“Google made no public comment Friday after Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus — a touchscreen cellphone whose hardware and software were jointly developed by Google and Samsung engineers,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt writes for Fortune.
“It was the second ban on an Android-based Samsung device in a week, and the first to strike directly at a Google-branded product,” P.E.D. writes. “It came eight months after the Galaxy Nexus was unveiled at Google and Samsung’s ‘Ice Cream Sandwich’ event in Hong Kong and three days after Google gave 6,000 copies of the phone to attendees at its ‘Jelly Bean’ developers conference in San Francisco.”
P.E.D. writes., “Could Jobs actually win the war he’s waging from the grave? Given how slowly the wheels of justice grind, the legal victories granted Apple so far have been against devices whose shelf life had nearly expired. But armed with this week’s decisions, Apple may be tempted to request preliminary injunctions against newer products, such as Samsung’s hot-selling Galaxy S III smartphone or the Nexus 7 tablet that Google unveiled this week.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this. – Steve Jobs
Related articles:
Apple wins U.S. preliminary injunction against the Samsung/Google Galaxy Nexus over Siri patent – June 29, 2012
Apple posts $2.6 million bond to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 – June 28, 2012
Samsung likely to appeal U.S. Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban; claims ‘design innovation and progress restricted’ – June 27, 2012
Apple wins preliminary injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet – June 26, 2012
Düsseldorf court denies preliminary injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1N: Design-around pays off for Samsung – February 9, 2012
Apple loses bid to get preliminary ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N, Nexus Phone in Germany – February 1, 2012
German court leans toward letting Samsung distribute Galaxy Tab 10.1 N – December 22, 2011
Apple petitions German court to ban a fourth Samsung Galaxy Tab: The 10.1N model – November 29, 2011
Samsung relaunches modified Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany – November 16, 2011
Samsung appeals Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban in German court – September 13, 2011
German court upholds Apple complaint: Bans Samsung Galaxy Tab from sale in Europe’s largest market – September 9, 2011
Apple’s thermonuclear war on Android – March 29, 2012
Steve Jobs: ‘I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product; I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this’ – October 20, 2011
What is up with Eric Schmidt’s revisionist history of his relationship with Steve Jobs? – October 14, 2011
Apple CEO Steve Jobs hid iPad development from Google mole Eric Schmidt – April 12, 2011
CNBC’s Goldman: ‘Steve Jobs simply hates Eric Schmidt’ (with video) – March 15, 2010
Steve Jobs: Google can’t ‘kill iPhone,’ ‘Don’t be evil’ mantra is ‘bullshit’ – February 1, 2010
BOOM!
Let’s hope Apple wins this for the sake of anyone who ever invented or created anything original in their life.
EVIL, any language, is “Google”
“Let’s hope Apple wins this for the sake of anyone who ever invented or created anything original in their life.”
This right here so many will not understand. All they see is apple vs google.
The google fanboys will always be mad at apple for breaking their phones etc… And will never understand the actual reason behind it.
“Don” of the dead?
(OK, yeah, that was wrong…..)
…but funny.
I don’t think the war could be won in terms of actually destroying android.
I do think Apple may win enough battles to alter Android into something that gives Apple some core advantages.
It may also force Google to re-think the ways they “innovate” with future releases (I.e: come up with ideas instead of emulating others)
And the answer to the article title is; Yes for today, but not necessarily win the war over the next 2-3 years!
If Google keeps improving and miniaturizing and integrating the “Google Glass” concept, then maybe Google does what they should have done starting 5 years ago in supplying an eye based communication device control system.
I would love to have a miniature screen on the corner of my eyeglasses, or maybe 1 on each lens. One could be for documents and the other just for notifications.
I do not disagree with Apple for defending its iPhone/iPad patents, but I wonder how far along Apple is on the ultra-portable type eyeglass based access device Google is working on.
Not everyone would want an eyeglass based device, but it offers significant advantages as long as it becomes truly miniaturized.
We aren’t discussing Google Glass. This article is about iOS vs. Android. There is no “war” with regards to Glass. That product doesn’t exist as far as the market is concerned.
But Microsoft’s Glasses product does exist.
Not expecting much from Google’s glasses in terms of a product I can see integrating into my life.
Apple makes products they’d like to own.
Google makes products they’d like to own.
Now think about what kind of person you are, yourself — and which company consistantly makes amazing products that change your life.
That pretty much sums it up.
I think Google makes products that they WANT you to use. Then, Google OWNS you… Then sells you… and pawns you…. the list goes on.
But it’s never really about YOU, it’s about Google’s pocket!
On target !
Google “Glass” is a rip-off of a microsoft tactic– talk about some really great thing that doesn’t exist and never will, and foolish people will believe that google is innovative.
It is vaporware pure and simple.
I’m sure that Google are already working out what would be the smallest change that they could make to stop their products falling foul of this ruling.
I think it will end up like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
The better solution is the one that I believe Apple is already working on. Make their future products in such a way that Samsung and Google can’t copy them. Using materials, technology and components that are not available elsewhere.
Yes.
Now that that asshole mole Eric Schmidt isn’t on the board (and I’m sure Apple will be much more careful about who they ask for their board in the future) Apple can proceed apace and out innovate everybody else. (Says volumes about Schmidts character stealing from Apple and the inherently evil corporate culture there at Google.) Google innovates quickly now out of panic. Doing most things extremely poorly. Apple now has the billions of dollars resources to thermonuclearize all comers. It’s inevitable Apple will detonate on Googles ass almost inadvertently in the process.
Googles’ entire game plan was articulated from Apple Computer change of business as it became Apple Inc.
Eric is the mole. Andy was the leverage.
Apple has been extremely good to all of us to see that advertising on a mobil device was to be avoided. The advertising market strategy and the capitalization of earning from what Google positions itself has bettered the iOS platform greatly.
PEOPLE DO WANT information.
But advertising is in your face. Force feed. Not information you seek but information you are pushed due to exploiting your browsing habits – your location – your search entries. I guess this is called Data Mining?
Google earns from Advertising… so why does a company who earns 90% of it’s revenues selling advertising decide to MAKE cellphones and offer a free operating system?
Because, hand held advertising space is directly related what Google is. Its not a search engine business. GOOGLE makes shit all from being a search engine. And, Apples’ iPhone proved the model for Google to capitalize from a new source. Hence, they too wanted to copy Apple as much as possible. Similar to the OS wars; windows vs macintosh. The key opportunity, comes from people and mobile browsing – the internet – seeking answers and information provides a perfect opportunity to exploit us all directly. Google can advertise to millions of people to every portable out there. If Apple was going to be against them then they would have to BUILD their own game.
AS APPLES’ war heats up,
and Apple nears a win in destroying Android,
Googles’ BACK UP PLAN is to place the CHROME browser onto iPhone where Google can continue to watch and force feed ads to all of us on iOS.
solution: BAN CHROME APPLE and FINISH OFF ANDROID for GOOD.
Google steals IP. Google steals ID. Google steals. It’s in their DNA.
The day Siri was bought by Apple, Jobs mentioned this would give Apple an edge over the competition of about 1 year.
Mr. Andy Rubin (the Rubin-hood of the linux copy-cat world)
personally stated during the Hong Kong show; that ‘voice’ was a ridiculous idea on a phone – laughing at the idea (if you saw the video).
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/20/android-s-andy-rubin-is-not-a-fan-of-siri/
“I don’t believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn’t be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone.”
INTERESTING when Rubin says the basis for Android and Google is; a phone should be open and provide people with the information they WANT.
“Though Rubin claims not to be fond of voice recognition on a mobile phone, he does oversee Android’s development at Google and has allowed advanced voice recognition features to be built into this mobile OS.”
ANDROID should be destroyed and forced to be recompile
from ground zero. Apple has been right on most everything Flash is no longer needed HTML5 is suitable. We don’t need interfaces within interfaces to run sub applications under the OS. Flash was that and NOW flash is DEAD on ANDROID – finally.
Today, Google has “voice” and so does Samsung.
Is this Innovation or copying every STEP Apple takes?
OFC its copying.
This comes from the man who worked at Apple in 1989 until 1995. This is the same man who started “General Magic”, which he spun-off his work at Apple from his Magic Cap work – which actually was an os and interface for mobile devices (’92 until ’95) then as co-founder in Android in 2003 to 2005. But the birth of this “AndybotOS” is claimed to be made AFTER Google acquisition in 2005. AndybotOS powers the system with a Linux Kernel only after being under Google empire.
Wiki, “In September 2007, InformationWeek covered an Evalueserve study reporting that Google had filed several patent applications in the area of mobile telephony.”
Is Android stolen – yes.
When you do creative work at any agency, that work is property of the company you worked for. When work is commissioned by a client to develop a particular program… the development and all research is property of the client. The very same rules apply in the automotive industry. You must obey a specified departure time between projects that are related. Andy Rubin leaves Apple and pick right off where he left… continuing with Apples work outside of Apple. Then Teams with Google and the MOLE… as of 2009, Eric Schmidt is no longer on Apple’s Board of Directors. Where he sat for 3 years; enabling him to tap into what Apple was doing.
“Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.” quote from Steve Jobs.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/03/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-resigns-from-apple-board-surprised/
“Android, Google’s mobile operating system, doesn’t generate revenue for the company, and likely never will–at least in the direct sense.” —
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10245994-93.html?tag=mncol
Not in the direct sense.. Holy cow, how direct can it be to hold advertising in your hands with a phone that can browser?
Andy should have abandoned all work regarding anything cellular and paralleling networks – he has infringed on the right and plans of Apple as an ex-employee.
“Rubin: The goal was pretty much the same, the business model obviously changed. Google’s business model is deep into advertising, and so for Google this is purely a scale of the business, we just want to reach more people, and hopefully they’ll use Google and we’ll get the upside of the advertising revenue.” — http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10245994-93.html?tag=mncol
“Ninety-nine percent of Google’s revenue is derived from its advertising programs” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
HOW more DIRECTLY related could all this BE? Google and Android claim Andorid does not make money on the OS directly… but the reason to have Android and owned by Google has been transparently open and spoken greatly why it has evolved.
“I think we’re that. I think that we have an open ecosystem, we have an open-source platform, we chose the right license, there are no viral aspects, it’s absolutely 100 percent free, it’s complete, it’s everything you need to build a phone. When you add all that stuff up, all those ingredients, potentially–I think the jury’s still out–we can make a really successful product.” — http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10245994-93.html?tag=mncol
INFORMATION PEOPLE WANT?
Screw that… people do not WANT Advertising.
Not from TV and not from browsing the internet. They want INFORMATION. Data. Search with answers… SIRI.
Andy (the Rubin-hood of the linux copy-cat world) had stolen the initial plans from Apple while he was there. A major project and major game shift in Apple’s business plans – to use the research geared for portable devices that exceed Palm and adapt to cellular networks – BECAME a shift in Apples entire company. That was the day Apple became Apple Inc… and why because Apple was now also in the phone business. Andy began with Danger, which was early development to Apples research. Google acquired Danger dubbing this as, “Android Inc.”
Samsung and Google since then have been able to catch-up to Apple with S-Voice.
And it comes as GREAT NEWS that, “Apple wins U.S. preliminary injunction against the Samsung/Google Galaxy Nexus over Siri patent”
FINALLY we shall see THAT the general people DO NOT WANT advertising on their BROWSING experiences nor TV sets.
Advertising is interruptive to the INFORMATION we SEEK…
and SIRI bypasses this BEAUTIFULLY.
A phone assistance now seen on Google Phones is WRONG and proves Android follows like a SHEEP in Apples path.
Death to Andorid.
Jeezus… get an editor.
And, please remember that ‘brevity is the soul of wit’.
No novels needed here.
Because of the rapid release and turn-over of new products, I don’t see how Apple can benefit from these protracted attempts at product bans.
Solution:
I don’t know if the patent and copyright law allows for the following, but I feel that the way Apple (or any innovative company) would most likely protect it’s IP, would be through rulings for damages, in which Apple is awarded all the profits acquired by the copyright infringer from the sale of the offending products, and the removal and disposal of all said products from warehouse stock, retail shelves, and consumer possession, at the expense of the offending company.
From what I’ve observed with electronics, I believe IP protection must incur enough penalty to the offender, to make IP theft as unattractive as possible.
That solution sounds like a consumer electronics police state to me.
You’d also have companies like Lodsys putting people out of business from the Eastern District of Texass.
How do you remove devices from consumers?
Confinscate them?
I’d rather live with the broken system we have than see an insane
I agree there might be companies trying to exploit the fringe of the system to benefit themselves.
I don’t agree that this is good enough reason to allow profit from stolen property.
Let me ask you, ‘Really’, would you really allow your (hypothetical), stolen iPhone to remain in the possession of the person who bought it from the thief, because you are against “a consumer electronics police state”?
Further to the above point;
“How do you remove devices from consumers?”
Issue a product legal recall, with full financial compensation to the consumer, paid for by the offending company.
wPurchaser of stolen IP doesn’t ant to return their product? That product won’t be supported by carriers, so they’ve acquired a non-functioning collector’s item. Maybe worth something on eBay.
“I’d rather live with the broken system we have…”
You certainly have a right to that desire.
I, however, have no desire to live in a system where innovation is rewarded with theft and loss of reward.
I have no desire to live in a system where thieves are rewarded and stolen property, ‘IP’ or not, enters the electronic realm, and taxes the infrastructure, rewarding the thief.
I also don’t believe innovation is sustainable where theft of said innovation is allowed.
I don’t think people exploiting the system is reason to allow theft, I just don’t see how a system that might allow more gain for the exploiter could make anything better.
We’d need to overall the system to the point that it is hard to get a patent before I’d support tougher penalties.
Let me ask you, ‘Really’, would you really allow your (hypothetical), stolen iPhone to remain in the possession of the person who bought it from the thief, because you are against “a consumer electronics police state”?
Yes. The damage to the consumer and the industry in a system you are describing would be too great in my opinion. The ‘consumer’ did not ‘steal’ anything, they purchased a product.
Issue a product legal recall, with full financial compensation to the consumer, paid for by the offending company.
wPurchaser of stolen IP doesn’t ant to return their product? That product won’t be supported by carriers, so they’ve acquired a non-functioning collector’s item. Maybe worth something on eBay.
As a consumer you shouldn’t have to deal with some crap like this. Its one thing if it is a safety issue, a company releases devices that explode etc.
I wouldn’t want to purchase any device if I could get a letter in the mail later that said I had to return the device or lose all support for it because of some pissing match in court over who owns the ‘ideas’ behind the product.
When some shit bag company like Lodsys wins against a company like Apple for something ridiculous like a scrolling list with check boxes, are you going to happily return your stolen iphone to Apple?
I can respect wanting to make it harder for companies to steal the innovations and inventions of others. I just feel the solution presented here would go too far.
+10
harsher punishment needs to occur to discourage IP theft.
Doubling up on secrecy – is Apples answer.
Protecting what is being developed.
Apples legal war is more of a death by a thousand needle pricks.
It also discourages smaller player to get in the Android hardware business, that cannot afford a legal battle with Apple.
*sigh* The fanboys are at it again. Im an Apple fanboy too (I have a Mac Mini, Macbook Air, and iPhone 4S), but I realize that Apple “steals” all their products and make it better. As much as I love Steve, he’s a hypocrite. Everything Apple has released, aside from the original Mac, has been a product stolen, reinvented and done better, but Apple was never first!
Apple is the new religion, and Steve is the new Yahweh.
“Good artists copy, great artists steal”
All these lawsuits, and stupid patent applications, are discouraging competition, and encouraging an Apple monoploy.
“When you have a monopoly market share the company is not any more successful. So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people and they end up running the companies and the product people get driven out of decision making forums. And the companies forget what it means to make great products. Sort of the product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product. They have no conception of the craftsmanship that’s required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product and they really have no feeling in their hearts usually about wanting to help the customers.” – Steve Jobs
‘Stealing’ is not whatever you or Steve Jobs or any other non-expert says it is, but is what judges and juries conclude are patent/copyright infringements.
If Apple’s behavior constitutes stealing in the legal sense, the companies they stole from have a powerful incentive to speak up.
If they don’t object, or if judges and juries don’t agree with their objections, then it’s not stealing. It’s ‘inspiration.’
the main basis upon your argument is incorrect. Apple didn’t steal they took an idea and made it their way, it’s not like they took the coding and redesigned the look. They started with an idea, say notification system and then built it from the ground up. Something google has to learn to do.
@Mitch,
What Apple did was take a product and made it better. Just like Google did. For some, googles product is better, for others, Apple’s is better.
Kinda like Apple took Android’s notification system and made it better. Except, if Apple was Google, they would have patented that initial notification system, and if anybody else took something that looked slightly like it, they would sue them. Which, luckily Google isn’t doing.
Apple is being granted the stupidest patents, because the patent system is broken, and even judges are starting to speak up about it, evidenced by the judge throwing out the Apple vs Motorola case recently because of the stupidity of the case.
@Ozzie903
A bunch of old men sitting on a bench for 10-20 years are tech experts? They are definitely law experts, but if the law is broken, and they still uphold it, doesn’t make it right.
Thermonuclear BOOM.