Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[WildCat]

Funny that, both quotes from the same person.

Greetings,

Chris

By definition, when Apple steals it's "innovation".

 

[WildCat]

Design patents are more like trademarks on the shape of a product, so as to visually distinguish your wares from other similar wares on the market. If you want to complain about those, then you'd better complain about the Coke Bottle too.

Except in this case it would be like if Coke patented round bottles with a small opening at the top and wider bodies, rather than that specific design.

 

[AvalonXQ]

How can you think that answers my question with a straight face?

Excuse me for trying to be helpful but apparently not being quite helpful enough.

Your response reminds me of a joke:

=======================================

The Balloonist

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a man below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet about the ground. You are between 42 and 44 degrees north latitude and between 83 and 85 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.
"I am," replied the man, "but how did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost."

The man below responded, "You must be a manager."
"I am," replied the balloonist, "how did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are exactly in the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

 

[BenBurch]

If a person bought that phone, that's one less iPhone that would have been sold - at least that is the excuse reason given by those that support the verdict...

No.

My reason is that you can't go stealing other's patents without consequences.

You want a phone to compete with iPhone?

Go out and innovate on your own and don't be a thief.

Maybe YOU will have the next big thing.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Go out and innovate on your own and don't be a thief.

Care to expand on the terms "innovation" and "thief" when used in context with Apple?

Do you mean that people should not steal the ideas of others in general, or only if the "ideas" are "stolen" from Apple?

Because from what i can see, Job's was quite happily boasting about "shameless stealing" of ideas from others, but somehow was upset when other did the same, which doesn't really make sense to me.

One could (and should) ask the question how innovative they really are, or if their success is simply built on stealing ideas from others and then running to the patent office with those ideas.

Oh, and the F700 from Samsung is quite interesting. It was available in February 2007, the first iPhone was presented in January 2007, and available in June 2007. I seriously doubt that Samsung is able to come up with an "iPhone clone", ready to be sold on the market, in just one month after Apple only just presented theirs.

Pretty obvious why Apple fought so hard to convince judge Koh not to allow the F700 as evidence.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: And from the WP article on the F700:

A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone[3] but after the release of the HTC TyTn which it resembles with its rectangular design and slide out keyboard.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Just saw a follow-up comment from an anonymous poster on the Groklaw article (sorry, dunno how to link directly to that comment, it the one from Aug. 27, 7:00 PM EDT, currently the last on that page), that ties into the argument about iPhones not being available at certain carriers:

If there is some basis to the idea that certain phones should be discounted because they were available on networks where the iPhone wasn't even offered, then there is something to be said of the fact that many networks(Sprint, T-Mobile) weren't even capable of carrying the iPhone for the longest time(2012?) due to incompatible spectrum. IIRC, T-Mobile and Sprint both run on 1700 or 2100, and the iPhone isn't or still isn't available for that. Not to mention that the iPhone wasn't compatible on CDMA for the longest time, and that is the network Verizon uses.

I have no idea about the US GSM networks and what they use, over here we have GSM900 and GSM1800. If it is true that some carriers couldn't even provide service to the iPhone due to the iPhone being incapable of using those frequencies, but Samsung could, and some of those Samsung phones at those carriers were somehow found to be infringing by that jury, how can damages be awarded then? After all, Apple couldn't have lost any sales there at all, since their phones simply didn't work in those networks at that time.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Darat]

...snip... and some of those Samsung phones at those carriers were somehow found to be infringing by that jury, how can damages be awarded then? After all, Apple couldn't have lost any sales there at all, since their phones simply didn't work in those networks at that time.

Greetings,

Chris

The argument would be that some of those buyers would have gone to one of the other networks to get an iPhone but decided they didn't need to because the Samsung was "like an iPhone" therefore Apple did lose a sale.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The argument would be that some of those buyers would have gone to one of the other networks to get an iPhone but decided they didn't need to because the Samsung was "like an iPhone" therefore Apple did lose a sale.

Yea, but i find that a rather silly argument, because it could be "counter argued" that in such a case they didn't _really_ wanted an iPhone as such to begin with.

Oh well. I'm really curious about what the appeals court will say, especially regarding the F700 that Koh didn't allow into evidence.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[chulbert]

Yea, but i find that a rather silly argument, because it could be "counter argued" that in such a case they didn't _really_ wanted an iPhone as such to begin with.

Oh well. I'm really curious about what the appeals court will say, especially regarding the F700 that Koh didn't allow into evidence.

This is just a No True Scotsman argument. "If you really wanted an iPhone then you would have done whatever it took. Since you didn't, you didn't." Everything is a value proposition and if the balance was tipped by Samsung through patent infringement then that's a problem.

 

[Christian Klippel]

This is just a No True Scotsman argument. "If you really wanted an iPhone then you would have done whatever it took. Since you didn't, you didn't."

No, it isn't. The issue is that in networks, where Samsungs devices were available and worked, iPhones were not available and didn't even work in those networks. There would be exactly zero lost sales for Apple with those networks/carriers.

The argument was that it would affect Apple anyways, since the customer would have switched to another carrier/network if it weren't for Samsung. Now, tell me, if a customer would be willing to even change the carrier/network just to get and be able to use an iPhone, how comes it would all of a sudden be inconceivable that said customer didn't really want an iPhone just because some Samsung device is available and working in his current carrier/network?

Everything is a value proposition and if the balance was tipped by Samsung through patent infringement then that's a problem.

Yea, right. Too bad the jury decided to skip the issue of previous art because they thought it bogged them down and the foreman happily led them to his own conclusions.

Funny that a company, whose owner proudly boasts about stealing ideas from others, is suddenly all up in arms if allegedly others have stolen ideas from them. Which, by the way, isn't really that proven at all, given the fact that the jury decided to skip things.

Oh, and lets not forget that in several other countries the courts found no infringement. So the issue of patent infringement isn't that clear cut at all. Plus, how innovative are their patents anyways? There is quite a high chance that those patents are nothing more than stolen ideas...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

Oh, and the F700 from Samsung is quite interesting. It was available in February 2007, the first iPhone was presented in January 2007, and available in June 2007. I seriously doubt that Samsung is able to come up with an "iPhone clone", ready to be sold on the market, in just one month after Apple only just presented theirs.

Pretty obvious why Apple fought so hard to convince judge Koh not to allow the F700 as evidence.

Part of the problem here is the confusion between a patent, and a design patent. They are not the same thing.

A design patent is issued to the ornamental design of an object. It has nothing to do with the functionality. As I said earlier, it's more like a trademark on a shape, rather than a patent, by which we usually mean a "utility patent".

With trademarks, or design patents, the intent is to protect the branding of the product, completely aside from the functionality. You come up with some ornamental design which serves no functional purpose, but which does serve to distinguish your products from their products, so that someone seeing them can know in a glance that it's from Company A, not Company B.

Now, note, when registering such designs and trademarks, the issue of what has come before is different than it is when examining utility patents. With a utility patent, any previous public disclosure can bar the granting of a patent. But with designs and trademarks, the concern is much more with, "Has any previous public product (that is, a mass-produced and marketed item, not just a prototype) used similar designs, such that there would be confusion in the marketplace between the products?"

That Company B might have done something similar as a prototype, which they never marketed, doesn't count. What counts is that Company A developed and registered a design that distinguished them from the other products on the market, with the intent of being immediately recognizable at a glance. If, after seeing the success of Company A, Company B then markets a similar ornamental design, it's considered an infringement, as they're trying to dilute the branding of Company A. And that's even if Company B once thought about marketing that design, but choose (initially) not to go forward with it.

Would you freak out if Pepsi started selling drinks in Coke bottles, and Coke sued them for it? If not, why not? It's exactly what people are freaking out about in the case of these design patents.

And don't give me any guff about "stifling innovation": This protects nothing but the ornamental design, which has no impact on the functionality of the device*. You don't have to make your phone look like an iPhone to make it work. You choose to make it look like an iPhone to steal its cachet as the latest Cool Toy. And that's exactly what you're not allowed to do.




*Indeed, if you can make a legitimate argument that this does affect the functionality of the device, then that would be a basis for voiding the design patent in most countries. Interesting that no one tried that in this case, huh?

 

[Horatius]

No, it isn't. The issue is that in networks, where Samsungs devices were available and worked, iPhones were not available and didn't even work in those networks. There would be exactly zero lost sales for Apple with those networks/carriers.

The argument was that it would affect Apple anyways, since the customer would have switched to another carrier/network if it weren't for Samsung. Now, tell me, if a customer would be willing to even change the carrier/network just to get and be able to use an iPhone, how comes it would all of a sudden be inconceivable that said customer didn't really want an iPhone just because some Samsung device is available and working in his current carrier/network?

And part of the problem is, we'll never really know the answer to this, because Samsung chose to copy the iPhone, and thus distorted the market. That's why we employ people like judges and juries to decide the damages, rather than just rubber stamping what Apple claimed they were owed.


Or did you miss the fact that they were awarded less than half of what they had initially claimed?

Oh, and lets not forget that in several other countries the courts found no infringement. So the issue of patent infringement isn't that clear cut at all.

Okay, so now you just have to show that:

1. Those other countries issued patent of similar scope to the US patents
2. The other countries were allowed to apply the same prior art as in the US case
3. The other countries were not allowed to apply different prior art as in the US case

None of those are automatic. Each country has their own rules on issuing patents, and quite often you will get patents with very different scope. There are also lots of cases where art that is considered prior art in one country is not, legally, considered prior art in another.

Plus, how innovative are their patents anyways? There is quite a high chance that those patents are nothing more than stolen ideas...

But again, it seems like no one is able to show that for most of these patents. In the absence of evidence, the presumption of validity has not be rebutted. If you've been reading this thread, you know exactly what is needed to show that the patents are invalid. Get to it!

 

[Christian Klippel]

Part of the problem here is the confusion between a patent, and a design patent. They are not the same thing.

I know that. Doesn't change the fact that Apple did indeed bring in design patents, stuff about rectangular shape with round corners. Which the F700 already had before the iPhone. Which explains why Apple did not want that evidence to be allowed, to which Koh happily obliged...

But with designs and trademarks, the concern is much more with, "Has any previous public product (that is, a mass-produced and marketed item, not just a prototype) used similar designs, such that there would be confusion in the marketplace between the products?"

...which mnakes the F700 a previous public product that hat those features that Apple now claims are their idea.

And don't give me any guff about "stifling innovation": This protects nothing but the ornamental design, which has no impact on the functionality of the device*. You don't have to make your phone look like an iPhone to make it work. You choose to make it look like an iPhone to steal its cachet as the latest Cool Toy. And that's exactly what you're not allowed to do.

I can only repeat myself: Who did make what to look like what? Do you seriously think that Samsung would be able to redo the whole hardware design process in just one month, just so their device can look like an iPhone? Keep in mind that the F700 came to market (that is: was available and sold to customers) one month after Apple only _presented_ the iPhone, which was available only roundabout half a year later. Plus the fact that Samsung filed a design patent for it even before Apple announced the iPhone at all.

Really, who came first with that?

*Indeed, if you can make a legitimate argument that this does affect the functionality of the device, then that would be a basis for voiding the design patent in most countries. Interesting that no one tried that in this case, huh?

Try to put in and pull out a phone with sharp corners/edges, and try the same with one with rounded/beveled corners/edges. There is a reason why for a really long time mobile phones (as well as other mobile devices) have soft corners/edges. So i would argue that yes, this particular issue has indeed a functional benefit, and one that was found out and implemented decades ago on a multitude of devices.

And even if we look to other design issues, like the general shape and arrangement of icons (which was another point in this case), there isn't really anything new there either. Heck, i had feature phones that displayed stuff with square, round-cornered icons, the icons then laid out in a grid. A lot of computer GUI's use the same stuff.

This is nothing about "it's obvious now only in hindsight". It's a stupid patent system that allows such crap (design) patents to be issued in the first place. And no, no one can convince me one iota that just because this is on some mobile device makes a thing that was common elsewhere already something completely new.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

But again, it seems like no one is able to show that for most of these patents. In the absence of evidence, the presumption of validity has not be rebutted. If you've been reading this thread, you know exactly what is needed to show that the patents are invalid. Get to it!

Which is no surprise, at least for some of the issues this trial was about, when the judge denies such important evidence to be shown. And when the jury happily skips the issue of prior art...

Look, i'm not saying that Samsung was 100% in the clear with everything they did. But to say that Apple is the only genius that can come up with such things, and thus everyone else must just steal their ideas, that's just plain wrong. Especially if the company owner boasts around how Apple shamelessly steals other peoples ideas. After all, such a statement _is_ huge grounds for suspicion about how innovative they really are.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

...which mnakes the F700 a previous public product that hat those features that Apple now claims are their idea.



I can only repeat myself: Who did make what to look like what? Do you seriously think that Samsung would be able to redo the whole hardware design process in just one month, just so their device can look like an iPhone? Keep in mind that the F700 came to market (that is: was available and sold to customers) one month after Apple only _presented_ the iPhone, which was available only roundabout half a year later. Plus the fact that Samsung filed a design patent for it even before Apple announced the iPhone at all.

Really, who came first with that?

Try reading your own link from above:

the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007.

This Samsung phone went through the same process as the iPhone. It was presented in Feb 2007, but not marketed until November. Both dates following Apple's announcement. Doesn't count.

This is nothing about "it's obvious now only in hindsight". It's a stupid patent system that allows such crap (design) patents to be issued in the first place. And no, no one can convince me one iota that just because this is on some mobile device makes a thing that was common elsewhere already something completely new.

Greetings,

Chris

And here you demonstrate that you don't actually understand the difference between a patent and a design patent. For a design patent, there's no consideration at all about "obvious now only in hindsight". That you even bring that up shows you're confused about the whole process, and the purposes of these different forms of intellectual property.

 

[Horatius]

Which is no surprise, at least for some of the issues this trial was about, when the judge denies such important evidence to be shown. And when the jury happily skips the issue of prior art...

And again, you conflate the two separate issues together.

Look, i'm not saying that Samsung was 100% in the clear with everything they did. But to say that Apple is the only genius that can come up with such things, and thus everyone else must just steal their ideas, that's just plain wrong.

And where the **** did anyone in this thread, or anywhere, say anything like that?*

Come back to see the next stupid thread about patents when the Google vs. Apple lawsuit gets going, and you'll see me actually taking a look at Google's patents, and actually trying to understand what they did, and how that compares to the prior art. I don't give a **** who wins or loses in these cases, I just want the arguments to be based in reality, and not on people's fantasy notions of what has been patented, and their lack of understanding of how the patent system works, and how different types of intellectual property have different intents, and different rules.





*Hell, you'll see at least one post from me in which I opine that the prior art probably reads on one Apple patent. I'm still waiting to hear why the jury didn't invalidate that one. That's one of the real potential problems with this decision, so far as I can see, and yet it's gone largely ignored in favor of this nonsense about design patents.

 

[chulbert]

No, it isn't. The issue is that in networks, where Samsungs devices were available and worked, iPhones were not available and didn't even work in those networks. There would be exactly zero lost sales for Apple with those networks/carriers.

In a given geography, if the iPhone wasn't available on any network I would generally concede the point that Samsung's infringement did not result in lost sales for Apple. However, there's a lot of gray area here. When Apple eventually did enter the market they had to compete with infringing, entrenched products.

The argument was that it would affect Apple anyways, since the customer would have switched to another carrier/network if it weren't for Samsung. Now, tell me, if a customer would be willing to even change the carrier/network just to get and be able to use an iPhone, how comes it would all of a sudden be inconceivable that said customer didn't really want an iPhone just because some Samsung device is available and working in his current carrier/network?

I can't explain it any more plainly. Switching carriers is a HUGE drawback but owning an iPhone is TOTALLY AWESOME. In fact, it's just awesome enough to outweigh that huge drawback. Now you add a device to the market that's iPhone-ish and doesn't have the drawback of a carrier switch. It becomes the better value proposition and Apple loses a sale.

Yea, right. Too bad the jury decided to skip the issue of previous art because they thought it bogged them down and the foreman happily led them to his own conclusions.

Funny that a company, whose owner proudly boasts about stealing ideas from others, is suddenly all up in arms if allegedly others have stolen ideas from them. Which, by the way, isn't really that proven at all, given the fact that the jury decided to skip things.

No, they didn't. The jury issued a ruling on all topics; they didn't "skip" anything.

Oh, and lets not forget that in several other countries the courts found no infringement. So the issue of patent infringement isn't that clear cut at all. Plus, how innovative are their patents anyways? There is quite a high chance that those patents are nothing more than stolen ideas...

Different standards, different procedures, different patents, different rules.

 

[AvalonXQ]

"Alice's dealership sells the Ford, but Bill's dealership only sells the Ford-clone. Since I went to Bill's dealership and didn't even look at a Ford, buying the Ford-clone didn't take any business from Ford!"

 

[chulbert]

"Alice's dealership sells the Ford, but Bill's dealership only sells the Ford-clone. Since I went to Bill's dealership and didn't even look at a Ford, buying the Ford-clone didn't take any business from Ford!"

I agree wholeheartedly that some portion of Samsung sales fall into this category -- to folks who never even heard of an iPhone or weren't considering it at all. My point is that there is also some portion of sales that fall into another category: "I want an iPhone but this Samsung device looks the same and I won't have to switch carriers."

 

[BenBurch]

"Alice's dealership sells the Ford, but Bill's dealership only sells the Ford-clone. Since I went to Bill's dealership and didn't even look at a Ford, buying the Ford-clone didn't take any business from Ford!"

Exactly. Also there are other losses as iPhone owners buy their music and etc from Apple. So in your example, Ford will not get any parts business from that Ford clone.