Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I still wanna know which of the jurors was ignorant, you've clearly got the inside track on this trial.

Edit: or a moron, you can point out the moron jurors instead if it's easier

Considering what they were given in terms of evidence and instructions, any single person outside of a tech lawyer would be considered ignorant.

I'm not sure why you think a team of 9 'normal' people would be smart enough to deal with the biggest tech court case ever.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Yikes somebody's awfully butthurt...

Considering what this will do for other lawsuits, why isn't it a problem?

You've seen the graph of all the companies suing each other. They can all now procedure because this jury has said you can successfully sue someone for 'design' patents.

[Azure]

According to Judge Lucy Koh, the jury awarded Apple nearly $220,000 in damages when it came to Samsung’s LTE-capable Galaxy Tab 10.1, but didn’t formally note any instances of patent infringement or inducement.

The other device in question was the Samsung Intercept — the jury reported that the smartphone didn’t infringe on the multi-finger navigation and tap-to-zoom utility patents but apparently thought an act infringement was induced. That position doesn’t actually make any sense, and Samsung was being asked to shell out over $2 million over this error.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/han...infringements/

Jury came back and both were knocked down to $0 if I read it correctly.

Question no 4. For each of the products has Apple proven that it should have known that it induced Samsung 963 patents -- 915 patent claim 8 for the intercept now NO. Initialed and dated. Damages no. 22 - total amount: $1,049,343,540

22. Dollar by product: Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE - now $0. As is for Intercept -- both initialed and dated.

Verdict in 21 hours? I thought it was more than that.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Considering what they were given in terms of evidence and instructions, any single person outside of a tech lawyer would be considered ignorant.

I'm not sure why you think a team of 9 'normal' people would be smart enough to deal with the biggest tech court case ever.

I'm not sure why you would need to be a technologist to deliberate on patent litigation and trade dressage. There's not ton of CompSci involved in this case - certainly nothing truly trade-secret like algorithms, signal processing, etc. If anything, they needed more jurors with the patent and trade specializations, but unfortunately, that's not how jury duty works - you can't fill a jury with people with a vested interest in how the case goes.

Personally, I don't think its the biggest tech court case ever - the Compaq/IBM lawsuits surrounding the clean room implementation of the PC BIOS was far more important than this stuff - there were truly chilling ramifications to that, if interoperability and compatibility could be denied in the courtroom.

[FanIn80]

After three days of deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung trial. The jury found largely for Apple, ruling that Samsung had willfully infringed on both Apple patents and trade dress for the iPhone -- though notably the jury found in favor of Samsung on questions regarding its tablets.

The following is our liveblog as the verdict was written:

The jury was asked to fill out a form covering 33 separate questions regarding patents, trade dress, and antitrust.

On the first claim, regarding the '381 "bounce back" patent, the jury finds Samsung guilty on all counts. Samsung infringed on Apple's patent on a wide variety of products.

On Apple's "pinch and zoom" '915 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on all but three products.

For the "double-tap to zoom" '163 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on a wide number of products, but not all.

The jury found that Samsung took actions that it knew or should have known were infringing across the '381, '915, and '163 patents on most, though not on all, counts.

For the '677 patent, covering Apple's trade dress registration of the look of the front of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on most devices, but again, not all.

For the D'087 patent, covering Apple's trade dress registration of the look of the back of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on some devices, but not all.

For the '305 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPhone's home screen, the jury found that Samsung infringed across most devices.

For the D'889 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPad's appearance, the jury found that Samsung's tablets do not infringe -- one of the first victories for Samsung.

On the question of whether Samsung Korea knew or should have known it was inducing US subsidiaries to infringe on the D'677, D'087, D'305 and/or D'889 patents, the jury found in favor of Apple across a wide number of phones and patents, though not on the '889 patent regarding the iPad. These two questions are significant for Apple to receive damages.

On the question of whether Samsung's infringement was willful, the jury again found for Apple on a number of patents and devices.

Finally, the jury ruled that all of Apple's patents are valid.

Regarding trade dress, Apple has proven that its unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress was protectable, and the jury found that a number of Samsung phone models violated Apple's trade dress, though not all of them.

Overall, the jury is finding for Apple on most counts.

Regarding damages, the jury finds that Apple should be awarded $1,051,855,000 in damages for willfully violating Apple's patents and trade dress.

Next up are Samsung's claims against Apple.

The jury has found for Apple regarding its alleged infringement of Samsung's utility patents on every claim, however Apple did not prove they were invalid. The jury did not award Samsung any damages.

Finally, Apple did not prove that Samsung violated antitrust obligations regarding its FRAND patents.

Apple did prove that Samsung is barred from enforcing its '516 and '941 patents.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/...samsung-trial/

[Azure]

Samsung says that 14 days to respond to anything that just came out of this case is too short.

Samsung says they need 30 days to oppose "at least." Apple's Jacobs "Your honor, that doesn't make any sense." Says any design-around to keep those products on the market has a separate workflow.

Apple: We have shown now willful infringement ... Sept 20 date sounds fine.

Related, but not from what's going on in court right now, Apple's statement on the decision:

"We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right."

@Matt Rainbolt: Apple can ask for a sales ban on any device that infringes one of its patents

from CNET live blog.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I'm not sure why you would need to be a technologist to deliberate on patent litigation and trade dressage. There's not ton of CompSci involved in this case - certainly nothing truly trade-secret like algorithms, signal processing, etc. If anything, they needed more jurors with the patent and trade specializations, but unfortunately, that's not how jury duty works - you can't fill a jury with people with a vested interest in how the case goes.

Personally, I don't think its the biggest tech court case ever - the Compaq/IBM lawsuits surrounding the clean room implementation of the PC BIOS was far more important than this stuff - there were truly chilling ramifications to that, if interoperability and compatibility could be denied in the courtroom.

Again, the point was that the jury was blasted with an overwhelming amount of 'stuff' to go over, and somehow they managed to made a billion dollar decision in 21 hours. In fact, if Apple gets the ban they want, it'll be a multi-billion dollar decision.

And 21 hours has all the makings of 'winging it.' Impossible that they were over all that stuff that was presented the past 2 weeks in detail.

Not surprising they made mistakes, which suggests that they didn't properly look at the actual case in detail. If you're a jury, why would you award damages if you say no infringement was made? And how can 9 different people not see that.

[Azure]

Samsung statement.

Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Considering what this will do for other lawsuits, why isn't it a problem?

You've seen the graph of all the companies suing each other. They can all now procedure because this jury has said you can successfully sue someone for 'design' patents.

Good. It will encourage innovation in design. A great example of this whole mess working in reverse is the Windows Mobile space - they didn't ape anyone's design with Metro, they went and did something completely unique. Same thing with HP and their phones/tablets - completely unique and interesting interface on WebOS. It didn't work out for them, but that's market forces at work. RIM functions substantially different as well, and nobody is suing them, nor are they being sued, for their interface and designs.

What is your take on #'s 381, 915, 163, though? These are the double-tab to zoom, pinch to zoom, and bouncy window/scroll edges. By and large, Apple was the very first company in the mobile space to use these interactions in their products, and they also managed to secure the patents on them. Leaving aside the possibility of prior art (because i don't want to muddle the question or the response, and I don't know if there's clear precedent on whether prior art existed), do you think its fair that companies like Samsung get those designs and mechanics for free once Apple invents them?

[Diemenz]

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Good. It will encourage innovation in design. A great example of this whole mess working in reverse is the Windows Mobile space - they didn't ape anyone's design with Metro, they went and did something completely unique. Same thing with HP and their phones/tablets - completely unique and interesting interface on WebOS. It didn't work out for them, but that's market forces at work. RIM functions substantially different as well, and nobody is suing them, nor are they being sued, for their interface and designs.

Not to mention Microsoft had the foresight to secure licenses to Apple's patents ahead of time so they don't run into this. Samsung was offered the same and cheaped out.

[Azure]

Apple invented double tap to zoom, pinch to zoom, and bouncy window/scroll edges? Pretty sure there were earlier versions of some of those 'ideas' before Apple came around. Sure, Apple made them more mainstream because they built a great product that the consumer wanted, and it had these features, but lets not think for a second that Apple didn't 'steal' some of those ideas from other companies and just go mainstream with them.

Didn't a court in Seoul rule that Apple hand infringed on Samsung patents? I mean it goes back and forth so much that the whole system is screwed.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

So who's ignorant here


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...-we-found-out/

1. An electrical engineer

2. A homemaker

3. A construction worker

4. A young unemployed man who likes video games

5. An insurance agent

6. An ex-Navy avionics technician

7. A store operations manager for a cycling retailer

8. A project manager for wireless carrier AT&T

9. A benefits and payroll manager who works with startups

[Azure]

Reader comment from the CNET live blog feed.

Apple only has 17% of their business from the U.S.. Apple has lost in every case outside the U.S. so this looks like trouble. Samsung is not the big case against Apple to think about, Google vs Apple and Sony vs Apple will be the big ticket cases.

Article here about the Seoul case.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...994/story.html

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Apple invented double tap to zoom, pinch to zoom, and bouncy window/scroll edges? Pretty sure there were earlier versions of some of those 'ideas' before Apple came around. Sure, Apple made them more mainstream because they built a great product that the consumer wanted, and it had these features, but lets not think for a second that Apple didn't 'steal' some of those ideas from other companies and just go mainstream with them.

Didn't a court in Seoul rule that Apple hand infringed on Samsung patents? I mean it goes back and forth so much that the whole system is screwed.

See I specifically asked to set aside the possibility of prior art, which had it existed in sufficient quantity, would have invalidated those portions of the lawsuit (and which, had it been in sufficient quantity, would have been endlessly presented by Samsung, suggesting that there must not be lots of prior art).

Since you're ducking the question, I'll make it easier for you and extricate it from the context of this case.

Twitter had the first, "pull to refresh" model of interaction in a mobile app, and they have the patent for it. Should they be allowed to sue other companies for this design innovation if they implement the same?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

See I specifically asked to set aside the possibility of prior art, which had it existed in sufficient quantity, would have invalidated those portions of the lawsuit (and which, had it been in sufficient quantity, would have been endlessly presented by Samsung, suggesting that there must not be lots of prior art).

The prior art is the whole reason this case is stupid.

"Given that it's very limited to make big design changes in touch-screen based mobile products in general ... and the defendant (Samsung) differentiated its products with three buttons in the front and adopted different designs in camera and (on the) side, the two products have a different look," the judge said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...#ixzz24WER3mAc

I agree with the judge. Smartphones are more or less the same these days. Should Apple be paid for those 3 patents because the patent office was stupid enough to grant it to them? Maybe, but it wouldn't have been much. These patents aren't what will cost Samsung.

Twitter had the first, "pull to refresh" model of interaction in a mobile app, and they have the patent for it. Should they be allowed to sue other companies for this design innovation if they implement the same?

Not even close to being the same. Touchscreen phones are limited to what they can do due to hardware and design limitations. Sure, we can all say innovate, but from 2007 to 2012, the function has been relatively the same. Hell, even the new iPhone5 will be the same from all accounts. Just bigger, sleeker and faster.

Twitter having a 'pull to refresh' model of interaction is a software thing, and easier to work around. Facebook has the same thing on their Android app though, so I wonder why Twitter isn't suing.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not even close to being the same. Touchscreen phones are limited to what they can do due to hardware and design limitations. Sure, we can all say innovate, but from 2007 to 2012, the function has been relatively the same. Hell, even the new iPhone5 will be the same from all accounts. Just bigger, sleeker and faster.

Twitter having a 'pull to refresh' model of interaction is a software thing, and easier to work around. Facebook has the same thing on their Android app though, so I wonder why Twitter isn't suing.

You still haven't answered my original question, which is whether or not a software interaction innovation, like pull to refresh, should be allowed to be patented. Are companies allowed to protect elements of software design like that or not?

[Esoteric]

The patent system is the US is incredibly flawed - instead of promoting advancements, it allows companies to hide behind patents and prevent other companies from entering the market.

I hope the Motorola/Apple lawsuits show how Apple infringes on other products as well. I'd like to see the patent system revamped even more.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

You still haven't answered my original question, which is whether or not a software interaction innovation, like pull to refresh, should be allowed to be patented. Are companies allowed to protect elements of software design like that or not?

If they are granted a patent, yes they should be able to protect themselves. They shouldn't be able to get a patent for something that minor though.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

If they are granted a patent, yes they should be able to protect themselves. They shouldn't be able to get a patent for something that minor though.

So if a human-computer model of interaction that had never existed previously (pull to refresh), but which turned out to be incredibly cool, simple, and intuitive to use, shouldn't have a patent granted, where do you stand on the computer mouse?