Apple Loses Appeal in Samsung Case: Two Patents Ruled Invalid, $120 Million Verdict Overturned

[Studioman]

Steve Jobs once said Apple is shameless with stealing great ideas.

Stealing an idea is different from cloning products. The difference in these cases also go to how the software was used to make it more like hardware. The slide to unlock was virtual hardware with a physics component that made it real. If it can be copied to the advantage of the competitor, but is a distinguishing feature on the original, it should be protected. There should be a shorter time of protection, maybe 5 years because software moves so fast, but easy theft hurts innovation not the other way around. If they can't copy then they are forced to come up with a better solution if they can't they don't deserve the business. If Apple designs and builds the best software widget they deserve all the rewards that go with that. Lots of companies had tried fingerprint scanners before Touch ID. Apple did not copy them, they worked on a better solution. The same goes for Apple Pay. These technologies are years in development, how is it fair for someone to study your code for 6 months and duplicate your 3 to 6 years of work then compete against you with your own product. Lack of oversite in this area will lead to a lack of progress. Kind of like what happened after MS stole the Mac interface and got away with it. Apple's OS development stagnated. Where is the motivation to create when someone else can steal it and run you out of business with your own product.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Stealing an idea is different from cloning products. The difference in these cases also go to how the software was used to make it more like hardware. The slide to unlock was virtual hardware with a physics component that made it real. If it can be copied to the advantage of the competitor, but is a distinguishing feature on the original, it should be protected. There should be a shorter time of protection, maybe 5 years because software moves so fast, but easy theft hurts innovation not the other way around. If they can't copy then they are forced to come up with a better solution if they can't they don't deserve the business. If Apple designs and builds the best software widget they deserve all the rewards that go with that. Lots of companies had tried fingerprint scanners before Touch ID. Apple did not copy them, they worked on a better solution. The same goes for Apple Pay. These technologies are years in development, how is it fair for someone to study your code for 6 months and duplicate your 3 to 6 years of work then compete against you with your own product. Lack of oversite in this area will lead to a lack of progress. Kind of like what happened after MS stole the Mac interface and got away with it. Apple's OS development stagnated. Where is the motivation to create when someone else can steal it and run you out of business with your own product.

You really believe Apple is behind all innovation? lol

 

[H2SO4]

You really believe Apple is behind all innovation? lol

He also believes stealing is that different from cloning. LOL.

 

[samcraig]

Those that are over emotional or have hatred for Samsung over this and/or are pissed off on Apple's behalf - relax. Ultimately what's been decided is better for the consumer. Not everything is "deliberate" when it comes to these patent violations. Many times companies believe they have created their product/software without infringement. Until a company sues. Some companies have played their odds when it comes to known infringement by not negotiating royalties or stalling.

Apple didn't really lose money here. They just aren't getting awarded money. I'm also pretty sure that whether they got the money or not - they'll be just fine. And Samsung too.

 

[jdillings]

This guarantees 16gb is going to be around a lot longer

 

[theluggage]

Everyone loves the courts when they rule in Apple's favor but call them corrupt when they don't.
So which is it?

Neither - its the patent system that isn't fit for purpose. The idea that you can reliably distinguish between "innovative" and "obvious" ideas, and expect juries and lawyers with no technical understanding of the issues to enforce the distinction is ridiculous.

The result is a crapshoot with all sides trying to game the system. Sometime Apple wins, sometimes Apple loses. If you're an Apple-sized company, you don't get the option not to play.

Its completely obvious that, at one stage, Samsung's Galaxy products were (shall we say) 'heavily inspired' by the original iPhone and iPad, to a greater extent than other makers devices. Some fandroids went to ridiculous lengths to try and deny this. However, whether such things actually breach IP or should even be worthy of legal protection is another question. In any case, by the time the case got going, both Apple and Samsung had substantially changed their designs.

As for whether Apple deserve zillions in damages, all I know is that I went with a Samsung phone because it had a large screen (before Apple offered them) good battery life and a micro SD card - not because it looked vaguely like the original (and by then, discontinued) iPhone. Actually Android/Samsung's work arounds to slide-to-unlock and pinch-to-zoom were arguably better (e.g. swipe any icon on the lock screen to go direct to phone, camera, web..., use tap-touch-slide to zoom in/out on a specific point...).

 

[Dave245]

So it's basically saying that it's ok for Samsung to copy Apple, because that's what they did, it's what they usually do, I'm surprised they didn't copy The 3D Touch feature of the iPhone 6S.

 

[nt5672]

This is what happens when you oppose a court order. They get you one way or the other, as long as people put up with it.

 

[69Mustang]

So it's basically saying that it's ok for Samsung to copy Apple, because that's what they did, it's what they usually do, I'm surprised they didn't copy The 3D Touch feature of the iPhone 6S.

Insightful

 

[jayducharme]

On the contrary, same as when Apple wins by invalidating someone else's patent, or showing that they did not infringe, it's proof of justice in the end.

But think about it: after the iPhone, the entire landscape of the mobile phone industry changed. Every company was running to catch up to Apple. Samsung shamelessly copied the iPhone in order to gain market share. (If they had licensed the tech from Apple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.) It's completely obvious when you look at their designs before and after the iPhone. I remember the gasps in the audience when the iPhone was revealed. Sure there were touch screen phones before, but nothing like the iPhone. Sure there were web browsers on phones, but again nothing like the iPhone. Apple put tons of R&D into that device and naturally wanted to protect their investment.

 

[oneMadRssn]

A warrant is a legal request.

If you had a child or little sister kidnapped, and the FBI had the kidnapper's phone with evidence that could save her, and the courts gave the FBI a warrant, then you'd rightfully be all for Apple doing their damnedest to unlock it right away.

Ignoring the obvious logistical issues like what could possibly be on a phone that is in possession of law enforcement that would assist in an active kidnapping: that is very different from the current situation. A kidnapping is an exigent circumstance and a life that is actually in risk right now in a non-abstract way, while at no point has the FBI claimed the current fight is about preventing some imminent danger, rather some abstract unknown future danger.

 

[Dave245]

Insightful

It wasn't supposed to be, just my two pennies worth on a thread I thought was interesting

 

[cdmoore74]

Maybe it's punishment for not cracking those phones.

 

[rdlink]

Thank you for this and your other posts. They always bring clarity and sanity to these threads.

Not always. But he is having a good day.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I have not reviewed the specifics of these cases deeply enough to have a solid opinion on this finding but I've started to feel good any time a patent case is thrown out. Although I recognize the importance of patent law I feel that more often than not in recent past patent litigation has been overwhelming of the patent troll variety. I don't have a good solution (an army of highly trained patent clerks just isn't practical) so for the time being I'll lean towards cheering the invalidation of most patent claims. Although a bigger subject and with some serious potential problems as well, perhaps we really do need some serious tort reform with teeth.

I think a good solution is to just stop allowing patents at all.

I get trademarks. Those allow you to protect your brand and keep other people from tarnishing it. Those in no way inhibit other companies from making products.

But patents are terrible for consumers. It grants companies a monopoly of arbitrary length for things they invented, and they inhibit other companies from making similar products. Which means there's less competition to drive down prices and/or drive companies forward to invent new things.

The argument that they just allow you to recap your losses on R&D sounds like BS to me.

 

[kdarling]

Stealing an idea is different from cloning products.

You're right. Ideas cannot be patented.

The difference in these cases also go to how the software was used to make it more like hardware. The slide to unlock was virtual hardware with a physics component that made it real. If it can be copied to the advantage of the competitor, but is a distinguishing feature on the original, it should be protected.

The slide-to-unlock patent was not about what you think. Its base claim was for the method of unlocking by sliding a graphic image from one predetermined point to another. In other words, basically duplicating a regular sliding bolt lock.

The rest of the world had already ruled this was simply a software implementation of hardware. Not to mention being an obvious extension of the slide-to-unlock gesture already used by touch phones at least as far back as 2002.

Lots of companies had tried fingerprint scanners before Touch ID. Apple did not copy them, they worked on a better solution.

They bought a sensor supplier that everyone had been using together for over a decade, in order to get an exclusive on that supplier's innovation.

The same goes for Apple Pay.

They implemented the EMV token spec. Smart, but no invention there, except the idea of wanting to get paid each time the hardware they had sold its customers got used.

These technologies are years in development, how is it fair for someone to study your code for 6 months and duplicate your 3 to 6 years of work then compete against you with your own product.

Uh, no. Nobody had to study anyone else's code. Not even Apple has made such a claim.

Software patent infringement is rarely about actual copying of code. It's more about somebody independently coming up with an internal method which somebody else had managed to get a patent on.

Again, the same thing happens to Apple all the time. Just look at the patent lawsuits it has to constantly defend against. (You know, the ones that people often say are from trolls.)

 

[69Mustang]

But think about it: after the iPhone, the entire landscape of the mobile phone industry changed. Every company was running to catch up to Apple. Samsung shamelessly copied the iPhone in order to gain market share. (If they had licensed the tech from Apple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.) It's completely obvious when you look at their designs before and after the iPhone. I remember the gasps in the audience when the iPhone was revealed. Sure there were touch screen phones before, but nothing like the iPhone. Sure there were web browsers on phones, but again nothing like the iPhone. Apple put tons of R&D into that device and naturally wanted to protect their investment.

We are all entitled to our opinion but for the love of Jeebus Cramps please don't produce that tired graphic of Samsung phone before an after Apple. Someone else is going to reply with the equally tired graphic of the actual phones from Samsung before Apple. Thread will devolve into a turd show.

It's a good thing Samsung didn't license those patents from Apple. It would have lent credence to Apple's assertion the patents were valid. That is not a good thing in anyone's world. I agree Apple did a phenomenal job of integrating tech into a cohesive product. I don't even fault them for wanting to patent everything from soup to nuts. Not faulting them doesn't mean I think everything they patented was valid. I just understand the rationale. Courts around the world started invalidating some of those patents long ago. They went through a process: won some, lost some.

 

[samcraig]

This is what happens when you oppose a court order. They get you one way or the other, as long as people put up with it.

This kind of post happens when people have no idea how the justice system works.

But think about it: after the iPhone, the entire landscape of the mobile phone industry changed. Every company was running to catch up to Apple. Samsung shamelessly copied the iPhone in order to gain market share. (If they had licensed the tech from Apple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.) It's completely obvious when you look at their designs before and after the iPhone. I remember the gasps in the audience when the iPhone was revealed. Sure there were touch screen phones before, but nothing like the iPhone. Sure there were web browsers on phones, but again nothing like the iPhone. Apple put tons of R&D into that device and naturally wanted to protect their investment.

I think you're ignoring a lot. Such as the R&D Apple put into their phone is incredible dwarfed by the technology they leveraged that was created by other OEM players in the industry. You're also discounting the fact that several manufacturers already had devices in their pipeline similar to the iPhone. I don't discount the positive effect on the industry that they had and have today. One of the biggest things they did was validate the products on other OEMs pipelines as being the direction to go. That consumers were, indeed, ready.

 

[macfacts]

Stealing an idea is different from cloning products. The difference in these cases also go to how the software was used to make it more like hardware. The slide to unlock was virtual hardware with a physics component that made it real. If it can be copied to the advantage of the competitor, but is a distinguishing feature on the original, it should be protected. There should be a shorter time of protection, maybe 5 years because software moves so fast, but easy theft hurts innovation not the other way around. If they can't copy then they are forced to come up with a better solution if they can't they don't deserve the business. If Apple designs and builds the best software widget they deserve all the rewards that go with that. Lots of companies had tried fingerprint scanners before Touch ID. Apple did not copy them, they worked on a better solution. The same goes for Apple Pay. These technologies are years in development, how is it fair for someone to study your code for 6 months and duplicate your 3 to 6 years of work then compete against you with your own product. Lack of oversite in this area will lead to a lack of progress. Kind of like what happened after MS stole the Mac interface and got away with it. Apple's OS development stagnated. Where is the motivation to create when someone else can steal it and run you out of business with your own product.

Samsung didn't see one line of source code when "copying" most of these features protected by software patents.

Software (the source code) is already protected by copyright. All software patents do is protect an idea. That is one small step from being a patent troll.

 

[mayhemburzum]

Samsung does nothing but rob other companies of their engineering and get away with it....

Yeah, I agree... Apple only stole most of its "great ideas".

 

[dk001]

This decision wouldn't have had much impact on either company at this point anyway, but combine this with the recent FBI/DOJ attack on Apple and I'm very frustrated with the way the courts have treated Apple recently.

I would say it is more of multiple symptoms demonstrating that government is having difficulty keeping up with the rapid changes in technology.

This is a failure by the Patent Office to effectively handle technology.
This other is a failure by Congress to effectively handle technology changes.

Bit of a pattern.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I think a good solution is to just stop allowing patents at all.

I get trademarks. Those allow you to protect your brand and keep other people from tarnishing it. Those in no way inhibit other companies from making products.

But patents are terrible for consumers. It grants companies a monopoly of arbitrary length for things they invented, and they inhibit other companies from making similar products. Which means there's less competition to drive down prices and/or drive companies forward to invent new things.

The argument that they just allow you to recap your losses on R&D sounds like BS to me.

I waver. I understand the importance in areas where R&D can be a significant investment and being the second man in then provides a big competitive advantage. I understand the benefit to smaller players who may have a much longer timeline to production where a larger competitor may be able to take their idea and knock them out by being first to market. I also see the mess we currently have with defensive patents and patent trolls. It's an area of law badly in need of reform (as well as better adherence to current regulation such as the requirement for a patent to be both novel and non-obvious) but I think it will be a particularly hard problem to solve and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I have similar qualms with copyright law.

 

[sc4rf4c3]

Thanks to kdarling. He's very well informed and always reason to these Apple zombies.

 

[AntonLee]

This decision wouldn't have had much impact on either company at this point anyway, but combine this with the recent FBI/DOJ attack on Apple and I'm very frustrated with the way the courts have treated Apple recently.

Bingo. The government versus YOU and anyone that stands between them and you. Thank you Apple.

 

[bladerunner2000]

It's funny that Apple's one of the biggest patent trolls, suing everyone they can when they've never invented anything themselves.