Monday, August 27, 2012

Google Android News Android Forums

Google Android News Android Forums

Samsung reportedly releasing a Galaxy S III based 16MP camera; Will be announced with the Galaxy Note 2 at IFA

Posted: 26 Aug 2012 04:23 PM PDT

This news is definitely surprising to me, what about you? According to an anonymous tipster, rumor has it that Samsung has plans on announcing a Galaxy S III based point and shoot camera alongside the Galaxy Note 2 during this years IFA. This device will allegedly be called the Samsung Galaxy S Camera and will feature the same 4.8″ Super AMOLED screen found on the Galaxy S III. It will also run Android’s 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich with other internal specs of the device yet to be determined.

The tipster described the device as a Galaxy S III that has been attached to the back end of a camera with no physical buttons at the back of the device. It’s also reportedly to be as much as 2 times thicker than the Galaxy S III. Other features that’s being reported is a 10x zoom, a 16MP sensor (size still unknown), a pop-out Xenon flash with a curved right side to help with the ergonomics and will come in Wi-Fi and 3G + Wi-Fi versions (only mobile data, no voice).

What do you all make of this? Would this be a device that you would consider purchasing? I can definitely see this device appealing to many amateur photographers.

source: GSM Arena

 

Kirby Ferguson On Music, Apple And Android: “Everything Is A Remix”

Posted: 26 Aug 2012 09:50 AM PDT

 

In the spirit of the recent jury verdict in favor of Apple… and the subsequent follow-up opinions regarding the matter, it’s only fitting that we hear other individuals give their two cents regarding the idea of patents and true innovation. In the TEDTalks (Technology, Entertainment and Design Talks) video podcast, Everything Is A Remix founder Kirby Ferguson offers some perspective on the idea of true innovation. He believes music is evolved by copying and transforming melodies, combining them with new lyrics or more specifically, transforming old lyrics with an artists’ perspective and spin. He cites famed folk/pop singer Bob Dylan who used works from other singers such as Paul Clayton. More importantly, Ferguson highlights that two-thirds of Dylan’s earlier melodies in his music are “borrowed”. You’d imagine that artists would have a hard time accepting their work is “borrowed” by other artists, but not-so-fast— it isn’t the case. Here’s another famed artist Woodie Guthrie offering his perspective on items like lyrics and melodies in borrowed music:

 

“The words aren’t the important thing. Don’t worry about tunes. Take a tune, sing high when they sing low, sing fast when they sing slow, and you’ve got a new tune”.

 

So with that concept in mind, Ferguson uses additional time to criticize Apple for not applying the “everything is borrowed” perspective for its products. He highlights the hypocrisy of American and international copyright and patent laws are built to counter the ability to previously use the work of others. Moreover, he cites multi-touch that was introduced in the original iPhone as an example. While Apple did indeed “patent” the technology, Ferguson highlights an example of the technology used by Jeff Han one year earlier and even highlighted the technology “wasn’t completely new” when he put it on display at a conference. This is fitting because Steve Jobs even admits in 1996 that even Apple “steals ideas”— with multi-touch being the most famed example… except it’s acceptable for Apple because you know— Android is a stolen product and all.

The video podcast is certainly an interesting one, so be sure to hit the break in order to check it out in all its entirety.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Samsung confident in its appeal, prepares for multiple scenarios

Posted: 26 Aug 2012 12:21 AM PDT

We already knew that Samsung would be filing post-verdict motions to overturn the jury’s guilty verdict, but it’s unclear as to exactly what path the company will take. Samsung’s official statement solidified its stance on fighting the issue, saying “this isn’t the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims.” And, with $1.05 billion at stake, it makes sense for the South Korean-based electronics company to carefully prepare before it takes its next step.

It’s expected that Samsung’s appeal to Judge Lucy Koh will be centered around the argument that the jury’s verdict was either unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence in play. Very rarely do Judges grant these types of motions, but due to the amount of damages, Samsung feels it has a chance. However, if the company is unsuccessful, there may be a slew of other options.

“Apple’s arguments boiled down to an assertion that everyone who bought a Samsung device would have bought the equivalent product from Apple had the Samsung product not been on the market. But that reasoning ignores any brand loyalty customers might have had to Samsung, or they might be customers of carriers that at the time didn’t offer Apple products. I would say there are quite a few problems with the way Apple calculated damages.”

Potentially, the manufacturer could argue the method used by the jurors to determine financial penalties was inaccurate. It’s also possible that the jury’s verdict could lead both companies to discuss a possible settlement in which Samsung would pay a percentage of the $1.05  billion and agree to drop its appeal, as well as agree to remove some products from the US market. Another option is for the company to argue that designs similar to Apple’s iPhone and iPad existed before Apple even obtained specific patents on those products.

The worst part is that the jury found Samsung guilty of “willfully” infringing upon Apple’s IP, meaning Judge Koh could possibly ”triple the damage award, and order Samsung to pay court costs and Apple’s attorneys fees.” Koh has another decision ahead of her as well, one that could mean an injunction on Samsung’s lineup of infringing products. With Apple already filing for a preliminary injunction, Koh will have to determine the effect of removing Samsung’s products from the consumer market. In the meantime, stay tuned for further developments.

Source: Wall Street Journal

A juror from the Samsung vs Apple case speaks out and details the deliberation process

Posted: 25 Aug 2012 05:55 PM PDT

 

I don’t know about you, but I’m still profoundly shocked and whip-lashed from the outcome of the Samsung vs. Apple patent lawsuit.  While the jury was still in deliberations deciding on the outcome of this case, I always thought to myself what I’d give to have an ear in that room with the 9 jurors. I’m sure many of you can share the same sentiments as we would all love to know what went down in there  that ultimately cost Samsung more than a billion dollars. Thankfully, one of those 9 jury members by the name of Manuel Ilagan has stepped forward and provided all of us with some insight on what was talked about and why they gave Apple this landslide victory.

According to Ilagan, “We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement.” That statement alone pretty  much tells us that Samsung had no chance in this battle right off the bat. Ilagan also provided what he, and the other jurors, thought were damning evidence against Samsung:

“Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea — I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn’t answer one of them. They didn’t help their cause.”

Ilagan also pointed out that a licencing deal that Samsung had with Intel piled on even more votes towards Apple:

“Samsung’s offensive on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said, Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.”

According to Ilagan, it only took the jurors the first day to determine that Samsung had indeed infringed on several of Apple’s patents. In Ilagan’s words, “We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted].”

It’s easy to assume that the jury may have been a bit haste on their decision, but Iligan claims that every juror took the job very seriously and that they weren’t impatient. According to him, “We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough.”

Ilagan continued on talking about Samsung violating Apple’s “trade dress.”

“Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it’s easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress — once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel…then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn’t rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated.”

This part is what infuriated me because what smarphone these days doesn’t have a “flat screen and bezel?” There’s no other way to make a smartphone with today’s current technology. It would be like patenting a car with 4 wheels, is there any other way to make a car? Either way, I can’t blame the jurors on their decision because they’re simply working with the hand they’re dealt. Apple has the patents for it, and the jurors were forced to enforce it with the evidence brought to them. The blame I put this on is the USPTO and our own Robert Nazarian thoroughly explains this in his recent article. If you haven’t read it, I would highly suggest giving it a look.

One thing Ilagan and the other jurors did have a problem with was addressing the issue of unregistered trade dress.

“We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims. That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said ‘Why are we playing patent office? We’re not the patent office. Its not even registered.’ And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn’t want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought ‘OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn’t, so now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn’t want to do that.”

It’s clear that what the jurors were referring to was Samsung’s first generation of the Galaxy S line. I’ve always thought it was a clear cut rip-off of the iPhone 3GS, and the jurors realized it too. Down from the shape and icons, it was easy to realize where Samsung generated the design of that phone from.

With everything pretty much going on Apple’s side, the jurors still thought the initial $2.75 billion that Apple was asking for in “damages and lost sales” was too high. The jurors wanted Samsung to feel the punishment, but didn’t want to cripple them at the same time. Thus they felt $1.05 billion was adequate enough.

Ilagan and the rest of the jurors strongly felt that this wouldn’t dampen Samsung too much and knew they would recover from this. According to them, “I’m sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs. There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance…. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren’t infringing. There are alternatives out there.”

What do you guys think of how the jurors went about this case? Do you think they gave Samsung a fair shot, or do you think they should have looked into things more thoroughly? I for one cannot blame the jurors whatsoever for making the decision they made. In my opinion, Samsung had no shot of winning this. The facts were laid out and the jurors had no choice but to side with Apple given the patents they owned and the evidence they brought forth to the court. For me, the blame goes to the USPTO for giving Apple these ridiculous patents in the first place.

Sound off in the comments section!

source: c|net

 
Posted by at 5:43 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)