Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:04 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
I actually ran Win 2.0 for about 10 minutes before it crashed. 3.1 was far better. Then MS sorta caught up with 95. Ten years after Apple delivered the Mac OX.

... and screwed its OS up indefinitely, which allowed MS to finally match and surpass Apple's OS in quality.

Windows 95 was still a decade behind Mac OS of the time in terms of user experience, though it was certainly the best thing that ran on Wintels of the time..

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Making "Better Apple Like" products?

No, by making better than Apple products. I've used both Apple and Samsung phones extensively, with the Galaxy SII and onwards, between the two, Apple is the one making the inferior product.

That was never the case with MS and Apple in the 90s.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:10 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
"A lot" is not a real quantitative metric.

It surely isn't, but do we want to argue over numbers? Your statement was that Apple got more word of mouth support than their competitors, and I don't know how one would measure that, and doubt that it's true anyway. Clearly there are many markets where Samsung is outselling Apple, are you saying that happens primarily because of Samsung adverts and not because of the usual word of mouth that happens for most consumer products, especially ones so conspicuous as the mobile phone? If you don't like "a lot", will you settle for "enough"?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
Why would they not be concerned with a parts supplier of theirs trying to flood the market with cheap knockoffs of Apple's final product on which Apple had spent several years of intense development work, even before its first release?

Of course they are concerned, and that admission of concern elevates Samsung in the eyes of many from vendor of cheap knockoffs to vendor of products good enough for Apple to be very worried about.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
The oft-quoted "round corners" are irrelevant to this verdict. This particular design patent was thrown out by the jury and it is based only on the functional patents Samsung has violated.

So, which patents do you think the general public would say were worthy of all the fuss Apple is making? The hardest fought patent battles were over who invented the telephone and who invented the computer. The public understands that. They don't have the same clarity over the way things bounce around on their phone's screen.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:39 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 40):
I know I may be lambasted for using this as an example but pretty much every sci-fi geek in the world was very familiar with a flat, touchscreen keyboard interface:

The Star Trek "PADD"'s most remarkable feature to me always was that every user seemed to need a whole stack of them to do actual work since they seemed to be unable to be used as flexibly as an actual computer would. I found that rather puzzling even back then.
Quoting tugger (Reply 40):
A one element of a patent is that it is "non-obvious".

The inevitable response: If the combination of features was so obvious, where is the prior art or even prior patents?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 48):
Every designer knows this stuff. Most designers are not empowered by executives to actually put the good stuff into production...

And most just suck, which you realize when you're using one of the many products where designers clearly had free reign and messed up horribly. In most cases it has to do with a total lack of understanding of the actual usage of the products in question, in many others it's the complete separation and lack of communication between design and construction departments ("just make some box around this!").

The remarkable thing about Apple products is that their superficial design and their entire functionality including hard- and software and again including the user interface are very obviously developed in tight integration. When you're using the product you immediately notice that the people who made this actually talked to each other and that they actually used this themselves (there are occasional exceptions, but that is the rule).

That is the primary defining feature of Apple products, not some "marketing" or merely superficially nice "design".

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
It surely isn't, but do we want to argue over numbers? Your statement was that Apple got more word of mouth support than their competitors, and I don't know how one would measure that, and doubt that it's true anyway.

I have never claimed such a thing as you can check for yourself above. My point was that the dubious "marketing" in Apple's case is done primarily through the generation of user satisfaction and the goodwill that is usually the result of that.

Nevertheless, pretty much every survey still suggests that even by comparison to other companies Apple does in fact generate a very high and not rarely unique level of positive(!) word of mouth (through overall user satisfaction, intent to repurchase and intent to recommend to others).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
Clearly there are many markets where Samsung is outselling Apple, are you saying that happens primarily because of Samsung adverts and not because of the usual word of mouth that happens for most consumer products, especially ones so conspicuous as the mobile phone? If you don't like "a lot", will you settle for "enough"?

No. The reason for the numbers is simply that Samsung et al primarily make cheap phones and that they make them to the specifications of mobile providers who can brand and modify them to their heart's content while Apple completely cuts out the providers from the customer relationship, permits zero branding and only operates in the top end of the market (by now expanding downwards by keeping the two former generations in their lineup – soon possibly three if rumours abour a push into developing markets can be believed).

Consequently the market is swamped with cheap Android phones pushed onto subscribers by the mobile providers. Those hardly generate any margins, but if sheer numbers are what you want, that is where they are generated.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
Of course they are concerned, and that admission of concern elevates Samsung in the eyes of many from vendor of cheap knockoffs to vendor of products good enough for Apple to be very worried about.

Not good enough, just big, shameless and aggressive enough for Apple to pick them as their first target to make an example of. Now with a juicy win in their pocket (with only a small risk of a successful appeal) they will undoubtedly go after Google itself next (while the next suit is already filed aganst Samsung, plus an injunction against them from the current win).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
So, which patents do you think the general public would say were worthy of all the fuss Apple is making? The hardest fought patent battles were over who invented the telephone and who invented the computer. The public understands that. They don't have the same clarity over the way things bounce around on their phone's screen.

Who invented the telephone or the computer is completely irrelevant here.

The Apple vs. Samsung case has cast a bright spotlight on the extensive development process behind the iPhone and the iPad at Apple on the one hand and the crass and deliberate ripoff at Samsung on the other (primarily based on internal Samsung documents – the ones they hadn't managed to destroy in time; Those others must have been positively radioactive even by comparison!).

Samsung has been exposed as a shameless copycat with their management mostly ducking out of sight for some reason, while Apple has exposed an unprecedented amount of internal research and prototyping with extensive testimony by their well-known product bigwigs (including cross examination).

Some people enjoy buying cheap from companies ripping off others' development work and delight in "saving" money; Many others, however, never can shake that stench of ripoff that keeps sticking to those knockoffs and thus go for better options instead.

Choices.
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:38 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 48):
However, the world is full of good creative design people.

Of course, just like the world is full of very talented musicians. But how many really get an opportunity to excel?

Catch a Broadway musical on tour around the country and take in the incredible talent that performs for you. Now compare them to the Boy Bands, or other manufactured "stars".

It's the same problem in business.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 48):
Executives and finance departments often do not appreciate value or understand the profits that good design can bring

Finance departments override good design and the Execs are generally afraid to challenge them.

And yet the shareholders are asking why their company doesn't have a CEO of the quality of Steve Jobs!

Of course the other problem is that it is difficult to find CEOs that have the same level of design sense that Jobs had.

Jobs would visit the Apple Design Labs almost every working day, spending time with Ive going over various designs that were on a long table. How many CEOs can actually FIND their Design Labs. If they have any.

And a lot of OEMs today are using their manufacturing companies for all design work - leaving them to add the logos.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 48):
Apple had a huge opportunity with so much minimum-bidder quality and landfill-esque designs out there.

Apple actually spends a lot of money on developing and building their products. One good article that shows Apple's intensity is:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-secret-hoard-lasers-11032011.html

Apple does spend more on design and materials than most companies, and they charge a sufficient amount to cover the costs and also to invest in the future. If you like design then Apple is the prime company in IT to spend time looking at.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 50):
... and screwed its OS up indefinitely, which allowed MS to finally match and surpass Apple's OS in quality.

You have to remember that MS was basically handed the market on a silver platter. Before the IBM PC was announced PC-M was the wave of the future. IBM changed the personal computer world overnight. It was the IBM name that made the personal computer acceptable in the corporate world. MS was selected to provide the OS and that was the solver platter.

IBM not only sold a mountain of computers to companies, they also provided nice discounts to the employees of those companies. That is what hurt other companies, like Apple, Tandy, Commodore, PC-M, etc.

Toss in a lot of illegal monopolistic acts and you can see how MS was able to take over the market in the 90's. That and Apple not having Steve Jobs around when they could have used him. The benefit of Jobs departure did, however, show up when he returned - with the NeXT OS.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
It surely isn't, but do we want to argue over numbers? Your statement was that Apple got more word of mouth support than their competitors,

The iPhone 5 looks to be like the previous models.

The media is talking about Sep 12th for the announcement, with projections on availability on the 21st.

So the competition will have "events" the week before the 12th.

Let's watch the media coverage for these companies, as well as Apple's. Then let's see if there are major sales of the iPhone 5 between release and New Year's Eve.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
Clearly there are many markets where Samsung is outselling Apple,

Not a surprise - it's cheaper. Especially for the carriers, who have their store staff work to switch a customer from an iPhone to "whatever".

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
Of course they are concerned, and that admission of concern elevates Samsung in the eyes of many from vendor of cheap knockoffs to vendor of products good enough for Apple to be very worried about.

Samsung makes a decent product - just like my wife's Hyundai. Her car has a bit of flash, but is a "5" in terms of being a car.

Nothing cheap about Samsung. Cheaper maybe, but not cheap. Overall a 5 when all things are considered.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
So, which patents do you think the general public would say were worthy of all the fuss Apple is making?

When it comes to patents it doesn't matter what the general public thinks. For the Apple - Samsung trial what counted was the jury and there were a couple of engineers on that jury. One who actually holds a patent.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:28 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
Interesting theory. In your practice, is it common to find gullible judges?

Isn't that kind of the point of being a lawyer?.
Convincing the judge that your version of the story is the real one?.

A bit simplistic, I know.

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
And now you're just not being objective.

You can spot differences, sure. But to say that they look nothing alike makes one look unobjective.

The Galaxy Ace does look a lot like an iPhone and the Galaxy S to a lesser extent as well.
Galaxy SII, S3, Galaxy Nexus, Droid Razr?. Not really,

At least to me the differences in size, soft buttons on the bottom, how thin they are and their overall shape and their home screens makes them quite different from an iPhone.

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
What about the patents makes them invalid?

That many of them pre-date their application on the iPhone, including multi-touch, picking email addresses and phone numbers from streams of text, etc.
Others, in my opinion, fail the non-obvious test like grid-pattern icons, slide-to-unlock, etc.

Now, since you are an IP Attorney, would you mind clarifying something for me?.

If one of the jurors is the owner of a patent, like seems to be the case here, wouldn't that mean he had a vested interest in the result of the case?.

Specially if his patent could actually be invalidated by prior art?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message

Quote:
Hogan, a 67-year-old electrical engineer who lives in San Jose, said he was influenced in part by his own experience acquiring a patent. By the end of the first day of deliberations, he said he decided that Samsung's prior art arguments didn't hold up.

"I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?' " Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things."

His patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953
As mentioned in the comments for the article, the guy patented the DVR years after it came out. Should have been granted in the first place?.

Later in the same article, its noted that the guy influeced the rest of the jurors

Quote:
Another juror, Manuel Ilagan, confirmed to CNET that Hogan's influence on the jury was significant. "He had experience," said Ilagan. "He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."

In another site, that focused on the legal side of things, they mentioned the same guy admited they reached the verdict without reading the instructions

Quote:
Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

In the light of the mistakes made by the jury by awarding damages even on non infringing phones, how acceptable is this?

From the same blog:

Quote:
As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it:

Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?

If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.


I think it is a joke when the phone that got second of most damages award was this thing


[Edited 2012-08-26 01:43:43]
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:21 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
The Judge refused "evidence" from both sides. She also set 25 hours for each side - there was no way that she was going to allow this trial to go on for months. Both sides also had to trim down their claims.

It hardly seems fair to restrict the time each party has to present their case, particularly a complex case such as a patent dispute.

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
But to say that they look nothing alike makes one look unobjective

I do not agree. To me, they look nothing alike. I can spot the difference a mile away. From my point of view, it's certainly not "substantially the same or deceptively similar".

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
Samsung has been exposed as a shameless copycat

Has it?



Both companies had infringed on each other's patents. It's odd that in other jurisdictions, that is what the court found, yet in California, Apple takes them all.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
Others, in my opinion, fail the non-obvious test like grid-pattern icons, slide-to-unlock, etc.

In what way? Did they exist before Apple's patent?

D L X is right, whether something is obvious or not is compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date of the patent claim. Something may now be obvious in hindsight, but if it was a genuine inventive step at the time of the patent application, then the patent cannot be found invalid for want of an inventive step.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
If one of the jurors is the owner of a patent, like seems to be the case here, wouldn't that mean he had a vested interest in the result of the case?.

If true, then I believe that this person shouldn't have served as a juror.

I find it odd that civil cases such as patents are decided by a jury rather than a judge over there. Patents are an incredibly complex area of law, and when multi millions of dollars are riding on that decision, it should rest on the shoulders of someone who understands patent law back to front rather than an anonymous member of the public.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9882
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:48 am

At least I now know that I will never buy another Apple product because of the way they are trying to kill competition. I am not going to support them any longer. They are ten times worse than MS ever was.

Plus the Galaxy SIII is a better phone than any other phone currently available the way I see it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
The inevitable response: If the combination of features was so obvious, where is the prior art or even prior patents?

And the inevitable response: If Xerox had been as lawsuit-happy as Apple is now being, there might not be an Apple!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
Consequently the market is swamped with cheap Android phones pushed onto subscribers by the mobile providers. Those hardly generate any margins, but if sheer numbers are what you want, that is where they are generated.

It sounds like you haven't looked at Samsung's balance sheet.

I favor many of Apple's approaches to R&D and the market, but Apple of all people should know that patent law won't be changing the game to any meaningful extent. After all it was Jobs himself who popularized the phrase "Good artists borrow, great artists steal!".

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
Who invented the telephone or the computer is completely irrelevant here.

LOL, no kidding. My point wasn't that they had significance to this case, instead, they show that this case lacks significance!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
The Apple vs. Samsung case has cast a bright spotlight on the extensive development process behind the iPhone and the iPad at Apple on the one hand and the crass and deliberate ripoff at Samsung on the other (primarily based on internal Samsung documents – the ones they hadn't managed to destroy in time; Those others must have been positively radioactive even by comparison!).

Which is another way of saying that Apple had to reveal far more of their internal processes and expose their key people to cross examination to win a verdict in high-tech friendly Silicon Valley.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:26 pm

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
At least to me the differences in size, soft buttons on the bottom, how thin they are and their overall shape and their home screens makes them quite different from an iPhone.

No. These are all marginal differences only within the primary concept which the iPhone introduced.

Remember the shock and even widespread ridicule when it was presented, exactly because it was so alien relative to everything else?

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
What about the patents makes them invalid?

That many of them pre-date their application on the iPhone, including multi-touch, picking email addresses and phone numbers from streams of text, etc.

A patent is not invalidated by being filed years before its first practical application. That is actually more the rule than the exception.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
Others, in my opinion, fail the non-obvious test like grid-pattern icons, slide-to-unlock, etc.

You're confusing design patents and functional patents. Those two kinds have distinct criteria.

And if slide to unlock was so "obvious", where is the prior art, then?

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
I think it is a joke when the phone that got second of most damages award was this thing

Why? It mimics the iPhone very closely in its design and operation. Tacking on a physical slide-out keyboard doesn't change anything about that.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 55):
It hardly seems fair to restrict the time each party has to present their case, particularly a complex case such as a patent dispute.

Why was that unfair since both parties had the same limitation?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 55):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
Samsung has been exposed as a shameless copycat

Has it?

Yes, quite obviously; Your own picture reinforces that.

The Samsung patents quoted there are to my knowledge invalidated by Apple's prior art.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 56):
At least I now know that I will never buy another Apple product because of the way they are trying to kill competition. I am not going to support them any longer. They are ten times worse than MS ever was.

Apple defends their own development efforts in the courts.

Microsoft used illegal methods to crush the competition such as forcing them out of the market by exerting pressure on customers, making vapourware presentations which never materialized but destroyed demand for innovative competitors or creating specific incompatibilities in presumable standard implementations.

If that is the same for you, you may deserve what you get.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
The inevitable response: If the combination of features was so obvious, where is the prior art or even prior patents?

And the inevitable response: If Xerox had been as lawsuit-happy as Apple is now being, there might not be an Apple!

Xerox has (unsuccessfully) attempted to sue Apple when they saw that Apple seemed to be making money with the Mac.

But Xerox did not have any patents and the Mac GUI was an Apple development merely using some fundamental inspirations from what Xerox had already publically presented (the famous Steve Jobs PARC visit was an Apple-internal ploy to get Jobs on board with an already existing GUI project).

Xerox again wasn't even the inventor of the GUI concept but they merely did the first (and still very crude) implementation of a pre-existing and widely known concept.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
It sounds like you haven't looked at Samsung's balance sheet.

Have you? It confirms that Samsung is selling huge numbers of very cheap phones and only a smaller number of more expensive ones.

"Market share" is a deceptive metric when you're actually interested in a manufacturer's success.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
I favor many of Apple's approaches to R&D and the market, but Apple of all people should know that patent law won't be changing the game to any meaningful extent. After all it was Jobs himself who popularized the phrase "Good artists borrow, great artists steal!".

Which means something very different from what you seem to think it did.

Apple is very thorough in licensing (and paying for) external IP which they believe they need.

They draw inspiration for their own designs from all kinds of sources, but their history shows that they are generally doing it correctly. And that they add substantial development effort of their own, often resulting in complete departures from the status quo.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
LOL, no kidding. My point wasn't that they had significance to this case, instead, they show that this case lacks significance!

That's not how it works.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
Which is another way of saying that Apple had to reveal far more of their internal processes and expose their key people to cross examination to win a verdict in high-tech friendly Silicon Valley.

You can't win such cases without providing information. And at this point it was crucial to demonstrate where the hard development work has actually been done – and where it hasn't been done, resorting to deliberate copying instead.

Exposing their development process of the original iPhone does not harm Apple in any way. But it very clearly and publically underscores that it is in fact the original creation.


I detest software patents with a passion since most of them are in fact somewhat or even completely trivial (even where they embody innovative UI concepts) and they are a growing problem for independent developers, but while I think this is actually more a copyright issue than a patent one, the breathtakingly shameless ripoff mentality at Samsung (as proven by their own internal mails and memos) needs to be contained or real innovation will always be steamrolled by the manufacturers with the fastest copiers and the least inhibitions of ripping off the ones who did the actual heavy lifting.

Software patents are a bad way of doing this, but in the absence of better means they may have to do at least for now.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9882
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:09 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
Apple defends their own development efforts in the courts.

So is Samsung, since Apple STOLE some of their ideas and used their patents. Just like Apple stole the roll down notification menu from Android.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:22 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 59):
So is Samsung, since Apple STOLE some of their ideas and used their patents. Just like Apple stole the roll down notification menu from Android.

All caps doesn't make that claim any more real either.

The amount of actual respective development work done by the two companies has been exposed quite clearly in the trial: Years of intense research and development effort at Apple, quick and detailed ripoff at Samsung, sanctioned and driven by their management.

You can of course choose to be in denial if you prefer not to notice. That's up to you.

I'm a developer myself and so I have a lot more sympathies for the people who actually do the heavy lifting themselves through years of intense work, creating new things that shatter the status quo, than for those whose primary attitude is "we want what they have, just without having to do the actual work".

That's just my preference, but I don't think I'm alone there.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9882
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:31 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 60):
All caps doesn't make that claim any more real either.

Neither does bold fonts..

Quoting Klaus (Reply 52):
Apple does in fact
Quoting Klaus (Reply 60):
The amount of actual respective development work done by the two companies has been exposed quite clearly in the trial: Years of intense research and development effort at Apple, quick and detailed ripoff at Samsung, sanctioned and driven by their management.

The case isn't over yet since it will be appealed. So I know you really want to make Apple stand out as positive as possible, but wait with your biased views. The courts have often rejected Apple's claims as well, but you fail to mention that.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 60):
You can of course choose to be in denial if you prefer not to notice. That's up to you.

No one is in more denial than you, so no worries here..

Quoting Klaus (Reply 60):
I'm a developer myself and so I have a lot more sympathies for the people who actually do the heavy lifting themselves through years of intense work, creating new things that shatter the status quo, than for those whose primary attitude is "we want what they have, just without having to do the actual work".

Then I assume you must have zero respect for Steve Jobs since he himself said that great artists steal referring to himself and his company.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:54 pm

Quote from a juror:

"Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel."

[about prior art] "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...ve-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/

Oh boy.
 
User avatar
speedygonzales
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:54 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 60):
I'm a developer myself

I you are a developer yourself, you should loathe this riduculous competition-stifling verdict.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9882
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:00 pm

Just thought I'd toss this in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_PybOuY0&feature=player_embedded

and this:

http://www.xda-developers.com/androi...he-sleeping-giant-may-have-awoken/

Worst case scenario for Apple will be a total ban of all their products in the US since they have stolen so many ideas from other inventors.

[Edited 2012-08-26 09:53:35]
 
Acheron
Posts: 1852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:02 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 55):
In what way? Did they exist before Apple's patent?

D L X is right, whether something is obvious or not is compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date of the patent claim. Something may now be obvious in hindsight, but if it was a genuine inventive step at the time of the patent application, then the patent cannot be found invalid for want of an inventive step.

What is one of the most space efficient way to arrange a group of icons?. A grid.

The patent that covers this dates back to 2009 and was filed in 2007.

Palm Pilot used icons in a grid pattern back in the late 90's and ever OS with a GUI before that. That same patent includes an icon dock, which also predates their implementation even on OS X, including Acorn Arthur and NeXTSTEP back in the 80's.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
And if slide to unlock was so "obvious", where is the prior art, then?

Slide to unlock?. Yeah...


Or even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ru2GjBTHRY

[Edited 2012-08-26 11:46:46]
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
If one of the jurors is the owner of a patent, like seems to be the case here, wouldn't that mean he had a vested interest in the result of the case?.

Specially if his patent could actually be invalidated by prior art?

The fact that the jury included engineers, and one who had obtained a patent, does not invalidate the jury or their decision.

The attorneys for BOTH Samsung and Apple reviewed the Jury Pool and either company could have eliminated those engineers if they had a reason to.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 55):
It hardly seems fair to restrict the time each party has to present their case, particularly a complex case such as a patent dispute.

The judge made it very clear that the trial was going to be controlled in terms of claims and time allowed to both parties. There was an equal amount of time given to both parties, one just spent far too much time talking about rounded corners.

BTW, it is not uncommon for judges to establish limits that are equally applied to both sides. A frequent example would be establishing the number of pages for a brief. If the judge sets 25 pages then you had better get permossion from the judge and opposing attorneys before going over that limit.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 56):
They are ten times worse than MS ever was.

Have they been found guilty of monopoly abuse by a federal court. MS is, IMO, basically a felon

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
And the inevitable response: If Xerox had been as lawsuit-happy as Apple is now being, there might not be an Apple!

Here we go again.

Xerox was compensated for Jobs & Co to spend a day looking at the work Xerox was doing in the GUI area.

Xerox was, at that time, selling PCs - with DOS loaded in them.

Xerox never, to my knowledge, ever took a XEROX GUI computer to market, actually making money off of their work.

Xerox would have made far more money (profit) off of the initial compensation from Apple than they did from delivering their own product.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
Xerox has (unsuccessfully) attempted to sue Apple when they saw that Apple seemed to be making money with the Mac.

Xerox was a real dud in the PC market. Sort of like NCR & Burrows. They simply failed to understand that they could invest more money and talent into the project and make money.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 61):
The case isn't over yet since it will be appealed.

That case is over in terms of a Jury decision. Samsung can fight all they want, but I don't have much hope for them.

We will be seeing a major decision in September as the Judge will be ruling on any requests from Apple to ban the Samsung products from the market.

It is more than a little ironic that a Korean court found both parties guilty and banned both from the market. So Apple has some products banned in Korea while the jury was deliberating. That will simply support Apple's request for a ban in the US. Let the Korean court show the way on that one.         


Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 64):
Worst case scenario for Apple will be a total ban of all their products in the US since they have stolen so many ideas from other inventors.

Moto hasn't performed well on patent wars against Apple:

Quote:

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday completed its review of a Motorola complaint from April, ruling against an import ban on Apple's iPhone and iPad after finding the devices do not infringe on certain wireless technology patents owned by the Google subsidiary.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._patents_avoids_us_import_ban.html

I don't believe that we will see Apple products banned in any major market, especially with the FTC taking a goos look at any Moto abuses (from June 29th):

[quote]
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Friday issued a civil investigative demand to Google to examine whether the Android maker is illegally using standards-essential FRAND patents acquired in a takeover of Motorola Mobility to block out smartphone competitors.

According to sources familiar with the issue, the FTC is focusing on Motorola's commitment to license industry standard technology in a fair and reasonable way and whether new owner Google's ongoing FRAND-based litigation should be considered anticompetitive, reports Bloomberg.
[/quote

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...orola_over_frand_patent_abuse.html
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:35 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
Xerox has (unsuccessfully) attempted to sue Apple when they saw that Apple seemed to be making money with the Mac.

Right, but their CEO wasn't quoted as saying he was going to crush Apple if it took every penny that Xerox had.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
It confirms that Samsung is selling huge numbers of very cheap phones and only a smaller number of more expensive ones.

It confirms they are making more than enough money to defend themselves for as long as Apple wants to keep suing them.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
LOL, no kidding. My point wasn't that they had significance to this case, instead, they show that this case lacks significance!

That's not how it works.

Sure it does. The penalty will be proportional to the significance of the supposed infringement. Or are you saying otherwise?

And IMHO the penalty won't be a "game changer". The judgement is a sting, a wound, but not a fatality. The $1B that Apple got is significant, but a lot less than the $2.75B Apple asked for, and there's still appeals, and lots of other venues where both sides will be locking horns.
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:50 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 67):
Right, but their CEO wasn't quoted as saying he was going to crush Apple if it took every penny that Xerox had.

That's because the Xerox CEO knew that they made a far bigger profit from the payment Apple made to review their work than Xerox made delivering a solid product to the market.

Xerox made money off of Apple for that Day of Discovery.

They were a pathetic competitor in the PC business and left it because they could not compete. Imagine what would have happened if the Xerox CEO had the judgement levels that Jobs had.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 67):
It confirms they are making more than enough money to defend themselves for as long as Apple wants to keep suing them.

And, at some point, the Samsung CEO will have to face his shareholders who ask about the losses. Losses in courts and losses of Apple's component purchases. Loss of business from your largest component customer should be an embarrassment when your own shareholders are asking questions. And, at some point, the Board is going to be sufficiently embarrassed to start asking unwanted questions.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:01 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 41):
But an idea is not a patent.

You get a patent for an invention. An awesome idea (such as the tablet seen in TNG above) may inspire an invention, but until someone actually creates it, it is not an invention. It is just an idea.


No it's not, but a patent also needs to be "non-obvious" and I am just talking about the shape and the expectation of what it would should be. The iPad was nothing beyond what people expected it to be. It wasn't "innovative", it was expected.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 42):
With all the calls for "cutting spending" why would a bright graduate look to work at the USPO? If you want to grow the performance of the USPO (or any similar government department) then you need to recruit good people, pay them well (competitive with private employers) and get the politicians to shut up about shrinking the government.

Sort of correct. This has nothing to do with "shrinking the government" or not, it does have to do with funding appropriate government functions and departments suitable for their responsibilities. Of course the USPO funding should be equivalent to its work load and its task within industry. However it benefits well established business's more to legislate requirements on how things should be processed and then underfunding the agency so their patent applications are more automatically (systematically) required to be approved.

The same of course is true with all departments and agencies that have oversight and regulate industry: industry knows they just need to lobby enough to starve them. Congress is always using starvation of funding as a tool for legislation now.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
So, which patents do you think the general public would say were worthy of all the fuss Apple is making? The hardest fought patent battles were over who invented the telephone and who invented the computer. The public understands that. They don't have the same clarity over the way things bounce around on their phone's screen.

To me the bezel thing being a basis of infringement was a load of horse crap, the big "copies" were the icons, their shape, naming, and the general lay out. They could have (and apparently should have) done something different. Quite frankly if I was Samsung I would gone with round icons or hexagons (ovoids?), etc. They could have made round icons that then "bubbled up" into a slight larger version when touched (.... Hmmm I should patent that! Remember you heard it here first!).

Quoting Acheron (Reply 65):
What is one of the most space efficient way to arrange a group of icons?. A grid.

But you can use a hex grid or round icons or five across or.... I understand that it essentially became a "standard" the moment the iPhone popularized it though, and that Apple most certainly did not "invent" or "innovate' with its design. But it became a trade dress and it would have been easy to differentiate yourself from them by doing something slightly (more "slightly" than what many have done) different.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 64):
Just thought I'd toss this in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1s_P...edded

A good, insightful video It is absolutely true too.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
Have they been found guilty of monopoly abuse by a federal court. MS is, IMO, basically a felon

Over dramatize things a bit? However I strongly suspect that, Yes, Apple will be found guilty and convicted in the future if things continue the way they are. But it of course hasn't happened and things can and will change, and you are free to disagree.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 68):
And, at some point, the Samsung CEO will have to face his shareholders who ask about the losses. Losses in courts and losses of Apple's component purchases. Loss of business from your largest component customer should be an embarrassment when your own shareholders are asking questions. And, at some point, the Board is going to be sufficiently embarrassed to start asking unwanted questions.

Well, Samsung is mostly controlled by....Samsung. It has a complicated ownership structure but it really is a family controlled entity. The judgement value itself would be huge and dangerous to most other companies however Samsung is well positioned to weather it well if that occurs (and to fight it too as they are)

As I have said before, the ones that will be paying for this settlement will be the customers and that means Apple will be paying the most as they are the biggest single customer. And that is unlikely to diminish anytime soon since Samsung is focused on being the leader in the type of electronics and their scale in the field means they can maintain that. I mean why do you think they are the leader in cellphones and the related technologies? And why do you think Apple goes to them (still)?

Tugg
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14770
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:36 pm

Selling components to Apple makes money but that doesn't further your brand, I'm sure Samsung is far happier selling their own products.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:46 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 70):
Selling components to Apple makes money but that doesn't further your brand, I'm sure Samsung is far happier selling their own products.

The smartest thing is to be able to do both! It improves your volume and increase your cash flow which allows for further investment in more innovation. It also exposes you to other companies thinking and innovation which while much of that will be fire-walled, it continues to infuse your company with new ideas.

Tugg
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14770
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:06 am

I was into PDAs a long time ago (even if as a teen I couldn't afford one), and my third mobile phone in 2002 was an HTC Canary, that was called a smartphone at the time.

So when PDAs started to become phones, I was very interested, and soon I wanted one and knew it was the future. Here is an example from 2004, the HP iPaq H6315 :



You can notice the large touch screen, the icons on a grid, the ability to install countless apps, and in fact lots of functions that the iPhone didn't even have at its launch years later.

So, the iPhone did bring innovations to the table, there is not doubt, but it certainly didn't appear out of thin air or one man's vision.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:22 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 72):
You can notice the large touch screen, the icons on a grid, the ability to install countless apps, and in fact lots of functions that the iPhone didn't even have at its launch years later.

So, the iPhone did bring innovations to the table, there is not doubt, but it certainly didn't appear out of thin air or one man's vision.

Yes, and I see I forgot to include my favorite quote from Steve Jobs:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

And on Wiki they note that one of Jobs favorite phrases: "Good artists copy; great artists steal." is a misquote from Pablo Picaso but it shows you how Mr. Jobs drew inspiration.

So Jobs was always big on looking everywhere for "inspiration" and utilizing what others had started. Just as has occurred throughout the history of innovation and invention. And unfortunately the US patent process has broken down and failed over the past decade with regards to software and "idea" related patents.

Tugg
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:40 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
No it's not, but a patent also needs to be "non-obvious" and I am just talking about the shape and the expectation of what it would should be.

I believe that there are a lot of patents out there for "obvious" products that were not obvious when invented.

Look at the heart stints. Scaffolding for arteries serving the heart - pretty obvious when you think about it.

And cpaps. Medical devices that are effectively a vacuum cleaner running in reverse to help a patient continue to breathe during the night. Not really a complex approach - pretty obvious these days. But not when an Aussie named Colin Sullivan figured out that it might work.

A lot of patents are "obvious" after they become public. How many people have said, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
The iPad was nothing beyond what people expected it to be. It wasn't "innovative", it was expected.

The iPad was expected by those who believed it would be an iOS device and not an OS X device. As an iOS device it is basically a larger iPod touch.

Regardless of how some people expected it, when it was released it caused a wide range of responses, even the usual "doomed to fail" posts.

What was not expected, IMO, was a very strong reaction from consumers.

A lot of other companies were caught with their pants down. HP is the classic case that will be studied in MBA classes (right beside the iPad).

One of the main strengths of Apple was the company's ability to figure out what the consumer would want at some point in the future. That was what was missing from HP and their long list of short term CEOs. But at least HP made a noticeable effort to try to compete.

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
This has nothing to do with "shrinking the government" or not, it does have to do with funding appropriate government functions and departments suitable for their responsibilities.

Like the Post Office?

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
Over dramatize things a bit?

The decision handed down in Federal Court was pretty dramatic. It was a major public slap in the face for Gates.

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
the ones that will be paying for this settlement will be the customers

Probably not. Samsung has probably worked out where they are going and will deliver new products that avoid Apple's patents fairly fast. And they will keep prices low in order to maintain market share.

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
Apple will be paying the most as they are the biggest single customer.

Apple will have some long term pricing agreements with the component side.

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
I mean why do you think they are the leader in cellphones and the related technologies?

They were providing an iPhone like phone at a lower price. Not hard when you let Apple do the hard work on the R&D side.

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
And why do you think Apple goes to them (still)?

Apple has long had a very good working relationship with Samsung in the component side and I expect that to continue. I do believe, however, that Apple will move some component business to other companies. Sharp has been having difficulties and that might be a good place to look. Remember that Apple has in the past made significant prepayments to component suppliers. - including Samsung.

The big question Apple needs to address is how much they can trust Samsung in the future.
 
D L X
Posts: 12725
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:40 am

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
At least to me the differences in size, soft buttons on the bottom, how thin they are and their overall shape and their home screens makes them quite different from an iPhone.

That is not how a patent works. The CLAIMS of a patent define its boundaries. If the accused device has the specific points of novelty that are in the claims of the patent, the accused device infringes.

A patent is not measured by how closely a design looks like another design. Not at all. So, your being able to see differences in size, buttons, thickness and especially, "overall shape" is irrelevant. That's not what was patented.

Now if you can't see the similarities in the home screens...

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
If one of the jurors is the owner of a patent, like seems to be the case here, wouldn't that mean he had a vested interest in the result of the case?.

Not at all. It was not the same patent, so obviously the interest is not "vested." BUt does owning a patent make one unacceptably biased? Still the answer is no. One person's patent does not affect the validity of someone else's.

It is the same as saying that mothers and fathers of daughters should not be jurors in rape cases because, well, they have a daughter.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
the guy patented the DVR years after it came out.

Incorrect. He patented THAT PARTICULAR DVR. Other DVRs may be completely different. You get a patent on the way that you solve a problem (i.e. Tivo vs. ReplayTV). You do not get a patent on the problem itself (i.e. recording video).

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
they mentioned the same guy admited they reached the verdict without reading the instructions

A bunch of us IP attorneys in my office were commenting about how the lawyers on that case f'ed up with the jury instructions. They were ONE HUNDRED NINETY pages long. Unbelievable!!! Absolutely unacceptable. That's not on the jury that they didn't read them. This confirms to us what we suspected when we saw the instructions -- we all said "they're never going to read that."

But guess what: that is nowhere near reversible error.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
In the light of the mistakes made by the jury by awarding damages even on non infringing phones, how acceptable is this?

It's the jury's job to determine what the damages are. It's the judge's job to determine whether the damages should be applied on each count. It was not error for the jury to calculate the damages on the non-infringing phones. It would only be error if Judge Koh added those damages in. She has not.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
Interesting theory. In your practice, is it common to find gullible judges?

Isn't that kind of the point of being a lawyer?.
Convincing the judge that your version of the story is the real one?.

A bit simplistic, I know.

Now, I have to address this.

It was a stupid comment, calling a judge "gullible." Federal judges deserve an awful lot of respect. What I have seen from your posts is that you do not understand patent law. That is obviously not a crime to not understand patent law, as probably 95% or more of the public does not fully understand it. But to be so incredibly disrespectful of a federal judge while having such poor knowledge of patent law yourself is absolutely amazing. Your attempt to backtrack from that comment tells me that you already understand this.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 59):
Just like Apple stole the roll down notification menu from Android.

Did the Android folks get a patent on it?

If you don't get a patent on it, you don't own the invention.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 56):

At least I now know that I will never buy another Apple product because of the way they are trying to kill competition.

I have no idea who you plan to buy your products from then.

Just taking a quick look at the federal court dockets, I see Samsung suing others 198 times. HTC has sued 29 others. Google has sued 30. Microsoft well over 1000.


Apple? 60.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 55):
I do not agree. To me, they look nothing alike. I can spot the difference a mile away.

I'll say it again..

being able to spot the differences does not mean there are not elements that are the same.
If those elements are covered by a patent, then you're infringing.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 63):
I you are a developer yourself, you should loathe this riduculous competition-stifling verdict.

As a former developer, nothing pissed me off more than to see someone copy my work.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 55):
It hardly seems fair to restrict the time each party has to present their case, particularly a complex case such as a patent dispute.

HAH!!

A law firm like Quinn Emmanuel charges about $300-600 an hour for each associate that works on a case. Partners cost even more. We would LOVE it if we could simply run off for 6 months at trial. Fortunately for everyone, judges set a trial schedule.

Generally, it is exceptionally rare for a trial to last longer than 2 weeks. Think about it: if you were a juror, would you find it remotely acceptable to be pulled out of your job for 6 months because some rich a-hole is suing some other rich a-hole and wants you to decide if this button looks like that button? Really?

No.

Judges set trial schedules to force parties to put their best evidence forward early and get on with it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
The iPad was nothing beyond what people expected it to be.

And people expected it to look like that because...

because it was made by Apple, and people know what Apple products look like. That's trade dress.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
"Market share" is a deceptive metric when you're actually interested in a manufacturer's success.

This is true. Analogy: There are more Toyota Sentras on the road than there are Mercedes G-classes.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
What about the patents makes them invalid?

That many of them pre-date their application on the iPhone

There is no requirement in patent law that the person that gets the patent ever actually sell the product.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:53 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Now if you can't see the similarities in the home screens...

Not my fault if you buy into every doctored image out there that favors Apple that shows the application menu like the home screen.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
A patent is not measured by how closely a design looks like another design. Not at all. So, your being able to see differences in size, buttons, thickness and especially, "overall shape" is irrelevant. That's not what was patented.

But wasn't Apple's point that people would buy Samsung phones because they "would be confused and buy them thinking they were buying iPhones"?.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
BUt does owning a patent make one unacceptably biased?

If you had a vague patent that actually had quite a few examples of prior art and were called to be part of a jury for a case that involves more vague patents on stuff that already existed, what would you do?.

Invalidate patents and set a precedent that could invalidate your own patent or side with the guy with the vague patents so you can avoid that from happening?.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Incorrect. He patented THAT PARTICULAR DVR. Other DVRs may be completely different. You get a patent on the way that you solve a problem (i.e. Tivo vs. ReplayTV). You do not get a patent on the problem itself (i.e. recording video).

The guy patents as worded describes any computer with a video capture card and HTPC's and what they have been doing since the 90's.
There is nothing new to his patent, no matter how you spin it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
A bunch of us IP attorneys in my office were commenting about how the lawyers on that case f'ed up with the jury instructions. They were ONE HUNDRED NINETY pages long. Unbelievable!!! Absolutely unacceptable. That's not on the jury that they didn't read them. This confirms to us what we suspected when we saw the instructions -- we all said "they're never going to read that."

And thats acceptable to you?.

I guess since Apple won...it is.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
It would only be error if Judge Koh added those damages in. She has not.

There is still an error.
The actual sum of the damages for each phone is less that what the jury awarded in the end by a couple thousand dollars.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Now, I have to address this.

It was a stupid comment, calling a judge "gullible." Federal judges deserve an awful lot of respect. What I have seen from your posts is that you do not understand patent law. That is obviously not a crime to not understand patent law, as probably 95% or more of the public does not fully understand it. But to be so incredibly disrespectful of a federal judge while having such poor knowledge of patent law yourself is absolutely amazing. Your attempt to backtrack from that comment tells me that you already understand this.

On the other hand, you don't seem to understand whats the gripe some people in the tech world have with this result and Apple's patents.
That is, outside of Apple's acolytes.

I guess we see it from different perspectives, which is software wise, ideas shouldn't be patentable, that is a whole load of crap.
You should be able to protect the code and the way it was implemented, but protecting what it does?. Yeah, that doesn't fly with me

Reminds me of the crap Oracle tried to pull with Google and got shot down for.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Did the Android folks get a patent on it?

Its part of Google's case against Apple

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
There is no requirement in patent law that the person that gets the patent ever actually sell the product.

Which is the problem with the sudden rise of patent trolls everywhere. Do you work for a patent troll?.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:55 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
And people expected it to look like that because...

because it was made by Apple, and people know what Apple products look like. That's trade dress.

In addition to that, the design patent for the iPad was filed in 2004 – years before even the iPhone was presented and had primed everybody's expectations of what an Apple tablet might look like.

Up to 2007 and especially in 2004 nobody had any realistic expectations of what it could look like (just look at the mockups and speculative renderings people made of such concepts back then – they are nothing like what Apple actually released!).
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:42 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
I believe that there are a lot of patents out there for "obvious" products that were not obvious when invented.

Look at the heart stints. Scaffolding for arteries serving the heart - pretty obvious when you think about it.

And cpaps. Medical devices that are effectively a vacuum cleaner running in reverse to help a patient continue to breathe during the night. Not really a complex approach - pretty obvious these days. But not when an Aussie named Colin Sullivan figured out that it might work.

A lot of patents are "obvious" after they become public. How many people have said, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Hmmm, I can't say I agree with that and especially your analogy, but I do know what you are saying. Specifically regarding the form and shape of the iPad, I don't think anyone thought "why didn't I think of that". I thought "yep, that's what a tablet looks like" and I think that's what most people thought though I doubt most people thought it as it was not "non-obvious". Now the entire unit, its backshell, the thinness, and the smoothness of the entire package, I think everyone was impressed by that, And of course how well the software and everything worked. I know I was.


Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
Like the Post Office?

Actually no, it is self funding. Though Congress can attach obligations to it that affect it expenses (and has).


Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
The decision handed down in Federal Court was pretty dramatic. It was a major public slap in the face for Gates.

Well I don't know how dramatic it was and generally when you can call a judgement "just a slap in the face" it tends to mean it isn't that horrible for all involved. But actually it was pretty tough on Microsoft over the years.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
Probably not. Samsung has probably worked out where they are going and will deliver new products that avoid Apple's patents fairly fast. And they will keep prices low in order to maintain market share.

I agree completely.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
Apple will have some long term pricing agreements with the component side.

Agreed, but they will end at some point and costs do change. But cost will be an important element in who they source with in future agreements so they will have manage against that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
They were providing an iPhone like phone at a lower price. Not hard when you let Apple do the hard work on the R&D side.

I don't think you can honestly say that Samsung has done a lot of very hard work. And as far as have seen Apple has the lowest material costs in the industry (why do you think they have been so profitable).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
Apple has long had a very good working relationship with Samsung in the component side and I expect that to continue. I do believe, however, that Apple will move some component business to other companies. Sharp has been having difficulties and that might be a good place to look. Remember that Apple has in the past made significant prepayments to component suppliers. - including Samsung.

The big question Apple needs to address is how much they can trust Samsung in the future.

And again you and I are in full agreement. Of course Apple will always go for what is best for itself in pricing and technology to meet it needs but I could see them strategically working to not be too dependent on particular suppliers. Of course that has a cost too and they will have to manage that too.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
And people expected it to look like that because...

because it was made by Apple, and people know what Apple products look like. That's trade dress.

Yes and no, see my comment above. I still very much feel it was not "non-obvious". Of course the jury disagreed so we will have to see if it changes as it moves through the appeals process. But honestly I don't think I am an outlier in my thinking.

Tugg
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:48 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
Why was that unfair since both parties had the same limitation?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
The judge made it very clear that the trial was going to be controlled in terms of claims and time allowed to both parties. There was an equal amount of time given to both parties, one just spent far too much time talking about rounded corners.

BTW, it is not uncommon for judges to establish limits that are equally applied to both sides. A frequent example would be establishing the number of pages for a brief. If the judge sets 25 pages then you had better get permossion from the judge and opposing attorneys before going over that limit.

Because a time limit shouldn't be arbitrarily set; it should be set at a reasonable level so that each party can reasonably present their full case. I know how complex IP cases can be, and to me, 25 hours is simply not enough time to address all the relevant issues.

I agree with case management in principle, so that parties do not unnecessarily waste the court's time. But instead of arbitrarily setting limits, each side should have some input as to how long they believe they will need to reasonbly present their full case.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 60):
I'm a developer myself and so I have a lot more sympathies for the people who actually do the heavy lifting themselves through years of intense work, creating new things that shatter the status quo, than for those whose primary attitude is "we want what they have, just without having to do the actual work".

As an aspiring intellectual property lawyer, I feel the same way. But as I have pointed out, Apple aren't completely without blame here, and they shouldn't be painted as an angel when they're clearly not:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 64):
http://www.xda-developers.com/androi...he-sleeping-giant-may-have-awoken/

  

Interesting that Google have now stepped in and filed patent infringement claims against Apple:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ent-case-against-apple-at-itc.html

Quote:
Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Motorola Mobility unit said it filed a new patent-infringement case against Apple Inc. (AAPL) claiming that features on some Apple devices, including the Siri voice-recognition program, infringe its patents.

To suggest that Samsung are blatant copiers without painting Apple with the same brush is biased. It'll be interesting to see how this case pans out.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
It was not the same patent, so obviously the interest is not "vested." BUt does owning a patent make one unacceptably biased? Still the answer is no.

I would argue otherwise: owning a patent makes one less likely to be able to assess patent infringement claims in an objective and dispassionate manner, because owning one makes one realise how valuable a patent is.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
It is the same as saying that mothers and fathers of daughters should not be jurors in rape cases because, well, they have a daughter.

I would argue that they should not.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
A bunch of us IP attorneys in my office were commenting about how the lawyers on that case f'ed up with the jury instructions. They were ONE HUNDRED NINETY pages long. Unbelievable!!! Absolutely unacceptable. That's not on the jury that they didn't read them. This confirms to us what we suspected when we saw the instructions -- we all said "they're never going to read that."

And that is precisely why civil IP cases should not be tried by jury, in my view - it is complicated. If the jurors didn't read the instructions, then they have not been doing their job properly.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Generally, it is exceptionally rare for a trial to last longer than 2 weeks. Think about it: if you were a juror, would you find it remotely acceptable to be pulled out of your job for 6 months because some rich a-hole is suing some other rich a-hole and wants you to decide if this button looks like that button? Really?

No.

Judges set trial schedules to force parties to put their best evidence forward early and get on with it.

There's a high profile murder trial where I am that's been going on for six weeks, with an estimate that it'll take at least four more weeks - and that's after the parties met to agree to cut down the witness list by 160.

Sure, it is a rare occurrance, but if a case is complex enough that calls for more time, they shouldn't be arbitrarily limited to a certain number of hours when that limit is not enough to present the full case. As I said earlier, I agree with the principle of case management to minimise the time spent before the court, but I think that in the interest of justice, it has to be a reasonable period of time for the parties to present their full case, not an abridged version.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9882
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:59 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
Moto hasn't performed well on patent wars against Apple:

Famous last words...

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Did the Android folks get a patent on it?

Maybe? I don't know. Does that make it morally correct? Just saying Apple steals just as much as any other company.

Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
I have no idea who you plan to buy your products from then.

Just taking a quick look at the federal court dockets, I see Samsung suing others 198 times. HTC has sued 29 others. Google has sued 30. Microsoft well over 1000.

Perhaps true, but no one else claims they invented everything and that all the rest are copying them. Apple are not as important to the world as they would like to think. Also lame how Apple pretend like they are so innocent. I can only say that I was about to puke when I read their official statement after the verdict. They are so full of BS.

[Edited 2012-08-27 00:03:41]
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14770
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:19 am

Samsung sells countless products so they're probably far more copied than Apple.

About the 25 hours limit, where it seems really strange is when you compare it to the 1 billion award. Surely for that kind of money it would be reasonable to take more time ? And there is also the possibility to ban products...
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:54 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 34):
Which actually means their success is earned through product quality (hardware and software, primarily the concrete usability of the finished product).

Keep on telling that, maybe one day you will believe it yourself. ( my Iphone 4 is crap, the home button stopped working after 3 weeks)

Google should go against Apple for the cheap copy of the notification center.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21642
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:13 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 82):
Keep on telling that, maybe one day you will believe it yourself.

It's my own first-hand experience, and according to broader user surveys that is the dominant experience among most users, substantially exceeding the corresponding numbers of other products, particularly regarding total user satisfaction.

If the devices did not provide a satisfying user experience, I would not keep buying them. And why would I then lie about them to others? Your reasoning is flawed.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 82):
( my Iphone 4 is crap, the home button stopped working after 3 weeks)

So what keeps you from having the defect fixed on warranty? And how does a single random defect make the entire device "crap"?

I'm on my fifth iOS device in four years (iPod Touch 2 gen., iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPad 1, iPad 3) and zero defects across all of them. Even the three replaced devices keep working perfectly for their new owners.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:21 am

For Klaus:

http://www.titanic-magazin.de/uploads/pics/Apple-Milliarden.jpg

  
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:42 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
To me the bezel thing being a basis of infringement was a load of horse crap, the big "copies" were the icons, their shape, naming, and the general lay out.

To me, the whole idea of patents for "ornamental design" is crap. One way to unburden the USPO is to get rid of them.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 72):
I was into PDAs a long time ago (even if as a teen I couldn't afford one), and my third mobile phone in 2002 was an HTC Canary, that was called a smartphone at the time.

Me too. I owned various Palm devices in the 90s, and always wondered why I had to have my calendar and contacts on one device, and my phone on another. I guess I should have patented the idea of the smartphone back then!

I had a Moto Q from around 2006 to 2011, mainly because it actually was a smartphone, unburdened by the need to have a data plan. Still amazed that one really can't get that any more.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13945
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:47 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
To me, the whole idea of patents for "ornamental design" is crap. One way to unburden the USPO is to get rid of them

I agree, but everyone has to remember since Amazon was able to patent the "1-Click" the patent process to me has been highly suspect. It also means that I do agree with the judge here.

The fact that google was so instrumental in IOS, and then backed out to do Android, might have some serious ramifications in a few years.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
had a Moto Q from around 2006 to 2011, mainly because it actually was a smartphone, unburdened by the need to have a data plan. Still amazed that one really can't get that any more.

The way things are going, voice plans are toast. And in truth, with today's networks, it really is the way things should go. Voice is just another data pattern.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:28 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
No. These are all marginal differences only within the primary concept which the iPhone introduced.

The same argument can be applied to 777 looking only marginally different to a A330 or vice versa. Should Airbus sue Boeing?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 58):
Why? It mimics the iPhone very closely in its design and operation. Tacking on a physical slide-out keyboard doesn't change anything about that.

Mimic the iPhone? Seriously? Did you even look at the picture? If you did then you need an appointment to an optometrist straight away. It is like saying BMW 5 looks like Mercedes S.

Apple actually has some nice products. However, with fans like that, why bother? Apple can start to sell food with mold growing on it and some would proclaim it the best ever full of natural ingredients. They will probably patent that too and start to sue anyone that hasn't disposed of food past expiration date.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:04 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 86):
The way things are going, voice plans are toast. And in truth, with today's networks, it really is the way things should go. Voice is just another data pattern.

As is video. There is no good reason why your cable provider should need to pipe in hundreds of channels of video when you can only watch one at a time, and chances are good no one else in your neighborhood is watching many of them either. Everyone would be better off with the unwatched bandwidth being dedicated to faster internet and video-on-demand.

Unfortunately for us consumers in the US, it seems the cable providers are going to win the landline internet battle here and the cell providers are going to win the wireless internet battle, and competition is going to disappear.

I hope some 'disruptive technology' comes along, but it seems the big wireless providers are locking down spectrum that such technologies need as fast as they can get it, and are agreeing to walk away from competing with cable providers in trade for locking down even more spectrum.

Once they lock down the spectrum, good luck ever getting it out of their hands. It'll be just like landing slots for airlines: they've paid for it, and they'll never give it up.

I predict the outcome will be more and more people cutting back their digital usage, either because they simply can't afford monopoly pricing, or because they refuse to pay monopoly pricing.
 
D L X
Posts: 12725
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:29 pm

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
Not my fault if you buy into every doctored image out there that favors Apple that shows the application menu like the home screen.

Not my fault you need a new prescription.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
But wasn't Apple's point that people would buy Samsung phones because they "would be confused and buy them thinking they were buying iPhones"?.

That is not a patent issue. That is the trade dress issue.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
If you had a vague patent that actually had quite a few examples of prior art and were called to be part of a jury for a case that involves more vague patents on stuff that already existed, what would you do?.

How many patents have you reviewed? Over 99% of them have prior art citations right on the patent itself. You're really struggling to find a case of bias where there is none.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
Invalidate patents and set a precedent that could invalidate your own patent or side with the guy with the vague patents so you can avoid that from happening?

Again, invalidating a patent is not something that a jury does. A judge invalidates a patent, and there are laws that describe when a patent is invalid. Do you know them?

It is not a matter of a juror deciding that he doesn't want to invalidate patents because of a precedent it would set. Besides that, courts invalidate patents every month. I've been involved in invalidating a few myself when I worked for the courts.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
A bunch of us IP attorneys in my office were commenting about how the lawyers on that case f'ed up with the jury instructions. They were ONE HUNDRED NINETY pages long. Unbelievable!!! Absolutely unacceptable. That's not on the jury that they didn't read them. This confirms to us what we suspected when we saw the instructions -- we all said "they're never going to read that."

And thats acceptable to you?.

Yup.

Again, you were blaming the judge (gullible) but in fact, this was bad lawyering on Samsung's part, in my opinion. The lawyers suggest what is put in the jury instructions. So placing blame on the judge or the jury is misplaced.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
It would only be error if Judge Koh added those damages in. She has not.

There is still an error.
The actual sum of the damages for each phone is less that what the jury awarded in the end by a couple thousand dollars.

There is no error. As you even noted, the value of the damages per phone was LESS than the jury award per phone. That means those damages were not included.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
Now, I have to address this.

It was a stupid comment, calling a judge "gullible." Federal judges deserve an awful lot of respect. What I have seen from your posts is that you do not understand patent law. That is obviously not a crime to not understand patent law, as probably 95% or more of the public does not fully understand it. But to be so incredibly disrespectful of a federal judge while having such poor knowledge of patent law yourself is absolutely amazing. Your attempt to backtrack from that comment tells me that you already understand this.

On the other hand, you don't seem to understand whats the gripe some people in the tech world have with this result and Apple's patents.

There is no other hand! You've treaded into an area about which you know little, and declared the people that conduct their lives in that area "gullible." Your not understanding how patent law works led you to say something stupid and disrespectful. It does not matter that you are angry, especially when your anger may be wholly misplaced. No offense, but you may be the one that is "gullible" because you have let people convince you that patent law is a moral question where the winner is the team that is more likable.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
The guy patents as worded describes any computer with a video capture card and HTPC's and what they have been doing since the 90's.

Which part of the patent do you think describes any computer with a video capture card and HTPC's? Quote it for me so I know what you're talking about.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
Do you work for a patent troll?

Nope. I squash trolls like a billy goat.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
As an aspiring intellectual property lawyer

That's great! I really enjoy my profession. But as you may be able to glean from my comments, it will open your eyes to things that you may not have realized as a developer. I was a software and a hardware developer for years before I went to law school. If I had done them in the opposite order, I would have a whole lot more patents.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
I would argue otherwise: owning a patent makes one less likely to be able to assess patent infringement claims in an objective and dispassionate manner, because owning one makes one realise how valuable a patent is.

Bogus. Change the word "patent" to "land" and "infringement" to "trespass" and see what you get:

"Owning land makes one less likely to be able to assess trespass claims in an objective and dispassionate maner, because owning land makes one realize how valuable land is."

So... landowners should be banned from trespassing cases?

(Courts analyze land and patent cases in extremely analogous ways.)

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
Quoting D L X (Reply 75):
It is the same as saying that mothers and fathers of daughters should not be jurors in rape cases because, well, they have a daughter.

I would argue that they should not.

 Wow!

That is shocking. The whole idea of the "jury of your peers" is that your peers, as in people like you, will adjudicate your fate.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
If the jurors didn't read the instructions, then they have not been doing their job properly.

Two things:
1) This would not be reversible error even if that were the case.
2) The jury has listened to the lawyers drone on for two weeks already - they should know what is in the instructions.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
There's a high profile murder trial where I am that's been going on for six weeks

Criminal cases are different from civil cases.

(But even there, it is VERY VERY rare that they would take longer than 2 weeks.)

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
Because a time limit shouldn't be arbitrarily set

It is not arbitrarily set. It is set based on the amount of non-cumulative evidence expected to be presented, and the goals (as guaranteed by our Constitution) is to ensure a Speedy Trial.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 80):
Perhaps true, but no one else claims they invented everything and that all the rest are copying them.

Apple does not claim that they invented everything. And EVERYONE claims that EVERYONE ELSE is copying them. Why you think Samsung is different is beyond me.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 86):
I agree, but everyone has to remember since Amazon was able to patent the "1-Click" the patent process to me has been highly suspect.

That patent was also very quickly invalidated.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 87):
Should Airbus sue Boeing?

Does Airbus have a patent on an A330-looking airplane?
 
Acheron
Posts: 1852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:51 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
Not my fault you need a new prescription.

Glad to know you didn't bother to see the picture. Tells me I shouldn't waste my time.

Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
How many patents have you reviewed? Over 99% of them have prior art citations right on the patent itself. You're really struggling to find a case of bias where there is none.

Like the guy's patent reference aren't really that related what he tried to patent?

Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
There is no other hand! You've treaded into an area about which you know little, and declared the people that conduct their lives in that area "gullible." Your not understanding how patent law works led you to say something stupid and disrespectful. It does not matter that you are angry, especially when your anger may be wholly misplaced. No offense, but you may be the one that is "gullible" because you have let people convince you that patent law is a moral question where the winner is the team that is more likable.

It is my opinion and I still stand by it and its not about the "likeability" but what could happen to the tech industry if shit likes this keeps happening. It matters little to me if the outcome seems acceptable to you only because it favors your precious Cupertino company.

And no, I don't give a damn about Samsung. I don't own a Samsung product of any kind.

Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
Which part of the patent do you think describes any computer with a video capture card and HTPC's? Quote it for me so I know what you're talking about.
Quote:
A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive.

DVR's and any computer capable of doing it

Quote:
The apparatus further has the ability to offload the video files (e.g., originally stored in the fixed storage device) to an internal removable media storage device.

HTPC's

Quote:
The video files stored in the internal storage devices may thereafter be retrieved, processed, and provided for viewing on demand at a later time (e.g., on a standard television set, a high-definition television set, flat panel display, computer monitor, or an equivalent output device).

Isn't that what DVR's do?.

Quote:
One embodiment of the invention includes an apparatus equipped with a wireless keyboard and software that enables a user to access the Web and email services, edit recorded material, download new coder/decoder (Codec) software, order a movie on demand, and/or perform other functions.

HTPC, Video Toaster Flyer

And then the plenty of custom build computer fitted with video capture and stream capture devices and software that existed before his silly patent.
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:28 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):
It improves your volume and increase your cash flow which allows for further investment in more innovation.

Samsung has plenty of cash to develop new products. They can, and probably will, invest more money into R&D for competing with Apple in the iOS markets. I would be amazed if they had not already done a lot of work on replacement products in the event they lost this case.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
There is still an error.
The actual sum of the damages for each phone is less that what the jury awarded in the end by a couple thousand dollars.

Both companies will be reviewing the findings in great detail and will be advising the Court of any problems they find. Not a difficult issue to handle. The challenge for Samsung will be to avoid, or minimize, the Court increasing the damages because the Jury determined Samsung's conduct was willful. The Court can, at its discretion, increase damages up to triple the amount the Jury awarded.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 76):
On the other hand, you don't seem to understand whats the gripe some people in the tech world have with this result and Apple's patents.

They can grips all they want, but it is what it is.

Quoting tugger (Reply 78):
Though Congress can attach obligations to it that affect it expenses (and has).

Congress ha simply put a very heavy burden on the PO and I believe that is so they can basically oil it. Leaves more business for private companies.

Personally I believe the PO is one of the most important parts of infrastructure we have in this country. I see the shrinking of the system as simply another effort to kill it, just like Social Security.

Quoting tugger (Reply 78):
when you can call a judgement "just a slap in the face" it tends to mean it isn't that horrible for all involved.

The judgement was hard on MS (and well deserved) and, in addition, was a very public slap in the face for Gates.

Quoting tugger (Reply 78):
but they will end at some point and costs do change.

Of course they are going to end, and by the time they do there will be another supplier contract in place. Maybe with Samsung, maybe with someone else.

Quoting tugger (Reply 78):
And as far as have seen Apple has the lowest material costs in the industry (why do you think they have been so profitable).

The simple reason why Apple has the lowest component costs? TIm Cook. That's where his expertise lies, and why Steve Jobs brought him on.

Look what he's done. He pretty well shocked the industry when Apple make pre-payments of $3.9 Billion so they would have supply of components they felt would be sort of market demand. They have spent billions on equipment purchases, and the carved aluminum cases for the MacBook like is an example. Apple has also helped finance new factories for some of their component suppliers.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 79):
Because a time limit shouldn't be arbitrarily set; it should be set at a reasonable level so that each party can reasonably present their full case.

The times set by the Judge were reasonable. There is no way a Federal Judge is going to allow 2 companies to spend months in a trial. There is nothing new with those time limits and experienced lawyers know how to maximize every minute. This was not the first time the Judge walked into a Federal Courtroom, and it wasn't the first time for the lawyers either.

BTW, we are still waiting to see if the Judge addresses the actions of Samsung's lawyer releasing evidence in public immediately after being told by the Judge that it would not be allowed in court. That will be as interesting as the case itself as the guy has a solid reputation as a bull dog in court.
 
D L X
Posts: 12725
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:30 pm

Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
Glad to know you didn't bother to see the picture. Tells me I shouldn't waste my time.

I look at the picture, and I look at the patent, and I see that the claims of the patent read on the picture.

What do you see? And why don't you see what I see? Tell me this: do you actually know about patent law? Do you want to? Your answer will tell me if I am wasting MY time.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
Like the guy's patent reference aren't really that related what he tried to patent?

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Can you clarify it?

Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
It is my opinion and I still stand by it and its not about the "likeability" but what could happen to the tech industry if shit likes this keeps happening.

Your opinion is worth very little when you have all but admitted that you don't know what you're talking about, but nonetheless, accuse everyone else of being wrong. Are you basically telling me that you have an opinion, and you're never going to accept that you may have been wrong no matter how much evidence is put in front of you?

Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
It matters little to me if the outcome seems acceptable to you only because it favors your precious Cupertino company.

See, this is your problem. You think that my application of the law to this case simply means I favor Apple. I do not. In fact, I own many of both Apple and Samsung products, and serially buy them. (As in when one gets old, I replace it with another Apple or Samsung.)

I am applying the law that you are either ignorant of its existence or simply choose to ignore. And quite frankly, it's getting old.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
Quote:
A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive.

DVR's and any computer capable of doing it
Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
HTPC's
Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
Isn't that what DVR's do?.
Quoting Acheron (Reply 90):
HTPC, Video Toaster Flyer

And then the plenty of custom build computer fitted with video capture and stream capture devices and software that existed before his silly patent.

Just as I suspected.

You are quoting the specification, not the claims. In patent law, the claims are what determine the bounds of the invention, not the specification. If I may, let me explain the parts of a patent for you:

This is the Face, or the Abstract Page. It tells you the basics, when the patent was filed (important for determining priority), when it issued (important for determining damages), and at least some of the prior art that the examiner reviewed in determining patentability:



This is the specification. It is usually many pages long, and is basically a term paper on how the invention works. IT IS NOT THE BOUNDS OF THE PATENT.




This is one of the claims. The CLAIMS tell you the bounds of the invention. This is what the inventor has stated is the inventive combination of elements, many of which may be already known. It is this combination of elements that the patent examiner has to agree has not been published before. This patent has 12 claims.



Now this is the most important thing about a patent -- in order to find that someone has infringed a patent, the patent owner (called a patentee) has to show that each and every element in the claim can be found in the accused device. If even one element is missing in the accused device, there is no infringement.

In this DVR patent then, an infringing product would have to have all these things:
- a system controller module
- that system controller must NOT have a program information receiver (so no onboard guide in the controller)
- that system controller module must have the tuner
- that tuner must process one or more signals at a time and provide one or more video signals
- that tuner must be coupled to a processor
- a decoder connected to the tuner(s)
- a memory unit for storage
- a fixed storage device connected to the controller module
- that storage device must be capable of containing one or more complete video signals
- a removable media storage device coupled to the controller module

And that's a condensed list. ALL of those things must be present, and connected the way the patent states, in order to be infringing. If even one element or one connection is not present, no infringement.

It is important to note that if the accused device has MORE stuff than the elements that are in the claims, it is still infringing as long as it has all of the stuff that is in the claims. As in, if the claim says "A, B, and C" but the accused device has "A, B, C, D, E, and F" it still infringes. That way, if the accused device simply has more buttons, for instance, as long as it has the buttons that the patent claims, it is infringing.



Now, how is a patent invalidated? There's basically two ways - anticipation and obviousness.

Anticipation is easy. To be anticipated, there has to be a device or publication out there that describes every single element of the patent claim. If even one element is not present, the claim is not invalid.

Obviousness is a little harder. To be obvious, basically, it has to be clear that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" at the time the patent application was filed would have known to combine pre-existing elements in the exact same way as the patent claims. In other words, even if it was obvious to engineers in the industry on February 12, 2002 (the date this patent was filed) to make a DVR, the patent is not invalid unless it was obvious for the engineers to do it in the exact way that the inventor did. That means, it has to be obvious to use those parts, and connect them in that particular way.

Now. With that now explained to you, Acheron, how comfortable are you saying that all those things in Mr. Hogan's patent are obvious? Can you point me to a teaching or a device from earlier than 2002 that has all those elements connected in all those ways to make a DVR?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 91):
The times set by the Judge were reasonable. There is no way a Federal Judge is going to allow 2 companies to spend months in a trial. There is nothing new with those time limits and experienced lawyers know how to maximize every minute. This was not the first time the Judge walked into a Federal Courtroom, and it wasn't the first time for the lawyers either.

This is correct.

I've been an attorney working patent cases for 7 years, and 2 of those years I worked directly for a judge. The longest patent trial I have ever been a part of was 2 weeks, and all the others were one week long, including one trial involving 7 patents at the same time. Two weeks is more than adequate.

[Edited 2012-08-27 10:41:50]

[Edited 2012-08-27 10:52:20]
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:25 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 53):
Toss in a lot of illegal monopolistic acts and you can see how MS was able to take over the market in the 90's. That and Apple not having Steve Jobs around when they could have used him. The benefit of Jobs departure did, however, show up when he returned - with the NeXT OS.

Best decision Apple ever made in the 80s was firing Steve Jobs. Lest the Mac would have been a Fisher-Price computer indefinitely.

The Mac OS didn't take off in earnest until Apple got rid of Jobs and it never recovered after Steve returned.

OS X was unusualble until 10.4 so because of Steve Jobs' ineptness or disinterest when it came to the Macintosh and OS interface, Microsoft was given 5 years gratis to play catch-up. All the while Apple was concentrating making OS X being able to use the internal DVD player and grafting basic elements unto the Mac OS along with some Microsoftian interface decisions - like the Dock.

Steve Jobs was a great businessman in the end, but he wasn't.. NeXT was an abyssmal failure, the Macintosh under his management also.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
And the inevitable response: If Xerox had been as lawsuit-happy as Apple is now being, there might not be an Apple!

Software patents didn't exist in the 70s/80s - which is why Apple had to sue Microsoft on 'look and feel'.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 66):
Xerox never, to my knowledge, ever took a XEROX GUI computer to market, actually making money off of their work.

Well, whether one actually makes money of a product is hardly here nor there, but XEROX definitely took a GUI computer to market, in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star

Quoting tugger (Reply 69):
But you can use a hex grid or round icons or five across or.... I understand that it essentially became a "standard" the moment the iPhone popularized it though, and that Apple most certainly did not "invent" or "innovate' with its design. But it became a trade dress and it would have been easy to differentiate yourself from them by doing something slightly (more "slightly" than what many have done) different.

That's quite a revisionist stance, even my 2005 Sony-Ericsson had a grid icon view. Grid view of icons was a standard way before the iPhone.
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:28 pm

Quoting Asturias (Reply 93):
Lest the Mac would have been a Fisher-Price computer indefinitely.

I actually used a Mac in the late 80's in a company with several hundred employees. We had both Word & Excel at a GUI standard that wasn't matched by MS until Win 95. Simple disconnect to drop in a bag and take it to the company apartment over the weekend and just as easy to connect it back up to the networked printer.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 93):
The Mac OS didn't take off in earnest until Apple got rid of Jobs and it never recovered after Steve returned.

SO the Mac OS was so successful without Jobs that they went through how many CEOs? And was his close to bankruptcy when Jobs returned?

Quoting Asturias (Reply 93):
Steve Jobs was a great businessman in the end, but he wasn't.. NeXT was an abyssmal failure, the Macintosh under his management also.

NeXT is doing pretty well in it's current state - Mountain Lion. The Mac business is also doing well with the designs that Jobs pushed for. The simple fact is that notebooks are the main market for a traditional computer and the iPad for the non-traditional computer. Jobs did a pretty good job of running Apple in these market segments. Far from "abysmal".
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:31 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 94):
I actually used a Mac in the late 80's in a company with several hundred employees.

After Steve Jobs was fired, since the 'biggest' Mac under his watch was the Macintosh 512k, completely locked down, not upgradable and non-standard compliant.

The late 80s under Sculley was different and the Macintosh became a proper computer, possible to use in companies with several hundred employees and to achieve amazing work in graphics, engineering and CAD of all type.

You should be thanking John Sculley.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 94):
SO the Mac OS was so successful without Jobs that they went through how many CEOs? And was his close to bankruptcy when Jobs returned?

There was an Apple before 1993 you know and yes it was very succesful. In a world without software patents, Apple could only survive by actually being the best and indeed it was unsurpassed in quality, both OS wise and technology wise until the mid 90s, when Intel took off to the skies.. but it always held the best OS, Windows 95-2000 being pathic jokes, for users everywhere.

1985-1993 were golden years for Apple, but not the least thanks to Intel and their amazingly fast processors, that was inevitably changed.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 94):
NeXT is doing pretty well in it's current state

Ironically, one could turn the tables right back and say that the only reason NeXT is 'alive' in any way shape or form is thanks to Apple, because Steve Jobs just ran it to the ground.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 94):
The simple fact is that notebooks are the main market for a traditional computer and the iPad for the non-traditional computer. Jobs did a pretty good job of running Apple in these market segments. Far from "abysmal".

In the 80s it was abysmal and Apple would never have survived more Steve Jobs back then and in the 90s Jobs' losing streak continued full force with NeXT.

He would have stayed the perennial loser if Apple hadn't saved him from the abyss.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9882
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:42 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 89):
Apple does not claim that they invented everything. And EVERYONE claims that EVERYONE ELSE is copying them. Why you think Samsung is different is beyond me.

Given that Apple seemed to start this war and also given their statement after the latest trial. It is clear that they think they are the inventors of everything in their phone while they have copied from a lot of other manufacturers themselves.
 
Ken777
Topic Author
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:36 pm

Quoting Asturias (Reply 95):
The late 80s under Sculley was different and the Macintosh became a proper computer

Which is why Apple was a few months from bankruptcy when Jobs got back?

Apple didn't need to make a "proper computer" - they just needed processor development to come close to matching Intel.

Remember that Apple was one of the 3 companies that developed the Power PC processor. Moto did a third rate job keeping up and IBM ended up having no desire for Apple to have all the power of the PPC.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 95):
possible to use in companies with several hundred employees

It was possible for a company with a few hundred employees to use Macs, especially with the laser printer so convenient to hook up to. I worked at one of those companies.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 95):
achieve amazing work in graphics, engineering and CAD of all type.

Graphics & CAD were tied to the power of the processor in those days.

You also need to remember that as soon as IBM blessed Corporate America with their PC that is where corporate spending went. It was the old saying, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM".

Quoting Asturias (Reply 95):
You should be thanking John Sculley.

WHy? Sculley himself has said that firing Jobs was a really stupid move.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 95):
the only reason NeXT is 'alive' in any way shape or form is thanks to Apple, because Steve Jobs just ran it to the ground.

Jobs kept investing in it, just like he kept investing in Pixar. How much did he pay for Pixar? $10 Mil? Or was it $5 Mil?

Just another dumb move by a guy who didn't know what he was doing?
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:34 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
This is the Face, or the Abstract Page.......

Thanks for the explanation- very interesting!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14770
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Apple - Samsung Verdict Reached

Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:48 pm

I just saw on euronews that the judge could triple the award, what's up with that ? How come you can't have a real appeal (aka a retrial) ?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 86):
The way things are going, voice plans are toast. And in truth, with today's networks, it really is the way things should go. Voice is just another data pattern.

Here it's already happening. Free (a major internet provider) launched last March an unlimited plan. Everything unlimited, except fast 3G data. After 3GB of fast data your speed can drop depending on demand (but you can continue using it without other limit). This for 20€/month, and even less if you're already a customer. Also to note is that the modem they provide you with (the freebox) definitively infringes the patent of the member of the jury, at it is a DVR with blu-ray player (it also has other functions like game console, make your own TV channel, etc.).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, ArchGuy1, Baidu [Spider], CanadianNorth, Drafran, Majestic-12 [Bot], petertenthije, T18 and 30 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos