Recently Samsung rolled out an update for international versions of the Galaxy S III. This update quietly removed the local search function, but as of today Samsung confirmed that it accidentally removed that function. I don’t understand how you could accidentally remove such a large feature. This makes me curious if this accident had anything to deal with the recent injunctions between Apple and Samsung. On the other side of things, it almost does sound like a mistake as a spokeswoman from Samsung told Tech Radar:
A lot of information is coming out as we lead up to next week’s case involving Samsung and Apple. Yesterday we showed you some excerpts from Samsung’s trial brief that say they were working on their designs before the iPhone was even introduced and that Apple would not have sold a single iPhone if it weren’t for Samsung patents.
Today brings more news, but this time it’s from Apple’s trial brief. Apple says that Google warned Samsung that their products looked very similar to Apple’s. Hit the break for more details.
Next week Samsung and Apple go at it in the courts again. I know, what else is new? Anyways, the Wall Street Journal posted some excerpts from Samsung’s trial brief. Of course Samsung’s argument is that they didn’t copy Apple’s iPhone one bit and that they were working on the next generation of mobile phones in the Summer of 2006, months before the iPhone was announced. These designs were based on market trends for increased screen sizes. They certainly weren’t going to scrap everything and change just because of the iPhone.
As to patents, Samsung said, “Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung‘s patented technology.” Hit the break for some of the highlights.
Hot off the heels of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus fiasco, it seems as if Apple has indirectly had its way again, this time seen in a recent OTA update for the international version of the Samsung Galaxy S III (I9300 model). Following suit of the Stateside models from carriers like AT&T and Sprint, reports are coming in that Samsung is pushing out an update which includes the new software version is known as XXBLG6, while the baseband included is identified as XXLG6 for the international model. In addition, OTA on the smartphone identifies itself as a “stability update”, but reports indicate the update also removes local (on device) search functions within the phone’s built-in Google Search app. It’s a bummer, I know.
While the update seems to have removed one of the most underrated functions seen in the Galaxy S III, there is no doubt the dev community will be working on a mod or hack to bring the feature back. Still, it is a major, major disappointment for the few people who did take advantage of the cool feature.
The 27MB update is available now through OTA or Kies Desktop software so I9300 users can grab it anytime now. Or of course— you can just hold off on it and you know, keep the local search feature for a little while longer.
Apple and Samsung’s litigation continues as Apple demands $2.525 billion from Samsung due to previous patent infringements. Foss Patents did a unit cost breakdown on how much money Apple is actually requesting. Apple wants $2.02 for every Samsung product that uses the “overscroll bounce” feature, another $2.02 for devices that allow “tap to zoom and navigate,” $3.10 for devices that have a “scrolling API,” plus an unbelievable amount of $24 for each device that breaks an Apple design patent. This has become ridiculous as Apple has become the school bully and frankly, I think people are tired of it.
Apple successfully obtained a sales ban of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 throughout the European Union (EU), at the order of a German court. While the sales ban of the Galaxy Tab 7.7 is to be in effect, the same court denied Apple a ban of the redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N— which ironically, the German courts cleared previously. The appeals court in Dusseldorf found the Galaxy Tab 7.7 infringes Apple patents that date from 2004. While the court ruling now applies to the EU, it’s not certain where countries will choose to follow or ignore the ruling and still sell the Galaxy Tab 7.7 anyways. After all, there are places like the U.K. that respectfully disagree with Apple and will sell Samsung devices regardless.
Meanwhile, Samsung offered its quick thoughts on the recent ruling by adding:
“Should Apple continue to make legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation and progress in the industry could be restricted”.
Uniloc is a patent protection company based in Australia that specializes in anti-piracy technologies. They have decided to start suing Mojang, the developers of Minecraft, for infringing on an Android-related patent called”System and Method for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data”. Essentially it’s a system for authenticating license data. I wonder how they proved this because it seems like it’d take a lot of code-digging. The lawsuit says:
“Mojang is directly infringing one or more claims of the ’067 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas, including at least claim 107, without the consent or authorization of Uniloc, by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Android based applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application, including, but not limited to, Mindcraft.”
(Apparently, in a official court order, they misspelled Minecraft.) You can see the full lawsuit here. Notch, the mastermind behind Minecraft, is against software patents. After obtaining the lawsuit, he wrote up a cunning blog post linked below and tweeted:
On Thursday, a U.S. appeals court turned down Samsung’s request to stay a preliminary injunction barring the sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 tabs. The preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Lucy H. Koh in patent litigation between Samsung and Apple over the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The injunction was granted on June 26th and bars Samsung from importing or selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the U.S. The injunction does not apply to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 II, the current model being sold by Samsung in US markets. Read more
Apple haters get ready to scream, “In your face!” Remember when we reported last week that a U.K. judge ruled that Samsung didn’t copy Apple’s iPad design? Well you’re going to love this. Apparently Judge Colin Birss said that Apple must publish a notice saying that Samsung didn’t copy their registered designs, and this must be done on Apple’s U.K. website for six months and published in several newspapers and magazines. The reason is to obviously correct any damaging impression that consumers might have that Samsung simply copied Apple.
I think this is awesome news. In a sense Apple will be “advertising” Samsung’s tablets with these announcements. All I can say is, “What goes around comes around baby.”
Looks like Motorola Mobility has recently been proactive in avoiding a ban of the imports of its various devices. According to reports, there was a recent International Trade Commission ruling that specified certain MOTO devices infringed on technology that makes it possible for MOTO device users to use the devices in order to generate meeting requests and schedule gatherings. The devices named are: the Atrix, Backflip, Bravo, Charm, Cliq, Cliq 2, Cliq XT, Defy, Devour, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid Pro, Droid X, Droid X2, Flipout, Flipside, Spice and the Xoom tablet. While Apple immediately comes to mind for most Android users, it’s actually Microsoft who believes MOTO infringed on certain patents, as highlighted by spokeswoman Becki Leonard:
“While we can’t share specific details, we have employed a range of proactive measures to ensure there is no continuing infringement under the ITC’s interpretation of this single Microsoft patent”.
For those of you unfamiliar, here’s a quick rundown to help refresh your memory: Microsoft accused Motorola Mobility of infringing nine patents in a complaint filed in October 2010. Both companies ended up in a quiet, but significant legal battle in which MOTO was found not guilty on infringement of all but one of the patents. Fast-forward to May and we find the ITC ruled that Motorola Mobility infringed on the one patent, which leads us to MOTO now trying to avoid a ban of imports for its different devices.
The infringement claim is indeed a serious one, MOTO at least knew there was an easy workaround in order to keep its devices on retailers’ shelves. The main option is simply removing the meeting-scheduling technology from its smartphones and tablets since Microsoft originally believed MOTO should have licensed the technology.
source: Latinos Post