Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

149 comments

Frost Nixon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353125)

Frosty one.

Refund? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353141)

So does that mean they owe a refund to Samsung? (I am a legal newbie)

Re:Refund? (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353243)

Samsung hasn't paid any money yet, the final details of the case aren't 100% settled yet. This isn't the only patent involved in the case Apple has lost since the judgment, either. Most likely, damages will be reduced. By how much is yet undetermined (my guess would be "considerably", but then I would also have guessed Apple wouldn't have won in the first place).

Re:Refund? (4, Informative)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353277)

Apple is appealing this. From USA Today: SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple today filed notice of appeal in its battle with Samsung, in which a judge this week denied its injunction request. The highly anticipated move comes after U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh late Monday rejected Apple's request, stating the company has not been able to show that Samsung's actions support a ban of its products. Apple is taking the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit along with "all other orders, rulings, findings, and conclusions underlying and related to that order," according to the court filing. Judge Koh stated Monday, "Apple's evidence does not establish that any of Apple's three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand." The judge's ruling came after a San Jose jury in August found Samsung violated six of Apple's patents and awarded a whopping $1 billion in damages. Jurors had sided with Apple in deciding that Samsung had violated key designs covering iPads and iPhones. Apple shares closed 0.87% lower at $521.73. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/20/apple-samsung-iphone-ipad-patents/1783017/ [usatoday.com]

Re:Refund? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353805)

Samsung has paid a ton of money directly and through damage to reputation defending themselves.

Effective anti-patent troll reform would make patent holder, if loser, pay some factor say 10 x (costs to defend + what they were asking as damages to the party they were suing + lost sales + etc.).

Of course, Apple has lost much of the tech segment as customers due to their trolling, but that is a tiny bit of their income. Getting spanked for $10-50 Billion once or twice would make them re-think their troll strategy-- if it didn't change minds of board members / C execs, the shareholders would revolt to the same effect.

Re:Refund? (-1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353987)

Slight correction: Apple hasn't lost any of the patents. They are merely under review.

Re:Refund? (5, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354567)

No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.

Re:Refund? (3, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354671)

No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.

Yeah, I noticed I goofed right after I posted, I'll try de-modding me. Was waiting for someone to catch my gaff. You win the +5 internets, :-)

Re:Refund? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353339)

I think that would be reasonable. If you get a patent invalidated you should be forced to repay all money you have gained from it, or even double that money or something. Maybe that would stop companies from filing piss-patents.

Re:Refund? (3, Interesting)

colin_faber (1083673) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353505)

This is actually an interesting thought, though I wouldn't go so far as to attach punitive damages to invalided patent, I see nothing wrong with charging a minimal interest rate on the monies paid as royalty fees on the patent.

Re:Refund? (5, Interesting)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353753)

I would .. F it .. Too many people are willfully or negligently filing patents on stuff they didn't invent or are obvious increments to existing technology. There has to be something to discourage it.

Sick of this (5, Insightful)

kc67 (2789711) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353143)

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.

Re:Sick of this (3, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353387)

Yea a lot of people were showing their disgust with this case after the results from the jury was read. Even from apple fans as well that are not happy with how apple is going about things, they decided to try to stop competition by litigation instead of being innovative. When case was decided by the jury, sales of samsung GS3 spiked after the trial.

Re:Sick of this (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354155)

Many Apple fans rejoiced. There was a lot of "in your face" and "got what they deserved" in response to the rulings followed by desperate attempts to justify a dishonest juror and the major crap he pulled. He "sent a message" alright. Problem is, just like other 'bad guys' he was stupid enough to brag about it. Had he said "it was a tough decision, but I felt the evidence was in Apple's favor and the other jurors agreed" things might be a little different right now.

But let's say the judge in this case was shown to have a LOT of Apple stock. Her failure to recuse herself would result in another trial even after the verdict was presented. But this was a juror. Jurors need special treatment in nearly every case simply because it's hard enough to select and agree upon the constitutionally guaranteed jury for matters such as these. If they were not almost completely immune to charges of misconduct, people would be even LESS willing to be on the jury. So you have to understand that the system will tread lightly on matters such as these. But have a look at this if you want to know more about jury misconduct:

http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/jury_misconduct/jury_misconduct.htm [capdefnet.org]

Interestingly, dishonesty in voir dire is at the top of the list and yet somehow, the judge in this case is willing to ignore that.

And you make a good point. After the trial, there was a spike in GS3 sales. Where I work, a LOT of iPhone users have managed to switch over to GS3 or other Androids... one of my co-workers, much to my disgust, even bought multiple Nexus 4s so he could make disgusting profits. People like him are the reason why many of us couldn't get one the first time around. "Thanks asshole" but I wasn't stupid enough to buy one from these pirates.

My point is that android is really taking over and Apple iThing fans are changing hearts. I see it everywhere. I know... I'm not a good sample observer. But it would be interesting to see what the current usage trends are. Anyone know where to look for data on the subject?

Re:Sick of this (0)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353401)

Don't hate the playas, hate the game.

Re:Sick of this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353543)

I can hate both. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should. And I don't care about the excuse that companies are soulless entities whose only purpose is to devour economic resources (i.e. make money) while retaining all of the rights of a human being.

Re:Sick of this (4, Interesting)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353629)

No. The system has always been equally broken before, but it's a select few companies (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle) which have found it more profitable to compete in the market place. You don't see Samsung or HTC or Google trying to crush competition with lawsuits in the way that the above-named companies do.

Just because the law says it's okay to be a jerk doesn't mean it's okay when you actually do it.

Re:Sick of this (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353895)


The system has always been equally broken before

Agreed.

but it's a select few companies ...

Who have finally taken full advantage of all the abuse the system provides for. We need to recognize that the system is inherently broken and needs to be abolished and/or replaced. And only replaced if there's some way to show that the replacement won't have detrimental unintended consequences.

Just because the law says it's okay to be a jerk doesn't mean it's okay when you actually do it.

And there are many ways to be a jerk, even on societal levels. Interesting chart here [theatlantic.com] that completely invalidates the idea that copyright promotes the arts. Same with patents for the useful sciences.

If the Internet has taught us one thing, it's that very few ideas are actually unique. The patent system has just become a race to see who has the most and fastest lawyers who can file a patent for as many ideas as can be floated, ability or intent to implement be damned. Execution is what really matters now when it comes to advancing technology and nobody needs to make up imaginary property rights for a good management team to succeed.

But IP does maximize profits for certain corporations, created by the government, feeding money (and by extension power) back to the same government players. That's what we call a positive feedback loop. If there's a silver lining, positive feedback loops cause instability and usually lead to collapse, ending the cycle. Unfortunately, those collapses often damage everything around them when they let go.

Re:Sick of this (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354197)

I'm sure you meant that in a way contrary to what you have written right? Apple, Microsoft and Oracle do not compete on thier merits. Apple "might" at the beginning of things because when they come up with something new, they get a lot of attention... or they did. Jobs is dead and I doubt they will have that magic any longer. But Microsoft? Oracle? No.... no way.

Re:Sick of this (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354665)

Yes, I was editing far too aggressively, and meant to say that they have found it more profitable to compete in the courtroom, not the marketplace.

Re:Sick of this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42354635)

You don't see Samsung or HTC or Google trying to crush competition with lawsuits in the way that the above-named companies do.

Yea Google is just generally anti-competitive, but when it comes to patents they're a victim. My tears....

Re:Sick of this (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353893)

"the 'playas'" ?

I love the beach! :)

Re:Sick of this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353413)

Welcome to Capitalism, where we try to increase revenue, rather than increasing value.

Re:Sick of this (-1, Flamebait)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353765)

Really as opposed to what system? Socialism where nobody has any incentive to do anything?

Re:Sick of this (2, Funny)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353425)

B..but...but what about the BILLIONS of dollars Apple has spent on R&D thinking up pinch to zoom, rubber banding, and rounded corners?

Billions I say!

Re:stagnating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353459)

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.

I do not that word means what you think it means...

Re:stagnating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353791)

No, I think stagnate could be a verb in the sense of it being used here to indicate they they are doing something which causes stagnation, a lack of movement or progress.

Re:stagnating (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353855)

I you missed a word.

Re:Sick of this (4, Interesting)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353477)

"The industry" was working together just fine; there weren't actually that many lawsuits between companies like Palm, Nokia, and Microsoft. Apple, however, came in as a newbie, took everybody else's ideas, put them in a nice shiny box, and started patenting and suing everybody.

Re:Sick of this (3, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353921)

>"The industry" was working together just fine; there weren't actually that many lawsuits between companies like Palm, Nokia, and Microsoft. Apple, however, came in as a newbie, took everybody else's ideas, put them in a nice shiny box, and started patenting and suing everybody.

Hell, Apple are not even unique in that respect.

When Marconi got a patent on wireless telegraphy in England, the rule was that you MUST NOT reveal the workings of the patented device before the patent was granted. Marconi presented a closed box, which worked as described and got his patent. Then they opened the box and found that it was just someone elses' method that was already publicly known. Nothing unique at all.

Then he laughed all the way to the bank.

Steve Jobs, in many ways was just the Marconi of his day. Not even unique in being a bit of a carpetbagger.

Re:Sick of this (1, Interesting)

ojak (1857004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354303)

Um... I'm no fan of all the lawsuits, patents, etc, but honestly, does anybody actually remember what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out? They were just awful. I built a catapult for my Motorola Q just so I could launch it off my roof.

I'm no fan of Apple's lawsuits, but I also can admit that they did move the ball forward by leaps and bounds beyond the plastic pieces of shit we were all messing with in 2006.

Re:Sick of this (1)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42355245)

I liked my Palm Treo. Apple's iPhone was an inferior copy as far as I was concerned.

Re:Sick of this (1)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354777)

Oh, there have been a lot of misbehaving companies like that. I'm just saying that Apple started this in mobile.

Re:Sick of this (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353589)

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.

Unfortunately this seems to be the way of things anymore. Nobody wants to work together, just snipe each other for a buck.

Democrats and Republicans refuse to agree on things that they actually agree on.

Religious and non-religious people continue to throw away what they claim to stand for to stick it to each other

I suppose there has always been a divide between the rich and poor, but it's become worse. Both in the amount of money separating them, but also what one class expects of the other now too.

Governments are turning on each other and their own people in far too many cases

I don't think we ever lived on an idealistic planet where we all looked out for one another, but it seems that we all look for problems to blame on others more than I remember in the past. Perhaps we've just gone too long without a world war in which anyone had to actually sacrifice anything. So we are just turning on each other. The lawyers and large corporations seem to be the only ones benefiting. It's kind of sad really.

Re:Sick of this (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353725)

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.

Take a (patented, how else?) pill to manage the symptoms: unfortunately, the cause of your sickness is not going away any time soon.

Partners in Crime (2)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353949)

Lawyers go wherever the money is. The sort of fly-by-night conmen who used to rip people off with bogus real estate deals can now rip millions off companies quite legally by buying a bullshit patent and threatening anyone and everyone. Lawyers love this shit, and that's why these two have set off hand-in-hand to rob and pillage the tech industry.

Apple might design nice looking products, but ethically they are pretty bad. If there was a company like this around when Apple were starting up they would have been buried under lawsuits before they could even get off the ground. That's bad for the tech industry.

Re:Sick of this (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354517)

Why should company A work with company B to share innovations? If company A has an innovation, that would give it an advantage of its competition so they shouldn't share it unless they get something equally good in return. Sharing innovation is stupid and demotivates those to innovate.

Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (-1, Troll)

jmcbain (1233044) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353147)

I find Groklaw to be filled with amateur web sleuths who have nothing better to do with their time than to shake their angry fists at successful corporations. A better source of information on patent law is FOSS Patents.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (5, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353189)

Florian Mueller we know that is you. Go away.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353207)

You're an idiot.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353225)

I find FOSS Patents to be filled with amateur web sleuths who have nothing better to do with their time than to shake their angry fists at successful corporations. A better source of information on patent law is Groklaw.

Fixed that for you!

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (4, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353275)

I really wish I could mod this down as it is an attack from a corporate sycophant. We are talking about so-called "successful" corporations using a mechanism to keep other corporations and individuals from being successful. That's the real problem here.

And, again, I think the FOSS community needs to form a foundation to get bad patents invalidated so we can have a decent system again.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353411)

I think the FOSS community needs to form a foundation to get bad patents invalidated so we can have a decent system again.

Done! [slashdot.org]

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (-1, Troll)

jmcbain (1233044) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353481)

LOL. I work as a software engineer and have 12 patent applications submitted in my career. Each one of these represents at least 6 months' worth of research and development, so I know what the value of a patent is. How many patents do you have? 0? You probably have NOTHING because you haven't done a day's worth of original work in your life. You live off doing the same old database, the same old website, the same old crap and have nothing to contribute to society. You say "keep other corporations from being successful." You mean to "keep other corporations from copying and/or making the same old database, website, or other crap." I pity you, your children, and your children's children.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (1)

tibman (623933) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353621)

Software patents, eh? That's some troubled water

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353637)

Dude, at least get your 'facts' in reasonable order.

Patents are almost always filled in 'batches' of varying specificity. Patents fall to prior art (being too general) or detail changing (being too specific). You protect yourself by filing several. Your lawyer, had he not been imaginary, would have advised you on these details.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353735)

I have 9 and they represent diddly-squat. They each have a few hours worth of research and thought, at the most, put into them.

Oh you were only talking about submitted applications? Those nine patents of mine are all accepted and published.

Vote Pirate Party.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42354299)

LOL. I work as a software engineer and have 12 patent applications submitted in my career.

LOL. I find it telling that you said patent applications, not patents. I guesst the USPTO, who will give out a patent on almost anything these days, still didn't find anything of merit in your application. Sad. Also please let us know when you stop working as a software engineer and actually become one.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (2)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353695)

It's not just about good and bad patents. We've seen what happens when we allow software patents to fly and I don't have figures on this, but I'm guessing at least 90% have been struck down in courts!

We can't just settle for revoking patents. I don't think it is necessary to go so far as to ban them altogether, but it is absolutely crucial to

1) fix the defintions of what is patentable and what is not
2) impose penalties and a loser-pays system to ensure fairness of court cases

But simply settling for removing abstract patents when all software patents are bad effectively legitimizes something that shouldn't even be allows in the first place. That doesn't work - nobody wins that way.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (2)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353649)

Right. The source that has been accepting money from companies which are trying to kill Android would _clearly_ be less biased!

Priceless irony.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (3, Insightful)

shellbeach (610559) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353879)

I find Groklaw to be filled with amateur web sleuths who have nothing better to do with their time than to shake their angry fists at successful corporations.

Ah, yes, like the way Groklaw shook its fists at that successful corporation SCO.

A better source of information on patent law is FOSS Patents.

Indeed. [groklaw.net]

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354589)

Say what? You mean waving fists at sucessful companies like IBM, Novell, and Redhat, wait they dont do that. I cant even remember the last time FOSS Patents has been correct on anything, groklaw on the other hand.

Ahahaha (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353155)

And on the last day of the world. That's too funny.

Re:Ahahaha (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353361)

Yeah, but patent lawsuits never end. They just seem to go on, and on, and on . . .

The last day of the world is also going to be like a patent lawsuit. It's just going to keep going on, and on, and on . . .

Re:Ahahaha (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353375)

The last day is tomorrow ... you are off by a day.

Re:Ahahaha (1)

PRMan (959735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353511)

Maybe he's in New Zealand...

Re:Ahahaha (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353643)

That was the last doomsday. This one is at one specific time, dawn somewhere in central America IIRC.

Re:Ahahaha (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353951)

by HornWumpus (783565) on Friday December 21, @10:13AM

Yes and dawn in central america is late evening west of the international dateline.

Re:Ahahaha (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354019)

It's nearly 11am, tomorrow, in eastern Australia. No sign of the apocalypse yet. :)

prior art (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353159)

This 2005 patent [google.com] from Danny Hillis [wikipedia.org] seems to be one of the main things the reexamination is noting as prior art.

Re:prior art (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353529)

Ef that. Just watch the TED video from Feb 2006 [youtube.com] . Pinch to zoom at 2:50

Re:prior art (5, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353533)

Here's pinch to zoom in 1988 [youtube.com] .

Re:prior art (4, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354097)

Here's pinch to zoom in 1988.

You know you've been on the internet too long when you hesitate to click a link with a description like that because you think it is goatsecx.

The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353161)

This is the patent that won Apple their billion dollar verdict against Samsung.

That's weird, I remember the jury verdict citing six patents [businessinsider.com] . Pinch to zoom was one of them but surely it was only a fraction of the full billion?

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353291)

The USPTO has said the "bounce" patent ('381) should never have been granted, and the judge involved has said the tap-to-zoom ('163) looks like it might be invalid. That together with this would mean Samsung only violated the 3 design patents (the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader).

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (3, Funny)

CanadianRealist (1258974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353601)

('381)
('163)
(the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader)

Apple is already contacting their lawyers about suing you for the rounded corners on those parentheses. I hope you have a bajillion dollars.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (1)

aoteoroa (596031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354621)

That together with this would mean Samsung only violated the 3 design patents (the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader).

And Judge Koh has suggested that those design patents are not valid either:

"However, Apple’s evidence does not establish that any of Apple’s three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand. ...First, though more specific than the general “design” allegations, they are still not specific enough to clearly identify actual patented designs. Instead, they refer to such isolated characteristics as glossiness, reinforced glass, black color, metal edges, and reflective screen. Id. Apple does not have a patent on, for example, glossiness, or on black color." -- Judge Koh

Still haven't seen any signs that the judge is likely to overturn the jury's findings though

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353297)

This is the patent that won Apple their billion dollar verdict against Samsung.

That's weird, I remember the jury verdict citing six patents [businessinsider.com] . Pinch to zoom was one of them but surely it was only a fraction of the full billion?

Remember when Slashdot was just news and not someone trying to insert a questionable-at-best opinion into a story?

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (5, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353333)

This is the patent that won Apple their billion dollar verdict against Samsung.

That's weird, I remember the jury verdict citing six patents [businessinsider.com] . Pinch to zoom was one of them but surely it was only a fraction of the full billion?

Remember when Slashdot was just news and not someone trying to insert a questionable-at-best opinion into a story?

... no. :/

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (4, Insightful)

crunchy666 (1315081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353299)

The problem is that the jury didn't allocate amounts to any particular patent, so that case will probably end up back in front of another jury that is able to follow directions.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353429)

If you were to recall when jury did interviews after the trial they admitted they punished Samsung for the use of the patents, which they were not supposed to do per the jury instructions. So what the damaged should been if all 6 patents were valid is up for debate at this point. 3 that are preliminary invalid made up a major majority of the judgement so.

All patents must die (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353175)

Really.

Captcha: corpse

The way the ladies like it, it's... (0)

bennomatic (691188) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353191)

pinch to bada bing, bada boom!

(or not; it's the best joke on the topic I could think of)

Re:The way the ladies like it, it's... (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354541)

How about: pinch to Bang...Zoom! To the moon, Alice!!

From TFA, no reimbursement? (5, Interesting)

hermitdev (2792385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353247)

So here's a question. Does Samsung get any of its money back? I mean the money it spent and is spending to invalidate this stupid patent? The money it spent on trial over this stupid patent? The money it spent finding the prior art that Apple should have found before filing for this stupid patent? No. Nothing in US patent system is that fair.

I'm not a lawyer, but maybe there's one out there that could answer: couldn't Samsung counter-sue, or the Judge rule in favor of Samsung and order court fees paid? And presumably, wouldn't all expenditures, including any involved with the research and gathering of information in regards to prior art, be covered?

Yay, more sensationalist headlines. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353259)

The difference between "preliminarily rejected" and "actually invalidated" is analogous to the difference between "being arrested" and "being convicted". Apple has to defend the patent and lose before anything changes.

Re:Yay, more sensationalist headlines. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42354089)

This is exactly right - very few people on Slashdot have enough knowledge to even comment on the patent system, much less reform it.

The USPTO has given a first action rejection, which is very typical - not invalidated, not ruled on, not final. This does not mean the patent won't survive re-exam, although it does mean the claims will probably be narrowed during continued prosecution under re-exam.

Apple will have a great deal of opportunity to refine the claims here and argue over prior art.

Re:Yay, more sensationalist headlines. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42355219)

Especially since each of Apple's 21 points in the patent (on pinch-to-zoom) were rejected for multiple reasons - see page 3. Groklaw has the patent reexamination here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2202ExA.pdf

I want a government jobs program. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353269)

I want them to hire more patent office staff, and more judges, so that these cases can be determined quickly and accurately.

Clear all the administrative backlogs, provide jobs, support private industry innovation.

Zoom-to-Position (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353279)

Do they have a patent giving a zoomed view when positioning a cursor? I'm asking because Android not doing it is annoying, and it seems like something that would be quite OBVIOUS to someone versed in the craft, I mean, I had could have a zoomed view when entering text in Deluxe Paint on the Amiga IIRC.

That PMSing bitch of a judge is gonna be mad (0, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353347)

So that complete head-up-her-ass judge who refuses to throw out the case based on that jury foreman basically shut down their entire appeal...and then tada, the patent is thrown out. She's gonna be mad. She's obviously operating on her own agenda based solely on posterity and media opinion so she's going to have kind of attack when she finds out another judge undermined her. Whatever, the case is going to fall apart no matter what she does. Hopefully she resigns because her conduct as a judge has been completely disgusting thus far.

Re:That PMSing bitch of a judge is gonna be mad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42355535)

Nice. You're dislike of Apple (or like of Google & co?) has made you make exceedingly sexist remarks against another human being. Does your mom know you talk like that from her basement?

Apple case was good for public awareness (5, Interesting)

detain (687995) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353395)

The biggest problem with the patent system is that most people aren't aware of the problems with it. General public awareness of the problems in the patent system is a good step towards eventual patent reform. It takes a big case like this with lots of news coverage about products many of us use to motivate the general public. Change is never fast or easy but as long as the majority of people think that patent reform is needed, it should eventually happen.

Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's bias (4, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353539)

The claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 based on U.S. Patent No. 7,724,242 to Hillis et al. (“Hillis”), International Pub. No. WO 03/081458 to Lira (“Lira”), U.S. Patent No. 6,757,673 to Makus et al. (“Makus”), Japanese Pub. No. 2000-163031A to Nomura et al. (English translation) (“Nomura”), and Dean Harris Rubine, “The Automatic Recognition of Gestures,” CMU-CS-91-202, December 1991 (“Rubine”).

As near as I can find, it doesn't look like Samsung raised any of these references during the trial to show the patents were invalid. Why not?

Additionally, Groklaw says:

The goofball jury, of course, thought it was a simply wonderful patent infringed every which way by Samsung...
Here's the verdict [PDF] form the jury signed off on after a nonchalant few hours of deliberations, which apparently did not include spending effort on whether or not this was a valid patent.
The most important part of this news isn't that the jury's work was a farce.

Wasn't Groklaw complaining just a few days ago that the jury foreman brought in external evidence, and therefore committed misconduct? And now, Groklaw is saying the jury should have conducted its own prior art search and brought in external evidence that wasn't raised by Samsung? What is it, the rules don't apply if it hurts Apple?

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b (4, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354029)

As near as I can find, it doesn't look like Samsung raised any of these references during the trial to show the patents were invalid. Why not?

A good chunk of Samsung's prior art evidence wrt phones (the violations they were fined $1b for - they were cleared of copying the iPad) was disallowed because they missed a filing deadline. Kinda defeated the whole purpose of having the trial IMHO, but Judge Koh decided her schedule was more important.

Wasn't Groklaw complaining just a few days ago that the jury foreman brought in external evidence, and therefore committed misconduct? And now, Groklaw is saying the jury should have conducted its own prior art search and brought in external evidence that wasn't raised by Samsung? What is it, the rules don't apply if it hurts Apple?

Groklaw is referring to an erroneous instruction given by the jury foreman to the other jurors. He (wrongly) told them that software claiming to be prior art to features on the iPhone were only relevant if the code would run on the iPhone. Since all of the code submitted as prior art runs on other systems and thus doesn't run on the iPhone, he told the jury they could dismiss all the prior art claims out of hand without even having to look at it. So the jury never looked at the software prior art which was submitted at trial. Groklaw is just saying they should have.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354195)

The judge prevented Samsung from entering all manner of evidence for the purpose of demonstrating prior art. The whole damn proceeding seemed pretty heavily biased against Samsung. The b*tchy demeanor of the judge towards both parties seemed to me to be more of a cover for the bias than anything.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42355033)

When a foreman tells the rest of the jury pool that he has patents and knows how they work and should therefore listen to him, even though it goes against the instructions, that is misconduct. Just saying. Several jurors, including the foreman himself have claimed this.

Just Wondering (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353551)

Just wondering if patent examiners are allowed to work on patent applications submitted by companies they or their families or friends have money invested in. Anybody knows?

Must-see TED Talk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353585)

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html

5:30 multi-touch sequence
7:20 Steve Job's

Priceless.

Does this surprise anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353759)

Apple: We have the most intuitive touchscreen interface around! With no training, our customers can discover how to operate these gestures to use their phones.
Apple: We need to file a patent on this interface!

Do you see what's wrong here? Hint: something cannot be both intuitive and patentaeble.

What's the standard for determining patent validity again?
Useful, check (I like being able to zoom on a small screen)
Novel, check (since there weren't too many small touchscreen devices manipulating images at the time)
Nonobvious, not so much (unless they're lying about the ease of using their product)

Patents don't stifle innovation.... (-1, Flamebait)

ernest.cunningham (972490) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353963)

.... they protect innovation. If there were no patents, then companies would not invest huge amounts of money inventing and innovating. Instead they would sit back and wait for somebody else to spend the cash and then just copy them! Ohh wait, that is what just happened, Apple Innovated, Samsung copied... never mind, move on. Seriously though, you all act like Apple is the only company on earth that has sued another company. Get off the Apple hateraid bandwagon and get back to living your life. PS. Is it just me or is Microsoft the only company innovating in the OS market right now?

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42354909)

It is just you. Innovation is happening all around you. Desktop OS is one of the more stagnant arenas currently. The OS isn't the center of the universe in this current trend. This OS agnosticism is a good thing for consumers.

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... (1)

celle (906675) | about a year and a half ago | (#42354965)

" Apple Innovated, Samsung copied... "

    No! Those patents were prior art or were non-patentable ideas. All of the ideas were in the public long before Apple applied for the patents. Therefore:

      Apple stole, Samsung copied...

      Fixed that for you.

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... (2)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42355053)

Wait, what? Apple stole every idea they had, then got mad someone stole their combination of stolen ideas. Jobs has come out talking about how he LOVES to steal other's ideas. In fact some of the ideas samsung "stole" they came up with first.

Preliminary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42355475)

This is a "preliminary" decision, not a final one.

Translation:
USPTO to Apple: That's a nice patent you've got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it...

Re:Preliminary (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42355589)

They have already stated it should not have been granted at all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...