Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[OCaptain]

This needs to happen between Apple and Samsung.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/10/apple-and-htc-settle-patent-dispute/

 

[WildCat]

This needs to happen between Apple and Samsung.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/10/apple-and-htc-settle-patent-dispute/

No, these lawsuits need to keep going until the absurdity of software patents ends. Tie the courts up with enough of this nonsense and there is pressure for reform.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You are correct. I was wrong.

Words never before seen on the interwebs!

Refreshing!

 

[BitterChimp]

Words never before seen on the interwebs!

Refreshing!

It was an honest mistake confusing two terms.

My larger point was lost due to me misusing the terms. That was that those who prosecute patents have different specializations in skills than those who litigate them. Which, IME, is true.

I have a prep for a deposition tonight as a matter of fact. This is the litigation team prepping me, not the lawyer who wrote the patent.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It was an honest mistake confusing two terms.

My larger point was lost due to me misusing the terms. That was that those who prosecute patents have different specializations in skills than those who litigate them. Which, IME, is true.

I have a prep for a deposition tonight as a matter of fact. This is the litigation team prepping me, not the lawyer who wrote the patent.

This is very true. Even worse, often the prosecutors involved in the preparation of the patent can't be directly involved in aspects of the litigation because of protective orders and/or their own role as witnesses. In any event, it is certainly the case that patent prosecution and patent litigation are separate specialties.

 

[Darat]

No, these lawsuits need to keep going until the absurdity of software patents ends. Tie the courts up with enough of this nonsense and there is pressure for reform.

And thankfully we are seeing some pushback from the judiciary who are not best pleased to be used as pawns in a commercial game.

 

[Christian Klippel]

This is very true. Even worse, often the prosecutors involved in the preparation of the patent can't be directly involved in aspects of the litigation because of protective orders and/or their own role as witnesses.

I'm wondering if this is a good way to handle it. After all, the ones who write up the patent in the end (prosecutors, if i got it right) should have a better knowledge of what was actually meant/intended. It already is a problem that they are not the one who came up with the stuff in the first place, so they are already in a position were they merely interpret what someone else told them, so to say.

Now, if it comes to litigation, having a different person there defending/explaining it just adds another level of "the Chinese whisper game" to it. Basically, that person has to interpret what another person's interpretation of the inventors intention was. At least that is how i understand this.

I find that very inefficient and error-prone. I do understand that this is the way it must be done now, but i think it is just wrong. It's already bad enough that the one writing the actual patent has only second-hand knowledge. And in many cases is not familiar with the matter at hand anyways. Now adding a third level to all that.... Sound's fishy.

And i can imagine that this can be, or is, problematic to basically any type of patent.

Is there a reason why the person who originally invented the matter at hand can not or does not speak up or be a witness in such cases? With that i mean the people who really came up with it in the first place, and not some folks of the company tho whom that patent belongs?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[kmortis]

I moved the discussion about software and patents off to its own thread. Please continue that discussion there.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[BitterChimp]

I'm wondering if this is a good way to handle it. After all, the ones who write up the patent in the end (prosecutors, if i got it right) should have a better knowledge of what was actually meant/intended. It already is a problem that they are not the one who came up with the stuff in the first place, so they are already in a position were they merely interpret what someone else told them, so to say.

Now, if it comes to litigation, having a different person there defending/explaining it just adds another level of "the Chinese whisper game" to it. Basically, that person has to interpret what another person's interpretation of the inventors intention was. At least that is how i understand this.

I find that very inefficient and error-prone. I do understand that this is the way it must be done now, but i think it is just wrong. It's already bad enough that the one writing the actual patent has only second-hand knowledge. And in many cases is not familiar with the matter at hand anyways.

Not really. Even though the attorney isn't listed as an inventor on the patent, in my experience, they have a much better understanding of what is being protected, and in many cases are able to broaden the coverage in ways the inventor(s) never thought about.

In short, they may not have created the invention but very much have first hand knowledge about what is covered, and why; often more so than the inventor.

Is there a reason why the person who originally invented the matter at hand can not or does not speak up or be a witness in such cases? With that i mean the people who really came up with it in the first place, and not some folks of the company tho whom that patent belongs?

What makes you think this is the case? I've been deposed a number of times in cases where I was listed as the inventor on one or more patents involved. I'll be doing it again next week.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Not really. Even though the attorney isn't listed as an inventor on the patent, in my experience, they have a much better understanding of what is being protected, and in many cases are able to broaden the coverage in ways the inventor(s) never thought about.

In short, they may not have created the invention but very much have first hand knowledge about what is covered, and why; often more so than the inventor.

Hmm, in my opinion that's just wrong and problematic. Especially the "broaden the coverage in ways the inventor(s) never thought about" part. What is wrong with patenting just what the inventor intended originally? Why even try to broaden it? After all it wasn't that broadly intended by the inventor, or he would already had it broader.

And that the attorney often has more knowledge about what is covered than the actual inventor sounds equally bad to me. This sounds like "The reader of book X knows better what the book is about than the author of that book."

What makes you think this is the case? I've been deposed a number of times in cases where I was listed as the inventor on one or more patents involved. I'll be doing it again next week.

Just what i have seen so far, that is why i asked. I see mostly lawyers fighting over what some things in a patent mean, but rarely the actual inventor. Might well be that i just follow the wrong cases, no problem.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

Hmm, in my opinion that's just wrong and problematic.

See the other thread for a response to this.

 

[BitterChimp]

Especially the "broaden the coverage in ways the inventor(s) never thought about" part. What is wrong with patenting just what the inventor intended originally?

That's what they are trained and paid to do. The lawyers are trained to get the maximum coverage (as broad or narrow as that might be) to create value for their client.

Do you think inventors should have to litigate trials themselves with no expertise from a lawyer?

 

[This is The End]

OK so that is like 2907823 for Samsung. Still 1 point for Apple.

Apple finally scores again. A win for Apple in Dutchland:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2228174/apple-scores-dutch-ban-on-samsung-galaxy-devices

A DUTCH COURT has ruled that Samsung infringes an Apple patent in its Galaxy smartphones and tablets, awarding a court victory to the Iphone maker.

The Hague ruled on Wednesday that Samsung's Galaxy devices running Android versions 2.2.1 to 3.0 infringe an Apple patent. The patent in question relates to the way Samsung's devices scroll through a photo gallery using touch, and the pinch-to-zoom gesture used within the app.

<snip>

the two firms went through a similar battle in a Dutch court last year. To avoid seeing a sales ban on the Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Ace, Samsung tweaked the photo gallery feature on its smartphones, but clearly forgot to remove the feature from its older devices.

 

[This is The End]

Two weeks from today there is potential for a big win for either side:

Apple and Samsung are due back in court on Dec. 6 for follow-up action on their earlier trial. Some of the issues at stake in that hearing include Apple's request to ban U.S. sales of at least eight Samsung devices and Samsung's motion to toss out the jury verdict entirely.

Today is the big day:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20615376

Samsung's call for a retrial rests on a claim that the jury foreman acted with "deliberate dishonesty" during jury selection.

It alleges that Velvin Hogan "deliberately concealed information" about a lawsuit he had been involved in against hard drive-maker Seagate nearly 20 years ago that resulted in him filing for bankruptcy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578161701452748708.html

(Sometimes Wall Street Journal articles require you to log-in unless you connect directly from a Google News link...)

Samsung argues that hundreds of millions of dollars should be shaved off of the total damages, which Samsung has yet to pay. In a motion to the court, the company argues that the jury used some incorrect legal standards in determining the amount.

Samsung apparently did not get BenBurch's memo:

The jury's decision cannot be questioned. As I understand it, only matters of law or matters of redress may be.

And I can't see any reason they should be questioned. Apple had valid patents, enforced them, and won.

What a jury SAYS is never considered.

The only illegality that will matter isn if one of them were externally influenced.

Period.

In a criminal matter, you can even decide to pretend the law doesn't exist and rule to acquit, and your verdict as a jury is still valid.

I'm still not so sure about that. If a juror in a murder trial said "yeah we all knew he was innocent, there was solid evidence that he did not do it, we just convicted him because we don't like white people" surely something would be done about that...

 

[This is The End]

Before the hearing today Samsung filed the "cheat sheet". Obviously they are going to use it as evidence. I believe the article below has a link to the PDF of said filing. I haven't downloaded it yet.

Previous info is in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8790859#post8790859

Today's article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nsealed-no-cloned-products-no-helping-trolls/

In advance of today's Apple v. Samsung hearing, Samsung filed a key document it fought hard to acquire—Apple's recent patent settlement with HTC.

The 143-page settlement [PDF] is heavily redacted, and no financial terms are revealed. Still, certain parts of the document are revelatory.

 

[This is The End]

Well the latest article I can find (less than an hour old) says the doors to the court house are still closed.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57557648-37/apple-samsung-once-again-haggle-over-damages/

The hearing is set to go the rest of the day. Stay tuned for additional decisions.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in there.

My prediction? Four more years of Obama!

 

[This is The End]

And in related news:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html

For the second time in less than two months, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a first Office action tentatively declaring a key Apple multitouch patent invalid.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/12/jobs-patent-tentatively-invalid/

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a preliminary ruling invalidating “the Steve Jobs patent,” which covers several key multitouch features — including scrolling — at the heart of iOS.

Of course that does not mean that it won't be re-submitted:

“It is simply too early to make any sweeping conclusions at this point,” Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, said. “Office action rejections during re-examination are common and rarely are fatal to the entire patent.”

Apple can make additional arguments that the claims are valid, and possibly persuade the examiner to change his mind — we know all too well how persuasive Apple’s legal team can be.

This seems to imply that sometimes it is resubmitted without any changes made at all:

Love noted that 89 percent of patents subject to re-examination survive in some form or another — they’re either unchanged or approved in amended form, so the odds that Apple’s iconic patent will be tossed entirely are slim.

This seems to explain why they would do that, resubmit it unchanged:

if Apple has to adjust its claims to salvage the patent, it will not be able to recover damages for alleged infringement that took place before the patent was amended.

On to the patent:

Jobs is listed as the first inventor of this patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, titled “Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics.” Apple filed the patent on April 11, 2008 and it was approved the following year. In a re-examination of the patent, the U.S. PTO rejected all 20 claims of the patent in question.

I would make a "Jobs thinks he invented the touchscreen" joke, but our experts would probably take it literally.


Thankfully in real life there are patent experts that think logically, and, most importantly, see the big picture:

Mueller said in a blog post that he never liked the ’949 patent because “it seeks to monopolize the right to solve a problem as opposed to a specific solution.”

 

[AvalonXQ]

I tried to explain this before and was apparently ignored.

It's not "resubmitting." It's just responding to an office action. The vast majority of first office actions are rejections, and it's quite possible to argue the rejection and get a later allowance without amending the claims at all.

Everything is set up to incentivize the examiners to reject the claims out of the box regardless of their merits. A first action rejection is par for the course. Later prosecution will reveal the real situation.

 

[This is The End]

Both articles refer to "re-examination" several times. You did notice that right?

Anyone that actually read the articles would know that I meant "resubmit" as a synonym for "re-examine".

Therefore, it seems like nitpicking to try and admonish someone for saying "resubmit" instead of "reexamine".

I suppose if the articles were not discussing a re-examination process then your post would have a point....

Anything to add about the actual articles?

Everything is set up to incentivize the examiners to reject the claims out of the box regardless of their merits.

Well that sounds completely inefficient and illogical. They need to do the actual work it takes to judge the patent on its merits. The first time.

Anyone that seems logical to has a problem.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Both articles refer to "re-examination" several times. You did notice that right?

Anyone that actually read the articles would know that I meant "resubmit" as a synonym for "re-examine".

Okay, your confusion on this point makes sense then.

Reexam is a procedure by which a granted patent goes through a further examination process based on additional cited references not found during the original examination. Typically the patent holder doesn't submit the patent for reexam; their competitor does. Although I haven't actually looked, I expect that this reexam was requested by Samsung.

At this point, the reexam is already in process, and the first office action in this reexam (like most first office actions) was a rejection, and may have been a knee-jerk rejection.

As is usually the case, a first rejection is preliminary, and Apple has a chance to respond to it. They don't re-submit the patent nor are they fighting some final ruling (yet). The reexam is already underway and so the prosecution just proceeds.

Even though a knee-jerk rejection may be inefficient and illegal, there is absolutely no negative consequence for an examiner doing it. Every internal review process at the USPTO - every supervisory action, every employee evaluation - is designed to reward rejections and closely scrutinize allowances. So, while unmerited first rejections are frustrating and expensive for applicants, they're also pretty common.