3 ms·

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
  the video compression patent is part of a standards package (if I remember right) and those have only minimal value. They have to be licensed to anyone on a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" basis which means it's not that valuable. The slide-to-unlock was Apple's novelty and not part of a standard. Hence the claim that it was more valuable. Of course now that the patent's been invalidated it's worth zero. Not several millions.
  • ryao 11y ago
    It is amazing that Samsung got away with patenting mathematics.