Verdict in Samsung infringed on at least 3 Apple patents

[Hall]

Every single consumer just lost. Including apple fanboys. Just slaughters innovation.

I read an article about a week ago about Apple's claims how things like this hurt innovation and it doesn't cut it.... Apple sued Microsoft many years ago and lost and then created OS X. Some other court case was lost and they later came out with the iPod line and later iPhone.

 

[digiblur]

It paves the way for many more lawsuits with our broken patent system.

Ford will be suing General motors since their truck looks the same shape.

Sent from my C64 w/Epyx FastLoad cartridge

 

[cybok0]

I guess Google is striking back.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...t-bans-on-pretty-much-everything-apple-makes/

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I guess Google is striking back.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...t-bans-on-pretty-much-everything-apple-makes/

A little late. Apple now has that judgment - a legal precedent on its side. But we'll see what happens.

 

[dfergie]

Google should drop all search references to Apple...

 

[John Kotches]

Interesting reading on whether or not the verdict will stand http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57500504-71/legal-analysts-suggest-apple-samsung-verdict-may-not-be-safe/]on CNet.[/url] I'm not normally a huge fan of them, but they have had some good post-verdict articles.

Happy reading!

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[John Kotches]

All these cases make it abundantly clear that the patent system is broken.



Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rockymtnhigh]

All these cases make it abundantly clear that the patent system is broken.



Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

Agreed, but I see little movement to change the system.

 

[John Kotches]

Agreed, but I see little movement to change the system.

Well we do have the best politicians money can buy and based on the no limit Super PACs that the Supreme Court authorized, we will continue along that path. Apple corporation can certainly buy politicians much easier than I can.

Cheers,

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TheForce]

I would like to know what you would change in patent law to make it work for you.

Years ago I was subpoenaed to testify in a patent infringement case between two chemical companies. I was counseled by an attorney who explained that the patent system is designed to protect the rights of the inventor and or those owning rights to the invention or process. In this case it was a patent on a process improvement. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated their patent in that a particular raw material was used which was their patented process. But the defendant claim was they used the raw material to create an intermediate which was then used to improve the catalytic efficiency of the original process. To make matters worse, the defendant employed 3 people from the plaintiff, a sales manager, a chem engineer and their one production foreman. Each of those were sued individually for violation of non compete contracts and lost.

It seems to me there is an attitude that the patent system is broken because the system prevents innovation by competition. That IP needs to be shared, or in the modern day vernacular, "spread the wealth." It is my understanding that a patent has a finite life of 17years and then does become public. In addition, one must apply for a patent within one year of disclosure or it becomes public domain. In addition, if a patented invention is shelved or commercialized, it can be challenged and the patent owner must defend it or lose it to public domain.

The way I see it, patent system is only broke when a patent is granted twice for the same invention, design, or derivative. This means the law is fine but the qualification process may need adjustment.

A good patent attorney will make a patent claim as complex as he can to make the search and qualification process as long as possible. The goal here is to overwhelm the USPO so that the period of protection while patent pending is as long as possible to increase the life of the 17 years the issued patent is alive. This may also be an area that the present law needs to be changed, so that patents must be far more specific. One way patent attorneys write is to make the language as vague and ambiguous as possible so a clerk doing a search will not know if he has really completed or not. Forcing the language to be highly specific may increase the number of patents issued but each one would be easier to determine search completion and simplify who owns what in a legal dispute.

Sent from my iPad3 using SatelliteGuys app

 

[mike123abc]

The main problem I see is the patent office giving patents for things that should have been obvious or prior art. Yes, they eventually can be invalidated, but that is a huge time and expense by those being sued.

 

[JamesJ]

anybody else think windows phones will benefit from this court case?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

anybody else think windows phones will benefit from this court case?

nope.

 

[navychop]

I do. Samsung's loss may be the best thing that ever happened to MicroSoft.

Might even go so far as to say it may pull victory from the jaws of defeat. Makers may wish to avoid trouble and give W8 another look, and cover their bets with product.

Of course, users may be somewhat disenchanted with W8 phones, especially if they're already familiar with smart phones.

 

[John Kotches]

Some, like me, would question whether shapes (such as the rounded edges on phones or icons) should be patentable. That's just 1 example.

There are other issues, and I don't think Samsung will accept the decision quietly -- examples including awarding damages for:
1) A phone that was determined to be non-infringing.
2) Phones not on the ATT network even though the iPhone was known publically to be exclusively on ATT.





Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TheForce]

Some, like me, would question whether shapes (such as the rounded edges on phones or icons) should be patentable. That's just 1 example.

If that's all there is to it, then I would agree with you. But, while I have no time to sift through all the legal complex language, not that I know how to read it anyway, I believe there is far more to it than the way you make it out to be.

 

[John Kotches]

Don:

It's way too early for Apple to claim victory or for Samsung to give up in defeat.

You have a jury foreman admitting they totally ignored the instructions and did what they did to punish Samsung which is directly contrary to instructions.

The next phase on Sept 20 will be interesting.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mike123abc]

It could make a lot of Asian vendors suddenly decide to go Win phone route. Even if Samsung eventually wins on appeal it could find itself out of the android market until the appeal is won.

Since MS & Apple have a nice cross licensing agreement in place, Win Phone could indeed be a nice alternative.

 

[TheForce]

Mike you should chime in on this but I have always understood that a judge can only hold a jury to an instruction if the instruction is a matter of the law in a civil case. If the jury ignores the law, in a civil case, then there is grounds for appeal. As we were instructed when I was on a jury a couple years ago, jurors cannot legislate changes to the law. If the judge's instructions had nothing to do with defining the law, then the jury is free to decide contrary to a judge's instruction. I was never on a criminal jury for the trial as the defendant pled guilty to a lessor charge before we got to the trial, but I recall some discussion that a criminal case is different and if found innocent, there is no appeal process due to double jeopardy. Is that correct? Appeal only is when the defendant is found guilty of a crime.

Regardless of what nonsense the jury was up to, there is no way any loser would not attempt to file an appeal. I'm sure they will throw out anything that can in hopes something will stick.

On the business side of this, what is more interesting to me, is that Samsung will have a tough time generating any significant margins on their 8 devices after paying Apple requested royalties.

Also, I wonder if as a result of this, whether Google will be forced to push an update to all phones disabling some infringing features.

 

[osu1991]

There were rumors floating around today that some of these devices may get a JellyBean update pushed to them or get updates to the existing software to get around or disable the infringing bits.
Most of these devices are at their end of life and if the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note's are kept out of court, then Samsung can move on with their latest devices.