Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins $120 Million From Samsung In Slide-To-Unlock Patent Battle (theverge.com)
Apple has finally claimed victory over Samsung to the count of $120 million. "The Supreme Court said today that it wouldn't hear an appeal of the patent infringement case, first decided in 2014, which has been bouncing through appeals courts in the years since," reports The Verge. From the report: The case revolved around Apple's famous slide-to-unlock patent and, among others, its less-famous quick links patent, which covered software that automatically turned information like a phone number into a tappable link. Samsung was found to have infringed both patents. The ruling was overturned almost two years later, and then reinstated once again less than a year after that. From there, Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court, which is where the case met its end today. Naturally, Samsung isn't pleased with the outcome. "Our argument was supported by many who believed that the Court should hear the case to reinstate fair standards that promote innovation and prevent abuse of the patent system," a Samsung representative said in a statement. The company also said the ruling would let Apple "unjustly profit" from an invalid patent.
Okay troll, AC bites back. Cut and Paste wasn't an innovation, it was an evolution of their OS. They touted it as a major feature primarily because of the broken (at the time) Android implementation which they refined upon. There is no patent on Cut and Paste owned by Apple. They are not fighting the true owner of the patent, because the real owner has pledged not to use its patents for evil.
By the way the company with the patent on Cut and Paste is IBM
What? Are you nuts? Computers work completely different from reality. If I use a pin code to unlock something, and that decrypts a volume, or allows a download, it works NOTHING like a physical lock which has gears and aligns pins to slip into and out of traps. You obviously know nothing about how computers work to say "if it works in reality, making it work on a computer is not patentable". So If I have a child and it learns to talk, and I make a computer talk, that talking solution is not patentable? What about being able to store and read a document? Does every file format that represents "real data" have its patents invalidated because "I could make a real piece of paper look like that document"? Thank goodness you aren't in charge of our patent system, your worse than the current clowns.