8 ms·
U.S. jury orders smartphone maker Samsung to pay Apple $120 million
- 1stop 12y agoWhy is apple suing samsung for software patents? Samsung don't write (much of) the software. EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?
- Zikes 12y agoBecause reasons [1] [1] http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/64028-image/ch-b.png http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/64028-image/ch-b...
- aaronbrethorst 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni....
- IBM 12y agoBecause Samsung is using them in their products and profiting from them.
- bradleyjg 12y agoPatent holder can sue anyone using an infringing product. That's why you sometimes hear about patent trolls threatening to sue mom and pop operations if they have a fax/scan/copier and extorting a settlement.
- wmf 12y agoSamsung sells the final product and profits from it. Since Samsung modifies Android, arguably they could have removed infringing features but they chose not to. I don't know if this argument came up during the case.
- noisy_boy 12y agoBeyond them reacting to the obvious rise of Samsung, there is a side benefit of making other companies using Android think about alternatives, thereby weakening Android's stronghold on the smartphone market.
- WildUtah 12y agoTo infringe a patent, you have to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, or import an infringing product or process. [0] Google writes software that could be used to make such a device but it actually produces very few such devices itself. Apple just might be able to sue over the Nexus line, though I think LG and HTC actually make those, because Google sells them on the Play Store. The damages would be pretty small, though, because the volume is small. Google's export of software is not making, selling, or importing a product [1] and no Android manufacturers make phones in the USA. Samsung actually makes the devices and imports them in vast numbers. Note also that since using the device can be infringement, Apple could sue every user of Android devices in the USA individually also. [0] 35 USC §271 [1] Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
- dirkgently 12y agoBecause "slide-to-unlock" is a cornerstone of technology, the one only Apple would ever think off.
- jessaustin 12y agoI'm sure this verdict will be great for consumers.
- IBM 12y agoSure, maybe Samsung will create a superior implementation to the ones they were found to be infringing and the consumer can benefit from their innovation.
- Gigablah 12y agoYes, maybe a universal search with results arranged in a spiral.
- dirkgently 12y agoBecause "slide-to-unlock" is an innovation.
- Bud 12y agoUh, it is an innovation. You can tell, because even though it seemed obvious and self-evident AFTER the fact, nobody managed to think of it beforehand. That's what fucking innovation looks like.
- malandrew 12y agoYeah, so "obvious after the fact". here's some prior art: http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-photo-100329053-Old-medieval-lock-on-wooden-castle-door.jpg http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-photo-100329053-O... http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/wooden-castle-gate-24387358.jpg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/wooden-castle-gate-24387358.j... http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/gothic-castle-gate-lock-lusoimages.jpg http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/gothi... http://www.artfactory.com/images/Medieval-Door-2219CDJ.jpg http://www.artfactory.com/images/Medieval-Door-2219CDJ.jpg Slide to unlock is as old as doors. The only other obvious alternative to someone skilled in the art of doormaking is rotate to unlock. Honestly only reasonable definition of obvious to use is: "based on the presence/awareness of innovation A, B, C, etc, how likely is it that two or more people are likely to come up with the same innovation simultaneously. The greater the likelihood of two or more people simultaneously arriving at the same solution, the less likely something should be patented.
- sinaa 12y agoLooks like almost all the infringed patents were on the Android side. Didn't Google testify on this case?
- noisy_boy 12y agoThey did - from the article: "Google was not a defendant in the case, but during the trial Samsung pointed out that some of the features Apple claims to own were actually invented by Google, and called a handful of executives from the Internet search giant to testify on its behalf."
- sinaa 12y agoWhich makes me wonder why Google isn't doing a better job at protecting Android. The claims/patents are rather ridiculous, and a win in this case would mean that Apple can bully every Android manufacturer, including LG and their Nexus line!
- funkyy 12y agoI like how Apple is fighting patent trolls while being one. I would love to see insignifgicant tech patents to be limited to max 3 years...
- sjwright 12y agoApple aren't trolling, because they invented and patented ideas that are being used in very real products. Apple is using the patent system exactly as intended; if you object to this, your beef is with the architecture of the patent system, not with Apple. You won't help by creating a new class of "insignificant tech" patent. Who decides what qualifies a patent as insignificant? I prefer the idea someone had of doing away with the time limits altogether, and replacing it with an annual renewal fee that rises exponentially. Let the patent holder decide when the fee exceeds its usefulness. (A similar idea should apply to copyrights. Replace the current Sonny Bono time period with a much shorter length, say 25 years, plus a 25 year time extension when registered for free in a database of copyrighted works, and up to 150 years when registered for a fee.)
- dirkgently 12y agoInvented ideas like "slide-to-unlock" and "rounded corners"? Are those innovations?
- stonemetal 12y agoUp until Apple bought PA semi most of their gear was off the shelf components. Their patents were mostly design patents. So it isn't right to think of them as innovations and more like an odd quirk in trade mark\trade dress law.
- laichzeit0 12y agoI don't remember any phones having a "slide-to-unlock" before the first iPhone. If I remember most top-end phones had crappy resistive screens that required a stylus. How is that not innovation?
- DanBlake 12y agoI wonder how much the legal billing hours on both sides was. Anyways- Putting it in perspective, It will take Samsung a bit more than a day to pay for this verdict (about 29.5 hours of revenue)
- asdfologist 12y agoShouldn't you measure hours of profit, not revenue? If a company has positive revenue but negative profit, then they'll never pay it off.
- noisy_boy 12y agoConsidering we are talking Samsung Electronics here, you can do away with the semantics - their profit was $5.2 billion only in the second quarter of 2013[1]. [1]:http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/27/interesting-number-samsung-now-beats-apple-as-worlds-most-profitable-phone-maker/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/27/interesti...
- omni 12y agoIt's not semantics. If in 29.5 hours I make $119.6 million in revenue by selling $100 million in product, then it's going to take me a lot longer than 29.5 hours to pay off a $119.6 million debt.
- asdfologist 12y agoThat was actually for handsets alone :)
- WildUtah 12y agoThis makes me really miss Groklaw. For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with 1. Daily trial reports on testimony and motions 2. Analysis of the patents involved 3. Descriptions of the legal issues involved and which were in dispute 4. History on the companies and technology involved But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand. Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.
- sinaa 12y agoThis seems to be a list: - 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data - 8,046,721: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (slide to unlock) - 6,847,959: universal search - 8,074,172: Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations (word recommendation/autocomplete) - 7,761,414: Background sync More details here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in-patent.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in...
- nolok 12y agoI know patents are often much more detailed and precise than what their titles may sound like, but that is one crappy list of patents. "universal search", "background sync", beeeuah.
- malandrew 12y agoI sometimes wonder if naming patterns in an intentionally vague way is a strategy to hide them in plain site. There should be some rule that titles should be sufficiently specific.
- sscalia 12y agoI love how absolutely fucking dismissive this community can be about Apple. They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses. They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations. They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here. This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.
- rtx 12y agoOnly they were actually using all the stuff made by Samsung.
- whoismua 12y agoand iPhone is made (assembled) in China by Foxcon. Your point makes no sense, Apple paid Samsung for the parts delivered. Samsung has a long history of waiting what side wins and then cut and paste the winning one.
- sscalia 12y agoDude, what the fuck are you talking about?
- sbuk 12y agoI'm sorry, but I don't see your point.
- chao- 12y agoI would consider myself lucky to fulfill your request and, one day, make something substantial enough that it is worth "ganking". As of yet, I have not achieved such acclaim.
- briandh 12y agoYour comment history is full obvious of pro-Apple, anti-Google, and anti-bitcoin trolling. Like or dislike any of those you please, but can't you find some other way to occupy your time?
- sidcool 12y agoSamsung, in an argument in the court, tried passing the buck to Google, stating that the primary owner of the Android operating system is Google and they are liable for any copyright or patent infringements. There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
- suprgeek 12y ago(Without commenting on who won - Apple for getting some money or Samsung for having to pay far less than anticipated) This is a terrible list of some overbroad Patents: The Autocomplete 172 Patent is considered suspect enough that it is going under a reexam[scribd]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autocomplete-Reexamination-Decision http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autoc... The next few ones are equally horrible: 647 is contentious as well http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-wrench-in-apple-v-samsung/ http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-w... Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.