Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Christian Klippel]

Thanks Roger and Christian - I obviously had an inaccurate or incomplete view in the XEROX/Apple situation. I'll try to review some of those links to get better informed.

In any case, MacBreak Weekly this week had a pretty good discussion. Leo Laporte and Andy Ihnatko and a couple others discussing the case and it's implications for nearly an hour. Probably worth a listen/watch.

If you are interested about UI/GUI history, you probably like to watch this video from Alan Kay:


http://archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987

And here is part 2 of it:

http://archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987_2

And of course, Douglas Engelbart's mother of all demos:


http://www.dougengelbart.org/firsts/dougs-1968-demo.html

Yes, that one happened in 1968. And features things that just recently were widely adopted, like collaborative working on a computer/document, video chat, etc.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Fast Eddie B]

In my queue...

...ready to stream from my iPad to my 47" Vizio via our Apple TV.

Thanks - this is an interesting history lesson!

 

[WildCat]

From a BBC interview with the jury foreman:

Prior art didn't mean that the prior art wasn't valid. It was valid. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate the Apple patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

What... the... hell????????

So every time hardware is updated a whole slew of new software patents can be had, even though they do the exact same thing as the old software did with the old hardware?

That is absolutely absurd.

 

[Christian Klippel]

From a BBC interview with the jury foreman:

What... the... hell????????

So every time hardware is updated a whole slew of new software patents can be had, even though they do the exact same thing as the old software did with the old hardware?

That is absolutely absurd.

Yeah, that foreman has truly a gift to dig himself deeper into the hole he's already in every time he opens his mouth.

After all, the code from Samsung's smartphones doesn't run directly on an iPhone either. So, by his measures they should not have infringed anything regarding the software patents in play.

Funny to see how he comes up with that garbage when it is about prior art in Samsung's defense, but completely ignores that when it comes to what Samsung allegedly infringed.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[a_unique_person]

Very interesting comment on the Apple patents row. Apple, according to this, has far fewer patents to do with mobile technology, and guards what it claims it has created, while getting a free ride on the patents that define the mobile phone standards it uses, many of them developed by Samsung.

https://theconversation.edu.au/the-patent-wars-apple-versus-android-9291

Companies that contribute to 3GPP are allowed to protect their own patent portfolios, but they need to agree to make licences available to other firms on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. What this agreement implies is that patents cannot be used to exclude competitors from the market or seek to price them out of the market. According to Summerfield’s analysis Apple is not playing by the rules of 3GPP. As he explains in his paper:

“Apple is not playing by the rules. Its products build on the mobile communications standards in which others – including Samsung – have invested huge amounts of money and effort. Indeed, without the broadband wireless systems which make so many applications possible and compelling, there would be no market for devices such as the iPhone and iPad. Yet Apple has not itself contributed to the standards.”

What this suggests is that the issue is potentially much greater than a dispute over whether Samsung copied Apple’s patents. In fact it is somewhat unfair to portray – as some commentators have – Samsung as the Asian copycat too lacking in ideas to compete fairly with the innovative Americans at Apple.

What is actually at stake is the ability to deliver products to consumers that have the ability to function in a consistent manner and with connectivity and compatibility. Rather than maintaining a degree of harmony within the system in the interests of consumers, this legal case may trigger an unseemly brawl that few are likely to benefit from.

Also this article.

http://theconversation.edu.au/sorry-apple-samsung-is-winning-the-war-on-4g-platforms-9256

In light of the much-publicised dispute over handset design patents between Apple and Samsung, many commentators have cast Samsung as the “fast-follower”, while Apple is pushing at the frontier of innovation. I would argue such commentators have things very wrong.

Samsung is winning the broader and more important war over patenting innovations, over the Fourth Generation (4G) technological standard or platform, which enables the use of today’s smartphones, including Apple’s widely applauded iPhone, and other manufacturers’ products.

Apple, on the other hand, has little control over the foundational technologies that will enable the delivery of future telecommunications services. This isn’t to take anything away from Apple’s enviable success in the international smartphone market but to explain, from a broader perspective, why Samsung has emerged as an innovation leader and how that has occurred.

Controlling tech platforms

The real winner of the patents war in the telecommunications sector will be the company that own patents related to the technological infrastructures on which all mobile devices are based. Why? Because any company that chooses to develop a product compatible with the underlying technological platform is required to make royalty payments to those firms who control the patents over that platform.

So the potential benefits of controlling the underlying technological infrastructure are enormous.

Samsung’s dominance in 4G patents
............

Today, Samsung owns the largest share of patents used in both the LTE and Mobile Wimax platforms while Apple holds very few patents over any of the network technologies.

Could be some payback coming Apple's way.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In this case there are "second opinions" that disagree with the jury in San Jose. See recent Apple v. Samsung cases in other countries for example.

Those aren't "second opinions;" they're rulings on different pieces of property.

Patents are national. Patent rules differ from country to country, as do what patents any company applies for and holds. The patents litigated in Japan are different patents than the ones litigated in the states.

This is no less true than if Apple and Samsung were arguing over office building space -- the question as to who owns buildings in each country would depend on what the deeds for those buildings in that country say, as well as the property laws in that country. You wouldn't see Apple winning an office building in the US and Samsung winning a different office building in Japan and call them "disagreeing opinions," because they're not even talking about the same thing.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Could be some payback coming Apple's way.

Well, not "could" but "will". Samsung announced that already:

Samsung confirmed that it will immediately sue Apple if the latter releases products using advanced long-term evolution (LTE) mobile technology. LTE has been emerging as the top standard in the global mobile industry.

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

 

[chulbert]

Very interesting comment on the Apple patents row. Apple, according to this, has far fewer patents to do with mobile technology, and guards what it claims it has created, while getting a free ride on the patents that define the mobile phone standards it uses, many of them developed by Samsung.

Apple isn't getting a free ride; Samsung wants to double-dip. They want manufacturers of 3G chips to pay royalties AND they want manufacturers of phones that use those chips to also pay royalties but that's just not the way it works.

 

[chulbert]

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.

How would the 4G issue be any different than the 3G issue? If Apple simply buys 4G chips from a supplier then the issue seems identical to me and will have an identical outcome. Chip manufacturers pay the royalties, not the consumers of those chips.

 

[WildCat]

Those aren't "second opinions;" they're rulings on different pieces of property.

Patents are national. Patent rules differ from country to country, as do what patents any company applies for and holds. The patents litigated in Japan are different patents than the ones litigated in the states.

This is no less true than if Apple and Samsung were arguing over office building space -- the question as to who owns buildings in each country would depend on what the deeds for those buildings in that country say, as well as the property laws in that country. You wouldn't see Apple winning an office building in the US and Samsung winning a different office building in Japan and call them "disagreeing opinions," because they're not even talking about the same thing.

What do you think about the jury foreman's quote in post #563?

 

[chulbert]

What do you think about the jury foreman's quote in post #563?

Taken at face value, I think the foreman is wildly mistaken. However, it seems more likely he was out of his technical depth and mistakenly used the word "processor."

 

[AvalonXQ]

What do you think about the jury foreman's quote in post #563?

I don't think it represents an accurate analysis of patent infringement under US law.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think it represents an accurate analysis of patent infringement under US law.

But that's how the jury decided the case.

 

[WildCat]

Taken at face value, I think the foreman is wildly mistaken. However, it seems more likely he was out of his technical depth and mistakenly used the word "processor."

I think his meaning was quite clear.

 

[chulbert]

I think his meaning was quite clear.

Lots of things about this case have been "quite clear" to many people and ultimately shown to be untrue. While I'm not accusing you of any similar mistakes, they illustrate the error of inferring gross negligence where a communication issue may be a much simpler explanation.

Just substitute "hardware" for "processor" and his comment makes a lot of sense, as I've stated elsewhere. Not immune to disagreement, certainly, but not completely whack-a-doodle either.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But that's how the jury decided the case.

That's how the jury foreman claims he decided the case. Of course, the jury foreman doesn't control the jury, nor can he read the other jurors' minds.

That may very well be the reasoning he used to come to his conclusion about the case, and even the reasoning he explained to the other jurors in order to get them to agree with him, but not the reason any of the other jurors used. We just don't know.

 

[WildCat]

Just substitute "hardware" for "processor" and his comment makes a lot of sense, as I've stated elsewhere. Not immune to disagreement, certainly, but not completely whack-a-doodle either.

A difference without distinction IMHO.

 

[WildCat]

That's how the jury foreman claims he decided the case. Of course, the jury foreman doesn't control the jury, nor can he read the other jurors' minds.

That may very well be the reasoning he used to come to his conclusion about the case, and even the reasoning he explained to the other jurors in order to get them to agree with him, but not the reason any of the other jurors used. We just don't know.

He used the word "we", not "I". And he didn't have to read anyone's mind, they were all talking to each other.

 

[Christian Klippel]

He used the word "we", not "I". And he didn't have to read anyone's mind, they were all talking to each other.

Not to mention the little fact that he repeatedly said that he was explaining it that way to the other jurors, and that they basically followed his lead on these issues.

And yes, changing "processor" into "hardware" makes no real difference at all, because if he had applied the same standard when comparing Apple's stuff to Samsung's stuff, it would be a different hardware anyways. Either way, it's not how prior art is defined. Just having it in writing is enough to show prior art, no need for actual hardware, let alone any specific (read: same) hardware.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[chulbert]

And yes, changing "processor" into "hardware" makes no real difference at all, because if he had applied the same standard when comparing Apple's stuff to Samsung's stuff, it would be a different hardware anyways. Either way, it's not how prior art is defined. Just having it in writing is enough to show prior art, no need for actual hardware, let alone any specific (read: same) hardware.

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.