Apple and Samsung Seek to Extend Infringement Claims in Second U.S. Patent Lawsuit

spyguy10709 said:

Wrong in my line of thought?
No one has heard of the OpenMoko because it wasn't a good product - the reviews were HORRIBLE.

Click to expand...

Again, you've moved goalposts from Innovation, to shipping now to commercial/media success.

You can't seem to stick to a subject uh ?

spyguy10709 said:

Apple was first in getting it RIGHT. And the fact that Samsung and others have been BLATANTLY copying is what pisses me off. They can emulate - I have no problem, look at what Sony is doing. They shouldn't be allowed to copy without paying a fee - HTC just paid up, Samsung should too. A ban would suck, because the Samsung phones are innovative too I guess - but if Samsung doesn't want to play fair... then --- 'f them.

Click to expand...

I don't find Samsung having copied anything, since obviously, we're discussing patents and designs elements. So you won't get far with your righteous indignation with me on this, I just find it laughable that some people feel frustrated about this. Are you an Apple employee ? No ? Wasted energy for you.

spyguy10709 said:

prior art = concepts. Not actual products.

Click to expand...

Prior art can definately be actual products or concepts.

KnightWRX said:

Again, you've moved goalposts from Innovation, to shipping now to commercial/media success.
You can't seem to stick to a subject uh ?
I don't find Samsung having copied anything, since obviously, we're discussing patents and designs elements. So you won't get far with your righteous indignation with me on this, I just find it laughable that some people feel frustrated about this. Are you an Apple employee ? No ? Wasted energy for you.
Prior art can definately be actual products or concepts.

Click to expand...

*Ring* *ring* Reality's calling.
Samsung copied NOTHING? You must be delusional. (Evidenced by your posts in other forums, ie - Open Source has nothing to do with $$ - look at ANDROID, LINUX, FireFox, UBUNTU!)
Use effing touch wiz for a few minutes next to an iPhone. They're so much alike it isn't funny.

Wasted energy for me 'eh? I'm in design school, as of today. I don't want people to be able to copy my designs and ideas - and this is a turning point in the future of IP and design.

The linux phone isn't infringing because it wasn't actually multitouch. The linux phone did the same thing the iBook (2005) did, which was "zoom levels" and not smooth scrolling. The samsung and HTC lawsuits are about the fluidity that made the iPhone famous. HTC settled, but Samsung maintains that they did nothing wrong.

I drew a comic that included a thing like Google Glasses when I was 9. Should I sue google? No, because it wasn't actuality.

spyguy10709 said:

*Ring* *ring* Reality's calling.
Samsung copied NOTHING? You must be delusional.

Click to expand...

Nope, Samsung has copied nothing. Nor were they found to.

A California court issued a guilty verdict for patent infringement, but the thing about patents is that you don't need to copy to infringe. Since no copyright claims have been made nor ruled upon, "copying" remains firmly in the realm of opinion.

Thank you for playing. Ignored.

spyguy10709 said:

Innovators ship

Click to expand...

Total nonsense. You don't have to ship to be innovative.

For example, other companies actually shipped phones for a decade or more, while Apple sat around innovating within itself and selling nothing. Does their internal R&D therefore count for nothing?

Heck, Apple still is obtaining patents on phone features that the iPhone will likely never use. Are those patents non-innovative because they aren't being shipped?

spyguy10709 said:

Wasted energy for me 'eh? I'm in design school, as of today. I don't want people to be able to copy my designs and ideas -

Click to expand...

I've been a UI guy for over 30 years. There would've been little commercial progress without developers... especially the ones at Apple... copying from someone else and improving.

and this is a turning point in the future of IP and design.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's exciting. Yet, you'll find out that every few years is another "turning point". Touch will soon be replaced and augmented by other input methods, for instance.

It's nearly impossible not to use some or even most UI ideas that came before you. Imagine if you could not use pulldown menus or checkboxes or multiple selection lists or any of the common ideas that users understand and expect. It would be like every car brand having a different pedal arrangement.

Moreover, it's very easy for multiple developers to independently come up with solutions so similar that they would infringe if one of them got a patent. Slide to unlock, animations, context-sensitive keyboards... all are common solutions to common problems.

AppleFan1984 said:

Multitouch gestures, including specifically pinch-to-zoom, have been around for a very long time:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

It would seem Apple knows this, since much of their strategy in the US courts focused on getting prior art disallowed.

That case was also aided by a jury who skipped prior art because "it was bogging us down", a direct violation of their jury instructions and likely grounds for appeal if not mistrial:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963

Click to expand...

You misquoted the original article and took the person's words out of context to try to prove your point. They never "skipped" prior art, they meticulously tested each patentent against the prior art examples that Samsung had presented.

Also, everyone keeps claiming that the Jury incorrectly validated Apple's patents because they couldn't be run on the same processor, but that is not entirely true.

Jury Instructions: "For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called “prior art references.” If a patent claim is not new we say it is “anticipated” by a prior art reference.

The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention."

If you even researched or looked at the various "prior art" cases that Samsung had presented, you would know that they were a farcry from being "prior art" and most CERTAINLY did not have satisfy all requirements, they were not even remotely similar...

See here for videos regarding the "prior art":
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12..._patents_challenged_by_samsung_witnesses.html

jctevere said:

They never "skipped" prior art, they meticulously tested each patent against the prior art examples that Samsung had presented.

Click to expand...

The prior art examples that the magistrate and judge had allowed, that is.

Also, everyone keeps claiming that the Jury incorrectly validated Apple's patents because they couldn't be run on the same processor, but that is not entirely true.

Click to expand...

Not entirely, yet it's partially true. The foreman said this in an interview:

"Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable."

- Foreman

Click to expand...

Now, interchangeable was supposed to mean what you said in your post: equivalent in functionality and claims.

However, the jury foreman went WAY beyond that definition, and mistakenly added his own test of having to run on the prior art devices:

"And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."

- Foreman

Click to expand...

So the jury based validity by using the above misguidance, starting with the bounceback patent.

Ironically, that bounceback patent is one that the USPTO later decided would most likely have the majority of its claims stripped for being obvious extensions of prior art... the opposite of what the jury had decided using incorrect parameters supplied by the foreman.

kdarling said:

The prior art examples that the magistrate and judge had allowed, that is.



Not entirely, yet it's partially true. The foreman said this in an interview:


Now, interchangeable was supposed to mean what you said in your post: equivalent in functionality and claims.

However, the jury foreman went WAY beyond that definition, and mistakenly added his own test of having to run on the prior art devices:



So the jury based validity by using the above misguidance, starting with the bounceback patent.

Ironically, that bounceback patent is one that the USPTO later decided would most likely have the majority of its claims stripped for being obvious extensions of prior art... the opposite of what the jury had decided using incorrect parameters supplied by the foreman.

Click to expand...

I find it comical that you bolded the part that says, "the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error" and drawing attention away from the other fundamental differences where the software used an entirely different methodology and did not even operate remotely the same...

jctevere said:

I find it comical that you bolded the part that says, "the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error" and drawing attention away from the other fundamental differences where the software used an entirely different methodology and did not even operate remotely the same...

Click to expand...

Perhaps he has bolded that because the foreman used that reasoning to dismiss the prior art

Oletros said:

Perhaps he has bolded that because the foreman used that reasoning to dismiss the prior art

Click to expand...

It was only a small part of his reasoning, he also said how it was completely different software and not to be considered prior art. Which that alone, is enough to validate the patent and dismiss the claim of prior art. His comments after were really just irrelevant.

jctevere said:

It was only a small part of his reasoning,

Click to expand...

Well, if "more importantly" is a small part for you then the case is over.

Oletros said:

Well, if "more importantly" is a small part for you then the case is over.

Click to expand...

He said more importantly it had to be interchangeable. Not more importantly he couldn't load the software onto their processor and run. He was giving three examples of why the ideas weren't interchangeable:

"Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable. And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."

That alone is enough to dismiss prior art claims... He added in the other differences to stress that they were extremely different.

jctevere said:

He said more importantly it had to be interchangeable. Not more importantly he couldn't load the software onto their processor and run. He was giving three examples of why the ideas weren't interchangeable:

"Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable. And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."

That alone is enough to dismiss prior art claims... He added in the other differences to stress that they were extremely different.

Click to expand...

My God,he clearly didn't understood what interchangeable is. Only someone that doesn't understand what prior art is and how software works can say that it is different because the old software can run in the new hardware without errors.

That alone shows that he had very poor understanding.

Oletros said:

My God,he clearly didn't understood what interchangeable is. Only someone that doesn't understand what prior art is and how software works can say that it is different because the old software can run in the new hardware without errors.

That alone shows that he had very poor understanding.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that his understanding was 100% accurate. He took it a bit literally, but either way you slice it - it still doesn't change the fact that the prior art presented wasn't remotely similar to what Apple used, if you even looked at videos of those applications. Meaning they did not satisfy all the requirements, meaning that prior art claims are invalidated.

jctevere said:

He said more importantly it had to be interchangeable. Not more importantly he couldn't load the software onto their processor and run. He was giving three examples of why the ideas weren't interchangeable:

Click to expand...

The trouble is, all three examples were incorrect.

It helps to read the FULL jury instructions, not a small subset. As instructed, invalidation of a patent did not depend solely on the small section that was quoted in this thread. There were multiple pages of ways that invalidation could take place, and a previous patent fulfilling all claims was just one of them. Being shown at all was another way. There was also an entire section about obviousness.

As for his comments about software interchangeability, it was the first and only thing he brought up in a previous interview, where he said this (see 3:10 here) about his "aha" moment that made him decide the patent was valid:

"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."

- Jury foreman

The enormity of that mistaken idea alone, makes any other statement he made about the patent just as suspect.

Finally, I emphasize again that shortly after this layman jury found the bounceback patent to be valid, and Samsung liable for millions of dollars due to infringing, the USPTO itself found that the patent was likely invalid due to obviousness and anticipation by prior patents.

I don't think the foreman mistakes were the worst part of the trial, though. What was more shameful was how much prior art was banned from the trial due to legal technicalities. It taints the validity of the trial outcome. It's one thing if the jury knows everything and comes to a decision. It's quite another if critical evidence is withheld.