Details Of Apple's Lawsuit Against Samsung Revealed; And It's Even More Ridiculous

from the steve-jobs-would-sue-his-sister dept

When we wrote about Apple's new lawsuit against Samsung over its new phones and tablets looking too much like Apple's iPhone and iPad, the full legal complaint from Apple wasn't yet public. However, it's now coming out, and the detailed list of patents and trademarks at issue make this seem ridiculous. While the initial report we saw yesterday showed only design patents, the lawsuit actually covers utility patents, design patents, trademarks and trade dress claims. Here they are in all their glory, as compiled and described by Florian Mueller:

• 7 utility (i.e., hardware and software) patents

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 on an "ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces" (previously asserted against Motorola in an ITC complaint and a federal lawsuit)

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,669,134 on a "method and apparatus for displaying information during an instant messaging session" (a software patent, presumably infringed by the Google Talk chat client, which I also use on my Galaxy phone and on which this patent may very well read)

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 on a "method and apparatus for displaying and accessing control and status information in a computer system" (previously asserted against Motorola in a federal lawsuit)

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 on "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display" (previously asserted against HTC in a federal lawsuit)

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 on "application programming interfaces for scrolling operations"

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891 on a "method and apparatus for displaying a window for a user interface"

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,863,533 on a "cantilevered push button having multiple contacts and fulcrums" (a hardware patent)

• 3 design patents

  • U.S. Design Patent No. D627,790 on a "graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof"

  • U.S. Design Patent No. D602,016 on an "electronic device"

  • U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677 on an "electronic device"

  • AllThingsD displays various graphics from the complaint that relate to those design patents.

• Trade dress rights

  • Apple claims to hold "trade dress protection in the design and appearance of the iPhone, the iPod touch, and the iPad, together with their distinctive user interfaces and product packaging." (yes, in Apple's view even Samsung's packaging infringes its rights)

  • Apple asserts its registered trade dresses no. 3,470,983, no. 3,457,218 and no. 3,475,327.

• Trademarks (i.e., 6 trademarked icons)

  • U.S. Trademark No. 3,886,196 on a dial icon

  • U. S. Trademark No. 3,889,642 on a chat icon

  • U.S. Trademark No. 3,886,200 on a sunflower icon (for a collection of photos)

  • U.S. Trademark No. 3,889,685 on a settings icon

  • U.S. Trademark No. 3,886,169 on a notepad icon

  • U.S. Trademark No. 3,886,197 on a contact list icon

As the article suggests, Steve Jobs would sue his own family if they made a reasonable Android device. This is a kitchen sink lawsuit, where Apple is throwing everything at Samsung, and once again, the sheer pettiness of the whole thing after looking over the really quite minor patents and trademarks being asserted here seems to scream only one thing: Samsung has apparently designed an awesome phone and tablet device that has Steve Jobs scared of competition.

Filed Under: mobile phones, patents, tablets, trademarks
Companies: apple, samsung

Judge In Google WiFiSpy Case Trying To Determine If Packet Sniffing Open Networks Is An Illegal Wiretap

from the it-shouldn't-be... dept

In the consolidated cases against Google for intercepting some unencrypted data passing over open WiFi networks as part of its Street View operation, the judge is now looking to determine if basic packet sniffing is the equivalent of an illegal wiretap. Google, and one would imagine, most people who understand the technology, are arguing that's silly. The nature of WiFi is that it takes the unencrypted bits and makes them wide open to anyone on that network. That's how the technology is designed. If you don't like it, you encrypt. Arguing, retroactively, that seeing the data that is put in the open on purpose is somehow an illegal wiretap seems silly, but that's what the case hinges on. Hopefully, the judge is either technologically savvy enough to understand this, or can be well educated in the nature of how an open WiFi network works... Otherwise, a lot of people may be facing wiretapping charges for activity that many people consider perfectly normal on a network.

Filed Under: open wifi, packet sniffing, wifi, wiretap
Companies: google