Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400

[Dmunjal]

Oh, I didn't know you were going to set the parameters on all fitness devices.

Isn't this what Apple is doing with all these lawsuits??

 

[linuxcooldude]

Isn't this what Apple is doing with all these lawsuits??

Its something Apple is doing to protect its own products. I think Samsung has a long history of copying other products ( Dyson comes to mind recently )

 

[Dmunjal]

Its something Apple is doing to protect its own products. I think Samsung has a long history of copying other products ( Dyson comes to mind recently )

My point is they set the parameters a bit too broadly in their patents.

 

[lilo777]

Its something Apple is doing to protect its own products. I think Samsung has a long history of copying other products ( Dyson comes to mind recently )

What about Dyson? Are you referring to a illconceived lawsuit where Dyson wanted to sue Samsung for infringing a bogus patent that Dyson received for something they did not actually invent? Looks very similar to Apple action indeed. Both Dyson and Apple lose to Samsung in open competition and resort to suing them.

 

[thekev]

Image

I think I found my next avatar.

 

[okboy]

Nor should it be. I've been a software engineer and designer at big tech companies for the past 30 years, and it's just a job. It pays the bills. If anyone wants to take my stuff and try to improve on it, whether they end up making it better or worse, good luck to them - - the shoulders of giants and all that. Heck, I'll give them as much of a hand as I can without being fired.

That's sad. I'm sorry you have these problems with self-worth.

----------

My quote is the worker saying his work should not be patented because it is basic programming anyone skilled in the art can do easily.

Edit: Patents have to be non obvious to someone skilled in the art of what ever the patent is about, in this case, software.

I'm sure Samsung is trying to poach him.

 

[linuxcooldude]

What about Dyson? Are you referring to a illconceived lawsuit where Dyson wanted to sue Samsung for infringing a bogus patent that Dyson received for something they did not actually invent? Looks very similar to Apple action indeed. Both Dyson and Apple lose to Samsung in open competition and resort to suing them.

I suppose if you consider copying as open competition.

 

[kagharaht]

Its something Apple is doing to protect its own products. I think Samsung has a long history of copying other products ( Dyson comes to mind recently )

More than just copying. Price fixing with components and product sales. Good read for many to refresh their memories on why Samsung continues and will never stop their M.O.. It works too good and the payoff is worth it to them.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

 

[MattyW]

More than just copying. Price fixing with components and product sales. Good read for many to refresh their memories on why Samsung continues and will never stop their M.O.. It works too good and the payoff is worth it to them.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

Lol, while Samsung is guilty of more than their fair share of scummy deeds lets not forget Apple was just recently convicted of price fixing themselves.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/10/apple-found-guilty-of-conspiring-to-fix-prices-in-e-book-trial/

 

[kagharaht]

Lol, while Samsung is guilty of more than their fair share of scummy deeds lets not forget Apple was just recently convicted of price fixing themselves.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/10/apple-found-guilty-of-conspiring-to-fix-prices-in-e-book-trial/

Quite opposite from Samsungs underhanded moves. To blatantly label any form of similarity with Samsungs illegal activities is ignorant at best.

 

[mstrmac]

Lol, while Samsung is guilty of more than their fair share of scummy deeds lets not forget Apple was just recently convicted of price fixing themselves.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/10/apple-found-guilty-of-conspiring-to-fix-prices-in-e-book-trial/

Thats under appeal. If you have read anything about the case you'd know that something fishy is going on at the justice dept. Most experts also question the outcome of the case. So lets just wait/see.

 

[iZac]

Apple should pay $158k to Samsung in 200 iPhones.

200 iPhone 6's and a note saying "...we dare you"

 

[Renzatic]

More than just copying. Price fixing with components and product sales. Good read for many to refresh their memories on why Samsung continues and will never stop their M.O.. It works too good and the payoff is worth it to them.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

I'm on page 3 so far, and, well...I've never been a big fan of Apple in the court, and they're far from being as innocent as the freshly driven snow when it comes to employing underhanded tactics. But comparatively? Yeah, if that article is even halfway true, they're practically angels by comparison.

This is why I'm all for regulating business, people.

 

[thekev]

Quite opposite from Samsungs underhanded moves. To blatantly label any form of similarity with Samsungs illegal activities is ignorant at best.

What about the anti-poaching agreement?

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

With iPhone 6, iTV, and iWatch around the corner, It makes sense why Google would lessen the blow to Samsung; a blow to the company just before these product releases just may knock android down a huge notch.

Yeah. Right around the corner with updated displays, updated Mac Mini, updated iMac, updated MacBook pro, updated......yeah....Ill just leave this here.

 

[BvizioN]

By the way, never heard Samsung Note series? Galaxy Fit is not as bad as you claimed as.

I have one and I been using it for 2 weeks. It's not a bad looking and it does have a nice screen. To be quite honest that's all it is about it. The heart rate is not accurate. I am using it on Galaxy S5 and they both show quite different readings every time (I also have the iPhone and a traditional blood pressure monitor that are both very accurate on reading heart rate). Pedometer also not accurate. Both phone and fit gear differentiate up to 3000 steps a day, while they both are on me all time. It may be a software related issue, I don't know. But to be honest I am not seeing much benefit out of it. But I like the idea of getting incoming calls on it though (shame you can not answer the call directly from it while you listen to music on earphones and phone is in the pocket) I used to miss calls frequently when I had the phone in my pocked, even on vibration mode. Now with the fit gear I don't miss any calls.

I seriously can't imagine Apple working for years on their wrist device (if rumors are true) and coming up with something like this.

 

[BvizioN]

Do you think Apple should own the concept of universal searches? Do you think they should own autocorrect? Do they own voice search?

Of course not, but other companies do need to find their own away of implementing these concepts! It does not have to be exactly the way Apple does it. Example: There could be unlimited ways of how you unlock the screen by touch gestures. It does not have to be slide to unlock only.

 

[Oletros]

Essential patents are different. Even the Federal Trade Commission disapproves of import bans based on FRAND patents

No, FTC, EU, and even the letter where the Obama vetoed the ITC ban say explicitly that one can as an injunction using FRAND patents

 

[zipa]

Apple might have spent millions in R&D for the iPhone overall, but in this case Samsung was not found to be infringing the totality of Apple's iPhone intellectual property, it was found to be infringing the "slide-to-unlock" patent and the "linkify" patent. I doubt Apple spent even a fraction of 119M in R&D on these 2 patents.

On top of that R&D costs have nothing to do with the awarded damages...

The "slide-to-unlock" patent in oarticular is appauling. That's a bit like someone would patent not the steering wheel, but "rotate-to-steer".

It's a bloody touch screen. You interact with it by touching it. What next? Two home-buttons and a patent for "teabag-to-touchID"...

 

[Oletros]

Thats under appeal. If you have read anything about the case you'd know that something fishy is going on at the justice dept.

What is fishy?

Most experts also question the outcome of the case. So lets just wait/see.

Most expert? Are you sure? Any source for that?

----------

Of course not, but other companies do need to find their own away of implementing these concepts! It does not have to be exactly the way Apple does it. Example: There could be unlimited ways of how you unlock the screen by touch gestures. It does not have to be slide to unlock only.

Why not? In any case, in all of the world except in one country that patent is invalid because someone else did it before.

And not taking into account that Apple patent is not for slide to unlock, it is for ONE SPECIFIC slide to unlock

 

[zipa]

And certainly for a physicist in 1860's, the lightbulb would have been pretty obvious because people knew a setup like that would generate light.

Hence the patent was granted for "a vacuum tube containing a tungsten filament that glows when heated by electrons passing through it", not for a "round glowing thingy".

So you are supporting my claim that Samsung should make a smaller phone.

They do. Loads of them.

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung-phones-9.php

A search on GSMArena for "Samsung" and "< 4 inches" gives 665 results, so yes, Samsung agrees with you as well.

 

[Renzatic]

Of course not, but other companies do need to find their own away of implementing these concepts! It does not have to be exactly the way Apple does it. Example: There could be unlimited ways of how you unlock the screen by touch gestures. It does not have to be slide to unlock only.

Right, but like I said before, my biggest issue with these patents (and most software patents in general) is that they're too broadly defined. I summed it up above, but to give you the digest version, the way the system is currently set up, anyone can sue anyone for producing something even remotely similar to a standing patent, and the whole thing is very much a guilty until proven innocent affair.

This isn't a huge deal to big companies who have tons of money backing them up. They have the means to weather any number of lawsuits. But these same companies can easily sue a smart, but cash poor startup into oblivion as a means to curtail a potential future competitor just by having ownership of a few badly worded patents.

More often than not, patents are used as a weapon against a competitor, rather than a means to protect innovation these days.

 

[Monkeydude]

Its not about the money as Tim Cook said.

Knowing Samsung is convicted copycat again is a win.

You do realize, that Apple was convicted as well (even if the fee was much less)?

 

[iBug2]

Hence the patent was granted for "a vacuum tube containing a tungsten filament that glows when heated by electrons passing through it", not for a "round glowing thingy".

You haven't read what I wrote did you?

They do. Loads of them.

Any premium ones? No. Samsung makes only two premium phones, Galaxy and the Note. Both are significantly larger than 4".

----------

More often than not, patents are used as a weapon against a competitor, rather than a means to protect innovation these days.

Oh and it was different before?

 

[Renzatic]

Oh and it was different before?

In some shape, form, or fashion, yeah. But back when the patent office had more exacting standards, it was a helluva lot more difficult to do.

You didn't have patent trolls running around successfully suing small businesses for using store bought office equipment back in the 50's and 60's.