Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[trouble747]

They weren't unheard of, but they weren't as widespread and weren't as hurtful to the consumer through ridiculous patent licensing fees being proposed (40$ per device ? yeah, that's going to help keep costs down...) or through product injunctions limiting choice.

Apple has brought more litigation to the phone arena that we've ever seen in the last couple of years.

Are your statements based on an actual, thorough understanding and knowledge of the history of patent litigation, or is this just sort of a gut feeling type of thing?

Cell phones are, relatively speaking, quite new. It stands to reason that litigation involving cell phone patents is also a relatively recent phenomenon.

 

[TMay]

It's coming

All of this is ridiculous. Apple though is bringing it on themselves. They woke the sleeping beast.

Good. More blood in the water for all the legal sharks.

 

[KnightWRX]

What's been deliberated in the U.S.A. will be valid in the U.S.A. only.

I was talking about the poster's ignorance of anything outside his beloved U.S.A. and even his sheer ignorance of U.S. politics, laws, and how they relate to other countries he's saying have "less rights" than he does when its quite the opposite.

I wasn't discussing the general state of IP law and how it relates to this case.

 

[GadgetDon]

I have just one question :-

How else can you implement "bounce back" ?

What Apple must of REALLY been saying was you cannot use bounce back.....

That kinda says it all.

Apple is the leader in bring stuff to the market, then everyone follows, then Apple turns round to other companies and say "oh,... and by the way, you can't do the same stuff we do"

Why the heck not ?? Its a phone....

It's a phone, with a user-friendly multitouch interface that revolutionized the industry. That at it's launch, Apple talked about how much they've patented it, so no, it wasn't after they follow "you can't do that"

I posted earlier an alternative to bounce back - add an extra border distinctive border to the scrollable area, usually not visible, striking to say "you've gone too far" (yellow with black stripes in the U.S. is a pretty universal caution marker). There are other alternatives I can think of, and if Samsung's design people are at all competent they can come up with them too, but instead they just said "we'll do what Apple did"

The only thing stopping this is patents... which, i'm not saying its bad to have, but it goes too far as to "you can patent anything including this "tap to zoom" or "bounce back"..

Real patents should be better for going after like a complete copy cat of a phone, not the technology it uses to do something.. These so-calles "technology based patents" is just a waste of money.

If these so-called technology based patents are a waste of money, then so is the money the develop those technologies if anyone can then just copy them for free.

 

[KnightWRX]

Good. More blood in the water for all the legal sharks.

Exactly what we don't need. In the end, the market should decide.

 

[pdjudd]

We saw that in 90's in Apple vs. MS on Windows in which MS prevailed.

Of course back then MS and Apple had partnerships and agreements that led to the determination that MS had legitimate access to the source of Mac OS and that Apple had not sufficiently protected the access to such code. Of course Apple had no idea that MS would take their system ideas (and even their code right out - Quicktime code) and make a competing GUI OS out of it.

 

[69650]

I am Italian, lived in many places of europe, so I am not biased by nationalism. Not only that, but I would never go to the states, not even for an holyday, until they have laws like death penalty and free guns, because to me this make them look civils, democratics and contemporary like Iran or China or North Korea (other places I would never visit for a matter of principles).

That said, you are totally wrong. Each country has its laws and the right to have them observed by the ones who live on their national soil. It's called democracy. Democracy is not "I don't think americans are impartials so I think their trials should be judged by foreign judges". This is you raving. There is no "this is a global matte" argument here, because what he jury has deliberated it's only valid in the usa.

You're another one who doesn't actually read the OP you're commenting on.

I suggested a panel of international judges - including American judges.

Go ahead and wave your little flag to and pontificate on national sovereignty. Bit strange as you gave up your own currency only a few years ago. I would have thought giving up your currency was more of a "surrender" of sovereignty than handing over multinational patent disputes to an international court which could include Italian patent judges.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. This is a global issue. We are talking about multinational companies selling the same products around the world. It's the same products in the US, UK or Italy.

Why have 50 courts in 50 countries review the same evidence and the same patents 50 times over by 50 different juries or judges. This is about nationalism clear and simple. It's about narrow minded nationalists not wanting to cede any part of their legal system to an international court, no matter how sensible that might sound.

 

[KnightWRX]

Are your statements based on an actual, thorough understanding and knowledge of the history of patent litigation, or is this just sort of a gut feeling type of thing?

Cell phones are, relatively speaking, quite new. It stands to reason that litigation involving cell phone patents is also a relatively recent phenomenon.

Can you name any high profile lawsuits before Apple v. Everyone Else in the cell phone and smartphone industry ? Seems to me before Apple entered with their "no licensing our IP!", everyone else was quite happy cross-licensing and forming cooperative patent licensing pools.

 

[GadgetDon]

Why have 50 courts in 50 countries review the same evidence and the same patents 50 times over by 50 different juries or judges. This is about nationalism clear and simple. It's about narrow minded nationalists not wanting to cede any part of their legal system to an international court, no matter how sensible that might sound.

Because we're dealing with 50 different sets of patent law. There may be a lot of overlap, but there are differences.

 

[trouble747]

Exactly what we don't need. In the end, the market should decide.

Isn't that a bit simplistic?

Those who copy need not spend money on research or invention. Accordingly, they can charge far less.

I'm speaking generally, here. Without the ability to protect one's work--and a system by which to enforce those protections--the "market" will be able to do little to protect the inventors or innovators.

 

[Tones2]

What a surprise - a revered US company with an iconic recently deceased CEO wins a civil judgement in an US court with an US jury against a Korean company. No bias there whatsoever.

 

[KnightWRX]

Of course back then MS and Apple had partnerships and agreements that led to the determination that MS had legitimate access to the source of Mac OS and that Apple had not sufficiently protected the access to such code. Of course Apple had no idea that MS would take their system ideas (and even their code right out - Quicktime code) and make a competing GUI OS out of it.

The Quicktime code was by another company that Apple had contracted to write. Microsoft never had access or used any Mac OS code nor were they ever accused of doing that by Apple to my knowledge for their Windows operating system. In fact, Microsoft mostly used BSD licensed code for Windows, as is evident in their TCP/IP stack and utilities for Windows 95 and beyond (the copyright notices are intact in order to comply with the BSD license).

----------

Isn't that a bit simplistic?

Those who copy need not spend money on research or invention. Accordingly, they can charge far less.

Researching what patents to copy, and then actually taking a piece of paper describing a design/method and bringing to market is far more expensive than you let on.

In fact, what patents do protect is about the smallest bit of product design and fabrication there is : coming up with the idea of it.

That is why, especially for software, copyright and trademarks are much more effective defenses. Not to mention that for software, actually doing willful infringement makes the whole process harder (if you've ever coded, "do it like they do" is the last thing you want to hear. "Do it like you think is best" will usually result in cleaner, easier to maintain and more robust code).

 

[GadgetDon]

Of course back then MS and Apple had partnerships and agreements that led to the determination that MS had legitimate access to the source of Mac OS and that Apple had not sufficiently protected the access to such code. Of course Apple had no idea that MS would take their system ideas (and even their code right out - Quicktime code) and make a competing GUI OS out of it.

The Quicktime "borrowing" was much later. And that was part of the negotiations that resulted in Microsoft's commitment to Apple when Jobs returned.

 

[nexusrule]

New products is not exactly akin to innovation though. And iPods and Intel CPUs are not quite the best examples to show non-stagnant product lines.

Intel make new cpu, with different architecture OR production process yearly. Have them make new ones each 6 months, and probably they will not be profitable anymore. If you develop, build, test a product then you build/remake fabs to build it with a new process, you need some time to make money back. It's not like we still have dual core 32bit iCore cpu, despite a big technology and economic advantage on their sole competitor that goes on since 4-5 years at least.

Ipod in their days of glory (where they have almost monopoly) had news lines and designs coming yearly, used flash memory first, addes many features (video playback, camera, radio and so on). It's not like they had only iPod classic for ever. Ipod classic success it's what has make them develop other formats and features despite evident lack of competition.

In my world this is tech innovation, because I never saw a different type of innovation than that, if not in science fiction. I have no doubts Reed Richards or Anthony Stark could build an iPad 1mm thick, with 1 year battery charge, 12 core dual cpu in a matter of hours. But sadly, they live in comic books.

 

[trouble747]

Can you name any high profile lawsuits before Apple v. Everyone Else in the cell phone and smartphone industry ? Seems to me before Apple entered with their "no licensing our IP!", everyone else was quite happy cross-licensing and forming cooperative patent licensing pools.

I'm confused as to why "high profile" is relevant (or even the constraint of "cell phone and smartphone industry"). A number of factors make this a (relatively) "high profile" case, but they're not relevant in determining how much actual patent litigation occurs, or whether one company (Apple) is somehow novel or unprecedented in its pursuit of patent litigation.

Further, don't mistake your personal knowledge of this particular lawsuit for some sort of unique or overwhelming knowledge of its existence. Most people probably have no idea it even exists.

 

[KnightWRX]

The Quicktime "borrowing" was much later. And that was part of the negotiations that resulted in Microsoft's commitment to Apple when Jobs returned.

Lawsuit details here, has nothing to do with Mac OS code in Windows :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company

Poster pdjudd has a bad memory of events it seems.

 

[pdjudd]

You missed my point. At the time the Judge ruled that Apple essentially granted MS permission to their OS elements via their agreements. The quicktime mode actually helped Apple secure a settlement that led to MS committing to the OS. Before that discovery MS was pretty much destined to win, instead it led to an end of the suits in a more satisfactory matter.

ETA: I was not trying to say OS code in Windows - that was not correct. MS stole code though.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm confused as to why "high profile" is relevant (or even the constraint of "cell phone and smartphone industry").

It is relevent in the sheer breadth of it (the claims levied) and in the big number of jurisdiction they have been filed in, not to mention the media attention around them.

Again, answer the question. Yes I am talking about my personal knowledge, now feel free to prove me wrong with facts if you don't think my opinion is a valid representation of reality, but stop dancing around.

 

[gnasher729]

Can you name any high profile lawsuits before Apple v. Everyone Else in the cell phone and smartphone industry ? Seems to me before Apple entered with their "no licensing our IP!", everyone else was quite happy cross-licensing and forming cooperative patent licensing pools.

Qualcomm vs. Nokia.
RIM vs. NTP.
Microsoft vs. AT&T

 

[KnightWRX]

YOu missed my point. At the time the Judge ruled that Apple essentially granted MS permission to their OS elements via their agreements. The quicktime mode actually helped Apple secure a settlement that led to MS committing to the OS. Before that discovery MS was pretty much destined to win, instead it led to an end of the suits in a more satisfactory matter.

The quicktime lawsuit has nothing to do with OS elements.

And in the end, Apple still lost. They had to settle to avoid bankruptcy (the legal proceedings were taxing on their poor finances) and had to rely on Microsoft to prop up the Mac platform with things like Internet Explorer (a very poor, non compatible port of it) and Microsoft Office instead of being able to stand on their own (which they finally did with iWork and Safari).

 

[trouble747]

Researching what patents to copy, and then actually taking a piece of paper describing a design/method and bringing to market is far more expensive than you let on.

In fact, what patents do protect is about the smallest bit of product design and fabrication there is : coming up with the idea of it.

What?! Your almost complete dismissal of the "idea" is astounding to me. "Creating the product is easy, the hard part is setting up an assembly line to manufacture it!"

 

[TMay]

They weren't unheard of, but they weren't as widespread and weren't as hurtful to the consumer through ridiculous patent licensing fees being proposed (40$ per device ? yeah, that's going to help keep costs down...) or through product injunctions limiting choice.

Apple has brought more litigation to the phone arena that we've ever seen in the last couple of years.

Now you're freaking me out!

Seriously.

Hurtful to the consumer?

Samsung is the largest smartphone manufacturer and marketer in the world, and ship more product than they can sell, driving low prices, and after they pay the $1B penalty, they are quite free to remove any offending features and code from their devices or negotiate licenses. If anything, Samsung is driving their Android OEM partners into poverty with there pricing structures.

Sure, there will be less smartphones models overall on the market, but plenty of the Galaxy series that users swoon over, though maybe not in the U.S. market for current models after a possible injunction.

This is a win for Samsung as much as Apple.

 

[gnasher729]

Lawsuit details here, has nothing to do with Mac OS code in Windows :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company

Poster pdjudd has a bad memory of events it seems.

That's of course Mac OS code in Windows. Quicktime is part of MacOS, and Quicktime code ended up in Video for Windows which was part of Windows.

 

[GadgetDon]

In fact, what patents do protect is about the smallest bit of product design and fabrication there is : coming up with the idea of it.

That is why, especially for software, copyright and trademarks are much more effective defenses. Not to mention that for software, actually doing willful infringement makes the whole process harder (if you've ever coded, "do it like they do" is the last thing you want to hear. "Do it like you think is best" will usually result in cleaner, easier to maintain and more robust code).

Actually, patents are NOT about ideas, patents are about methods and solutions.

See the movie "Flash of Genius"? Good movie if you want to see the other side of patents. It was about a guy named Robert Kearns who invented and patented a way to have intermittent windshield wipers, showed it to the automakers who stole it. He spends years trying to get paid for his patents.

The auto companies had the idea about "intermittent windshield wipers" before Kearns, but never managed to get it to work. If the auto companies, having seen Kearns intermittent wipers in action, been inspired to come up with a different way to make them work, it wouldn't have been a patent violation.

Now yes, some patents are so loosely stated that they essentially become the idea, and I believe they should be invalidated on those. But there again, people confuse bounce back as the idea rather than the method for solving the idea of "we need to tell the user they've scrolled too far".

 

[pdjudd]

The quicktime lawsuit has nothing to do with OS elements.

I already said that I didn't mean to say that. It was a mistake.

And in the end, Apple still lost. They had to settle to avoid bankruptcy (the legal proceedings were taxing on their poor finances) and had to rely on Microsoft to prop up the Mac platform with things like Internet Explorer (a very poor, non compatible port of it) and Microsoft Office instead of being able to stand on their own (which they finally did with iWork and Safari).

Not really. I seem to recall that Apple still had several billion in the bank. It delayed things long enough. It was mostly about MS committing development to their OS.