Multitouch Patent Infringement – Ban on Multiple Samsung devices
Journalist Andreas Udo de Haes is in the courtroom
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AndreasUdo
- The hearing today is about EP2098948 (multitouch) - http://goo.gl/Q2bkv
- Ban for Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Tab, S3 and similar Samsung devices
- Last year Apple filed a case for the same patent but the claim was dismissed by the judge
- The patent has nothing to do with Samsung but really with the core of Android
- In Germany Apple filled similar cases http://goo.gl/iUeRZ
- The German case has been postponed
- All Android versions 2.3 and higher are infringing on the patent according to Apple
- Last year a similar case ruled that Samsung was not infringing on the patent http://goo.gl/pTlMq 4.23 – 4.41
- Apple's patent defines that "each view" is associated with a so called "Exclusive touch flag" to ignore or allow touches on other views - http://goo.gl/BmWrb
- But, argued Samsung, and last year's judge agreed, Android similar “Flag_Split_Touch” works on "windows", not "views". So no infringement - http://goo.gl/cpxmU
- Apple now argues that Brinkman was respectfully wrong. Because Android has “Flag_Split_Touch” and “splitMotionEvents” it matches EP 948 - http://goo.gl/1S84b
- to explain: there's a hierarchic tree of UI elements: a view (like a button), which are grouped in a ViewGroup, which are shown in a window - http://goo.gl/S2CWe
- By creating more ViewGroups in a tree, Android (or an app) creates exactly the same schema as protected by EP 948, argues Apple - http://goo.gl/PQEjg
- Samsung argues Tabletop and SoftSynth being prior art
- Apple rejects this as Tabletop is multiple users, not multitouch and SoftSynth is something completely different
- Android matches EP 948 by creating more viewgroups [IMG] http://goo.gl/SjiI3
- The case which is held today, has nothing to do with the recent case in the US in which Apple won. In NL there is no jury but three judges with IP and patent expertise
- According to Samsung EP 948 is obvious and not innovative, based on prior, non-patented, methods. Now the whole patent should be dismissed - http://goo.gl/fIcFX
- Apparently, a British judge has ruled that EP 948 was indeed not inventive in a case Apple vs HTC - http://goo.gl/WGCx4
- Apple vs HTC in UK : http://goo.gl/awoAu
- Apple: if this case is so simple, why have Samsung's lawyers spend tens of hours just for wrting the pleading and claims €300.000 costs - http://goo.gl/t9amx
- Samsung: but Android works differently, with a hierarchical tree of window>viewgroup>views. And Android's “Flag_Split_Touch” works only on a complete window, and “splitMotionEvents” on a ViewGroup. So views itself are not flagged – http://goo.gl/dD4T3
- The infringement according to Samsung is only valid when the flag is used for each view. Android only does it at a higher level.
- Apple claims that the Gmail (not Samsung but Google) is a showcase of the patent infringement
- Samsung: Gmail app has just one view per window (and multiple windows), but that similarity with EP 948 is just accidental… - http://goo.gl/TVHSA
- Samsung: all experts and professors agree on our reading, except Apple's expert witness prof Van Nispen, who is not really qualified.. - http://goo.gl/USPiO
- Based on the case last year in the Netherlands and the recent case in the UK, it odds are against Apple
- The 948 case in Germany: http://goo.gl/hsRyT – German court doubts that Android infringes Apple's touch event model patent
- Apple is demanding not only sales injunction of all Samsung Galay products, but a recall from resellers and distributors. If granted, this could have EU wide effect, as Samsung's European distribution entity is based in The Netherlands - http://goo.gl/86VBW
- Samsung's defence in a nutshell: Android does not infringe, because its flag system is basically inferior to Apple's
- Verdict in 6 weeks, on October 24th. Judges will keep a close eye on the German verdict due on September 21st.
Disclaimer: I am documenting this story also on Google+. I add credit where credit is due and in no way I am taking ownership of the content generated.
Google+: Reshared 10 times
Google+: View post on Google+
Recent Posts
- 05/25/2013 • Will Smith with some great surprises
- 05/22/2013 • Apple identifies certain patents allegedly infringed by Samsung Galaxy S4 and Google…
- 05/22/2013 • Just searched for cloud and guess what the results show?
- 05/21/2013 • Oklahoma Tornado survivor finds missing dog during live interview
- 05/20/2013 • 1 terabyte of free storage
This is so sad and self-destructive from Apple. How one of the world greatest innovators kills innovation.
Curious as to the result. So it didn't just get thrown out of court.. . Any estimate how long the trial will take?
No clue +Ann Wuyts. Last year it was dismissed but Apple is making a stronger case now.
As a macfanboy
I really hate this behaviour and their growing arrogance is annoying me…
Samsung should make each of us Android fans sue apple over one thing or other .THESE MILLION COURT CASES WILL KIIL APPLE'S BILLIONS IN SECONDS .I don't hate Apple but he should really need to stop now .
Same here. I don't mind paying a premium into research for greatly designed well-functioning gear, I do mind paying extra to fund all the law suits. They should return to spending more money for research (and if need be marketing) and if Google and Apple could exchange a few patents rather than suing endlessly, they'd both have more time & money left to make us neat new stuff. (Which no doubt, we'd buy. I'm still waiting for my home-work teleporter, for instance.
)
*added some updates*
*update*
Similar case also about 948 has been dismissed in the UK.
Great post, +Arvid Bux !
When does al this nonsense finally stop? Nothing in this patents can be considered innovative and the entire suit should be dismissed.
*Update* discussion on Gmail app although that is not Samsung's but Google's.
+Patrick Schmitz I fully agree with you. This is all about minor bullshit… But let us wait until Samsung sues apple for 4g technology in the iPhone 5.
Update
Apple is demanding not only sales injunction of all Samsung Galay products, but a recall from resellers and distributors. If granted, this could have EU wide effect, as Samsung's European distribution entity is based in The Netherlands – http://goo.gl/86VBW
I guess that's the main reason why Apple is bringing this case to the Dutch court, +Arvid Bux.
I think you're right about that +Hayo Jongbloed
Apple had more success with their cases in Germany and it would otherwise be more logical to continue over there.
*update*
Samsung's defence in a nutshell: Android does not infringe, because its flag system is basically inferior to Apple's
update
Verdict in 6 weeks, on October 24th. Judges will keep a close eye on the German verdict due on September 21st.
Apple is becoming a very arogant company, wanting the monopoly on smartphones…and their product is not genuine either !
Arrogance? Monopoly on smartphones? Apple just designed the smartphone in a different way, put a lot of effort in the design and became very successful with. And Samsung decided to be a copycat instead of developing a new and competitive original for a smartphone.
You could make the comparison to cars, if somebody redesigned the car to drive electrical, does that mean that nobody can make electrical cars, where does innovation leave us then ?
This company introduced a new technology in spite of a lot of obstruction and technical challenges, and once it was successful other companies wanted a free ride. In my opinion a fee for using the new technology is quite fair. And further innovation would be the application of for example hydrogen-oxygen cars, nuclear fusion, sailing cars, etcetera.
If that is your opinion, then Apple should start paying Xerox first, from which they took the mouse interaction, when they introduced it in the Macintosh. I have a lot of respect for the late Steve Jobs, but it was not for nothing that he played a part in the documentary movie: "The Pirates of Silicon Valley". There will be no end to this story, also Apple took innovations, which are coming from Samsung.
Apple versus Xerox is another story. In case Xerox objected in the eighties against Apple, also a fee would be fair. However, Microsoft could build upon the Macintosh to introduce Windows without any problem since it was too obvious that the Macintosh was not an idea of originality. Next to it, Xerox' design was extremely expensive and Apple made it payable. Regarding the smartphone, the common perception is that the real innovation for this device came from Apple and not from Samsung.
If you read the news lately, you probably noticed that Apple doesn't want a fee to be paid ( they have already money enough), but they want all Samsung smartphones ( starting from the Galaxy S incl. the Galaxy S3 ) to be forbidden by law, and this you don't call it arrogancy ? Following yesterday's launch of the Iphone5, you can call it hardly innovative, the Galaxy S3 is way ahead.
Arrogance is in my opinion when somebody is using power because of his wrong perception of own superiority. And what is going on between Apple and Samsung has more to do with fairness than with arrogance. Regarding Galaxy S3 and the launch of Iphone 5 I do not have experience yet to make a judgement. Probably Samsung made a better (own) innovation on the Iphone original with Galaxy S3 than Apple did now with Iphone 5. And now it is a fight for the smartphone market share, while Apple apparently lost the momentum for innovation.
+John Oomens Read thid article, you will find I think interessting what the alive Steve (Wozniak) has to say about the patent wars: http://www.androidcentral.com/woz-apple-v-samsung-patent-fights-i-hate-it
+Frans van der Krogt . Steve Wozniak's comments do not convince me at all. He left Apple about twenty years ago, long before iMac, iPod and iPhone. And the current patent wars came from Apple's disappointment of the behavior of both Google and Samsung as partners during the development of the iPhone. It felt to Apple like betrayal by partner companies, when Google bought Android to compete and Samsung decided to use its experience in the supply chain of making iPhones for copying the design.