back to article Apple wins documents fight with Google in Samsung case

A US judge has ordered Google to provide Apple with information on how it is searching for documents sought by Cupertino in its seemingly eternal patent-infringement fight with Samsung, rejecting Google's argument that, as a third-party to the case, it isn't bound by the same rules as the two warring parties. "Third-party status …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

As any IT relationship manager knows, never try to search Google with Google. It could break the Internet.

9
0

The EC, however, would argue that it's a little bit too easy to search Google with Google. ;)

1
0
Anonymous Coward

And in a parallel Universe not too far from here....

About time Apple got a break from all the litigation it has had to face from the opposition.

Not one day goes by where they don't have to defend themselves from the spurious schemes of their competitors!

4
12
Bronze badge
Meh

"...and also to inform them of which Googlers are doing the searching."

Does the above mean private citizens, or employees? And why in either case should that matter, wouldn't it sort of be like asking who bought season tickets when a team owner is under investigation?

1
0

The answers you seek are in the last paragraph of the article.

There are ways of searching for things that aren't via www.google.com.

0
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Bing?

1
0

I hover dangerously close to sounding like a Microsoft fanboy at times but not even I can stand Bing. I gave it a fair shot but as I had to repeat most searches on Google I decided that there aren't enough hours in the day.

4
1
Silver badge

@wowfood

No, Bing!

...

or! perhaps! Yahoo!

0
0
Joke

what is apple looking for?

Search term - "iOS ripped OS?" ,

"things we blatantly copied from apple.doc"?,

"Rubber band effect"

"Apple are jokers and now we have stolen their shit"

Srsly. Go back to "innovating" apple.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: what is apple looking for?

Presumably emails to/from Samsung or minutes of meetings between Samsung and Google people and internal Google emails/discussions concerning those emails/minutes. The suit in question concerns Samsung specific changes to Android, and isn't directed at standard Android features.

The information from the Samsung discovery pointed to such back and forth between Google and Samsung, Apple wants to see what happened on Google's end. Did they tell Samsung not to do certain things because they thought they'd violate Apple patents? Did they consider inclusion of such features in Android and reject them for fear of violating Apple patents? That sort of thing.

If you ignore for a moment one's feelings about the merits of Apple's case, or software/design patents in general, and look at it as merely a patent case between company A and company B, where company A's discovery of company B found there were discussions with company C that may have a great bearing on the case, it is quite proper that company A would be allowed access to this. They can't go on a wild fishing expedition looking at anything and everything, but given that they are looking for specific stuff that have a bearing on the case, they're entitled to know how the search for that specific stuff was conducted.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

No, No, No, No, No...

@Article

"...Google, a pioneer in searching the internet..."

Surely there were other companies before Google who were providing internet search services? Google probably is pioneer in formulating a business model (linked to advertisement) around search.

1
0
Stop

Re: No, No, No, No, No...

Not really no, There were loads of Indexes, like Internet yellow pages and of course there were some search engines that grew out of them but basically, they returned poor results, liberally chummed with paid placement and surrounded by a sea of 'portal' crap.

When Google appeared they didn't even have a business model so there was no adverts. it was more than just a breath of fresh air,the reason it ended up dominating was that it was a search engine that actually worked.

5
1
Pint

Re: No, No, No, No, No...

That's the most insightful comment I've read for ages.

Fanbois of all colours sneer and deride either Apple, MS or Google, but the plain fact is none of them have really innovated.

They've all taken the work of giants and commercialised it, which makes them all "the man" as far as I'm concerned and I'd stick it to them if I could.

And before anyone raises FOSS, don't, just don't. In the world, beyond browsers There seems to nothing but a string of pre-alpha in joke named software with a sneering braying support forum.

God I'm feeling cynical today...

2
7

Re: No, No, No, No, No...

ignoring the quality of the searches, there used to be many many search engines that could be described as being the same as Google.

A couple of good examples are Excite and Alta Vista.

While Excite was much like you describe, Alta-Vista was a pure search page with very little in the way of advertising (probably closest to the clean Google interface of today)

Yeah the results were crap and you really had to make use of applications that would perform a search over multiple indexes and collate the results for you offline

Google were not the first search engine out there, not even close. "When Google appeared they didn't even have a business model so there was no adverts. " you would call that a loss leader and its why their front page is so empty. They had a fantastic business model from the start, it just needed massive take off to get off the blocks.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: earch engines that grew out of them but basically, they returned poor results,

No, there were a few decent search engines before Google. But Google became ubiquitous in part because of their minimalist interface. And as they became more and more dominant the other engines faded into obscurity.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: earch engines that grew out of them but basically, they returned poor results,

Altavista used to do a pretty good job, back before Google existed. Unfortunately it was VERY easy to game the system and move your page up in the rankings, so Altavista became crowded with spam. It was more difficult to game Google, so it took off versus the spam infested Altavista.

Of course for years now Google has been constantly battling spam, and there are plenty of obviously bogus pages that show up in the first page for many many searches I do - especially if I'm searching for a particular product by the product number. It is amazing how many sites you can find that "sell" something that just link back to Amazon or Ebay!

If something new came out in the search world, that wasn't necessarily better but had a learned curve to figure out how to game, it would be spam free and quickly take a lot of search market share. It is probably not very easy for someone to get funding if their pitch starts with "my business will compete with both Google AND Microsoft!"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

""The court cannot help but note the irony that Google, a pioneer in searching the internet, is arguing that it would be unduly burdened by producing a list of how it searched its own files,""

And we brits can not help but note that an american actually 'got irony.

5
0

Oh, the irony. That may have been true in the 70s and 80s but these days Irony is just as well ingrained in US as it is in the UK.

0
0

Irony

It means sort of like iron ;)

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums