Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

That is exactly why the patent system is broken at the moment, it allows for companies to recombine previous ideas, tack on a new stipulation and then sue for the the previous idea.

At a simplistic level, this is exactly how it's supposed to work. If Company A patents a mouse trap, Company B is allowed to extend that design and patent their newly improved mousetrap, as long as they have secured licensing for the design covered in the base patent.

People are forgetting that one of the key intended purposes of patents is to expose innovation to the public to encourage other companies to springboard off of it and come up with their own innovation.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

At a simplistic level, this is exactly how it's supposed to work. If Company A patents a mouse trap, Company B is allowed to extend that design and patent their newly improved mousetrap, as long as they have secured licensing for the design covered in the base patent.

People are forgetting that one of the key intended purposes of patents is to expose innovation to the public to encourage other companies to springboard off of it and come up with their own innovation.

Right, but within reason. The reality is that putting icons in a grid isn't innovating anything. What alternative is there? A jumbled fataing mess?

I have no issue with Apple protecting patents and going after companies that infringe. Its pretty obvious that Samsung was making the screens for them and probably used information from that to screw Apple (from a completely outsiders point of view, anyway). Apple getting anything as a result of a grid pattern of icons though is just ridiculous. Its akin to patenting a round wheel.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Not on a mobile phone

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, but within reason. The reality is that putting icons in a grid isn't innovating anything. What alternative is there? A jumbled fataing mess?

I have no issue with Apple protecting patents and going after companies that infringe. Its pretty obvious that Samsung was making the screens for them and probably used information from that to screw Apple (from a completely outsiders point of view, anyway). Apple getting anything as a result of a grid pattern of icons though is just ridiculous. Its akin to patenting a round wheel.

There are other alternatives, a list of items (menu style), tiles of multiple sizes like the new Windows phones and other ways that would have required Samsung to spend some time doing research, designing and perfecting. Samsung didn't want to do that so it went ahead and copied the design.

Yes grid style icons have been around but to copy the layout almost exactly is taking the short cut.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

There are other alternatives, a list of items (menu style), tiles of multiple sizes like the new Windows phones and other ways that would have required Samsung to spend some time doing research, designing and perfecting. Samsung didn't want to do that so it went ahead and copied the design.

Yes grid style icons have been around but to copy the layout almost exactly is taking the short cut.

thats just silly. There is no innovation that was shown by Apple in using a grid layout, therefore there's nothing to patent.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

So the contention is that Samsung knew this was protected design, but went ahead and breached it in any case? Then they knew that this was going to be litigated in the end if they didn't pay the license fees.

There is an open period when anyone can contest the patent before it is granted, how come Samsung didn't raise hell then?

Obviously Samsung felt that the patents weren't valid, and if push comes to shove that is the case they would present to the court.

But as we all know, the jury didn't even look at prior art, which basically screwed Samsung over.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

thats just silly. There is no innovation that was shown by Apple in using a grid layout, therefore there's nothing to patent.

Except the patent office was stupid enough to grant Apple patents for dumb things like that.

Google/Motorola is at the moment going after Apple to try and invalidate those patents. Remains to be seem who wins but it could be a big blow to Apple.

[Azure]

Foreman talking about prior are and why it wasn't valid.

He claims that the software on the Apple side couldn't be used with the processor on the prior art side, and vice versa. Isn't that incorrect? How would he even know that?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...reman-explains

[Azure]

Samsung working with US carriers to update phones that Apple wants banned.

Would this work? The jury wasn't allowed to update the phones in question, so obviously none of them ran ICS. If Samsung did an over the air update to all the phones Apple wants banned, and got them all running stock ICS, which apparently doesn't infringe on Apple patents on the software side....how would the judge have to rule?

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/32...ple-injunction

Samsung has stated it has software workarounds for two patents the jury found were violated by a number of its devices. But thanks to Google, thee outlook may be even better than that. According to the court document Apple used to detail infringing products, Samsung has found methods to get around all three utility patents: multitouch scroll, bounceback, and tap-to-zoom. AT&T's Galaxy S II Skyrocket, for example, was found to violate none of those behaviors — owing to the fact that the Skyrocket shipped with Android 2.3.5, which removed bounceback from scroll lists and also addressed the other patents. Contrast that with earlier devices like AT&T's original Galaxy S II or the Droid Charge (which coincidentally is being advertised on Verizon's website today), and you can clearly see when Google and Samsung began making a conscious effort to skirt around Apple's patent portfolio.

I guess that is one way to get Samsung to update older phones to ICS. Win/win for Google.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Slava

thats just silly. There is no innovation that was shown by Apple in using a grid layout, therefore there's nothing to patent.

The courts that decide these things beg to disagree

[Tinordi]

As yes hide behind the courts argument. What if you used your brain. Do you think showing icons in a grid is a worthy patent?

[opendoor]

I don't know if people are being willfully ignorant because they're upset at the verdict, but Apple doesn't own the patent on a grid of icons and would not win a court case against a company that simply arranged icons in a grid. The problem with Samsung was they basically copied Apple's design to a tee and their early phones looked like poorly reverse engineered 3Gs.

Samsung's issue with their icon layout was that just like Apple they had multiple pages of 16 square icons with rounded corners set on a 4 X 4 grid with another row of 4 static icons set along the bottom on a tray with a gray gradient. The proportions and layout were virtually identical and even the icons themselves simply looked like poor redesigns of Apple's logos.

There's a reason that newer Android builds can have grid layouts but not infringe on Apple's patent and that's because there's a fair bit of leeway in there as long as they look fairly different. To suggest that Apple owns a patent on a "grid of icons" is a gross simplification.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by valo403

The courts that decide these things beg to disagree

I don't think that I need to tell you that sometimes the courts make the wrong call!

[ernie]

Just so everyone knows the US patent system is changing and changing pretty dramatically on March 16, 2013. It will essentially move from first to invent to a first to file type system (not good for the small company or home inventor as this will favor those companies with an army of patent attorneys).

There is another change in that you can not have received money for the idea or publicized the idea prior to filing the patent. This makes it difficult for some as they would currently use the idea to raise the capital necessary to file the patent and pursue the business (some call it the killing of the american dream act..i wouldn't go that far but it will make things harder to navigate for many). There is a micro-entity fee for essentially first time filers which will alleviate some of this but you don't have access to that if you have had more than 4 filings.

The intention is to also get rid of the pile of patents that do not demonstrate clear innovation. It will do this by allowing the US patent board greater control over their budget in order to properly evaluate and referee patents (currently the two houses set a budget and are then famous for raping that budget when they need to fund something else. This way the patent office will collect it's own fees and not allow access to the budget from the blowhards in washington). Essentially this will allow them to actually use experts in the field to determine if something is truly innovative and deserving of a patent. As part of my work the last handful of years I have authored 5 issued patents (and 4 that haven't issued yet) and to be honest some of the claims are just complete BS that never should have made it through the process. How did they get through? Well you play the game. You put in a bunch of ever more ridiculous claims so the referee feels like they are doing a good job. The questions you get back from the referee as you go through the process makes it obvious that they often do not have a strong background in the field.

It may also lead to companies using "trade secret" more as there is additional prior use language in the new law protecting companies from infringement.

The change in the law also makes it difficult to challenge a patent. You essentially have 9 months after a patent has issued to challenge that patent.

It will be interesting to say the least how this bill changes the US Patent landscape (not every detail has been settled despite it being signed into law), but one thing seems to be a given....if you have an idea be it on your own or in a group at work you keep it as secret as possible until it is filed.

[sclitheroe]

Someone at Samsung has 불알 , or a well developed sense of humor, or both



http://gizmodo.com/5938468/samsung-i...ple-vs-samsung

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Someone at Samsung has 불알 , or a well developed sense of humor, or both



http://gizmodo.com/5938468/samsung-i...ple-vs-samsung

Ha! It's like they're just sitting there laughing at all the people who keep defending them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Or Samsung is showing that unlike Apple, they aren't just a bunch of smug, arrogant pricks, rather, they actually have a pretty good sense of humour.

[Azure]

If you think about it, $1B to become 2nd biggest smartphone company in the world is nothing.

The S3 won't be challenged, nor will any other future Samsung products. Most of the phones in question aren't that popular, outside of certain variations of the S2, so its really not that bad of a hit. Samsung has shown that they can compete or blow away Apple with the S3 without infringing on any patents, so that is a plus too.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you think about it, $1B to become 2nd biggest smartphone company in the world is nothing.

Closure

[Mccree]

Apple to sue Microsoft now?

http://www.ijailbreak.com/news/micro...-copied-apple/