Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Wins $625.5 Million Ruling Over Cover Flow

Posted by Soulskill on from the simple-twist-of-fate dept.

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."

92 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Trying not to be cynical by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Pretty thin article.

    So what does "failing to lay a solid foundation" mean for overall patent suits in Texas?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Trying not to be cynical by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . . . Of money. A solid foundation of money.

    2. Re:Trying not to be cynical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      . . . Of money. A solid foundation of money.

      Truth perfectly expressed, friend.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Trying not to be cynical by ari_j · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing. I haven't read the decision, but it sounds like Mirror Worlds obtained a jury verdict against Apple for $625.5 million. A jury verdict is worth nothing until the judge orders that the clerk enter judgment according to it. In the American legal system, a jury can decide facts but the judge rules on the law. A jury's finding of fact is generally unassailable unless there was basically no evidence in support of that fact. It sometimes happens that a jury will reach a verdict and then the lawyers will argue whether the verdict was supported by competent evidence. If it was not, then the verdict will not stand. It does not take much evidence to allow a jury verdict to stand - even circumstantial evidence standing alone can be enough - but it takes some.

      In other words, what happened here was that Mirror Worlds had lazy or stupid lawyers who failed to present evidence on all of the facts they had to prove to the jury, so even though the jury came back with a verdict in their favor the verdict is of no value. They can appeal the judge's ruling and ask the appellate court to reverse his decision and order judgment on the jury verdict, but they will have to point the appellate court to specific evidence in the trial transcript and exhibits that supports each and every element of their claims. If they couldn't point the trial judge to that evidence after he had sat through the whole trial, it is unlikely they will be able to show it to the appellate court - if they are even allowed to, since you generally cannot raise an issue on appeal that you never raised in the court you are appealing from.

      There is likely no precedential value of this judge's decision beyond this one case, except that Mirror Worlds' lawyers will work harder in the future at their new jobs.

    4. Re:Trying not to be cynical by wynler · · Score: 1

      Actually in Georgia, the Jury determines the facts and the law.  But only for criminal cases.

      Article 1 Section 1 Paragraph XI A
      http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/GAConstitution.pdf

    5. Re:Trying not to be cynical by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      In other words, that's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    6. Re:Trying not to be cynical by ari_j · · Score: 1

      The wording there is that the jury are the "judges of the law and the facts." That doesn't necessarily mean that they determine the law, but possibly only that they apply the law to the facts. That is the normal way of doing it, although I do not know whether Georgia has addressed which of these (normal or abnormal) the state constitution actually means.

  2. So ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    Is this a step in the right direction or will this (and others) keep aiming for the SCOTUS?

    1. Re:So ... by lorenlal · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't call it a step in the right direction necessarily. It's nice to see a troll get what it deserves (i.e. nothing), but this does point out that to overturn a patent, you have to have resources to do so. Which means the big players are going to have to lead the charge.

      Plus, those same leaders have to be willing to not enforce the patents that they have with the same tactics. Last I checked, Apple seems pretty willing to defend its patents.

    2. Re:So ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it's a step in the wrong direction. The precedent[1] set by this is that companies with a lot of lawyers are probably safe from patent trolls. Apple gets to keep being a cheerleader for software patents and to keep enforcing their software patents against other companies.

      The best outcome would have been for this to have stood up. $625.5m is not a small amount of money, even to a company like Apple. A few more of these, and the patent system starts to be seen as a liability for big companies, rather than as a mechanism from keeping out smaller competition from entering the market.

      [1] not in the legal sense

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:So ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      $625.5m is not a small amount of money, even to a company like Apple

      It's a rounding error in their cash pile of ~$60B.
      It's ~2.5 days of revenue. ($25B/90 days)
      It's about 1 hour of trading in AAPL shares.

      It's a small amount of money to Apple.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:So ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      2.5 days of revenue for Apple is about two weeks worth of profit, with their posted margins. That's a nontrivial amount. It doesn't take many of those in a year for patent lawsuits to become their biggest expense.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:So ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It's a small amount of money to Apple.

      So: because it is a small amount of money (according to your calculation) you would have preferred an unjust ruling over a just one?
      Sorry, I don't really get why Apple should suffer from a patent troll, just because Apple is successful at the market.

      Best Regards

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:So ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I never said, intimated or hinted that I wanted the ruling going the other way.

      Merely pointed out that $625M was not a lot to Apple. And perhaps intimated that only the big boys can play this game.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  3. Re:Conclusion by schmidt349 · · Score: 1

    Clearly you've never been to a bar in New Haven, or you'd know that's the rule rather than the exception.

  4. Re:Since I don't ever use Apple products... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    This doesn't mean shit to me.

    Reigning in the lunacy surrounding software patents appeals to most /. readers. It's comforting to know that some are so narrow minded they cannot see how this eventually affects most end users and not just a single manufacturer.

  5. I still don't understand who won. by chemicaldave · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Apple doesn't have to pay punitive damages, but the court still upheld the patents.

    Though Gelertner’s patents were upheld by the court, Judge Davis threw out the $625.5 million damage award and closed the case in Apple’s favor.

    Isn't this like saying "Apple infringed on your patents, but they won't have to pay anything. Have a nice day."

    1. Re:I still don't understand who won. by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though Gelertner’s patents were upheld by the court, Judge Davis threw out the $625.5 million damage award and closed the case in Apple’s favor.

      Isn't this like saying "Apple infringed on your patents, but they won't have to pay anything. Have a nice day."

      "You have successfully convinced me you have a nice patent. You have not convinced me it has anything whatsoever to do with Apple, or VLM at /., or chemicaldave at /. or pretty much anything else"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I still don't understand who won. by varmittang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.

      Apple didn't infringe the patents, so the patents are fine and not invalidated, and continue to sue others. But, the patents just don't apply to what Apple has done, so Apple doesn't need to pay a fine for not infringing on the patents.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    3. Re:I still don't understand who won. by anegg · · Score: 2

      Although I haven't seen the details of this particular case, I don't think your conclusion is the only possible one.

      My conclusion was that Judge Davis thought "You have valid patents, but you have not shown that the technology that Apple is using infringes on those patents. Have a nice day."

    4. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2, Informative

      What happened here is a Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict[tm], aka JNOV. It's not an appeal and it's not often used. Its reasoning is as follows (no, I'm not putting a cynical bent on it): no reasonable jury could have made that verdict, therefore the jury is unreasonable, therefore its finding is invalid, therefore I shall override its verdict.

      Put another way, the judge probably has a stack of Mac Pros sitting outside his office right now.

    5. Re:I still don't understand who won. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Maybe that means the patents are valid but Apple isn't infringing on them.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:I still don't understand who won. by mrxak · · Score: 1

      It's going to be hard to sue others after this though. Certainly for anything like Cover Flow.

      --
      -mrxak
      Onions Will Kill You
    7. Re:I still don't understand who won. by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      That's logical. Glad to see a judge with some sense.

    8. Re:I still don't understand who won. by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      I haven't RTFA but I would guess that the judge was ruling that the patents are valid and still stand, but that Apple didn't infringe upon them.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    9. Re:I still don't understand who won. by ferhatx19 · · Score: 1

      thanx for says

    10. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Well he thought so the second time he had to think about it any way, he denied a judgement as matter of law just before the verdict, wonder what changed in the mean time.

    11. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2

      From TFA: "A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, today said Apple didn't infringe a patent owned by Mirror Worlds LLC and closed the case in Apple's favor."

    12. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Vectormatic · · Score: 2

      right, so even though the jury is supposed to call guilty/not guilty, here the judge basically did a "LALALALALALALALALAA cant hear you!!" and got an invite to the black turtleneck club?

      Man, i should have studied law instead of engineering

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    13. Re:I still don't understand who won. by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Man, i should have studied law instead of engineering

      They say a law degree is easier then an engineering degree. It may not be too late.

    14. Re:I still don't understand who won. by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      The jury on Oct. 1 said Apple was infringing three patents and awarded damages of $208.5 million for each patent. Apple had argued in court papers that the amount was too high and that it was improper to add the damages. Davis agreed, saying “the evidentiary record is insufficient to support the jury’s damage awards” even if the infringement finding had been upheld.

      So, basically, the Judge felt that the fine was too high and threw the fine out. Apple was found guilty of infringing on said patent. Apple did not have to pay a fine.

    15. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      i think my ethics class ruined me for any possible law career though

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    16. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Lawyers take ethics as well.
      It is your humanity that will not allow you to become a lawyer.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    17. Re:I still don't understand who won. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      If ethical people don't decide to become lawyers, how will we ever have more ethical lawyers?

    18. Re:I still don't understand who won. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No uncorrupt judge could have made that verdict, therefore the judge is corrupt, therefore his findings are invalid.

      FTFY. Why should we give any more credence to you, than you gave to the judge for using the same line of argument?

      If the lawyer failed to make a solid case, but the jury were impressed, then the judge should step in as a course of duty. Sometimes proof differs from conviction, and arguments that impress a jury may be, in fact, riddled with holes. Say, for example, you were accused of paedophellia, and the prosecutor simply screemed at the jury rhetorical questions like, "Do you want a man like this near your kids?", or "How can we be sure he isn't going to rape your daughter?", and the jury convicted you on these grounds alone, would you not prefer that the judge point out that no case has been established?

      As a final point (although at this point it's probably useless given the apparent void of any critical thought here on /. regarding accusations of corruption of people in positions of perceived power), why would a judge risk a stable, well-paying job, his freedom, and his legacy, for a few mac pros? I mean, his decision will be published, and it is witnessed by several parties in the court at the time. If there was no substantiating evidence for the validity of his opinion, such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone (with sufficient knowledge) who reads the decision. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the judge would do anything so overt as to throw the decision to apple for anything less than extremely substantial material gain (more than a few mac pros, or a few hundred thousand dollars), and it seems unlikely for apple to attempt such a bribery at such a steep going rate.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    19. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      If the lawyer failed to make a solid case, but the jury were impressed, then the judge should step in as a course of duty.

      The judge is welcome to direct the jury during the case, yes. Anyone found guilty or losing a civil case is also welcome to appeal. A JNOV is neither. A JNOV is a judge being persuaded to change his mind, deciding after the finding that the jury should have been directed, but without the requirement for the party previously judged against to present a proper appeal to a better authority. It's essentially a way of fudging the system by making a ruling at a particular level non-binding.

      Sometimes proof differs from conviction, and arguments that impress a jury may be, in fact, riddled with holes.

      This is the purpose of directing a jury. In the event that a jury is directed to give a not guilty verdict and gives a guilty verdict, a JNOV may be appropriate (but only then). This is not what happened. If the jury is sufficiently swayed and the defence considers that the judge should have directed a not-guilty verdict then something has already gone seriously wrong, and a full appeal is entirely appropriate. Not just a casual changing of mind by the court.

      why would a judge risk a stable, well-paying job, his freedom, and his legacy, for a few mac pros?

      It is unlikely that he would. Any reward would have to be far greater, and you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course, no organisation has ever managed to bribe a judge with the prospect of current or future reward, so I guess I should apologise for making such an insane implication.

      If there was no substantiating evidence for the validity of his opinion, such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone

      We could equally ask: if no reasonable jury could have found Apple liable, why did the first judge not either throw out the case or direct the jury? Such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone.

    20. Re:I still don't understand who won. by chaboud · · Score: 1

      That's the bit that makes this a load of crap (even though I hate patent trolls). They were found to be infringing but the fine was too large. Basically, they won too much. They should have convinced the jury to keep it under $80 mil.

    21. Re:I still don't understand who won. by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Teach ethics to sharks.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    22. Re:I still don't understand who won. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2

      It is unlikely that he would. Any reward would have to be far greater, and you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course, no organisation has ever managed to bribe a judge with the prospect of current or future reward, so I guess I should apologise for making such an insane implication.

      I assure you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I was taking the mac pros to be a metaphor for any type of bribery. But yes, I'm glad you realise that the implication was insane. I've seen many such implications made here on /., and until recently, I assumed the people who made them also saw the implication was insane. Lately, however, I've been much less sure...

      We could equally ask: if no reasonable jury could have found Apple liable, why did the first judge not either throw out the case or direct the jury? Such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone.

      Well, to be clear, I was talking about the case made specifically in that court case. I'm not saying there's no evidence against Apple (on the contrary, I think it's highly probable that there is). However, I think what the judge did (assuming he is honest about the case made having insufficient foundation) was the right thing to do, even if it means that Apple gets off scot-free. You know, the whole issue of justice, protecting the innocent, etc.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  6. Re:Prior art by mrxak · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if I was the judge, I'd have dismissed this case right away.

    --
    -mrxak
    Onions Will Kill You
  7. Re:Prior art by drb226 · · Score: 2

    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]

  8. "Mirror Worlds" by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Dave Gelertner is also famous as one of the UNABOM victims who survived. He originally wrote a book called "Mirror Worlds" that offered a theoretical means to digitally replicate the natural world in a way that would be indistinguishable from the original. After publishing this book he received a mail bomb from the UNABOM (purported to be FBI detainee Ted Kaczynski) which prompted him to stop publishing, remove the book from distribution, and re-write another book under the same title that some consider a complete retraction of the original premise.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:"Mirror Worlds" by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Well that's just sad as shit. :(

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:"Mirror Worlds" by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      "purported to be FBI detainee Ted Kaczynski"

      Oh please. He did it. Knock it off with the lame conspiracy theory bullshit.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  9. Prior art? by david.emery · · Score: 1

    The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)

    This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.

    1. Re:Prior art? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)

      This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.

      Muybridge died in 1904, long before documents were stored and retrieved electronically. As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.

      Besides, the overturning judge ruled the patent valid, somehow, he just wrote off the damages from the infringement.

    2. Re:Prior art? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this "time flow" thing, it seems very buzzy and meaningless.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:Prior art? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Muybridge died in 1904, long before documents were stored and retrieved electronically.

      That's irrelevant; merely replicating a manual process on the computer is not patentable.

      As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.

      The patent was ridiculous even when Gelernter got it 12 years ago; people back then already had many ways of arranging and browsing documents and other content graphically very similar to the way Gelernter attempted to patent.

      The main thing that seems to have changed over the last decade or two is that more and more dumb and inexperienced people have entered the computer industry so that things that seemed to be obvious to anybody "skilled in the art" all of a sudden are mystifying and novel to people like you.

      Besides, the overturning judge ruled the patent valid, somehow, he just wrote off the damages from the infringement.

      He ruled that Apple didn't infringe the patent. In effect, he said that the only way the patent is valid is that it is so narrow that Apple didn't infringe. There are lots of narrow patents like that (exact shape of print cartridges, exact shape of connectors, etc.). They can be valuable, but in this case, they probably aren't.

    4. Re:Prior art? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Have you tried arranging it in a cube?

    5. Re:Prior art? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant; merely replicating a manual process on the computer is not patentable.

      The courts have ruled differently. Patents are about processes. Arranging documents chronologically on a computer takes a different process than arranging them manually.

      he patent was ridiculous even when Gelernter got it 12 years ago; people back then already had many ways of arranging and browsing documents and other content graphically very similar to the way Gelernter attempted to patent.

      That is probably true, but none of the other people patented the idea. I guess if they had published how they were doing it, then prior art might be applicable, but just because they were doing it does not, in and of itself, make it prior art. People were killing mice long before the first mouse trap was patented.

      He ruled that Apple didn't infringe the patent. In effect, he said that the only way the patent is valid is that it is so narrow that Apple didn't infringe. There are lots of narrow patents like that (exact shape of print cartridges, exact shape of connectors, etc.). They can be valuable, but in this case, they probably aren't.

      Actually, he ruled the patent valid and that Apple did not prove it's case against the patent. He further ruled that there also wasn't sufficient evidence presented to determine if the patent was infringed. That is different than ruling Apple didn't infringe.

      The main thing that seems to have changed over the last decade or two is that more and more dumb and inexperienced people have entered the computer industry so that things that seemed to be obvious to anybody "skilled in the art" all of a sudden are mystifying and novel to people like you.

      Ummm, my first computer work was done on a bunch of IBM 360s and DEC PDP12 equipment. Then I did a lot of mainframe work, then microprocessor development and finally was involved with software development for the last 30 years on personal computers. I am quite confident that you have used several of the projects that I was part of the development of (or at least ones derived from those projects). So, how long does somebody have to be in the industry before you consider them experienced?

    6. Re:Prior art? by tepples · · Score: 1

      As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.

      On PCs with a real-time clock, MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 could sort documents by modification date. So "arranging documents in a time flow" has to be specific enough not to cover that.

    7. Re:Prior art? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.

      On PCs with a real-time clock, MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 could sort documents by modification date. So "arranging documents in a time flow" has to be specific enough not to cover that.

      Unfortunately that is not what the actual patent is about. If it was don't you think Microsoft would be suing Apple.

    8. Re:Prior art? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Besides, the overturning judge ruled the patent valid, somehow, he just wrote off the damages from the infringement.

      He ruled the patent valid, but he also ruled that Apple did not infringe.

  10. Re:normal as can be by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    I have to agree, just before the jury verdict (ie. after seeing all the evidence) the judge denied a judgement as a matter of law ... and then turned around and essentially granted it on appeal after the jury verdict. It smells to high heaven.

  11. Re:Prior art by billcopc · · Score: 2

    Then I would like to patent flipping pages... ON A BOAT!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  12. Bad news for the small guy. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Bad news for the small guy. by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Bad news for the small guy. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The jury found that the patent was valid and awarded the case to the patent troll based on the validity of patents. The troll said you're infringing, the defense said it's an invalid patent, the jury didn't see it as an invalid patent and Apple didn't make it's case that they weren't infringing and thus the jury of your retarded peers awarded damages. The judge didn't say the patent wasn't valid he just said it didn't apply to what Apple was doing. There's a lot of patents and a lot of them are invalid but that was not the gist of this case, this case was whether or not Apple infringed on the patent. To get the patent invalidated, another lawsuit would have to be brought against the patent troll.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Bad news for the small guy. by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      This all happened in the same court. This isn't an appeal, it is still the same court case.

      Apple claimed that the jury was wrong when it said the patents were valid; the judge looked at it and said that Apple didn't give convincing evidence that the patents were invalid. They came up with 100s of pages of supposed prior art, but they should have explained _why_ the that was actual prior art. So that part of the jury decision stands.

      Apple also claimed that the jury was wrong when it found that Apple was infringing on those patents. So the judge looked at all the evidence, and he found that the evidence, even if all the evidence against Apple was true and all the evidence for Apple was false, didn't show that Apple was actually infringing. Since it didn't show that Apple was infringing, a reasonable jury could never have made the decision that they made. The judge is not supposed to accept such unreasonable jury decisions, so he decided that Apple did not infringe.

      Lastly, not mentioned here, Apple also complained that the damage calculation was wrong, and the judge agreed with that as well. It doesn't matter anymore because Apple doesn't have to pay any damages.

    4. Re:Bad news for the small guy. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Why do you call this guy a patent troll? From what I read, it was a legitimately filed patent back in 1999. Aren't most patent trolls the ones who purchase portfolios of patents and then use them against other companies?

    5. Re:Bad news for the small guy. by Apotsy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering Apple initially licensed CoverFlow from a "small guy" (and presumably paid them well for it), you could spin this as good news for the small guy. Just sayin'

      --
      Free Hans!
    6. Re:Bad news for the small guy. by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      You must be blinded by anti-Apple hatred.

      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?

      You don't suppose there couldn't be another option? One in which the judge thinks the patent is valid, yet at the same time, doesn't believe that Apple infringed on it?

  13. Re:Conclusion by slashchuck · · Score: 1

    The Yale professor is David Gelerenter.
    He was injured by a bomb sent by the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.

    --
    $sig not found
  14. Re:Since I don't ever use Apple products... by digitig · · Score: 1

    Do you use KDE? The KDE Plasma Cover Switch animation seems to be Cover Flow. I'm not sure how this ruling affects that, but I bet it does.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  15. Some pretty sweet /. conundrums in this one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh so many permutations!

    software patents suck v. big corporations suck

    apple sucks because they have too much power v. software patent squatters suck because they live to get huge awards for doing nothing

    judges suck v. juries are stupid

    ...

  16. Re:Prior art by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Bad title! Apple didn't win 625.5M$ by Stavr0 · · Score: 1

    They've successfully appealed a 625.5M$ judgment against them.

    1. Re:Bad title! Apple didn't win 625.5M$ by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is "Charlie Sheen" winning

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  18. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, today said Apple *didn’t* infringe a patent owned by Mirror Worlds LLC"

  19. Re:Conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He was injured by a bomb sent by the
    Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.

    So what? That gives him a right to be an idiot?

  20. Re:Prior art by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 2

    Or, a simpler example.

    First guy invents and patents a lightbulb.

    Later, second guy invents and patents a durable lightbulb, covered by a shock-resistant coating.

    The second patent isn't invalidated by the prior art of lightbulbs, because the second patent is really about the coating on the lightbulb.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  21. Re:Conclusion by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Lemme think a moment. 625 milion. The lawyers take a cut, expert witnesses want their pay, I have to pay for all the expenses involved in being in court for half of eternity. When everyone is paid off - I might have enough to take the taxi home.

    I'll pass, thank you.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  22. Re:Prior art by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    Can I then patent the act of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket? I mean sure, people screwed old style uncoated lightbulbs into a socket, but they've never screwed in this new kind. It's a totally different invention.

  23. Re:Prior art by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    Can I then patent the act of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket? I mean sure, people screwed old style uncoated lightbulbs into a socket, but they've never screwed in this new kind. It's a totally different invention.

    35 USC 102: "Has the invention been done before?" - Nope. You're fine here.
    35 USC 103: "Even if the invention hasn't been done before, is it a combination of two or more other inventions that create a predictable result?" - Hmm... Screwing in a lightbulb is known. The durable lightbulbs are known. If you combine the two, you get a method of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket. Nope. No patent for you.

  24. Re:Prior art by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

    You could probably patent a coated lightbulb with a different socket.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  25. Project Looking Glass by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Project Looking Glass use a lot of similar techniques? This in particular looks pretty much just like Cover Flow to me. Here's someone else who seems to think the same.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
  26. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The first linked article isn't clear.

    The judge ruled that Apple did not infringe the patent at issue, and the judge also set aside the jury's damages award. The judge upheld the validity of the patent, which likely means that the judge agreed with the jury on invalidity.

    It's somewhat rare for a judge to completely disregard the jury's verdict, especially on a fact-intensive inquiry such as noninfringement. After the jury verdict, Apple most likely filed a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement. This motion requests that the judge set aside the jury's verdict and make his on ruling based on the motion.

    Of course, both sides can still appeal - the patentee might appeal the judges grant of JMOL, and Apple could cross-appeal on invalidity and other issues.

  27. Re:Conclusion by slashchuck · · Score: 1

    Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. was a company based in New Haven, Connecticut, which created software using ideas from the book Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (1992) by Yale professor David Gelernter, who helped found the company and served as chief scientist. The company ceased operations in 2004.

    The troll is Mirror Worlds, LLC of Tyler, Texas (a subsidiary of Plainfield Specialty Holdings I, Inc.) which filed the suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement .

    These trolls buy up patent rights of defunct companies and use them as an excuse to file infringement lawsuits.

    I believe that professor has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

    --
    $sig not found
  28. voter? by mevets · · Score: 1

    Who do you think he would vote for?
    D, R, L, TP, Gr?

    [ hey I just noticed the Tea Party - Toilet Paper link ].

  29. Re:Prior art by tycoex · · Score: 2

    "That's it. The end. Respectfully, your complaint is out of pure ignorance of how patent IS SUPPOSED TO work."

    Fixed that for you.

  30. Re:Prior art by jeti · · Score: 1

    How about Amazons gift purchasing patent? Claims 1 to 34 were thrown out and the first claim that stands is:

    35. A method in a computer system for coordinating delivery of a gift from a gift giver to a recipient, the gift and recipient being specified in a gift order, the method comprising: determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient; when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources other than the gift giver; and when sufficient delivery information can be obtained from the additional information sources so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient, directing the gift to be delivered to the recipient as indicated by the delivery information.

    What could possible be novel besides the "in a computer system" part?

  31. Re:Prior art by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    Yes, but my instructions for screwing in the lightbulb will be on the internet.

  32. Re:Prior art by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    How about Amazons gift purchasing patent? Claims 1 to 34 were thrown out and the first claim that stands is:

    35. A method in a computer system for coordinating delivery of a gift from a gift giver to a recipient, the gift and recipient being specified in a gift order, the method comprising: determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient; when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources other than the gift giver; and when sufficient delivery information can be obtained from the additional information sources so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient, directing the gift to be delivered to the recipient as indicated by the delivery information.

    What could possible be novel besides the "in a computer system" part?

    Actually, it's pretty odd to get delivery information from sources other than the gift giver. Normally, you get a gift order and it's missing something like a destination address, you go back to the gift giver and say "where the hell do you want this thing to go?" Going to a third person seems like a good way to get answers like "uh, you should put it in the back of my car. That's totally it."

  33. Re:Prior art by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    Yes, but my instructions for screwing in the lightbulb will be on the internet.

    35 USC 102: "Has the invention been done before?" - Nope. You're fine here.
    35 USC 103: "Even if the invention hasn't been done before, is it a combination of two or more other inventions that create a predictable result?" - Hmm... Screwing in a lightbulb is known. The durable lightbulbs are known.     Posting instructions on the internet is known. If you combine the three, you get a method of posting instructions on the internet for a method of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket. Nope. No patent for you.

    Happy, now?
    I'm assuming you're trolling at this point, though.

  34. Re:Prior art by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    Yes, I suppose I am. Other than posting what the rules are supposed to be, can you seriously say with a straight face that with tens of thousands of software patents being granted per year, that all of them pass all of the tests? I don't buy it.

  35. Re:Prior art by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Can you find a single patent that was granted because of the words "on a computer", "on a phone" or "on a tablet"?

    No, because the people filing them know that they are filing silly and invalid patents, so they dress them up all pretty-like. "One-click" was called "running a tab" for thousands of years. Couple "running a tab" with "on a computer" and it's somehow novel. They didn't even change the basic premise. You walk into the bar. You talk to the bartender to set up the terms of the tab. Then, you say "I'd like that" and poof, you just bought it according to the terms you'd already agreed to. The exact same thing as one-click. But, get this, "on a computer."

    You can't patent or copyright facts/math. However, when you put "on a computer" at the end, somehow those slip past as well. Number theory resulting in new sorting algorithms was considered unpatentable and uncopyrightable until someone added "on a computer" at the end. Now, something that wasn't IP since IP was invented is now IP. You can patent and copyright math all you want now, even though explicitly disallowed, as long as you work in "on a computer" somewhere in the reasoning for protections.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  36. Re:Prior art by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Great. Then we are in complete agreement. Nearly every software patent is invalid because it's nothing other than the predictable result of other inventions.

    It seems the problem is that when "on a computer" is used, those in the patent office find nothing predictable.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  37. Re:Prior art by chaboud · · Score: 1

    Add: "May be a computer or computing device" and you've got yourself a patent.

  38. Re:Prior art by drb226 · · Score: 1

    I think green-eggs-and ham patents are still up for grabs for the variants: "in a box" and "with a fox", you just needs to "invent" those.

  39. Re:Prior art by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    "That's it. The end. Respectfully, your complaint is out of pure ignorance of how patent law DOESN'T work." - fixed that for you

  40. Re:Prior art by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    Oh yes of course now that you explain it that way it's clear how totally patentable that should be.

  41. Re:Prior art by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    Oh yes of course now that you explain it that way it's clear how totally patentable that should be.

    Glad I could help!