Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

Forums › Android › Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682189 6-Sep-2012 10:37

blair003: So you are saying that the jury wasn't allowed to consider prior art, but Samsung entered prior art into evidence and the judge allowed prior art to be entered into evidence because in all cases both parties bring as much evidence as possible, even evidence that is not allowed to be considered?

Seems legit.

No, I'm not saying that. All evidence is good. I see the issue is that the lawmakers make the law. The judiciary enforces that law, they cannot make a new law. Thus, the vailidity of the patent system or a particular patent would have to be very well contended for the judiciary to interpret against it. I dont disagree that the patent system, at least for todays IT is not ideal, but a court cannot override the law unless it was so compelling that allows an interpretation to be taken that way. I also have to ask myself this. The IT industry all use patents, and heavily. Was it Novell that was going under, causing companies to rush it to buy it, just for patents? They all use them, rightly or wrongly. And, I have not seen the IT industry lobbying over the unfair patent system. If they have, its been low key, if at all. If that had been a big push in recent years, that may well have diluted this case, but as I see it, they all use it, legal suits over this have always been common, and this case is nothing really new.

I hope that an apeall will dilute the case, throw out the injunctions, and everyone will move on. If there is an issue over patent law in IT, then IT needs to lobby to get it brought into the current times.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#682199 6-Sep-2012 10:56

tdgeek:

No, I'm not saying that. All evidence is good. I see the issue is that the lawmakers make the law. The judiciary enforces that law, they cannot make a new law.

I don't think you understand how the process works very well. Here is how I understand it.

Laws are passed, but rarely is the meaning black and white. New laws are usually very grey and open to interpretation. It is left up to the courts to interpret the actual meaning of the law. In jury cases, jurors are part of this process. Jury's reach verdicts. Some verdicts are appealed, and go to higher courts. But over time it becomes clear what is and is not acceptable under the law because we have case law showing how various cases have been decided in the past.

Lawyers then refer to case law that supports their case, and subsequent jury's and judges rely upon that case law in forming their decisions. Judges in particular won't rule differently from case law unless there is very compelling reason to do so. This is especially true if the case law is from a case that was heard in a higher court than the one the judge presides over.

If there is no case law it will often not be clear what is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Like it or not, this case, whatever the eventual outcome, will add to case law and one way or another it will have an impact on future court cases involving patents.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682206 6-Sep-2012 11:16

blair003:
tdgeek:

No, I'm not saying that. All evidence is good. I see the issue is that the lawmakers make the law. The judiciary enforces that law, they cannot make a new law.

I don't think you understand how the process works very well. Here is how I understand it.

Laws are passed, but rarely is the meaning black and white. New laws are usually very grey and open to interpretation. It is left up to the courts to interpret the actual meaning of the law. In jury cases, jurors are part of this process. Jury's reach verdicts. Some verdicts are appealed, and go to higher courts. But over time it becomes clear what is and is not acceptable under the law because we have case law showing how various cases have been decided in the past.

Lawyers then refer to case law that supports their case, and subsequent jury's and judges rely upon that case law in forming their decisions. Judges in particular won't rule differently from case law unless there is very compelling reason to do so. This is especially true if the case law is from a case that was heard in a higher court than the one the judge presides over.

If there is no case law it will often not be clear what is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Like it or not, this case, whatever the eventual outcome, will add to case law and one way or another it will have an impact on future court cases involving patents.

I understand how the process works. I have a degree, which includes Common Law, Custom, Company and Partnership, and Torts. I agree fully with what you say, and what I said didn't say otherwise. There are plenty of case laws for patents to fall back on, in fact, while I am an Apple user, I found this case to be rather ho hum, as it has been so common. I look at this case from the middle, as an interesting case, not from an Apple user which I am, nor from an I hate Samsung person, which I am not. The location of the case, the way the jury handled it, and the speed that they did is wrong, that I hope will be addressed in an appeal. As to the infringements, they were valid. The intention is documented, that to me is the key. If any of the patents are overruled by appeal, I am happy with that, that is the legal process, and in this case with thee jury issues, appeal is vital. That won't come from past case law, that will come from the alleged bias of the jury in question.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#682215 6-Sep-2012 11:29

OK, so you are saying the infringements are valid because the patents have been approved (or are you just saying in your opinion there are infringements?).

If you are saying its because the patents have been approved -- is there a another process for disputing invalid patents that have been approved by the USPTO? I am under the (mistaken?) impression you do this through the courts.

When it comes to patents I think it's a matter of patent what is critical to your product, ignore the rest and cross licence or pay when you get pulled up. I don't think what samsung are doing is any different to how everyone does it, other than maybe they don't think many of the patents they have been pulled up on are valid.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682229 6-Sep-2012 12:02

blair003: OK, so you are saying the infringements are valid because the patents have been approved (or are you just saying in your opinion there are infringements?).

If you are saying its because the patents have been approved -- is there a another process for disputing invalid patents that have been approved by the USPTO? I am under the (mistaken?) impression you do this through the courts.

When it comes to patents I think it's a matter of patent what is critical to your product, ignore the rest and cross licence or pay when you get pulled up. I don't think what samsung are doing is any different to how everyone does it, other than maybe they don't think many of the patents they have been pulled up on are valid.

The patents do exist in the patent system, there are 9 from memory that were contested. The jury found those were infringed. They are valid as they were applied for in the past, and accepted, so they have the long winded patent number and are documented.

If a patent is disputed, then off course that can be contested in the courts. This case, while it can include a patent dispute, is about did Samsung infringe on the existing patent. Jury found they did.

What should have happened, is that Samsung knew they were modifying Android and that Apple patents were an issue. They should have sought legal advice, then got independent legal advice. If that advice stated that the patents were not going to be infringed, or that they can design around them , they could have proceeded. Should Apple take them to task, they have the evidence that they acted in accordance with legal advice. If they got nabbed in court, then there is no evidence of intent, and the damages would be small, probably just the unpaid licence fee. If legal advise showed that they were skating on thin ice, they could have then contested with Apple the high licence fee of $24. All of this is normal busness practice. But what they did was intend to copy, decline the licence fee that Apple offered, went ahead, and while infringing, they got the design staff to work on designing out the patent issues. Google told them not to copy. So, it is rather blatant, and many articles I read that heavily criticised the jury, etc, still mentioned this intention.

Off course, there is more to it than this, its quite complex. The appeal will clarify a lot, and no doubt, will dilute or reduce Apples win, and thats fine.

What Samsung did re patents is not new, as you say. The difference is that most others pay a licence, they arm themselves with their own patents, so cross licencing helps mitigate costs. In this case, IMO, Samsung took a risk, did not play by the rules and got bitten. I doubt they would lobby against patents as they have 65000 of their own for their army of products. If they did succeed in that, they would then lose the patent ability that they want to remove from Apple, for their own products. All this is rather simplistic Blair, but its highly interesting.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#682234 6-Sep-2012 12:09

I don't think anyone has argued patents per se should be abolished, I'm not sure where that argument comes from.

The issue many of us have is what has been patented does not seem to meet the definition of what is patentable as we understand it. The fact that the jury didn't consider this is frustrating.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682240 6-Sep-2012 12:22

blair003: I don't think anyone has argued patents per se should be abolished, I'm not sure where that argument comes from.

The issue many of us have is what has been patented does not seem to meet the definition of what is patentable as we understand it. The fact that the jury didn't consider this is frustrating.

I agree.

I don't recall saying patents should be abolished. There is clearly an issue over what should be patented. The pity is that there is bias on that. Android users have one opinion, Apple users have the other I guess, thats what I see in this thread. I am trying to take a middle ground, see the case for what it is. I do feel that the appeal may clarify some of these issues.

Hopefully, as this case, while same ol, same ol, as in the many past IT industry court cases over patents, it is high profile as it involves the big two in smartphone hardware, so the appeal will go through all these issues I expect, and give clarity. Any points the Higher court make re patents will affect all IT patents, including consumer electronics. So Samsung is probably seeking some redress at court, but also mindful of how any interpretation of patent law in the modern tech world may affect their other businesses.

Certainly would have been easier and cheaper to lobby changes in patent law with the lawmakers, rather than through defending a case against theor company.

nzgeek

619 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#682392 6-Sep-2012 15:18

tdgeek: Remember, this is not an Apple vs Android issue, Android and Apple have no patent issues, Android is clean.

Most of the utility patents from the case are part of the core Android operating system, and not added by Samsung themselves.

'828 (multi-touch), '915 (touch-screen scrolling) and '891 (notification messages) are core parts of Android, and affect almost all Android devices.
'381 (overscroll bounce) was used by the stock Android gallery application, which Samsung used unmodified. This effect has long since been removed by Google.

The only utility patent that Samsung could have infringed on themselves was '533 (cantilevered push button). This is because it's a physical item, and not something that comes with the Android OS.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682413 6-Sep-2012 15:54

nzgeek:
tdgeek:?Remember, this is not an Apple vs Android issue, Android and Apple have no patent issues, Android is clean.

Most of the utility patents from the case are part of the core Android operating system, and not added by Samsung themselves.
'828 (multi-touch),?'915 (touch-screen scrolling) and '891 (notification messages) are core parts of Android, and affect almost all Android devices.
'381 (overscroll bounce) was used by the stock Android gallery application, which Samsung used unmodified. This effect has long since been removed by Google.
The only utility patent that Samsung could have infringed on themselves was '533 (cantilevered push button). This is because it's a physical item, and not something that comes with the Android OS.

Not what I have read. Android is clean and manufacturers add on their extras, the patents are Samsung extras. Arguably there are potential issues with other manufacturers but no action re that. But all I can go by is what I have read. You would think if your point was valid that it would have been applied in the defense . But this is more complex and subtle than ticking off the 9 patents.

nzgeek

619 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#682464 6-Sep-2012 17:21

tdgeek:
nzgeek:
tdgeek:?Remember, this is not an Apple vs Android issue, Android and Apple have no patent issues, Android is clean.

Most of the utility patents from the case are part of the core Android operating system, and not added by Samsung themselves.
'828 (multi-touch),?'915 (touch-screen scrolling) and '891 (notification messages) are core parts of Android, and affect almost all Android devices.
'381 (overscroll bounce) was used by the stock Android gallery application, which Samsung used unmodified. This effect has long since been removed by Google.
The only utility patent that Samsung could have infringed on themselves was '533 (cantilevered push button). This is because it's a physical item, and not something that comes with the Android OS.

Not what I have read. Android is clean and manufacturers add on their extras, the patents are Samsung extras. Arguably there are potential issues with other manufacturers but no action re that. But all I can go by is what I have read. You would think if your point was valid that it would have been applied in the defense . But this is more complex and subtle than ticking off the 9 patents.

I've been following the Apple vs Samsung IP battles ever since they started, so I've got a solid understanding of what's going on. (Note: I'm not a lawyer, just a software developer who's very interested in intellectual property law and how it applies to technology.)

The current Apple vs Samsung case is quite interesting, because there are actually 2 sides to it. One side of it pertains to the trade dress and design patent complaints, which effectively say that the Samsung phones and tablets look too much like Apple's products. The other side pertains to how the software utility patents are used by the operating system and apps.

Samsung had a very weak case on the trade dress side of things. It's pretty hard to deny that the Galaxy S was designed to look a lot like the iPhone 3G/3GS. They have a very similar look, and the TouchWiz skin that Samsung created is very much based on iOS. Apple knew that they had a strong case here, and were going for damages and an injunction.

The utility patent side of the battle was a bit more fuzzy. I'm not sure if Apple have asserted these patents before, but if they did it wasn't against a party that was willing to fight them in court. As such, Apple didn't know if the patents were solid or not. They probably won't know until the case goes up to the Supreme Court. If the judges there say the patents are valid, that's it.

By going after Samsung, Apple have a chance to test their patents. If they patents are declared invalid, they still have a good chance of winning the trade dress claims, so it's not a complete loss. If the patents are eventually found to be absolutely valid, Apple can go after whoever they like with little fear.

Going after Google is a lot less certain. Google don't really make any money off Android, except from their handful of Nexus phones, and even then it's not a lot. The OS itself is given away for free, so there's no direct income to take a percentage of as damages. Google would also be likely to counter-sue with whatever patents they hold, and if any of those are upheld then Apple could end up not being able to sell their devices in their home country (assuming Google go for an injunction). That's obviously a worst case scenario for Apple, but it will be something they're aware could happen.

Most of this is obviously conjecture, but it does make a lot of sense. That's why I'm inclined to believe it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682520 6-Sep-2012 19:07

Well written NZGEEK. I agree with your post. It is interesting, and unlike the many patent cases before, the smartphone boom that we are in makes this case more than interesting. I can't see a case with Google. Gotta go, kids everywhere here, talk later!

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

matisyahu

1639 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 355

Trusted

#682629 7-Sep-2012 04:21

nzgeek:
tdgeek:
nzgeek:
tdgeek:?Remember, this is not an Apple vs Android issue, Android and Apple have no patent issues, Android is clean.

Most of the utility patents from the case are part of the core Android operating system, and not added by Samsung themselves.
'828 (multi-touch),?'915 (touch-screen scrolling) and '891 (notification messages) are core parts of Android, and affect almost all Android devices.
'381 (overscroll bounce) was used by the stock Android gallery application, which Samsung used unmodified. This effect has long since been removed by Google.
The only utility patent that Samsung could have infringed on themselves was '533 (cantilevered push button). This is because it's a physical item, and not something that comes with the Android OS.

Not what I have read. Android is clean and manufacturers add on their extras, the patents are Samsung extras. Arguably there are potential issues with other manufacturers but no action re that. But all I can go by is what I have read. You would think if your point was valid that it would have been applied in the defense . But this is more complex and subtle than ticking off the 9 patents.

I've been following the Apple vs Samsung IP battles ever since they started, so I've got a solid understanding of what's going on. (Note: I'm not a lawyer, just a software developer who's very interested in intellectual property law and how it applies to technology.)

The current Apple vs Samsung case is quite interesting, because there are actually 2 sides to it. One side of it pertains to the trade dress and design patent complaints, which effectively say that the Samsung phones and tablets look too much like Apple's products. The other side pertains to how the software utility patents are used by the operating system and apps.

Samsung had a very weak case on the trade dress side of things. It's pretty hard to deny that the Galaxy S was designed to look a lot like the iPhone 3G/3GS. They have a very similar look, and the TouchWiz skin that Samsung created is very much based on iOS. Apple knew that they had a strong case here, and were going for damages and an injunction.

The utility patent side of the battle was a bit more fuzzy. I'm not sure if Apple have asserted these patents before, but if they did it wasn't against a party that was willing to fight them in court. As such, Apple didn't know if the patents were solid or not. They probably won't know until the case goes up to the Supreme Court. If the judges there say the patents are valid, that's it.

By going after Samsung, Apple have a chance to test their patents. If they patents are declared invalid, they still have a good chance of winning the trade dress claims, so it's not a complete loss. If the patents are eventually found to be absolutely valid, Apple can go after whoever they like with little fear.

Going after Google is a lot less certain. Google don't really make any money off Android, except from their handful of Nexus phones, and even then it's not a lot. The OS itself is given away for free, so there's no direct income to take a percentage of as damages. Google would also be likely to counter-sue with whatever patents they hold, and if any of those are upheld then Apple could end up not being able to sell their devices in their home country (assuming Google go for an injunction). That's obviously a worst case scenario for Apple, but it will be something they're aware could happen.

Most of this is obviously conjecture, but it does make a lot of sense. That's why I'm inclined to believe it.

Google owns Motorola Mobility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

nzgeek

619 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#682742 7-Sep-2012 11:48

kawaii:
nzgeek: Google don't really make any money off Android, except from their handful of Nexus phones, and even then it's not a lot.

Google owns Motorola Mobility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility

That's true, but the sale was only completed in May this year. Even so, I don't know if this will make a difference or not, as I believe Motorola will be run indepedently as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Legally they are still a separate entity, and this may protect Google from being enjoined in any lawsuits.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#683577 9-Sep-2012 21:15

Boo hoo http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10832816

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#683586 9-Sep-2012 21:46

BooHoo? Hee, I can see why.

"If I don't like, say, Audi cars, do I go out of my way to find a blog about Audi and then register in order to vent how I hate Audi? Hell no. I couldn't care less"

Says it in one.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21