14 ms·
Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes
- aaronbrethorst 14y agoFrom: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ "No across the board. Not a single [patent] proven invalid by Samsung." that's big. edit: "Damages from Apple to Samsung: zero." (edit2: oops, dumb typo)
- JoshTriplett 14y agoThe words "proven invalid" seem like a nice summary of what's so broken about this situation.
- tzs 14y agoHow so? Issued patents have already undergone an examination by a patent examiner, who found that the patent met the statutory requirements for validity, so it seems reasonable to me that someone wishing to overturn that decision should bear the burden of proof.
- mbell 14y agoYou have far more confidence in patent examiners than I do.
- btilly 14y agoPatent examiners do NOT conduct a very thorough review. The attitude is that it is better to get the patent out (for which they get paid) and let the courts sort out the bad ones. On this point I've been informed by patent lawyers that at trial something like 2/3 of patents will be found to be invalid. The problem is that nobody knows ahead of time which of those patents will be found to be invalid.
- veyron 14y agoI have a few friends working as examiners for the USPTO. The review is more thorough than you make it sound. The problem is that the procedures drive examiners to err on the side of approving the patent. If the patent is rejected, a lawyer can appeal and the SPEs get involved. In the appeal, it takes much more evidence from the examiner to demonstrate that the patent is invalid.
- gtirloni 14y agoThe USPTO is dumping shit on the judicial system and they are taking it. We're hoping they won't take that for very long but I doubt it. Courts will keep doing what they do, apply the law, even if the law sucks. Perhaps when the system is clogged and companies can't release a product without wasting lots of money going over useless patents.. then we'll see some change.
- josephlord 14y agoConceptually this has to be right. It would be better for everyone if it was clear that with occasional exceptions you could assume granted patents were valid. Unfortunately the examination process doesn't seem rigorous enough for this to be the case. This is where greater effort and strictness should be applied.
- manaskarekar 14y ago.. pile of poop? I haven't followed the case closely and leaving aside whether or not Samsung copied from Apple, we just all lost. Were there not a few prior art arguments and all that? Samsung couldn't invalidate any of those?! This is depressing.
- aaronbrethorst 14y agoDespite being an AAPL shareholder, I agree 100%.
- bane 14y agoIt's sickening. This case may significantly raise the bar for invalidating nonsense software patents in the future.
- alecdibble 14y agoPatent reform will most likely have to come out of the legislative process, not the judicial branch.
- r00fus 14y agoConsidering both parties are big whores to the corporate patent lobby, legislative process will likely only change things for the worse.
- scott_meade 14y agoDon't you mean $1.051 Billion?
- aaronbrethorst 14y agoI had the whole thing reversed. Thanks for pointing it out :)
- lubos 14y agoI was shocked to learn this case is basically being decided by people who have no idea what they are really deciding on. Here is the jury according to techcrunch 1. An electrical engineer 2. A homemaker 3. A construction worker 4. A young unemployed man who likes video games 5. An insurance agent 6. An ex-Navy avionics technician 7. A store operations manager for a cycling retailer 8. A project manager for wireless carrier AT&T 9. A benefits and payroll manager who works with startups http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/21/apple-samsung/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/21/apple-samsung/ Only in America?? And how many of those people are biased because they just love Steve Jobs and Apple products. I know for sure, my mom loves her Mac and she wouldn't think twice who is right and who is wrong in this case.
- barista 14y agoRepresentative of the general public in US. Won't you say?
- davej 14y agoYes. The argument being that for a highly technical issue it should be decided by a panel of experts, not the general public.
- taligent 14y agoExcept that it's NOT a highly technical issue. It's mainly a trade dress and UI look & feel issue. So the general public are absolutely the right people.
- barista 14y agoIt feels good when the judgments reflect what is a common sense to a reasonable person. Glad the common sense prevailed here. It was obvious that the android devices were copied from iPhones.
- gsibble 14y agoI think that's what's so frustrating to me as an engineer. Samsung's technology patents were clearly violated, but did not win in court. Why? Perhaps because they aren't common sense. They are complex and intricate. THAT is what patents should be about. Not common sense.
- taligent 14y agoI take it you couldn't be bothered to understand the case. Samsung lost its counterclaims due to patent exhaustion which common sense suggests they deserved to lose. You can thank Intel for siding with Apple on this one.
- mratzloff 14y agoThis is my understanding of events: Samsung had a contract with Qualcomm that said they wouldn't sue Qualcomm or, critically, any of its customers over use of the 3G patents. Apple bought chips from Qualcomm. Samsung wanted ammunition to countersue Apple over its patent claims, so they rescinded the contract with Qualcomm. Apple then approached Samsung offering to pay a fair and reasonable amount for a license. Samsung thought they should pay much more. Apple disagreed and continued to use the chips, which was their sole violation as far as I can tell. The Dutch ruling basically forced Samsung to accept fair and reasonable licensing fees from Apple, and the US court today said Samsung was infringing on many of Apple's design patents. If I'm wrong, please correct where I'm wrong, but I don't understand how you are letting Samsung off the hook. Design patents are not necessarily common sense, just as hardware design is not necessarily "complex and intricate" to someone familiar with hardware design. Patents don't need to be complex and intricate. They simply need to be non-obvious, useful, original, and not on the list of things that aren't patentable (music, literature, etc.).
- 14y ago
- lazyoaf 14y agoThis isn't right.... This is a terrible day for fair competition.
- gridspy 14y agoAre you saying that Patents prevent fair competition? Isn't that the point of patents?
- lazyoaf 14y agoThe fact that patents can often be used on common sense or logical shapes, colours or materials in goods is just silly!
- veemjeem 14y agoPerhaps copyright is better used here, but it's still a fine distinction. Perhaps there were reasons beyond that shapes that required patent filing over copyright. Apple is an easy company to hate due to their bullish & secretive nature, but Samsung has a history of copying other company's products to gain marketshare. We hate those thieves in china who copy other startups pixel for pixel, but it's okay when Samsung does it? http://www.techinasia.com/chinese-net-user-steals-game-engine-sells-price-hosts-silent/ http://www.techinasia.com/chinese-net-user-steals-game-engin...
- Jare 14y agoNo, that's not the point of patents, but unfortunately, the point of patents was kidnapped long ago, and now I feel like someone just threw the key into the ocean.
- Karunamon 14y ago>Are you saying that Patents prevent fair competition? Absolutely and unquestionably. I've seem them more used recently to bully and to harass by companies who'd rather litigate than innovate.
- 14y ago
- programminggeek 14y agoThis is both unsurprising and somewhat meaningless as there will be an appeals process that will last for months and possibly years. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Samsung made their products to look like Apple products. They changed their icon styles and other UI elements away from Android standards to match the Apple style. Some of the things Apple invented and patented on like pinch to zoom and so on Samsung used or copied via Android and or their own UI skin on top of Android. You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone. Samsung is much closer with the Galaxy S3, too bad they are still cranking out iPad clones with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the like.
- paranoiacblack 14y ago> You just have to look at Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 or Web OS or Blackberry to realize that you don't have to copy Apple to make a good or great smartphone. Ok sure, but why did you cite a bunch of bad smartphones to validate your point?
- untog 14y agoSmartphones != OS Have you ever used Windows Phone or WebOS? I assure you, they are not 'bad'.
- paranoiacblack 14y agoOk, but AndroidOS didn't copy iOS for mobile so that's not what we're talking about. If we're talking about OSes only, then I agree, there's nothing wrong with either of those phones or really the blackberry themselves. They all have functionalities that fit different userbases. Similarly, neither of these OSes are absolutely 'better' than one another in that context. Obviously, the point of contention here is with the design of the phones themselves, and how similar they look and feel to consumers. In that argument, the phones that have supported WebOS, Blackberry, and the WindowsOS have a lower quality overall, and I like WebOS. I'm talking about hardware, durability, and application ecosystem. This is my claim that smartphones of these types are 'bad'. The iPhone and Android would not be as popular if they were similar to the older Blackberry phones.
- aaronbrethorst 14y agodamages: 1.051 billion dollars. WOW. http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/
- jballanc 14y agoAnd yet, that's essentially a rounding error on Apple's bank account balance...
- aaronbrethorst 14y agoTotally, but not for Samsung. That's almost 10% of their net profit last year. This is going to scare the shit out of every Android handset maker out there.
- enraged_camel 14y agoWhich in my opinion is a good thing. Everyone should think twice before blatantly imitating the result of other people's investments and hard work. Edit: the downvotes do not surprise me. HN has a very anti-Apple slant.
- frewsxcv 14y agoEveryone should think twice before blatantly imitating the result of other people's investments and hard work. Kind of sounds like what Apple does as well. I'm reminded of: http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.ht...
- wutbrodo 14y ago....are you reading the same HN I am?
- r00fus 14y agoIf you think your downvotes are due to an anti-apple bias, you might want to reword your banal dismissal into meaningful critique of the situation. If HN has a bias, it's towards Apple (which is completely understandable given the state of mobile adoption by startups).
- alberich 14y agoAmerican patent system is weird. Why is it fair for someone to patent "what" you do, what should be fair to patent is "how" you make this thing viable (e.g. the algorithms used, or something like that)? As long as you don't use the mechanisms of your competition, you should be allowed to mimic the features present on other competitors' devices. Considering this, it seems clear that Samsung would lose the dispute anyway.
- jcdavis 14y ago> you should be allowed to mimic the features present on other competitors' devices. To play the devil's advocate (as someone who hasn't taken a position on this ruling, but hates software patents in general): Why? Apple appears to have spent a lot of time and effort on small details. Why does Samsung get to just copy that with far less time and effort invested? With design, the "how" is a crapton of iteration and careful thought. There may or may not be prior art in a lot of these examples (don't know enough to say), but where there isn't, why does Samsung automatically get to copy it for free? If these things are so obvious and trivial, why weren't they doing them before?
- alberich 14y agoI agree that Apple should be able to protect what is looks like, not what it works like. Sure this is a point of view (after all, the american patent system didn't come up out of nowhere). I believe that if you let people to patent things like 2-click buy, finger gestures, and stuff like that, you just close the door for competition. You effectively prohibit people of making things like that, because even though you come up with a completely different mechanism to provide the same interactive interface, you have to pay for an abstract idea. Maybe Samsung should be able to copy it (the concept) for free because that is what is called competition. In an ideal scenario, to stay ahead in competition you should continuously come up with new and better ideas. If you competitors suck so badly that they must copy you everytime, you'll stay ahead anyway.
- ahoyhere 14y agoCopying is competition in the same way that, if you want to attract your friend's girlfriend, you should buy copies of your friend's entire wardrobe and dress like your friend, talk like your friend, and walk like your friend.
- danmaz74 14y agoDouble tap to zoom, now, that's real innovation!
- bane 14y agoApple is now officially "innovating" in the same way Microsoft was "innovating" in the 90s...which is to say almost not at all.
- mladenkovacevic 14y agoWhich makes me wonder.. does anyone currently hold or has, at any point in the history of personal computers, held a patent for a double-click of the mouse to activate or execute programs? The double tap to zoom seems very analogous to that.
- therandomguy 14y agoSeems obvious after you see it the first time.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- taligent 14y agoNo. Apple won. Pretty clearly.
- olivercameron 14y ago"It works like magic...far more accurate than any interface ever shipped... multi-finger gestures, and boy have we patented it!" Steve Jobs in 2007[1] 1. https://twitter.com/tconrad/status/239136435603652609 https://twitter.com/tconrad/status/239136435603652609
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- fsniper 14y agoFrom now on we should call rotary dial phones the new Apple free smartphones.
- logical42 14y agogoodbye innovation
- ChuckMcM 14y agoIf nothing else, the fallout will be interesting to watch. The tablets didn't infringe though. Found that an interesting bit, just the phones.
- shreyansj 14y agoYeah, although the Samsung tablets did got banned in EU by a German court.
- sriramk 14y agoIf you're a startup and even if you're philosophically opposed to software patents, think about hiring a good IP law firm and filing for your core IP. What these trials and massive licensing deals are showing that patents could make a world of difference to your options as a tech company.
- jfb 14y agoI've been kicking around a business idea related to patent licensing for small companies -- acting as a market maker for companies to offer their patents for license for a fixed price and term. I'm no great fan of the way the IP laws work in the US, but I don't perceive much real noise for change from the people who have the ability to do so, so might as well provide a sane service to minimize the chances of some poor dumb bastard getting sued out of her shorts for unknowingly infringing on some dumb-ass software patent. This decision is mostly just ammo for the pro- side of my brain.
- shawnee_ 14y agoIf Lucy Koh is so intent on protecting the singularity of one corporate interest over what is so obviously good for the general public, she should not be a Federal District Judge. She should still be in private practice. We need Federal District Judges who are willing to work for the good of consumers, which involves protecting a market where competition can thrive. Consumers benefit when there is more than one separate branch iterating outward and improving something very basic. A lightweight touchscreen rectangle is about as basic as it gets. If Apple was a tire company, Lucy Koh just gave it the unearned "right" to patent every kind of tire tread imaginable. [EDIT] -- Yes, I realize the decision was made by a jury. Firstly: The original case presented to her was a puff of smoke which should never have gone to trial in the first place. Secondly: Fast-tracking this case helped Apple (which had pre-prepared its mountain of baloney paperwork) and very much hurt Samsung (which understandably probably didn't have enough time to scramble and dispute every instance of baloney in the mountain of paperwork). Thirdly: Koh diallowed a key testimony: http://www.droiddog.com/android-blog/2012/08/judge-lucy-koh-bans-key-samsung-designer-from-testifying-in-apple-vs-samsung-case/ http://www.droiddog.com/android-blog/2012/08/judge-lucy-koh-... which would have helped the jury make a more informed decision.
- nikic 14y agoI don't think that this is the judges fault. The law (at least to some degree) dictates the decision. If that decision is not good for the general public, then it is the law that needs change. (And we all agree that it does.)
- enraged_camel 14y agoExactly. The sad thing is that many people will ignorantly blame the judge for this decision. Whereas the fact of the matter is that she simply presided over the trial.
- angryasian 14y agoshe did make many decisions through out the trial as to what was admissible and not admissible , so she did effect the outcome.
- Maascamp 14y agoNo matter how you cut it, this whole trial was a loss for technology.
- sriramk 14y agoThe big winner, apart from Apple, is Microsoft. If you're a hardware manufacturer, your choices are 1. You go with Android and have both Apple and Microsoft come after you. 2. You go with Windows Phone. I suspect the Windows Phone team is breaking open some champagne now.
- slantyyz 14y agoOr, 3. License RIM's OS, if it ever comes out 4. Boot to Gecko 5. OpenWebOS?
- sriramk 14y agoAny of those are atleast a couple of years away from becoming realistic. Windows Phone has an app ecosystem today, the muscle/deep pockets of MSFT behind it and frankly, it's a pretty good OS. It's a slam dunk at the moment.
- CubicleNinjas 14y agoAfter the Surface Tablet's debut and their incestious connection with Nokia, I don't think any hardware manufacturer is realistically looking at Windows Phone.
- azakai 14y agoNo, you can also make an Android phone. You just need to avoid infringing these specific patents either by removing functionality or implementing it in another way. This lawsuit did not find that "Android" helplessly infringes Apple patents in all cases. Just that the combination of Android, Samsung's software modifications to Android, and Samsung hardware, together infringed several very specific Apple patents.
- sriramk 14y agoYou could but who's to say that Apple can't find other patents in their portfolio to come after you with (or MSFT can't extract their Android licensing for you). Apple wants to destroy the Android ecosystem and they're going to take any legal measure possible. With Windows Phone, you're protected from this through MSFT's cross-licensing deal with Apple - Apple even pointed to the Nokia WP phones as an example of being able to do something different.
- kooshball 14y agoHow does the verdict affect Samsung's ability to sell additional phones in the future?
- chairsofter 14y ago"Import ban and threat of further litigation, what's that???"
- w1ntermute 14y agoI don't give two fucks about TouchWiz specific-stuff (in fact, this might encourage Android OEMs to stick with stock Android), but what impact will this have on stock Android? It would really suck to have to depend on 3rd party ROMs for things like pinch to zoom and tap to zoom because Google was forced to remove it from Android.
- Steko 14y agoThis is a good result. Samsung copies for a living like many companies. Much of the copying is legal. Sometimes they push it too far. One smoking gun in this case was the Google told Samsung to change their designs. They didn't. They reaped the benefits in terms of higher sales and now they can reap the bad side of that too. On net it has still been profitable from Samsung. Samsung lost but it hasn't been shut down or anything. In fact Apple is paying Nokia much more then Samsung will end up paying Apple. People crying that the sky is falling have missed this reality. No damages for the overbroad ipad design patent. This seems like a good result as much of the complaining seemed to be about the "rectangle patent" people thought Apple had. I think the EU Registered Design for the iPad is much more specific and more in line with what people think of as trade dress. Samsung didn't really make any money in the tablet arena anyway.
- veemjeem 14y agoI don't understand the mindset of companies in the eastern hemisphere. I feel like the majority of companies in china / korea thrive by copying other successful company products to survive. It's more blatant in china, but it still happens in korea / japan. I feel like there must be some underlying cultural thing that promotes this kind of behavior -- nobody feels like they're doing the wrong thing.
- mahyarm 14y agoIt's the same reason why entertainment execs like sequels vs original works. Higher chance of a good profit.
- Steko 14y agoPeople that pirate Gucci bags or Rolex watches know there's a law against it but there's lot of rules we take for granted. People that buy the stuff know too. Do we stop watching a YT clip that we know is actual copyright infringement? I'll venture that most of us don't. I suppose most of us rationalize our behavior by saying the laws are excessive. I imagine the people who buy and sell pirate goods do something similar. While copying electronics is more common in Asia it's not like Japan or China or Korea don't innovate or that the West isn't similarly full of copycats (look at the Samwer brothers or the generic products in your supermarket). And that also misses the point that Samsung and other copyists do a lot of good for consumers by copying innovations, pushing prices down. In some industries the people that actually innovate do need some protections so that they can keep making those investments. Much like in actual piracy there's a risk reward element to copying as a business model and I'm sure that's all part of the calculus that Samsung does with their products. Like the factory that breaks environmental or labor laws -- they pay up sometimes but in the end they do it because they still come out ahead.
- aristidb 14y agoI'm confused. How can it be that Apple supposedly infringes _none_ of Samsung's patents?
- taligent 14y agoPatent exhaustion. Qualcomm had a license to Samsung patents which is the component supplier that Apple was using.
- josephlord 14y agoI'm not sure if that was decided. The jury decided the patents were exhausted because Apple's suppliers had already been licensed. (Qualcomm I think). It is the general case that you can't demand two licenses for the same patent in the same product. If the 3G chip has a license then so does the phone it is built into.
- kapitalx 14y agoThis would have been a great case for Jury Nullification and send a message about software patent laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- eikaterine 14y agoYeah, that would have been pretty interesting. I don't know that most of the people on that jury had a strong opinion on the problems with our software patent laws though.
- ojiikun 14y agoYou know those 45% of HN readers that use a Mac? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4422121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4422121 Time to start voting with your $$ against AAPL. They are part of the problem, not part of the innovation.
- aklofas 14y agoAgree. Apple sucks.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jcdavis 14y agoThe real problem are the laws, you can't expect companies to always just "play nice" within the context of those laws.
- veidr 14y agoI try to do this, just because I viscerally dislike Apple specifically and the increasing hegemony of corporations over individuals in general, but it is really hard to stick with because Apple simply makes the best fucking products. I bought a Galaxy Nexus, and it's a lot better than previous Android phones, but it just sucks too much to rely on so I carry two phones. I bought a Nexus 7, which I actually like more than the current iPad, but that is mostly form-factor thing; a 7-inch iPad would relegate the Nexus 7 to the shelf. So I can decide to use these slightly shittier devices and 'punish' Apple, but it doesn't feel worthwhile, because in doing so I also have to punish myself, and Apple isn't the actual underlying problem. In this case, it is the dysfunctional patent system. In another recent case where Apple was the villian, the issue was the diminishment of the rights of individual citizens in favor of protecting the interests of multinational corporations: when Apple actively lobbied to make jailbreaking illegal. That was a case where the actual underlying system was resolved in favor of the good guys (per my worldview, and that of most HN readers I presume). The law of the land was changed, and the problem was solved/averted. Fixing the patent system seems like a herculean task, probably much harder than protecting our legal right to crack shitty DRM and usage restrictions on devices we own, but I think it is still the right place to focus. Apple may be the latest Oracle/SCO/AssholeCorp, but as long as the underlying legal system is completely fucked, even if Apple disappeared there would just be another corporation that came along and started doing the same shit.
- aganek 14y agoJudge rules Samsung owes Apple roughly one 'Instagram' in damages.
- jfb 14y agoWhich is decimal dust to Apple, less so to Samsung. The real value to Apple here is that Samsung was found to be infringing. That's going to mean a much tougher row for Samsung to hoe, even as the appeal is almost certainly being filed as we speak.
- forgottenpaswrd 14y agoSo basically this means that if you are an independent developer and make an app that displays a graph your finger could edit you have to pay Apple for Twenty years!! So this means that appart from the 30% cut of the Apple store, most of your profits go to Apple or MS who are going to dedicate the money to buy more monopolies(patents). Or alternatively the US system(where nobody works anymore, you could only survive in finance, marketing, law or politics) collapses from within and some other country take its place.
- RichardButler 14y agoI wonder if this will actually end up hurting Apple's bottom line in the end. Samsung is one of Apples largest hardware providers and one of the few that can produce screens of sufficient resolution for Apple's retina displays. Wouldn't be surprised if Samsung recoups their loses just by raising their hardware prices.
- wmf 14y agoIf Samsung tried to raise prices for components, Apple would just buy those components somewhere else, causing Samsung's revenue to tank. Just look at what happened to PortalPlayer.
- RichardButler 14y agoSamsung is the only producer of screens that can meet the quality and quantity requirements of apple. I remember hearing they even had problems keeping up with the demand. I seriously doubt Apple could come up with another supplier.
- freditup 14y agoInterestingly, TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/hang-on-a-minute-jurors-awarded-apple-damages-without-finding-infringements/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/hang-on-a-minute-jurors-awa...) reports that some of the damages awarded to Apple were awarded without finding any patent infringements. In other words, the jury's report was quite a bit sloppy (maybe rushed?). Anyway, undoubtedly this will all be appealed, and the case could turn any direction. A personal question - what is the double tap to zoom patent all about? It hardly seems to me, personally that that should be patentable. Just as there's no way, Google should be able to patent something like 'double-click to zoom' on Google Maps.
- chairsofter 14y agoWhat a joke! The jury rushed through this so quickly and uncaringly that there are glaring errors in their verdict. Look at the edit at the bottom of the article: http://briefmobile.com/jury-comes-to-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+briefmobile+%28BriefMobile%29&utm_content=FaceBook http://briefmobile.com/jury-comes-to-verdict-in-apple-vs-sam...
- forensic 14y agowelcome to the legal system. every verdict is rife with errors, committed by judges, lawyers, juries, police, everyone
- ehosca 14y agoand the end of Apple begins....
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- lenkite 14y agoSo lets look at some of the infringing patents that the news articles are quoting... 381 patent: "rubber band" effect where a page "bounces" when a user scrolls to the bottom I personally had written JS bounce-back product picture slide-shows for a shopping cart in 2003/2004 using the horrible browser APIs of that era...wish I had patented that..1 billion..yum. I am quite certain hundreds of people have coded bounce-back animations before even iPhone 1.0. 915 patent: Pinch to Zoom. Isn't this the natural translation of how one drags handlebars in opposite directions in order to zoom-in ? I am quite certain there would be prior art by a lot of CAD software. 163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom". facepalm. Just about everyone does this on the PC using a mouse. How can one even file a patent for this ? D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons" -> The joke of the decade. What has every desktop OS being doing since the 90s ??? This is extremely upsetting. Is this what civilization is coming to ? If things continue this way, the working population of the world will be employed as patent lawyers squabbling all the time in courts.
- rayiner 14y agoYou realize there is more to a patent claim than the heading?
- linuxhansl 14y agoThat's what you get from having lay people (with no training in either software development, UI design, etc) making decisions like this. These patents are quite obviously ridiculous. 381 patent: "rubber band" effect 915 patent: Pinch to Zoom 163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom" D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons" This is supposed to be what sets off iPhones from competition?! W.T.F.? How did we get to this? I can see Dr. Evil saying "One Biiiillion Dollars".
- rayiner 14y agoThis kind of comment is what you get when you have non-lawyers try to interpret patent litigation...
- linuxhansl 14y agoNice. Maybe you want to read this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120824175815101 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120824175815101
- rayiner 14y agoIt's just a summary of the jury's verdict. It doesn't discuss the merits of the claims at all.
- linuxhansl 14y agoSigh... Did you read all the way to "Update 3".
- delllapssuck 14y agoIn the 1990's it was copyright. Now its patent. What next? All Apple does is whine. Even when they are winning. Their internal memo/public statement goes so far as to say "it's not about patents and money". Yes, I do believe you Mr. Cook. It's about a bunch of morally inept emotionally underdeveloped overgrown children. Apple is above "copying". Went they want to cut corners (pun intended) and get to market quickly, they _steal_. Welcome to the IT industry.
- worknhire 14y agoCan this lead to big losses for Samsung in this financial year? What sort of ramifications can this have on the Balance Sheet of Samsung?
- josteink 14y agoToday Apple went down in history as the biggest patent-troll of all time, stiffling innovation and competition like nobody has ever done before. If you are a software-developer you should recognize the fundamental threat which Apple represents to your profession. Boycott Apple if you want to be able to stay in business in the long term future. Throw away your Macbooks, iPhones and iPads. Ditch your iTunes and iTunes account. Get rid of everything Apple. All of it. Be vocal about your code of ethical software conduct and how that prohibits involving anything made by Apple into anything you ever do.
- kenster07 14y agoSamsung and Apple fandom aside, patenting a smartphone UI is patently absurd.