Coffeehouse Thread

172 posts

Anyone know of a good source for Apple/Samsung court case (1 bababaillion)?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • DaveWill2

    Anyone know of a good source for Apple/Samsung court case (1 bababaillion)?

    The general news outlets mention one or two bullets and then get into the blather about the "epic world wide battle between the two tech giants".  They mention one or two example points in the dispute of which I'm scratching my head as to how they were patentable to begin with.

    I'd like to read up on the list of infringement items being claimed by the two parties without all the legal blather.  If a good source could be shared that would be awesome.

  • JoshRoss

    How about Groklaw?

    -Josh

  • cheong

    I don't, but just heard that the judge pointing out the jury awarded that sum of damage without even finding a single infringement cause me to think something problematic is happening.

    From Techdirt: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement. While this will be corrected and won't change the results much, it certainly suggests that the jury rushed through this and may not have taken this particularly seriously. When you start talking about the numbers being thrown around in damages here, at some point, it must start to feel like play money. But it's a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this. It raises significant questions about how careful they were in getting to a verdict vs. how quickly they wanted to be done in time for the weekend.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • Ian2

     I was a little surprised that this took place in California.  (Although It might be difficult getting an impartial jury anywhere in the USA what with Apple's God like status).

    Is that an unfair comment to make? Not suggesting that the Jury wasn't impartial just saying that the appearance of impartiality might have been served better by holding the hearing (or whatever it was) somewhere other than Apples' home turf.

    Good news for any players not involved in the debacle I guess.

    (And Apple should tell their lawyers not to look so smarmy).

     

  • evildictait​or

    , Ian2 wrote

    (And Apple should tell their lawyers not to look so smarmy). 

    Find me anybody who just found out that they made a billion dollars for their company who doesn't have a big smile on their face.

  • GoddersUK

    This decision is bad, bad news Sad

    , cheong wrote

    From Techdirt: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement

    I actually didn't believe that when I read it just now. Surely this allows Samsung to request a retrial on the grounds that the entire court, not just the Apple lawyer, was clearly high on crack?

  • GoddersUK

    , cheong wrote

    I don't, but just heard that the judge pointing out the jury awarded that sum of damage without even finding a single infringement cause me to think something problematic is happening.

    Did they actually find no infringement? Or was it that they awarded damages for claims A, B and C, even though they only found infringement for A and B?

    (And I'm confused - I thought the juries didn't handle sentencing? (In fact, I thought one only had jury trials in criminal cases?))

  • DaveWill2

    @JoshRoss: That was helpful.  They list each of the filings by each party involved.  The original filing has the statements of the disputed items.  I couldn't get through them all.  My brain exploded at the insanity of what was submitted to the patent office.

  • Ian2

    Forget software development boys, get yourself a patent, sit on it a few years and Bingo!

    Shhhh, Square with round edges already gone, but nobody said anything about circles with square edges ....

     

  • evildictait​or

    , GoddersUK wrote

    (And I'm confused - I thought the juries didn't handle sentencing? (In fact, I thought one only had jury trials in criminal cases?))

    Juries don't handle sentencing. Juries decide whether the charges are valid. The judge decides what the penalty should be.

    In this case, the jury decided that the charge was valid, and hence that damages should be paid. The judge decides what the level of damages are.

  • blowdart

    , evildictait​or wrote

    In this case, the jury decided that the charge was valid, and hence that damages should be paid. The judge decides what the level of damages are.

    Not in the US. The jury can decide. Hence whopping huge damages for a too hot cup of coffee.

  • DeathBy​VisualStudio

    Goddamit. This $hit has got to stop. This is just like the Eolas and i4i suits that Microsoft lost but worse since many of these patents Apple have there is plenty of prior art or they are even more obvious. Apple really invented pinch to zoom? Waiting impatiently for the breaking point...

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • GoddersUK

    @Ian2: I've patented real life. Pay me £500,000,000 now or I'll be suing...

  • Ian2

    @GoddersUK:See you in (virtual) court...

  • Ray7

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    Goddamit. This $hit has got to stop. This is just like the Eolas and i4i suits that Microsoft lost but worse since many of these patents Apple have there is plenty of prior art or they are even more obvious. Apple really invented pinch to zoom? 

    Yeah, it's a little bit more complicated than that. Samsung's case collapsed once emails and documents came to light that demonstrated they'd wilfully copied trademarked design elements and stolen IP from Apple. As it turns out, there was even more damning evidence, but Samsung destroyed it  Still, what was submitted proved damaging enough: documents that dissected the Apple UI, analysed why their own functionality was inferior, and then showed how to use these elements in an Android skin that emulated the iPhone. There was an email from Google warning them against skinning an Android UI that copied the iPhone. Samsung ignored it. Apple offered them the opportunity to license the IP. Samsung showed them the middle digit. 

    And so the two companies went to court, where Samsung demonstrated the kind of hubris that comes from being above the law in your own country.

    In order to score a quick win, Samsung brought a countersuit, claiming that Apple owed them millions for 3G FRAND licenses. The company generously offered to take a small sum for the licenses if Apple agreed to drop the suit and allowed them free access to the contested IP. Apple refused, stating that the licenses had been paid for when they bought the 3G chips from Intel; Samsung was effectively trying to double-dip. Samsung didn't have a leg to stand on, and when the surviving emails and documents were submitted as evidence, Samsung's case pretty much imploded straight away. Their legal team decided it was time to start throwing $hit at the walls to see what would stick.

    First they claimed that they had come up with the idea first: a phone similar to the iPhone was already in development before the iPhone was released. Here it is:

    Similar? Not so sure, myself.

    Anyway, it was too late to submit that little conjuring trick as evidence, so the judge refused. Samsung released it to the press anyway, claiming that the public had a right to see it. They then followed up with criticisms of the legal process, the judge, the method of jury selection, the presentation of evidence...

    Now, many Apple fans accused the judge of bias because she didn't charge Samsung with contempt. I think what they failed to realise was that Samsung already knew they'd lost the case, and were, most probably, trying to force a mistrial. Judge Koh was determined not to give them any excuse for doing so.

    And of course, Apple wasn't much better, a late submission near the end of the trial prompted Koh to ask if the Apple legal team was smoking crack!

    Samsung tried the prior art route, submitting an example of a tablet similar to the iPad that had been conceived years before:

    Yes, there were tablets in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. They weren't touch screens though.

    And they didn't really exist.

    Still, since this case was about design elements as well as IP, then I think they should have been considered. However, the jury didn't agree with Apple that the Samsung tablet was too similar to the iPad, so it made little difference.

    Samsung enlisted the help of Google, who proposed a change to the way patents are seen: if IP demonstrated that it was so obviously the right way to do something, then that intellectual property should be made available freely to everyone. Apple had clearly demonstrated the right way to build a phone, so everyone should be allowed to build a phone in the same way, even if it infringed on Apple's patents. 

    The problem with that argument is that if it was so 'obviously' the right way to build a phone, then why had no one done it before?

    Meanwhile, the Samsung case continued to unravel: Apple's witnesses were well-rehearsed, succinct, and ran rings around the Samsung legal team. Samsung made a subtle strategic shift: yes, we did it, but we should be allowed to do it! Apple is trying to keep vital technology locked up behind their polished glass walls! They're attempting to stifle competition!

    Apple said this was not the case. They were happy to license their IP as long as their licensees didn't use it to build copies of Apple's products.

    "Hah! Prove it!" screamed Samsung.

    "Okay," said Apple, and produced a jaw-dropper: a license agreement between themselves and Microsoft that allows MS to use Apple's intellectual property in the Surface tablet.

    I'm not sure what this IP is, but it is interesting to note that Apple holds the patent on the keyboard/case that Microsoft is selling alongside the Surface. Anyway, it proved that Apple wasn't adverse to giving the competition a leg-up as long as they did not use the IP to copy Apple's products.

    So now, pretty much beaten, Samsung employed the strategy they should have used from day one: damage limitation.

    Yeah, we did it, but $2.75 billion is a bit excessive don'tcha think?

    And here, the jury agreed. Apple accounts for about 70% of the profits in the mobile space. That, and the fact that they couldn't meet existing demand at the time, led the jury to decide that $1billion-ish should be enough. 

    Let's face it, even $2.75 billion is a drop in the profit ocean for both companies. The damage to Samsung's reputation, and the possibility that other companies will come after them for IP theft, could prove far more expensive. And in the longer term, Samsung will lose their biggest customer: Apple. Cupertino is already looking at alternative suppliers for screens, memory and processors.

    Apple has sent a clear message to the rest of the industry: We have a long memory and bottomless pit of cash. Steal from us and we will crucify you. Even if they'd lost the case, they'd already achieved their main objective: Samsung has moved away from Apple designs and started using their own skins and design elements. As one pundit put it, the S3 is the first phone designed by lawyers.

    And the real irony is that many think it looks better than the iPhone ... 

  • Maddus Mattus

    Hate the game, don't hate the player.

  • Ray7

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Hate the game, don't hate the player.

    Well, yes.

    According to this article, these court tussles are really just a form of marriage counselling.

    Perplexed

    Cult of Mac. Why Apple sues

  • Maddus Mattus

    , Ray7 wrote

    Well, yes.

    According to this article, these court tussles are really just a form of marriage counselling.

    Perplexed

    Cult of Mac. Why Apple sues

    I don't agree with that article, it tries to talk right what is clearly bent. Lawsuits are just another form of competition.

    The hard way is designing, marketing and producing a highly valued product or a service. The easy way is to use the extent of the law to prohibit competition. Legal fees of hundreds of millions are still peanuts compared to the billions of dollars that go into designing a better product.

    Apple clearly nailed the hard part on the head with the iPhone and the iPad. To prolong it's succes, they're preventing others from doing the same thing. It's killing other peoples billion dollar investments, with just a couple of millions.

    Do I hate Apple for it? No. The framework is there, it would be folly to condem anybody for trying to maximize the lifecycle of their product.

    Is it the best outcome for the consumer? No. Consumers are getting the short end of the stick. They get a company wich has basically a monopoly on every aspect of what makes a good device. Driving up the costs up and maximizing profits, their bank account is proof you are paying too much.

    So, who do I blame? I blame the entity who hands out the power to protect aspects of a succesfull product. If you want to drive innovation, shorten the lifespan of products, let other people copy it! Then you will see the shift from legal competition to competition in the marketplace.

    Many will claim patents drive innovation, that it protects the small businesses from the big players. While the spirit is clearly nobel, the effects are devastating.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.