Cube

Apple vs Samsung Trial

Recommended Posts

UK: Those patents are stupid. Apologise to Samsung.

US: Those patents are in the system. Samsung, pay Apple $1 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that one of those two decisions is definitely wrong.

 

However, I'm going to assume that we aren't going to agree on which one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This trail has been nonsense from start to finish, culminating in a jury reaching 700 conclusions in just 21 hours of deliberation? 1.8 minutes per decision - and in that time they needed a unanimous decision too? I'd be ashamed to be part of that jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone clarify what the supposed infringed patents are?

 

Some of the case was for design infringements, square rectangle, that kind of thing.

 

One of the patents was where the page bounces when it comes to the end of scrolling, yes really, that is a patent!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ReZourceman A few design patents (ie, how the phone looks, its UI), pinch and tap to zoom, and the bounce back feature.

 

Samsung clearly demonstrated prior art on bounce back; it had a strong prior art defense with the design patents too. Pinch and tap to zoom shouldn't be valid either (its a common sense progression from a mouse controls). A grid UI was in existence way before iOS - my Nokia 7110 had a grid menu FFS.

 

Just to throw it out there my thoughts after a discussion on Facebook -

 

I chuckled too when I realised a Jury presented with prior art and an extension to an existing idea - neither of which can be patented - validated those patents. Jurors also validated (but not upheld infringement on) Samsungs standard essential patents yet found it had not broken anti-trust laws with its assertion of them. To me, this illustrates how specialist knowledge is required to understand software and patent laws (this jury consisted of a bike-shop manager, electrical engineer, government worker, human resources consultant, a sales and marketing executive, social worker, a network-operations employee with two of the jury members are unemployed - I'm willing to bet few of them have any idea of patent law or software); yet having pre-set criteria undermines the idea of an impartial jury. We can argue that witness testimony should have enabled jurors to get a better understanding, but in my opinion Judge Koh's determination to keep the trial short has undermined the whole process.

 

The software industry changes so much that the current US (and worldwide) patent legislature is unsuitable. Patents awarded at the birth of modern consumer electronics are only just expiring, had these patent been asserted 20 years ago we'd probably all being playing NES and I'd be replying to you by letter. Awarding software patents for 20years is nothing but madness; 18months or two years is ample for these big firms of to profit - but this, of course, would hit sole innovators hard. And what about those innovations where software and hardware are so intrinsically linked? Maybe, and this is my preference, award all patents on a FRAND basis.

 

I have just noted my original link header part of which has been lost in facebookisation ("Apple and Samsung both hit with injunctions in South Korea for patent infringement" is the correct title over at The Verge). I chuckled at the irony of both Sammy and Apple being hit (something, incidentally, I thought would happen in San Jose earlier).

 

I think it's fair to say that one of those two decisions is definitely wrong.

 

However, I'm going to assume that we aren't going to agree on which one :)

 

Different patent laws in different countries, I guess. Individual judges interpreting them differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine a different result would have been chosen if the court chosen wasn't in Apple's hometown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone clarify what the supposed infringed patents are?

 

One of them was that they used a green phone symbol for calls. Oh yeah, Apple invented that. No of course that symbol wasn't used on landlines decades before the iPhone was made. And it's not just the phone symbol. Apple invented the colour green. That's right, if you use green then you're fucked.

 

Oh shit, man!

 

I think it's fair to say that one of those two decisions is definitely wrong.

 

However, I'm going to assume that we aren't going to agree on which one :)

 

You think the US decision is justified and the UK one is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think the US decision is justified and the UK one is wrong?

 

I think he works for Apple :p

 

So is this the future? All companies patenting every tiny little ui feature? Apple leading the way then I guess... Hope Android doesn't start getting sued again in earnest if this is seen as a precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the green phone symbol, it was the whole home screen design. There were several icons that apple claimed were very similar. It didn't help that Apple had some strong evidence: a 'confidential' internal Samsung document that was (and I'm not embellishing this for effect) a selection of screenshot comparisons between Android on Samsung phones and iOS on the iPhone. The document pointed out what the iPhone did well, showed where the Samsung phone didn't match up as well. At the bottom of each page was a suggestion of what samsung needed to change to make it more like the iPhone. One of these things was the home screen, in which Samsung basically said that they needed more rounded rectangular icons.

 

You know what? I'll just find the document - because it's evidence, it's publicly available.

 

Here you go.

 

Anyway, that was only a small part of the evidence. Apple painted all kinds of UI elements (such as the bounceback scrolling) when they included them in the original iPhone in 2007. During the announcement, Steve Jobs famously said of multi-touch technology, 'boy have we patented it!'

 

This is Apple's basic arguement however:

 

apple_samsung1.jpg

 

(I feel like this might be the wrong thread to put this all in tbh :wink: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iPhone homsescreen

 

iphone_homescreen_rene.jpg

 

Samsung homescreen

 

sgs2-homescreens.jpg

 

You have to press the "applications" button to get to the App Drawer, which is the part that was infringing the patent. Android's homescreen is extremely customisable...and can be completely replaced if you wanted to by simply installing a new one from the Play Store.

 

Also, the comparison would apply just as much if you replaced the iPhone with

 

lg-prada-phone.jpg

 

LG Prada

(Announced 2006)

 

Another thing of note: The Galaxy Nexus was also included as breeching the patents. This has a completely different UI design to the rest of Samsung's phones.

 

- The phone icon is blue and has no background.

- The App drawer does not have icons on a rounded square background.

- The are no buttons on the front of the phone at all.

- The phone is much, much more rounded than the iPhone.

- The back and side look pretty unique.

- None of the phone's UI was done by Samsung.

 

20120618T035709.jpg

 

If this phone breaks the patents, then Apple really should look at the "no copying" agreement with Windows Phone as the majority of Windows Phones are closer to the iPhone than the Galaxy Nexus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the outcome, in a nutshell this is why.

 

74763.jpg

 

All companies copy each other, but when you do such a lazy pathetic job as this what do you expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the outcome, in a nutshell this is why.

 

74763.jpg

 

All companies copy each other, but when you do such a lazy pathetic job as this what do you expect.

 

I see two very different phones.

 

And this is how a droid would look after coping iOS.

 

 

Ergo, Apple has great lawyers.

 

Knowing what a patent actually is helps considerably when considering this case; a patent put your innovation in the public domain in exchange for protection. Apples patents are therefore publicly available for anyone to look at and as long as you don't copy the patent you are free to be inspired by these patents. So, in terms of many of Apples design patent as long as the end product is different, Samsung are fee to examine Apples patents all they like. The question is how different are they?

 

Alongside prior art, you can also not patent an obvious progression to an idea. An obvious progression to tapping a screen to create a outcome - in my opinion - is to slide my finger across the screen.

 

You really can pick Apples case - and the decision - apart like a dry old cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that got me was one of the jurors has said "we made up our mind on the first day". How was that been allowed to slide? He admitted he's (and implies everyone else) pretty much not bothered with week(s?) of the court case, basing it purely on one day. Yes, that day did have damning evidence but it wasn't the end. Many other things transpired following that, which should have been taken into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's the most ridiculous thing ever. Of course the applications are arranged in a grid, that is the basis of every desktop pc since like 1980.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing that got me was one of the jurors has said "we made up our mind on the first day". How was that been allowed to slide?

 

Samsung have a great case on dismissing the Jury's ruling because of how quick they answered all 700 questions, and some comments from the jury including

 

- Some of the "someone else did them first" arguments/evidence was taking too long to decide on. So they skipped those parts.

- They made some mistakes, including $2 million they told Samsung to give Apple over a device that didn't infringe any patents (this, along with another mistake has been fixed).

- They didn't read the Jury instructions given to them.

- One of the jury said that the money amount was a "punishment". One of the things in the instructions was that any money decided would have to be what money Apple would have made if Samsung didn't infringe the patents and to not punish Samsung.

 

There are also other inconsistencies and comments from the jury. This thing is far from over.

 

Also, here's a graph of the infringed patents.

 

Here are the patents:

 

Utility

- Enlarging documents by tapping the screen

- 'Bounce-back' feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a page

- Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures

 

Design Patents

- Ornamental design of the iPhone (Black) (Rectangle with rounded edges)

- Rounded square icons on interface

- Ornamental design of the iPhone (White)

- Relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer (none of the tablets were found guilty).

 

The majority of the infringed patents were the utility patents. Not even Apple fanatics should agree that those should exist in any form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can understand the doom and gloom surrounding these patent wars, it really does seem like this could end up stifling the industry.

 

Patents should primarily serve as a pro-consumer function, so they know what they're buying is actually what they intended and not a shameful rip off. If Samsung's latest phones had just one circular button on the front with the exact same home screen, I would agree they'd definitely have it coming, but this isn't the case and people can easily tell the difference.

 

The whole patent war between these two companies is a load of shit and wastes so much court time. Both companies need each other, thanks to their partnerships elsewhere. I think the only sensible choice that has come of this is the South Korean courts decision, which is they both infringed each others patents, settle it outside of the courts whilst infringing products from both companies are banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of deciding how much money they have to give Apple, Samsung should point out the main selling feature of the iPhone: It's an iPhone. Even the advertising states that ("If you don't have an iPhone...then you don't have an iPhone").

 

Thus, if the money for the patents should go to anyone, it should be other Android manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it this way: the way apple patented for instance the ornamental design of the iPhone, it's pretty easy to point out a patent violation. It's very general and without a fixed measurement.

As was seen in many cases before and proven in this one again, the patent system in its current state is broken. The original intention was that the company which created something new would have the exclusive right to sell it for some time. After all they also had to invest in the research and have to compensate for this investment through sales. Patenting every vague little bullshit idea someone came up with in five minutes or are generally accepted standards were not part of that idea. In Apple's defence though, they do a lot of usuability research so it might have taken longer than five minutes to come up with the ideas. I'm not siding with Apple or Samsung but rather think, these things should not be allowed to be patented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting look at what Samsung's line-up would look like if all the "infringing" models were removed from sale.

 

Their two current big models, the Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note, are completely unaffected. There's also a ton of other films yet.

 

This is why I don't understand the whole "this will help innovation in the industry" thing as the innovation is clearly already there, as evident in the massive range of phones (particularly Android ones). There's even a phone with a built-in projector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think whoever side you fall on its hard to say Samsung didn't copy Apple's overall smartphone design after the iPhone's launch in 2007. The image I posted above, and the Samsung internal document I linked to are the ones I'm referring to. Most of Apple's case was made based on proof that Samsung were more intent on copying the iPhone when it launched than on making something better than it.

 

And of course some of the newest Samsung models aren't affected by the ruling - they've had nearly six years to come up with something different to an iPhone. They managed it too, which is great for everyone (adds competition, pushes Apple to keep innovating and moving forward). It's just a shame they also made a lot of models that were very similar to the iPhone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think whoever side you fall on its hard to say Samsung didn't copy Apple's overall smartphone design after the iPhone's launch in 2007. The image I posted above, and the Samsung internal document I linked to are the ones I'm referring to. Most of Apple's case was made based on proof that Samsung were more intent on copying the iPhone when it launched than on making something better than it.

 

And of course some of the newest Samsung models aren't affected by the ruling - they've had nearly six years to come up with something different to an iPhone. They managed it too, which is great for everyone (adds competition, pushes Apple to keep innovating and moving forward). It's just a shame they also made a lot of models that were very similar to the iPhone.

 

You're saying that a grid layout of applications and a taskbar of quick links is something new though :/ Look at your desktop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so many lawsuits and injunctions going on in both companies, their legal departments better have some decent filing systems to remember exactly what their arguing about in each country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites