Nope, they're not. Here's the core of
the Apple patent: "
an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures; a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure"
In other words, something to spot patterns, something to show that a pattern has been found (like an underline), and an action to place when chosen. Wanna tell us what is so advanced about that?
Yep, the whole idea of infringement hinged only on one thing: whether the "analyzer server" is a separate process or not.
Samsung says it's simply using an API library, therefore it is not a separate server. Apple claimed that the sheer fact that the API code sits in separate memory from the application code, makes it a "server".
The original appeals court panel agreed with Samsung that their definition made sense. The latest full set of judges said who cares, the panel shouldn't have looked up server definitions, but instead simply relied on what had been presented to the jury.
This is not only a poster child for why we should not let non-programmers decide a programming question, it's an example of letting legalities overcome common sense.
But then, as the ruling majority put it, they simply wanted to keep the status quo and not come up with any new rules or ideas:
"
We did not take this case en banc to decide important
legal questions about the inner workings of the
law of obviousness. We have applied existing obviousness
law to the facts of this case. We took this case en banc to
affirm our understanding of our appellate function, to
apply the governing law, and to maintain our fidelity to
the Supreme Court’s Teva decision." (Teva said to
only use the definition of the time. Which is meaningless
here, as even at the time of the patent, programmers
knew that APIs are not servers.)
The other three dissenting judges ripped the majority judges for going en banc for the first time in 26 years, yet totally 1) failing to ask for outside opinions, even from the USPTO, and 2) failing to even try to further define the question of obviousness.
The dissenting judges brought up the fact that the patent had been invalidated all around the world. The majority didn't care. Instead, what they concentrated on was the fact that while the Neonode slide-to-unlock was indeed on a phone, the other half of the prior art Koh had allowed was a virtual sliding switch for a wall touchscreen control. Therefore it wasn't valid prior art for a phone.
The dissenting judges brought up precedent that the important factor was not what field, but that it was a UI problem common to both.
Here's the CAFC decision and the dissent at its end.
