Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Fails to Win U.S. Injunction Against Samsung, Previously Offered 'Scrollback' Patent License
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, and I'm not sure what your meaning is.
My post's context was that it would be extremely unusual for Apple to share its IP. Therefore, if they were willing to share just one item, then that item must either not be critical in their eyes, or they have a different motive than just royalties.
As I said, I would be more willing to believe that they want to share their IP for money, if they offered more than one minor patent.
--
However, as it turns out, all our discussions on that aspect are probably moot: I can find nothing in Judge Koh's order that says that Apple offered to license that patent.
Apparently someone mistook a reference in there talking about how money can compensate for a patent infringement, to mean the above. I don't read it that way... and it certainly doesn't fit Apple's usual methods, as I'm sure you'll agree.
-- EDIT:
Apparently the reference to licensing was in the redacted (blacked out) section... that Apple did indeed license the snapback patent to Nokia and IBM (no doubt as part of those GSM FRAND deals). So that solves the mystery: Apple must've felt that since they had already been willing to license such a minor patent to get a better deal, then there was no harm in licensing it to others as well, as it was no longer an iOS exclusive.
Last edited:
honestly I find that a good thing. It should be hard to get an injunction and the bar should be set very high.
Here is my first reading of the judge's decision to not grant a preliminary injunction at Apple's request, which was based on two iPhone design patents, one iPad design patent, and one utility patent (the snapback one). Corrections welcomed.
---- PHONE DESIGN PATENTS
Apple's lawyers tried to claim that similar designs would have a product dilution affect, an idea which is ripped off from trademark law, and which Koh said is not normally applied to design patents.
Both design patents were limited because Apple had only patented the front, although of course now they were belatedly trying to claim side and back as well.
The first 2007 iPhone design patent ('087) was found to not count, because a 2005 Sharp Japanese design patent proved prior art:
The other one ('677) was challenged on account of functionality. The court noted that a minimalist design is that way specifically because it is all functional, not decorative. (Note: a design patent can ONLY patent decorative items.)
In addition, placement of speaker and screen is obvious. Still, the court felt that the Samsung design might infringe it due to the full sized black screen even though the details were different (home buttons, etc).
However, Apple did not prove that irreparable harm would occur for many reasons, including:
1) Apple's claim that Samsung had been copying them since 2007. Naturally, the fact that Apple waited until 2011 to sue Samsung over the design, didn't convince the court that such copying could cause irreparable harm... since Apple failed to complain during the first four years.
2) Another factor was that the court decided that if Samsung's devices were not sold, the real benefactor of an injunction would not be Apple, but the other manufacturers of smartphones (e.g HTC and LG).
---- TABLET DESIGN PATENT
Again, functionality was a major consideration, just as it was in the Netherlands judgement.
Moreover, the court saw too much prior art (e.g the 1994 Knight-Ridder concept and the TC1000 tablet).
Therefore the court found that Apple had failed to establish that it was likely to be able to prove the iPad's design patent validity in court.
As for irreparable harm, the court said that even if Samsung infringed (the possibly invalid patent), Apple had failed to prove that the iPad's physical design was the deciding factor for buyers... especially with prior art showing that the shape isn't what makes the iPad sell so well; it is the UI, apps and price.
---- SNAPBACK UI PATENT
Again, prior art was introduced, along with a Samsung intimation that perhaps Apple had deliberately withheld some of it from the USPTO. The judge disagreed.
The judge ruled that Apple could probably prove its validity and that Samsung likely infringed on this patent. However, it was not critical enough a smartphone patent to be grounds for an injunction.
---- PHONE DESIGN PATENTS
Apple's lawyers tried to claim that similar designs would have a product dilution affect, an idea which is ripped off from trademark law, and which Koh said is not normally applied to design patents.
Both design patents were limited because Apple had only patented the front, although of course now they were belatedly trying to claim side and back as well.
The first 2007 iPhone design patent ('087) was found to not count, because a 2005 Sharp Japanese design patent proved prior art:
The other one ('677) was challenged on account of functionality. The court noted that a minimalist design is that way specifically because it is all functional, not decorative. (Note: a design patent can ONLY patent decorative items.)
In addition, placement of speaker and screen is obvious. Still, the court felt that the Samsung design might infringe it due to the full sized black screen even though the details were different (home buttons, etc).
However, Apple did not prove that irreparable harm would occur for many reasons, including:
1) Apple's claim that Samsung had been copying them since 2007. Naturally, the fact that Apple waited until 2011 to sue Samsung over the design, didn't convince the court that such copying could cause irreparable harm... since Apple failed to complain during the first four years.
2) Another factor was that the court decided that if Samsung's devices were not sold, the real benefactor of an injunction would not be Apple, but the other manufacturers of smartphones (e.g HTC and LG).
---- TABLET DESIGN PATENT
Again, functionality was a major consideration, just as it was in the Netherlands judgement.
Moreover, the court saw too much prior art (e.g the 1994 Knight-Ridder concept and the TC1000 tablet).
Therefore the court found that Apple had failed to establish that it was likely to be able to prove the iPad's design patent validity in court.
As for irreparable harm, the court said that even if Samsung infringed (the possibly invalid patent), Apple had failed to prove that the iPad's physical design was the deciding factor for buyers... especially with prior art showing that the shape isn't what makes the iPad sell so well; it is the UI, apps and price.
---- SNAPBACK UI PATENT
Again, prior art was introduced, along with a Samsung intimation that perhaps Apple had deliberately withheld some of it from the USPTO. The judge disagreed.
The judge ruled that Apple could probably prove its validity and that Samsung likely infringed on this patent. However, it was not critical enough a smartphone patent to be grounds for an injunction.
Last edited:
My meaning is you appear to be critical of Apple not licensing their patents even though they clearly are not in the patent-licensing business (nor should they be).
Jobs clearly made known to all the world that the iPhone was heavily patented at its introduction in 2007. His intention was obviously not to profit from royalties on those patents, but to sell hardware - with protection for their innovation and IP. The message was black and white: "Don't even think about ripping this off!"
So Google immediately goes to work "ripping this off," with the help of the ever-unimaginative Asian commodity hardware manufacturers.
Google appears to have little regard for patent protection. While Microsoft chooses to profit from that disregard by squeezing the hardware manufacturers for licensing fees, Apple chooses instead to attack the validity of the infringing products and block their sale. Which is, as you stated, their right.
Apple, of course, is painted the bad guy, while Microsoft and Google continue with their own nefarious approaches with little scrutiny or public outcry.
Not that we're surprised by this.
Apple shouldn't have even been allowed to patent these. For those thinking that the In App Purchase patent holder is trolling, look at Apple.
Basic functionally (scrollback, slide to unlock, etc) shouldn't be allowed to be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted. Even the design shouldn't be allowed to be patented, as it's basic functionally of the phone. (And we don't see regular phone makers suing each other for copying their designs, do we?)
Basic functionally (scrollback, slide to unlock, etc) shouldn't be allowed to be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted. Even the design shouldn't be allowed to be patented, as it's basic functionally of the phone. (And we don't see regular phone makers suing each other for copying their designs, do we?)
Nope. I even said it was their right not to license them. However, I don't think it helps their cases at all (see below).
Except... now we know that Apple did license at least one iOS patent to a rival. So his intention turned out not to be totally set in stone.
If there's any painting being done, Apple is doing it to themselves, in at least two ways that we see all the time, and which courts have not looked favorably upon:
In every court filing, Apple first brags about how much market share and overwhelming percentage of device profits they have, and then immediately turns around and says they're being deeply hurt by unfair competition. They can't claim to be both the leader _and_ the underdog and expect court sympathy.
(Over and over again their lawyers have been dinged for not providing any evidence other than unbacked statements akin to "We're Apple and everyone wants our products and they would be confused by lookalikes".)
Apple generally refuses to license patents, yet the iPhone's very existence totally depends on the fact that they can license critical patents from others. While this is their right, it's not a position that lets them play a very good victim of other's patent-license lawsuits.
- Apple's lawyers are very good at getting short term injunctions, but I think the long term results will not be anywhere near as favorable.
Last edited:
Companies sue each other all the time. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't. Apple seems to be the only one to get any negative press over it. Again, not unusual. We all know the game by now.
As for the IP approaches, I think we've all seen the various tactics during our school years:
Apple: "Stop looking at my test answers!"
Microsoft: "I'll let you look at my test answers for $5."
Google: "Hey everyone, here are the test answers for tomorrow's test. Will you be my friend?"
Here's the realistic version:
Apple: "Hey! I'm the first to write 2+2=4! You can't use the same answer!"
Microsoft: "If you want to add 2+2, pay us and we'll show you how."
Google: "Since 2+2=4 is common knowledge, we'll just archive it publicly. By the way, would you be interested in buying a math textbook?"
This is not a test. The answers are not supposed to be secret. You really kill your point because the goal of a test is to arrive at the correct answer, and (hopefully) most of the class will get the same result.
Wrong-o. This is a test. The test is to make the best product on the market. While providing your solution to that test, you don't wish your fellow students (competitors) to simply copy your hard work and intelligence to get the same result as you.
And the implication the iPhone approach was "common knowledge" is laughable. The haters love that line. "Big deal, it was so obvious." Not obvious, however, until Apple did it. And the iPhone is anything but "2+2," despite what the Google Overlords would have you believe.
Nope. That's just a previous deposition in the case, by a consultant hired by Apple.
In court, Samsung's lawyers were claiming that the major elements of the iPad design are mostly functional, which of course are not protected by a design (ornamental) patent.
The consultant was asserting instead that the iPad design was not meant to be functional. In other words, that the flat screen and rounded edges were simply ornamental designs that just happened to also be functional.