Samsung's Motion to Stay Damages in Apple Patent Retrial Denied

[JackieTreehorn]

https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=449160&stc=1&d=1385474242


Pay up and stick to building washing machines, uninspired Korean copycats.

 

[wovel]

Because the poster is an Apple fan and as far as they are concerned they ONLY want Apple as an option, I mean, even if they were the only option to buy they could hardly put prices up any higher.

As for the story, good for Samsung, although they have been offered a bit of a lifeline with the patent being in disrepute, so we will have to see what happens.
I'm sure Samsung will counter sue on something and then I will be stating good for Apple in what ever they do.. it's the best thing in these rather pathetic business practices. Capitalist first world problems and all that

Isn't American law so funny when you have this:

Notably, Apple's claim of a pinch-to-zoom patent was denied last July by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which followed a preliminary rejection in December 2012.

Yet Apple can still sue people over the patent...

You do know that happened after the original trial for this don't you ?

The patent process is screwed up, but there is nothing unusual about what you cited. What's unusual is the USPTO takes a year or more approves a patent and then declares them invalid a few years later. What is the point if the patent?

 

[samcraig]

You do know that happened after the original trial for this don't you ?

The patent process is screwed up, but there is nothing unusual about what you cited. What's unusual is the USPTO takes a year or more approves a patent and then declares them invalid a few years later. What is the point if the patent?

You realize that patents aren't of "value" unless they are tested. They aren't protection until they are needed to protect. And if/when they are - that's when their validation is truly important.

 

[locust76]

... Samsung's motion to stay its damages was denied last night by Judge Lucy Koh, basing her decision on ... whether granting a stay would unethically favor Apple.

W... wait... I'm confused. I'm no legal expert, but how would granting Samsung a stay on damages be favorable to Apple?

 

[mccldwll]

That was pretty bad, even for Foss Patents. Mueller conflated various statements and used inflammatory language to describe what was actually said in the ruling, which was:

Not sure how your statement in any way relates to the Foss language you quoted. Samsung did assert that Apple now had only one recourse wrt the subject patent, which was to file a Notice of Appeal. That assertion by Samsung was false.

 

[roasted]

This patent system really needs to be thrown out the window.

 

[kdarling]

pinch to zoom was popularized by apple right? apple patented pinch to zoom right? and now "all" smart phones use the pinch to zoom function.

Apple popularized pinch to zoom with consumers. But that's like saying some company popularized a certain color.

Apple did not invent the idea of pinch zoom, which existed from nearly the moment multi-touch was first done back in the 1980s. They weren't even the first to publicly announce the idea of pinch zoom for a smartphone.

I think part of the problem was that the USPTO had relatively little experience with multi-touch patents at the time they granted some of these.

Also, the touch community was happy to see Apple popularize their work, and it didn't hit them right away that Apple would try to grab sole ownership of previously known or obvious ideas.

Apple even tried to trademark "Multi-Touch" so that no one else could use the phrase. Fortunately, Jeff Han (who had demonstrated pinch zoom at TED before the iPhone came out) wrote the USPTO and caused Apple's attempt to grab such a generic term to be rejected.

I would love to see what prior art predates the patent.

Hillis' patent in particular talked about multi-finger scrolling and pinch zoom.

 

[medazinol]

At what point does a jury/judge's decision become final and non-negotiable?

Seems to me that if you're in litigation and you don't like the outcome of a decision you can keep going back and appeal ad-infinitum...

When does it end?

 

[dumastudetto]

You're being sarcastic, right? There's absolutely no way that Samsung are going to collapse and disappear because of this.

And why would it be a good thing if the company did collapse?

They are in big trouble with all the copying this case is just the tip of the iceberg. I estimate Samsung may owe trillions of dollars in damages when the curtain is finally drawn on all this. There's no way they can survive once justice is fully served.

It would be a good thing if Samsung collapsed because they bring absolutely nothing to the table. They don't innovate anything. They just copy from Apple shamelessly and it disgusts me.

 

[alexgowers]

I really feel like Samsung got screwed for giving consumers what they needed, and i mean needed.

I don't care to understand the ins and outs of it's implementation but multi-touch pinching is a need not a want.

This is though a small part of many things Sammy did so they certainly are only trying to attack the weakest part, patent wise.

Samsung have copied slavishly all of apples products from laptop, tablets, phones and more so it's about time a legal case came down firmly in the apple camp to at least make samsung think twice about a copycat device in the future. Though as most have pointed out this is too small to really affect them.

 

[samcraig]

They are in big trouble with all the copying this case is just the tip of the iceberg. I estimate Samsung may owe trillions of dollars in damages when the curtain is finally drawn on all this. There's no way they can survive once justice is fully served.

It would be a good thing if Samsung collapsed because they bring absolutely nothing to the table. They don't innovate anything. They just copy from Apple shamelessly and it disgusts me.

First - you're very funny. They aren't going to owe trillions.

Second - do you mean ALL of Samsung - or just Samsung Mobile. Because Samsung (the entire company) is very cross-vertical. You know they build skyscrapers, right? And if they bring nothing to the table, why does Apple have their parts in their devices?

Innovation comes in all shapes and sizes. Even if you want to say they don't design a chip/screen - they have mastered fabrication. The process of fabrication and mass producing chips/screens in innovative. If it wasn't - everyone would and could be doing it. Clearly that's not the case.

 

[typeadam]

They are in big trouble with all the copying this case is just the tip of the iceberg. I estimate Samsung may owe trillions of dollars in damages when the curtain is finally drawn on all this. There's no way they can survive once justice is fully served.

It would be a good thing if Samsung collapsed because they bring absolutely nothing to the table. They don't innovate anything. They just copy from Apple shamelessly and it disgusts me.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I would never forbid anyone from having an opinion, but this is by far the most mind-blowing thing I have read since I started reading.
Trillions of dollars? I'm sorry, but have you lost your mind? Do you fathom how immense that number is? You're talking numbers that encroach on the US national debt!
There is just no way Samsung's infringement caused trillions of dollars in damages to Apple. Trillions. TRILLIONS!
Even if it was 1 trillion --> $1,000,000,000,000.00
Where did you pull that estimate from? B/c even an estimate isn't a blind guess...

 

[Renzatic]

I would love to see what prior art predates the patent.

...err, click the link. That video was shown at TED in 2006, a good while before anyone had seen or heard of the iPhone.

edit: kdarling beat me to it.

 

[dBeats]

You know - they filed the stay because that's what you do in cases like this. You just don't roll over if there is anything you can do to turn the tide in your favor. Whether they are in the right or wrong - it's SOP.

True. But usually you don't lie in these. If you're a lawyer, it's your job to represent "till the end." But lying to a Judge in your motion is some pretty gutsy stuff.

 

[samcraig]

True. But usually you don't lie in these. If you're a lawyer, it's your job to represent "till the end." But lying to a Judge in your motion is some pretty gutsy stuff.

What was the lie?

 

[dBeats]

apple should licence "pinch to zoom" and it should state that it is an apple-patented technology/function.

The point is that they are open to licensing patents. Microsoft pays Apple for certain patents related to iOS. But Google and Samsung want to claim they are invalid, that they shouldn't be patented, and that they can use them without any regard to those patents.

Let's not forget, Erich Schmidt was on the board at Apple while they were making iOS and basically stole the information he was privy to that eventually became Android. So this isn't about what is patentable or not, it's about whether you can ignore people's patents and refuse to pay licensing and try to get away with it or not.

----------

What was the lie?

It's right in the article...

Its lawyers untruthfully said that Apple's only procedural option left (in order to salvage the patent) was a notice of appeal, but Apple pointed in its response to what the actual USPTO communication said, which was the opposite, and said Samsung's stalling strategy had "crossed the bounds of reason."

 

[apolloa]

You do know that happened after the original trial for this don't you ?

The patent process is screwed up, but there is nothing unusual about what you cited. What's unusual is the USPTO takes a year or more approves a patent and then declares them invalid a few years later. What is the point if the patent?

Yes I know it happened after, but then again this whole trial mess is STILL going on, so is it irrelevent? And yes, IMO the ENTIRE American patent system is an utter total mess screw up catastrophic confusing ridiculous muck up massive mess!

It is abused by everyone, and the courts and cases using them are abused by everyone, it is very plain to see that. And as a result of the joke of a system we have Apple and MS and Google and Samsung and so on and on and on and on suing each other, then buying other company's for their patents books to sue even more people....

Apparently this is how innovation is carried out in America these day's. It also makes a total mockery of the poor students in universities and colleges that DO make genuine innovations and get them patented, I bet they have never simply written an IDEA down on a piece of paper and patented it...

 

[samcraig]

The point is that they are open to licensing patents. Microsoft pays Apple for certain patents related to iOS. But Google and Samsung want to claim they are invalid, that they shouldn't be patented, and that they can use them without any regard to those patents.

Let's not forget, Erich Schmidt was on the board at Apple while they were making iOS and basically stole the information he was privy to that eventually became Android. So this isn't about what is patentable or not, it's about whether you can ignore people's patents and refuse to pay licensing and try to get away with it or not.

----------



It's right in the article...

Sorry you lost me and all credibility when you wrote, "Let's not forget, Erich Schmidt was on the board at Apple while they were making iOS and basically stole the information he was privy to that eventually became Android."

 

[Renzatic]

Let's not forget, Erich Schmidt was on the board at Apple while they were making iOS and basically stole the information he was privy to that eventually became Android. So this isn't about what is patentable or not, it's about whether you can ignore people's patents and refuse to pay licensing and try to get away with it or not.

That didn't happen, nothing remotely similar to this this ever happened, and I'm amazed people still believe it to be true.

I could go on and on about the various bits of evidence, interviews, and heresay involving Schmidt's time as a member of the Apple board of directors. But that'd be a waste of effort, because you only have to point to one thing to disprove it.

...the fact that Apple never made even a single attempt to sue either Eric Schmidt or Google back into the stone ages. Abusing a position on a board of directors as a means to gather trade secrets to be used elsewhere is a blatant example of corporate espionage, and opens the perpetrator up to potentially hundreds of lawsuits.

In other words, if Eric Schmidt did abuse his position at Apple, they wouldn't be fighting some penny ante proxy battle with Samsung over trade dress and isolated software patents. They'd be going after Google directly.

 

[yellowtruck]

Because the poster is an Apple fan and as far as they are concerned they ONLY want Apple as an option, I mean, even if they were the only option to buy they could hardly put prices up any higher.

As for the story, good for Samsung, although they have been offered a bit of a lifeline with the patent being in disrepute, so we will have to see what happens.
I'm sure Samsung will counter sue on something and then I will be stating good for Apple in what ever they do.. it's the best thing in these rather pathetic business practices. Capitalist first world problems and all that

Isn't American law so funny when you have this:

Notably, Apple's claim of a pinch-to-zoom patent was denied last July by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which followed a preliminary rejection in December 2012.

Yet Apple can still sue people over the patent...

Why in the world would a Samsung defender take the time to create an account here and post comments strongly defending Samsung on and Pro Apple website dedicated to future apple prod..........oh.

To copy more apple ideas at the rumor stage to prevent these law suits and still steal apple ideas or comeout first with their watch thing....

Ok. Got it.. carey on

 

[Renzatic]

Why in the world would a Samsung defender take the time to create an account here and post comments strongly defending Samsung on and Pro Apple website dedicated to future apple prod..........oh.

To copy more apple ideas at the rumor stage to prevent these law suits and still steal apple ideas or comeout first with their watch thing....

Ok. Got it.. carey on

Frankie Says Relax, and buy a Galaxy S4.

It's better than the iPhone, because it's a life companion!

edit: I should also add he signed up back in 2008, before the Galaxy phones were just the barest twinkle in Samsung's eye, and the most they were known for were flat panel TVs.

Let's all look at the facts before we start calling each other X fanboys and astroturfers, huh?

 

[samcraig]

Frankie Says Relax, and buy a Galaxy S4.

It's better than the iPhone, because it's a life companion!

edit: I should also add he signed up back in 2008, before the Galaxy phones were just the barest twinkle in Samsung's eye, and the most they were known for were flat panel TVs.

Let's all look at the facts before we start calling each other X fanboys and astroturfers, huh?

Isn't it obvious? Samsung went after long time forum posters and offered them HEAPS of cash to lash out on these forums. Why would they hire newbies?

 

[kdarling]

True. But usually you don't lie in these. If you're a lawyer, it's your job to represent "till the end." But lying to a Judge in your motion is some pretty gutsy stuff.

Mueller at Foss Patents used inflammatory language like "untruthful" and "lie", where a normal observer would use "mistaken" or "confused".

In fact, I just ran across a transcript from last Spring where the same topic came up between Judge Koh and the lawyers for each side, about another Apple patent that had gotten a Final Rejection.

Even back then, there was much confusion on the part of the Judge and Samsung's lawyers. BOTH of them kept saying that they thought there was only one Response possible after a Final Rejection. (See partial transcript below.) This is understandable, as the USPTO manual on this is not very clear on the topic of multiple Responses.



So the confusion over this point dates way back. What happened the other day was that Samsung's motion was apparently written by someone who was still confused. That author made the same mistake that BOTH Samsung AND the Judge herself had previously made. That's probably why the Judge herself did not take Samsung to task for their more recent mistake.

Was it a deliberate "lie" ? Nope. That wouldn't even make sense to attempt. Was it poor lawyering? Yep.

 

[dBeats]

That didn't happen, nothing remotely similar to this this ever happened, and I'm amazed people still believe it to be true.

Well, firstly, let's be honest, neither of us really know. But why would Steve say so blatantly "I'm Going to Destroy Android, Because It's a Stolen Product" and shortly after Eric Schmidt left the board of directors.

The reason they didn't sue Google is because it's better to sue those who use it and make Google proxy fighter in all cases than to go head to head with a single company like Google who "gives it away for free." (Free as in, let me steal all your personal info and sell it to others to spam you with).

So let's be clear. Clearly Steve felt SOMEONE stole information about iOS and that information got put into Android. I don't think he would say something so directly about it if he didn't know something about the SOMEONE.

 

[samcraig]

So let's be clear. Clearly Steve felt SOMEONE stole information about iOS and that information got put into Android. I don't think he would say something so directly about it if he didn't know something about the SOMEONE.

Let's be clearer. YOU think that. There's no evidence that Steve felt that way.