The ‘460 patent protect elements of email and photo browsing in a camera-equipped device. Specifically, it covers three different functions: sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode. According to Dr. Yang’s testimony, the iPhone 4, 3G, and 3GS — along with the iPad 2 and fourth-generation iPod touch — all infringe the patent on both iOS 4 and iOS 5.
It’ll be interesting to see how Apple argues this.
Very interesting. I didn’t realize it was a two-way street (both ripping off each other).
Maybe Apple can find prior art to negate Samsung’s claims like Samsung did for some of Apple’s.
Firstly, I would question the validity of a patent whose uniqueness just adds “on a camera equipped device” to it.
LG has an Internet fridge, but does that mean that “system and method for sending email from a food cooling device” is a new and valid patent.
Secondly, I would question the validity of a patent that thinks any of that is not prior art, considering desktop computers have had cameras on them for a long time.
I was thinking maybe they’d try and invalidate the patents by arguing that Samsung haven’t sued Apple for any of it’s desktop machines infringing. After all, an iPhone isn’t a mobile phone as they used to be known, but a small mac computer with a custom UI. The same software runs both devices.
Firstly) Have you seen some of Apple’s patents? They read in the same way.
Secondly) You have to know when they were filed. Those might be decade old patents.
I think some of Apple’s patents are silly too. I also think many companies (Apple, Samsung, Google, others) are pressured into patenting silly things because if they don’t, someone else will and sue them for it.
The patent system is broken, for certain.
And yep, I’m assuming this patent is newer than computers with cameras. Sue me. 😉
HAHAHAHAHAHA! 😀 Touche´! 🙂
Agreed.
Kinda, sorta. As Apple’s lawyer mentioned. It is difficult to infringe on a piece of paper Samsung kept to itself up until the case.
But more to the point Samsung copied Apple and Samsung’s legal team are attempting to confuse the issue by throwing all sorts of arguments back.
Certainly with the touch stuff Apple bought FingerWorks and their multitouch stuff predates that Mitsubishi dog and pony show that Samsung’s lawyers rolled out.
I doubt that they can argue that – the device is called the iPhone – kinda hard to argue its not a phone. Second – it has telephony functions for phone usage. Third, the OS has no bearing on weather or not it’s a phone or not.
FingerWorks didn’t have patents on the photo gallery, their email one, etc. They used prior art to negate the interface being unique, which I’ve said it wasn’t for a while (multitouch is old and so are other things found in iOS). Whether it work…the jury will tell next week or whenever they close it up.
As for infringing a piece of paper, that’s far from legit. These companies research patents beforehand. A device not prominently in Apple’s face is no excuse for infringing. It removes willful infringement but not infringement itself.