Because all software patents shouldn't be granted?
Because you have studied them deeply, fully understand their claims and believe there is prior art or no inventive step (the current requirement for the inventive step seem very low, do you think that this is not being met or you believe the standard should be higher)?
The patents have now withstood not only the flawed patent office examination but have been tested in court. The presumption should now be that they are valid and not bogus unless you provide justification or at least explanation of your view.
Samsung/Google should also presume validity and develop a workaround while the case is pending to strengthen their negotiating position and remove risk of a ban. This doesn't mean that they have to stop fighting legally.
Edit: A reply suggests I may have been wrong to believe that these are the patents that were tested in court. If I was wrong the advice would probably be to plan potential workarounds but not carry them out.
"Data detectors" looks completely ridiculous to everyone who has programmed for more than a year. I would be shocked if this stands, although I have heard that HTC modified their skin because of it.
"Unified search" is the classic "X + on a phone" patent, where X is something that has been done for decades. I hope this is challenged and closely examined. I would not be surprised if there is prior art even for phones.
"Word completion" is very obvious too, they have included details of their implementation in the claims so it will be easy to workaround.
But why would Apple sue over these patents? The best they can get are slight modifications to the software, which will not alter the experience or the look and feel much. Meanwhile they are losing goodwill and making people aware that there are better alternatives out there. All this because the former CEO felt slighted? As a stockholder I would be a little mad.
Thanks, that is a much more informative comment than your original.
UK law is different to US law (apart from anything in the US a priority date at the time of invention rather than filing could be claimed) so it is quite possible one patent is valid and the other isn't.
I've looked at 'Data Detectors' very briefly and I think that you may be right. Looking just at the claims it appears to cover just about any data processing system which would obviously have massive prior art. I assume Apple are trying to say it should be interpreted more narrowly to avoid prior art but throwing it out would probably be the best result.
I haven't looked at the other two and you may be right although only the claims really matter rather than the example implementation details.
Apart from the troubling 'Data Detectors' patent I agree that there should be easy workarounds. The best justification for pressing these cases I can see is that they are trying to create and ensure some differences with Android even though they are fairly minor. It is quite arguable that this is a completely proper use of patents although whether it is worth the effort I don't know.
Yeah but the average person I'm sure doesn't follow tech news as carefully as you or me - and doesn't get worked up about this sort of stuff either. Any damage to Apple's reputation will be negligible, wouldn't you think?
Customers will become aware of this more and more, and Apple's trials are further helping it. It is a slow process, but it happens. Microsoft also seemed invincible once but they lost the goodwill of developers and customers over the years.
I don't think this is the awareness that Apple's competitors want. What Joe SixPack heard this week in the news is that Samsung got its ass kicked by Apple for copying. J6P doesn't understand prior art, voir dire, trade dress, etc. They just know that Samsung is currently on the hook for $1 billion. This makes Samsung look bad, and Apple look good.
Thinking that even 1% of the populace understands patent law, much less how the US legal system functions is going to leave you disappointed. No matter how Samsung tries to spin this, no matter how many articles appear on Groklaw or HN, this is a bad PR scene for Samsung.
Because all software patents shouldn't be granted?
Because you have studied them deeply, fully understand their claims and believe there is prior art or no inventive step (the current requirement for the inventive step seem very low, do you think that this is not being met or you believe the standard should be higher)?
The patents have now withstood not only the flawed patent office examination but have been tested in court. The presumption should now be that they are valid and not bogus unless you provide justification or at least explanation of your view.
Samsung/Google should also presume validity and develop a workaround while the case is pending to strengthen their negotiating position and remove risk of a ban. This doesn't mean that they have to stop fighting legally.
Edit: A reply suggests I may have been wrong to believe that these are the patents that were tested in court. If I was wrong the advice would probably be to plan potential workarounds but not carry them out.