4 ms·

Not at all. Samsung's argument is not that the patent can't be litigated because it's not in use (in fact they state the opposite). They're merely claiming that

by euank 12y ago

Not at all. Samsung's argument is not that the patent can't be litigated because it's not in use (in fact they state the opposite). They're merely claiming that they couldn't have "copied the feature" from the iPhone, as apple claims, if the feature never existed in the iPhone. It's a counter to Apple's statements, not a legal precedent.

mcphage 12y ago
By copying the feature from the iPhone, though, Apple really means copying the feature from their patents. Like, if it's something Apple has on the iPhone, but isn't patented, then it doesn't get any patent protection.
frezik 12y ago
Patents are public documents. The intent of the system is that you have a monopoly on something for a set time, but after that, anybody can make it based on those documents alone. So it doesn't matter if it's in the iPhone or not; it's still patent infringement.
- pedrocr 12y ago
  Presumably Apple's argument was "Samsung saw the iPhone and its success and decided to copy" and not "Samsung is infringing on patent XYZ". The difference between those two arguments probably means a lot in a jury trial. Particularly in this case that already has a history of jurors misleading themselves based on emotional or factually incorrect arguments[1]. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
  - disdev 12y ago
    Those arguments should only affect the damages, not the finding of infringement.
    - pedrocr 12y ago
      Making them particularly important. I'm sure Samsung wouldn't mind a finding of "yes you infringed a few patents but nothing that's actually on the iPhone". How valuable can a patent be if Apple doesn't even use it themselves in their competing product?
  - w1ntermute 12y ago
    But copying the iPhone isn't illegal by itself. It's only illegal if they violated a patent in the process. So why is it necessary to even look at the iPhone? Shouldn't the question be whether Samsung's phones violated Apple's patents?
    - pedrocr 12y ago
      The question should be that but they were arguing for the jury, which if the last verdict is any indication will tend to have a tenuous grasp of what they are deciding on. On the last trial the jury delivered an inconsistent verdict in record time, which it then had to amend, and then the jurors started giving interviews where they basically admitted they went along with the foreman's opinion because he was a patent holder. Even though he totally misrepresented patent law and argued that the prior art wasn't valid because it was from a different type of hardware.
      - w1ntermute 12y ago
        This is one of my big problems with the jury system. Perhaps there should be a hybrid system where a judge (or other disinterested, yet informed, third party) participates in order to ensure that the facts are not distorted.
        pedrocr 12y ago
        I think that's actually what happens in the US. The judge will give particularly detailed instructions (the original trial had a 109 page manual) and the verdict is actually a structured response (which is why they were able to give an inconsistent verdict). The system tries to do this properly but then the jurors are swayed by the emotional arguments and there's not much you can do about it. In this case maybe forcing them to deliberate on individual arguments would help. From the interviews they basically backtracked from "we think they're guilty" to "how do I fill out this damn form", negating the value of the structure that was in place.
    - chrismcb 12y ago
      If Apple is saying "you violated patent XYZ by copying the iPhone" but the iPhone doesn't implement anything to do with patent XYZ, it might be hard to convince a jury that any actual patent infringement happened. Of course reading some of the comments here, few people seem to understand this, so it might be easy to convince a jury.
- warmwaffles 12y ago
  Highly doubt they went and looked at the patent first and thought "Hey this would be a sweet feature on our phone"
  - frezik 12y ago
    Doesn't matter. If you're the first one to get a patent, it's all yours. There's no provision in the law for independent invention.
- vidarh 12y ago
  They make several separate claims. The claim that they couldn't have copied Apple is a counter to claims made by Apple that they saw it necessary to copy the iPhone to compete. Separately they claim that they're not infringing on the patents, and that Google invented the technology in question first.
- Crito 12y ago
  I find these sort of arguments amusing. Engineers are routinely told to never read patents (because this policy is seen to mitigate the risk that any potential future infringement will be considered willful infringement). When engineers are told that they should not read patents under any circumstances, you know the entire system is trash and the premise of it laughable.
disdev 12y ago
Exactly. And I think it's a potentially valid argument (without knowing all the details about the case). But, not knowing about a patent, or saying you didn't copy from a non-existent (or existing) implementation of it, doesn't mean you're not bound by it. Let's say I patent a design for a table, something unique and interesting that's never been done before. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to building it yet, or haven't marketed it publicly. You come around after my patent and build and sell a table that is very similar to my table design... even exactly the same in some respects. Even though you may not have known about my patent, and didn't maliciously copy anything, you would still be infringing upon my patent. Even if you just built the table from someone else's parts. The resolution would be that you either pay me a reasonable license fee, buy the patent, or argue over the validity. For the validity aspect, you either say you had prior art that predates my table design, that some other prior design existed, or that my patent shouldn't have been granted for some other reason. I worked for a company that invented a novel product but didn't patent it. Some other company came around and made the same thing a few years later and patented it. Personally, I think they knew about our product, but that's not important. They were granted the patent and then proceeded to send warning letters to our customers, saying they were the patent holders and might be calling later to collect license fees. Then, they sent something to us saying, hey, we can proceed with collecting from your customers, or you can license it from us directly and it'll cover all your customers. We could have gone to court to have the patent invalidated. We had prior art. But, not knowing what prior art they had, and the generally slow nature of that process, and the risk to our customers, we just paid them. It was an annual fee that wasn't too onerous and made it worth it just to pay it. That is about the trolliest of patent trolling. But, they played their hand perfectly and make a lot of money on that license annually with no real work to get it. Personally, I think software and process patents shouldn't exist.

by euank 12y ago

mcphage 12y ago

By copying the feature from the iPhone, though, Apple really means copying the feature from their patents. Like, if it's something Apple has on the iPhone, but isn't patented, then it doesn't get any patent protection.

frezik 12y ago

Patents are public documents. The intent of the system is that you have a monopoly on something for a set time, but after that, anybody can make it based on those documents alone. So it doesn't matter if it's in the iPhone or not; it's still patent infringement.

pedrocr 12y ago
Presumably Apple's argument was "Samsung saw the iPhone and its success and decided to copy" and not "Samsung is infringing on patent XYZ". The difference between those two arguments probably means a lot in a jury trial. Particularly in this case that already has a history of jurors misleading themselves based on emotional or factually incorrect arguments[1]. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
- disdev 12y ago
  Those arguments should only affect the damages, not the finding of infringement.
  - pedrocr 12y ago
    Making them particularly important. I'm sure Samsung wouldn't mind a finding of "yes you infringed a few patents but nothing that's actually on the iPhone". How valuable can a patent be if Apple doesn't even use it themselves in their competing product?
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  But copying the iPhone isn't illegal by itself. It's only illegal if they violated a patent in the process. So why is it necessary to even look at the iPhone? Shouldn't the question be whether Samsung's phones violated Apple's patents?
  - pedrocr 12y ago
    The question should be that but they were arguing for the jury, which if the last verdict is any indication will tend to have a tenuous grasp of what they are deciding on. On the last trial the jury delivered an inconsistent verdict in record time, which it then had to amend, and then the jurors started giving interviews where they basically admitted they went along with the foreman's opinion because he was a patent holder. Even though he totally misrepresented patent law and argued that the prior art wasn't valid because it was from a different type of hardware.
    - w1ntermute 12y ago
      This is one of my big problems with the jury system. Perhaps there should be a hybrid system where a judge (or other disinterested, yet informed, third party) participates in order to ensure that the facts are not distorted.
      - pedrocr 12y ago
        I think that's actually what happens in the US. The judge will give particularly detailed instructions (the original trial had a 109 page manual) and the verdict is actually a structured response (which is why they were able to give an inconsistent verdict). The system tries to do this properly but then the jurors are swayed by the emotional arguments and there's not much you can do about it. In this case maybe forcing them to deliberate on individual arguments would help. From the interviews they basically backtracked from "we think they're guilty" to "how do I fill out this damn form", negating the value of the structure that was in place.
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    If Apple is saying "you violated patent XYZ by copying the iPhone" but the iPhone doesn't implement anything to do with patent XYZ, it might be hard to convince a jury that any actual patent infringement happened. Of course reading some of the comments here, few people seem to understand this, so it might be easy to convince a jury.
warmwaffles 12y ago
Highly doubt they went and looked at the patent first and thought "Hey this would be a sweet feature on our phone"
- frezik 12y ago
  Doesn't matter. If you're the first one to get a patent, it's all yours. There's no provision in the law for independent invention.
vidarh 12y ago
They make several separate claims. The claim that they couldn't have copied Apple is a counter to claims made by Apple that they saw it necessary to copy the iPhone to compete. Separately they claim that they're not infringing on the patents, and that Google invented the technology in question first.
Crito 12y ago
I find these sort of arguments amusing. Engineers are routinely told to never read patents (because this policy is seen to mitigate the risk that any potential future infringement will be considered willful infringement). When engineers are told that they should not read patents under any circumstances, you know the entire system is trash and the premise of it laughable.

disdev 12y ago

Exactly. And I think it's a potentially valid argument (without knowing all the details about the case). But, not knowing about a patent, or saying you didn't copy from a non-existent (or existing) implementation of it, doesn't mean you're not bound by it. Let's say I patent a design for a table, something unique and interesting that's never been done before. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to building it yet, or haven't marketed it publicly. You come around after my patent and build and sell a table that is very similar to my table design... even exactly the same in some respects. Even though you may not have known about my patent, and didn't maliciously copy anything, you would still be infringing upon my patent. Even if you just built the table from someone else's parts. The resolution would be that you either pay me a reasonable license fee, buy the patent, or argue over the validity. For the validity aspect, you either say you had prior art that predates my table design, that some other prior design existed, or that my patent shouldn't have been granted for some other reason. I worked for a company that invented a novel product but didn't patent it. Some other company came around and made the same thing a few years later and patented it. Personally, I think they knew about our product, but that's not important. They were granted the patent and then proceeded to send warning letters to our customers, saying they were the patent holders and might be calling later to collect license fees. Then, they sent something to us saying, hey, we can proceed with collecting from your customers, or you can license it from us directly and it'll cover all your customers. We could have gone to court to have the patent invalidated. We had prior art. But, not knowing what prior art they had, and the generally slow nature of that process, and the risk to our customers, we just paid them. It was an annual fee that wasn't too onerous and made it worth it just to pay it. That is about the trolliest of patent trolling. But, they played their hand perfectly and make a lot of money on that license annually with no real work to get it. Personally, I think software and process patents shouldn't exist.