Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple

[gnasher729]

Autocorrect / Autocomplete certainly isn't something Apple invented and they're not trying to claim patent rights over the concept as a whole. What they have got a patent on is the specific items listed in this post

So it's not the autocorrect / autocomplete itself, it's the particular user interface that Apple uses on MacOS X. If you type a sentence with the word certianly, while you type the word "certainly" is shown just below the incorrect word with a cross to the right of it. If you click on the cross, you get the incorrect word (that's what I did). If you click on the correct word or if I had typed the comma that was supposed to follow, it would have been corrected.

Autocorrection is not patented. The particular user interface which works quite well once you get used to it, that is patented.

 

[LagunaSol]

I see the Google Defense Force has been mobilized. When will you folks recognize Samsung for what it really is: a huge conglomerate that steals the work of others while completely overpowering them financially. $10+ billion dollars last year in advertising alone? Amazing. You would think the Google fanatics would be just as alarmed about Samsung as anyone else, as they're well on their way to becoming Android's sole dictator, with the carcasses of HTC, LG and Motorola in their wake.

Despite Google's love of zero-profit hardware for data collection, it's not a plan that sits well with the actual hardware manufacturers. Natch.

 

[Benjamins]

Lucy Koh is the only judge on the planet who ALWAYS rules in Apple's favor. In all other countries, it's so much more difficult for Apple to defend its (design) patents - and at least half of the time, Apple loses.

Must be great to be an American corporation in an American court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/technology/korean-court-rejects-samsung-lawsuit-against-apple.html
It's great to be American corp in a Korea court also.

 

[thekev]

Personally, i would indeed see autocomplete worth patenting. Although, i don't get it why something this -nowadays- 'basic' hasn't been already patented before or -assuming that something similar HAS been patented before- how Apple's technique can be different enough to get a patent on it too.

That is a very broad assertion. How would you know that it has anything to do with a specific algorithm without looking through the documented claims? The patent filings are sometimes linked on here.

 

[larrylaffer]

I really should have become a patent attorney. So much money being earned over such petty arguments.

 

[1=1?]

Autocomplete?! Seriou!

 

[MikhailT]

Interesting. You support protecting design elements such as rounded corners but not software elements such as autocomplete. Interesting.

In my opinion both hardware AND software elements are major factors in the overall user experience and should be protected within the confines of the current law.

Unless somebody present me with a link to show me that Apple owns "rounded corners" that's applicable to all devices, then I'd be happy to blame Apple for doing such a stupid thing.

The thing is, the application that I saw related to the rounded corners does not list a single thing but in fact, the overall design of the iPad. Rounded corners were listed as one of the critical design points, not as a single part that Samsung was focusing on. Samsung can't pick one thing out of an application and say that Apple was trying to patent rounded corners, which they didn't. They own a patent on the overall shape of the iPad in 3D.

Think Coke and their bottles, they actually had a patent on that for a few decades. Nobody was allowed to copy its design because such a design is considered to belong to Coke. Even to this day, if you see a Coke bottle, you generally assume that it belongs to Coke. That's its brand, its identity and so on.

That's what Apple did, they filed an application for a specific iPad design, so that folks who can see the iPad far away, actually knows it's an Apple iPad.

There was a famous incident in the court against Samsung, where a Samsung tablet and an iPad were presented, the lawyers couldn't tell it apart. That's what Apple wanted to avoid.

I can still tell an iPhone from other smartphones because its worldwide known designs.

I do agree that Apple should have an exclusive to its design for a decade but then it can be used.

I still don't agree that copyrights, trademark or anything should last more than 10 years. That's just silly considering how fast the population is growing, how fast technologies changes, and generally, how fast the human race is progressing that can benefit from everybody's designs.

Autocomplete?! Seriou!

It's not the basic concept behind it, this is being oversimplified. Apple owns the method_ of how the auto-competition work on the touch screen. The tapping to select a word, how it shows up, and so on is what they own. They do not own the actual auto-completion concept.

 

[Oletros]

That's what Apple did, they filed an application for a specific iPad design, so that folks who can see the iPad far away, actually knows it's an Apple iPad.

There was a famous incident in the court against Samsung, where a Samsung tablet and an iPad were presented, the lawyers couldn't tell it apart. That's what Apple wanted to avoid.

No, that design patent was not for the iPad it was a generic device patent.

At least courts in all over the world ruled that no Samsung device infringed it.

 

[Klae17]

The fact that this is over something as ridiculous as autocomplete just shows how these patent lawsuits have gotten out of hand. It is amazing that a company can patent something so simple. How apple was able to patent such a thing in the first place is where the real crime is. Hardware and design is a different story than this in my book.

How was it obvious? Please explain to someone in the 1950s about autocomplete and how it is so simple. "Well, for my new product, you put any form on this magical clipboard and it automatically fills in your name and address after you tap it in this corner!"

"But George, that is so obvious and simple let's not patent this and let everyone have one of these magical clipboards!"


Just because someone did it already and you have hindsight on it, does not mean you get to play judge and deem it unpatentable.

 

[gnasher729]

The thing is, the application that I saw related to the rounded corners does not list a single thing but in fact, the overall design of the iPad. Rounded corners were listed as one of the critical design points, not as a single part that Samsung was focusing on. Samsung can't pick one thing out of an application and say that Apple was trying to patent rounded corners, which they didn't. They own a patent on the overall shape of the iPad in 3D.

Actually, Samsung has design patents for their Galaxy phones which, believe it or not, include rounded corners.

 

[lordkythe]

Enough of this

The fact that this is over something as ridiculous as autocomplete just shows how these patent lawsuits have gotten out of hand. It is amazing that a company can patent something so simple. How apple was able to patent such a thing in the first place is where the real crime is. Hardware and design is a different story than this in my book.

I have to say I totally agree with you that current patents are completely ridiculous. They should only be awarded on concepts that are highly specific and (not or) necessary to the success of a trademark or other commercial entity.

However, your statement is much too broad and is a directed attack at Apple and that's just not fair, it hurts the argument (the way you are saying it, I'm not accusing you of intending this). The marketplace is a war zone, and if Apple is to be successful, it needs to arm itself. All the major corporations are doing this, and Apple's patent on autocorrection is not excessively abusive in relative terms. Want an example (I could spend hours filling pages of this stuff)? IBM patented color-labeling elements to facilitate a process, they also patented querying multiple servers and choosing the least busy one, just to name two. Google it.

I would cite references but it's completely irrelevant, you get the point. It is true patents are a big issue and the system is broken. It is preventing growth, fair market conditions and humanity's development, IMHO. We can blame Apple for being a part of it, but let's not just start throwing stones at anybody and everybody with patents. The problem lies with the system and we should direct our criticism there. As a powerful company with unique products, Apple is more a victim than an offender. I KNOW that Apple is far from innocent and its very participation is part of the problem, but citing counter-examples does not a counter-argument make.

Autocompletion is far from being an obvious "too simple to patent" feature; the way it is implemented could stand valid ground for a good and healthy patent that will encourage others to improve significantly over the concept rather than the all-too-usual Google way of starting the photocopy machines.