't have been, but again, the PTO is not omniscient, and Apple is at best being as not-knowing as they can legally document. One of the problems with software patents in particular is that there are so many of these, it's virtually impossible for even a good patent search to turn up everything (and trust me, I have done many patent searches, I'm very good at it, and still don't always find everything). And that's assuming the best behavior.

There have been worse. When software patents were first allowed, in the early 80s, there was kind of a gold rush. The whole concept wasn't even for a software patent -- there was an important case in which the patent couldn't be denied simply because the hardware system used a software component -- prior to this, inventions were routinely rejected due to a software component. After all, software is already covered under copyright, eh?

So you had companies like IBM, just submitting all kinds of nonsense patents. For example, they were granted a 1984 patent on cut & paste between text buffers. It's impossible to imagine that any software engineer (and hard to imagine any engineer) in those days had not already used a text editor that did this. I had used RMS's original TECO Emacs, and Gosling's C Emacs, back in college, before this. They not only did this, but the very same keyboard sequence used to claim my company (Commodore) and product (Amiga) violated this patent would have worked on the Emacs I used back in '79. But even then, the primary basis for "is it patentable" was drawn from the pool of patents.

The system really needs an extended period of public review. I'm not holding my breath.

And I'm also not saying Apple's wrong here, either.. again, I haven't read the patent. I'm just trying to offer an explanation as to why these things keep happening. The patent system itself is to blame -- it's highly flawed, and it will continue to grant patents on things that have long existed.

The other thing that also involves court is the very nature of what a patent is. Patents don't cover ideas, they cover very specific implementations of ideas. Or they're supposed to. So it's quite possible that Apple's patent doesn't apply to Google just because Google does what appears to be the same thing, but the underlying architecture of the software is somewhat different. That would actually keep Apple's patent intact, but absolve Google of any infringement. The problem is that, when you write the application, you're generally limiting the scope quite a bit, to have it pass muster. Once you're granted the patent, you might get aggressive.

As we know, Apple's goal isn't licensing, it's spreading FUD and randomly throwing monkey wrenches into the Android world. So they may consider it a win just to delay a Google product to market by six months. And to get all that press, because the average reader doesn't have a clue about how the patent system actually functions.

 

[jroc]

Yea...I have a Droid 1 with 2.0.1...and it does have Voice search. Their non voice search feature can search Apps, the Music folder, the Web and some other things. Voice seems to be only for the web. But is it that serious? Google also had Google Desktop that even if it didnt have Voice search...could search the harddrive and the web on a PC.

They cant be allowed to have this as an evolution of their existing products?

 

[silverfang77]

Apparently not if Apple gets their way.

 

[wicked]

Galaxy Nexus might start selling again in just a week - Google Galaxy Nexus sales resume next week

 

[silverfang77]

Is this the one where Google and Samsung are putting out a patch that cripples the phone's searching ability?

Tappin' and talkin' with Tapatalk.

 

[MissionImprobable]

Yep. I believe they changed it so that you have to search the phone separately.

 

[silverfang77]

I hope all Galaxy Nexus users refuse the update.

 

[hazydave]

Yea...I have a Droid 1 with 2.0.1...and it does have Voice search. Their non voice search feature can search Apps, the Music folder, the Web and some other things. Voice seems to be only for the web. But is it that serious? Google also had Google Desktop that even if it didnt have Voice search...could search the harddrive and the web on a PC.

I know for a fact my old Droid did universal voice search. For example, I could say "call Lizzie cell" and it would dial my wife on her cellphone, or "Navigate <address>" and that would call up Google Nav, then do the web search for the address. So this is true unified search: it works simultaneously on local and web, actions as well as information.

They cant be allowed to have this as an evolution of their existing products?

This is one of the ways software patents have been very bad. They typically have upheld that doing exactly the same thing in a very slightly different way is patentable. And that shouldn't be. For example, voice search. If I have a universal search box that's text driven, and I couple this with a text to speech engine, I have changed absolutely nothing about the universal search itself. The connection between the two (essentially, dropping the translated text into the search function) itself is very, very obvious to one skilled in the art. "Obvious to one skilled in the art" is a fundamental means of rejecting a patent. So that alone really should not be patentable. Maybe there's some special way they're parsing the text (eg, a specifically designed syntax graph, adding information about vocal inflection, etc. might be a place for a good patent) that's different than this.

The other big problem is really going to the core of what a patent is. A patent is supposed to be for a very specific method, not a general idea. So "universal voice search" is absolutely not patentable. The patent (which I haven't seen yet) would reason something like "a method and system for universal voice search" or something to that effect, and it would not simply disclose a block diagram of a text to speech unit connected to a search box. It should really have the source code, and if Google did it in a different enough way, it would not be held to be violating Apple's patent.

If you design a mechanical item, you have to submit very detailed mechanical drawings, and if you leave out a key feature of your actual invention, the whole patent may be invalidated. For an electronics patent, you have to include a detailed schematic or at least a very complete system diagram showing the very specific details of the invention. With software, the source code was originally required. But more recently, the PTO accepts block diagrams and flow charts. These can be far more general than the actual patent ought to cover... and the patent writers do this intentionally, to ensure that the patent can be read on a wide variety of things based on the same "idea", even if the implementation is much different. In fact, that's kind of an art, writing patents that way (as mentioned, that's one of the things I'm doing professionally these days, though hoping to get out of it soon).