Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned
Maow writes with word that the U.S. Federal Appeals Court has reversed a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone. According to the decision (PDF), "Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. ...the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus." The ruling also said Apple didn't do a good enough job showing that the allegedly infringing features were "core" to the Nexus's operation. The case centered on what is called "unified search," a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large (U.S. Patent #8,086,604). "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."
We're more interested in legal precidence than the effects on an individual product line.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Version 1 of google desktop was released a month BEFORE this patent was even filed. I don't remember if version 1 had unified search, but the later versions definitely did.
Is the US patent office pulling a Velvan Hogan and disregarding prior art just because it doesn't run on the same hardware? Or do they just automatically approve EVERY apple patent without research?
Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way
Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
No, they did not. The "spending on patents" which exceeded their R&D included huge (multibillion $) one-time purchases of assets, including patent portfolios, from failing companies.
Patents may be monopolies, but how about the alternative? Companies may spend months or years and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with some new way of doing something. Without patent protection, other companies could then quickly copy the invention, spending a fraction of the time and money, with just a small lag in time to market. What incentive would companies have to innovate? Patents, done right, should protect the inventors at least long enough for them to make back their investment in time and money, giving them the incentive to keep innovating.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Perhaps more interesting was the court's commentary on Apple's practice of using the courts to completely block competitors from the market, saying that it is necessary to determine if the claims of harm are relevant or "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant." In other words, you may still be entitled to damages but you are not allowed to use one minor feature to completely eliminate your competition.