Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Appeals Court Reinstates Apple's $120 Million Slide-To-Unlock Patent Win Over Samsung (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the surprise-ending dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Apple Inc. won an appeals court ruling that reinstates a patent-infringement verdict it won against Samsung Electronics Co., including for its slide-to-unlock feature for smartphones and tablets. In an 8-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said a three-judge panel was wrong to throw out the $119.6 million verdict in February. Instead, it ordered the trial judge to consider whether the judgment should be increased based on any intentional infringement by Samsung. In this case, Apple claimed that Samsung infringed patents for the slide-to-unlock feature, autocorrect and a way to detect phone numbers so they can be tapped to make phone calls. The bulk of the award, $98.7 million, was for the detection patent that the earlier panel said wasn't infringed. The February decision also said the other two patents were invalid. That was a wrong decision, the court ruled Friday, because it relied on issues that were never raised on appeal or on information that was beyond the trial record. "The jury verdict on each issue is supported by substantial evidence in the record," Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for the majority.

10 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. It just shows how arbitrary it is. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They might as well flip a coin.

  2. Apple Patent Trolling + Biased Juries = PROFIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > "The jury verdict on each issue is supported by substantial evidence in the record," Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for the majority.

    Oh Rubbish. Now take that headline:
    BEFORE: "Apple Appeals Court Reinstates Apple's $120 Million Slide-To-Unlock Patent Win Over Samsung"
    AFTER: "AMERICAN APPEALS COURT Reinstates AMERICAN COMPANY'S Apple's $120 Million Slide-To-Unlock AMERICAN Patent Win Over KOREAN COMPANY Samsung"

    When American companies step outside off American soil and try and launch patent suits overseas they almost always fail. Look at some of the patents that trolls like Apple have been celebrating in the US, but when they tried to do the same with patents in Europe and Asia they lost. American patent juries are notoriously biased towards American companies. That's how the whole East Texas Patent Troll County thing came about: Companies knew the judges and juries would give them the result they wanted. The courts can dress it up however they like, but the judicial bias in East Texas has been terrible: https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.law.umich.edu/cent...

    My Challenge to Crapple: Contest that same patent in Korea and see how far you get.

  3. What's the point now? by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2

    The iphone starting from iOS10 doesn't slide to unlock anymore!!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  4. Stupid patents hinder competition by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stupid patents. Sliding locks have been around since Roman days, and Apple didn't invent auto-correct nor Intellisense.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Stupid patents hinder competition by skam240 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod up please. The fact that Apple was able to patent these things is beyond absurd. Our patent office needs to learn to say "no" in a big way.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Stupid patents hinder competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple didn't even patent sliding to unlock, that was rejected dozens of times. But Jobs kept pressing and revising the application. The "innovation" that finally got granted was "continuously pressing your finger down while sliding to unlock". I'm not fucking kidding, the $120M innovation was "continuously" pressing your finger while sliding it across a screen.

  5. Re:There is always a hidden agenda by skam240 · · Score: 2

    It's a bit shocking to me that this article was modded up at least twice to get the "interesting" tag. The purpose this press release serves is to inform us about a patent dispute. It has literally nothing to do with the FBI.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  6. Apple is a patent troll by zedaroca · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple is a patent troll. They really hurt both the market and innovation with their practices. Buying from them is bad for humanity's future.

    1. Re:Apple is a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong.

      Patent trolls don't actually make products. Apple patented this (whether you think the patent is valid or not is absolutely up for debate), and then used it in products ranging over 8 years of time. Words and phrases have meanings, and they are only fungible over long periods of time. You may not like Apple, so call them bastards and shitheads - both of which probably apply in this case. But don't repurpose a moniker that means something else just because it has the word "patent" in it.

      And why did Samsung have to copy it? They were found guilty, and they aren't even appealing that aspect which is tantamount to admission. There's plenty of other android OEMs out there that didn't copy it - don't you think that Apple would have named them in lawsuits as well? There's clearly other ways to implement this functionality that work just as well.

      Regardless of if it's a shit patent, Samsung should have recognized that the patent was granted and not willfully violated it. Or, they should have tried to invalidate it as their defense in the original trial, which they didn't bother to do.

    2. Re:Apple is a patent troll by zedaroca · · Score: 2

      Patent troll

      A person, company, etc. that holds and enforces patents in an aggressive and opportunistic manner , often with no intention of marketing or promoting the subject of the patent. (bold is mine)

      Patent troll

      In pejorative usage, a patent troll is a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.(bolds are mine)

      The point you make is that I shouldn't call them patent trolls because "patent trolls don't actually make products". I copied two definitions (the first two on duckduckgo). They both mention your point, but use the word "often". Often they don't actually use the patents, but sometimes they do.