7 ms·

Google reacts to Apple's US patent victory over Samsung

56 points by nsns 14y ago

indiecore 14y ago
This is a ridiculous farce and it's going to end up destroying all three phone OS manufacturers and dealing massive damage to the entire mobile technology space, especially to smaller developers and possible innovators. Everyone knew if the patents came out it was a MAD situation but I guess someone thought they could win. Edit: Changed the wording on the first sentence. Good points from replies about it really being smaller innovators getting caught in the crossfire.
- ForrestN 14y ago
  Can you say more about how this will happen? Do you really think the aftermath of this lawsuit will destroy Apple and Google? Who will take over their massive markets?
- Marcan 14y ago
  The phone manufacturers will be fine. There won't really be any massive damage to their revenue, the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
  - mladenkovacevic 14y ago
    I think you might be right. Here's my short rant on the issue. https://plus.google.com/u/0/110745064115147792537/posts/14WNL2vAVSW https://plus.google.com/u/0/110745064115147792537/posts/14WN...
    - vvhn 14y ago
      Could you post a link which does not need a google login to read ? I tried this on Chrome's Incognito mode window as well. <Google Plus rant> I hope it's not the usual "Apple is evil, it's products' users are stupid" and (in slightly smaller numbers ) "Facebook is evil, Google Plus is awesome" drivel (and the circlejerk in the comments) </Google Plus rant>
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    >> the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer. Even this remains to be seen. I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much. There might be a chilling effect on anyone trying to re-skin Android as an iPhone wannabe, but that's probably a good thing. I'm an iPhone user who thinks that some of Samsung's older models were blatantly trying to knock off the iPhone, but on the whole, I don't think that Android itself does, especially with the more recent releases of the OS. Samsung just got a deserved spanking for some past bad behaviour, but even they have moved past the "aping" phase and have been producing non-infringing phones lately. I don't get all the doom and gloom going on here.
    - vibrunazo 14y ago
      > Even this remains to be seen. I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much. You're obviously not familiar with the lawsuit on universal search. [1] Apple forced Samsung to remove a feature from its phone. Even from the stock Android Galaxy Nexus, which is much different from the iPhone. This lawsuit is already affecting consumers today. My tablet was just updated yesterday and had universal search removed. Meaning Apple already directly made my device worse. [1] http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-s3-loses-universal-search-thanks-apple/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-s3-loses-universa...
      - slantyyz 14y ago
        I had heard about the universal search part, but I tend to think that at some point in the near future you'll see Google and Apple work out a cross-licensing agreement similar to the one between Apple and Microsoft, which means that feature will be coming back. --edit-- According to: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/3268609/how-google-has-avoided-apples-patents-trade-dress-other-claims http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/3268609/how-google-has-avo... Apparently the universal search is back in 4.1 in a non-infringing way. >> Google significantly revamped search in Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) by introducing their new search product, Google Now. The persistent search bar stayed, but it now pulled up Google Now with its fancy prediction and useful cards. It now intelligently pulls in weather, driving directions, sports scores, and more without the user even asking. They also tweaked the way it searched both the web and the device, side-stepping Apple's patent. In addition, they countered Apple's Siri by offering a similar (but often faster) voice search and actions within Google Now.
- mratzloff 14y ago
  This is the equivalent of a border skirmish to Apple. It has a little more impact on Samsung, but certainly not enough to do any permanent damage. That's why all companies involved persist. Do you really think that if this were some kind of existential threat they wouldn't settle?
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  This is naive, this won't hurt much the big guys. It will only hurt small startups trying to enter the market. Samsung, Google and Apple can afford this fight. Google already paid over $10b for motorola and is already using that to sue Apple. They'll keep doing that until Apple is cornered to cross license its patents. Just like Apple and Microsoft did. Eventually, Apple, Google and Samsung will have cross licensed patents and will stop suing each other. Life will go on. But small startups who can't afford the dozens of billions of dollars these companies are spending to keep Apple off. Those are the ones who will be hurt. Next time an innovative startups tries to disrupt anything Apple is doing. They'll be put out of business because they use pinch to zoom. And this trial has set precedence in Apple's favor. This result is terrible for any small app developer. You should be worried about them, not Apple or Google.
  - herval 14y ago
    It could hurt some of the big guys. Whoever gets sales blocked in their biggest markets could suffer big time (or even go out of business)... That "Apple is the bogey-man and they'll eat anyone that does pinch and zoom" argument is turning into a hollow fallacy. It's not just Apple and they won't sue everyone - it's an all-out war against very specific players (Google, Apple, Samsung and a couple others) that was even announced by Jobs before it happened. Not like they're moving entirely to the business of "patent trolling the world". "Innovative startups that try to disrupt anything" will be safe, IMHO... (except, of course, if "disrupting anything" means blatantly copying everything, from hardware design to icons...)
    - forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
      " First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." I remember the days in witch patenting software or business methods was unthinkable, but now it is the "New normal". It was hard to believe at the time but is happening now.
    - 14y ago
freehunter 14y ago
I wonder what the likelihood of a cross-license deal between Apple and Google would be, and if their OEM manufacturers would be covered. Apple could stand to make a lot of money from Android if every maker is paying them, much in the way Microsoft makes money from Android OEMs. Using the free mobile OS could become very expensive. As much as I'd like to see the marketshare of Windows Phone increase, it concerns me that the obvious result of this lawsuit is that the only way to make a smartphone is to be in position to have a cross-license, no-copy-no-lawsuit agreement like Apple and Microsoft have. This severely restricts competition. I'd like to see Windows Phone succeed in the market, but I wouldn't want to see more independent OSes crushed underfoot in the process.
derekp7 14y ago
There is a simple way to solve this. Ship the phones without an OS. Then consumers would have the choice of installing Android, Windows, Symbian, or what have you. Ideally the OS would boot from a micro SD card, or at least installed from one.
- ForrestN 14y ago
  There is no way the average consumer would prefer this. The experience of using technology is rightfully becoming less and less technical. Making everyone have to insert physical memory to install an operating system when they buy a phone would be a huge step backwards.
  - barkingcat 14y ago
    Why would that be a problem? End users already deal with sim cards on a regular basis. With the iphones, end users need to mentally deal with "microSims" vs full size sims used in other phones. When you sign up for an account, you get 2 chips. One is a sim card for your telephone account, and the other is a microsd card with the OS of choice.
    - ForrestN 14y ago
      Most phone users never see their sim card. It's installed for them, and they never have occasion to take it out. Having something removable that's put in by the provider, as phone sims usually are, could be fine, but it's not so different from how things are now. The number of people who will want to switch OS on the same phone is probably quite small. I'd bet most people don't even think about the existence of an OS. The software is just part of the thing they bought.
      - jusuchin 14y ago
        I can attest to your last line with my wife- when I talk of the OS on her and my Android it is way over her head. The concept to non-technical users is unfortunately something to be taken care of ahead of time.
wklauss 14y ago
No matter what Google says now, this sets a bad precedent and some of these patents could be used to go against Google on a trial. Wether or not Apple chooses to do so is another story. I see this trial as a missed opportunity to rethink patent law in the US. However I don't blame Apple on this one, I blame Samsung. They made it so easy for Apple to make a case that now these patents have been somehow ratified. Had they not make their products so damn similar the jurors would have probably thought twice before the verdict and its implications.
- luriel 14y ago
  What about blaming the insane counterproductive patent system instead?
  - lttlrck 14y ago
    counter-productive for??????
    - alphadogg 14y ago
      Innovation? Small businesses? Positive effects to consumers? You pick.
anuraj 14y ago
Google is clearly not too happy about Samsung cornering the Android Market. Samsung can wrest the control any time and popularize their version of Android leaving the rest of the android crowd in dust. Samsung makes huge profits on Android while Google does not. And that explains Google's stance. That said, Android makers already pay substantial amounts to Microsoft as royalties. So Google posturing is just plain farce. Android is not free.
CookWithMe 14y ago
>> Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now." Is he saying that Windows Phone isn't looking good compared to Android if you ignore the legal troubles Android is in?
at-fates-hands 14y ago
"Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now."" Too bad the carriers aren't listening much. I've been waiting for Verizon to carry more Windows 7 models. The only one they currently have is the HTC Trophy which is already a few years old. In some regards, it doesn't matter what happens to the handset manufacturers, the carriers still have the last word on whether they're going to carry them. They're effectively controlling the supply of the handset, regardless of demand.
- happycube 14y ago
  One of the problems I think is that MS dictated specs too tightly. So basically there are about 10 versions of what's basically the same phone in different packaging, which really doesn't appeal to carriers much.
programminggeek 14y ago
To be fair, Apple offered to license its patents to Samsung already and Samsung said no. Sure, Apple was asking for a lot, but Samsung could have negotiated for a better deal, they just didn't think they had to. Ultimately, there will be cross licensing deals and patent trades made and this isn't going to "slow innovation" as much as pundits believe. It's just going to be a case of trading money to buy innovation instead of doing your own R&D like Apple, MSFT, Motorola, and Nokia have done.
- robertskmiles 14y ago
  That situation would completely lock out any new innovators from entering the market, since they would need (a) enough money up-front and (b) the explicit permission of most if not all leading patent holders. The major companies would effectively be using unjustified patents as a form of collusion to erect insurmountable barriers to entry around the US mobile market.
epo 14y ago
This judgement says nothing about innovation. Note to whiners: copying isn't innovation. Apple innovate (and have exceptional design taste), that is why they are successful. Samsung just produce thinly disguised, poorly made knock-offs. Samsung have history, before the iPhone Samsung made Blackberry knock-offs, its what they do. The important aspect here is that Apple went after the most obvious plagiarist (and softest target) first. Now there is a precedent, Google were the most blatant IP thieves and I have no doubt (nor do Google) that Apple are just warming up for the big game.
- alphadogg 14y ago
  Apple innovates? I always get conceptual whiplash from people who say this combined with Jobs' quote about how "good artists copy, great artists steal". I guess it should be expanded to "good artists copy, great artists steal, and successful, artsy companies use trade dress protections".
- DrHankPym 14y ago
  Obviously, you didn't look at all the designs Apple claims are copies. Unless you believe Apple invented the mobile phone, I don't think you can just claim that this isn't preventing innovation.

56 points by nsns 14y ago

This is a ridiculous farce and it's going to end up destroying all three phone OS manufacturers and dealing massive damage to the entire mobile technology space, especially to smaller developers and possible innovators. Everyone knew if the patents came out it was a MAD situation but I guess someone thought they could win. Edit: Changed the wording on the first sentence. Good points from replies about it really being smaller innovators getting caught in the crossfire.

ForrestN 14y ago
Can you say more about how this will happen? Do you really think the aftermath of this lawsuit will destroy Apple and Google? Who will take over their massive markets?
Marcan 14y ago
The phone manufacturers will be fine. There won't really be any massive damage to their revenue, the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
- mladenkovacevic 14y ago
  I think you might be right. Here's my short rant on the issue. https://plus.google.com/u/0/110745064115147792537/posts/14WNL2vAVSW https://plus.google.com/u/0/110745064115147792537/posts/14WN...
  - vvhn 14y ago
    Could you post a link which does not need a google login to read ? I tried this on Chrome's Incognito mode window as well. <Google Plus rant> I hope it's not the usual "Apple is evil, it's products' users are stupid" and (in slightly smaller numbers ) "Facebook is evil, Google Plus is awesome" drivel (and the circlejerk in the comments) </Google Plus rant>
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer. Even this remains to be seen. I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much. There might be a chilling effect on anyone trying to re-skin Android as an iPhone wannabe, but that's probably a good thing. I'm an iPhone user who thinks that some of Samsung's older models were blatantly trying to knock off the iPhone, but on the whole, I don't think that Android itself does, especially with the more recent releases of the OS. Samsung just got a deserved spanking for some past bad behaviour, but even they have moved past the "aping" phase and have been producing non-infringing phones lately. I don't get all the doom and gloom going on here.
  - vibrunazo 14y ago
    > Even this remains to be seen. I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much. You're obviously not familiar with the lawsuit on universal search. [1] Apple forced Samsung to remove a feature from its phone. Even from the stock Android Galaxy Nexus, which is much different from the iPhone. This lawsuit is already affecting consumers today. My tablet was just updated yesterday and had universal search removed. Meaning Apple already directly made my device worse. [1] http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-s3-loses-universal-search-thanks-apple/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-s3-loses-universa...
    - slantyyz 14y ago
      I had heard about the universal search part, but I tend to think that at some point in the near future you'll see Google and Apple work out a cross-licensing agreement similar to the one between Apple and Microsoft, which means that feature will be coming back. --edit-- According to: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/3268609/how-google-has-avoided-apples-patents-trade-dress-other-claims http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/25/3268609/how-google-has-avo... Apparently the universal search is back in 4.1 in a non-infringing way. >> Google significantly revamped search in Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) by introducing their new search product, Google Now. The persistent search bar stayed, but it now pulled up Google Now with its fancy prediction and useful cards. It now intelligently pulls in weather, driving directions, sports scores, and more without the user even asking. They also tweaked the way it searched both the web and the device, side-stepping Apple's patent. In addition, they countered Apple's Siri by offering a similar (but often faster) voice search and actions within Google Now.
mratzloff 14y ago
This is the equivalent of a border skirmish to Apple. It has a little more impact on Samsung, but certainly not enough to do any permanent damage. That's why all companies involved persist. Do you really think that if this were some kind of existential threat they wouldn't settle?
vibrunazo 14y ago
This is naive, this won't hurt much the big guys. It will only hurt small startups trying to enter the market. Samsung, Google and Apple can afford this fight. Google already paid over $10b for motorola and is already using that to sue Apple. They'll keep doing that until Apple is cornered to cross license its patents. Just like Apple and Microsoft did. Eventually, Apple, Google and Samsung will have cross licensed patents and will stop suing each other. Life will go on. But small startups who can't afford the dozens of billions of dollars these companies are spending to keep Apple off. Those are the ones who will be hurt. Next time an innovative startups tries to disrupt anything Apple is doing. They'll be put out of business because they use pinch to zoom. And this trial has set precedence in Apple's favor. This result is terrible for any small app developer. You should be worried about them, not Apple or Google.
- herval 14y ago
  It could hurt some of the big guys. Whoever gets sales blocked in their biggest markets could suffer big time (or even go out of business)... That "Apple is the bogey-man and they'll eat anyone that does pinch and zoom" argument is turning into a hollow fallacy. It's not just Apple and they won't sue everyone - it's an all-out war against very specific players (Google, Apple, Samsung and a couple others) that was even announced by Jobs before it happened. Not like they're moving entirely to the business of "patent trolling the world". "Innovative startups that try to disrupt anything" will be safe, IMHO... (except, of course, if "disrupting anything" means blatantly copying everything, from hardware design to icons...)
  - forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
    " First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." I remember the days in witch patenting software or business methods was unthinkable, but now it is the "New normal". It was hard to believe at the time but is happening now.
  - 14y ago

freehunter 14y ago

I wonder what the likelihood of a cross-license deal between Apple and Google would be, and if their OEM manufacturers would be covered. Apple could stand to make a lot of money from Android if every maker is paying them, much in the way Microsoft makes money from Android OEMs. Using the free mobile OS could become very expensive. As much as I'd like to see the marketshare of Windows Phone increase, it concerns me that the obvious result of this lawsuit is that the only way to make a smartphone is to be in position to have a cross-license, no-copy-no-lawsuit agreement like Apple and Microsoft have. This severely restricts competition. I'd like to see Windows Phone succeed in the market, but I wouldn't want to see more independent OSes crushed underfoot in the process.

derekp7 14y ago

There is a simple way to solve this. Ship the phones without an OS. Then consumers would have the choice of installing Android, Windows, Symbian, or what have you. Ideally the OS would boot from a micro SD card, or at least installed from one.

ForrestN 14y ago
There is no way the average consumer would prefer this. The experience of using technology is rightfully becoming less and less technical. Making everyone have to insert physical memory to install an operating system when they buy a phone would be a huge step backwards.
- barkingcat 14y ago
  Why would that be a problem? End users already deal with sim cards on a regular basis. With the iphones, end users need to mentally deal with "microSims" vs full size sims used in other phones. When you sign up for an account, you get 2 chips. One is a sim card for your telephone account, and the other is a microsd card with the OS of choice.
  - ForrestN 14y ago
    Most phone users never see their sim card. It's installed for them, and they never have occasion to take it out. Having something removable that's put in by the provider, as phone sims usually are, could be fine, but it's not so different from how things are now. The number of people who will want to switch OS on the same phone is probably quite small. I'd bet most people don't even think about the existence of an OS. The software is just part of the thing they bought.
    - jusuchin 14y ago
      I can attest to your last line with my wife- when I talk of the OS on her and my Android it is way over her head. The concept to non-technical users is unfortunately something to be taken care of ahead of time.

wklauss 14y ago

No matter what Google says now, this sets a bad precedent and some of these patents could be used to go against Google on a trial. Wether or not Apple chooses to do so is another story. I see this trial as a missed opportunity to rethink patent law in the US. However I don't blame Apple on this one, I blame Samsung. They made it so easy for Apple to make a case that now these patents have been somehow ratified. Had they not make their products so damn similar the jurors would have probably thought twice before the verdict and its implications.

luriel 14y ago
What about blaming the insane counterproductive patent system instead?
- lttlrck 14y ago
  counter-productive for??????
  - alphadogg 14y ago
    Innovation? Small businesses? Positive effects to consumers? You pick.

anuraj 14y ago

Google is clearly not too happy about Samsung cornering the Android Market. Samsung can wrest the control any time and popularize their version of Android leaving the rest of the android crowd in dust. Samsung makes huge profits on Android while Google does not. And that explains Google's stance. That said, Android makers already pay substantial amounts to Microsoft as royalties. So Google posturing is just plain farce. Android is not free.

CookWithMe 14y ago

>> Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now." Is he saying that Windows Phone isn't looking good compared to Android if you ignore the legal troubles Android is in?

at-fates-hands 14y ago

"Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now."" Too bad the carriers aren't listening much. I've been waiting for Verizon to carry more Windows 7 models. The only one they currently have is the HTC Trophy which is already a few years old. In some regards, it doesn't matter what happens to the handset manufacturers, the carriers still have the last word on whether they're going to carry them. They're effectively controlling the supply of the handset, regardless of demand.

happycube 14y ago
One of the problems I think is that MS dictated specs too tightly. So basically there are about 10 versions of what's basically the same phone in different packaging, which really doesn't appeal to carriers much.

programminggeek 14y ago

To be fair, Apple offered to license its patents to Samsung already and Samsung said no. Sure, Apple was asking for a lot, but Samsung could have negotiated for a better deal, they just didn't think they had to. Ultimately, there will be cross licensing deals and patent trades made and this isn't going to "slow innovation" as much as pundits believe. It's just going to be a case of trading money to buy innovation instead of doing your own R&D like Apple, MSFT, Motorola, and Nokia have done.

robertskmiles 14y ago
That situation would completely lock out any new innovators from entering the market, since they would need (a) enough money up-front and (b) the explicit permission of most if not all leading patent holders. The major companies would effectively be using unjustified patents as a form of collusion to erect insurmountable barriers to entry around the US mobile market.

epo 14y ago

This judgement says nothing about innovation. Note to whiners: copying isn't innovation. Apple innovate (and have exceptional design taste), that is why they are successful. Samsung just produce thinly disguised, poorly made knock-offs. Samsung have history, before the iPhone Samsung made Blackberry knock-offs, its what they do. The important aspect here is that Apple went after the most obvious plagiarist (and softest target) first. Now there is a precedent, Google were the most blatant IP thieves and I have no doubt (nor do Google) that Apple are just warming up for the big game.

alphadogg 14y ago
Apple innovates? I always get conceptual whiplash from people who say this combined with Jobs' quote about how "good artists copy, great artists steal". I guess it should be expanded to "good artists copy, great artists steal, and successful, artsy companies use trade dress protections".
DrHankPym 14y ago
Obviously, you didn't look at all the designs Apple claims are copies. Unless you believe Apple invented the mobile phone, I don't think you can just claim that this isn't preventing innovation.