3 ms·

> The Apple v. Samsung and Microsoft v. Motorola cases also recently demonstrated that vague garbage patents are much more useful in court than technological pa

> The Apple v. Samsung and Microsoft v. Motorola cases also recently demonstrated that vague garbage patents are much more useful in court than technological patents. Juries and judges understand them better and are inclined to award hundreds of times more damages. I don't think that I agree with this part especially if you are equating Standards Essential Patents with "technological patents" and all other patents as "vague garbage patents". If that wasn't what you meant I misunderstood. The reason that SEP are worth less (than other valid patents) and not entitled to injunctions is because commitments were entered into by their owners to enable them to be included in the standard. And some SEPs are pretty low grade too and alternative approaches are often only prevented by the standard itself.

WildUtah 13y ago
The reason that SEP are worth less (than other valid patents) and not entitled to injunctions Actually, almost no patents are entitled to injunctions since the eBay decision made courts apply the same standard to patent cases as to other injunction requests, and we all owe many thanks to the Supreme Court for that. some SEPs are pretty low grade too Indeed, the Microsoft v. Motorola patents were particularly lousy. One Motorola patent was on the use of a particular number as a key in an error correcting code. The code itself was prior art but any two devices needed to use the some identical arbitrary key to communicate. It's embarrassing that the PTO allowed that one, but the court is making Microsoft pay for every device shipped now. Fortunately the price is small. The Apple v. Samsung case involved a few Samsung radio channel efficiency patents that the jury found not infringed even though Apple did infringe them. They were probably as invalid as all the utility patents in the case but they failed to be useful probably because they were complicated and juries don't pay much attention to technological patents or discussions of them. Apple's garbage patent about bounce-back was much more effective. Juries can measure that. Now SEP (standards essential) patents are much less useful because judges are not inclined to allow them to be used defensively. And arguably valid patents are slightly more powerful than clearly erroneous ones. But simple garbage patents focused on non-technological UI and superficial means of doing business are much more effective in all litigation than actual technological patents independent of SEP status or validity.
- josephlord 13y ago
  Fair enough, I have seen plenty of comments on here assuming that SEPs are better patents than others but your view seems clearly much more nuanced. I mostly agree with your actual view and did incorrectly interpret the section I quoted. I'm not sure the bounce back patent is inherently garbage (although it may be invalid due to prior art) but that sort of patent is entirely possible to work around. I'm not saying it is great patent but it does strike me as somewhat inventive, novel (AFAIK). I do understand what you mean about the likelihood of juries putting too much weight on what they understand. I'm not aware of the details of the Samsung radio channel efficiency patents but I wonder why Samsung didn't bring them to (or didn't win with them) at the ITC where there isn't a jury. I'm not actually disagreeing here but it would be something ai would want to understand before completely agreeing with you about the lack of value in true technological patents (I'm in a don't know state rather than disagreement at this point).
  - WildUtah 13y ago
    The Obama administration vetoed ITC's Samsung-requested ban on importation of Apple phones last year. That ban depended on SEPs, so perhaps Samsung should start over with some of its other patents. Samsung seems to have unlimited money for American legal fees but little wisdom in spending it so far. It seems quite unlikely, though, that an iconic American company like Apple will ever see an ITC action that really harms its interests sustained. It is especially unlikely to happen in favor of an Asian competitor company, given American trade politics. Apple's ITC bans against Samsung phones don't face similar barriers so far. In any case, since particular phone models are seldom sold for longer than two years and both district court and ITC cases take longer than that, it has almost always been obsolete phones targeted by injunctions. Until the companies get more clever about targeting broad classes of devices, that is some small relief for the industry from the insanity.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      I don't know if the Presidential veto would have been applied if the companies' nationalities had been reversed (I hope it would have been as it was correct). [0] ITC bans include devices that aren't explicitly listed if there is no colourable difference in the infringement. [0] I'm British so nationally neutral.

WildUtah 13y ago

The reason that SEP are worth less (than other valid patents) and not entitled to injunctions Actually, almost no patents are entitled to injunctions since the eBay decision made courts apply the same standard to patent cases as to other injunction requests, and we all owe many thanks to the Supreme Court for that. some SEPs are pretty low grade too Indeed, the Microsoft v. Motorola patents were particularly lousy. One Motorola patent was on the use of a particular number as a key in an error correcting code. The code itself was prior art but any two devices needed to use the some identical arbitrary key to communicate. It's embarrassing that the PTO allowed that one, but the court is making Microsoft pay for every device shipped now. Fortunately the price is small. The Apple v. Samsung case involved a few Samsung radio channel efficiency patents that the jury found not infringed even though Apple did infringe them. They were probably as invalid as all the utility patents in the case but they failed to be useful probably because they were complicated and juries don't pay much attention to technological patents or discussions of them. Apple's garbage patent about bounce-back was much more effective. Juries can measure that. Now SEP (standards essential) patents are much less useful because judges are not inclined to allow them to be used defensively. And arguably valid patents are slightly more powerful than clearly erroneous ones. But simple garbage patents focused on non-technological UI and superficial means of doing business are much more effective in all litigation than actual technological patents independent of SEP status or validity.

josephlord 13y ago
Fair enough, I have seen plenty of comments on here assuming that SEPs are better patents than others but your view seems clearly much more nuanced. I mostly agree with your actual view and did incorrectly interpret the section I quoted. I'm not sure the bounce back patent is inherently garbage (although it may be invalid due to prior art) but that sort of patent is entirely possible to work around. I'm not saying it is great patent but it does strike me as somewhat inventive, novel (AFAIK). I do understand what you mean about the likelihood of juries putting too much weight on what they understand. I'm not aware of the details of the Samsung radio channel efficiency patents but I wonder why Samsung didn't bring them to (or didn't win with them) at the ITC where there isn't a jury. I'm not actually disagreeing here but it would be something ai would want to understand before completely agreeing with you about the lack of value in true technological patents (I'm in a don't know state rather than disagreement at this point).
- WildUtah 13y ago
  The Obama administration vetoed ITC's Samsung-requested ban on importation of Apple phones last year. That ban depended on SEPs, so perhaps Samsung should start over with some of its other patents. Samsung seems to have unlimited money for American legal fees but little wisdom in spending it so far. It seems quite unlikely, though, that an iconic American company like Apple will ever see an ITC action that really harms its interests sustained. It is especially unlikely to happen in favor of an Asian competitor company, given American trade politics. Apple's ITC bans against Samsung phones don't face similar barriers so far. In any case, since particular phone models are seldom sold for longer than two years and both district court and ITC cases take longer than that, it has almost always been obsolete phones targeted by injunctions. Until the companies get more clever about targeting broad classes of devices, that is some small relief for the industry from the insanity.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    I don't know if the Presidential veto would have been applied if the companies' nationalities had been reversed (I hope it would have been as it was correct). [0] ITC bans include devices that aren't explicitly listed if there is no colourable difference in the infringement. [0] I'm British so nationally neutral.