Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[FanIn80]

^^ Exactly.

Which is why Samsung's whole "it's a shame companies are allowed to patent rectangles with round corners" thing is such a farce. Kinda like the jury's comments about how Samsung execs that testified via TV from Korea refused to answer questions directly. Especially the "I don't know" responses when shown copies of their own emails they sent out to other execs.

I get there's a lot of emotions on both sides, but the evidence that came out in the trial paints a pretty black and white picture of willful copying. When you throw in the way they treated the process and how they're manipulating the media afterwards... I'm not entirely sure why people are rushing to defend them. Other than the "my phone lost" thing, of course.

I think it's important to realize that Samsung is not the little kid in the corner being picked on by everyone. They're really the little kid who steals everyone's lunch money and then cries to the teacher about getting "bullied" at recess.

Edit:

It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...ple-reactions/

D '087 patent concerns the general outline or "ornamental" design of a phone. (Out of all the phones that were contested, only three were found to infringe.)

Galaxy S
Galaxy S 4G
Vibrant

D '889, which relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer, the jury found that neither Wi-Fi nor the 4G LTE versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...ice-scorecard/

In other words, the "rectangles with rounded corners" slant to this story is bunk.

[Senator Clay Davis]

And Apple of course is the poor innocent little child always getting his money stolen....

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I get there's a lot of emotions on both sides, but the evidence that came out in the trial paints a pretty black and white picture of willful copying.

Is it though? Or is it just a case of Samsung liking the way something is done in another successful product and incorporating a feature "like" that in their device? I used to design software and when I was creating a new product, of course there were competitors out there with the same "type" of product and if I saw something I liked, I tried to incorporate similar features "and improve upon if possible" in my own software.

This sort of design technique is not uncommon in any type of business.

[Hemi-Cuda]

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And Apple of course is the poor innocent little child always getting his money stolen....

I didn't say that at all. My post was about Samsung. I'm not sure how Apple fits in the analogy I used, but they're certainly not angels themselves.

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Is it though?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document...c_id=126253497

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

the middle picture has the Galaxy S app drawer open, not the homescreen. it's crap like that that makes me mad, Apple is deliberately misleading the courts

I'm sure the courts are smart enough to realize that.

I own a galaxy sII and I'll say that there is no way you can argue there are not major similarities between some of the samsung products and the iPhone.

In the grand scheme of things does it really matter? Both are going to continue to sell phones.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And Apple of course is the poor innocent little child always getting his money stolen....

Is Samsung?

You seem to have some bizarre personal attachment to this issue.

[Azure]

- pinch to zoom and related patents wer not asserted as a claim by Apple

Then why were they part of the case? From a juror interview.

"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."


.....

Patent ‘915 (the “pinch to zoom” and other zoom and scroll function actions): The jury ruled largely in Apple’s favor, saying the only Samsung devices exemptions are the Intercept, Replenish, and the Ace. Concerning this patent, all Samsung devices except the Replenish were found for inducement. Samsung was also found guilty of willful infringement on this patent.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...#ixzz24xtfD85y

Official definition of patent 915.

Utility patent '915: "Pinch-to-zoom," distinguishing between single-touch and multitouch gestures

If you read the jury verdict form, they voted yes to numerous violations for patent 915. Form is found here.

So not sure what that guy is talking about. Seems to me the verdict is pretty damn clear.

The first verdicts out of Apple vs. Samsung are in, covering claims 19, 8, and 50 of the so-called '381, '915, and '163 software patents, respectively — those are the patents that cover "bounce back" scrolling functionality, pinch-to-zoom, and tap-to-zoom. Did Samsung infringe, according to the jury?

For claim 19 of '381, the answer is yes for all devices.

For claim 8 of '915, the answer is yes for all but the Ace, Intercept, and Replenish.

For claim 50 of '163, the answer is yes for all but the Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G, Transform, Intercept, and Vibrant.

Unless the official jury verdict form is wrong and the patent office lied and wrote down the wrong definition for patent 915, and Apple lied when they claimed Samsung infringed on it.

- many of the rounded corners/icons claims were rejected:

Apple still has patent 889 though.

Patent ‘889 (iPad design – specifically, “clean front, edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel, thin outer border, and rounded corners”):

Although you do seem to be correct that no devices were found to infringe on it.

many of the rounded corners/icons claims were rejected:

This is in fact not true at all.

Patent ‘305 (iOS app icon design): All Samsung devices were found to infringe on this patent – this has been a much-talked-about point, and the jury came down hard on it, saying, basically, that Samsung should have known better. Samsung was also found guilty of willful infringement on this patent.

And again, if you actually look at the jury verdict form, its pretty much 'yes' across the board in regards to the 'did Samsung infringe on patent 305' question.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...#ixzz24xx4ryg2

I think someone didn't do their homework at all. And they accuse the 'tech' community of being wrong.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Spoiler!

Check your facts, Motorola didn't invent the flip phone and did not have a patent on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_(form)

[Azure]

As for some of the prior art that the jury didn't consider, didn't think was valid, or just skipped over.

Samsung made its most compelling argument yet on why Apple's '381 bounce-back patent shouldn't be consider valid, with an expert witness providing a lengthy look at the Tablecloth application we saw this week. Dr. Andries van Dam, a faculty member at Brown University since 1965, walked the jury through the elements specified in the '381 patent, each of which appeared to be met by the application — and in his opinion, rendering the patent invalid due to prior art.

Tablecloth runs on the DiamondTouch Table computer, and as demonstrated yesterday allows a user to scroll through an image — in the example shown, a pair of desktop images — and then displays a blank white space when the user reaches the end; removing a finger causes the image to snap-back, much like Apple's feature. Tablecloth dates back to 2005, while Apple's bounce-back patent was originally filed in December of 2007.

Dr. van Dam also demonstrated the user interface LaunchTile. As demonstrated yesterday, LaunchTile didn't appear to be similar to the '381 patent because when a user reaches the end of the on-screen content there is no off-screen information revealed. However, van Dam said that the software does meet the requirements when swiping within the main content field itself, the next next tile serving as the "off-screen content" in this case.

In fact, van Dam said that the US Patent Office had never seen the two pieces of software before granting Apple its patent. "I examined the prosecution history," he said, "and there is no mention of these two pieces of prior art."

Apple offered a relatively mild response, first pointing out that Tablecloth returns the user to the original starting point upon a bounce-back, rather than the edge of the content; van Dam replied that the patent doesn't actually describe what the point of return should be. The company then focused on whether the DiamondTouch Table was legitimately a "touchscreen device" as specified in the patent. The DiamondTouch consists of a projector that shoots visuals down upon a capacitive screen, rather than having the display and touch-sensitive surface combined as in the iPhone and iPad. Apple's attorney tried to thread the needle as to what the definition was of a touchscreen truly was, but van Dam didn't budge. "The patent does not tell you how you implement a touchscreen display," he said, explaining that it only describes the behavior of the user interface. The DiamondTouch certainly qualified underneath the patent language, he said. "In every way that is a touchscreen display."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/32...patent-invalid

I'm glad it didn't matter to the jury though.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is Samsung?

You seem to have some bizarre personal attachment to this issue.

I didn't say they were, but FanIn80 (though he'll deny it), was insinuating that Apple was not nearly as guilty of bullyish behaviour as Samsung is. I disagree, but obviously deciding who's actions are more bullyish is a matter of opinion.

And as I said before I could effing care less who wins. When I go get my new phone my priorities will be 1) Price 2) Price 3) Price 4) Price 5) Price. If an iPhone is the way to go, I'll get that. If its Android it'll be that. If its a Windows Phone, it'll be that. If it's some montrosity from the mid-80's, I'll probably still get that.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I didn't say they were, but FanIn80 (though he'll deny it), was insinuating that Apple...

Say whatever you want, but the topic of my post was Samsung. I drew no comparisons to any other company, including Apple. You made that comparison on your own.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

In other words, the "rectangles with rounded corners" slant to this story is bunk.

Well, no. They were absolutely granted a patent along those lines, but it was not entirely enforced by this court decision. Whether that means that patent is now invalid would be up to debate.

I'm actually not hardcore in the Samsung camp in this seemingly black/white debate. I do think they willfully copied some things, but I don't agree that all of them should be patent-able. Slide to unlock should not be something anyone could get a patent on. Its a common human behavior, although in virtual form. Their iPad design patent that is basically a claim to any logically designed tablet is just silly, and I'm very happy to see that it was not found to be infringed on. Samsung copying things that make no sense to do any other way is a lot closer to the patenting round wheels on cars argument.

That said, aside from the "grid of icons" patent, Samsung had no need to rip off iOS. Stock Android looks very little like iOS, and was available for their use, FOR FREE! So not only were there other ways to make a mobile GUI, but it was actually more work for them to copy Apple's design. I have no problem with them getting smacked down for this.

I just don't like vague patents on common sense designs and normal human behavior. And yes, I blame the patent system for allowing this. Also, I just as I can admit that Samsung deserved some of what it got, even the most hardcore Apple fans should be able to admit that this jury appears to have made some pretty serious errors in following their instructions. Saying that doesn't mean that I love Samsung; it means I'm willing to look at facts.

[Diemenz]

So lets get this straight..........

An American company beat a Korean company in an American court of law with an american jury. Color me Surprised.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Say whatever you want, but the topic of my post was Samsung. I drew no comparisons to any other company, including Apple. You made that comparison on your own.

Correct, but I do have a basis for making such a comparison (namely, you're very much pro Apple). But when you say Samsung aren't the little victim everyone says they are, and that they themselves are big time bullies, well I mean it doesn't take a strecth to put that fact, plus your slant to Apple together, to deduct you don't think Apple is a bullyish as Samsung.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Correct, but I do have a basis for making such a comparison (namely, you're very much pro Apple). But when you say Samsung aren't the little victim everyone says they are, and that they themselves are big time bullies, well I mean it doesn't take a strecth to put that fact, plus your slant to Apple together, to deduct you don't think Apple is a bullyish as Samsung.

1. I'm nowhere near as "pro Apple" as I used to be.
2. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure "I think what he really meant..." as not an admissible testimony.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

1. I'm nowhere near as "pro Apple" as I used to be.
2. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure "I think what he really meant..." as not an admissible testimony.

1. Old habits die hard. I bet you're still much more likely to defend positions from the Apple side than from anyone else.

2. It might work on Judge Judy.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Well, no. They were absolutely granted a patent along those lines, but it was not entirely enforced by this court decision. Whether that means that patent is now invalid would be up to debate.

I'm actually not hardcore in the Samsung camp in this seemingly black/white debate. I do think they willfully copied some things, but I don't agree that all of them should be patent-able. Slide to unlock should not be something anyone could get a patent on. Its a common human behavior, although in virtual form. Their iPad design patent that is basically a claim to any logically designed tablet is just silly, and I'm very happy to see that it was not found to be infringed on. Samsung copying things that make no sense to do any other way is a lot closer to the patenting round wheels on cars argument.

That said, aside from the "grid of icons" patent, Samsung had no need to rip off iOS. Stock Android looks very little like iOS, and was available for their use, FOR FREE! So not only were there other ways to make a mobile GUI, but it was actually more work for them to copy Apple's design. I have no problem with them getting smacked down for this.

I just don't like vague patents on common sense designs and normal human behavior. And yes, I blame the patent system for allowing this. Also, I just as I can admit that Samsung deserved some of what it got, even the most hardcore Apple fans should be able to admit that this jury appears to have made some pretty serious errors in following their instructions. Saying that doesn't mean that I love Samsung; it means I'm willing to look at facts.

I'm only referring to the fact that Apple's claims regarding rounded rectangles were denied (it was really the only claim they didn't win), yet Samsung's first official post-decision statement plays it up as if that was the only thing this entire case was about.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Correct, but I do have a basis for making such a comparison (namely, you're very much pro Apple). But when you say Samsung aren't the little victim everyone says they are, and that they themselves are big time bullies, well I mean it doesn't take a strecth to put that fact, plus your slant to Apple together, to deduct you don't think Apple is a bullyish as Samsung.

So because you say so? That's the argument on what someone meant? C'mon man.

Samsung and Apple are pretty much interchangeable, as would be the case with countless companies in the same position.

[Azure]

Apple still has a patent for the rounded corners or whatever the hell you want to call it, regardless of what the jury decided. And Apple still sued Samsung because of it.

That demonstrates that something is wrong with the patent system.....something we all agree with. I'm not sure how bringing up that point is a good defense for Apple. If anything it makes them look stupid considering they have the patent and despite their claims that Samsung was infringing on the 'look' of the iPhone, Samsung was still not found guilty of it by the jury.

And as I pointed out earlier, the 'pinch to zoom' patent 915 was very much involved in the trial, despite what the writer at the link Scott posted tried to say. So he obviously didn't bother to do much research either. The jury verdict form is available for the public to look at.