5 ms·

Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsun

by neya 8y ago

Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many others.

dkonofalski 8y ago
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
- geodel 8y ago
  I don't think he had better understanding. He was making big claims about how Oracle is going to win billions in Oracle vs Google patent case. And then all Oracle patents went doing the drain. He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
- paulgb 8y ago
  Are there things they copied from the guidebook that you feel are more valid subjects of patent protection than rounded edges?
  - dkonofalski 8y ago
    Maybe not individually, but, as a collection of choices, absolutely. Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. The guidebook wasn't simply about the physical design either. It included large portions of the iPhone OS UI along with a checklist of whether or not those items had been implemented or copied yet. (Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...) In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
    - tooltalk 8y ago
      >Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju... Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no. > Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer. ever heard of LG Prada?
      - dkonofalski 8y ago
        >plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards. Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.
        tooltalk 8y ago
        It doesn't matter whether Samsung released them or not -- the legal standard required to avoid infringement is evidence that Samsung had knowledge or sought similar designs before Apple's public release. Samsung's internal document on competitive product evaluation likewise is just valid as their R&D department's document on on-going research. I'm willing to bet that at least half a dozen other phone makers considered those designs before Apple released theirs. Again, LG Prada who came out with their own months before Apple was one such example. Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute. > that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit. > Again, it's not just about the individual components. This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."
- tooltalk 8y ago
  Not necessarily.. I've been following him since Samsung's battle with Apple in early 2010's. His lopsided depiction of the legal proceedings (see his commentary on Judge Grewal's adversal jury instruction on Samsung and how he belittled Samsung's response) or the evidence -- the "guidebook" you cited -- that Apple was able to get away with, but not Samsung. Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your competitors' product is nothing special in any industry. That piece of evidence was submitted at the last minute for the trade dress part of the lawsuit and Samsung also tried to present theirs in response, but was rejected on procedural ground (on "untimeliness").
  - dkonofalski 8y ago
    I think you're thinking of something different. The "guidebook" that I'm referring to was an internal Samsung document that Apple was able to get its hands on during the trial discovery period that showed pages of hardware and software features of the iPhone along with the progress Samsung had made on copying those features. It included the touchscreen and also the UI of the OS. (Edit: Not exactly it but this makes the point I was after: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
    - tooltalk 8y ago
      Sure, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily. Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...). This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar). You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.
- gpm 8y ago
  What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things Apple did win on was "Apple patented rounded corners". The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent. This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which clearly needs adjusting.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected. Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.
    - Marsymars 8y ago
      Was covered. Coke's bottle design patents have been expired for close to 70 years or more. I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.
      - tooltalk 8y ago
        No. design patents only last 15 years. Coke's bottle design I believe is protected under trade dress/mark, which allows Coke's unique design to be protected in perpetuity. https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress: "When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or both, you should first consider what each protects: Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the product, you are still protected by a design patent. Trade dress - protects your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that image with your product. As design patents and trade dress protect different things, the requirements are different for both: Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature, rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality. Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design patent." Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.
AtlasLion 8y ago
I'm really impressed people are still listening to this guy, he has been outed multiple times before. http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-death/ http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...
- oflannabhra 8y ago
  Do you have another source you can recommend?
oflannabhra 8y ago
I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?

by neya 8y ago

dkonofalski 8y ago

Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.

geodel 8y ago
I don't think he had better understanding. He was making big claims about how Oracle is going to win billions in Oracle vs Google patent case. And then all Oracle patents went doing the drain. He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
paulgb 8y ago
Are there things they copied from the guidebook that you feel are more valid subjects of patent protection than rounded edges?
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  Maybe not individually, but, as a collection of choices, absolutely. Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. The guidebook wasn't simply about the physical design either. It included large portions of the iPhone OS UI along with a checklist of whether or not those items had been implemented or copied yet. (Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...) In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    >Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju... Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no. > Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer. ever heard of LG Prada?
    - dkonofalski 8y ago
      >plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards. Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.
      - tooltalk 8y ago
        It doesn't matter whether Samsung released them or not -- the legal standard required to avoid infringement is evidence that Samsung had knowledge or sought similar designs before Apple's public release. Samsung's internal document on competitive product evaluation likewise is just valid as their R&D department's document on on-going research. I'm willing to bet that at least half a dozen other phone makers considered those designs before Apple released theirs. Again, LG Prada who came out with their own months before Apple was one such example. Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute. > that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit. > Again, it's not just about the individual components. This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."
tooltalk 8y ago
Not necessarily.. I've been following him since Samsung's battle with Apple in early 2010's. His lopsided depiction of the legal proceedings (see his commentary on Judge Grewal's adversal jury instruction on Samsung and how he belittled Samsung's response) or the evidence -- the "guidebook" you cited -- that Apple was able to get away with, but not Samsung. Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your competitors' product is nothing special in any industry. That piece of evidence was submitted at the last minute for the trade dress part of the lawsuit and Samsung also tried to present theirs in response, but was rejected on procedural ground (on "untimeliness").
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  I think you're thinking of something different. The "guidebook" that I'm referring to was an internal Samsung document that Apple was able to get its hands on during the trial discovery period that showed pages of hardware and software features of the iPhone along with the progress Samsung had made on copying those features. It included the touchscreen and also the UI of the OS. (Edit: Not exactly it but this makes the point I was after: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    Sure, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily. Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-judge-by-sending-media-rejected-evidence-in-apple-trial https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...). This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar). You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.
gpm 8y ago
What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things Apple did win on was "Apple patented rounded corners". The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent. This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which clearly needs adjusting.
- Angostura 8y ago
  Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected. Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.
  - Marsymars 8y ago
    Was covered. Coke's bottle design patents have been expired for close to 70 years or more. I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.
    - tooltalk 8y ago
      No. design patents only last 15 years. Coke's bottle design I believe is protected under trade dress/mark, which allows Coke's unique design to be protected in perpetuity. https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress: "When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or both, you should first consider what each protects: Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the product, you are still protected by a design patent. Trade dress - protects your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that image with your product. As design patents and trade dress protect different things, the requirements are different for both: Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature, rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality. Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design patent." Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.

AtlasLion 8y ago

I'm really impressed people are still listening to this guy, he has been outed multiple times before. http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-death/ http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...

oflannabhra 8y ago
Do you have another source you can recommend?

oflannabhra 8y ago

I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?