Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You know there was engineers on this jury...

There are many kinds of engineers.

There were no experienced software or UI professionals on this jury, capable of determining if the patents were valid or infringed. (This jury seems to have stopped even trying to do that, once their foreman decided overnight that he thought they were defendable. His view was colored by his own patent fight.)

It's one thing to determine trade dress infringement. A civil jury can do that with the right legal coaching, as it's mostly about visuals and intent.

It's quite another to determine patent validity and infringement in mere hours, when it takes professional examiners at the ITC weeks or months to do the same for a single item.

Judge Posner said this: "Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty, yet patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats -- even though, unlike the rule in copyright law, a patentee need not, in order to prevail in an infringement suit, show that the defendant knew he was infringing. "

It'll be interesting to see if this case does go to the Supreme Court.
 
Since Samsung makes all of the SoC components for Apple's iProducts, what would keep them from dropping Apple as a CPU fab client and telling Apple to shove it?

Further obliteration of this year's profit and continued downward slide in Samsung's stock price? I'm fairly certain Samsung makes a profit selling components to Apple.
 
Its disgusting to see people who have literally created nothing in their life say that the patent system is broken.

Invest all of your money and years of your life into an invention and patent it and then get back to me. I sure bet that if you did invest time/money and had a patent you would do anything to protect your patent.

What is disgusting is this idea that any innovation belongs to the public. Money for R&D comes form somewhere, not the public. The current patent system is what has made America the most innovative country this planet has ever seen.

I also find it laughable when people like you claim this hurts the consumer. In reality when people/companies are forced find new ways to do things, its spurs innovation when and helps the consumer.

+20

Sadly, even with the patent system there have been far too many times an individual inventor has created something special, only to have it ripped off by a corporation. The corporations figure they can drag the guy out through court for so long, he'll run out of money or simply give up.

One such individual was Robert Kearns. He invented the intermittent windshield wiper and successfully patented his invention. In an attempt to earn some profit from his invention, he offered to license the technology to the big three automobile manufacturers. They declined to license the idea, but then intermittent wipers showed up on subsequent models of their cars.

Kearns sued and after very protracted legal battles won $10.1 million from Ford and $30 million from Chrysler. Since Kearns didn't have the money to sue all of the automobile manufacturers at the same time so he didn't file cases against GM, Mercedes, etc. in a timely fashion and those cases were dismissed.

The automobile industry's defense for stealing Kearn's invention? Why, they argued the intermittent wiper design was "obvious", of course!

Sound familiar?

As I rant about in my blog posting (link below), these things only seem to be "obvious" to someone that didn't invent them. The people with an utter lack of creativity and originality are the ones that think everyone else's ideas are "obvious". They don't understand the creative process, so they can't accept the creative process. But if they've got enough money, they're all for stealing someone else's creative ideas.

Mark
 
If you can't stand the heat

For Samsung, I say if you can't stand the heat, remodel the kitchen.

This means, stop copying and design something new and creative and innovative.
 
There are many kinds of engineers.

There were no experienced software or UI professionals on this jury, capable of determining if the patents were valid or infringed. (This jury seems to have stopped even trying to do that, once their foreman decided overnight that he thought they were defendable. His view was colored by his own patent fight.)

It's one thing to determine trade dress infringement. A civil jury can do that with the right legal coaching, as it's mostly about visuals and intent.

It's quite another to determine patent validity and infringement in mere hours, when it takes professional examiners at the ITC weeks or months to do the same for a single item.

Judge Posner said this: "Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty, yet patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats -- even though, unlike the rule in copyright law, a patentee need not, in order to prevail in an infringement suit, show that the defendant knew he was infringing. "

It'll be interesting to see if this case does go to the Supreme Court.

From the looks of it, the decision is based too much in emotion (hence the short time) and not enough on logic
 
these things only seem to be "obvious" to someone that didn't invent them. The people with an utter lack of creativity and originality are the ones that think everyone else's ideas are "obvious". They don't understand the creative process, so they can't accept the creative process. But if they've got enough money, they're all for stealing someone else's creative ideas.

Apple's patents should not be deemed invalid because they are "obvious", they should be deemed invalid because (allegedly) there is prior art showing that others implemented the same solution before them. I don't understand why the jury decided to skip the most important task they had to do, which was evaluating this prior art.

The automobile industry's defense for stealing Kearn's invention? Why, they argued the intermittent wiper design was "obvious", of course!

Also Kearn's patent should not have been challenged because of obviousness, but because someone maybe invented it before him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscreen_wiper#Intermittent_wipers

Kearns may not, in fact, have been the original inventor of the intermittent wiper concept. John Amos, an engineer for the UK automative engineering company Lucas Industries, was the first to file a patent for an intermittent wiper (US Patent #3,262,042, issued 1966), two years before Kearns applied (US Patent #3,351,836, issued 1967).

About the benefits of patents in general, the problem is that the patent office is not able to do a good enough job so you never know when a patent is solid or when it's just bound to get invalidated. Even Edison's light bulb patent at some point was invalidated because of prior art...
 
Last edited:
Excuse me while I patent the rear view mirror and sue any car maker that dare use it.

Good luck with that. Seeing as it was patented like 60 years ago and now can't be.

I dont see how samsung is supposed to get around pinch and zoom, its an essential component to a touch screen.

No it isn't. There are other ways to zoom a screen. Say a three finger tap that reveals a slider. Not as fun perhaps but it would work.
 
Good luck with that. Seeing as it was patented like 60 years ago and now can't be.



No it isn't. There are other ways to zoom a screen. Say a three finger tap that reveals a slider. Not as fun perhaps but it would work.

Apple doesn't own pinch-to-zoom. Not entirely. The patent is very specific and doesn't cover all variances of using the gesture...
 
Just curious; if Samsung ultimately ends up actually writing a 1 billion dollar check to Apple, what effect would that have on their company?

Unlikely much. Even if it gets trebled. Apple will pay them that much in a year or two for components. And remember that Samsung is a huge business with fingers in many cookie jars.

Also what happens to all the products people already purchased and that are sitting in stockrooms ready to be sold. Don't those all now infringe patents? How can they be sold from here on?

That is what the injunction hearing is for. There are two likely results. Samsung is forced to recall all units immediately or they will be allowed to burn off the units in channel with a royalty payment to Apple for them. My guess is that Samsung would pull them to avoid that payment, especially if the damages are trebeled. They can always recycle parts into other things.
 
You clearly have zero idea what your talking about, or NEVER owned an original iPhone.

My Windows Mobile Phone Had full browsing, a large touch sensitive screen.

Calender? Contacts? Camera? You realize dumbphones had all of that in the 90s.

My Windows Mobile phone Also had. MMS, GPS, 3G, and Third party apps, the first iPhone didn't have any of that.

Yes, Blackerries are smart phones, so were Windows Mobile and Palm phones, they all came before the iPhone.

----------



Then you would know, the first iPhone wasn't really the first smart phone, or a smart phone at all ;)

Wasn't until the 3G/3GS that I got interested and got one myself. I kept my windows mobile phone till I got my 3GS


That's Ya that Have Zero Idea What Ya're Talking About!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes, before First i-Phone There Were Windows Mobile Phone, Actually I Had A HTC's " Hermes " and I Still Possess IT, though I Never Want Use IT Again as A " Smart Phone ".

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Its Weight and Thickness Was Almost " THREE TIMES " of i-Phone and Female Never Wanted to Use That in The First Place. Even Male Friends of Mine Hesitated to Use That!!!!!!!!!

It Really Sucked in Every Way Compared with First i-Phone, Not Only by Its Weight and Thickness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First i-Phone Didn't Have Even Cut/Copy & Paste Function, Believe IT or Not.


But Every Movement of Phone, How You Handle IT and How The Phone Reacts Accordingly, Was A Real " INCOGNITO " Experience, It Was Really " Futuristic ", We Had NEVER NEVER Come Up With Other " Smart Phones " Back Then, Whether Nokia, Palm or Windows Mobile Phone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So It's Very Silly and Retarded of Ya to Refer to Windows Mobile Phone Comparing Equivallently to First i-Phone!!!!!!!!!


Ya " SENSE " is NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Just because Apple brings a technology to a phone that customers like doesn't mean that it is suddenly essential that every competitor have it.

That's not what Google says

Edit: and if it truly is essential, then it should be licensed, just like every actually essential patent related to wireless radios.

The irony is that almost every SEP out there is so because the patent holders volunteered to put their IP in that position.

----------

proven wrong multiple times. Kdarling who has work in multi touch since the 80's point out that pinch to zoom was pretty widely used in the industry as was a pretty obvious solution.

Keep in mind that the patent isn't likely just on the idea of pinch and zoom, but also on Apple's specific method of making it work. And if Samsung copied that method instead of figuring out their own, then they blew it

----------

Remember when Lodsys went after tons of app developers for infringing on their patent for in app updates? Was Lodsys protecting their innovation? Was their innovation at all obvious? Were they perfectly in their rights to sue, due to the fact they legally had a patent on file?
.

Totally different game. The apps were using Lodys patents. The issue was that Lodsys was trying to double dip by making Apple license to put it in the SDK ns then make the developers pay to use it even though Apple's licensing deal covered the developers as well

It is a kin to the part of the case where Apple claimed they were covered by (I think it was) Qualcomm's license on the 3G patents so they could make the chips that Apple bought. And Apple had paperwork to prove it. Patent exhaustion is the term for it.

----------

Read your post again

The Surface isnt even in shops yet...

The Surface table has been around for a good 10 years.
 
So…whether there's an appeal or not, does anyone think Samsung will pay the licensing fees to Apple after paying them the $1B? If so, "that $#!+ cray"!

On side note, the Tilt to Zoom feature found in some of the Galaxy phones is not a bad alternative but I feel is not as intuitive as Pinch to Zoom. Any thoughts?
 
Also Kearn's patent should not have been challenged because of obviousness, but because someone maybe invented it before him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscreen_wiper#Intermittent_wipers

You did not quote the entire paragraph from the wiki:

Kearns may not, in fact, have been the original inventor of the intermittent wiper concept. John Amos, an engineer for the UK automative engineering company Lucas Industries, was the first to file a patent for an intermittent wiper (US Patent #3,262,042, issued 1966), two years before Kearns applied (US Patent #3,351,836, issued 1967).[7][8] One notable difference is that the Amos patent describes an electromechanical device, whereas Kearns proposed a solid-state electronic circuit.

Kearns INNOVATED a better way to do the same thing. Which entirely underscores the situation we have with Apple v Samsung. Samsung didn't INNOVATE new ways to perform Apple's features or designs, Samsung COPIED them.

And, BTW, surely you realize that the John Amos intermittent wipers probably never worked properly, right? I mean, LUCAS? Seriously? Lucas electrics were so unreliable Lucas was referred to as the "Prince of Darkness." :D

Mark
 
Its disgusting to see people who have literally created nothing in their life say that the patent system is broken.

Invest all of your money and years of your life into an invention and patent it and then get back to me. I sure bet that if you did invest time/money and had a patent you would do anything to protect your patent.

What is disgusting is this idea that any innovation belongs to the public. Money for R&D comes form somewhere, not the public. The current patent system is what has made America the most innovative country this planet has ever seen.

I also find it laughable when people like you claim this hurts the consumer. In reality when people/companies are forced find new ways to do things, its spurs innovation when and helps the consumer.

Please check these articles out. There are problems with software patents in particular. I don't think many people have problems with other kinds of patents. I'm not claiming that Samsung was not wrong in this case, but software patents can surely stifle innovation in many cases.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property?fsrc=rss
www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/software-patents
www.economist.com/node/15479680
www.economist.com/node/2043416
 
Obviously the ruling is going to be thrown out. I assume you all caught the quotes from the jurors which came soon after...oh boy.

Rulings don't get tossed based on comments. They get tossed based on whether the law was appropriately enforced.

So there is no 'obviously' about this

----------

I think Apple wanted 30 dollars per phone for pinch and zoom?

So what? It is not a FRAND patent so if Apple chooses to license it, and they can't be forced to, they can charge whatever they want. They are not obligated to be fair or reasonable.
 
Kearns sued and after very protracted legal battles won $10.1 million from Ford and $30 million from Chrysler.

I wonder if many people loudly whined that they weren't going to use their windshield wipers anymore because they felt Mr Kearns was "stifling innovation" by suing Ford and Chrysler?

Thats the difference between the Android and Samsung apologists here at MR and people in the real world
 
I wonder if many people loudly whined that they weren't going to use their windshield wipers anymore because they felt Mr Kearns was "stifling innovation" by suing Ford and Chrysler?

Thats the difference between the Android and Samsung apologists here at MR and people in the real world

Nice observation! :)

BTW and FWIW, there's an EXCELLENT 2008 movie titled 'Flash of Genius' that dramatizes Robert Kearn's battle with the auto companies. If you love rooting for the "good guy" over the "evil corporation", you'll love the movie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/

Unfortunately, the movie isn't available on Blu-ray (the only discs I collect these days) but you can get the DVD version for just $5.04 at Amazon right now:

http://www.amazon.com/Flash-Genius-Greg-Kinnear/dp/B001LM64S8

Mark
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Please check these articles out. There are problems with software patents in particular. I don't think many people have problems with other kinds of patents. I'm not claiming that Samsung was not wrong in this case, but software patents can surely stifle innovation in many cases.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property?fsrc=rss
www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/software-patents
www.economist.com/node/15479680
www.economist.com/node/2043416

There is no difference between a software patent and a hardware patent.
Its nothing more than an invention of the free software movement.

How can you argue that just because something is being done virtually makes it any different than if that is being done mechanically?

Look at rubber-banding. Now Samsung will have to license it or figure something else out. Sure they could just implement a "hard stop" but now there is a pressure to find something new.

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

In the end, the consumer wins as companies are forced to innovate.
 
There is no difference between a software patent and a hardware patent.
Its nothing more than an invention of the free software movement.

How can you argue that just because something is being done virtually makes it any different than if that is being done mechanically?

Look at rubber-banding. Now Samsung will have to license it or figure something else out. Sure they could just implement a "hard stop" but now there is a pressure to find something new.

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

In the end, the consumer wins as companies are forced to innovate.

My Skyrocket doesn't bounce when scrolling. Samsung (or Google) has already fixed this. When I scroll down, I get a blue faded bar that lights up for a moment to almost simulate a bounce without actually bouncing.
 
There is no difference between a software patent and a hardware patent.
Its nothing more than an invention of the free software movement.

How can you argue that just because something is being done virtually makes it any different than if that is being done mechanically?

Look at rubber-banding. Now Samsung will have to license it or figure something else out. Sure they could just implement a "hard stop" but now there is a pressure to find something new.

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

In the end, the consumer wins as companies are forced to innovate.

Surely they are different, how can you argue that something being done virtually is that same as if it is being done mechanically? E-commerce, for example, has its own set of rules - why not software patents?

I just have to laugh at rubberbanding... why Samsung would even feel the need to copy it is beyond my understanding. A hard stop would more than suffice.

I still disagree that the consumer always wins with the current software patent structure.

The economist can say it better than I ever could. There is a problem...
 
Translation: Samsung attempted to license, but apple set insane prices on everything.

Not a SEP so they were within their legal rights to set ny price they like, Or simply not license it

My galaxy S3 says otherwise.

.

Interesting that you bring up the Galaxy S3. Several patent experts have made note that this model is devoid of all infringing items, unlike the previous models. If Samsung was so certain Apple had no case, why such a major change. Perhaps because in fact they knew they had a strong chance of losing so they finally innovated and actually did their own work.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.