US bans Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

[phongn]

Can you give some examples of this "shitty Android UI?"

Most of Android's UI problems come from their lack of design chops (fixed by hiring Matias Duarte away from HP/Palm) and guidance (fixed by said person). ICS is really the first decent interface on Android.

Examples, in no particular order:

• Inconsistent behavior of the "back" button
• No cues for in-app navigation (API fixes introduced in ICS and backported)
• No formal specification on how the hardware buttons should be arranged (hardware buttons now deprecated in ICS)
• No UI prioritization, leading to response latency (mostly fixed in ICS, improved in JB)
• No general interface guidelines, leading to inconsistent design amongst applications (released with ICS)
• Menu button, leading to lazy developers making hidden-yet-critical interaction (deprecated in ICS)
• Third-party interfaces with inconsistent behavior compared to the stock Android experience
• Third-party interfaces that ape iOS' look (I'm looking at you, Samsung, or MIUI)
• Partitioned storage so you don't quite know how much you can really use at purchase-time
• Mediocre stock keyboard (improved in ICS and even better in JB?)
• Interface in general is still evolving with nontrivial changes across major releases (maybe 4.X represents maturation?)

I suffer no lag on my HTC Vivid. Are your opinions based on pre Ice Cream Sandwich?

My girlfriend has the Nexus S 4G and it sometimes does lag. It also took freaking forever to get ICS (due to Sprint + CDMA issues).

I care nothing for it. WP7 and iOS seem to offer a nicer user experience, if admittedly blander.

One of my sisters has an WP7 phone (Lumia 710) and its usability is leaps ahead of Gingerbread. It also runs rather smoother than my Nexus One!

[someone_else]

Based on your logic all laptops are same and HP or IBM or whoever built the first one should sue everyone else.

They're fighting over Apple's patented design, not over devices with similar general function. Apple patented the design of their product, I don't think someone other than Apple could have patented a specific kind of laptop/phone/tablet design since none in sight has a style everyone else wants to ripoff so badly other than Apple.

Looks is a significant factor for apple stuff, so it doesn't sound so wrong to start legal wars to convince others to stop ripping them off for lulz and pay a competent product design team. It's not like Samsung cannot afford it, their products are quality stuff, it's just the design that is a bit of a ripoff.

I mean, look at Nokia's Iphone-competitor (the Lumia). You cannot mistake it for an Iphone. It's simply not possible.
It's squared, it has fancy colours and it's running WP7 (that just like Win7 works so well that you wonder if it's really Windows).
I had so much fun trying a friend's Lumia that I'm really oriented towards buying something like that (second hand, from Ebay) whenever my current (ancient) phone finally dies.

[Pendleton]

There's a lot of pent up nerd rage on Google Plus at the moment over this trending under "boycottapple".

Fanboyism: no longer for Apple zealots.

[Terralthra]

The Samsung Galaxy Nexus has now suffered the same injunction:

For the second time this week, sale of an Android-based device made by Samsung has been banned in the United States by a federal judge.

On Friday, Judge Lucy Koh barred the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone in the United States until a patent lawsuit between the Korean company and Apple is settled.

In her ruling, Koh said that Apple had clearly shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm unless it was awarded injunctive relief.

Since American judges don't issue preliminary injunctions in these kinds of cases lightly, this decision, and one earlier this week against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet doesn't bode well for the Korean company that is also a major producer of components for Apple products.

Not only is irreparable harm considered by judges before resorting to an extreme move like an injunction on sales of a device, but also the likelihood of victory at trial by the injunction seeker. In her decision Friday, Koh noted that Apple had shown in its request for an injunction that it would prevail in court over Samsung based on the merits of its case and that its patent claims would be upheld.

Apple Pays for its Claim
However, the injunction came with a price to Apple. The company had to post a bond of $96 million -- an estimate of what Samsung will lose while the injunction is in effect -- that would be awarded to the Korean firm should Apple lose its case, which has a trial date scheduled for 2014.

Apple's patent claims in this lawsuit against Samsung amount to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for the Korean concern, observes patent blogger Florian Mueller. Those patents are related to "data tapping," Siri and unified search, slide to unlock, and word completion on a touchscreen.

The worse could be yet to come for Samsung. Apple is also trying to drag the Korean company's hot new smartphone, the Galaxy S III into the case [PDF]. The Galaxy S III was critically acclaimed when it was announced in June in London and Samsung predicts it will ship 10 million of the smartphones globally by the end of July. All four major U.S. wireless carriers offer the phone.

The pair of setbacks for Samsung this week put a damper on an exciting week for Google and Android. The company announced its first branded tablet, the Nexus 7, made by Asus; and introduced the next version of Android, Release 4.1 "Jellybean." Nevertheless, Google acknowledged that the injunctions issued against Samsung's Android products were a buzz kill for the search giant.

“We’re disappointed with this decision, but we believe the correct result will be reached as more evidence comes to light," it said in an e-mailed statement to Wired magazine.

Samsung is likely to appeal Koh's injunction, just as it's appealing the Galaxy Tab injunction issued earlier in the week.

[Lord MJ]

This is significant in that the Galaxy Nexus is a vanilla Android experience. No touchwiz or anything. And all the patents Apple is claiming are for features that are a part of Vanilla Ice Cream Sandwich (and earlier versions of Android.)

For example Apple feels that the ICS unlock screen violates Apple's patents. Also the patent that got the judge to grant the injunction is a patent that covers searching multiple sources. On an ICS device, if you search it pulls up web pages, contacts, files on your phone, music from google play, as you type. Apple has a patent on that (apparently) and has gotten the G Nex banned because of it.

[Terralthra]

Well, these are preliminary injunctions, not flat bans. Essentially, the judge saying that there is enough of a chance that Apple's patent is valid and Samsung (Google, really) infringing it to enjoin Samsung from making money off of Apple's intellectual property while the case is decided.

[Lord MJ]

Problem is that such an injunction could last till 2014 when the actual trial takes place. The Galaxy Nexus will be obsolete by then. Furthermore, Apple could simply sue over every single ICS device Samsung releases. More than likely the Galaxy S III will suffer the same fate as the Galaxy Nexus.

Could any damages Apple has suffered warrant keeping the devices off the market until trial? I don't think so.

At the moment Apple could literally sue every device maker that provides ICS on the device and get injunctions.

[noncredible]

I suffer no lag on my HTC Vivid. Are your opinions based on pre
Ice Cream Sandwich

I suffer no lag on my Gingerbread HTC Raider (Vivid).

[Sea Skimmer]

Its unlikely injunction is going to stand up to appeal, every other time Apple has gotten the 10.1 banned it was overturned by a pretrial appeal as far as I can tell. If Apple losses in the end they'll also be liable for lost Samsung sales. Also the 10.1 II can still be sold, and all existing 10.1 stock in the US can still be sold, all this does for the moment is block further shipments of the 10.1 into the US.

[Edi]

Which is just one more indicator that the lawsuit is mainly Apple trying to use anticompetitive practices to muscle its main rival out of the market.

If they have such a hugely meritorious suit, why is the US the only place they are trying that shit? The reason for that is that the US patent laws and practices allow that kind of bullshit whereas in Europe they would be laughed out of court and slapped with a bill for the whole circus.

[Pendleton]

Which is just one more indicator that the lawsuit is mainly Apple trying to use anticompetitive practices to muscle its main rival out of the market.

If they have such a hugely meritorious suit, why is the US the only place they are trying that shit? The reason for that is that the US patent laws and practices allow that kind of bullshit whereas in Europe they would be laughed out of court and slapped with a bill for the whole circus.

What about Germany?

[someone_else]

If they have such a hugely meritorious suit, why is the US the only place they are trying that shit? The reason for that is that the US patent laws and practices allow that kind of bullshit whereas in Europe they would be laughed out of court and slapped with a bill for the whole circus.

If they know they cannot pull this in places other than the US why try at all? they aren't morons. The US market is significant though.

The damage dealt doesn't seem to be really relevant (it does not stop the new model and is likely to be overturned anyway), this seems more a marketing stunt than an actual war on competitors. Apple lives on powerful worldwide marketing campaigns.

Like saying far and wide "look our stuff is so cool everyone copies us!!!! Come buy the real thing!!!!!".

Fanboyism: no longer for Apple zealots.

Old news. Go to Win 7 forums, there are loads of Win 7 fanboys pestering any Apple or linux fanboy. It's actually weird.

[phongn]

If they have such a hugely meritorious suit, why is the US the only place they are trying that shit? The reason for that is that the US patent laws and practices allow that kind of bullshit whereas in Europe they would be laughed out of court and slapped with a bill for the whole circus.

Because the patents in question are in the US (and the US is the largest market for such devices), but as Pendleton noted, they're doing it in Germany, too.

[Sea Skimmer]

Which is just one more indicator that the lawsuit is mainly Apple trying to use anticompetitive practices to muscle its main rival out of the market.

If they have such a hugely meritorious suit, why is the US the only place they are trying that shit? The reason for that is that the US patent laws and practices allow that kind of bullshit whereas in Europe they would be laughed out of court and slapped with a bill for the whole circus.

The answer is you've been out of the loop. You've missed the fact that Apple already made more or less the exact same lawsuit in Germany and Holland as well several other countries last year, and a German court actually placed an injunction against the sale of the 10.1 tablet across the entire EU which was later ruled to have been illegal for the court to ever have done. Yeah totally the US is the one with the bullshit when those ever so superior European courts don't even know what legal powers they have in the first place. The injunction was later restricted to Germany only.

The injunction in Germany meanwhile was only lifted after Samsung actually changed the design of the tablet so it looked less like an Ipad. Its only with the wrapping up of a number of suits in Europe, Australia and Asia that Apple has finally turned its attention to the US market. In fact Apple has been far quicker to sue companies over patents overseas then in the US.

[Darth Wong]

Why doesn't the absurdity of a patent on appearance prompt questioning of the way the patent system is run?

[Melchior]

Why doesn't the absurdity of a patent on appearance prompt questioning of the way the patent system is run?

How do you feel about counterfeit designer goods being illegal (it's not due to patents, but there are some similarities)?
I think that patents on specific UI interactions that mimic natural gestures are even dumber ("slide to unlock"), especially since it's the vague idea that is patented, not specific technical implementations - Apple having some protection on their superior touchpad drivers seems more reasonable, in the context of suspect software patents.

[Darth Wong]

Why doesn't the absurdity of a patent on appearance prompt questioning of the way the patent system is run?

How do you feel about counterfeit designer goods being illegal (it's not due to patents, but there are some similarities)?

There are no similarities. Copyright covers an attempt to cash in on someone else's trademark and customer goodwill, while patent covers actual invention. Style is not invention.

I think that patents on specific UI interactions that mimic natural gestures are even dumber ("slide to unlock"), especially since it's the vague idea that is patented, not specific technical implementations - Apple having some protection on their superior touchpad drivers seems more reasonable, in the context of suspect software patents.

I agree that it is absurd to patent UI interactions, but I don't see why that's more absurd than patenting style and appearance.

[phongn]

Why wouldn't novel UI design an invention?

[Surlethe]

Why doesn't the absurdity of a patent on appearance prompt questioning of the way the patent system is run?

I've certainly seen people using this as an example of how the patent system is broken, but patent law reform is not a particularly sexy attention-grabber. We don't see a public debate on patent law reform for the same reasons we don't see public debate on revolving door between congressional staff and lobbying, or on rebuilding the freight rail system, or any of a hundred other important-but-uninteresting issues.

[Pendleton]

I see it being as likely to be reformed as the people seeing how absurd the War on Drugs has been and stopping that. At least one US judge has thrown out such a dispute to make an example, but still the bullshit continues.

[Lord MJ]

So Google is apparently working on a "patch" for Ice Cream Sandwich so that when you use the google search widget it only returns web results, not apps, contacts, and whatever else you have on your phone. Since apparently Apple deserves a monopoly on a search that pulls from multiple searches, while everyone else can only implement search that pulls from one source.

People complain about Google and Samsung copying and stealing Apple's IP. Apparently most of them were not CS majors and software developers since this software developer can see through the BS the Apple is claiming as a patent.

To show how stupid this is, if I wrote a search index store, and then a set of collectors that gather data from multiple sources and stores it in that index, and then write code to search the index, I would be in violation of Apple's patent. I could do something like that in a single day if I was motivated to do so...

[salm]

Which is just one more indicator that the lawsuit is mainly Apple trying to use anticompetitive practices to muscle its main rival out of the market.

If they have such a hugely meritorious suit, why is the US the only place they are trying that shit? The reason for that is that the US patent laws and practices allow that kind of bullshit whereas in Europe they would be laughed out of court and slapped with a bill for the whole circus.

The answer is you've been out of the loop. You've missed the fact that Apple already made more or less the exact same lawsuit in Germany and Holland as well several other countries last year, and a German court actually placed an injunction against the sale of the 10.1 tablet across the entire EU which was later ruled to have been illegal for the court to ever have done. Yeah totally the US is the one with the bullshit when those ever so superior European courts don't even know what legal powers they have in the first place. The injunction was later restricted to Germany only.

The injunction in Germany meanwhile was only lifted after Samsung actually changed the design of the tablet so it looked less like an Ipad. Its only with the wrapping up of a number of suits in Europe, Australia and Asia that Apple has finally turned its attention to the US market. In fact Apple has been far quicker to sue companies over patents overseas then in the US.

Funnily the Tab could still be sold in Germany. The only limitation was that Samsung couldn´t sell the tab to verdors and the vendors had to buy it in some other country like Italy. They could then sell it to the consumer.
I got mine that way.

[Pendleton]

So Google is apparently working on a "patch" for Ice Cream Sandwich so that when you use the google search widget it only returns web results, not apps, contacts, and whatever else you have on your phone. Since apparently Apple deserves a monopoly on a search that pulls from multiple searches, while everyone else can only implement search that pulls from one source.

People complain about Google and Samsung copying and stealing Apple's IP. Apparently most of them were not CS majors and software developers since this software developer can see through the BS the Apple is claiming as a patent.

To show how stupid this is, if I wrote a search index store, and then a set of collectors that gather data from multiple sources and stores it in that index, and then write code to search the index, I would be in violation of Apple's patent. I could do something like that in a single day if I was motivated to do so...

And I could make a "one click buy" button like Amazon's in a day too. I'd still be infringing their patent. Your point? It had better be along the lines of frivolous patent lawsuits and the patent system in general, rather than RAWR APPLES.

[Lord MJ]

So Google is apparently working on a "patch" for Ice Cream Sandwich so that when you use the google search widget it only returns web results, not apps, contacts, and whatever else you have on your phone. Since apparently Apple deserves a monopoly on a search that pulls from multiple searches, while everyone else can only implement search that pulls from one source.

People complain about Google and Samsung copying and stealing Apple's IP. Apparently most of them were not CS majors and software developers since this software developer can see through the BS the Apple is claiming as a patent.

To show how stupid this is, if I wrote a search index store, and then a set of collectors that gather data from multiple sources and stores it in that index, and then write code to search the index, I would be in violation of Apple's patent. I could do something like that in a single day if I was motivated to do so...

And I could make a "one click buy" button like Amazon's in a day too. I'd still be infringing their patent. Your point? It had better be along the lines of frivolous patent lawsuits and the patent system in general, rather than RAWR APPLES.

I think RAWR APPLES is appropriate here. Because no matter how jacked up the patent system is, Apple is the one that saw fit to not only file a patent for "sliding to unlock" and "searching from multiple sources" but they also decided to sue over the same issue with the intent being that no other smartphone can have "slide to unlock" or have a search that pulls information from multiple sources.

And the fact that you (or any competent developer for that matter) could make "one click buy" in a day means that it should not have been patented, and whomever applies for a patent on that and sues over it falls in to douchebag territory.

[Terralthra]

More appropriately, it falls under the "obvious" portion of ineligible patents. If a commercial website stores payment information (which many did) and shipping information (which many did), streamlining the process so the customer need only click "buy this" is obvious.

Back in the .com boom, many software patents were given for doing such-and-so existing process OVER THE INTERNET. Today, the same flood of obvious patents for such-and-so existing process ON A SMARTPHONE is the problem.