Apple and Samsung have been engaged in an endless legal battle over patents, with Apple accusing the Korean company of ripping off its design patents in both the software (iOS) and hardware (iPhone and iPad) levels. A number of leaks have seemed to support Apple’s claims that the makers of the Galaxy line of Android devices had been busy actively trying to plagiarize design elements from Apple’s devices ever since the iPhone got launched back in 2007.
Plenty of sources and experts have opined that Apple has gained a definite upper hand over Samsung in the entire case, with the Cupertino company having presented a purportedly compelling set of evidence to Judge Lucy Koh and the District Court jury.
It may not be as much of an open and shut book case after all though. In the latest of many twists in the entire saga, Samsung has just decided to launch a series of countersuits against Apple now.
Samsung’s legal team called upon Dr. W. Yang, a Harvard professor, to analyze three patents belonging to the company, and confirm that Apple infringed on all 3 devices. The first patent, dubbed ’460, deals with:
“sending a text-only email, sending an email with an attached photo, and stepping through different photos in a gallery mode.”
The next one was the ’893 patent. It deals with
“the ability to browse photos in a gallery, jump to a camera application to snap a picture, and return to the gallery at the point you left it.”
The final patent dealt with the ability to play music in the background in a “pocket sized” communication device. As a patent with extremely broad applications, even the iPod Touch falls under its purview (due to the Apple music player having FaceTime capabilities and being a mobile device), while the iPad doesn’t due to it not being ‘pocket sized’.
As with some of the patents that Apple has been trying to sue Samsung with, the patents being described above have some fairly basic technology that seems to be way too generic to actually enforce patents on. But if this is any indication, Samsung won’t continue firing blanks in the entire legal process after all.