Apple's Pinch+Zoom Patent Invalidated By Preliminary USPTO Ruling

Refund? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

So does that mean they owe a refund to Samsung? (I am a legal newbie)

Re:Refund? by Baloroth · 2012-12-20 10:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Samsung hasn't paid any money yet, the final details of the case aren't 100% settled yet. This isn't the only patent involved in the case Apple has lost since the judgment, either. Most likely, damages will be reduced. By how much is yet undetermined (my guess would be "considerably", but then I would also have guessed Apple wouldn't have won in the first place).

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Refund? by SternisheFan · 2012-12-20 10:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Apple is appealing this. From USA Today: SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple today filed notice of appeal in its battle with Samsung, in which a judge this week denied its injunction request. The highly anticipated move comes after U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh late Monday rejected Apple's request, stating the company has not been able to show that Samsung's actions support a ban of its products. Apple is taking the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit along with "all other orders, rulings, findings, and conclusions underlying and related to that order," according to the court filing. Judge Koh stated Monday, "Apple's evidence does not establish that any of Apple's three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand." The judge's ruling came after a San Jose jury in August found Samsung violated six of Apple's patents and awarded a whopping $1 billion in damages. Jurors had sided with Apple in deciding that Samsung had violated key designs covering iPads and iPhones. Apple shares closed 0.87% lower at $521.73. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/20/apple-samsung-iphone-ipad-patents/1783017/
Re:Refund? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think that would be reasonable. If you get a patent invalidated you should be forced to repay all money you have gained from it, or even double that money or something. Maybe that would stop companies from filing piss-patents.
Re:Refund? by colin_faber · 2012-12-20 10:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is actually an interesting thought, though I wouldn't go so far as to attach punitive damages to invalided patent, I see nothing wrong with charging a minimal interest rate on the monies paid as royalty fees on the patent.
Re:Refund? by backslashdot · 2012-12-20 11:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

I would .. F it .. Too many people are willfully or negligently filing patents on stuff they didn't invent or are obvious increments to existing technology. There has to be something to discourage it.
Re:Refund? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Samsung has paid a ton of money directly and through damage to reputation defending themselves.
Effective anti-patent troll reform would make patent holder, if loser, pay some factor say 10 x (costs to defend + what they were asking as damages to the party they were suing + lost sales + etc.).
Of course, Apple has lost much of the tech segment as customers due to their trolling, but that is a tiny bit of their income. Getting spanked for $10-50 Billion once or twice would make them re-think their troll strategy-- if it didn't change minds of board members / C execs, the shareholders would revolt to the same effect.
Re:Refund? by thaylin · 2012-12-20 12:49 · Score: 5, Informative

No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Refund? by SternisheFan · 2012-12-20 13:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.
Yeah, I noticed I goofed right after I posted, I'll try de-modding me. Was waiting for someone to catch my gaff. You win the +5 internets, :-)
Re:Refund? by anagama · 2012-12-20 14:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Of course, Apple has lost much of the tech segment as customers due to their trolling, but that is a tiny bit of their income."
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I can think of 9 mac laptops that people I know have purchased based on my suggestion. And this is with approximately 30 seconds of thought. The number is surely higher than that.
As for why I've liked them -- I can easily run much of the X11 based software I use directly on them, or can do X forwarding over SSH in a totally straightforward manner from the CLI. Plus I can watch Netflix with zero headaches. The people I suggested them to weren't techies -- techies make their own decisions -- but the people who asked me valued my opinion more than whatever advertising they had been exposed to.
That's the past though -- Apple's trolling has really embittered me toward them. My wife wanted a tablet so I got her a Nexus 10 (and she loves it despite being an iPhone junkie). When my business partner recently wanted to get a laptop for her dad so he could follow some fantasy sport thing via a web browser, I pointed her to a cheap laptop on Newegg that would meet his needs. The crummy-res widescreen is fine for him because he's really old and can't see well anyway.
Anyway, the point is, if you have geeks on your side, you don't just sell a computer to that geek -- you sell computers to him/her plus friends and acquaintances for basically zero in advertising costs. One geek is easily worth ten sales, but the ads are easily forgotten, ignored, missed, not believed, or misunderstood. Plus they cost a bundle. A geek on your side is free, profitable, and extremely effective.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Refund? by CAIMLAS · 2012-12-20 19:04 · Score: 1

Minimal interest is what banks pay for simply allowing you to hold onto "your" money for you and use it for their interests.
It would be more than 'minimal interest', because it would be money used, under coercion, against their will, AGAINST their interests (sort of like taxes in many regards, really). So the interest rates on Payday loans seem more in keeping with the nature of the 'loan'.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:Refund? by TheRaven64 · 2012-12-20 21:25 · Score: 1

I think both could be accommodated in law, however I'm not sure that you need the wilful version. If a company is demanding money for a patent that they knew at time of filing (or subsequently) had prior art that made it invalid, then they have committed fraud. No need for new laws, just prosecute them for this. If it's invalidated on the grounds of being obvious, then that's a bit more tricky, because this is quite a subjective judgement and it's hard to prove malice.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Refund? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 00:31 · Score: 0

Posting anonymous so that the mod stays, I tried to proceed fairly with my mod points:
I modded down your original post as overrated and modded this one up as informative
Cheers...
G.
Re:Refund? by SternisheFan · 2012-12-21 00:54 · Score: 1

(lol) Happy holidays to you sir. :-)
Re:Refund? by c++0xFF · 2012-12-21 02:13 · Score: 2

The problem is that the USPTO is awarding "piss-patents" and so companies naturally file them. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.
Re:Refund? by Tough+Love · 2012-12-21 02:22 · Score: 2

I think that would be reasonable. If you get a patent invalidated you should be forced to repay all money you have gained from it, or even double that money
You should be charged with fraud. That would tend to help focus.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:Refund? by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-21 02:37 · Score: 4, Funny

You made recommendations to non-technical friends based on your ability to run X11 apps and SSH easily?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Refund? by Kwizzy · 2012-12-21 02:39 · Score: 1

This is a great invention. Wow!! I understood why apple invested so much money in dispute. http://www.onfootage.com/
Re:Refund? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 05:06 · Score: 0, Insightful

Look at the link on the sig. It's a teabagger. You can't help them with anything logical.
Re:Refund? by anagama · 2012-12-21 06:14 · Score: 1

Obviously no, I was explaining why I like OS X. That's all that part was about.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Refund? by anagama · 2012-12-21 06:20 · Score: 1, Informative

Just because a person criticizes Obama doesn't make them part of the GOP. Although it is shockingly rare, liberals do criticize Obama for being a neo-con right wing bastard. I'm a liberal through and through which is why I criticized GWB for being an evil fuckwad, and is exactly why I criticize Obama for being an evil fuckwad -- the "Adam Lanza in Chief" if you will -- what else would you call a person who spends every Tuesday deciding which random innocent people should die by drone attack. Indeed, exactly 3 years prior to the Newton crime, Obama killed 14 women and 21 children using cluster bombs. But yeah -- to you "progressives" of the "New GOP" (aka Democrats) -- those people don't matter. Their kinda brown and not Christian so you couldn't give a crap about their human rights. You Democrats make me fucking want to puke.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good

Sick of this by kc67 · 2012-12-20 10:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.

Re:Sick of this by arbiter1 · 2012-12-20 10:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea a lot of people were showing their disgust with this case after the results from the jury was read. Even from apple fans as well that are not happy with how apple is going about things, they decided to try to stop competition by litigation instead of being innovative. When case was decided by the jury, sales of samsung GS3 spiked after the trial.
Re:Sick of this by olsmeister · 2012-12-20 10:45 · Score: 0

Don't hate the playas, hate the game.
Re:Sick of this by bhagwad · 2012-12-20 10:47 · Score: 2, Funny

B..but...but what about the BILLIONS of dollars Apple has spent on R&D thinking up pinch to zoom, rubber banding, and rounded corners?
Billions I say!
Re:Sick of this by terec · 2012-12-20 10:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The industry" was working together just fine; there weren't actually that many lawsuits between companies like Palm, Nokia, and Microsoft. Apple, however, came in as a newbie, took everybody else's ideas, put them in a nice shiny box, and started patenting and suing everybody.
Re:Sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can hate both. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should. And I don't care about the excuse that companies are soulless entities whose only purpose is to devour economic resources (i.e. make money) while retaining all of the rights of a human being.
Re:Sick of this by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-12-20 11:05 · Score: 1

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.
Unfortunately this seems to be the way of things anymore. Nobody wants to work together, just snipe each other for a buck.
Democrats and Republicans refuse to agree on things that they actually agree on.
Religious and non-religious people continue to throw away what they claim to stand for to stick it to each other
I suppose there has always been a divide between the rich and poor, but it's become worse. Both in the amount of money separating them, but also what one class expects of the other now too.
Governments are turning on each other and their own people in far too many cases
I don't think we ever lived on an idealistic planet where we all looked out for one another, but it seems that we all look for problems to blame on others more than I remember in the past. Perhaps we've just gone too long without a world war in which anyone had to actually sacrifice anything. So we are just turning on each other. The lawyers and large corporations seem to be the only ones benefiting. It's kind of sad really.
Re:Sick of this by elashish14 · 2012-12-20 11:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

No. The system has always been equally broken before, but it's a select few companies (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle) which have found it more profitable to compete in the market place. You don't see Samsung or HTC or Google trying to crush competition with lawsuits in the way that the above-named companies do.
Just because the law says it's okay to be a jerk doesn't mean it's okay when you actually do it.

--
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Re:Sick of this by c0lo · 2012-12-20 11:25 · Score: 1

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.
Take a (patented, how else?) pill to manage the symptoms: unfortunately, the cause of your sickness is not going away any time soon.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Sick of this by ChunderDownunder · 2012-12-20 11:43 · Score: 1

"the 'playas'" ?
I love the beach! :)
Re:Sick of this by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-12-20 11:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

The system has always been equally broken before
Agreed.
but it's a select few companies ...
Who have finally taken full advantage of all the abuse the system provides for. We need to recognize that the system is inherently broken and needs to be abolished and/or replaced. And only replaced if there's some way to show that the replacement won't have detrimental unintended consequences.
Just because the law says it's okay to be a jerk doesn't mean it's okay when you actually do it.
And there are many ways to be a jerk, even on societal levels. Interesting chart here that completely invalidates the idea that copyright promotes the arts. Same with patents for the useful sciences.
If the Internet has taught us one thing, it's that very few ideas are actually unique. The patent system has just become a race to see who has the most and fastest lawyers who can file a patent for as many ideas as can be floated, ability or intent to implement be damned. Execution is what really matters now when it comes to advancing technology and nobody needs to make up imaginary property rights for a good management team to succeed.
But IP does maximize profits for certain corporations, created by the government, feeding money (and by extension power) back to the same government players. That's what we call a positive feedback loop. If there's a silver lining, positive feedback loops cause instability and usually lead to collapse, ending the cycle. Unfortunately, those collapses often damage everything around them when they let go.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Sick of this by Blue+Stone · 2012-12-20 11:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

>"The industry" was working together just fine; there weren't actually that many lawsuits between companies like Palm, Nokia, and Microsoft. Apple, however, came in as a newbie, took everybody else's ideas, put them in a nice shiny box, and started patenting and suing everybody.
Hell, Apple are not even unique in that respect.
When Marconi got a patent on wireless telegraphy in England, the rule was that you MUST NOT reveal the workings of the patented device before the patent was granted. Marconi presented a closed box, which worked as described and got his patent. Then they opened the box and found that it was just someone elses' method that was already publicly known. Nothing unique at all.
Then he laughed all the way to the bank.
Steve Jobs, in many ways was just the Marconi of his day. Not even unique in being a bit of a carpetbagger.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Sick of this by erroneus · 2012-12-20 12:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Many Apple fans rejoiced. There was a lot of "in your face" and "got what they deserved" in response to the rulings followed by desperate attempts to justify a dishonest juror and the major crap he pulled. He "sent a message" alright. Problem is, just like other 'bad guys' he was stupid enough to brag about it. Had he said "it was a tough decision, but I felt the evidence was in Apple's favor and the other jurors agreed" things might be a little different right now.
But let's say the judge in this case was shown to have a LOT of Apple stock. Her failure to recuse herself would result in another trial even after the verdict was presented. But this was a juror. Jurors need special treatment in nearly every case simply because it's hard enough to select and agree upon the constitutionally guaranteed jury for matters such as these. If they were not almost completely immune to charges of misconduct, people would be even LESS willing to be on the jury. So you have to understand that the system will tread lightly on matters such as these. But have a look at this if you want to know more about jury misconduct:
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/jury_misconduct/jury_misconduct.htm
Interestingly, dishonesty in voir dire is at the top of the list and yet somehow, the judge in this case is willing to ignore that.
And you make a good point. After the trial, there was a spike in GS3 sales. Where I work, a LOT of iPhone users have managed to switch over to GS3 or other Androids... one of my co-workers, much to my disgust, even bought multiple Nexus 4s so he could make disgusting profits. People like him are the reason why many of us couldn't get one the first time around. "Thanks asshole" but I wasn't stupid enough to buy one from these pirates.
My point is that android is really taking over and Apple iThing fans are changing hearts. I see it everywhere. I know... I'm not a good sample observer. But it would be interesting to see what the current usage trends are. Anyone know where to look for data on the subject?
Re:Sick of this by erroneus · 2012-12-20 12:15 · Score: 2

I'm sure you meant that in a way contrary to what you have written right? Apple, Microsoft and Oracle do not compete on thier merits. Apple "might" at the beginning of things because when they come up with something new, they get a lot of attention... or they did. Jobs is dead and I doubt they will have that magic any longer. But Microsoft? Oracle? No.... no way.
Re:Sick of this by ojak · 2012-12-20 12:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

Um... I'm no fan of all the lawsuits, patents, etc, but honestly, does anybody actually remember what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out? They were just awful. I built a catapult for my Motorola Q just so I could launch it off my roof.
I'm no fan of Apple's lawsuits, but I also can admit that they did move the ball forward by leaps and bounds beyond the plastic pieces of shit we were all messing with in 2006.
Re:Sick of this by craigminah · 2012-12-20 12:46 · Score: 1

Why should company A work with company B to share innovations? If company A has an innovation, that would give it an advantage of its competition so they shouldn't share it unless they get something equally good in return. Sharing innovation is stupid and demotivates those to innovate.
Re:Sick of this by elashish14 · 2012-12-20 12:59 · Score: 1

Yes, I was editing far too aggressively, and meant to say that they have found it more profitable to compete in the courtroom, not the marketplace.

--
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Re:Sick of this by terec · 2012-12-20 13:09 · Score: 1

Oh, there have been a lot of misbehaving companies like that. I'm just saying that Apple started this in mobile.
Re:Sick of this by terec · 2012-12-20 14:00 · Score: 1

I liked my Palm Treo. Apple's iPhone was an inferior copy as far as I was concerned.
Re:Sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 15:04 · Score: 0

While that may be debatable, it seems that once on top, Apple seems more than happy to sue everyone so that they can rest on their laurels. And what "innovations" has Apple come up with since? Annual bumps in screen size/resolution and CPU cores/speed, (oh, and sveltness). Yeah, Apple, keep innovating.
Re:Sick of this by anagama · 2012-12-20 15:10 · Score: 1

I never had the Treo and cell capabilities, but the just about every serious business use for a handheld device was contained in the Palm devices, as well as casual gaming. 10 years ago I was killing time while waiting around on appointments I was early to thanks to my calander app by playing Bejeweled on my color Handspring device. If I'd had a cell phone at that time, there was plug-in cell phone module for that but I didn't, so I didn't see the use then. The devices since then have basically been an evolution in the technology, which is cool but not ground breaking.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Sick of this by queazocotal · 2012-12-20 15:29 · Score: 2

Because they're not innovations, in most cases.
Being the first to come up with a problem, too often these days leads to a patent.
Take multitouch gesture patents.
These are essentially all non-innovative.
You start out with one perhaps innovative invention - the touchscreen over a computer display.
Many subsequent developments were not really innovations, but outgrowths of what is made technically possible by the engineering.
Once you have the concept of a computer display with a touchscreen on top of it, the initial concept - probably of a screen you can't lift, with a coarse resolution grid on top just evolves as technology makes it possible to form factors of phones and tablets.
Putting a touchscreen on a phone is not a novel or useful idea which should be patentable.
Humans have a limited humber of fingers, but it's more than one.
The concept of tracking them all isn't really novel, it's just that it became an engineering possibility.
Computers got fast enough that they could meaningfully track gestures - again this is not really innovative.
If you are the first person with a multitouch device - pinch and zoom is _obvious_ - it's the most sensible way to implement zoom.
This should never be a patentable innovation.
Patenting it does nothing but _slow_ innovation, as clearly obvious techniques like this have to be worked around.
Re:Sick of this by ogdenk · 2012-12-20 15:38 · Score: 2

Really? Apple phones have a lot of plastic as well. My 3GS certainly does.
I also had a smartphone back in 2002 or 2003 that had a full color usable touchscreen, no physical keypad, and it actually worked damn well. Samsung I300, replaced it with a Samsung I500 Palm-based flip phone later. Lots of folks I know had Windows CE-based phones (Windows Mobile) as well.
You know what? They were sturdy. And worked quite well. And I found the physical keypad on the Samsung I500 a lot less frustrating than touch dialing. My I300 even still works. Could you watch youtube videos? No. But that's only because CPU, NOT SMARTPHONE technology has advanced since then. Modern embedded GPU's are nicer too. But again, this had NOTHING to do with Apple or Steve Jobs.
You know something else? They cost less than the iPhone did on launch day. Apple just succeeded in making teenagers, cashiers and janitors feel they HAD to get one or get left behind. They didn't advance squat but their stock value.
Personally I find both the iOS and Android UI's to be clumsy pieces of crap that are tough to use effectively for real work. I could do more on an old WinMo phone. Just slower due to the age of the hardware. But I couldn't watch youtube. Or play Angry Birds. Or have a special Facebook app.
And this is coming from a *RABID* OSX user and someone who carries an iPhone mainly because it sucks less than Android to use daily.
Re:Sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 18:06 · Score: 0

And there are many ways to be a jerk, even on societal levels. Interesting chart here that completely invalidates the idea that copyright promotes the arts. Same with patents for the useful sciences.
Sadly, this chart will be used to promote even longer copyright, as this obviously indicates legislation granting an unfair advantage to older books!
Re:Sick of this by roc97007 · 2012-12-20 18:35 · Score: 1

Um, yeah, my Blackberry was dead nuts reliable when co-workers with these new-fangle iphone thingies were making calls that sounded like "Hello? Damn. (dial) Hello? Damn. (dial) Hello? DAMN." Before that, my Palm Treo (not the horrible Windows version but the one running PalmOS) did everything I needed, was absolutely reliable and took 30 seconds to bring to a full charge -- take the battery out, replace it with the one in the charger, put the exhausted battery in the charger, good to go. With an iphone that takes special tools.
So yeah, I remember, and I still wouldn't own an iphone.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Sick of this by CAIMLAS · 2012-12-20 20:11 · Score: 1

I don't know if you actually remember the first iPhone, but it was similarly horrid. Not only was the build quality very low, but it had no networking capabilities to speak of, and everything had to be sideloaded. It was a full two or more product iterations behind the Windows CE phones (and handsets) of the day with not even a fraction of the applications - basically, it fed off the success of the iPod, "an iPod with phone features".
How quickly we forget how things really were... it wasn't until Android came about that Apple started to get their act together, "hey, we might have some competition in the image department".

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:Sick of this by TheRaven64 · 2012-12-20 21:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

The system has always been equally broken before, but it's a select few companies (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle) which have found it more profitable to compete in the market place. You don't see Samsung or HTC or Google trying to crush competition with lawsuits in the way that the above-named companies do.
No, most big companies maintained patent pools to make it easy to kill off newcomers. Big tech companies don't worry much about other big tech companies that they're used to competing with. Sony Ericsson, Nokia, and Motorola, for example, didn't worry much about each other. They were all producing similar classes of products, and each generation their market share would slide up and down a bit, but it stayed relatively constant. They worry about newcomers that disrupt the market. The same thing happened in the workstation market. SGI was doing very well selling 3D workstations. Their big competitors were companies like IBM and Sun, but they knew how to differentiate themselves in the market from these guys and ensure that they had enough income to keep going. Then came nVidia, and suddenly 3D workstations were built from commodity parts: their market no longer existed.
This is why you don't see too many big patent lawsuits. The big players all have cross-licensing agreements within established markets and just use their combined might to squeeze out smaller players. If you want to join in, then they'll license you their patents, for either a share of the company or a share of the profits. If you do well, then they'll get a load of money, and if it looks like you'll do really well then they'll just buy you. The thing that gives management at these companies nightmares is the idea that they won't notice a company with a disruptive technology until it's grown so big that it can't be intimidated by these tactics.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Sick of this by TheRaven64 · 2012-12-20 21:45 · Score: 1

The iPhone UI made a lot of mistakes too, they were just different mistakes. The main differences were that it had a capacitive touchscreen (they'd only just become cheap enough to put in smartphones) and a sufficiently powerful CPU and GPU to do interesting things with it. Other phones released at the same time were of similar quality (typically, better in some regards, worse in others). The older mobile phone companies like Nokia had problems because they had large software stacks designed for use in a world where a high-end device had a 33MHz CPU and 4MB of RAM, but they all had some sort of flagship phone with similar capabilities to the iPhone. Their main mistake was thinking of them as incremental improvements, rather than a change in the market. Smartphones went quite quickly from being a tiny niche to a large segment of the market (due to dropping hardware costs, not software changes) and Apple positioned itself very well to take advantage of this shift.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Sick of this by ojak · 2012-12-21 00:16 · Score: 1
I don't know if you actually remember the first iPhone, but it was similarly horrid. Not only was the build quality very low...
I can appreciate that you prefer Android and Windows CE phones over Apple phones, some people do. But to say that Apple went from a non-player in the mobile phone space to a dominant force almost overnight on the coattails of a "horrid" first iPhone with "build quality very low" and then didn't get any better until Android came along (although unveiled in 2007, first Android phone was released way later in October 2008, btw), is just revisionist history. Don't take my word for it, here are some actual quotes from 2007 reviews, a full 15 months before the release of the first Android set:
ENGADGET:
- if we had to boil the iPhone's SMS down to a one-word description, "purty" would certainly be a finalist
- The iPhone's calendar may possibly be the most usable we've ever seen on a cellphone
- For two megapixels, no autofocus, and no flash, we're about as impressed as we can be.
NEW YORK TIMES:
- The iPhone matches most of its hype
And it went on and on, and the rest is history... Yes, Android is great too. Windows CE, well, you hang on to that one.
Re:Sick of this by mcgrew · 2012-12-21 07:02 · Score: 1

Um... I'm no fan of all the lawsuits, patents, etc, but honestly, does anybody actually remember what cell phones were like before the iPhone came out?
I wish I had my old Motorola Razr from what, 2003? I miss having a phone small enough to fit in my pocket and still leave room for my wallet as well. The size of an iPhone or Droid is the deal killer for me.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Sick of this by sjames · 2012-12-21 07:51 · Score: 1

I agree that the jurors themselves need to be immune to practically everything connected to the trial, but that doesn't mean the trial itself cannot be thrown out.
Re:Sick of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 08:24 · Score: 0

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.
"work together" in this context is big companies in collusion with the government agreeing to keep all the little players out. It is not sad that they DO NOT do this in one instance, it is sad that they do this in MOST instances.
Fuck patents. Fuck the government. And fuck you for not being smart enough to see the root of the problems.
Re:Sick of this by steelfood · 2012-12-21 09:03 · Score: 1

comScore has such information. However, their latest report (linked) is currently for October and compares against July.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Sick of this by gnupun · 2012-12-21 09:37 · Score: 1

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.
Even the groklaw article does not mention why the pinch+zoom patent was invalidated. But suppose it had been a valid patent, Apple did the right thing suing copycat Samsung.
Without patent protection, there would be little incentive for companies to come up with new, innovative products and features as anything new would be copied by copycat competitors. Why should Apple design products to fill Samsung's coffers and compete only based on manufacturing and marketing. Patents mean companies also compete based on design of their products, not just implementation.
Re:Sick of this by RalphTheWonderLlama · 2012-12-21 10:00 · Score: 1

I remember two phones ago I could text with just one hand and not even looking at the phone because I could actually feel the keys I was pressing. Actual keys. Even though I had to hit them 1 to 3 times to get the letter I needed, but I had that part memorized after a while and it actually wasn't much slower than a touchscreen.

--
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/

Ahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:17 · Score: 5, Funny

And on the last day of the world. That's too funny.

Re:Ahahaha by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-12-20 10:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, but patent lawsuits never end. They just seem to go on, and on, and on . . .
The last day of the world is also going to be like a patent lawsuit. It's just going to keep going on, and on, and on . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Ahahaha by Cammi · 2012-12-20 10:42 · Score: 1

The last day is tomorrow ... you are off by a day.
Re:Ahahaha by PRMan · 2012-12-20 10:57 · Score: 1

Maybe he's in New Zealand...

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Ahahaha by HornWumpus · 2012-12-20 11:13 · Score: 1

That was the last doomsday. This one is at one specific time, dawn somewhere in central America IIRC.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Ahahaha by ChunderDownunder · 2012-12-20 11:48 · Score: 1

by HornWumpus (783565) on Friday December 21, @10:13AM
Yes and dawn in central america is late evening west of the international dateline.
Re:Ahahaha by ChunderDownunder · 2012-12-20 11:56 · Score: 1

It's nearly 11am, tomorrow, in eastern Australia. No sign of the apocalypse yet. :)
Re:Ahahaha by roc97007 · 2012-12-20 18:36 · Score: 1

Maybe that *was* the apocalypse.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Ahahaha by VortexCortex · 2012-12-20 21:42 · Score: 1

It's nearly 11am, tomorrow, in eastern Australia. No sign of the apocalypse yet. :)
If you're looking for a temporally bound EOL canary, you'll fine none better than Nukualofa, which is UTC+13 -- That's right, an hour ahead of anywhere else. For instance, if you're in a -12 UTC zone, then they're not one, but two days ahead of you for an hour each day.

prior art by Trepidity · 2012-12-20 10:18 · Score: 5, Informative

This 2005 patent from Danny Hillis seems to be one of the main things the reexamination is noting as prior art.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:59 · Score: 1

Ef that. Just watch the TED video from Feb 2006. Pinch to zoom at 2:50
Re:prior art by Solandri · 2012-12-20 10:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here's pinch to zoom in 1988.
Re:prior art by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-12-20 12:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Here's pinch to zoom in 1988.
You know you've been on the internet too long when you hesitate to click a link with a description like that because you think it is goatsecx.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:prior art by bentwonk2 · 2012-12-21 08:24 · Score: 1

Interestingly Apple itself has an earlier patent (2004) " Gestures for touch sensitive input devices" that was not listed as prior art to the 'pinch to zoom' patent. Could they use this as a fall back?

Also found a Nokia one, "Apparatus, Methods and computer program products providing finger-based and hand-based gesture commands for portable electronic device" in 2006

http://www.ambercite.com/joomla/index.php/amber

The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by eldavojohn · 2012-12-20 10:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is the patent that won Apple their billion dollar verdict against Samsung.

That's weird, I remember the jury verdict citing six patents. Pinch to zoom was one of them but surely it was only a fraction of the full billion?

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by h4rr4r · 2012-12-20 10:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Florian Mueller we know that is you. Go away.

The way the ladies like it, it's... by bennomatic · 2012-12-20 10:22 · Score: 0

pinch to bada bing, bada boom!

(or not; it's the best joke on the topic I could think of)

--
The CB App. What's your 20?

Re:The way the ladies like it, it's... by QRDeNameland · 2012-12-20 12:48 · Score: 1

How about: pinch to Bang...Zoom! To the moon, Alice!!

--
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:25 · Score: 1

I find FOSS Patents to be filled with amateur web sleuths who have nothing better to do with their time than to shake their angry fists at successful corporations. A better source of information on patent law is Groklaw.

Fixed that for you!

From TFA, no reimbursement? by hermitdev · 2012-12-20 10:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

So here's a question. Does Samsung get any of its money back? I mean the money it spent and is spending to invalidate this stupid patent? The money it spent on trial over this stupid patent? The money it spent finding the prior art that Apple should have found before filing for this stupid patent? No. Nothing in US patent system is that fair.

I'm not a lawyer, but maybe there's one out there that could answer: couldn't Samsung counter-sue, or the Judge rule in favor of Samsung and order court fees paid? And presumably, wouldn't all expenditures, including any involved with the research and gathering of information in regards to prior art, be covered?

Yay, more sensationalist headlines. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:28 · Score: 5, Informative

The difference between "preliminarily rejected" and "actually invalidated" is analogous to the difference between "being arrested" and "being convicted". Apple has to defend the patent and lose before anything changes.

Re:Yay, more sensationalist headlines. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 12:05 · Score: 0

This is exactly right - very few people on Slashdot have enough knowledge to even comment on the patent system, much less reform it.
The USPTO has given a first action rejection, which is very typical - not invalidated, not ruled on, not final. This does not mean the patent won't survive re-exam, although it does mean the claims will probably be narrowed during continued prosecution under re-exam.
Apple will have a great deal of opportunity to refine the claims here and argue over prior art.
Re:Yay, more sensationalist headlines. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 13:58 · Score: 0

Especially since each of Apple's 21 points in the patent (on pinch-to-zoom) were rejected for multiple reasons - see page 3. Groklaw has the patent reexamination here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2202ExA.pdf
Re:Yay, more sensationalist headlines. by coinreturn · 2012-12-21 02:46 · Score: 0

The difference between "preliminarily rejected" and "actually invalidated" is analogous to the difference between "being arrested" and "being convicted". Apple has to defend the patent and lose before anything changes.
Quit using sense. You're interfering with the celebrations of the knee-jerk Apple-haters.

I want a government jobs program. by Kaenneth · 2012-12-20 10:29 · Score: 1

I want them to hire more patent office staff, and more judges, so that these cases can be determined quickly and accurately.

Clear all the administrative backlogs, provide jobs, support private industry innovation.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-20 10:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

I really wish I could mod this down as it is an attack from a corporate sycophant. We are talking about so-called "successful" corporations using a mechanism to keep other corporations and individuals from being successful. That's the real problem here.

And, again, I think the FOSS community needs to form a foundation to get bad patents invalidated so we can have a decent system again.

Zoom-to-Position by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:30 · Score: 1

Do they have a patent giving a zoomed view when positioning a cursor? I'm asking because Android not doing it is annoying, and it seems like something that would be quite OBVIOUS to someone versed in the craft, I mean, I had could have a zoomed view when entering text in Deluxe Paint on the Amiga IIRC.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by Baloroth · 2012-12-20 10:32 · Score: 4, Informative

The USPTO has said the "bounce" patent ('381) should never have been granted, and the judge involved has said the tap-to-zoom ('163) looks like it might be invalid. That together with this would mean Samsung only violated the 3 design patents (the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader).

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by maccodemonkey · 2012-12-20 10:32 · Score: 1

This is the patent that won Apple their billion dollar verdict against Samsung.

That's weird, I remember the jury verdict citing six patents. Pinch to zoom was one of them but surely it was only a fraction of the full billion?

Remember when Slashdot was just news and not someone trying to insert a questionable-at-best opinion into a story?

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by crunchy666 · 2012-12-20 10:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is that the jury didn't allocate amounts to any particular patent, so that case will probably end up back in front of another jury that is able to follow directions.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by Theaetetus · 2012-12-20 10:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is the patent that won Apple their billion dollar verdict against Samsung.

That's weird, I remember the jury verdict citing six patents. Pinch to zoom was one of them but surely it was only a fraction of the full billion?

Remember when Slashdot was just news and not someone trying to insert a questionable-at-best opinion into a story?

... no. :/

iPinch by MatthiasF · 2012-12-20 10:36 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM5_dgKDsrc

That PMSing bitch of a judge is gonna be mad by slashmydots · 2012-12-20 10:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So that complete head-up-her-ass judge who refuses to throw out the case based on that jury foreman basically shut down their entire appeal...and then tada, the patent is thrown out. She's gonna be mad. She's obviously operating on her own agenda based solely on posterity and media opinion so she's going to have kind of attack when she finds out another judge undermined her. Whatever, the case is going to fall apart no matter what she does. Hopefully she resigns because her conduct as a judge has been completely disgusting thus far.

Re:That PMSing bitch of a judge is gonna be mad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 14:35 · Score: 0

Nice. You're dislike of Apple (or like of Google & co?) has made you make exceedingly sexist remarks against another human being. Does your mom know you talk like that from her basement?

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by zorog · 2012-12-20 10:41 · Score: 1

you mean something like The Mark Cuban Chair To Eliminate Stupid Patents

Apple case was good for public awareness by detain · 2012-12-20 10:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

The biggest problem with the patent system is that most people aren't aware of the problems with it. General public awareness of the problems in the patent system is a good step towards eventual patent reform. It takes a big case like this with lots of news coverage about products many of us use to motivate the general public. Change is never fast or easy but as long as the majority of people think that patent reform is needed, it should eventually happen.

--
http://interserver.net/

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by ArhcAngel · 2012-12-20 10:46 · Score: 2

I think the FOSS community needs to form a foundation to get bad patents invalidated so we can have a decent system again.

Done!

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by arbiter1 · 2012-12-20 10:48 · Score: 1

If you were to recall when jury did interviews after the trial they admitted they punished Samsung for the use of the patents, which they were not supposed to do per the jury instructions. So what the damaged should been if all 6 patents were valid is up for debate at this point. 3 that are preliminary invalid made up a major majority of the judgement so.

Re:stagnating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:51 · Score: 0

I am sick of hearing about patent lawsuits. It is sad that the industry can't work together to create unique products and actually innovate instead of stagnating one another.

I do not that word means what you think it means...

Oblig. by CanHasDIY · 2012-12-20 10:58 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's bias by Theaetetus · 2012-12-20 10:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

The claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 based on U.S. Patent No. 7,724,242 to Hillis et al. (“Hillis”), International Pub. No. WO 03/081458 to Lira (“Lira”), U.S. Patent No. 6,757,673 to Makus et al. (“Makus”), Japanese Pub. No. 2000-163031A to Nomura et al. (English translation) (“Nomura”), and Dean Harris Rubine, “The Automatic Recognition of Gestures,” CMU-CS-91-202, December 1991 (“Rubine”).

As near as I can find, it doesn't look like Samsung raised any of these references during the trial to show the patents were invalid. Why not?

Additionally, Groklaw says:

The goofball jury, of course, thought it was a simply wonderful patent infringed every which way by Samsung...
Here's the verdict [PDF] form the jury signed off on after a nonchalant few hours of deliberations, which apparently did not include spending effort on whether or not this was a valid patent.
The most important part of this news isn't that the jury's work was a farce.

Wasn't Groklaw complaining just a few days ago that the jury foreman brought in external evidence, and therefore committed misconduct? And now, Groklaw is saying the jury should have conducted its own prior art search and brought in external evidence that wasn't raised by Samsung? What is it, the rules don't apply if it hurts Apple?

Just Wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:00 · Score: 1

Just wondering if patent examiners are allowed to work on patent applications submitted by companies they or their families or friends have money invested in. Anybody knows?

Re:Just Wondering by Dachannien · 2012-12-20 13:03 · Score: 1

Here are the rules concerning that. See page 10.
http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/pto_summary_of_ethics_rules_2012-e_0.pdf

Must-see TED Talk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:04 · Score: 1

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html

5:30 multi-touch sequence
7:20 Steve Job's

Priceless.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by CanadianRealist · 2012-12-20 11:07 · Score: 3, Funny

('381)
('163)
(the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader)

Apple is already contacting their lawyers about suing you for the rounded corners on those parentheses. I hope you have a bajillion dollars.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by tibman · 2012-12-20 11:09 · Score: 1

Software patents, eh? That's some troubled water

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by HornWumpus · 2012-12-20 11:12 · Score: 1

Dude, at least get your 'facts' in reasonable order.

Patents are almost always filled in 'batches' of varying specificity. Patents fall to prior art (being too general) or detail changing (being too specific). You protect yourself by filing several. Your lawyer, had he not been imaginary, would have advised you on these details.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by elashish14 · 2012-12-20 11:14 · Score: 2

Right. The source that has been accepting money from companies which are trying to kill Android would _clearly_ be less biased!

Priceless irony.

--
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by elashish14 · 2012-12-20 11:21 · Score: 2

It's not just about good and bad patents. We've seen what happens when we allow software patents to fly and I don't have figures on this, but I'm guessing at least 90% have been struck down in courts!

We can't just settle for revoking patents. I don't think it is necessary to go so far as to ban them altogether, but it is absolutely crucial to

1) fix the defintions of what is patentable and what is not
2) impose penalties and a loser-pays system to ensure fairness of court cases

But simply settling for removing abstract patents when all software patents are bad effectively legitimizes something that shouldn't even be allows in the first place. That doesn't work - nobody wins that way.

--
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:27 · Score: 0

I have 9 and they represent diddly-squat. They each have a few hours worth of research and thought, at the most, put into them.

Oh you were only talking about submitted applications? Those nine patents of mine are all accepted and published.

Vote Pirate Party.

Does this surprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:30 · Score: 1

Apple: We have the most intuitive touchscreen interface around! With no training, our customers can discover how to operate these gestures to use their phones.
Apple: We need to file a patent on this interface!

Do you see what's wrong here? Hint: something cannot be both intuitive and patentaeble.

What's the standard for determining patent validity again?
Useful, check (I like being able to zoom on a small screen)
Novel, check (since there weren't too many small touchscreen devices manipulating images at the time)
Nonobvious, not so much (unless they're lying about the ease of using their product)

Re:stagnating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:33 · Score: 0

No, I think stagnate could be a verb in the sense of it being used here to indicate they they are doing something which causes stagnation, a lack of movement or progress.

Re:stagnating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 11:40 · Score: 1

I you missed a word.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by shellbeach · 2012-12-20 11:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I find Groklaw to be filled with amateur web sleuths who have nothing better to do with their time than to shake their angry fists at successful corporations.

Ah, yes, like the way Groklaw shook its fists at that successful corporation SCO.

A better source of information on patent law is FOSS Patents.

Indeed.

Partners in Crime by CuteSteveJobs · 2012-12-20 11:48 · Score: 2

Lawyers go wherever the money is. The sort of fly-by-night conmen who used to rip people off with bogus real estate deals can now rip millions off companies quite legally by buying a bullshit patent and threatening anyone and everyone. Lawyers love this shit, and that's why these two have set off hand-in-hand to rob and pillage the tech industry.

Apple might design nice looking products, but ethically they are pretty bad. If there was a company like this around when Apple were starting up they would have been buried under lawsuits before they could even get off the ground. That's bad for the tech industry.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Solandri · 2012-12-20 11:58 · Score: 4, Informative

As near as I can find, it doesn't look like Samsung raised any of these references during the trial to show the patents were invalid. Why not?

A good chunk of Samsung's prior art evidence wrt phones (the violations they were fined $1b for - they were cleared of copying the iPad) was disallowed because they missed a filing deadline. Kinda defeated the whole purpose of having the trial IMHO, but Judge Koh decided her schedule was more important.

Wasn't Groklaw complaining just a few days ago that the jury foreman brought in external evidence, and therefore committed misconduct? And now, Groklaw is saying the jury should have conducted its own prior art search and brought in external evidence that wasn't raised by Samsung? What is it, the rules don't apply if it hurts Apple?

Groklaw is referring to an erroneous instruction given by the jury foreman to the other jurors. He (wrongly) told them that software claiming to be prior art to features on the iPhone were only relevant if the code would run on the iPhone. Since all of the code submitted as prior art runs on other systems and thus doesn't run on the iPhone, he told the jury they could dismiss all the prior art claims out of hand without even having to look at it. So the jury never looked at the software prior art which was submitted at trial. Groklaw is just saying they should have.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-12-20 12:15 · Score: 1

The judge prevented Samsung from entering all manner of evidence for the purpose of demonstrating prior art. The whole damn proceeding seemed pretty heavily biased against Samsung. The b*tchy demeanor of the judge towards both parties seemed to me to be more of a cover for the bias than anything.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 12:24 · Score: 0

LOL. I work as a software engineer and have 12 patent applications submitted in my career.

LOL. I find it telling that you said patent applications, not patents. I guesst the USPTO, who will give out a patent on almost anything these days, still didn't find anything of merit in your application. Sad. Also please let us know when you stop working as a software engineer and actually become one.

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by thaylin · 2012-12-20 12:53 · Score: 1

Say what? You mean waving fists at sucessful companies like IBM, Novell, and Redhat, wait they dont do that. I cant even remember the last time FOSS Patents has been correct on anything, groklaw on the other hand.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by aoteoroa · 2012-12-20 12:55 · Score: 1

That together with this would mean Samsung only violated the 3 design patents (the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader).

And Judge Koh has suggested that those design patents are not valid either:

"However, Apple’s evidence does not establish that any of Apple’s three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand. ...First, though more specific than the general “design” allegations, they are still not specific enough to clearly identify actual patented designs. Instead, they refer to such isolated characteristics as glossiness, reinforced glass, black color, metal edges, and reflective screen. Id. Apple does not have a patent on, for example, glossiness, or on black color." -- Judge Koh

Still haven't seen any signs that the judge is likely to overturn the jury's findings though

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 13:25 · Score: 0

It is just you. Innovation is happening all around you. Desktop OS is one of the more stagnant arenas currently. The OS isn't the center of the universe in this current trend. This OS agnosticism is a good thing for consumers.

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... by celle · 2012-12-20 13:30 · Score: 1

" Apple Innovated, Samsung copied... "

No! Those patents were prior art or were non-patentable ideas. All of the ideas were in the public long before Apple applied for the patents. Therefore:

Apple stole, Samsung copied...

Fixed that for you.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by thaylin · 2012-12-20 13:37 · Score: 1

When a foreman tells the rest of the jury pool that he has patents and knows how they work and should therefore listen to him, even though it goes against the instructions, that is misconduct. Just saying. Several jurors, including the foreman himself have claimed this.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... by thaylin · 2012-12-20 13:40 · Score: 2

Wait, what? Apple stole every idea they had, then got mad someone stole their combination of stolen ideas. Jobs has come out talking about how he LOVES to steal other's ideas. In fact some of the ideas samsung "stole" they came up with first.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Preliminary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 14:30 · Score: 0

This is a "preliminary" decision, not a final one.

Translation:
USPTO to Apple: That's a nice patent you've got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it...

Re:Preliminary by thaylin · 2012-12-20 14:44 · Score: 1

They have already stated it should not have been granted at all.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 15:31 · Score: 0

Maybe instead of making up quotes you could quote directly from a source.
Try reading http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963 before talking about other people's bias.

Re:stagnating by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-12-20 17:24 · Score: 1

No, I think stagnate could be a verb...

It is in fact a verb.

An intransitive verb.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-12-20 18:10 · Score: 1

Remember when Slashdot was just news and not someone trying to insert a questionable-at-best opinion into a story?

No. Why do you ask?

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... by ernest.cunningham · 2012-12-20 19:16 · Score: 0

Quick question: Do you think you would have a decent Android device right now if the iPhone came out? The answer is absolutely not. Ultimately though, people need to just enjoy the devices they have and the choices they made. Let the companies do what they have to do and enjoy what you have.

Re:The Single Patent? I Thought It Was Six? by flimflammer · 2012-12-20 19:40 · Score: 1

Wait. When was that?

Two more potential prior art patents dug up today by bentwonk2 · 2012-12-20 20:02 · Score: 1

Spent a little time today digging around and found two prior art patents, which make things a little more fun:

Nokia "Apparatus, Methods and computer program products providing finger-based and hand-based gesture commands for portable electronic device" in 2006

and interesting Apple again in 2004 (granted 2006), " Gestures for touch sensitive input devices" but this patent is not listed as prior art to the granted Apple "pinch to zoom" patent

http://www.ambercite.com/joomla/index.php/amber

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by VortexCortex · 2012-12-20 21:20 · Score: 1

Just ban all patents. What proof do we have that they are beneficial? None. We have ZERO evidence, no relevant control group w/o patents to examine -- Oh, wait, except for in certain markets, like Fashion and Automobiles; Neither are allowed design patents yet they excel in innovative designs. OK, so we have two half-assed control groups where patents aren't allowed, and yet they're more than innovative despite not having patent protections... For everything else? We have no proof whatsoever that patents are beneficial at all, and yet the system continues. It's just bad science.

It's not like we can't re-enact whatever crap laws we want later. I see all these folks asking for patent reform, NO. The only acceptable logical solution is to abolish patents until it can be proven that they're beneficial and without significant bad side effects, and investigation or recalls if some harm is discovered after we've approved the system. We don't allow new drugs on the shelves until they're PROVEN safe, why would any sane individual agree to apply the UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS that "patents are good" to our economy?

No Scientist or Engineer would agree to be ruled this way: Brittan had them, so we should have them too! No study or test group required, let's apply it to the whole economy!
This is completely asinine!

Re:Yet another unproven hypothesis. by VortexCortex · 2012-12-20 21:51 · Score: 1

Patents don't stifle innovation........ they protect innovation. If there were no patents, then companies would not invest huge amounts of money inventing and innovating.

I'm a scientist, so: PROVE IT

Oh, that's right you have no evidence to support your untested theory, because we have ZERO evidence that patents are beneficial at all. Ah, so the only logical thing to do would be to collect some evidence, eh? THEN we could settle this argument once and for all. I'm sure you'd agree, I mean, You're not one of those fools who shies away from The Scientific Method, are you? Well then, you can only agree that we must first abolish patents to see if they are beneficial at all. Not doing the experiment is pants-on-head retarding progress.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Some+Bitch · 2012-12-20 23:31 · Score: 1

The judge prevented Samsung from entering all manner of evidence for the purpose of demonstrating prior art.

I'd argue that Samsung prevented Samsung from entering that evidence when they missed the filing deadline. To use an old meme, which part of the word deadline did you not understand?

Re:Groklaw is biased, read FOSS Patents instead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:27 · Score: 0

You mean like the Free Software Foundation, which has been lobbying to invalidate all software patents for years now? And whose lawyer, Eben Moglen, now is managing http://groklaw.net?

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Theaetetus · 2012-12-21 03:38 · Score: 2

As near as I can find, it doesn't look like Samsung raised any of these references during the trial to show the patents were invalid. Why not?

A good chunk of Samsung's prior art evidence wrt phones (the violations they were fined $1b for - they were cleared of copying the iPad) was disallowed because they missed a filing deadline. Kinda defeated the whole purpose of having the trial IMHO, but Judge Koh decided her schedule was more important.

1) Not any of the ones mentioned in the reexamination. The "good chunk of Samsung's prior art evidence" were several prototype phones owned by Samsung. The reexamination involves several prior art publications and patents, not prototype phones. So, again, why weren't these publications and patents brought up in trial?

2) The disallowed evidence was because no party in a litigation is allowed to keep evidence secret to spring on the other side on the eve of trial... and particularly where that evidence is the party's own prototypes, business records, etc. They can't really claim they had no knowledge of them and just found them. Instead, it was "we'll keep this secret and surprise everyone with it at the last second so that they can't defend it". That's allowed in movies and television (for example, the letters to Santa in Miracle on 34th St.) but not allowed in reality. It's not Judge Koh deciding her schedule was more important, it's the Supreme Court deciding that trials should be fair and impartial and not allow one side to spring things on the other.

blockquote>

Wasn't Groklaw complaining just a few days ago that the jury foreman brought in external evidence, and therefore committed misconduct? And now, Groklaw is saying the jury should have conducted its own prior art search and brought in external evidence that wasn't raised by Samsung? What is it, the rules don't apply if it hurts Apple?

Groklaw is referring to an erroneous instruction given by the jury foreman to the other jurors. He (wrongly) told them that software claiming to be prior art to features on the iPhone were only relevant if the code would run on the iPhone. Since all of the code submitted as prior art runs on other systems and thus doesn't run on the iPhone, he told the jury they could dismiss all the prior art claims out of hand without even having to look at it. So the jury never looked at the software prior art which was submitted at trial. Groklaw is just saying they should have.

That never actually happened, though. You're reading a few statements of Hogan out of context and putting them together to create a scenario that never occurred. It also doesn't explain why the patents and publications in the reexamination weren't before the jury.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Theaetetus · 2012-12-21 03:46 · Score: 1

When a foreman tells the rest of the jury pool that he has patents and knows how they work and should therefore listen to him, even though it goes against the instructions, that is misconduct. Just saying. Several jurors, including the foreman himself have claimed this.

That's not misconduct, though. Just saying. Groklaw quotes Koh's decision on misconduct, which quotes the relevant law:

A “juror’s personal knowledge constitutes extraneous prejudicial information where the juror has personal knowledge regarding the parties or issues involved in the litigation.” Hard v. Burlington N. R.R. (Hard I), 812 F.2d 482, 486 (9th Cir. 1987). Jurors are expected to bring their own personal experiences with them into the courtroom, and may generally rely on their personal knowledge or past experiences when hearing the evidence, deliberating, and deciding their verdict so long as they do not have knowledge related to the specific case they are deciding. Id.

Hogan's personal knowledge of the patent system is not extraneous prejudicial information, because it is not personal knowledge regarding the parties or issues involved in the litigation - i.e. Samsung, Apple, or the patents at issue. He's entitled to rely on his personal knowledge of other experiences, provided they are not related to this specific case.

Continuing:

However, “[a]fter a verdict is returned a juror will not be heard to impeach the verdict when his testimony concerns his misunderstanding of the court’s instructions,” even where a juror would be able to “testify, objectively, of incidents tending to indicate that other jurors may have misunderstood the court’s instructions on the elements of the offense,” as “the inquiry would still concern the mental processes by which the jurors reached their decision and would therefore be barred by the nonimpeachment rule.” United States v. Stacey, 475 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1973). Thus, a juror’s understanding of the Court’s instructions is not considered extraneous prejudicial information, and the Court cannot receive testimony on how the jurors understood or followed instructions. To do so would be to undermine the “crucial assumption” necessary for the functioning of our jury system. Parker, 442 U.S. at 73.

Alleged failure to follow the instructions is also not misconduct.

What Groklaw appears to be arguing is that the jurors should have done their own prior art research and found the patents and publications used by the USPTO in the reexamination. That would be clear misconduct, since it would be external research about facts specific to this case.

Re:Patents don't stifle innovation.... by weiserfireman · 2012-12-21 03:58 · Score: 1

When I worked for a previous employer, I came up with an idea that was eventually patented. My name is on the inventory, the company was assigned the rights of use.

All patents are like that. The company is never the inventor.

I watched this week as Kodak sold their patent portfolio to a known patent troll. I wondered how we could stop this. Maybe a simple change in US Law.....

Rights could still be assigned to employers, but employers would not have the right to resell those assigned rights. If the company went bankrupt, all those assigned rights would roll back to the original inventor. Anyone else who wanted those rights would have to negotiate with the original inventor. If a Company was purchased by another Company, those assigned rights wouldn't transfer, The new company would have to renegotiate with the original inventory.

This would make it much more difficult/expensive to accumulate portfolios of patents, if they were not the company employing the true inventors.

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by DeadCatX2 · 2012-12-21 10:53 · Score: 1

Groklaw is referring to an erroneous instruction given by the jury foreman to the other jurors. He (wrongly) told them that software claiming to be prior art to features on the iPhone were only relevant if the code would run on the iPhone. Since all of the code submitted as prior art runs on other systems and thus doesn't run on the iPhone, he told the jury they could dismiss all the prior art claims out of hand without even having to look at it. So the jury never looked at the software prior art which was submitted at trial. Groklaw is just saying they should have.

That never actually happened, though. You're reading a few statements of Hogan out of context and putting them together to create a scenario that never occurred. It also doesn't explain why the patents and publications in the reexamination weren't before the jury.

What was taken out of context?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY#t=2m50s

"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."

(note he actually starts this sentence at 3:13, but I included the 26 seconds before it for context)

--
:(){ :|:& };:

Re:Where was this art during the trial? And PJ's b by Theaetetus · 2012-12-21 11:11 · Score: 1

Groklaw is referring to an erroneous instruction given by the jury foreman to the other jurors. He (wrongly) told them that software claiming to be prior art to features on the iPhone were only relevant if the code would run on the iPhone. Since all of the code submitted as prior art runs on other systems and thus doesn't run on the iPhone, he told the jury they could dismiss all the prior art claims out of hand without even having to look at it. So the jury never looked at the software prior art which was submitted at trial. Groklaw is just saying they should have.

That never actually happened, though. You're reading a few statements of Hogan out of context and putting them together to create a scenario that never occurred. It also doesn't explain why the patents and publications in the reexamination weren't before the jury.

What was taken out of context?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY#t=2m50s

"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."

(note he actually starts this sentence at 3:13, but I included the 26 seconds before it for context)

Well, for example, he never says "they could dismiss all the prior art claims out of hand without even having to look at it" as the GP said. The GP is actually taking two different statements by Hogan - one about skipping over some prior art to return to it later, and the one you quote about running code on different systems - and combining them out of context. See?

erroneus/john b wilcox he meant this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:27 · Score: 0

When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

erroneus/johnbwilcox you're disgustingly fat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 14:30 · Score: 0

Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, & spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.

Slashdot Mirror

Apple's Pinch+Zoom Patent Invalidated By Preliminary USPTO Ruling

149 comments