Appeals Court Rules Apple Was Entitled to Sales Ban on Samsung Products in Earlier Trial

[kdarling]

I'd also encourage you to be more fair when thinking about patents. If "slide to unlock" was your patent and some sleazy corporation came in and ripped it off, would you not want to take them to court to protect your intellectual property?

Likewise, if someone got a patent that should never have been granted (or worse, continues to file blocking additions when you try to innovate around it), would you not want to challenge it to protect your right to use that method?

People think patents are magically granted and set in granite. They are not, especially these days with hugely overworked examiners. Companies like Apple take advantage of this by resubmitting rejected applications until the examiner's standard allotted time is up, at which time the examiner will sometimes grant the patent, figuring that it can be challenged later on if it was a bad grant.

Slide-to-unlock was like that. There was an interesting analysis by M-CAM (a group that specializes in checking why weak patents are allowed) of how Apple finally got the slide-to-unlock patent... they refiled it multiple times until the examiner finally gave in... and also how Apple added more claims (after other makers such as Samsung used alternative unlock methods to get around the original claims), but still wanted to use the earlier filing date in order to claim infringement by the newer methods.

Intellectual Property Analysis of Apple Inc’s “Slide‐to‐Unlock” Patents (pdf)

 

[kdarling]

I don't see the analog between the hammer and slide to unlock though. I haven't read the patent, maybe I should, but based on your description it sounds like they aren't patenting the action of unlocking a phone, they're patenting a method: using a gesture on a touch screen. At the time, that was quite novel.

The idea of using gestures to unlock a touch screen had been around since at least the 1990s, and was huge around 2000 with PDAs, but had fallen out of favor because it was not secure enough. Fingerprint readers took its place for a while, until they also generally fell out of style.

A new technology was introduced, the touch screen, and Apple invented a way to use that to avoid activating your phone in your pocket without the need for additional hardware. The less-new people think touch screens are on a phone, the more impressive it is that nobody else thought of it first.

?? People DID think of gestures to prevent accidental activation. See post #62 above about the 2002 Neonode Windows CE phone, for one example.

Again, I think there are issues with software patents.

Absolutely. Which is why the Supreme Court has tried to reel them in a bit with a recent decision. Too many software patents are about simply doing in software what can be done in real life... like sliding a dead bolt to unlock a door.

Many are also more about ideas instead of specific implementations. For instance, Apple's universal search related patent was not about a detailed method, but about the idea of using object oriented search blocks... something any junior college programmer would think of using.

 

[the-msa]

Relax, you sound more butt hurt reading my response to someone else. He mentioned rubber banding, so I mentioned rubber banding in response. Read in context buddy, I don't lose anything if Samsung copies it but if everyone is just allowed to copy everything then the whole system would break down. Apple is surviving cause they have a loyal fan base. If it had been another company, to lose the selling features in a product you've developed would be devastating.

I'm honoured that you thought I was replying to your post. I want though.

 

[billy the fish]

Make it end already.

Use the correct grammatical use of the word "already" at the end of a sentence... Already.

 

[Analog Kid]

The idea of using gestures to unlock a touch screen had been around since at least the 1990s, and was huge around 2000 with PDAs, but had fallen out of favor because it was not secure enough. Fingerprint readers took its place for a while, until they also generally fell out of style.

?? People DID think of gestures to prevent accidental activation. See post #62 above about the 2002 Neonode Windows CE phone, for one example.

I fell into the trap I warn others against, and assumed what a patent covers based on how it's referred to colloquially...

If I understand you correctly, I don't think you're arguing that the court is corrupt, I think you're saying the court is correctly interpreting a flawed statute.

If the patent is as broad as stated, and the prior art you claim to exist does, then what was the court's argument in favor of upholding the patent? I'm not surprised when a bad patent is issued, but I am when it holds up under millions of dollars of scrutiny.

 

[Analog Kid]

Absolutely. Which is why the Supreme Court has tried to reel them in a bit with a recent decision. Too many software patents are about simply doing in software what can be done in real life... like sliding a dead bolt to unlock a door.

Many are also more about ideas instead of specific implementations. For instance, Apple's universal search related patent was not about a detailed method, but about the idea of using object oriented search blocks... something any junior college programmer would think of using.

I probably should have answered this all at once, but it's probably two topics anyway... I'm not trying to be argumentative with this question, but rather trying to get to the essence: Why is using software to slide a deadbolt less novel than any of the hundreds of other patents for ways of moving dead bolts? You used to need a key, or a knob, now you use software. There is an advancement there-- is it a patentable advancement?

How do you define that opinion in a truly general way that can be laid out in printed guidelines by the USPTO? Very often these become "I'll know it when I see it" guidelines, which is why it goes to court and juries. I think part of the problem is that we pull people off the street and ask them "is this a novel cloud search architecture?", then make their opinion legally binding. Criminologists and psychologists and probably just as dismayed that we do that for criminal trials though, so I'm probably showing an elitist bias in my view.

I suspect that when lasers became practical, there was a flurry of patents using lasers to do things that were done other ways in the past. Search for "laser plumb" and you'll see the patents for laser based plumb bobs-- something that could be done with a string and was now done with a laser.

So, when I look at a software patent and think it's silly, I have to ask myself whether it's silly because it's obvious or if the advent of a technological revolution is propagating through all parts of life. If it's obvious, I have to ask why there is no prior art.

As you said, they're moving toward making it harder to patent "abstract ideas". Are there other easy "bright line" rules that could be implemented? I feel like technology cycles are shortening and perhaps the exclusivity of patents should be shortened as well. If slide to unlock were only exclusive for 10 years, we'd be close to not caring about it anymore.

 

[apolloa]

If you look at this Korean company - Samsung's history, it is a very despicable and disgusting company ever. This Korean company likes to stab people from behind, they stole from many companies like Sharp, etc, and the worst part is they deny and try to waste their competitors time and drag them down. I will never ever buy or recommend any of this Korean - Samsung phones.

So you enjoy typing your message on a device stuffed full of Samsung's components?
And all corporations are the same including Apple. They will use every trick they can legal or not if they can get away with it to maximise profits and shares. The customer is nearly a cash cow and nothing more.

Apples mo is to steal ideas and features from everyone else and slap their name on it claiming it's their own. It always has done, not everything it does but a lot of software features are taking from elsewhere.

 

[apolloa]

I fell into the trap I warn others against, and assumed what a patent covers based on how it's referred to colloquially...

If I understand you correctly, I don't think you're arguing that the court is corrupt, I think you're saying the court is correctly interpreting a flawed statute.

If the patent is as broad as stated, and the prior art you claim to exist does, then what was the court's argument in favor of upholding the patent? I'm not surprised when a bad patent is issued, but I am when it holds up under millions of dollars of scrutiny.

You would need to ask what is the difference between the American courts and the German courts and the highest German appeals court to know that answer. Why does Apple lose patent cases in European courts that it wins in American courts.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Since you cannot go back in time it is only fair a similar current version of the product(s) represented by the incorrect ruling be banned for a period of time, perhaps a year.

Further the monetary damages should be increased to account for opportunity cost losses and order the funds be paid instantly/immediately.

Time is of the essence.

Either it is justice or it is not. Either it is a punishment or not. Let a court stand behind the system for real for a change, or admit in a ruling justice delayed is the new normal.

Rocketman

If Samsung profited from a trial court refusal of injunction, and if, ultimately, the appeal process results in a determination that injunctive relief was proper, the simpler and fairer remedy would be to require Samsung to disgorge any profits it derived from the sale of infringing technology. An infringer can not be heard to complain that the courts moved too slowly to finally declare the infringement or to issue an injunction. The best objection I can think of to this remedy would be that it may very well discourage what would be eventually ruled to be lawful competition. My judgment is that it's more valuable to our society to encourage innovation than to encourage competition during the time a case is being adjudicated. The fact that the U.S. Constitution established the right of patent gives vindicated inventors the right to have the field tilted in their favor.

 

[moderately]

<snip> see past the Macintosh red glasses you wear.

Rose colored glasses. Rose gold colored glasses.

 

[kdarling]

I probably should have answered this all at once, but it's probably two topics anyway... I'm not trying to be argumentative with this question, but rather trying to get to the essence: Why is using software to slide a deadbolt less novel than any of the hundreds of other patents for ways of moving dead bolts? You used to need a key, or a knob, now you use software. There is an advancement there-- is it a patentable advancement?

How do you define that opinion in a truly general way that can be laid out in printed guidelines by the USPTO? ...

That's a great question and, as I mentioned, the US Supreme Court recently set forth some guidelines when they rejected some patents about implementing a common financial process on a generic computer. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l#Plurality_opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Int'l#Subsequent_developments

I fell into the trap I warn others against, and assumed what a patent covers based on how it's referred to colloquially...

It happens to everyone, mostly because news articles rarely make it clear that many of the patents in these trials are about internal methods which don't matter to anyone except developers and lawyers.

E.g. the so-called "universal search" patent, is NOT a general patent on universal search. Thus legal infringement is NOT about copying anything, but simply about infringing on the patent by accidentally implementing it the same way.

If I understand you correctly, I don't think you're arguing that the court is corrupt, I think you're saying the court is correctly interpreting a flawed statute.

The courts are not corrupt, but most are not technically literate enough to deal with software topics. (Unlike say, in Germany, where patent trials use sets of judges, the majority of which have science and engineering degrees.)

If the patent is as broad as stated, and the prior art you claim to exist does, then what was the court's argument in favor of upholding the patent? I'm not surprised when a bad patent is issued, but I am when it holds up under millions of dollars of scrutiny.

The decision in this thread was not about whether the patents were legitimate or not. It was only about whether or not Apple had previously succeeded in establishing all four legal requirements to get an injunction:

1. that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
2. that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
3. that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted;
4. that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

The District court had followed the guidance of previous appeals decisions, and rejected an injunction because Apple had not proved that any patent infringements had caused (1) Irreparable Injury. In short, Apple did not prove that people bought Samsung devices solely because they had slide-to-unlock or clickable links.

IIRC, the District court had also said that Apple could not claim (2), because they had already licensed the patents in question to HTC and Nokia, thus proving that money was an adequate compensation.

Now we come to the Appeals court ruling (pdf here). As the Chief Judge wrote in her strong dissent, the other two judges reversed most of their previous case law, and worse, made up evidence to allow Apple to pass the requirements. Basically her dissent is an invite for Samsung to challenge the ruling.

--

As far as injunctions go, people rarely consider that such decisions are a two-edged sword.

Modern smartphones have tens of thousands of features, so banning an entire phone (instead of just giving monetary compensation) is pretty extreme if only a few are infringed.

Heck, think of all the patent holders who sue Apple every year, and imagine if they could hold Apple ransom with an injunction even from their relatively small patents. The whole point of the the four requirements above is to prevent patents from being used to wield power out of proportion to their contribution to the whole device being sold. In fact, Apple ironically often argues this very thing when they are being sued.

 

[kdarling]

If Samsung profited from a trial court refusal of injunction, and if, ultimately, the appeal process results in a determination that injunctive relief was proper, the simpler and fairer remedy would be to require Samsung to disgorge any profits it derived from the sale of infringing technology.

You don't get the other company's profits in an utility patent case.

You can only try to get back your own lost profits, or a reasonable royalty. Lost profits can be very hard to prove or quantify, especially in Apple's case where their sales continued to climb and they had trouble manufacturing enough units anyway.

Whichever type of award you get, can then be increased by up to three times if the infringer was found to do it willfully (which also requires that the judge determine if a reasonable person would've thought the patent was invalid, because that's an excuse for willfulness).

Moreover, the awards only start from the time that you informed the other company that they were infringing on your patents, unless you have that patent plainly marked on your product. (No one can do the latter with all the patents involved in a smartphone.)

It's only design patents where you can get the other company's profits.