6 ms·

Aside from enriching lawyers, was there any benefit to this extended dispute? While this drained company's coffers ( and whatever they would have funded inste

Aside from enriching lawyers, was there any benefit to this extended dispute? While this drained company's coffers ( and whatever they would have funded instead) was there direct harm from the dispute? I'm trying to find a reasonable perspective despite my unreasonably low (re: forming an opinion ) specific knowledge.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fhood 8y ago
The benefit is precedent. Apple shows that they will do everything they can to enforce their patents, and Samsung shows that they will fight back. Both companies thus lower the chance that someone else will do the same thing.
- ergothus 8y ago
  That benefits THEM...how does it benefit the world? Were these infractions that threaten the incentive to innovate, or they infractions just because they could call them infractions? If someone else DID do the same thing, would the world be better off or not? IBM is considered an IP failure for allowing the PC-clone market to come into being...even though it is highly unlikely computing would have taken off the way it did otherwise.
  - ISL 8y ago
    The notion hinges on the idea that someone or a group of people can invest time and resources into innovation with the understanding that they will get paid if the idea pans out. The arguments for and against this notion are perpetual.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      Backing up: I'm aware of the sides of the "how to spur innovation" argument. I'm asking if, in this set of proceedings, there was any impact OTHER than these two companies establishing that they will vigorously defend their claims AND I'm asking if those claims lie near any areas of interest. For example, the "Dummie's Guide" trade dress cases about yellow or the one-click patent lived at the edges of those spheres, and thus helped define what the edge was. Was this a case that largely only impacts these two companies, or does the matter at hand fall into well-established realms and this was just a matter of legal details? These are questions most journalism does a terrible job of covering, and hunting down legal blogs that also have enough technical knowledge AND aren't biased because patent attorneys tend to fall into the "everything must be protected no matter what" camp is quite an exercise.
    - drb91 8y ago
      I am unfamiliar with patent law, but the traditional discussion about it is whether it actually reflects these supposed values. Consider the major innovations of our time. Did patents play any role? As far as I can see, the best innovations spread quickly beyond the inventors (touch screens and gestures), and the remaining patentable details turned out to be either trivial details (eg icon placement on a home screen) or regulatory capture (see: codecs). It just seems like patents were invented for an entirely different type of innovation than occurs now in software.
      - ergothus 8y ago
        It's an extremely hard to thing to study, however, because the normal way to measure "innovation" is literally to count patents, making it extremely difficult to compare patents vs innovation.
  - Sangermaine 8y ago
    >That benefits THEM...how does it benefit the world? You may be surprised to learn that these companies do not at all care what benefits the world.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      Not at all - and I don't really care about them in this case, I'm more wondering what precedent was set for the world BY this case. (not just the ruling, but the entire proceeding). Let me amend: I _should_ not be surprised at corporate indifference, but I'll admit I'm nonetheless surprised more often than I should be.
  - simonh 8y ago
    There are few things that benefit everyone all the time. If we eliminated everything that only benefits a few people at any given time, what kind of world do you think we’d end up,with?
    - ergothus 8y ago
      ...I'm not sure why you have this response. I was asking the question, not suggesting an answer. To answer why I'm asking the question: Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't' mean things can't be improved. If this case had near-zero benefit to the world outside of these two companies, and had it never happened not much outside of these two companies would be impacted, then it's a piece of evidence (one piece, not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved are too heavy, no longer useful as a matter of public policy. If, on the other hand, this impacts many companies in a good way, or settles certain legal issues that enables real innovation (as opposed to just locking down licensing requirements that don't spur innovation), then it's a piece of evidence (not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved have actual merit and the protected and expensive fight is regrettable for the cost but not the existence. And of course, on the gripping hand, any number of nuanced levels in the middle, including related issues like "took too long". "issue was important, but settlement leaves outside companies just as confused", etc. Being far too ignorant to have an opinion (as I mentioned in my OP) I was hoping to get some enlightenment, some details, some sources, not hoping for a strawman shutdown. If we did so to every question on the internet, what kind of world do you think we'd end up with?
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    People should carefully consider the IBM PC clone situation before they leap to the defence of things like patents, how much more innovative would IBM have been if it was allowed to hold a virtual lock on business computers, vs the entire PC market?
tooltalk 8y ago
As a consequence of Apple's overwhelming victory, in spite of SCOTUS's recent opinion on design damage award, we are probably going to see a lot of outrageous design patent litigation by a new species of patent trolls in coming months. I had hoped that Samsung would fight Apple's absurd design claims to the end so as not to set any dangerous legal precedence, but it looks like Apple's hometown advantage (ie, judge, jury, POTUS) was a bit too much for Samsung to handle. All in all, it's a huge loss for the tech industry with no benefit. Apple is not immune from potential design litigation, either.
- dep_b 8y ago
  > Apple's absurd design claims If I would put three pieces of black masking tape on the iPhone 3G and Galaxy SII covering the locations of the brands and the home button you would have a really hard time telling them apart. The OS is different but at first glance they don't look very different at all. Packaging had been cloned. The shape of the charger and connector had been cloned.
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    Sure. I'm pretty sure you could also walk into any Bestbuy with just one piece of black masking tape and nobody would be able to tell flat panel TVs with thin bazel from one another once the brand gets masked. Further Apple's design was not even new, much less unique. Apple's lawyering helped -- along with Apple's hometown Judge Koh who disallowed prior arts to stand in the court. So your point being? Design patents are for very specific design elements, not the overall impression. Apple did assert trade dress claims (overall impression) against Samsung tablets (and IIRC smartphones), but the appeals court rejected it -- you can't assert trade dress claims on non-ornamental (or functional, obvious) features.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      The TV market is an excellent example of the sort of market you think smartphones are in. Everything you said makes perfect sense and would find consensus here if the context was TV sets. They are not marketed for their design aesthetic, because the audience doesn't care. They look at headline dimensions (screen size, bezel size, thickness), bullet-point features[1], image quality and price. This is not remotely similar to the way the iPhone was marketed. At the time it looked utterly distinctive to all its competitors so Apple used that as the key differentiating feature in its marketing. Samsung released a product that was so aesthetically close it wouldn't pass the masking tape test, certainly not with the iPhone's target audience. It's important to remember that nearly everyone being marketed at had never bought any modern smartphone before, ever, from any brand. [1] This is why Samsung aren't making sets that mimic LG's OLED industrial design—they're making old-school backlit LCDs with the marketing label "QLED".
sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
Well, since we don't know the terms of the settlement, we don't really know. Presumably one team's shareholders are slightly better off, and the other team's are slightly worse off than before, but it's hard to say by how much. In terms of global benefit, it's very hard to say, but humans aren't global optimizers.
- mulmen 8y ago
  Is it accepted that negotiation is zero sum?
  - sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
    In the case of adversarial legal disputes? They are rarely economically productive in isolation. Normally it's actually negative-sum.
ComodoHacker 8y ago
IIRC Apple won bans for Samsung devices on US market, which gave them time to catch up with innovations in the next iPhone generations. These innovations were not so easy to copy unlike the whole smartphone concept and "round corners design".
- tooltalk 8y ago
  There were preliminary injunctions on Samsung's tablets that were later overturned. Apple lost all design claims on tablets everywhere, due to the obviousness and prior arts. In the UK where Apple's EU-wide community design claims were handled, Apple was ordered to stop and correct Apple's misleading PR campaign against Samsung. The company continued their crap about Samsung's non-existing infringement and Apple was subsequently sanctioned for defying the court order.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  Samsung also won an ban of Apple imports at the ITC that the Obama administration overturned.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fhood 8y ago

The benefit is precedent. Apple shows that they will do everything they can to enforce their patents, and Samsung shows that they will fight back. Both companies thus lower the chance that someone else will do the same thing.

ergothus 8y ago
That benefits THEM...how does it benefit the world? Were these infractions that threaten the incentive to innovate, or they infractions just because they could call them infractions? If someone else DID do the same thing, would the world be better off or not? IBM is considered an IP failure for allowing the PC-clone market to come into being...even though it is highly unlikely computing would have taken off the way it did otherwise.
- ISL 8y ago
  The notion hinges on the idea that someone or a group of people can invest time and resources into innovation with the understanding that they will get paid if the idea pans out. The arguments for and against this notion are perpetual.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    Backing up: I'm aware of the sides of the "how to spur innovation" argument. I'm asking if, in this set of proceedings, there was any impact OTHER than these two companies establishing that they will vigorously defend their claims AND I'm asking if those claims lie near any areas of interest. For example, the "Dummie's Guide" trade dress cases about yellow or the one-click patent lived at the edges of those spheres, and thus helped define what the edge was. Was this a case that largely only impacts these two companies, or does the matter at hand fall into well-established realms and this was just a matter of legal details? These are questions most journalism does a terrible job of covering, and hunting down legal blogs that also have enough technical knowledge AND aren't biased because patent attorneys tend to fall into the "everything must be protected no matter what" camp is quite an exercise.
  - drb91 8y ago
    I am unfamiliar with patent law, but the traditional discussion about it is whether it actually reflects these supposed values. Consider the major innovations of our time. Did patents play any role? As far as I can see, the best innovations spread quickly beyond the inventors (touch screens and gestures), and the remaining patentable details turned out to be either trivial details (eg icon placement on a home screen) or regulatory capture (see: codecs). It just seems like patents were invented for an entirely different type of innovation than occurs now in software.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      It's an extremely hard to thing to study, however, because the normal way to measure "innovation" is literally to count patents, making it extremely difficult to compare patents vs innovation.
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  >That benefits THEM...how does it benefit the world? You may be surprised to learn that these companies do not at all care what benefits the world.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    Not at all - and I don't really care about them in this case, I'm more wondering what precedent was set for the world BY this case. (not just the ruling, but the entire proceeding). Let me amend: I _should_ not be surprised at corporate indifference, but I'll admit I'm nonetheless surprised more often than I should be.
- simonh 8y ago
  There are few things that benefit everyone all the time. If we eliminated everything that only benefits a few people at any given time, what kind of world do you think we’d end up,with?
  - ergothus 8y ago
    ...I'm not sure why you have this response. I was asking the question, not suggesting an answer. To answer why I'm asking the question: Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't' mean things can't be improved. If this case had near-zero benefit to the world outside of these two companies, and had it never happened not much outside of these two companies would be impacted, then it's a piece of evidence (one piece, not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved are too heavy, no longer useful as a matter of public policy. If, on the other hand, this impacts many companies in a good way, or settles certain legal issues that enables real innovation (as opposed to just locking down licensing requirements that don't spur innovation), then it's a piece of evidence (not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved have actual merit and the protected and expensive fight is regrettable for the cost but not the existence. And of course, on the gripping hand, any number of nuanced levels in the middle, including related issues like "took too long". "issue was important, but settlement leaves outside companies just as confused", etc. Being far too ignorant to have an opinion (as I mentioned in my OP) I was hoping to get some enlightenment, some details, some sources, not hoping for a strawman shutdown. If we did so to every question on the internet, what kind of world do you think we'd end up with?
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  People should carefully consider the IBM PC clone situation before they leap to the defence of things like patents, how much more innovative would IBM have been if it was allowed to hold a virtual lock on business computers, vs the entire PC market?

tooltalk 8y ago

As a consequence of Apple's overwhelming victory, in spite of SCOTUS's recent opinion on design damage award, we are probably going to see a lot of outrageous design patent litigation by a new species of patent trolls in coming months. I had hoped that Samsung would fight Apple's absurd design claims to the end so as not to set any dangerous legal precedence, but it looks like Apple's hometown advantage (ie, judge, jury, POTUS) was a bit too much for Samsung to handle. All in all, it's a huge loss for the tech industry with no benefit. Apple is not immune from potential design litigation, either.

dep_b 8y ago
> Apple's absurd design claims If I would put three pieces of black masking tape on the iPhone 3G and Galaxy SII covering the locations of the brands and the home button you would have a really hard time telling them apart. The OS is different but at first glance they don't look very different at all. Packaging had been cloned. The shape of the charger and connector had been cloned.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  Sure. I'm pretty sure you could also walk into any Bestbuy with just one piece of black masking tape and nobody would be able to tell flat panel TVs with thin bazel from one another once the brand gets masked. Further Apple's design was not even new, much less unique. Apple's lawyering helped -- along with Apple's hometown Judge Koh who disallowed prior arts to stand in the court. So your point being? Design patents are for very specific design elements, not the overall impression. Apple did assert trade dress claims (overall impression) against Samsung tablets (and IIRC smartphones), but the appeals court rejected it -- you can't assert trade dress claims on non-ornamental (or functional, obvious) features.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    The TV market is an excellent example of the sort of market you think smartphones are in. Everything you said makes perfect sense and would find consensus here if the context was TV sets. They are not marketed for their design aesthetic, because the audience doesn't care. They look at headline dimensions (screen size, bezel size, thickness), bullet-point features[1], image quality and price. This is not remotely similar to the way the iPhone was marketed. At the time it looked utterly distinctive to all its competitors so Apple used that as the key differentiating feature in its marketing. Samsung released a product that was so aesthetically close it wouldn't pass the masking tape test, certainly not with the iPhone's target audience. It's important to remember that nearly everyone being marketed at had never bought any modern smartphone before, ever, from any brand. [1] This is why Samsung aren't making sets that mimic LG's OLED industrial design—they're making old-school backlit LCDs with the marketing label "QLED".

sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago

Well, since we don't know the terms of the settlement, we don't really know. Presumably one team's shareholders are slightly better off, and the other team's are slightly worse off than before, but it's hard to say by how much. In terms of global benefit, it's very hard to say, but humans aren't global optimizers.

mulmen 8y ago
Is it accepted that negotiation is zero sum?
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
  In the case of adversarial legal disputes? They are rarely economically productive in isolation. Normally it's actually negative-sum.

ComodoHacker 8y ago

IIRC Apple won bans for Samsung devices on US market, which gave them time to catch up with innovations in the next iPhone generations. These innovations were not so easy to copy unlike the whole smartphone concept and "round corners design".

tooltalk 8y ago
There were preliminary injunctions on Samsung's tablets that were later overturned. Apple lost all design claims on tablets everywhere, due to the obviousness and prior arts. In the UK where Apple's EU-wide community design claims were handled, Apple was ordered to stop and correct Apple's misleading PR campaign against Samsung. The company continued their crap about Samsung's non-existing infringement and Apple was subsequently sanctioned for defying the court order.
sangnoir 8y ago
Samsung also won an ban of Apple imports at the ITC that the Obama administration overturned.