Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[linkgx1]

"It's a mess in THIS COUNTRY" meaning "they aren't coming up with the answers I'd like"

Way to take things WAY out of context. The vagueness of patents, especially when it comes to technology stifle competition. Or it means you can rest on your laurels with out doing anything and getting a profit.

Especially when it comes to businesses. Companies like suing smaller companies so they can kill their R&D because of how expensive litigiation is.


It's now about 'answers someone would like', its about a broken system.


I'd have a problem is Blackberry came with patents a year from now and barred the sales of iPhones.

 

[GadgetDon]

Way to take things WAY out of context. The vagueness of patents, especially when it comes to technology stifle competition. Or it means you can rest on your laurels with out doing anything and getting a profit.

So the creation of the iPhone interface elements, the years spent on trying alternatives, testing on users, was "resting on your laurels without doing anything"

Do we have problems? Yes. I think overly broad patents are being approved, I think patents are being said to be infringed when there is little to no nexus between product and patent.

But I don't think the utility patents in this case is indicative of the problems. Not because I'm a "fanboy", but because the patents meet what I think the standards should be, and Apple is applying them to very specific behavior/features in Samsung's phones. (Again, I am not supporting the trade dress crap, just the utility patents.)

 

[linkgx1]

So the creation of the iPhone interface elements, the years spent on trying alternatives, testing on users, was "resting on your laurels without doing anything"

I was actually referring to the bs with companies like Tivo that are only relevant because of patents (not actually competing).

So please, refrain from keep bsing and assuming I'm talking about Apple, because I'm talking IN GENERAL. People here are showing traits of EXTREME fanboyism.

 

[69650]

OK, going back to the movie I've referenced in the past, Flash of Genius:

Robert Kearns invented intermittent windshield wipers. It was an improvement on plain old windshield wipers. You'd refuse him a patent?

Bounce-back is a methodology. It's a solution to a problem with touch-screen editing. There was no solution to that before this.

The windscreen wiper was the patentable invention. The intermittent wipers are merely a modification or enhancement of the original product and therefore do not warrant a patent.

Bounce back may very well be a solution to a problem but it's still not a new product. It's simply not an invention.

My test? The light bulb was an invention. Is bounce back on a par with the invention of the light bulb? or the invention of the computable spreadsheet?

What you're advocating would see everything under the sun patented. No wonder the US system is in such a mess with a backlog of several years if everyone is applying for dumb patents like this.

 

[uberman15]

No, I just don't want your crappy system to affect me.

Then lobby the UK to adopt protectionist trade agreements. Otherwise, you have no other choice to but to accept that every other governments system (whatever that system is) affects yours and vice versa.

If we are now trading insults then thankfully the US say in the world economy as you put it is diminishing by the day. What does your national debt currently stand at? I'm not sure I could fit that many zeros on the screen.

I'm trading insults? You called me a narrow-minded nationalist but you take supreme offense when I call you that after several posts in which I try to, as nicely as possible, put forth arguments that you continually refuse to address.

I can't think of a single thing I own that was made in America. In fact the Apple products I've got are just about the only American designed products I have, and even they were designed by a Brit so I'm happy with that. I prefer Adidas to Nike. I always buy European cars. All my tech goods are Japanese. Most of my electrical goods are German and most things I own were probably made in China.

Oh yeah baseball. I do like baseball so there you go. It's not all bad.

I prefer Puma and I hate baseball. I prefer European cars and play football (yes, in the European sense). What the f does that have anything to do with anything? It's a good case for free trade, but you seem to be uninterested in that because you don't want American laws affecting you. Guess what? If you want to live and participate in a global economy you have no other choice. Americans have to live with Japanese, Chinese, European laws, etc. Many of them are quite crappy too (e.g. Chinese refusal to establish a non-corrupt business practices). Unlike you, I'm uninterested in bi*ching about it. If the US wants to compete with China in the long run, we must be better ourselves. I am not so naive to complain about China and think they should fix their system to benefit me.

 

[GadgetDon]

I was actually referring to the bs with companies like Tivo that are only relevant because of patents (not actually competing).

So please, refrain from keep bsing and assuming I'm talking about Apple, because I'm talking IN GENERAL. People here are showing traits of EXTREME fanboyism.

Yes, because a discussion on a a patent lawsuit decision clearly makes me think of another patent

Though to be fair to TiVo, I've never owned a Tivo and have owned a Dish satellite receiver with DVR that was the subject, but they did create a product with the patents and have continued to improve and sell that product. And when TiVo introduced it, those were unique and astounding capabilities. (I think they should be going for licensing rather than saying "nobody but me can use those - and would say the same about Apple).

----------

The windscreen wiper was the patentable invention. The intermittent wipers are merely a modification or enhancement of the original product and therefore do not warrant a patent.

Bounce back may very well be a solution to a problem but it's still not a new product. It's simply not an invention.

My test? The light bulb was an invention. Is bounce back on a par with the invention of the light bulb? or the invention of the computable spreadsheet?

What you're advocating would see everything under the sun patented. No wonder the US system is in such a mess with a backlog of several years if everyone is applying for dumb patents like this.

I think you have a remarkably limited view of innovation and what should be patentable, and if the new EU standard is similarly limited, I forsee problems. What you're saying is there is no benefit to investing on improvements to existing products, even if you can make it more functional, run cheaper, be safer, because anyone can then just copy your improvements without paying for the R&D.

And BTW, I strongly recommend checking out Flash of Genius. You've made your case based on the small-time inventor, might be illuminating. (And yes, from all I've read, it is true to the real events.)

 

[uberman15]

The windscreen wiper was the patentable invention. The intermittent wipers are merely a modification or enhancement of the original product and therefore do not warrant a patent.

Actually, there are improvement patents. Licensing them requires one to also be able to license the initial patent as well. I don't know anything about intermittent wipers so I'm not commenting on that. But the mere fact that it is an improvement of an original product does not mean it doesn't warrant a patent.

Bounce back may very well be a solution to a problem but it's still not a new product. It's simply not an invention.

My test? The light bulb was an invention. Is bounce back on a par with the invention of the light bulb? or the invention of the computable spreadsheet?

What you're advocating would see everything under the sun patented. No wonder the US system is in such a mess with a backlog of several years if everyone is applying for dumb patents like this.

It's funny because you and I agree that bounce back is not patentable yet your reasoning has no legal basis. The fundamental problem is that software patents don't meet the regiments of what was meant to be patented. Almost the entirety of the flaws in the US' system can be blamed on software patents. You might be interested in watching the video on this site: http://patentabsurdity.com. It will actually make the point you want to make but give you a bit more rigor in your argument.

 

[69650]

As for "every few lines of code will be patented", can't the same be said of "any arrangement of circuits" or "any collection of gears be patented"?

You're missing the point - it's the end product that's patentable not the components.

I don't know enough about H.264 to answer that question. Whoever invented compressed music (was it mp3 I don't know) deserves a patent just like whoever invented the compact disc (actually I know it was Philips who invented that coz I used to work for Philips and I went to see they lab where they invented it).

These were genuinely new inventions.

 

[GadgetDon]

You're missing the point - it's the end product that's patentable not the components.

I don't know enough about H.264 to answer that question. Whoever invented compressed music (was it mp3 I don't know) deserves a patent just like whoever invented the compact disc (actually I know it was Philips who invented that coz I used to work for Philips and I went to see they lab where they invented it).

These were genuinely new inventions.

I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with it. The concept that improvements to a product is not patentable, or a component is not patentable, is insane.

By that standard, the CPU is not patentable, because it's a component. All of Samsung's patents (that you say they beat Apple with everywhere but the U.S.) are on components for 3G connectivity. If the EU patent commission limits patents to the first version of any new thing and bars any improvement or component patents, I'll eat my hat.

 

[Mark Booth]

Bounce-back is a methodology. It's a solution to a problem with touch-screen editing. There was no solution to that before this.

It's wasted breath arguing with Apple-haters about the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom types of patents. They have entirely selfish reasons to feel that Apple's patents shouldn't be valid. Specifically, they WANT those features on their non-Apple products so, ergo, other vendors should be allowed to steal Apple's technology as far as they are concerned.

Mark

 

[linkgx1]

Yes, because a discussion on a a patent lawsuit decision clearly makes me think of another patent

Though to be fair to TiVo, I've never owned a Tivo and have owned a Dish satellite receiver with DVR that was the subject, but they did create a product with the patents and have continued to improve and sell that product. And when TiVo introduced it, those were unique and astounding capabilities. (I think they should be going for licensing rather than saying "nobody but me can use those - and would say the same about Apple).

----------



)

Yes, and the inventor should be entitled to the benefits (Tivo in this case). But what I hate is when companies use this as a flame....or wait years to file for infringement.

Like....the exact moment I SEE someone infringing on my patents...I'm filing for suit that very day.


And speaking of licensing...the biggest question is....did Sammy even try to negotiate with Apple? Or was it just no?

And lastly, why hasn't Apple sued LG for their Optimus UI 3.0?

----------

It's wasted breath arguing with Apple-haters about the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom types of patents. They have entirely selfish reasons to feel that Apple's patents shouldn't be valid. Specifically, they WANT those features on their non-Apple products so, ergo, other vendors should be allowed to steal Apple's technology as far as they are concerned.

Mark

That's assuming a lot.

 

[uberman15]

It's wasted breath arguing with Apple-haters about the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom types of patents. They have entirely selfish reasons to feel that Apple's patents shouldn't be valid. Specifically, they WANT those features on their non-Apple products so, ergo, other vendors should be allowed to steal Apple's technology as far as they are concerned.

Mark

Lol, I support Apple and own many Apple products. But software patents are BS. Watch the video on this site: http://patentabsurdity.com. If you disagree with it, please make some counter-arguments here.

 

[GadgetDon]

Lol, I support Apple and own many Apple products. But software patents are BS. Watch the video on this site: http://patentabsurdity.com. If you disagree with it, please make some counter-arguments here.

To be blunt, as soon as I saw Richard Stallman presented as one of the experts and supported by the Free Software Foundation, I gave up. These guys live in their own philosophical framework that there's no way to argue because we start in different worlds.

 

[linkgx1]

Do people not get you can support a company and disagree with their legal tactics? It's not black and white.

For example, I love Universal as a film studio, but disagreed when they tried using Nintendo for making "Donkey Kong". Same situation here.

 

[uberman15]

To be blunt, as soon as I saw Richard Stallman presented as one of the experts and supported by the Free Software Foundation, I gave up. These guys live in their own philosophical framework that there's no way to argue because we start in different worlds.

I have no idea what the FSF is or who Richard Stallman is. The video itself has nothing to do with that. There are legitimate legal arguments made in the video about the issues with software patents.

I'll quote myself from a much earlier post:

The video contains two examples that I think illuminate the tremendous shortcomings of software patents.

The first is a software patent granted to eHarmony for basically doing principal component analysis. As someone with a mathematical background, the absurdity of this seems unparalleled. That PCA was applied for dating might have been the key intuition of the eHarmony folks but there is fundamentally nothing in that idea that should be patentable. It's almost like patenting addition for summing the price of goods in a shopping bag on an e-commerce site.

The other example the video gives is what classical music would have been like if all the composers prior to Beethoven had patented various different types of musical ideas such as how to transition from one set of chords to another or a specific repetition of a note, etc. Instead of composing his wonderful symphonies, he'd have to navigate the minefield of patents to ensure that his did not infringe. Worse yet, he'd have to pay substantial amounts of money once he composed his symphonies because there is no way he wouldn't have. And yet, people look at software patents as protection of innovation.

None of this is a commentary on this specific case. I don't fundamentally know what the litigation would have been like had software and business method patents not existed. I'm inclined to believe that Samsung did infringe Apple copyright. And perhaps there were some legitimate patents in there as well.

But the primary problem with patent industry today is that too much capital is spent on defensive patenting and litigation rather than innovation. Had FFT been patentable, I shudder to think what technology would not exist today as a result. Software patents are far too vague and often have to wide of an influence. So even though software patents might be good in theory, their implementation in practice has been utter disaster. And I see no fix other than to rid of them altogether.

 

[GadgetDon]

I have no idea what the FSF is or who Richard Stallman is. The video itself has nothing to do with that. There are legitimate legal arguments made in the video about the issues with software patents.

I'll quote myself from a much earlier post:

The video contains two examples that I think illuminate the tremendous shortcomings of software patents.

The first is a software patent granted to eHarmony for basically doing principal component analysis. As someone with a mathematical background, the absurdity of this seems unparalleled. That PCA was applied for dating might have been the key intuition of the eHarmony folks but there is fundamentally nothing in that idea that should be patentable. It's almost like patenting addition for summing the price of goods in a shopping bag on an e-commerce site.

The other example the video gives is what classical music would have been like if all the composers prior to Beethoven had patented various different types of musical ideas such as how to transition from one set of chords to another or a specific repetition of a note, etc. Instead of composing his wonderful symphonies, he'd have to navigate the minefield of patents to ensure that his did not infringe. Worse yet, he'd have to pay substantial amounts of money once he composed his symphonies because there is no way he wouldn't have. And yet, people look at software patents as protection of innovation.

None of this is a commentary on this specific case. I don't fundamentally know what the litigation would have been like had software and business method patents not existed. I'm inclined to believe that Samsung did infringe Apple copyright. And perhaps there were some legitimate patents in there as well.

But the primary problem with patent industry today is that too much capital is spent on defensive patenting and litigation rather than innovation. Had FFT been patentable, I shudder to think what technology would not exist today as a result. Software patents are far too vague and often have to wide of an influence. So even though software patents might be good in theory, their implementation in practice has been utter disaster. And I see no fix other than to rid of them altogether.

We shall agree to disagree.

 

[Mark Booth]

Lol, I support Apple and own many Apple products. But software patents are BS. Watch the video on this site: http://patentabsurdity.com. If you disagree with it, please make some counter-arguments here.

A) You obviously aren't an "Apple-hater" so my comments weren't addressed at you.

B) I downloaded the video and watched the first 4 minutes or so. But that's all it took to know the concepts behind the Supreme Court case in the video are VERY different than Apple's software utility patents for iOS. One, the Patent Office DENIED them their patent and now they are suing the patent office to get the patent. Their claimed process is so nebulous, so non-specific, it is EASY to understand why the Patent Office told them to get lost. The Supreme Court is going to tell them to get lost too.

For example, Apple's patent for the "rubber-banding scroll" or "bounce-back scroll" is VERY easy to define. You put your finger on the iOS device, pull down on the image until you've "stretched" the window, and when you let go it bounces back. It is EASY to demonstrate and it is EASY to understand. Nobody else had a patent on the process so Apple, of course, earned its patent.

APPLE GOT THE PATENT!

Your Supreme Court case "heroes" were DENIED their patent.

Pardon the pun, but Apples and Oranges.

Mark

 

[69650]

Actually, there are improvement patents. Licensing them requires one to also be able to license the initial patent as well. I don't know anything about intermittent wipers so I'm not commenting on that. But the mere fact that it is an improvement of an original product does not mean it doesn't warrant a patent.

It's funny because you and I agree that bounce back is not patentable yet your reasoning has no legal basis. The fundamental problem is that software patents don't meet the regiments of what was meant to be patented. Almost the entirety of the flaws in the US' system can be blamed on software patents. You might be interested in watching the video on this site: http://patentabsurdity.com. It will actually make the point you want to make but give you a bit more rigor in your argument.

Thanks. I just watched that video all the way through and it was very interesting. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I would certainly agree with the argument that software patents should be abolished. Is there any change the US Supreme Court will look at that any time soon?

I thought the analogy with what would happen to music if it was patented in the same way software has been patented recently was very illuminating. Essentially there would be no more music because it would be impossible to write a piece of music that didn't infringe on so many patents.

I wonder how much longer it will be before it becomes impossible to write any software at all that doesn't infringe on someone's patent.

It's a very sad state of affairs and I speak as someone who has spent many years in the software industry.

----------

I have no idea what the FSF is or who Richard Stallman is. The video itself has nothing to do with that. There are legitimate legal arguments made in the video about the issues with software patents.

I'll quote myself from a much earlier post:

The video contains two examples that I think illuminate the tremendous shortcomings of software patents.

The first is a software patent granted to eHarmony for basically doing principal component analysis. As someone with a mathematical background, the absurdity of this seems unparalleled. That PCA was applied for dating might have been the key intuition of the eHarmony folks but there is fundamentally nothing in that idea that should be patentable. It's almost like patenting addition for summing the price of goods in a shopping bag on an e-commerce site.

The other example the video gives is what classical music would have been like if all the composers prior to Beethoven had patented various different types of musical ideas such as how to transition from one set of chords to another or a specific repetition of a note, etc. Instead of composing his wonderful symphonies, he'd have to navigate the minefield of patents to ensure that his did not infringe. Worse yet, he'd have to pay substantial amounts of money once he composed his symphonies because there is no way he wouldn't have. And yet, people look at software patents as protection of innovation.

None of this is a commentary on this specific case. I don't fundamentally know what the litigation would have been like had software and business method patents not existed. I'm inclined to believe that Samsung did infringe Apple copyright. And perhaps there were some legitimate patents in there as well.

But the primary problem with patent industry today is that too much capital is spent on defensive patenting and litigation rather than innovation. Had FFT been patentable, I shudder to think what technology would not exist today as a result. Software patents are far too vague and often have to wide of an influence. So even though software patents might be good in theory, their implementation in practice has been utter disaster. And I see no fix other than to rid of them altogether.

I would totally agree with you 100%.

 

[linkgx1]

Thanks. I just watched that video all the way through and it was very interesting. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I would certainly agree with the argument that software patents should be abolished. Is there any change the US Supreme Court will look at that any time soon?

I thought the analogy with what would happen to music if it was patented in the same way software has been patented recently was very illuminating. Essentially there would be no more music because it would be impossible to write a piece of music that didn't infringe on so many patents.

I wonder how much longer it will be before it becomes impossible to write any software at all that doesn't infringe on someone's patent.

It's a very sad state of affairs and I speak as someone who has spent many years in the software industry.

Eh, at that point, I think the invisible hand and diminshing returns will correct all this bs.

For example, THERE WILL BE a new trend in technology in the future. Apple's products will become obsolete essentially and will be forced to lisence something things from several companies. This will happen to a lot of companies and at some point people will stop with the litigation.


Or some "Sleeping Giant" will have a huge, NON FRAND , patent that will severe impact on several major companies (especially if Apple is included in this). I mean, look @ Kodak's old ass patents that Apple violated.

 

[Mark Booth]

Never mind.

 

[uberman15]

B) I downloaded the video and watched the first 4 minutes or so. But that's all it took to know the concepts behind the Supreme Court case in the video are VERY different than Apple's software utility patents for iOS. One, the Patent Office DENIED them their patent and now they are suing the patent office to get the patent. Their claimed process is so nebulous, so non-specific, it is EASY to understand why the Patent Office told them to get lost. The Supreme Court is going to tell them to get lost too.

For example, Apple's patent for the "rubber-banding scroll" or "bounce-back scroll" is VERY easy to define. You put your finger on the iOS device, pull down on the image until you've "stretched" the window, and when you let go it bounces back. It is EASY to demonstrate and it is EASY to understand. Nobody else had a patent on the process so Apple, of course, earned its patent.

APPLE GOT THE PATENT!

Your Supreme Court case "heroes" were DENIED their patent.

Pardon the pun, but Apples and Oranges.

Mark

The Supreme Court case is one theme in the video, but it does talk a lot about software patents in general.

Honestly, I've not spent a lot of time thinking about things like bounce-back and other types of design decision and how IP law should look at it. But, unless you can distinguish it from other software patents, which, in general, are far too broad, I'm not sure how to deal with it. Even if what Apple did qualifies for IP protection, you have to be sure to distinguish it from the litany of software IP that is absolute junk.

Design in general has not been the subject of copyright or patents. No one can patent or copyright a hair style or a piece of fashion. And there are very good arguments to support that the lack of copyright in fashion has helped the industry rather than hurt it. Of course, software is different, but properly implementing IP laws on software must be handled with greater care than the current patent system. The current system for software is almost undeniably a mess.

 

[69650]

It's wasted breath arguing with Apple-haters about the bounce-back scrolling and tap to zoom types of patents. They have entirely selfish reasons to feel that Apple's patents shouldn't be valid. Specifically, they WANT those features on their non-Apple products so, ergo, other vendors should be allowed to steal Apple's technology as far as they are concerned.

Let me ask you a question. What if Microsoft had patented cut and paste so that no other software could use that feature apart from Microsoft products. Do you think the software we all use today on our Apple products would be better or worse?

Cut and paste is obviously a unique and clearly definable process so it would have been patentable by today's standards had someone realised at the time how much money they could have made from patenting it.

 

[Mark Booth]

Let me ask you a question. What if Microsoft had patented cut and paste so that no other software could use that feature apart from Microsoft products. Do you think the software we all use today on our Apple products would be better or worse?

Cut and paste is obviously a unique and clearly definable process so it would have been patentable by today's standards had someone realised at the time how much money they could have made from patenting it.

Even if cut, copy and paste was patentable, it would have been Apple (not Microsoft) that would have gotten there first (between the two):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste

So, you can thank Apple for NOT having a patent on it when Microsoft copied Apple's successful UI and created Windows.

Mark

 

[linkgx1]

Let me ask you a question. What if Microsoft had patented cut and paste so that no other software could use that feature apart from Microsoft products. Do you think the software we all use today on our Apple products would be better or worse?

Cut and paste is obviously a unique and clearly definable process so it would have been patentable by today's standards had someone realised at the time how much money they could have made from patenting it.

They're gonna igore that question and say 'that's not the point'. Since it didn't happen, they have the luxury of keep bringing the Apple case up. At least until 1.The Samsung vs Apple trial gets overturned or 2. Someone sues Apple in a MAJOR way with THEIR patents.

Right now is fanboy celebration of one battle in an entire war.

----------

Even if cut, copy and paste was patentable, it would have been Apple (not Microsoft) that would have gotten there first (between the two):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste

So, you can thank Apple for NOT having a patent on it when Microsoft copied Apple's successful UI and created Windows.

Mark

NOT IF MICROSOFT PATENTED IT FIRST.

It's who gets to the PTO first, now who did it first.

 

[69650]

Even if cut, copy and paste was patentable, it would have been Apple (not Microsoft) that would have gotten there first (between the two):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste

So, you can thank Apple for NOT having a patent on it when Microsoft copied Apple's successful UI and created Windows.

Mark

I notice you didn't answer my question. It's irrelevant who invented it. The question was do you think that software today would be better or worse without the cut and paste feature? It's a simple question.

PS Actually I think we can all thank Xerox for inventing the UI in the first place even if they didn't see the potential of it and passed it over to Apple. But that's another story.