Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2014 00:28 UTC
Legal

An eight-person jury on Friday handed back a mixed verdict in the Apple v. Samsung patent-infringement case.

The jury found Samsung's gadgets infringed Apple's '647 patent, but not the '959 patent or '414 patent. Results were mixed for the '721 patent, with some Samsung devices, such as the Galaxy Nexus, found to infringe, and others not.

The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for the infringement.

Apple wanted more than $2 billion. The verdict is still being read, and the jury has also ruled that Apple infringed on one of Samsung's patents, awarding Samsung $158000 for it.

So, pocket change both ways. A total waste of money, public resources, the jury members' time, and the court system. Well done you, patent system.

Thread beginning with comment 588064
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Nelson
by galvanash on Sat 3rd May 2014 02:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

The point isn't really how much they get awarded, but the perception that surrounds each company moving forward.


I agree, I just think your being a bit myopic about it... The perception that the damages verdict creates is that patents (even Apple's) really aren't worth that much in litigation. $120 million probably doesn't even cover Apple's legal expenses for this trial.

Just saying... The key patent that Samsung was found to be infringing was 5,946,647 - which is a particularly dangerous one imo as it is difficult to work around. But $120 million? Considering the number of phones Samsung sells that is peanuts - it comes out to $2 per phone by Apple's own accounting (they wanted $40).

If the rumors are true most Android makers are paying MSFT more than that for licensing (rumor is $8)... It's kinda sad since the only difference between Apple and MSFT in this case is that MSFT bothered to ask for the money instead of going the litigation route directly.

Sure, everyone hates them for it, and I don't really blame them, but regardless pursuing licensing agreements (using patents as leverage) is more civilized than Apple's usual approach (using patents as nuclear bombs).

Think about that. Microsoft is making MORE money through licensing that Apple is through litigation... So yeah, like them or not patents seem to be a great way to generate licensing revenue - but as a tool to block competition? No working out so great... Even with the $1 billion verdict (assuming it holds up), Microsoft will STILL make ALOT more money over the long haul ($3-4 billion annually and growing...).

While the legal battles drag out over the years MSFT will keep raking in cash. Apple's refusal to license anything to anyone (for the few patents they have that actually have teeth) is costing them $$$ over the long haul. And the clock on their biggest weapon (the 5,946,647 patent) runs out in 2 years...

I'm not hating on Apple either - I'm being serious. I think this whole thing was and is a utter waste of time and money on their part. They are still seeing tremendous market success, and if the best they have is the stupid 647 patent they should just stop bothering. Its not worth their time. Sure, 1 or 2 billion dollars sounds like a huge deal, but considering what it is costing them to get it (assuming it holds up) and the time and energy involved, AND the size of the company they are getting it from (to Samsung 2 billion is a bad bee sting, nothing more) - what is the point? The only rational answer is to try and deter Android growth - and it is absolutely not accomplishing that AT ALL.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by arb1 on Sat 3rd May 2014 04:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
arb1 Member since:
2011-08-19

MS I think was more reasonable on their licensing fee's unlike Apple wants stupid high fee's for their patents but only believes they should pay pennies for anyone Else's patents. They even tried that crap with a judge not to many years back where they said in court "less you find in our favor for 1$ or less per device we won't accept your ruling" not exact quote but pretty much short of it.

Apple is one that is taking the bigger PR hit in all this as since they are the patent aggressor they are ones looking like patent trolls. Throw on top of the fact nothing on the iphone really changed since the 3gs, and with rumor's apple plans to make a 4.7inch and 5.5inch phone they are ones looking like they are coping Samsung.

Edited 2014-05-03 04:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by jackeebleu on Mon 5th May 2014 16:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

While I'm seeing people blast vitriol into the ether about how patents are the devil and how you shouldn't be able to patent obvious things, no one is offering solutions. How does a company recover R&D dollars bringing a new product to market? Should they not be able to compete in the market openly and fairly without a competitor coming in and blatantly copying everything from their design, function and packaging? And if a design, process, or idea was so obvious, why did no one do it?

We've seen Samsung get accused of this exact behavior of infringement in myriad other markets, and unfortunately, this behavior is a part of their DNA. It's just who Samsung is.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by galvanash on Mon 5th May 2014 17:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

While I'm seeing people blast vitriol into the ether about how patents are the devil and how you shouldn't be able to patent obvious things, no one is offering solutions.


The solution is simple - the USPO needs to stop granting patents on obvious things... I personally believe software should not be patentable period - but ignoring that there is still a huge problem with patents being granted for trivialities.

How does a company recover R&D dollars bringing a new product to market? Should they not be able to compete in the market openly and fairly without a competitor coming in and blatantly copying everything from their design, function and packaging? And if a design, process, or idea was so obvious, why did no one do it?


The main patent Samsung was cited for infringing in this case was the "647" patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d...

EVERYONE has done this before... This patent is stupid and trivial - there is nothing remotely inventive about it. Every part of it is cited in prior art with the exception of the last leg of the process (from the abstract):

The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure.


So when all the hard work is done (which is all covered by prior art going back at least 30 years), you map the matched pattern to a set of OS defined actions and make the matched pattern in the data actionable (i.e. you link it to a popup menu).

WTF should that deserve patent protection??? Im sorry, but it is blatantly obvious thing to do...

The slide-to-unlock patent isn't much better. It probably does not have prior art, but who cares - its a triviality. Its a design patent hiding out as a method patent. Apple doesn't care about the method - they care about the design (i.e. how it looks and works as opposed to how it is implemented). Same goes for bounce scroll - its nothing more than visual flare. I think both patents are stupid and it would be more accurate to file them as design patents - but if you consider them valid than yeah, Samsung violated them (and they paid for it in the 1st trial).

My main gripe is the 647 patent - that thing is an atrocity and should have never been granted.

Reply Parent Score: 3