9 ms·

Apple Loses Appeal in Samsung Smartphone Case

131 points by baldfat 11y ago

devin_liu 11y ago
Tax guy calls parseInt()
tannedNerd 11y ago
Won't this just go to next level of appeals (aka Apple appealing Samsung's appeal) or have those been denied already?
- plorg 11y ago
  From the article the next level of appeals is the (U.S.) Supreme Court. It would just depend on whether that court decided to take up the case.
  - daveguy 11y ago
    And it is doubtful the Supreme Court will take a case like this. There is no question about constitutional validity of the laws or rights involved, just interpretations of what is covered / infringed on various patents (slide to unlock for apple - cancelled others uninfinged, video compression for samsung - enforced).
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The Supreme Court takes cases for lots of reasons besides the presence of questions of Constitutional validity of laws.
      - daveguy 11y ago
        Well, importance of the case (eg bush v gore), rights (civil, constitutional), conflict of law (disregard of previous rulings, federal vs state conflict) are the highest priority reasons. This case doesn't come anywhere near meeting any of the usual criteria -- conflict of law (with constitution or other laws) being most common. Do you think it will be heard by SCOTUS? If so, why?
        spott 11y ago
        If the supreme court decides they want to revisit the idea of software patents, and patents on mathematical concepts.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Even if the Supreme Court wants to revisit that, this might not be the best case for doing so. They most likely have other options.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        Importance of the issue (not necessarily the case) is a consideration, and the most likely one I think for a patent case. I'm not familiar with the specific legal arguments made by either side in this particular case that might be the basis for either side appealing, though, so I don't actually have a prediction, I was just pointing out that the absence of an issue of Constitutionality of the underlying law isn't sufficient to dismiss the possibility of SCOTUS taking the case.
      - ajross 11y ago
        The only other big one is to clean up conflicting case law between circuits, though. And that's not relevant here because patent suits are heard only by the federal circuit. They won't take this one.
ajross 11y ago
Is there a deeper analysis anywhere, or does one of the resident lawyers want to chime in? From my reading, this sounds huge: I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right?
- azinman2 11y ago
  Unless you're an apple shareholder or someone who cares about the strength of your one patents...
- eridius 11y ago
  You say that like patents are inherently bad and, therefore, any time patents are invalidated that's a good thing. I know the software industry has a grudge against software patents, but Apple's slide-to-unlock isn't a software patent, it's (I believe) a design patent. I don't know what kind of patent the autocorrect one is (I have no idea what it covers).
  - baldfat 11y ago
    The patent was invalidated. "... the appeals panel said the patent is invalid because of prior art." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-reverses-apple-v-samsung-ii-strips-away-apples-120m-jury-verdict/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-rev... > patents are inherently bad It is a GREAT thing when obviously easy to show prior art shows that it was not an innovation. This also shows the weakness and the loyalties of jury of our peers in cases like this. When I saw the prior art and video it was clear their was prior art. Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.
    - eridius 11y ago
      I wasn't commenting at all on why it was invalidated, or whether the invalidation was correct. I was responding to the comment > I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right? The way the comment is phrased, it makes it sound like ajross is saying that it's good that the Federal circuit just invalidated patents. Which is to say, it sounded like ajross was saying that it's good for patents to be invalidated in general, as opposed to whether it was correct for this particular patent to have been found invalid. > Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today. You're talking about software patents here. Design patents are different. Which was kind of the whole point of my comment. Note: I don't know if I'm using the phrase "design patent" correctly here, because IANAL and I don't know if there's actually a specific legal term for that. What I'm referring to here is a patent that describes some aspect of user experience, which is different than a patent that describes how to accomplish something. It's easy to accidentally infringe on software patents because it's easy to accidentally do something the same way someone else did without knowing. But for these "design patents", you typically infringe these because you explicitly want to copy what the patent holder is doing, i.e. you don't infringe on these things accidentally.
KyleBrandt 11y ago
They should donate the 158k to EFF and https://defendinnovation.org/ https://defendinnovation.org/ ...
- azinman2 11y ago
  Samsung should? Lolz...
  - sov 11y ago
    You don't think they should?
    - azinman2 11y ago
      Good luck with that...
      - abjorn 11y ago
        It's not like that is a significant amount of money for a company the size of Samsung.
        azinman2 11y ago
        It's more than zero. They filed patents not because they want to defeat patents but because they're a giant megacorp for whom patents are great. No one can make TVs that compete properly because of the patents they own, for example. This isn't a charity or a moral case.
bcardarella 11y ago
Someone should keep a scoreboard of the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple.
thrill 11y ago
Whatever happened to the "rounded corners" complaint?
- yeukhon 11y ago
  Don't get into that. I got downvoted for saying that and with this comment I am probably going to get more haters coming at me, but that's okay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11148459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11148459
gcb0 11y ago
wait, slide to unlock was several millions. but video compression is 150k?! what's wrong with this world?
- azinman2 11y ago
  Presumably usage ratio is orders of magnitude different here, let alone what is emblematic to a particular design/brand identity. Innovation happens in all kinds of ways, but because something isn't technically as difficult to implement doesn't mean it isn't (probably more) important.
- Yetanfou 11y ago
  One was a complex bit of maths, essential for implementing a standard (the video compression patent) which as such a) has a tight limit on how much can be charged for (ab)using it and b) was not understood by most of the jury while the other (slide to unlock) was (apart from being ludicrous to begin with) a folly which set the hearts of the jury on fire. Also, a foreign company being accused of 'stealing' from an American one versus the opposite.
  - Razengan 11y ago
    Who gets to be the jury in these sorts of cases? Ordinary people? Other companies?
    - dmix 11y ago
      I thought a judge or tribunal typically deals with civil or administrative law (for ex. patent) and juries were limited to criminal matters. I could be wrong though.
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  Yes, it seems like the more trivial the subject of the patent, the more widely used it may be and thus the larger factor to multiply for damages.
- mark212 11y ago
bitmapbrother 11y ago
I wonder if Apple regrets ever suing Samsung. Surely they must have known that it would be a prolonged battle with Samsung never capitulating? Companies usually use their patents to scare other companies into licensing deals, but when you decide to play your patents in court you're taking a chance that you're going to lose the power you thought they had and this is exactly what's happened in this case. I wonder what Apple would have done if they had a do over? These trials have done more damage to Apple then Samsung. I also suspect this won't be the last judgement, in favour of Apple, to be overturned.
- sigzero 11y ago
  I fail to see how it has "Done more damage to Apple...". Their bottom line seems to be unfazed. Their growth in the market was not affected.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    They submitted their patents for analysis by suing Samsung and quite a few of them have been ruled invalid due to prior art in both the US and EU. Not to mention the case has also exposed quite a bit of internal information about Apple.
    - kobayashi 11y ago
      What information is that?
      - bitmapbrother 11y ago
        http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443687504577567421840745452 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904436875045775674...
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > Their growth in the market was not affected. Apple went from 11% to 10% market share from Q42014 to Q42015. Android is the only one of the top 3 mobile manufacturers to have sold more devices than have become inactive in that timespan.
Gratsby 11y ago
It says that they invalidated the slide-to-unlock patent. I don't understand why Samsung would be dealing with that claim - their unlock is Android's unlock. I really hope they actually invalidated it instead of saying "Samsung didn't infringe". Because that means at some point soon we Android phone users can actually have slide to unlock (instead of swipe in any direction to unlock). Although who knows... at this point that feature might irk me. It was important to me back when I switched away from iPhones.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - zanny 11y ago
    Software patents are just the best. So much innovation being promoted!
- notatoad 11y ago
  If I'm remembering correctly, this lawsuit references an older samsung phone that implemented slide to unlock in a slightly more apple-y way.
- biot 11y ago
  If Samsung distributes Android in their devices, they can be held responsible. Were companies not responsible for third-party products they distribute, Ford could include infringing patented Tesla technology in its products by buying from some disposable company like "12345678 Ltd." in China and claiming "well, they sold it to us; go after them".
- askafriend 11y ago
  Why do you want slide-to-unlock so badly? Doesn't swipe work just as well?
  - ajross 11y ago
    No one wants it. In fact as other posts mentioned both Google and Samsung (who ship different launchers on their devices -- they aren't the same code) moved to presumptively-non-infringing unlock mechanisms years ago. But the law suit was over the implementation as shipped when the suit was filed, obviously. But if the patent was dumb, it should be held invalid regardless of current infringement. And it was. So I for one am cheering.
bitmapbrother 11y ago
For those wanting some context - this is the second lawsuit Apple filed against Samsung. Apple was seeking 2.5 Billion in compensation and a jury awarded them 128 Million. Samsung appealed the decision and the verdict was thrown out. Apple now must now compensate Samsung for its legal costs as well as pay millions in damages. So, Samsung has finally won round 2. Round 1, in which a judgement of 548 Million was awarded to Apple, is being appealed to the Supreme Court with Samsung's argument having the support of nearly all of the tech titans in Silicon Valley. The award of 548 Million to Apple has come under further scrutiny as a number of patents used in the first trial have have been invalidated by the USPTO.
rayiner 11y ago
The opinion is here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or.... The original judgment involved five patents. They went down for different reasons. 1. Recognizing dates, etc, in documents and highlighting them. Found not infringed because the court construed "analyzer server" in the claims to require a separate server process, while Samsung implemented them in a shared library. The Court did not address validity. 2. Slide to unlock. Killed as obvious because two prior art references (one disclosing slide to unlock and another disclosing sliding an image along a path traced by the finger) were obvious to combine. 3. Keyboard auto correction. Killed as obvious in light of prior art disclosing an autocorrect UI. 4. Universal search. Found not infringed. Essentially, Apple's claims required the search to search the Internet, while Samsung's implementation only searched Internet data previously downloaded. The Court did not address validity. 5. Background synchronization. Found not infringed because Apple's claims recite a software component that synchronizes two databases in the background, while the corresponding component in Samsung's implementation causes something else to perform the synchronization. The Court did not address validity.

131 points by baldfat 11y ago

devin_liu 11y ago

Tax guy calls parseInt()

tannedNerd 11y ago

Won't this just go to next level of appeals (aka Apple appealing Samsung's appeal) or have those been denied already?

plorg 11y ago
From the article the next level of appeals is the (U.S.) Supreme Court. It would just depend on whether that court decided to take up the case.
- daveguy 11y ago
  And it is doubtful the Supreme Court will take a case like this. There is no question about constitutional validity of the laws or rights involved, just interpretations of what is covered / infringed on various patents (slide to unlock for apple - cancelled others uninfinged, video compression for samsung - enforced).
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The Supreme Court takes cases for lots of reasons besides the presence of questions of Constitutional validity of laws.
    - daveguy 11y ago
      Well, importance of the case (eg bush v gore), rights (civil, constitutional), conflict of law (disregard of previous rulings, federal vs state conflict) are the highest priority reasons. This case doesn't come anywhere near meeting any of the usual criteria -- conflict of law (with constitution or other laws) being most common. Do you think it will be heard by SCOTUS? If so, why?
      - spott 11y ago
        If the supreme court decides they want to revisit the idea of software patents, and patents on mathematical concepts.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Even if the Supreme Court wants to revisit that, this might not be the best case for doing so. They most likely have other options.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        Importance of the issue (not necessarily the case) is a consideration, and the most likely one I think for a patent case. I'm not familiar with the specific legal arguments made by either side in this particular case that might be the basis for either side appealing, though, so I don't actually have a prediction, I was just pointing out that the absence of an issue of Constitutionality of the underlying law isn't sufficient to dismiss the possibility of SCOTUS taking the case.
    - ajross 11y ago
      The only other big one is to clean up conflicting case law between circuits, though. And that's not relevant here because patent suits are heard only by the federal circuit. They won't take this one.

ajross 11y ago

Is there a deeper analysis anywhere, or does one of the resident lawyers want to chime in? From my reading, this sounds huge: I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right?

azinman2 11y ago
Unless you're an apple shareholder or someone who cares about the strength of your one patents...
eridius 11y ago
You say that like patents are inherently bad and, therefore, any time patents are invalidated that's a good thing. I know the software industry has a grudge against software patents, but Apple's slide-to-unlock isn't a software patent, it's (I believe) a design patent. I don't know what kind of patent the autocorrect one is (I have no idea what it covers).
- baldfat 11y ago
  The patent was invalidated. "... the appeals panel said the patent is invalid because of prior art." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-reverses-apple-v-samsung-ii-strips-away-apples-120m-jury-verdict/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-rev... > patents are inherently bad It is a GREAT thing when obviously easy to show prior art shows that it was not an innovation. This also shows the weakness and the loyalties of jury of our peers in cases like this. When I saw the prior art and video it was clear their was prior art. Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.
  - eridius 11y ago
    I wasn't commenting at all on why it was invalidated, or whether the invalidation was correct. I was responding to the comment > I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right? The way the comment is phrased, it makes it sound like ajross is saying that it's good that the Federal circuit just invalidated patents. Which is to say, it sounded like ajross was saying that it's good for patents to be invalidated in general, as opposed to whether it was correct for this particular patent to have been found invalid. > Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today. You're talking about software patents here. Design patents are different. Which was kind of the whole point of my comment. Note: I don't know if I'm using the phrase "design patent" correctly here, because IANAL and I don't know if there's actually a specific legal term for that. What I'm referring to here is a patent that describes some aspect of user experience, which is different than a patent that describes how to accomplish something. It's easy to accidentally infringe on software patents because it's easy to accidentally do something the same way someone else did without knowing. But for these "design patents", you typically infringe these because you explicitly want to copy what the patent holder is doing, i.e. you don't infringe on these things accidentally.

KyleBrandt 11y ago

They should donate the 158k to EFF and https://defendinnovation.org/ https://defendinnovation.org/ ...

azinman2 11y ago
Samsung should? Lolz...
- sov 11y ago
  You don't think they should?
  - azinman2 11y ago
    Good luck with that...
    - abjorn 11y ago
      It's not like that is a significant amount of money for a company the size of Samsung.
      - azinman2 11y ago
        It's more than zero. They filed patents not because they want to defeat patents but because they're a giant megacorp for whom patents are great. No one can make TVs that compete properly because of the patents they own, for example. This isn't a charity or a moral case.

bcardarella 11y ago

Someone should keep a scoreboard of the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple.

thrill 11y ago

Whatever happened to the "rounded corners" complaint?

yeukhon 11y ago
Don't get into that. I got downvoted for saying that and with this comment I am probably going to get more haters coming at me, but that's okay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11148459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11148459

gcb0 11y ago

wait, slide to unlock was several millions. but video compression is 150k?! what's wrong with this world?

azinman2 11y ago
Presumably usage ratio is orders of magnitude different here, let alone what is emblematic to a particular design/brand identity. Innovation happens in all kinds of ways, but because something isn't technically as difficult to implement doesn't mean it isn't (probably more) important.
Yetanfou 11y ago
One was a complex bit of maths, essential for implementing a standard (the video compression patent) which as such a) has a tight limit on how much can be charged for (ab)using it and b) was not understood by most of the jury while the other (slide to unlock) was (apart from being ludicrous to begin with) a folly which set the hearts of the jury on fire. Also, a foreign company being accused of 'stealing' from an American one versus the opposite.
- Razengan 11y ago
  Who gets to be the jury in these sorts of cases? Ordinary people? Other companies?
  - dmix 11y ago
    I thought a judge or tribunal typically deals with civil or administrative law (for ex. patent) and juries were limited to criminal matters. I could be wrong though.
zekevermillion 11y ago
Yes, it seems like the more trivial the subject of the patent, the more widely used it may be and thus the larger factor to multiply for damages.
mark212 11y ago

bitmapbrother 11y ago

I wonder if Apple regrets ever suing Samsung. Surely they must have known that it would be a prolonged battle with Samsung never capitulating? Companies usually use their patents to scare other companies into licensing deals, but when you decide to play your patents in court you're taking a chance that you're going to lose the power you thought they had and this is exactly what's happened in this case. I wonder what Apple would have done if they had a do over? These trials have done more damage to Apple then Samsung. I also suspect this won't be the last judgement, in favour of Apple, to be overturned.

sigzero 11y ago
I fail to see how it has "Done more damage to Apple...". Their bottom line seems to be unfazed. Their growth in the market was not affected.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  They submitted their patents for analysis by suing Samsung and quite a few of them have been ruled invalid due to prior art in both the US and EU. Not to mention the case has also exposed quite a bit of internal information about Apple.
  - kobayashi 11y ago
    What information is that?
    - bitmapbrother 11y ago
      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443687504577567421840745452 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904436875045775674...
- kuschku 11y ago
  > Their growth in the market was not affected. Apple went from 11% to 10% market share from Q42014 to Q42015. Android is the only one of the top 3 mobile manufacturers to have sold more devices than have become inactive in that timespan.

Gratsby 11y ago

It says that they invalidated the slide-to-unlock patent. I don't understand why Samsung would be dealing with that claim - their unlock is Android's unlock. I really hope they actually invalidated it instead of saying "Samsung didn't infringe". Because that means at some point soon we Android phone users can actually have slide to unlock (instead of swipe in any direction to unlock). Although who knows... at this point that feature might irk me. It was important to me back when I switched away from iPhones.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- zanny 11y ago
  Software patents are just the best. So much innovation being promoted!
notatoad 11y ago
If I'm remembering correctly, this lawsuit references an older samsung phone that implemented slide to unlock in a slightly more apple-y way.
biot 11y ago
If Samsung distributes Android in their devices, they can be held responsible. Were companies not responsible for third-party products they distribute, Ford could include infringing patented Tesla technology in its products by buying from some disposable company like "12345678 Ltd." in China and claiming "well, they sold it to us; go after them".
askafriend 11y ago
Why do you want slide-to-unlock so badly? Doesn't swipe work just as well?
- ajross 11y ago
  No one wants it. In fact as other posts mentioned both Google and Samsung (who ship different launchers on their devices -- they aren't the same code) moved to presumptively-non-infringing unlock mechanisms years ago. But the law suit was over the implementation as shipped when the suit was filed, obviously. But if the patent was dumb, it should be held invalid regardless of current infringement. And it was. So I for one am cheering.

bitmapbrother 11y ago

For those wanting some context - this is the second lawsuit Apple filed against Samsung. Apple was seeking 2.5 Billion in compensation and a jury awarded them 128 Million. Samsung appealed the decision and the verdict was thrown out. Apple now must now compensate Samsung for its legal costs as well as pay millions in damages. So, Samsung has finally won round 2. Round 1, in which a judgement of 548 Million was awarded to Apple, is being appealed to the Supreme Court with Samsung's argument having the support of nearly all of the tech titans in Silicon Valley. The award of 548 Million to Apple has come under further scrutiny as a number of patents used in the first trial have have been invalidated by the USPTO.

rayiner 11y ago

The opinion is here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or.... The original judgment involved five patents. They went down for different reasons. 1. Recognizing dates, etc, in documents and highlighting them. Found not infringed because the court construed "analyzer server" in the claims to require a separate server process, while Samsung implemented them in a shared library. The Court did not address validity. 2. Slide to unlock. Killed as obvious because two prior art references (one disclosing slide to unlock and another disclosing sliding an image along a path traced by the finger) were obvious to combine. 3. Keyboard auto correction. Killed as obvious in light of prior art disclosing an autocorrect UI. 4. Universal search. Found not infringed. Essentially, Apple's claims required the search to search the Internet, while Samsung's implementation only searched Internet data previously downloaded. The Court did not address validity. 5. Background synchronization. Found not infringed because Apple's claims recite a software component that synchronizes two databases in the background, while the corresponding component in Samsung's implementation causes something else to perform the synchronization. The Court did not address validity.