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 588164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by jackeebleu on Mon 5th May 2014 16:09 UTC 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