Samsung to Appeal $119M Patent Verdict as Foreman Says Apple Should Target Google Instead

[onedem]

so, microsoft should also get sued whenever a pirated movie is played with windows?

 

[Renzatic]

Can you post any single mail that shows that they ripped Java code from Sun? Can you show an email stating that they knew that they were infringing? Perhaps the judge missed them.

Well, that one guy did knowingly copy 6 lines of his own code. They got fined a million bucks for that one.

That quote doesn't say that they knew that they were infringing

First off, you should be well aware that there is no infringing, since APIs can't be patented or copyrighted. An API is simply function, and Dalvik functions like Java, while for all intents and purposes being an entirely different platform.

To put it in perspective for those reading, it's like a guy who sees a feature list of some programming language wants to make something similar without having seen a bit of the syntax of the code he's been inspired by. By the time he's done, his language is completely different, though it does have a lot of the same actions. You can't say he ripped off anyone's IP, since all he copied was base functionality.

Or to put it in more simpler terms, being able to own the functions of an API is like being able to own a patent for forward momentum. You don't want anyone to own something so basic.

 

[Oletros]

Well, that one guy did knowingly copy 6 lines of his own code. They got fined a million bucks for that one.

Rangecheck function? Statutory damages were zero. Judge Alsup said that a beginner could write that function in 5 minutes

 

[Renzatic]

Rangecheck function? Statutory damages were zero. Judge Alsup said that a beginner could write that function in 5 minutes

Ah, I thought they ended up being charged for that. Oh well.

 

[ghost of jobs]

...but just out of respect for the people that invented what we know as 'a whole way of life'.

would you care to enlighten us as to what was invented from scratch for the iPhone... I'll save you the bother.. NOTHING!

 

[b3ats]

How can it be zero if they've already said themselves that it should be in the region of $40M?

 

[sillypooh]

"If you really feel that Google is the cause behind this, as I think everybody has observed, then don't beat around the bush," said Mr. Dunham, whose job at IBM was to oversee developers expected to file patents. "Let the courts decide. But a more direct approach may be something to think about."

I guess it makes more sense to go after Samsung, who actually sell a device and make money from it, than to pursue Google who give the OS for (virtually) free.

 

[inscrewtable]

I don't get it, how can Samsung say they only owe $38m in damages for their patent infringement and now say it should be reduced to zero because it was Google and not them. It begs the question what the $38m offer was for then.

----------

It kind of confirms the articles floating around re Samsungs business practices.

Steal an idea. Delay. Delay. Delay. Delay. Countersue. Delay. Delay. Delay.

Seeing as the courts think it's OK to do this and all but encourage it, then in that sense you cannot blame Samsung for taking advantage.

 

[Oletros]

I don't get it, how can Samsung say they only owe $38m in damages for their patent infringement and now say it should be reduced to zero because it was Google and not them. It begs the question what the $38m offer was for then.

What $38 million was Samsung willing to pay?

 

[BaldiMac]

Nope.. nothing to do with the great artists quote.. just the "we shamelessly stole every idea we could for the Mac".. should I repeat it a 3rd time?..

Strangely enough, I get zero results when I Google the quote that you've repeated two times. Why do it a third time?

The closest I got was "“Picasso had a saying 'good artists copy, great artists steal’ - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” Which is why I assumed that was what you were talking about.

 

[deputy_doofy]

I have no idea what you mean by missed point. Again - do whatever you want. You don't need to justify your hatred or reluctance to purchase a product by a specific manufacturer. Just don't.

Unless you're trying to rally support behind your cause. Then I think your post needs a call to action. A survey of who might feel the same. A petition. Something?

----------



So they tampered, lost and are going to Appeal. Is that what you're suggesting?

A petition isn't necessary. A rally isn't necessary. It's as simple as: If you think Samsung is guilty and don't like the verdict, don't buy their (commercial) products.

People love to hate companies. All of the same people I know that hate Apple "for trying to lock you into their ecosystem" were all the same people who were in favor of Microsoft's proprietary formats (wmv/wma) and claimed that "standardization is a good thing."
^^^ The people who thought that and still do are just insane and have no foundation in logic. Because, simply put, Apple's files are MP4 and will play anywhere, whereas WMV/WMAs would play anywhere that first paid Microsoft a license to play them.

Sorry for my rant, but the idea was there... initially. People love to hate companies. Best way to attack the ones you hate is to not buy.

----------

Strangely enough, I get zero results when I Google the quote that you've repeated two times. Why do it a third time?

The closest I got was "“Picasso had a saying 'good artists copy, great artists steal’ - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” Which is why I assumed that was what you were talking about.

Maybe it was from "Pirates of Silicon Valley," you know, the movie that stated Microsoft now owns Apple at the end of the film and some diehards *still* claim it to be fact?

 

[irnchriz]

The patents the Jury found Samsung infringed willfully have been invalidated all over the world. That is the reason Samsung used them. They will get invalidated here also. If Samsung knows that a patent is going to invalidated and uses it, then it will look willful till the time it is actually invalidated.

Goodl luck Apple collecting even a dime from this verdict..

Except these won't be invalidated in the US.

 

[MacMulti]

I've never supported samsung and not going to buy their products, can't be helped if they are internal.

The thing is this, it may not help a lot sadly, because in this place where I live in, there are lots of these people who knows apple is better in quality, but it is way too expensive, so they can only afford samsung, on top and among other brand.

 

[Trapezoid]

The issues being that its ok for one company to do whatever they please... "We shamelessly stole every idea we could in the creation of the Mac", but anyone else "takes inspiration", and they are the devil... The legalities are secondary.. how can this forum host good debate when half the posters are so blinkered..

What in the world, man? You're blatantly ignoring what baldimac has said multiple times and just inventing stuff that he never said. geez, I don't know how hes been so patient trying to explain this to you.

If you don't patent something, no one can bring a claim against you for doing the same thing, and it doesn't matter if they bitch and moan about it.

if you have a patent and someone infringed on it, then yes it is a blatant ripoff. this goes for both apple and samsung and BOTH were found guilty of it.

Take the coke bottle glasses off, stop repeating the same thing over and over again like a broken record.

 

[Oletros]

if you have a patent and someone infringed on it, then yes it is a blatant ripoff.

This is not true, you can infringe a patent without knowing that

 

[GeneralSpecial]

Apparently, "douche" in Korean is pronounced "Samsung".

The best part of the verdict is that it pulls aside the curtain on Samsung's *real* business practices: copy, adjust, copy, adjust, repeat. It's a lot more common than people think.

Unfortunately for Samsung, they messed with the wrong company--one with deep pockets and a commitment to punching through all 15 rounds.

 

[Dmunjal]

Unfortunately for Samsung, they messed with the wrong company--one with deep pockets and a commitment to punching through all 15 rounds.

How do you say that? If anything, Samsung wins in the long run. They still have a booming business in smartphones and this verdict didn't change anything.

Do you see Apple continuing legal action? And winning big enough to derail Samsung's momentum?

Apple swung for a homerun and maybe got a bunt single.

 

[spjonez]

You need to learn to draw a distinction between the concept and the code itself.

Why? Code isn't and can't be patented, for the same reason language can't be.

Like I said before (maybe in this very thread...hell, I don't remember), Google makes money off of Android through its services. And even if they didn't, Apple could still very easily sue them, since giving something away for free doesn't protect a potential infringer from being slapped with damages if it's violating another company's IP.

I think the reason they go after OEM's is if you litigate over lost profits you can only sue for a percentage of what that person made. Google has (repeatedly) won challenges to keep it's search profits separate from Android.

Can you post any single mail that shows that they ripped Java code from Sun? Can you show an email stating that they knew that they were infringing? Perhaps the judge missed them.

You can't patent lines of code, a patent protects an implementation not the words used to create that implementation. Personally I believe Oracle should have won that lawsuit, Google wanted Java but didn't want to pay a license so their wrote their own VM. They won on a technicality but that doesn't make it any less of a douche bag move.

That quote doesn't say that they knew that they were infringing

Point #2 makes it clear they knew what they were doing.

First off, you should be well aware that there is no infringing, since APIs can't be patented or copyrighted. An API is simply function, and Dalvik functions like Java, while for all intents and purposes being an entirely different platform.

647' is an API. Any algorithm is simply a function, they are synonym's.

To put it in perspective for those reading, it's like a guy who sees a feature list of some programming language wants to make something similar without having seen a bit of the syntax of the code he's been inspired by. By the time he's done, his language is completely different, though it does have a lot of the same actions. You can't say he ripped off anyone's IP, since all he copied was base functionality.

Sorry but that's wrong. Here's another analogy; you create a codec for compressing video. You explain the math behind your algorithm but never show me the code. I go home and write my own version, using your steps (algorithm) in another language. I wrote every line by hand and I still infringed your patent.

Or to put it in more simpler terms, being able to own the functions of an API is like being able to own a patent for forward momentum. You don't want anyone to own something so basic.

A patent covers the entire API not it's individual pieces, since it's use case is specific.

 

[Trapezoid]

This is not true, you can infringe a patent without knowing that

Yes true, I meant knowingly doing it. Any company that knowingly rips off a patent should be punished, period. It's ridiculous that people are defending any company that would do that.

 

[Oletros]

Why? Code isn't and can't be patented, for the same reason language can't be.


I think the reason they go after OEM's is if you litigate over lost profits you can only sue for a percentage of what that person made. Google has (repeatedly) won challenges to keep it's search profits separate from Android.


You can't patent lines of code, a patent protects an implementation not the words used to create that implementation. Personally I believe Oracle should have won that lawsuit, Google wanted Java but didn't want to pay a license so their wrote their own VM. They won on a technicality but that doesn't make it any less of a douche bag move.

Desktop Java doesn't need a license. Google didn't wanted Java ME, the one needed a license.

And, are you saying that Apache Foundation made a douche bag move?

 

[spjonez]

Yes true, I meant knowingly doing it. Any company that knowingly rips off a patent should be punished, period. It's ridiculous that people are defending any company that would do that.

Exactly, in the real open source community any time a product is challenged the community rewrites or removes the offending code. That's what's so silly about this entire lawsuit, that's all Apple wanted from the beginning and Samsung refused.

----------

And, are you saying that Apache Foundation made a douche bag move?

You'll need to be more specific I'm not sure what you're referencing.

 

[Oletros]

Exactly, in the real open source community any time a product is challenged the community rewrites or removes the offending code. That's what's so silly about this entire lawsuit, that's all Apple wanted from the beginning and Samsung refused.

Are you really saying that just accusing someone of infringing is enough to change the code? You're joking don't you?

You'll need to be more specific I'm not sure what you're referencing.

So, you're sure that Google is guilty and you don't even know were the code came from?

 

[Renzatic]

You can't patent lines of code, a patent protects an implementation not the words used to create that implementation. Personally I believe Oracle should have won that lawsuit, Google wanted Java but didn't want to pay a license so their wrote their own VM. They won on a technicality but that doesn't make it any less of a douche bag move.

A technicality? Read exactly why that case came out the way it did. There were no legal loopholes or edge cases that allowed Google to win over a technicality. Alsup all but threw the book at being able to patent APIs.

Sorry but that's wrong. Here's another analogy; you create a codec for compressing video. You explain the math behind your algorithm but never show me the code. I go home and write my own version, using your steps (algorithm) in another language. I wrote every line by hand and I still infringed your patent.

A codec is a very specific piece of code that does a very specific thing. An API is very general, and normally quite generic. Most APIs tend to look like each other, especially now that everyone is moving towards platform agnostic standardization. If APIs could be patented, then you'd find yourself in a situation where Windows, Macs, Linux, and whatever else is out there would be completely balkanized, each with their own specific way of doing what should be very generic things.

 

[spjonez]

Are you really saying that just accusing someone of infringing is enough to change the code? You're joking don't you?

Well no that's how it starts, obviously I can't see your code to know for sure. Before litigation begins a 3rd party usually verifies both sides. Linux is a perfect example of this, it's happened many times throughout it's life-cycle and every time the code was rewritten. In those cases I don't feel it was intentional, developers inadvertently solved a problem using a protected method. When called on it they did the right thing and changed their code.

So, you're sure that Google is guilty and you don't even know were the code came from?

I'm saying Google is a douche bag for taking the concept of Java, hiring Oracle developers to rebuild it just different enough to not infringe, and basing an entire OS on it's concepts. The difference is intent. From the emails I read the developers knew this and were attempting to get an answer as to how they should proceed. What does that indicate to you?

 

[Oletros]

Linux is a perfect example of this, it's happened many times throughout it's life-cycle and every time the code was rewritten. In those cases I don't feel it was intentional, developers inadvertently solved a problem using a protected method. When called on it they did the right thing and changed their code.

Any example of that rewriting of Linux, if it so common you can show some examples

And you're confusing copyright with patents. I'm pretty sure that Torvalds would rewrite anything if some company say that Linux kernel is infringing a software patent

I'm saying Google is a douche bag for taking the concept of Java, hiring Oracle developers to rebuild it just different enough to not infringe, and basing an entire OS on it's concepts. The difference is intent. From the emails I read the developers knew this and were attempting to get an answer as to how they should proceed. What does that indicate to you?

It is clear that you don't know much about the case because that is not what Google did.

Apart that you're confusing Android OS, Dalvik virtual machine and Java classes.

A