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

[Oletros]

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.

Schmidt was INVITED to Apple board on August 2006, the iPhone was presented on January 2007 and started to be sold on June 2007, the first Android device came on September 2008.

I don't know what the heck needed Schmidt steal when the smartphone was sold and any other company could buy one and study it.

By the way, Jobs NEVER accused Schmidt of any wrong doing and if he felt that he stole any thing he would have sued him because industrial theft is a crim.

So yes, the idea that Schmidt stole anything is just nonsense.

 

[mccldwll]

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.

View attachment 449200

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.

Innocent mistake? No way. You offer original confusion as an example why it was just innocent confusion again this time. That's not how it works. Any confusion the first time around would assure that it wouldn't happen again. With top talent billing over $1000 per hour, mistakes like that are not accidents.

----------

Schmidt was INVITED to Apple board on August 2006, the iPhone was presented on January 2007 and started to be sold on June 2007, the first Android device came on September 2008.

I don't know what the heck needed Schmidt steal when the smartphone was sold and any other company could buy one and study it.

By the way, Jobs NEVER accused Schmidt of any wrong doing and if he felt that he stole any thing he would have sued him because industrial theft is a crim.

So yes, the idea that Schmidt stole anything is just nonsense.

Yes. Schmidt was, is, and will be a weasel, but he wasn't a mole.

 

[samcraig]

Innocent mistake? No way. You offer original confusion as an example why it was just innocent confusion again this time. That's not how it works. Any confusion the first time around would assure that it wouldn't happen again. With top talent billing over $1000 per hour, mistakes like that are not accidents.

Are you suggesting that a lawyer shouldn't use any legal means to minimize damage and/or seek retrials, stays, etc?

It's all part of the process. So whether it was intentional or not - is pretty unimportant.

 

[Renzatic]

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.

You mean shortly after they unveiled Android with multitouch, which Jobs thought Apple owned at the time.

...and didn't, because hell, multitouch has been around since the early 80's. Being one of the first to implement an entire industry's hard work into a commercial product doesn't give you ownership of it. Certain implementations, certainly. But not the entire concept.

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.

Really? All Apple has won through these supposed proxy battles are a few software feature patents, and a couple of good, solid blows against Samsung. And the interesting thing about Samsung is that they're not even attacking Google indirectly through that. Most of the things Samsung has gotten in trouble for were over things implemented in their own Touchwiz UI, not through Android itself.

Plus, it's not like it's scared anyone else away from using Android. Right now, I'd say that MS is more a threat to Android via all the various overwhelming patent licenses they're throwing out everywhere than Apple has ever been from their oft talked about thermonuclear war.

If Schmidt did, in fact, leverage his position to steal trade secrets, Apple's going about fighting him in the weakest, most indirect way possible. It's like walking in on your best friend going at it with your wife, and to get back at him, you go and beat up his 3rd cousin twice removed who he hasn't seen in a decade.

 

[kdarling]

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.

Jobs didn't say that until THREE YEARS AFTER the iPhone had been shown off to everyone on the planet. There was no need for some mythical mole on the board. The whole world had had years to copy whatever they wanted.

Clearly he meant that he thought the ideas were stolen sometime after it was shown off.

You mean shortly after they unveiled Android with multitouch, which Jobs thought Apple owned at the time.

Bingo. January 2010, six months after Schmidt left the Apple board with unusually high praise from Jobs.

That's when Google turned on multi-touch, and that's when Jobs went ballistic.

Innocent mistake? No way. You offer original confusion as an example why it was just innocent confusion again this time. That's not how it works. Any confusion the first time around would assure that it wouldn't happen again. With top talent billing over $1000 per hour, mistakes like that are not accidents.

Such a plot makes zero sense.

Something this obvious has to be a mistake, because ... as you said... nobody billing that much would risk their career by deliberately trying to use something that's so incorrect.

It's clear that some top people honestly thought only one Response was possible before having to do an Appeal. As I said, it's not clearly laid out, and they could easily have remained ignorant. Only Apple's lawyers knew otherwise, as they were the ones actually under the USPTO gun. They then educated Koh, and made the Samsung lawyers look badly uninformed.

It'll be interesting to see if Apple can come up with another Response that will somehow convince the Examiner to change his mind. Otherwise, it's quite possible that Samsung's lawyers will end up inadvertently correct, and an appeal will be the end result.

 

[mingoglia]

Seeing this sort of stuff always makes me wonder if Apple licensed much of their technology from others? Such as iMessage being like BBM. Or using a handheld phone with a "keyboard" to send texts and email. Apple didn't invent this technology, they only released their spin on it. I also wonder if there were any lawsuits/licensing on iPad, specifically how it relates to iPaq. Compaq had that touch device out years ago, and the name is almost identical. I actually have mine still. Ironically if HP were to re-release the iPaq name as a tablet they'd probably get sued by Apple.

I have an iPaq similar to this...even uses a finger print to unlock the screen:

 

[Glideslope]

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?

This one is on the 5 yd line with the receiver starting their 50" vertical jump over the two Safeties hitting each other on the 1.

It's not about the money. It's about making Samung look like the lying, cheating, copying, foolish, be careful what you say in meetings, scumbags that they are.

Loving every minute.

 

[samcraig]

This one is on the 5 yd line with the receiver starting their 50" vertical jump over the two Safeties hitting each other on the 1.

It's not about the money. It's about making Samung look like the lying, cheating, copying, foolish, be careful what you say in meetings, scumbags that they are.

Loving every minute.

Yeah - I think it's more a question of Apple validating their patents for this case and for the future. But then again, I might not be as emotionally involved with my electronics or companies that make them like you might be.

 

[mccldwll]

It's clear that some top people honestly thought only one Response was possible before having to do an Appeal. As I said, it's not clearly laid out, and they could easily have remained ignorant. Only Apple's lawyers knew otherwise, as they were the ones actually under the USPTO gun. They then educated Koh, and made the Samsung lawyers look badly uninformed.

Again, no. At that level of litigation it is not possible to believe that representation. And, if something is not clearly laid out, that's simply an invitation to make it crystal clear, and run up a lot of hours coming to that certainty. It was done for a reason--perhaps linking what appeared at this point in time to be the only option with Koh's earlier statements and the effect thereof. Samsung's lawyers intentionally stepped over the line and got called out for it. Throughout litigation, they've demonstrated that they have absolutely no qualms about disregarding rules in their over zealous representation.

 

[Tech198]

Go Samsung ....!!!

 

[hugomac]

Here it is from a new book "Dogfight" all about the Apple/Android warfare.

"Google was already working on its first Android-powered smartphone when Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but had to stop in its tracks…





When Apple launched the iPhone, Rubin recognized that his grand Android plan would have to be tossed out. In fact, Rubin watched the webcast from the back of a cab in Las Vegas even making the driver pull over so he could watch the entire presentation. According to the book, Rubin said: “Holy crap, I guess we’re not going to launch that phone.”

Ethan Beard, an early Android development executive told the author that “We knew that Apple was going to announce a phone. Everyone knew that. We just didn’t think it would be that good.” An unnamed Android engineer even went as far as to say their work on Android looked awful when compared to the iPhone: “What we had looked so … nineties.”

Vogelstein reports that Jobs was furious with Google, a revelation that has been so well documented it’s almost hard at this point to imagine Jobs not furious with anyone. Jobs was quoted as saying “Everything is a ********* rip off of what we’re doing.”

At this point in history Jobs had a good working relationships with Larry Page and Sergey Brin as well as having Eric Schmidt on the Apple board (As well as sharing directors Art Levinson and Bill Campbell). The book states that all three had been advising Jobs that their future smartphone platform was very different from the iPhone and Jobs took their words to heart…until he saw what they were working on.

Well, Jobs being Jobs requested a meeting with himself, Scott Forstall, the designer of the iPhone software and Google’s Larry Page, Alan Eustance and Andy Rubin. While the content and exchanges that actually took place behind closed doors are unknown, one Apple executive briefed by Jobs after the meeting said “It got incredibly personal…Jobs said that Rubin was steamed, telling him his position was anti-innovation. And this is where Steve was demeaning to Andy, saying Andy was trying to be like him, look like him, have the same haircut, the same glasses, the same style.”

Even as Apple got Google to make the changes Jobs wanted after the meeting, Vogelstein reports that Jobs told Google how to take things out of Android, not just what they couldn’t do with it. Rubin was apparently furious that his bosses didn’t stand up to Apple and considered quitting Google but obviously did not at that point. Rubin would go on to help Android dominate the smartphone world as the platform hits 80% global marketshare. Rubin never forgot that meeting though even hanging a sign that read “STEVE JOBS STOLE MY LUNCH MONEY” on his office white board.

Rubin may have had the last laugh with marketshare and Apple with profits, but one thing clear is that Steve Jobs will forever be remembered not only as a visionary, but a man who made no effort to hide his thoughts or feelings."


Should settle a few things.....

 

[Solomani]

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.

I'm waiting for the day when Eric Schmidt is sub-poena'd and made to answer for his inside-Apple-mole role in a future patent court case.

It won't happen right now, because Apple is currently focusing on Samsung (who is a Google proxy in these patent fights). But eventually, the scrutiny on these patent trials will turn directly to Google. And things will get even uglier.

Eric Schmidt could plead the 5th and refuse to testify. But a refusal like that will only damage his side's credibility further in the eyes of a jury.

 

[Oletros]

I'm waiting for the day when Eric Schmidt is sub-poena'd and made to answer for his inside-Apple-mole role in a future patent court case.

It won't happen right now, because Apple is currently focusing on Samsung (who is a Google proxy in these patent fights). But eventually, the scrutiny on these patent trials will turn directly to Google. And things will get even uglier.

Eric Schmidt could plead the 5th and refuse to testify. But a refusal like that will only damage his side's credibility further in the eyes of a jury.

And then is when the alarm clock rings and you wake up to the real world and not that fantasy world.

 

[samcraig]

Here it is from a new book "Dogfight" all about the Apple/Android warfare.

"Google was already working on its first Android-powered smartphone when Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but had to stop in its tracks…

Oh - clearly that is exactly how that went down and is purely factual

I'm waiting for the day when Eric Schmidt is sub-poena'd and made to answer for his inside-Apple-mole role in a future patent court case.

It won't happen right now, because Apple is currently focusing on Samsung (who is a Google proxy in these patent fights). But eventually, the scrutiny on these patent trials will turn directly to Google. And things will get even uglier.

Eric Schmidt could plead the 5th and refuse to testify. But a refusal like that will only damage his side's credibility further in the eyes of a jury.

You're going to wait a very long time. I hope you're a Highlander.

 

[Kr00]

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

Funny, Cadbury registered a trademark for their purple coloured packaging, albeit a limited trademark. Same goes with fonts. Companies have successfully been able to protect font use, yet are they not just letters of the alphabet? If something identifies with a company because of its primary use, then everyone else copies you, don't you have a right to protect your use? After all, none of these gesture were ubiquitous before hand.

 

[kdarling]

Funny, Cadbury registered a trademark for their purple coloured packaging, albeit a limited trademark.

First, note that my comparison to popularizing a color was in a response to someone else about getting patents, not trademarks. In other words, just selling a known invention does not make it patentable by the new user.

However, as far as overly broad trademarks go, Cadbury lost their UK trademark on purple a few weeks ago, after years of appeals from Nestle.

If something identifies with a company because of its primary use, then everyone else copies you, don't you have a right to protect your use? After all, none of these gesture were ubiquitous before hand.

It's not clear which "something" you mean.

If you're talking about Apple's attempt to trademark the phrase "Multi-Touch" for their UI, then yes... IF Apple had been the only one to use that word for years, and they had heavily advertised using it, then they might well have gotten the trademark. However, it had been a generic term in the industry for decades, and they didn't mention it much in ads.

If you're talking about touch gestures like fingertip-scrolling or pinch-zoom, neither of which Apple invented, many tech savvy readers already associated them with Jeff Han from his TED talk, even though he was far from the first either.

If you mean look and feel (trade dress), the Koh jury did find that some phones infringed on the 3G trade dress, that other phones did not, and that the tablets did not.

.

 

[Glideslope]

Yeah - I think it's more a question of Apple validating their patents for this case and for the future. But then again, I might not be as emotionally involved with my electronics or companies that make them like you might be.

I'm sorry to hear that Sam. Emotion Drives Design.

 

[samcraig]

I'm sorry to hear that Sam. Emotion Drives Design.

You missed my point clearly. I'm not talking about creating a product. I'm talking about your apparent vitriol.

 

[Glideslope]

You missed my point clearly. I'm not talking about creating a product. I'm talking about your apparent vitriol.

No Sam. I got it. I have no problem giving my opinion. If you feel it's Cruel and Bitter, well, I can't help you. There is a place in the this world for Opinion Based Constructive Criticism. There are topics that simply need to be opined as one sees fit. We are not related. We don't get together on Holidays. Simply put me on your ignore list.

You'll have to excuse me now. I see a cute Bunny in my back yard. Going to take Max off his leash.

----------

I'm waiting for the day when Eric Schmidt is sub-poena'd and made to answer for his inside-Apple-mole role in a future patent court case.

It won't happen right now, because Apple is currently focusing on Samsung (who is a Google proxy in these patent fights). But eventually, the scrutiny on these patent trials will turn directly to Google. And things will get even uglier.

Eric Schmidt could plead the 5th and refuse to testify. But a refusal like that will only damage his side's credibility further in the eyes of a jury.

The tough part will be finding him to be served. The guy has more overnight pads around the world than JFK.

 

[samcraig]

No Sam. I got it. I have no problem giving my opinion. If you feel it's Cruel and Bitter, well, I can't help you. There is a place in the this world for Opinion Based Constructive Criticism. There are topics that simply need to be opined as one sees fit. We are not related. We don't get together on Holidays. Simply put me on your ignore list.

You'll have to excuse me now. I see a cute Bunny in my back yard. Going to take Max off his leash.

----------



The tough part will be finding him to be served. The guy has more overnight pads around the world than JFK.

Missed the point again. Hope you have a good recipe for stew.

 

[MyMac1976]

I cannot believe this case is still bringing out the trolls on both sides all over the web.