Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins $625.5 Million Ruling Over Cover Flow
An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has reversed a $625.5 million judgement against Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit pertaining to Apple's Cover Flow feature. The lawsuit was filed by Mirror Worlds, a company founded by Yale professor Dave Gelertner. 'Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law,' US District Judge Leonard Davis explained in his decision."
This is bad news for small developers. According to the article, the original patent in question was filed in 1999 and a jury determined that Apple infringed upon it. Then when it was appealed, the judge determined that even though the jury ruled one way, they were wrong. Then he goes on to eliminate the awarded damages, while at the same time stating that original patent was valid.
So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying royalties, So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?
As you note, the judge determined the jury was wrong.
The jury found (i) the patent was valid; (ii) Apple infringed; and (iii) the damages were $625.5M for infringement of the three patents.
The judge said that (i) was correct, but that (ii) and (iii) were wrong as a matter of law.
So, the judge and jury agree that the patent is valid, but the judge disagrees that Apple used the patented technology. Finally, as a matter of law, the damages award should have been $208M at most - you don't get to triple your damages by asserting infringement of three patents in a single suit.
As for sending it back to the lower court, this was the lower court. It can (and since there's at least $208M on the line) and will go to appeal from here.
I could of sworn I saw this kind of thing on CD jukeboxes and when flipping through a book. Maybe I was hallucinating.
Maybe you missed the words "on a computer", which makes it a completely new innovation. "On a phone" and "on a tablet" also make it completely new all over again. I mean, who would've thunk to make something that looks and feels like reality...on a computer/phone/tablet? It's so innovative. [/sarcasm]
Can you find a single patent that was granted because of the words "on a computer", "on a phone" or "on a tablet"?
No. You can't. Those words appear in dependent claims, and are there for the purpose of claim differentiation. The independent claim from which they depend doesn't contain those words, and is still patentable, because it has the key innovation.
The concept of claim differentiation is straightforward - claims can't claim the exact same subject matter... Dependent claims have to be smaller. If the independent claim is a large space on a Venn diagram, each dependent claim is a subset of that space. So, when someone has a dependent claim of "2. The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting is performed on a computer," all that means is that the original claim 1 may apply to things other than computers.
Same concept - if claim 1 includes a network, and claim 2 says "wherein the network is the Internet," that just means that the network in claim 1 could be the Internet, or could be a LAN, VPN, or any other type of network.
That's it. The end. Respectfully, your complaint is out of pure ignorance of how patent law works.