Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins Again — ITC Rules They Didn't Violate Samsung Patents
An anonymous reader writes "A preliminary ruling from the International Trade Commission found that Apple did not violate four of Samsung's patents in the design of the iPhone. 'The patents in the complaint are related to 3G wireless technology, the format of data packets for high-speed transmission, and integrating functions like web surfing with mobile phone functions.' The complaint was filed by Samsung in 2011, and a final confirmation is due next January. Apple has similar claims against Samsung awaiting ITC judgment; the preliminary ruling is expected in mid-October."
Or they are actually correct in their assertions of violations.
While one may disagree with the laws, until they are struck down they stand.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It is cowardly to set up an account just to troll. A good troll does not fear alternating between insight and subtle nonsense using the same account.
Domestic company wins.
If this were an American company suing an American company, the ruling would be done around 2020. Then the damages would be minimized when a new government is sworn in.
If i ever get in trouble, I want Apple's lawyers defending me. They can't seem to do wrong.
Seems more like they can do wrong exceptionally well ;-)
It's easy: hate software patents for being weapons of anti-competition rather than protectors of innovation, and hate Apple for using the weapons.
Funny how Slashdot as a whole can miss sarcasm even if it slaps them in the face, hard.
-- Cheers!
The problem with specific patents is they're specific. This is great for innovation, because it means that the patentor can't sue to stop competitors, but it means the patentor can't sue to stop competitors.
As for Apple's patent's validity, you don;t have to like that design patents exist, you don't have to agree with the patent office for issuing them, but you do have to acknowledge that they DO EXIST and they HAVE BEEN ISSUED, which means they can be violated.
Perhaps instead, it could be that there's an inherent bias in being on slashdot, and that apple's case had merit, while samsung's didn't?
Or, as Johnnie Cochran would put it: "If lists bounce, you must denounce!"
With 600B+ market cap, whole market moves every time Apple moves. And with 600B+ market cap everyone expects Apple to grow even bigger. In a world driven by money (and only money) the only possible outcome will be Apple winning on all fronts, regardless of how much harm will it cause to everyone else (including consumers). Looking forward I expect judges mysteriously ruling in favor of Apple dubious patents and punishing competition every time regardless of their arguments. And even if tables turn in this debacle and Apple gets burned for the first time, I see Congress quickly passing a law "fixing it" - basically setting competition in an uphill battle against Apple or even outright graning monopoly on consumer electronics to Apple in some way.
Welcome to crony capitalism.
With 0.3-0.6% of GDP directly attributed to Apple and its basically unlimited funds for lobbying (bribing) politicians, your lovely (US) government cannot afford letting them lose their current market cap - it would harm whole market and trigger an avalanche of failing pension funds (lots of them also heavily invested into Apple itself) which in turn would bite government crooks in their lazy asses. Wall Street crooks also cannot afford Apple bubble popping exactly for the same reasons. Given that the biggest thread to Apple's profit is margin compression caused by maturing smartphone/tablet technology, I bet that both government and wall street will do everything they can to keep competition out of this space, heavily influencing courts, panels and commisions dealing with Apple's cases.
It's getting hard to tell who's who around here.
Hi,nice to meet you. I'm neither a shill nor a fanboy. I'm an ass - I don't expect you'll have any difficulty trouble telling me apart from the others. ;)
In the US court, it was decided that the US company Apple did not violate any of Korean company Samsung's patents. In the Korean court, it was decided that the Korean company Samsung did not violate any of US company Apple's patents.
I wonder if someone had the idea to patent the three dots in menu items to inform users that another selection window will open instead of an action being performed. I mean, if "rubber banding" and "rounded corners" are all patentable, why not other obvious things?
License for the technology doesn't come automatically when purchasing the chips. Infineon might obtain a license to manufacture, but the user of the chip (in this case Apple) must then obtain a license to use it.
The ITC is inherently biased for US companies when it comes to bans. A ban can be rejected if it is deemed to hurt the US economy, so there is almost no way a foreign firm can ever ban a US company's products. In fact, I am not sure this has ever been carried out.
It could also be that ones dislike of Apple can make them just as deluded. I'm not saying one way or the other here, but you see a lot of posts on /. of people blindly bashing apple.. Blindly, I'm sure they don't think that's the case, but none the less, when you can't look at both sides objectively (and honestly, we never get _all_ the details), then of course it's going to seem outrageous.
Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
I mean, how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.
Because some of the Apple design patents were not ambiguous and listed a sufficiently distinctive combination of features to make it clear that Samsung had copied the original iPhone design. Meanwhile, everybody seems to forget that the jury did chuck out the infringement claims in relation to the iPad and the iPhone 4.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Hardware patents perhaps, but personally I don't think software patents have helped in any way to further innovation. They are only a weapon.
So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work? Creating algorithms is one example of a software development activity that is by far not always a trivial. I can see why granting a once-click-shopping patent or a slide-to-unlock patent is just plain dumb, I can also see why people are frustrated by big corporations patenting obvious stuff by the shipload and then using the expense of patent lawsuits as a tool to drive small competitors out of business. All of these are things that are wrong with the current system. However, I also fail to see why a guy developing hardware deserves patent protection but a guy developing software doesn't because that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.
No it doesn't. Unless your legal team and legal budget are bigger than who ever is ripping you off, the current system provides zero effective protection. It has always been a system by the big players (and their lawyers) for the big players.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Perhaps instead, it could be that there's an inherent bias in being on slashdot, and that apple's case had merit, while samsung's didn't?
I think slashdot is so overrun by Google fans and Android fans that the exact opposite seems to be the case. There are lots of cases recently where people have been basly insulted for nothing but the crime of uttering an opinion favoring Apple.
Yes that is what everybody but yourself is saying. Algorithms, mathematical formulae, are not patentable for a very good reason. If we are not able to sell phones with rounded corners because a certain fruit has a monopoly then that sucks for consumers but the world goes on. If somebody is able to block research that will further the scientific developments of mankind then this is a bad thing.
Software patents are recognised as wrong in every single country in the world except for the US. Algorithms as wrong the whole world over.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I don't personally support the current patent system, but the answer to your question is blindingly obvious: because if you can't put restrictions on the use of the algorithm, your competitors are going to come along, and use it themselves without either incurring the R&D cost or compensating your for it. Thus they're able to offer competing products at a lower cost, making computer science R&D a counter-productive strategy to running a competitive business (i.e. stifling innovation). Patents are supposed to be the solution to this problem.
Practically speaking, the current system is just broken. The basis of it is important, but the way it's being used is extremely harmful.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Well, given that you misspelled his name and he has been dead for 20 years now...
notorious for ignoring royalties on patents
Only in your dreams, unless you can cough up some references.
"Fanboys in the courts"... seriously? Are Apple the new Jewish Cabal or something?
A good troll has several accounts set up just to troll, but he actually re-uses them, and each of those has a distinct and well-developed personality, complete with a posting history going back years, that makes him look genuine even after an in-depth check. This allows for truly masterful trolling, such as having those separate accounts actually argue between themselves, calling each other shills etc, lamenting about the sorry state of Slashdot groupthink moderation, and so on. If you pick your topics right (e.g. Apple vs Google), you can get a string of +5, Insightful posts that way for both accounts, and spawn a 100+ comment follow-up thread from all sorts of folks. It's hilarious.
Ahem. Not that I'd personally know that. Just people sayin'
Patentor is not meant to be able to stop competitors completely. He should only be able to stop competitors from using his genuine inventions, prompting them to seek other solutions. When a patent is overly broad, and, in effect, applies to the idea and all possible or practical implementations of it, it doesn't do anything to promote innovation, so all that remains is the anti-competitive aspect. In other words, the bad without the good.
What's funny about Slashdot is that every single group hereabouts thinks that Slashdot is biased against them. Pick pretty much any topic and any side in it, and you can find a post where someone's complaining about how they're being downmodded etc because they're going against groupthink. For Google/Apple in particular, there are ample examples of people complaining about both pro-Google and pro-Apple bias.