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

[Renzatic]

5. Companies never choose not to enforce patents. Neglecting to protect IP when it is infringed upon is tantamount to admitting that they aren't defensible or aren't worth anything.

Not true at all. Quite a few companies will ignore an IP violation unless they think there's a good deal of money to be made from it. To expand on what I said above, MS claims the Linux kernel violates 235 of their patents, yet they've only gone to court twice over a couple of them, and maybe licensed a couple more.

MS could go to court any time they feel like it, and if it were truly about protecting their IP, they would. But no, patents are seen more as another source of income, or trying to harm a competitor these days. If there's no direct gain, they won't bother.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Not true at all. Quite a few companies will ignore an IP violation unless they think there's a good deal of money to be made from it. To expand on what I said above, MS claims the Linux kernel violates 235 of their patents, yet they've only gone to court twice over a couple of them, and maybe licensed a couple more.

MS could go to court any time they feel like it, and if it were truly about protecting their IP, they would. But no, patents are seen more as another source of income, or trying to harm a competitor these days. If there's no direct gain, they won't bother.

The owners of the IP might not sue in every case, or right away, but they will at least notify the supposed violators to cease and desist and makes threatening noises in an official nastygram. It is dangerous to completely ignore IP violations over a long period of time, and then expect to be able to enforce them opportunistically. Courts tend to look unkindly on that sort of thing.

 

[Renzatic]

The owners of the IP might not sue in every case, or right away, but they will at least notify the supposed violators to cease and desist and makes threatening noises in an official nastygram. It is dangerous to completely ignore IP violations over a long period of time, and then expect to be able to enforce them opportunistically. Courts tend to look unkindly on that sort of thing.

That makes sense, and you'd think it'd be true, but it doesn't always seem to be the case. Look at the universal search patent. It almost exactly describes the method a search is performed on both Windows and Linux. Apple has a cross patent agreement with MS, so that explains why they'll never go after them directly. But Linux? They just don't care. Linux represents no threat to Apple at the moment.

...but Samsung does, and that's why we're seeing it in court now.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That makes sense, and you'd think it'd be true, but it doesn't always seem to be the case. Look at the universal search patent. It almost exactly describes the method a search is performed on both Windows and Linux. Apple has a cross patent agreement with MS, so that explains why they'll never go after them directly. But Linux? They just don't care. Linux represents no threat to Apple at the moment.

...but Samsung does, and that's why we're seeing it in court now.

Linux is not a good example, because of the numbers of distributions, and the fact that no one person or company is behind it.

The real threat to Apple is Google. Just because Apple is trying outflank them legally instead of attacking them in a full frontal assault, doesn't mean that they aren't the prime objective.

 

[Oletros]

The owners of the IP might not sue in every case, or right away, but they will at least notify the supposed violators to cease and desist and makes threatening noises in an official nastygram. It is dangerous to completely ignore IP violations over a long period of time, and then expect to be able to enforce them opportunistically. Courts tend to look unkindly on that sort of thing.

When or how you sue is irrelevant in the case of patents. Or there is infringement or there is no infringement, if you waited 10 years to sue or you didn't sue other companies is irrelevant

----------

Linux is not a good example, because of the numbers of distributions, and the fact that no one person or company is behind it.

What? There is Linux Foundation and every Linux source file has a copyright that states the owner

The real threat to Apple is Google. Just because Apple is trying outflank them legally instead of attacking them in a full frontal assault, doesn't mean that they aren't the prime objective.

And why the real threat is Google?

 

[satcomer]

Linux is not a good example, because of the numbers of distributions, and the fact that no one person or company is behind it.

What about Linus Toralds?

The real threat to Apple is Google. Just because Apple is trying outflank them legally instead of attacking them in a full frontal assault, doesn't mean that they aren't the prime objective.

Well Linux might have been a Huge blow after the news Linus Torvalds suspends key Linux developer. Google might get into a pickle with Android development without Apple nipping at their heals.

 

[IJ Reilly]

When or how you sue is irrelevant in the case of patents.

----------



What? There is Linux Foundation and every Linux source file has a copyright that states the owner



And why the real threat is Google?

It hasn't been irrelevant in the past. Courts seem to want to know why an IP holder allowed an infringement to occur without taking some kind of action.

So you mean the open source nature of Linux makes no difference?

And why Google is the real threat is just too obvious. I can't imagine why you would even ask that question.

 

[Boomish69]

Be careful what you say. The device used to post that comment may have a Samsung component inside it. You do understand that Apple works with Samsung to bring life to various Apple products? The more anti-Samsung people appear the more silly they sound.
It's like being anti-Hitler in the 1940's but driving around in a Volkswagen Beetle.

Your picking hairs and you know exactly what I mean a chip inside is not eaxtly a whole car is it? besides Apple are trying not to use Samsung why shouldn't I.. It's the same principle when people don't buy from a shop they dislike or a bank because of their ethics etc etc

----------

But Apple are a paragon of virtue? Not only have they been found guilty of patent infringement themselves, then there was the clock they tried to steal from the Swiss company. Least we not forgot the ebook price fixing debacle.

What planet are you on? how does that even compare...if you seriously think Apple are in the same boat as companies like Samsung then why are you here? why even buy an Apple product if you think they are that evil...jeez some people have to pick holes in everything don't they.

 

[Oletros]

It hasn't been irrelevant in the past. Courts seem to want to know why an IP holder allowed an infringement to occur without taking some kind of action.

Any example of this involving patents?

So you mean the open source nature of Linux makes no difference?

The same difference it makes the open source nature of Android

And why Google is the real threat is just too obvious. I can't imagine why you would even ask that question.

No, it is not obvious

 

[Renzatic]

Linux is not a good example, because of the numbers of distributions, and the fact that no one person or company is behind it.

Oletros kinda answered this for me. Even though there are multiple distros, the Linux Foundation represents their base, and is all but lead by Linus Torvalds. They provide the direction and guidelines the rest follow.

The real threat to Apple is Google. Just because Apple is trying outflank them legally instead of attacking them in a full frontal assault, doesn't mean that they aren't the prime objective.

I explained in the other thread why I don't think Apple will ever go after Google. For one thing, Google has spent a lot of time distancing itself from Apple's IP over the years. For another, a direct battle could lead to a conclusion neither company would want to see pass, which would be the very real threat of their IP portfolios being winnowed down to nothing, or the complete dissolution of software patents in general. The latter's already happened in Europe, and there are plenty of people fighting for that exact same thing here in the US. If it goes scorched earth, and both companies start attempting to invalidate the other's patents in order to protect themselves, the end results won't be pretty for them. They'll have wasted billions buying up IP that will become entirely useless.

 

[RobertoCravallo]

Besides Apple are trying not to use Samsung why shouldn't I..

What planet are you on? how does that even compare...if you seriously think Apple are in the same boat as companies like Samsung then why are you here? why even buy an Apple product if you think they are that evil...jeez some people have to pick holes in everything don't they.

So if SAMSUNG is copying stuff all over the place, how come APPLE (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't just buy the "original" parts from the "original" manufacturers? And if APPLE jumps of the bridge, you will too???? How old are you?

Who says that anyone is evil? Talk about "picking holes", you are ready for the olympics!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Any example of this involving patents?



The same difference it makes the open source nature of Android



No, it is not obvious

I can't do the research right at the moment, but then neither have you. In any event a court will want to know why an IP owner who is suing today allowed someone to infringe for years without at least being being sent a cease and desist notice. "Because they weren't worth suing until now" isn't going to cut it as an answer.

----------

Oletros kinda answered this for me. Even though there are multiple distros, the Linux Foundation represents their base, and is all but lead by Linus Torvalds. They provide the direction and guidelines the rest follow.



I explained in the other thread why I don't think Apple will ever go after Google. For one thing, Google has spent a lot of time distancing itself from Apple's IP over the years. For another, a direct battle could lead to a conclusion neither company would want to see pass, which would be the very real threat of their IP portfolios being winnowed down to nothing, or the complete dissolution of software patents in general. The latter's already happened in Europe, and there are plenty of people fighting for that exact same thing here in the US. If it goes scorched earth, and both companies start attempting to invalidate the other's patents in order to protect themselves, the end results won't be pretty for them. They'll have wasted billions buying up IP that will become entirely useless.

You make a good point in general about the Phyrric quality of many of these IP fights. Clear victories are rare, and almost always at a cost that makes outsiders at least wonder why they bothered. I think the reason is at least in part because if they don't defend their IP, they lose it.

 

[Oletros]

I can't do the research right at the moment, but then neither have you. In any event a court will want to know why an IP owner who is suing today allowed someone to infringe for years without at least being being sent a cease and desist notice. "Because they weren't worth suing until now" isn't going to cut it as an answer.

So no you don't have any example and you can't provide any single link to back your claim.

And in any event, I don't remember a single case since I'm following those cases were the judges have asked that.

Perhaps you're confusing patents with trademarks

 

[LordVic]

What did those apps do when you clicked the linked phone number? I doubt they jumped between apps (being what Windows 1/2?), and I doubt their implementation was an OS API or as featured as either 647' and Linkify. It would contain components of those patents, search/replace on some data likely specific not broad like an API, making the use case and implementation quite different. You're caught in the trees!

They did.

I had as early as 95, when I wrote my first HTML based blog, was able to include HTML that when clicked, woudl fire up an external program, such as an email client.

further evolution included some programs like Lotus Applications and notes databases that did have functionality built in that would recognise certain blocks of text, in our cases, email address, and allow you to click the email to fire up outlook express with an email editor ready to go with the email address and often subject already filled in.

Further evolution of this concept did see it translate over to smartphones, much earlier than the iPhone. Earlier blackberries for example did let you do similar, letting you click an email in a website or in the middle of another email and fire up the email client App.

Such other concepts were very early brought to Office documents, in the form of OLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding), which was around as early as 1990.

 

[BaldiMac]

So no you don't have any example and you can't provide any single link to back your claim.

And in any event, I don't remember a single case since I'm following those cases were the judges have asked that.

Perhaps you're confusing patents with trademarks

Not having time to look up an example right now is not the same as not being able to back a claim.

Here's an example:
If a patent holder fails to act to bring an infringement claim in a timely manner, and that failure to act causes the accused infringer to incur additional damages, the defenses of laches or estoppel may be available.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/patents/Patents2/Defenses.asp

 

[LordVic]

That's fine. My point (that you still missed) was that if a rowing oar and a boat motor are each patentable, neither of them infringe on the other.

The problem that is often coming up, and why that there is so much heated debate is often the vagueness of the Patents that Apple is being awarded. Many of them have prior art. There is also a history of Apple "spamming" the patent office till they relent and issue a patent.

Then Apple uses those patents in lawsuits.

it becomes harder and harder to differentiate between legitimate patent claim and the fluff apple is trying to use to attack competition.

Lets use the 'boat' example.

if Apple patented, "Applying an external combustion engine to an oblong shaped hallowed out floatable vessel" and someone else came along and made that exact item, then Apple would be likely right. The patent is specific into application and use enough, that for someone else to come up with their own version, they would have to change something.

What else we're seeing in the boat example
"A floating device to get you from point A to point B".

What we're seeing is a lot of these broad, Open ended patents. its a broken system. The patent system was supposed to prevent people from copying for a limited timeframe the steps and implementation of a specific means to accomplish a task.

Instead we're seeing broad patents on "accomplish this task". without the specifics on how to get there.

 

[BaldiMac]

The problem that is often coming up, and why that there is so much heated debate is often the vagueness of the Patents that Apple is being awarded. Many of them have prior art. There is also a history of Apple "spamming" the patent office till they relent and issue a patent.

Then Apple uses those patents in lawsuits.

it becomes harder and harder to differentiate between legitimate patent claim and the fluff apple is trying to use to attack competition.

Lets use the 'boat' example.

if Apple patented, "Applying an external combustion engine to an oblong shaped hallowed out floatable vessel" and someone else came along and made that exact item, then Apple would be likely right. The patent is specific into application and use enough, that for someone else to come up with their own version, they would have to change something.

What else we're seeing in the boat example
"A floating device to get you from point A to point B".

What we're seeing is a lot of these broad, Open ended patents. its a broken system. The patent system was supposed to prevent people from copying for a limited timeframe the steps and implementation of a specific means to accomplish a task.

Instead we're seeing broad patents on "accomplish this task". without the specifics on how to get there.

That sounds like a non-specific argument against the current patent system that you are trying to pretend specifically applies to the patents that Apple is asserting.

 

[LordVic]

That sounds like a non-specific argument against the current patent system that you are trying to pretend specifically applies to the patents that Apple is asserting.

no, more just the confusion and the basis of a lot of the arguments.

Many are saying "that is obvious! how is it patented" and many are saying the flip side.

and using the word "pretend" to try and assert that your own bias and opinion should automatically exclude any argument doesn't lend credit to your own argument.

A good argument should take into account all viewpoints and stakeholders, regardless if you personally believe it to be valued or not.

I was not passing judgement in that, Only that it is a viewpoint that should also be taken into consideration.

And IMHO, if the jury has not taken that into consideration (not saying they agree with, but at least have thought it) then they have not done their due dilligence as an unbiased judge of the case at hand.

 

[BaldiMac]

no, more just the confusion and the basis of a lot of the arguments.

Many are saying "that is obvious! how is it patented" and many are saying the flip side.

and using the word "pretend" to try and assert that your own bias and opinion should automatically exclude any argument doesn't lend credit to your own argument.

A good argument should take into account all viewpoints and stakeholders, regardless if you personally believe it to be valued or not.

I was not passing judgement in that, Only that it is a viewpoint that should also be taken into consideration.

And IMHO, if the jury has not taken that into consideration (not saying they agree with, but at least have thought it) then they have not done their due dilligence as an unbiased judge of the case at hand.

I'm not talking about "what many are saying". I'm talking about what you are saying. You are speaking in generalities about various problems that have been brought up with the patent system. Which is fine.

But then you make the completely unsupported claim that those arguments apply to the patents that Apple is asserting. I think that argument is specious without specific examples to back your claim.

I used the word "pretend" to imply that you made an unsupported jump in logic, not to assert any bias.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So no you don't have any example and you can't provide any single link to back your claim.

And in any event, I don't remember a single case since I'm following those cases were the judges have asked that.

Perhaps you're confusing patents with trademarks

No cause to be hostile. As I said, I don't have time to find any now. This isn't my job. It isn't like you have provided any examples to back your claims either.

I am speaking of IP in general.

 

[Oletros]

I am speaking of IP in general.

And as I said, I was talking about patents, the subject of those trials.

 

[BaldiMac]

No cause to be hostile. As I said, I don't have time to find any now. This isn't my job. It isn't like you have provided any examples to back your claims either.

I am speaking of IP in general.

And as I said, I was talking about patents, the subject of those trials.

IJ Reilly, here you go. I'm probably still on Oletros's ignore list, so he didn't see that I already refuted his claim.

Not having time to look up an example right now is not the same as not being able to back a claim.

Here's an example:
If a patent holder fails to act to bring an infringement claim in a timely manner, and that failure to act causes the accused infringer to incur additional damages, the defenses of laches or estoppel may be available.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/patents/Patents2/Defenses.asp

 

[Renzatic]

You make a good point in general about the Phyrric quality of many of these IP fights. Clear victories are rare, and almost always at a cost that makes outsiders at least wonder why they bothered. I think the reason is at least in part because if they don't defend their IP, they lose it.

Yup. Most big companies choose to license IP rather than fight it provided the terms are reasonable (this is MS' method, and they make a ton off it). Usually enduring the process isn't worth the headache. But if any one company decides to question the validity of a software patent in court, chances are better than good that someone somewhere will find a strong bit of prior art, and get it nixed.

It makes you wonder why software patents are even a thing, considering the whole system feels like a house of cards that someone started building sometime back in the 60's, and all it takes is someone looking at the base and going "oh, this has been done before" to bring it all tumbling down.

Really, I follow KDarling's line of though on the whole thing, that if you get a group of programmers in a room together and tell each one to program their own implementation of the same thing in the same language, everyones final product will almost inevitably end up being pretty similar. You might have a couple of people who do something particularly clever, but they're still working from the same language, slightly building upon the same basic methods and tricks that have been taught in schools for years, so it doesn't deserve patent protection.

When you think of it that way, a company's best asset isn't its software IP, since everyone is basically doing the same thing in a slight different way, but the people who produce it. What separates a good app from a bad one isn't what it does, but how well it does it. For that, you'll want a good coder on your side. Moreso than anything, it's about implementation.

...and implementation is easily covered by copyright.

 

[IJ Reilly]

IJ Reilly, here you go. I'm probably still on Oletros's ignore list, so he didn't see that I already refuted his claim.

Thank you. The truth is, nobody can really "prove" their argument, as these things are determined on a case-by-case basis, but I think it does help to go back to basic principles on IP protections. They are designed to prevent others from invading your property, not to turn an invasion into a cash machine years later. If Company A knows that Company B is trading on its IP, it is incumbent on A to promptly ask B to cease and desist. If A doesn't do that, and A sues B ten years later, then they can expect to have hard row to hoe in court. The explanation that "we were just waiting for them to become worth suing" isn't going to cut it. That could even look like a kind of entrapment. That's my understanding, but if we have any lawyers out there who would like to put this in proper legal terms, I'd welcome it.

----------

...and implementation is easily covered by copyright.

Easily covered perhaps, but not always easy to enforce.

 

[mattintoshmac]

Like this post if you wouldn't miss Samsung & their toy phones, or even care if they went bankrupt tomorrow.