Jury awards Apple $1bn damages in Samsung patent case
The nine-member jury in the closely watched patent litigation between Apple and Samsung has returned a verdict decidedly in Apple's favor, awarding the fruity firm a whopping total of $1.05bn in damages. The jury took less than three days to reach its verdict, something that apparently startled even Apple's legal team, as …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Are you sure that television manufactures aren't already paying licenses to someone for remote controls and on/off switches? Just because it's obviously doesn't mean that someone didn't have to research and develop it in the past and so deserves to get paid for their work.
Anyway, it's not that Apple don't have to pay Samsungs patent license, it's that they're already paying for them via someone else who's already licensed them from Samsung. Samsung were trying to get paid twice for the same license here.
You may well be correct there, perhaps television manufacturers do have to license the basic innovations I have listed.
However, we do not hear about constant legal battles between them. Having recently bought a "smart" tv, I noticed in the shop they were all now "smart", with apps and games. It's very difficult to spot any differences between them physically, it's all about the picture.
Who has copied who in this instance, and it's obvious from the large amount of choice and healthy competition in that market that they are able to co-exist reasonably peacefully, with no 1 company claiming itself to be the inventor of the smart tv and therefore all other products are imitations and should be banned. The patenting system either works a lot better in that market, or the companies don't concentrate most of their efforts in hoarding patents, or they just don't have as many stupid software patents.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/virgin_epg_victory/
As an example, a stupid TV software patent dismissed in court.
As I recall, the infrared remote control was first popularized by Viewstar (through Philips) around 1980. Prudence would dictate they would've had a patent on the technology (or had license or parts from whatever firm actually invented the tech). Given that it's been around for over 30 years, I would imagine any patents on the tech have long expired.
If apple release a tv, we'll have five years of US and UK media spinning the myth that apple invented the tv. Then they'll have no trouble winning a case against Samsung for tvs, even though Samsung were in the market years earlier. That's assuming they don't already claim to have a patent covering tvs - i mean, tvs are rectangular, and the size evidently doesn't matter!
3G - FRAND
Wireless - buy an implementation
Battery tech - Li Ion, could develop own management or buy in the tech.
Multi touch - the implementation of multi touch hardware FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION CAN be patented so long as the patent references prior art AND pays any royalties due. (Or you buy the company that developed it and you hold the original patents)
Software 2 parts-
1, Software should not be patentable, it should be copyright. This allows competition through parallel developments.
2, The result of a parallel development should not end up looking like a clone of the original. That infringes on trade dress.
The most successful inventions are those that are non-obvious before development but in hindsight we find we can't do without.
'tis
a sad day for technology, and a sadder day for Apple
Every phone manufacturer will be looking at this and thinking "how do I build a phone that does'nt copy an apple product?"
And the months will roll past while the clever folks brain storm, finally word is released that some serious manufacturing deals have been signed,usually with China based slave labour plants.
And the wrapping come off at the press conference of the new 'whizzy super phone mk4' whose design style and user interface make apple's products look like they were designed by a caveman. plus its $100 per unit cheaper.
4 years later and Apple is making serious losses on its phone division and is finally put out of its misery by being sold for scrap
Re: 'tis
If that happens it would be a good thing. Tech companies leapfrogging over each other and making competitors products obsolete is exactly what drives the whole user experience forward. Why copy a market leader when you should be concentrating on bringing out the product that kills the market they dominate?
I find it very odd that...
Nothing at all was awarded Samsung whatsoever cos unless I misunderstood all the claim and counterclaim stuff (there's certainly plenty of it), aren't apple still knowingly and blatantly using a Samsung patent which they have openly refused to pay anything for?
Isn't it evident even to the most 'patriotic' of juries that they must pay some amount for their use thereof?
Maybe it's a separate case - I thought it formed part of Sammy's arguments as to why apple might owe them 500M.
Re: I find it very odd that...
As I understand it that patent is related to a part that is manufactured by Intel, and because Intel have licensed the patent from Samsung the jury decided that Apple had already paid to use it by using Intel's parts.
Which probably means Intel will be jacking up the price they charge Apple on the next contract negotiation, and who can blame them eh? :-)
This is horrible!
How will Samsung's executives be able to afford their dog meat dinners now back in Korea!
It's never about who is right
It's about who has the better lawyers.
Re: It's never about who is right
Maybe Samsung should have found some who could tell their tablet apart from an iPad then
The land of the free!!
America the land of the free
Where a woman can sue a furniture store for tripping over a child in their store and breaking her arm, when in court it was revealed to be her own child she tripped over. The woman is still awarded a quarter of a million dollars.
America the land of the free
Where a burglar can break into somebodys house and as he is trying to leave through the adjoining garage with the TV, the door locks behind him and since he cant open either the adjoining door or the garage door. He sues the people he was trying to burgal for false imprisonment, due to the fact he had to survive for a week on dried dog food and cans of Coke. He successfully won damages of nearly 3 quarters of a million dollars.
So why are we surprised when in the land of the free, an American company sues a foreign company over patent infringement, (conveniently forgetting that they are not exactly not guilty of stealing others ideas). I would like to know why the software was patented, it should come under copyright infringement
Before anybody says I am being ant Apple or an Android Fanboi, I would still feel the same amount of injustice if it had been a unanimous desicion the other way if the court had been in South Korea, but as someone has already pointed out the case that was decided the other day in Korea found in favour and against both companies, which makes it look like there was no bias at all.
Re: The land of the free!!
Tripping over toddler? Burglar stuck in garage? Yeeeaaah that would be bollocks.
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
Re: The land of the free!!
Fair enough, you know how it is when you read something and it sticks in your mind, try the following site though for other cases that have gone to court, equally as stupid. I am not saying that the UK or any other part of the world is exempt, but it seems that America leads by example in the stupid lawsuit arena
http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/
p.s. it may be bollox, but a couple of things strike me. One they are funny and Two out of my entire post that is all you picked up on!!!
Re: The land of the free!!
So basically your argument is you remembered a silly lawsuit which wasn't even true, so therefore this trial is also silly?
No surprise the US found in its own favour. Sad that they think they own the world. Bias and a failed case.
Imagine a world
Imagine a world where IBM PC Clones had been banned. You know, the likes of the Amstrad PC1512 that undercut IBM and captured 30% of the European PC market within 6 months back in the 80's.
At the time IBM were unable to stop the clones and today you can't even buy an IBM PC.
The fact clones were allowed was a good thing although I am pretty sure what Jobs and Co were trying to avoid was a situation where Apple become the next IBM.
In short the decision is good for Apple and bad for the consumer.
Re: Imagine a world
... and today you can't even buy an IBM PC.
That's because IBM decided to sell their entire and highly profitable PC business to Lenovo for a shedload of money and a large share in Lenovo itself (so, IBM's business interests do still include the making of PCs) ... something for which I find it hard to blame the clone makers.
IBM's initial decision to make the PC architecture open, and the clone industry to which that gave rise, is what led the PC's dominance in the personal computer marketplace over the last 30 years. I'd say it was a smart bit
Re: Imagine a world
> IBM's initial decision to make the PC architecture open
Except IBM only made that decision so that peripheral and software could make stuff for IBM machines. and in fact the BIOS was pretty locked down and proprietary. It took Compaq one year and over a million dollars (back then a lot of money) to write a clean room version of it.
IBM never intended for other companies to clone them, because unlike Google - who lives off advertising - IBM's business depends on making selling actual things. The open architecture came more out of need: IBM wanted a computer that could beat Apple quickly and the only way to do it was from off-the-shelf parts.
The fact that of the initial clone makers - Compaq, Columbia, Eagle, Xerox, HP, Digital, Sanyo, Texas Instruments, Tulip, Wang and Olivetti - only HP barely survives on the PC business, just shows how unsustainable that idea really is.
Re: Imagine a world
"IBM decided to sell their entire and highly profitable PC business to Lenovo" - I call BS on this.
I used to work for the IBM PC business and it was never "highly profitable" by any stretch of the imagination. IBM simply is not a company that can do low-cost products. Why do you think they got out of disk drives, and earlier printers, typewriters, etc.? As soon as a product is commoditised, there are not the 40%+ margins that IBM likes (more like 80% on software btw), and they will promptly exit the market.
PC BIOS
Ah, how the memories fade, apparently.
The IBM PC BIOS was locked down to such an extent that one could buy the IBM PC XT Technical Reference manual that contained, in an appendix, a complete source code listing of the BIOS for the machine.
Compaq were clever enough to ignore that, and do a clean-room re-engineering based just on the documented API. Come to think of it, I wonder why that wasn't quoted as precedent in the Oracle API case recently? I'm fairly sure that the Compaq implementation was the subject of a court case at one stage.
GJC
This is why you don't leave complex cases to juries
Controversial, I know, but a bunch of 'ordinary citizens' include a majority of technical numb-nuts. Complex fraud cases are no longer suited to juries, perhaps IP cases should be similar. Way too much of a home-turf bias in this one.
Re: This is why you don't leave complex cases to juries
...only because you don't agree with this decision. You'd be clamouring for jury trials otherwise. Haven't I seen you commenting on the Oracle trial?
Both sides here had an equal amount of time to convince a non-biased jury about their side of the story.
You'll be hard pressed to find anything fairer than that.
If I ever find myself in court (and have a choice)
If I'm guilty, I want trial by jury - if innocent, trial by judge. It's interesting that the High Court hearing (which dismissed Apple's claims) was in front of a judge, as are most civil cases under English law.
Re: This is why you don't leave complex cases to juries
No I think they still need a Jury,
BUT the jury should really be peers of the case.. so in a patent case involving technology & design like this, the people should be in an industry where they can understand it, i.e. degree educated or 10+ years experience!
and when massive brands are involved, only people who do NOT own products by the companies in question, OR an even split.
I.E. Me, I work in IT, I have done for over 10 years, I have a BSc, and I own products from both manufacturers, and use both regularly....
Personally I prefer Samsung phones, Apples are too small for my hands and unless the jury got to HOLD every phone in comparison to an iPhone, then the rulings shouldn't stand.. as its the hand hold test that counts, not the 2d resized image test...
And pinch to zoom.. that is an OBVIOUS feature... as soon as multi-touch came out, it was obvious it would be done!!! and I remember fingerworks having it before apple, so when was the patent? surely its getting close to being expired right now??
I am just glad the UK ruled in samsungs favour over the tablets, it really was clear prior art IMHO...
Re: This is why you don't leave complex cases to juries
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/uk-apple-samsung-idUKBRE87Q00C20120827
"With Samsung win on Galaxy Tab, judge may reconsider U.S. ban"
Doesn't this open up a can of worms on Apple?
Other companies have been playing the patent game a lot longer then Apple; IBM and Microsoft spring to mind... They patent some of the most absurd things, add in how Microsoft have been in the "smart phone" *cough* game longer then Apple I wonder will someone employ Apple's own tactics* against them?
MS really want the mobile market, and if one of Android's biggest players just got slapped down doesn't that make Apple a prime target?
*Using any legality what so ever to use the courts as their stick rather then just competing... Apple just shown it works, now it is a game of burning bucks and making lawyers rich...
Re: Doesn't this open up a can of worms on Apple?
"Using any legality what so ever to use the courts as their stick rather then just competing... "
By not protecting their IP to the greatest extent allowed by law, Apple was - and would continue - to be competing against their own innovations. It's Samsung that should be competing as opposed to imitating Apple.
Appeal, here we come
And maybe in the appeal they can get a judge who allows all the evidence to be shown and a jury with the intelligence to understand it.
This verdict is wrong on so many levels. Not only are most of the patents Apple claimed either so obvious that no one else ever thought to file for them or subject to prior art, but the idea that they get off with infringing a patent just because Intel has a license is ludicrous. Unless Intel's license specifically states that the can sell licenses to other companies they can't.
Re: Appeal, here we come
'Exhaustion' doesn't mean what you think. The patent holder only gets to charge once for each *use* of their patent. Intel paid to cover the CPU, Samsung have no right to charge again for that CPU, whatever happens to it.
Note: nothing stops Samsung *trying* to sell Apple a general licence for the same patent but only actual infringement could force Apple to buy... and exhaustion == no infringement. I really don't understand why Samsung even bothered taking it to trial, it was obvious exhaustion applied the moment they revealed the patent use was embedded in an Intel component.
The rest of the case is simply a disgrace though and it's hard to believe it won't go to retrial. Meanwhile Apple have won because the injunctions will stay in place.
The only glimmer of hope is the case shone light on the collusion between Apple & Microsoft, the result of that threat 2-3 years ago to pool patents to destroy Google&Android. I see some anti-trust attention coming their way soon.
Still, any backroom deal that forces Microsoft to cripple their own software (Metro is the direct result of agreeing not to copy Apple) isn't all bad ;)
Well I am completely shocked......
A court held in Silicon Valley and just 10 miles from Apples HQ with a jury picked from people who live in Silicon Valley found in favor of the local mega corp on most things.......
This should itself be grounds for an appeal as to have been fair it should have been held away from Apples home turf, even north California would have been fairer.
Nationalistic bias
What a shock - U.S. firm with deep political pockets wins a patent judgement against a Korean company in U.S. court. Let's wait and see what the Korean court says.
Re: Nationalistic bias
Maybe they will get the same South Korean court with a Korean judge that just found Samsung had infringed an Apple patent and banned the S2 from sale in South Korea?
The real loser here
Is the consumer through a lack of choice and the patent system stifles innovation. This lack of innovation and advancement hits the economy (and thus the consumer) again. The lock-in for various services lets incumbent gouge their users, hitting the consumer again. And so on and so on.
This should be the alarm call that the USA patent system needs a grassroots overhaul and lots of patents rescinded.
Apple can copyright their design, fine. That prevents passing-off.
They can patent truly innovative ideas/technologies, not some that is simple application of a business process or an existing real-world idea to an electronic device.
Everything else? Away and swivel.
Apple is the current whipping-boy for the shitting USA patent system but MS, Amazon etc are all equally guilty.
But, of course, we have been in this situation before. IBM thought it could keep a strangle-hold on PCs, it got raped by the clones. Apple's day will come and the same thing will happen. Then some other company will try the same thing (maybe a social media one) and they will become the latest whipping boy.
The cycle will repeat until someone fixes the problem, and the problem is in the USA and their abhorrent patents system. Their cancerous rot is spreading; it must be excised before we all suffer.
Re: The real loser here
You are so fucking stupid. Apple by preventing Samsung from copying its idea does not "stifle innovation" - it forces innovation. Samsung now has to compete without copying. That's where innovation comes from. You know, necessity is the mother of invention. Oh sorry, you like the rest of the Samsung supporters know nothing about that, now do you?
Re: The real loser here
I don't normally respond to cowards - it's not like The Register has a real name policy or anything, so I assume that people only do it because they don't want their response tied to their profile because they know that their response is ill thought out.
But yours is so staggeringly off-base I'll make an exception.
The problem is, most of these patents are so broad or so obvious that people cannot innovate. There cannot be any progression unless it come from Apple; and Apple have no interest in such progression as once you are in their walled-garden, you are ripe for the plucking.
I'll give you one example: rubber bounce. How the shuddering hell is that patentable? Number one, it's software; that should discount it immediately. Number two, it's simply a feedback to the user through the device's response mechanism; in the real-world it might be force-feedback or something. It is not patentable!
But now anyone who tries to do any kind of user feedback that in any way looks even vaguely like rubber-bounce will have the Apple attack-dogs on their arse. This does not help innovation.
Then there's all the swipe to unlock bullcrap. Look at you hands. Look at your friends' hands. They look the same, don't they? So, and I realise this is a crazy idea, you and your friends will find similar actions equally hard/easy. Anyone doing a UI/device design will make actions easy for you and given that all hands are roughly the same, the set of answers it going to be pretty limited so everything is going to look pretty similar. And Apple has been given a patent on it! How the hell can they get a patent on something for which there is only one (or a small number) of answers? The shouldn't be able to.
Oh, and swipe to unlock? I've been doing that on my garden gate for years. It's is a known mechanism and on the phone screen it happens to be easy. Maybe you'd like it if Samsung patented "arc signature" to unlock, where you use one hand and you thumb to describe an arc (moving back and forth to enter your "pin")? Wow! Is that innovation or what? No it bloody well isn't! There's only so many answer with a set number of digits.
Innovation comes, not from brand-new ideas but from incremental steps and it's these stupid patents that stop these incremental steps. After enough steps, then you'll get a genuinely new idea and thus a paradigm shift.
Apple needs to protect it's profits; fine. But society needs to protect itself as well, and granting idiotic patents is not the way to go about it. The PC market only came about after the incumbent's stranglehold had been broken. That's a stranglehold Apple currently holds over smartphones and tablets, and it will hold us back until someone in power grows a pair and fixes the problem.
I'll give you one more example. Who invented the electric lightbulb? Edison?
Wrong. There were already lightbulbs.
What Edison did was figure out how to do it better than everyone else at the time, now imagine one of those inferior bulb-makers held broad enough patents to crush Edison, where would we be now?
Where would we be if other people if other people had not taken Edison's work and improved upon it again?
This is what overly-broad/stupid patents prevent.
This is what you wish to prevent.
Apple have had enough time to make a decent profit from there ideas, they have moved from being the "Edison" to the "shitty bulb maker"; to get a better bulb, society requires that their vice-like grip on innovation be broken. Because when the other players come in, Apple will be forced to up their game. Then the consumer wins.
And it's not just Apple; it's Amazon, Sony, Microsoft etc.
Re: The real loser here
Apple are using their lawyers rather than innovate and up their game.
Most tech companies in the past simply innovate when competitors sell their own versions of say TV with EPG, built in media ports, smart/Internet etc.
So why can't apple innovate their way to increasing their market share rather than the lawyers do it for them?
Says to me that it's because they can't innovate better than those who have been doing it for a lot longer.
Re: The real loser here: something else about feedback...
In various computer games, collision detection and user feedback are absolutely CRITICAL to the user experience. It is only SENSIBLE that such features eventually are experienced in a phone or a tablet.
In the early 90s, I helped beta test a "game" called Catz, which was spawned from Dogz. In it, the player was an owner of a newborn kitten, took care of it, groomed, fed, and played with it. As a beta tester, I had other ideas. I not only picked up the kitten/cat and tossed it to the side of the screen to watch it bounce back or walk/crawl back to me for more of that "love", I began to violently whirl it around by mouse and then released the button to see it hurled/flung into one of the corners of the screen. Every time I did it, it crashed the program. Nobody believed me, so I demonstrated it to the two lead developers, and, IIRC, the owner of the company. They were shocked as hell that it happened, but in minutes, they fixed it, and thanked me, tho my method of testing was a bit "off".
When I use my GTab and have Samsung/Android blue-fade bounce alert me that I have reached the end of desktops or movement ability, it looks kewl as hell. When I see the Gallery respond to gyro inputs as I tilt my Tab, i feel thriled to see the tiles of photos pivot in 3D beneath their album parent. I showed it to some people and they were enthralled wwith it. I don't know if it is a Samsung, Android, or another's invention, but it is kewl. I hope it is NOT an Apple-controlled invention, because it is too kewl to have stripped out of my GTab. I'd hate to lose that if I ever some day decided to upgrade or root my Tab. If a court order affected the presence of it, I would never let my Tab update as long as it was under my own physical and menu control.
(Still, I wish the GTab 10.1 shipped with a microSD slot. (Imagine all the hospitals, law enforcement, and military agencies that probably banned this model of Tab if WiFi and Bluetooth are the only easy ways to move data... No, they didn't ship easy-to-use drivers for Linux, and the windoze 7 detection demands going to the internet, something I most decidedly refuse to let win 7 do... MicroSD should not be any more a security risk than the provided data cable. Lack of MicroSD creates a royal PITA to the user not wanting to use or not able to enable it.) If Sammy had included that th FIRST time around, it would even more remove the risk of ban from the USA. Sometimes, I don't know if Sammy's actions are a "Korean thing" the result of a tech company fiendishly controlling the user experience. Next time, Sammy should mimic apple less and take fewer bullets competing with apple. Be flexibile, fluid, and listen more to the users BEFORE locking the design. That would be an improvement well ahead of Apple.)
Re: The real loser here
"So why can't apple innovate their way to increasing their market share rather than the lawyers do it for them?"
Um.. how about Samsung do something innovative rather than copying others..?
I can't believe you are trying to blame Apple for someone copying them.
Re: The real loser here
All companies copy others ideas. Cars all have the same tech, tvs, computers etc etc. Don't see Ford and say Toyota in every possible court in the world because the other fitted satnav or abs brakes, rounded their dash etc etc.
Good companies take pleasure in the kudos something was their idea and move on to creating the next "must have".
The majority of patents in this case should never have been allowed to be filed due to "prior art". Patents are only for new and unique ideas.
Should have been
$5 Billion awarded to both, banning of all infringing hardware from both manufacturers and a kick in the bollocks for both sets of lawyers.
Assault on tablet makers now...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/25/apple-samsung-injunction-fine?newsfeed=true
" Apple to seek injunction against Samsung smartphones and tablets and could triple fine"
Well, it seems apple is celebrating VK day and stroking its way to spilling on tablet makers, too, now...
Maybe i will buy a samsung laptop now, to complement my gtab 10.1 with DMB??? More money apple can claim as "their" money...
Re: Assault on tablet makers now...
IIRC, Samsumg's tablets are off the hook because they look too different from iPads. They don't have hardware home buttons (as they're built with Android 3.0 and up which allow soft button bars) and have widescreen aspect ratios (Apple's aspect ratios are more consistent with paper).
iOS and Android
What will this mean for Android?
Will all phone makers using Android be watching their backs?
Should they consider moving to WP8?
Re: iOS and Android
IIRC many of the points of contention are specific to Samsung, TouchWiz, and phones. ICS phones may not feature a hardware button and can have different skins. Those are more likely to dodge most of the issues. Most of the rest can probably be avoided altogether.
Harrrummmpfh!
All of these most Learned here heaping such cranky disdain on the American patent law collection are, of course, most Learned and all-informed about American patent law? ....and....are also intimate insiders along the Corridors of Power at Apple?
Is it possible....gasp!...that some here have sucked up a bit too much Apple juice? .....fermented? Are they....[can't....resist.....this.....argghhhh!.....!.......(thrashing about ....struggling).....]...... a bit......cloudy? Or......have they bitten into Th' Apple and ....found......uh,oh.....half a worm?
Re: Harrrummmpfh!
......Uh,oh............a "thumbs down".......must've stepped on a vulnerable, exposed nerve or two.
Re: Harrrummmpfh!
...or maybe someone objects to you not making any sense? Just a thought.
I didn't think you'd hit a nerve. You were far from precise enough. ;)
Ancient-Of-Days.
Those of us of a certain age recall vividly being stationed in Japan in 1955-56, and that the Japanese were rampant copyists of the First Order, having had that reputation for years, and, for example, built many, many down-to-the-screws-copies of the Leica IIIC and sold then under the brand-name Canon. I bought one because they were of excellent quality with lenses (it was said at the time) perfected at the factory used for bomb-sights....a bit earlier. Canon now is premier quality.
Korea was, of course, still basically at a subsistence level, the Armistice being new.
Well, years pass, and Asian opportunism pokes up here and there in South Korea, and probes are made towards American know-how....using techniques perfected by their no longer so Imperial, but remaining imperious, former Japanese Colonial masters.
It's not in the least a stretch to assume that these Koreans adroitly snitched absolutely as much technology as they could from wherever they could for as long as they could....with elastic eagerness.
Now they make excellent automobiles and computers, just like the big guys.
Then the Apples started rolling out of the barrels. The rest is evident in the recent headlines.
This topic is closed for new posts.
