Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 25, 2014, 08:56 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Japanese Court Rules Apple Does Not Infringe on Samsung Patents




A Japanese court ruled today that Apple's iPhone 4s, iPhone 4 and iPad 2 do not infringe on Samsung's data communication patents, reports Bloomberg. Tokyo District Court Judge Koji Hasegawa handed down the decision in the infringement case, which was originally filed by Samsung in April 2011.

Samsung said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg that it was disappointed by the decision and may consider an appeal, while Apple has not yet commented on the ruling.
Quote:
"We are disappointed by the court's decision," Samsung said in an e-mailed statement earlier today. "Upon a thorough review of the ruling, we will determine which measures to take, including an appeal."
This is one of several patent infringement lawsuits filed by the two technology giants in recent years. Apple scored the biggest win when it was awarded $890 million in a high-profile case that was presided over by Judge Lucy Koh in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California.

A second U.S. patent infringement lawsuit is set to begin on March 31, with Apple seeking up to $40 per unit in damages if Samsung is found guilty of infringing all five of Apple's software patents.

Article Link: Japanese Court Rules Apple Does Not Infringe on Samsung Patents
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 08:59 AM   #2
keterboy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Earth's Core
"Ceeeelebrate good times come on" *pops champagne*, in your face Samsung.

keterboy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 08:59 AM   #3
dumastudetto
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
No surprise at all. Apple isn't Samsung afterall.
dumastudetto is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 08:59 AM   #4
SJism23
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Canada
Darn American companies and their biased American courts!
SJism23 is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 09:14 AM   #5
samh004
macrumors 68020
 
samh004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
I can imagine $40 per device would be a big winner for Apple and a very large annoyance for Samsung

How much are we talking in total?
__________________
samh004 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 09:27 AM   #6
SMIDG3T
macrumors 65816
 
SMIDG3T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by samh004 View Post
I can imagine $40 per device would be a big winner for Apple and a very large annoyance for Samsung

How much are we talking in total?
This I'd also like to know but... a hell of a lot!
__________________
iPhone 6 | 64GB | Space Grey | iOS 8.1

MacBook Pro w/ Retina display | Late 2013 Model | OS X Yosemite 10.10
SMIDG3T is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 09:35 AM   #7
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by keterboy View Post
"Ceeeelebrate good times come on" *pops champagne*, in your face Samsung.

I didn't realize this was like a sports match.
winston1236 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 10:05 AM   #8
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502a
 
Cuban Missles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Coast, USA
It seems Samsung is losing much more than it's winning in the patent litigation process. Maybe they need to change course and try to settle. Face saving is important and losing in court and blaming the system is not the way to do it, IMO.
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 11:14 AM   #9
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
It seems Samsung is losing much more than it's winning in the patent litigation process. Maybe they need to change course and try to settle. Face saving is important and losing in court and blaming the system is not the way to do it, IMO.
Blaming the system is Verdict 101 Every company releases similar statements - Apple included - when the courts aren't in their favor.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 11:38 AM   #10
Truffy
macrumors 6502a
 
Truffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: somewhere outside your window...
At last no corners were rounded this time.
__________________
Too much stuff
Not enough stuff
Truffy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 12:17 PM   #11
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502a
 
Cuban Missles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Coast, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Blaming the system is Verdict 101 Every company releases similar statements - Apple included - when the courts aren't in their favor.
Yes, but my point is that this is not really face saving. Maybe once, but how many losses can be blamed on a system. That is why I was suggesting that it is time to go away from 101 and graduate to 301 -- the art mediation, negotiation and compromise. If the two wanted, they could make a deal an solve all the silliness. The bigger problem is that with each loss, Samsung loses leverage for negotiation, so the long they wait, the worse off their terms will be in any eventual deal.
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 12:27 PM   #12
mojolicious
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sarf London
Quote:
Originally Posted by winston1236 View Post
I didn't realize this was like a sports match.
If only both companies exhibited that level of maturity and sophistication. It's much more like a kindergarden sandpit squabble.
mojolicious is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 12:57 PM   #13
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
Yes, but my point is that this is not really face saving. Maybe once, but how many losses can be blamed on a system. That is why I was suggesting that it is time to go away from 101 and graduate to 301 -- the art mediation, negotiation and compromise. If the two wanted, they could make a deal an solve all the silliness. The bigger problem is that with each loss, Samsung loses leverage for negotiation, so the long they wait, the worse off their terms will be in any eventual deal.
They aren't going to settle. At this point both they (and Apple) are too heavily invested to "cut their losses."
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 01:25 PM   #14
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samh004 View Post
I can imagine $40 per device would be a big winner for Apple and a very large annoyance for Samsung
Even Mueller at Foss Patents... who is usually pro-Apple... has said himself, and quoted other experts, that the $40 claim just makes Apple look ridiculous. As he put it not long ago:

"$40 per unit. For five software patents. Give me a break. Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this."

A request like that can backfire, too, if a judge decides that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander... and that Apple should pay more for others' patents.

Recently a similar thing happened when Apple claimed that they could've easily programmed around a patent used in Facetime for just a few million dollars, and therefore should not have to pay a lot to use it.

After they lost the case, they flip-flopped and claimed that not using it would be incredibly disruptive and cost much more. The judge was not amused and increased the royalty rate he had already decided on, because it was clear that Apple suddenly considered the patents to be worth more.

Sometimes Apple's lawyers are their own worst enemy.
kdarling is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 01:53 PM   #15
sir1963nz
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Even Mueller at Foss Patents... who is usually pro-Apple... has said himself, and quoted other experts, that the $40 claim just makes Apple look ridiculous. As he put it not long ago:

"$40 per unit. For five software patents. Give me a break. Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this."

A request like that can backfire, too, if a judge decides that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander... and that Apple should pay more for others' patents.

Recently a similar thing happened when Apple claimed that they could've easily programmed around a patent used in Facetime for just a few million dollars, and therefore should not have to pay a lot to use it.

After they lost the case, they flip-flopped and claimed that not using it would be incredibly disruptive and cost much more. The judge was not amused and increased the royalty rate he had already decided on, because it was clear that Apple suddenly considered the patents to be worth more.

Sometimes Apple's lawyers are their own worst enemy.
Apple only needs to bring up the RIAA awards against people who deliberately broke copyright laws as an example and the $40 per device sounds incredibly reasonable.
sir1963nz is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 02:54 PM   #16
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir1963nz View Post
Apple only needs to bring up the RIAA awards against people who deliberately broke copyright laws as an example and the $40 per device sounds incredibly reasonable.
Yeah, copyright awards can be very high.

However, patent awards are usually calculated differently (*).

They're based on what a reasonable royalty would be, and then enhanced depending on whether infringement continues and/or was intentional.

(*) Both can go for lost profits, but those are almost impossible to get with a smartphone, since it's notoriously difficult to prove that any particular patent is the sole or major reason why people buy a particular model. Because a smartphone uses thousands of patents, it's difficult to prove that a handful contributed that much to sales. If a patent wasn't a main reason, then there was no lost sale due to it.)
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2014, 02:54 PM   #17
Parasprite
macrumors 65816
 
Parasprite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by winston1236 View Post
I didn't realize this was like a sports match.
You must be new here.
__________________
Has anyone, anywhere, ever actually used ~/Pictures/iPod Photo Cache/ for anything besides deleting or hiding it?
Parasprite is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 08:32 AM   #18
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post

(*) Both can go for lost profits, but those are almost impossible to get with a smartphone, since it's notoriously difficult to prove that any particular patent is the sole or major reason why people buy a particular model. Because a smartphone uses thousands of patents, it's difficult to prove that a handful contributed that much to sales. If a patent wasn't a main reason, then there was no lost sale due to it.)
Agreed. And even harder when those patents refer to items not used heavily in marketing as differentiators.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 11:04 AM   #19
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Agreed. And even harder when those patents refer to items not used heavily in marketing as differentiators.
Exactly. Both Judge Koh and the appellate court judges noted the lack of advertising.

-- Neither company thought the features were primary

They also noted that neither company had ever even included any of the features in their buyer surveys, at least not until they needed evidence for the trial.

In other words, the features weren't even on Apple's own top list of reasons why people buy their devices.

-- Apple's expert's patent value survey had ridiculous results

Something I haven't seen reported on much, was the survey that an Apple-hired expert came up with, which was supposed to be Apple's evidence as to the extreme value of their patents.

It was criticized by the judges for lacking balance in its questions, and for not including alternative feature methods.

His survey came to the conclusion that people would pay up to $422 EXTRA for the features used on a $199 smartphone.

No, I'm not kidding. You can't make this stuff up. But it gets better.

The appellate court judges pointed out that his survey had used visual manipulation methods which he himself had written a paper on back in 2004 as being misleading. Oops!

--

In the end, Apple could not prove any loss of profits due to those features.
kdarling is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 11:21 AM   #20
subsonix
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
In the end, Apple could not prove any loss of profits due to those features.
Would be very hard to prove without access to an alternate universe where Samsung doesn't exist.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 11:41 AM   #21
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
Would be very hard to prove without access to an alternate universe where Samsung doesn't exist.
It doesn't help Apple's case when they are constantly speaking about breaking records in sales for iPhones.

I am not saying they couldn't sell "more" - but it's just a tough pill for a judge to swallow to award that same company damages.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 11:51 AM   #22
subsonix
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
It doesn't help Apple's case when they are constantly speaking about breaking records in sales for iPhones.

I am not saying they couldn't sell "more" - but it's just a tough pill for a judge to swallow to award that same company damages.
I think a judge should be qualified to keep those two issues apart.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 12:04 PM   #23
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
I think a judge should be qualified to keep those two issues apart.
The point I was making is anyone would have trouble quantifying loss of sales as being significant enough to award damages when that same company is speaking to record sales numbers.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 12:29 PM   #24
subsonix
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
The point I was making is anyone would have trouble quantifying loss of sales as being significant enough to award damages when that same company is speaking to record sales numbers.
I know, but it's a weak point because it's two separate issues.

The trouble of quantifying loss of sales is there regardless of current sales, it's similar to the problem of showing how violence in media affect society for example, you need an alternate universe with no violence in media to compare with.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2014, 01:03 PM   #25
Consultant
macrumors G5
 
Consultant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
Would be very hard to prove without access to an alternate universe where Samsung doesn't exist.
No need. The iPod market share is a good example of what happens when competitors didn't copy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
It doesn't help Apple's case when they are constantly speaking about breaking records in sales for iPhones.

I am not saying they couldn't sell "more" - but it's just a tough pill for a judge to swallow to award that same company damages.
Apple breaking its own records has nothing to do with Samsung stealing market share. As I said, iPod business of last decade is a good example of Apple's potential.
Consultant is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 366 Sep 25, 2013 11:29 AM
Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 67 Jan 31, 2013 12:12 AM
Samsung takes LG to court to sue for OLED patents Dolorian Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 8 Nov 20, 2012 10:14 AM
ITC rules that Samsung violates four Apple patents covering design, touch craftytony iPhone 0 Oct 25, 2012 11:30 AM
South Korean Court Declares Samsung and Apple Violated Each Other's Patents, Halts Product Sales of Older Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 84 Sep 7, 2012 07:24 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC