Samsung Found To Infringe On Apple Patents

Azure · Aug 27, 2012

apostle83 said: ↑

We Are Borg said: ↑

I know there are supposed to be firewalls between Samsung's handset business and components business, but it's going to be real interesting how this plays out since Samsung is the sole supplier of microprocessors to the iPhone and iPad, as well as a major manufacturer of Apple's flat screens and memory chips.

Oops.
Click to expand...

There was a very interesting article in this month's Wired about Intel's recent all out effort to make mobile chips. They have some good things in the pipes, so on that front I think there are other options for Apple.

Screenwise, I don't think there is much room to go beyond "retina" right now, and I think that there are other manufacturers who can make it.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have said there are other options for Apple in regards to getting hardware for their phones. Fact is, if there were....they would have ditched Samsung a long time ago.

Why the bloody hell would they support their direct competitor unless they literally had no choice?

Azure · Aug 27, 2012

Article from CNET talking about the Groklaw article and how the verdict could be struck down.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-5...uggest-apple-samsung-verdict-may-not-be-safe/

In a searingly chilly analysis, Groklaw points to apparently simple facts that suggest anything from boredom to power intoxication.

The jury, for example, found that one Samsung device didn't infringe Apple's patent and yet they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. This was a slightly odd award, given that it's quite hard to induce someone to do something illegal when it isn't, in fact, illegal.

Then there was the deeply confident statements of the jury foreman, retired engineer and patent holder Velvin Hogan. He reportedly told the court that the jurors had filled out all of the 700-question form without needing to read the jury instructions.

There's nothing wiser than a clever engineer, but might this not smack of an excess of confidence?
Click to expand...

Indeed, the blog sounded so disturbed that its authors would have traded their Bentleys in for bicycles: "Here's the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?"
Click to expand...

Then there's this rather hulkily intellectual idea that foreman Hogan expressed to Reuters: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

But, as Groklaw pointed out, the award of damages isn't apparently in the law to represent three slaps of the headmaster's cane on the infringer's buttocks. It's there to compensate for losses.
Click to expand...

frontline · Aug 27, 2012

Thanks for posting that. Based on that, the other comments here and from what I saw and have experienced over the years in cannot see Samsung appealing and not getting at least some relief if not the entire decision being vacated. Hopefully this does make it to the SCOTUS and some sanity is restored to patent law. The article did a good thing to recall the Borland V. Lotus decision.

Dinner · Aug 27, 2012

This is a horrible ruling. It's pretty obvious the folks in the jury box just wanted to go home and didn't even try to understand the extremely complex technical stuff involved.

Ancalagon · Aug 27, 2012

I seriously think we should start discussing getting rid of Jury Trials for civil cases.

Azure · Aug 27, 2012

Oh this just keeps on getting better and better. Samsung just has to sit back and let the tech community do all their work for 'em.

Apple was awarded damages for Samsung phones that were available on networks and carriers that didn't even CARRY the iPhone. How the frack is THAT supposed to work?

The first bit obviously stands for a multitude of reasons: not everyone who bought a Samsung device was actually open to an iPhone. While I don’t have numbers any numbers, I believe its reasonable to argue that a significant few bought a Galaxy phone because they wanted Android, not iOS. And the second bit of that statement, regarding Apple’s exclusivity deal with AT&T, seems particularly strong. Until January 8th, 2011, the only network you could get an iPhone on in the US was AT&T. Keeping this in mind, it’s difficult for Apple to claim that the devices Samsung sold to users on other networks hurt their own sales, since the role of the network and it’s coverage plays an important while deciding which device to purchase.

Apple was awarded $57 million for the Samsung Prevail (Boost Mobile) and a little over $53 million for the Samsung Mesmerize (US Cellular), with the iPhone still not available on either network. Additionally, the Samsung Transform cost Samsung about a million, though it was made available on Sprint almost a year before the network’s customers could use an iPhone without switching carriers. Apple was also awarded $3.5 million for the Replenish, which was available on Boost and on Sprint for 4-5 months before the iPhone. In total, we’re talking about $115 million in damages with these devices. I’ll try to update this list once I get my hands on with a complete breakdown of damages per device.

Update: The following device-by-device breakdown of damages was provided on Groklaw. I have cancelled out those devices I believe did not compete with iPhone by being available at a network that did not sell the iPhone ever or was released before the iPhone was announced for the network, thereby not competing with it at the time of sales. I kept the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab damages since a breakdown based on networks was not provided. The total provided by Groklaw is also different since he and a few of his readers believe that the courts have it wrong by a few ten thousands (on the lower side).
Click to expand...

Here is the device breakdown with damages awarded to Apple for each phone. Phandroid crossed out the phones that were on networks where the iPhone wasn't even available.

Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162
Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117
Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869
Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894
Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820
Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179
Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383
Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668
Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356
Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558
Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146
Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691
Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076
Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0
Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585
Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184
Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974
Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612
Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297
Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256
Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060
Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957
TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540
Click to expand...

Which updates the damages.

Total, removing the damages for the above devices……………..$251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages.
Click to expand...

The article also mentions that the jury instructions were quite clear.

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty.
Click to expand...

There was no possible way that Apple should be compensated considering the iPhone wasn't even AVAILABLE to compete against the Samsung phones in question.

What a load of crock.

http://phandroid.com/2012/08/26/samsung-planning-various-arguments-for-its-appeal/

Azure · Aug 27, 2012

Oops, some weird editing after copying that post from another forum I post at.

The numbers in the smiles are those of the phones on networks that the iPhone isn't even available at.

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee · Aug 27, 2012

I think you've raised your first bad point there. It doesn't matter if it was available to compete or not.

Azure · Aug 27, 2012

Why doesn't it? Apple specifically brought up the point about customers walking to the 'store' and confusing Samsung products for Apple products. The whole stupidity of the 'rounded corners' point is based on that. They claim to have lost market share because of it.

Well think about it. Customer walks into US Cellular, Sprint, Boost or Verizon store pre-2010 or whenever AT&T was till exclusive for the iPhone....and asks about buying the iPhone. Sales person says iPhone isn't available, but here are some other great phones we're selling. Phones include the Samsung phones Apple is seeking damages for.

Even IF the customer buys the Samsung phone, Apple can't possibly claim that is Samsung stealing market share from them, because there is no way Apple could have GAINED market share on any other carrier besides AT&T for the longest time. Even if Samsung didn't exist Apple couldn't have gained market share. Which is another point, because the damages were supposed to be awarded upon the basis of if there was no infringement in the first place, then Apple would have made this much 'more' money.

Except Apple wasn't in any position to make that much MORE money, because they weren't even competing with Samsung on those specific carriers.

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee · Aug 27, 2012

I disagree with a lot of how patent law is being implemented now. I make that disclaimer!

One thing I do agree with is that if you "infringe" on a patent, every unit you infringe with gets you paid. The idea isn't "Oh, this isn't available". Effort wasn't stolen only if something you make is sold in a market your product is available, it was stolen if you sell it where the original isn't available.

The lawsuit is bunk, but that part isn't.

Azure · Aug 27, 2012

If every unit that was infringed upon would be subject to damages being awarded to Apple, every single Samsung device would be in question.

They all run Touchwiz and have rounded edges.

Caboose · Aug 27, 2012

I have to wonder if the jurors were crApple users.

Azure · Aug 28, 2012

More updates. The injunction has been moved to Dec 6, which is a win for Apple. Gives them about a month extra to prepare. And a month is a lot considering how often this jury foreman retard is sticking his foot into his mouth after he pulls it out of his ass.

Groklaw updated based on the interview the guy gave to Bloomberg. I'll quote the relevant parts.

Update 5: The foreman has now given an interview with Bloomberg News, which seemed to be giving him an opportunity to answer some of the above criticisms, among others. It's a video on YouTube, and in discussing the first patent on the list, they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:
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.
That isn't disqualifying for prior art.
My favorite comment on Hacker News about this video and the foreman's claims, from ktizo:

I think he may have a valid point. Perhaps apple have invented some new numbers, like eleventy-four, that don't fit into the old computers properly due to magic and stuff.
He's kidding around, of course. By the way, hacker means something good to programmers. Crackers are the bad guys.
The foreman says that the jury started out in a stalemate, because some on the jury were not clear how prior art can invalidate a patent. At that point, he thought it was going Samsung's way. So he went home and had an aha moment. He felt he could defend it if it was his patent. So he explained it all to the jury. And that turned the tide. But if he told them that interchangeability was a requirement for prior art, he goofed big time.

Here is the jury instruction given on what is prior art, on page 44 of the instructions PDF, which you can find here:

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31
UTILITY PATENTS—ANTICIPATION
A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called “prior art references.” If a patent claim is not new we say it is “anticipated” by a prior art reference.

The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field looking at that one reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention.

Here is a list of the ways that either party can show that a patent claim was not new:

– If the claimed invention was already publicly known or publicly used by others in the United States before the date of conception of the claimed invention;

– If the claimed invention was already patented or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the date of conception of the claimed invention. A reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to those interested in the field, even if it is difficult to find;

– If the claimed invention was already made by someone else in the United States before the date of conception of the claimed invention, if that other person had not abandoned the invention or kept it secret;

If the patent holder and the alleged infringer dispute who is a first inventor, the person who first conceived of the claimed invention and first reduced it to practice is the first inventor. If one person conceived of the claimed invention first, but reduced to practice second, that person is the first inventor only if that person (a) began to reduce the claimed invention to practice before the other party conceived of it, and (b) continued to work diligently to reduce it to practice. A claimed invention is “reduced to practice” when it has been tested sufficiently to show that it will work for its intended purpose or when it is fully described in a patent application filed with the PTO.

– If the claimed invention was already described in another issued U.S. patent or published U.S. patent application that was based on a patent application filed before the patent holder’s application filing date or the date of conception of the claimed invention.

Since certain of them are in dispute, you must determine dates of conception for the claimed inventions and prior inventions. Conception is the mental part of an inventive act and is proven when the invention is shown in its complete form by drawings, disclosure to another, or other forms of evidence presented at trial.

Did you notice that prior art can be a piece of paper describing the invention. It doesn't have to run on any processor.

This was regarding what the foreman in the video calls the '460 patent, but there was no such patent in the case. Here's the Amended Jury Verdict [PDF] form, so you can see for yourself. You'll find the list on page 9. That mistake in speaking makes it impossible to understand what he is referring to, so as to check it. He also says it was the first one on the list, though, and that would be the '381 patent [PDF], "List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display", or the bounce-back patent. The prior art Samsung listed in its trial brief included: the Tablecloth program installed on the DiamondTouch system developed by Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory ("MERL"), the LaunchTile and XNav programs developed by Dr. Benjamin Bederson, and International Publication Number WO 03/081458.

I don't know about the rest, but the Tablecloth system was demonstrated at trial by Adam Bogue.

Another witness, Benjamin Bederson, presented as prior art his Launch Tile invention, a system of icon tiles in an interfact allowing users to zoom in and out. It had a snapback feature. They don't count as prior art because you can't run Apple software on them? This is, to me, the biggest goof of them all.
Click to expand...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1

Ramen · Aug 31, 2012

Log in or Sign up

Samsung Found To Infringe On Apple Patents

Azure I could kick your ass

Azure I could kick your ass

frontline Hedonistic Glutton Staff Member Moderator

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

Azure I could kick your ass

Azure I could kick your ass

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

Azure I could kick your ass

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

Azure I could kick your ass

Caboose ....

Azure I could kick your ass

Ramen Banned

Log in or Sign up

Samsung Found To Infringe On Apple Patents

Azure I could kick your ass

Azure I could kick your ass

frontline Hedonistic Glutton Staff Member Moderator

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Ancalagon Scalawag Administrator Formerly Important

Azure I could kick your ass

Azure I could kick your ass

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

Azure I could kick your ass

Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

Azure I could kick your ass

Caboose ....

Azure I could kick your ass

Ramen Banned

Useful Searches