For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with
1. Daily trial reports on testimony and motions
2. Analysis of the patents involved
3. Descriptions of the legal issues involved and which were in dispute
4. History on the companies and technology involved
But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand.
Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.
Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.
Counterpoint: I'm sure consumers will totally notice that Samsung is $100M lower in profits next quarter.
It's not like they're going to stop making Android phones over this. Not saying I like what happened, but "won't someone think of the consumers" doesn't really work here.
Sure, maybe Samsung will create a superior implementation to the ones they were found to be infringing and the consumer can benefit from their innovation.
Apple aren't trolling, because they invented and patented ideas that are being used in very real products. Apple is using the patent system exactly as intended; if you object to this, your beef is with the architecture of the patent system, not with Apple.
You won't help by creating a new class of "insignificant tech" patent. Who decides what qualifies a patent as insignificant?
I prefer the idea someone had of doing away with the time limits altogether, and replacing it with an annual renewal fee that rises exponentially. Let the patent holder decide when the fee exceeds its usefulness.
(A similar idea should apply to copyrights. Replace the current Sonny Bono time period with a much shorter length, say 25 years, plus a 25 year time extension when registered for free in a database of copyrighted works, and up to 150 years when registered for a fee.)
EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?
To infringe a patent, you have to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, or import an infringing product or process. [0] Google writes software that could be used to make such a device but it actually produces very few such devices itself. Apple just might be able to sue over the Nexus line, though I think LG and HTC actually make those, because Google sells them on the Play Store. The damages would be pretty small, though, because the volume is small.
Google's export of software is not making, selling, or importing a product [1] and no Android manufacturers make phones in the USA.
Samsung actually makes the devices and imports them in vast numbers.
Note also that since using the device can be infringement, Apple could sue every user of Android devices in the USA individually also.
[0] 35 USC §271
[1] Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
Samsung sells the final product and profits from it.
Since Samsung modifies Android, arguably they could have removed infringing features but they chose not to. I don't know if this argument came up during the case.
Patent holder can sue anyone using an infringing product. That's why you sometimes hear about patent trolls threatening to sue mom and pop operations if they have a fax/scan/copier and extorting a settlement.
Beyond them reacting to the obvious rise of Samsung, there is a side benefit of making other companies using Android think about alternatives, thereby weakening Android's stronghold on the smartphone market.
Samsung, in an argument in the court, tried passing the buck to Google, stating that the primary owner of the Android operating system is Google and they are liable for any copyright or patent infringements.
There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
"Google was not a defendant in the case, but during the trial Samsung pointed out that some of the features Apple claims to own were actually invented by Google, and called a handful of executives from the Internet search giant to testify on its behalf."
I love how absolutely fucking dismissive this community can be about Apple.
They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses.
They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations.
They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here.
This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.
For their innovation they were rewarded for being first to market with a good product and win a very large market share which they profited from for several years and are still profiting handsomely, and managed to build a powerful brand that will help them to continue to help them earn abnormal profits in the short to medium term. You're saying that Apple deserves to make abnormal profits for many more years (15 or so more or however long their patents last).
Profit is a feature that exists not to serve the entity the profit goes to, but to serve society at large, to encourage services to be provided, to encourage innovations. You're saying Apple should be awarded additional abnormal profits above the monopolistic competitive profits they're already generating. Is their current situation not enough to have encouraged Apple of 2006 their innovations? I doubt it. If Steve Jobs was told patents only lasts 5 years, I'm sure he'd have gone on to lead Apple to invent the exact same things. If that's the case, what's the point of giving Apple additional monopoly protections, at the expense of society at large, due to the increased prices they must pay and reduced innovations they will receive in return (since other companies are disincentivized to innovate on top of what Apple has invented)?
Is it because of how Steve Jobs would have felt? He's a great man, but we should not be reduced to living in his shadows forever. We must stand on his shoulders, for that is how humanity have advanced ever since the first hammer was passed down from father to son.
Your emotional outburst is not a constructive addition to this discussion.
Despite this tantrum it would seem that more people on HN agree with you than disagree as your comment is still visible. So I am not sure why you are bitching.
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with
But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand.Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.
[+] [-] sinaa|12 years ago|reply
- 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
- 8,046,721: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (slide to unlock)
- 6,847,959: universal search
- 8,074,172: Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations (word recommendation/autocomplete)
- 7,761,414: Background sync
More details here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in...
[+] [-] suprgeek|12 years ago|reply
This is a terrible list of some overbroad Patents:
The Autocomplete 172 Patent is considered suspect enough that it is going under a reexam[scribd]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autoc...
The next few ones are equally horrible: 647 is contentious as well http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-w...
Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.
[+] [-] jessaustin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesaguilar|12 years ago|reply
It's not like they're going to stop making Android phones over this. Not saying I like what happened, but "won't someone think of the consumers" doesn't really work here.
[+] [-] IBM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] funkyy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjwright|12 years ago|reply
You won't help by creating a new class of "insignificant tech" patent. Who decides what qualifies a patent as insignificant?
I prefer the idea someone had of doing away with the time limits altogether, and replacing it with an annual renewal fee that rises exponentially. Let the patent holder decide when the fee exceeds its usefulness.
(A similar idea should apply to copyrights. Replace the current Sonny Bono time period with a much shorter length, say 25 years, plus a 25 year time extension when registered for free in a database of copyrighted works, and up to 150 years when registered for a fee.)
[+] [-] 1stop|12 years ago|reply
Samsung don't write (much of) the software.
EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
Google's export of software is not making, selling, or importing a product [1] and no Android manufacturers make phones in the USA.
Samsung actually makes the devices and imports them in vast numbers.
Note also that since using the device can be infringement, Apple could sue every user of Android devices in the USA individually also.
[0] 35 USC §271 [1] Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
[+] [-] wmf|12 years ago|reply
Since Samsung modifies Android, arguably they could have removed infringing features but they chose not to. I don't know if this argument came up during the case.
[+] [-] bradleyjg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noisy_boy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dirkgently|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IBM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zikes|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/64028-image/ch-b...
[+] [-] sidcool|12 years ago|reply
There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
[+] [-] DanBlake|12 years ago|reply
Anyways- Putting it in perspective, It will take Samsung a bit more than a day to pay for this verdict (about 29.5 hours of revenue)
[+] [-] asdfologist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sinaa|12 years ago|reply
Didn't Google testify on this case?
[+] [-] noisy_boy|12 years ago|reply
"Google was not a defendant in the case, but during the trial Samsung pointed out that some of the features Apple claims to own were actually invented by Google, and called a handful of executives from the Internet search giant to testify on its behalf."
[+] [-] sscalia|12 years ago|reply
They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses.
They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations.
They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here.
This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.
[+] [-] meric|12 years ago|reply
Profit is a feature that exists not to serve the entity the profit goes to, but to serve society at large, to encourage services to be provided, to encourage innovations. You're saying Apple should be awarded additional abnormal profits above the monopolistic competitive profits they're already generating. Is their current situation not enough to have encouraged Apple of 2006 their innovations? I doubt it. If Steve Jobs was told patents only lasts 5 years, I'm sure he'd have gone on to lead Apple to invent the exact same things. If that's the case, what's the point of giving Apple additional monopoly protections, at the expense of society at large, due to the increased prices they must pay and reduced innovations they will receive in return (since other companies are disincentivized to innovate on top of what Apple has invented)?
Is it because of how Steve Jobs would have felt? He's a great man, but we should not be reduced to living in his shadows forever. We must stand on his shoulders, for that is how humanity have advanced ever since the first hammer was passed down from father to son.
[+] [-] ticktocktick|12 years ago|reply
Despite this tantrum it would seem that more people on HN agree with you than disagree as your comment is still visible. So I am not sure why you are bitching.
[+] [-] briandh|12 years ago|reply
Like or dislike any of those you please, but can't you find some other way to occupy your time?
[+] [-] chao-|12 years ago|reply
As of yet, I have not achieved such acclaim.
[+] [-] rtx|12 years ago|reply