Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

WildCat said:
A difference without distinction IMHO.
Click to expand...

Not really. As an example, if implementations or ideas presented weren't based on actual touch technology then that alone may disqualify it as prior art.

As I challenged Christian, there's a lot of people who think prior art was obvious based on mistaken assumptions of what the patents actually claimed. I'd love to see someone explain their position in the form of, "Evidence XXX presented by Samsung invalidates Apple patent YYY because ZZZ."
 
chulbert said:
Okay, let me ask it this way (again). If you think the jury got prior art so wrong, please identify the prior art Samsung presented, match it to the patents claimed by Apple, and explain how the patents are invalidated.
Click to expand...
He said they found the prior art was valid, did you miss that part? They said it didn't matter because the hardware/processer was different.
 
WildCat said:
He said they found the prior art was valid, did you miss that part? They said it didn't matter because the hardware/processer was different.
Click to expand...

So what? "We thought there was prior art but decided we were mistaken because it relied on fundamentally different technology and therefore couldn't possibly be prior art."
 
chulbert said:
So what? "We thought there was prior art but decided we were mistaken because it relied on fundamentally different technology and therefore couldn't possibly be prior art."
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And that is the flaw in the verdict.
 
If the prior art can be disregarded because the methodology is different, then Samsung didn't infringe because the methodology is different (necessarily so, since it's built on Android rather than iOS).

Can't have it both ways.
 
PixyMisa said:
If the prior art can be disregarded because the methodology is different, then Samsung didn't infringe because the methodology is different (necessarily so, since it's built on Android rather than iOS).

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

The methodology is the patent.
 
chulbert said:
The methodology is the patent.
Click to expand...
As I said, you can't have it both ways. Either it's the methodology, or its the result. One way Apple's patents are invalidated by prior art, the other way it's impossible for Samsung to have infringed. (Well, okay, that's following the foreman's logic rather than the law, but I'm just pointing out the problems with the verdict, not claiming to know what the correct answer is.)

Here are the judge's relevant instructions to the jury:

Here is a list of the ways that either party can show that a patent claim was not new:

– If the claimed invention was already publicly known or publicly used by others in the United States before the date of conception of the claimed invention;

– If the claimed invention was already patented or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the date of conception of the claimed invention. A reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to those interested in the field, even if it is difficult to find;
Click to expand...
If what the jury foreman has said in interviews is correct, the jury completely failed to follow those instructions in evaluating the status of Apple's patents with respect to prior art.
 
Last edited:
I've now watched the two Alan Kay and one Douglas Englebart videos.

What a history lesson!

In the second Alan Kay video there's a Q&A, in which Kay is asked about intellectual rights and their protection. Even then it was clear there was a need to protect those rights, and weaknesses in the patent/copyright system.

Thanks again! Gotta love the interwebs!!!
 
AgeGap said:
An amusing take on the case.

Why Apple Actually Lost to Samsung
Click to expand...

I like this.

I'm shocked that Apple even bothered with this nonsense considering that Samsung provides most of the chips and processor that make up the iPhone. Talk about biting the hand...

This article mentions that the iPhone5 won't have Samsung memory chips, but is still using the Samsung processor.

WTG, Apple! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Christian Klippel said:
Well, not "could" but "will". Samsung announced that already:




In the short term Apply may have a victory, and only if the ruling and jury findings are upheld during appeal. In the mid- to long-term i guess they will lose big time. Samsung has quite a bunch of critical patents, like in the LTE example. Motorola is quite a big player as well, which is now owned by Google, who make Android.

I'm wondering if Apple thought all this through.

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

I think that they all need to sit down and come to an out of court agreement. It's in all our best interests.
 
Wangler said:
Stealing ideas. Like the pull-down notification bar?
Click to expand...

Yes, Apple clearly stole it, but is it a patented idea? If it's an Android feature, isn't that patent-free?? I know it's not a Touchwiz-only (read Samsung) feature.
 
OCaptain said:
I think that they all need to sit down and come to an out of court agreement. It's in all our best interests.
Click to expand...
No, our best interests are that the courts clarify what is and what isn't patentable. Ambiguity allows existing players to stifle competition, raise entrance barriers to new competition, and generally allows for monopolistic and cartel-type anti-competitive behavior.
 
It is a common failing of the very intelligent to extend their judgment outside their areas of expertise:


Removed breach of Rule 10.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL


Part of my job every day is dealing with extremely intelligent, tech-savvy people who don't know crap about IP law.

Most recognize this. The few who decide that their intelligence and other skill sets imply that they must be able to decipher this "patent law thing" with no legal training or patent experience are definitely the worst to deal with.

Having said that, I don't have any problem with what Wozniak is really getting at here, which isn't about the validity of the IP. He's just questioning the wisdom of exerting it in this space -- saying he'd rather see everybody cross-license and innovate rather than fight each other over who came up with what.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AvalonXQ said:
Part of my job every day is dealing with extremely intelligent, tech-savvy eople who don't know crap about IP law.
Click to expand...
And the reasoning of the jury foreman was a correct implementation of IP law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom