Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Educate me Horatius. Why does the platform matter wrt patents? Why do Apple's patents specify the platform the patent applies to, if not because such uses have been used on other platforms and what Apple is doing is taking existing tech and patenting it for mobile devices?

So now you're complaining because they didn't claim broadly enough?

Make up your fricken' mind.

BTW, there's no rule against claiming more narrowly than what you've actually invented. They conceived of their idea as being a method of using a smart phone. It wouldn't be the first time an inventor forgot to look beyond their narrow field of interest to see if their actual invention could be applied more broadly, and it won't be the last time, either.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

So now you're complaining because they didn't claim broadly enough?

Really? That's what you took from that post?

Do you think Benz could have patented the wheel on a device with an internal combustion engine?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Really? That's what you took from that post?

Yes. You're essentially saying that the limitation that it be used on a mobile device is an admission that the method was know for use on non-mobile devices. That's an implied assertion that cannot be legitimately drawn from the claim, and has not been supported by any external references.

There may be lots of reasons why they would claim it in such a limited fashion, and existing prior art they're trying to skirt around is only one of those reasons.

As I said, they may have simply not noticed they were claiming more narrowly than they were entitled to.

They may have known that, but simply not cared about the non-mobile market. Lots of inventors claim that way, essentially dedicating the non-claimed embodiments to the public.

They may not have felt the non-mobile market was worth the cost of obtaining an additional, broader patent, as this functionality would find its best use in the mobile market. On a large device, location based swiping would work better than it does on a small device. It's only on the small screens that you really need this non-location based scrolling behavior.

Quote:

Do you think Benz could have patented the wheel on a device with an internal combustion engine?

If he had been the first to ever do that, after years of other people not doing that even though engines and wheels were known, then yes.

But, too bad for your strawman argument, analogous prior art existed as far back as the 17th century, so he couldn't have gotten a patent on that even if he tried. Too bad you still haven't shown prior art that relates to what was actually patented.


Now,to make your strawman a bit more realistic, should Benz, or whoever, have been granted a patent on a new transmission that allowed more efficient coupling of the engine to the drive wheels?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

If he had been the first to ever do that, after years of other people not doing that even though engines and wheels were known, then yes.

Excellent. Now define "years", exactly how many are required?

How many years were inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens available before Apple's iPhone patent?

How many years were the wireless data networks available that make smart phones practical in the first place?

Those are reasons why Judge Richard Posner ruled the way he did. The patents may well be valid, but they are also worthless or nearly so for the purpose of a tort. When you have hundreds of thousands of patents necessary for a single $X00 product the value of any one of them is virtually nothing, and in no small part because there's simple workarounds for any one of them and rapidly changing technology give them a very short market life anyway. He opined that for these reasons such things shouldn't be patentable at all.

There's certainly no reason to think that these patents are fomenting innovation, it's quite the opposite. Cell phone makers will always try to outdo their competitors, patent or not. So what if your competitors copy you in their next model iteration? By then you'll have a new model out with new unique features.

Apple didn't invent the smart phone, they didn't invent the technologies that make smart phones possible. All they did was make the first one that hit it big with consumers. Great, they had a hit product! That doesn't grant them sole rights to the smart phone market from that point forward.

Originally Posted by Horatius

But, too bad for your strawman argument, analogous prior art existed as far back as the 17th century, so he couldn't have gotten a patent on that even if he tried.

I specifically said "internal combustion engine", and your example is a steam engine (external combustion).

Do you think Benz could have patented wheels on a device with an internal combustion engine?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

...

Yeah, they probably looked at the iPhone and took ideas from it.

...

Then we might as well not have any patents, because a patent is there to protect ideas that you can embody into a product.

If they took ideas, and those ideas were the subject of patent, or if they took ideas and those ideas were the subject of copyright, or if they took ideas and so created a trade dress which was confusingly similar, then Apple has will win.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I've not seen any sign of an Apple fanboy in this thread.

Just two people who are educated as to how patents actually work, and are frustrated by people misrepresenting the facts of patent cases.

Hey! I think I know how they work, too.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by WildCat

...

Do you think Benz could have patented the wheel on a device with an internal combustion engine?

In 1888? Yes.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Hey! I think I know how they work, too.

It appears so. I should not have limited it to "two."

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

In 1888? Yes.

Doing a little research I find that a guy named George Selden actually did that in 1897 (filed in 1879). He suceeded in getting rich on royalties until Ford challenged the patent, and while the trial court agreed with Selden the appellate court ruled for Ford:

Quote:

Ford appealed, however, and on January 10, 1911 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the automobile in all of its potential forms and types was not capable of being patented.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/373.pdf


The "Road Engine":

Quote:

Selden applied for a patent on the "Road Engine" in 1879. Sensing that the time was not right for a horseless carriage, he delayed issuance of the patent until 1895, by which time a young automobile industry was growing in the USA. Although he had no interest in manufacturing his invention, he was very interested in benefiting from it. Under threat of suit, almost all of the manufacturers took out licenses from Selden, or from the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM), to whom he sold the patent.

...There was one notorious holdout, a young manufacturer named Henry Ford. Selden sued Ford (among others), and the lawsuit dragged on for nearly eight years. During that time the ALAM took out magazine ads, threatening to sue anyone who bought an unlicensed car - some advised people "don't buy a lawsuit with your new automobile." Here's a sample ALAM advertisement, claiming that the Selden patent was so broad that any practical car must infringe:

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? Only difference is Selden was only interested in licensing, not manufacturing and it's the opposite with Apple.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

In 1888? Yes.

I'd say no. The earlier prior art of steam powered automobiles renders it obvious, as the ICE is merely an equivalent part as to function. While an ICE may be better as it's lighter and more powerful, it's been held (at least here in Canada) that merely replacing a part with a superior part is considered to be obvious. The benefits of the superior part are inherent.

That being said, there very well may be patentable aspects of adapting the exiting steam powered cars to ICE power. Like the new transmission I mentioned above.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How many years were inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens available before Apple's iPhone patent?

How many years were the wireless data networks available that make smart phones practical in the first place?

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens"? That touchscreen paper you linked described a technology that could have implemented this method, but that didn't implement it.

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "wireless data networks"? Anyone could have used a desktop computer with a touchscreen, and linked it to the internet, so as to have web pages to manipulate in this manner, but they didn't.

You're just trying to come up with excuses to support your original misinformed opinion.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens"? That touchscreen paper you linked described a technology that could have implemented this method, but that didn't implement it.

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "wireless data networks"? Anyone could have used a desktop computer with a touchscreen, and linked it to the internet, so as to have web pages to manipulate in this manner, but they didn't.

You're just trying to come up with excuses to support your original misinformed opinion.

Those items were prerequisites to a practical smart phone. And they're certainly not the only ones.

Now why don't you answer the questions? How many "years of other people not doing it" are required, specifically?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

In 1888? Yes.

Originally Posted by Horatius

I'd say no. The earlier prior art of steam powered automobiles renders it obvious, as the ICE is merely an equivalent part as to function. While an ICE may be better as it's lighter and more powerful, it's been held (at least here in Canada) that merely replacing a part with a superior part is considered to be obvious. The benefits of the superior part are inherent.

That being said, there very well may be patentable aspects of adapting the exiting steam powered cars to ICE power. Like the new transmission I mentioned above.

Wow, 2 of the resident patent experts are both wrong per the Circuit Court decision I cited above. It turns out you can't patent the general concept of an ICE-powered automobile, and prior art had squat to do with the decision.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wow, 2 of the resident patent experts are both wrong per the Circuit Court decision I cited above.

Nope.

Quote:

It turns out you can't patent the general concept of an ICE-powered automobile, and prior art had squat to do with the decision.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the decision said at all.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope.


I'm pretty sure that's not what the decision said at all.

Those are some compelling arguments there Avalon, give me some time to read through your links.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Those are some compelling arguments there Avalon, give me some time to read through your links.

How about you spend the time reviewing some basic information on patent law instead? Or can't you be bothered to learn the basics before popping off on a hundred-year-old case like you know what you're talking about?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

How about you spend the time reviewing some basic information on patent law instead? Or can't you be bothered to learn the basics before popping off on a hundred-year-old case like you know what you're talking about?

That counters my links and posts how, exactly?

And please cite the law that renders my hundred year old case moot.

[AvalonXQ]

You claim that case says "you can't power the general concept of an ICE powered automobile, even in the absence of any prior art."

Please cite the portion of the case that in any way supports your claim.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wow, 2 of the resident patent experts are both wrong per the Circuit Court decision I cited above. It turns out you can't patent the general concept of an ICE-powered automobile, and prior art had squat to do with the decision.

You do realize there can be more than one reason to deny a patent? And that the courts only need to have one reason to do so?

You do realize that the courts have more authority to decide what is and is not patentable than a patent examiner, right?


What Am I asking. Of course you don't.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

I cant see how allowing ideas to be copied helps innovation. Surely we dont want a market of clones such they are all the same. Looks like you are confused.

This is how I see it. Imagine you have some great ideas for a smart phone, you manage to raise the capital and set up your own company to develop it in the hope that you are first to market.

The problem is, you find out you have to license 100 different intuitive features such a phone icons, double clicks, two finger gestures etc. You either license these, which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds.

Though immaterial, to rub salt into the wound, you find out the patent holders didn't even develop these features but asset stripped the patents from smaller companies they'd bought.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Those items were prerequisites to a practical smart phone.

But they were not prerequisites to developing this type of scrolling using these types of gestures. Do try to keep up.

Quote:

Now why don't you answer the questions? How many "years of other people not doing it" are required, specifically?

There is no specific answer, but in what you describe as "rapidly developing technologies", I'd suggest it should be something less than the about 20 years we already know about.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by monoman

This is how I see it. Imagine you have some great ideas for a smart phone, you manage to raise the capital and set up your own company to develop it in the hope that you are first to market.

The problem is, you find out you have to license 100 different intuitive features such a phone icons, double clicks, two finger gestures etc. You either license these, which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds.

"which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds"



Two unfounded declarations in one sentence.


And of course you don't even consider licensing or selling your patent to the larger manufacturers as a revenue stream.

Quote:

Though immaterial, to rub salt into the wound, you find out the patent holders didn't even develop these features but asset stripped the patents from smaller companies they'd bought.

And why is this such a huge issue in this field, but not in others? Patents get bought and sold all the time, should we simply disallow that entirely?

[monoman]

Originally Posted by Horatius

"which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds"

Two unfounded declarations in one sentence.

Since it's my hypothetical, I can tell you with 100% certainty that Bad-boy cannot afford to license these 100 features.

Quote:

And of course you don't even consider licensing or selling your patent to the larger manufacturers as a revenue stream.

Depressing but possible.

Quote:

And why is this such a huge issue in this field, but not in others? Patents get bought and sold all the time, should we simply disallow that entirely?

I don't know. All I know is that it's been an issue, in a field that I'm interested in, for a good few years.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by monoman

Since it's my hypothetical, I can tell you with 100% certainty that Bad-boy cannot afford to license these 100 features.

But, despite having a good enough idea to attract the attention of investors in a notoriously aggressive field of technology, the best he can come up with to replace these features are "clumsy work-arounds"?

What was that about "stifling innovation"?

[monoman]

Originally Posted by Horatius

But, despite having a good enough idea to attract the attention of investors in a notoriously aggressive field of technology, the best he can come up with to replace these features are "clumsy work-arounds"?

What was that about "stifling innovation"?

They wouldn't* implement the clumsy work-arounds, they'd have to license the tech to someone else. This is not much of an incentive to enter the field.

* The major players have made such implementations in the past. Whether the cost of the licenses was exorbitant or they were biting their nose of to spite their face I don't know.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by monoman

They wouldn't* implement the clumsy work-arounds, they'd have to license the tech to someone else. This is not much of an incentive to enter the field.

* The major players have made such implementations in the past. Whether the cost of the licenses was exorbitant or they were biting their nose of to spite their face I don't know.

Cutting and pasting from an e-mail I got from an e-mail list I'm on.

Quote:

- SAMSUNG USERS WOULD PAY $100 FOR IPAD FEATURES

Interesting twist in evaluating likelihood of commercial success, or
damages for use of patents in part of a product. An MIT professor,
a witness for Apple in its case for Samsung, did a survey and
determined that Samsung users would pay $100 for iPad features covered
by patents being asserted by Apple against Samsung.

Samsung lawyers attacked his assertions with a righteous attack -
without explaining the survey methodology, survey population, etc.,
the $100 figure could be the third of (lies, damned lies, and statistics).

EETIMES article at:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...100-per-device
i

Also, in August 2010, Apple presented its views of Samsung's use of Apple's
patents in Samsung smartphones, to a group of Samsung's lawyers. A copy of
the slides, an exhibit from the trial, is at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102595858/...iPhone-patents

Two months after that presentation, Apple offered to license its patents
to Samsung, seeking $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.

[tyr_13]

I saw that Apple offered to license what it claims were covered under it's patents for $24 (after a 'discount' if Samsung let Apple use its patents) per smart phone, etc. Well that's a huge, stupid fee for one and I'm not surprised Samsung responded with 'see you in court'. However, they seemed to be presenting that as evidence that Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents. If I offered to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and they refused, is that evidence that I own the bridge? Of course not. It does indicated that Apple knew it was using Samsung's patents so unless I'm missing something (probable) then it's a bad bit of lawyer work there.

Apple could have been smart about it like Microsoft, who had much more concrete patents that it still over-reached with to extort fees from Android. Microsoft however didn't require stupidly high fees and is now raking in a good bit of money from that. I understand that Apple is competing more directly with Samsung, but the more I read of this the more it seems to be a problem of their own making.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Cutting and pasting from an e-mail I got from an e-mail list I'm on.

The details of the questionnaire are missing from the link and Apple's lawyer refused to go into them.

I've had a look through the list of slides in the second link but there's simply not enough information. On face value, it looks like they're trying to patent a lot of the kinds of features you claimed they weren't. That kind of link may be responsible for the misunderstanding of the claims.

For instance, when they're talking about binding, OOP and events, I feel like I'm reading about the .NET framework. I assume Java developers would feel likewise.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Then we might as well not have any patents, because a patent is there to protect ideas that you can embody into a product.

If they took ideas, and those ideas were the subject of patent, or if they took ideas and those ideas were the subject of copyright, or if they took ideas and so created a trade dress which was confusingly similar, then Apple has will win.

I love how you took the whole ting out of context by snipping a large part out.

Do you believe your beloved Apple should be sued for billions of dollars because they borrowed the idea of pull down notifications from Android? Or do you believe like Steve Jobs apparently did that Apple is free to take ideas, but when it happens to them it is time for "thermonuclear war".

[BenBurch]

No, that fee is not out of line at all, Tyr 13.

Nobody HAS to license any patents at all. A patent is an exclusive right for 14 years.

If Apple wanted to, it could simply deny Samsung the patents. To license them at all is a gesture of goodwill.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

I love how you took the whole ting out of context by snipping a large part out.

Do you believe your beloved Apple should be sued for billions of dollars because they borrowed the idea of pull down notifications from Android? Or do you believe like Steve Jobs apparently did that Apple is free to take ideas, but when it happens to them it is time for "thermonuclear war".

They are not "beloved" by me. I think that OSX and before it MacOS were simply better operating systems, so I used them when appropriate.

I also use Windows machines, and generally, they are a much larger hassle, but some hardware and software is for Windows only. Typing now on a HP laptop, for example.

I've been in direct competition with them a few times now. And lost.

And I can tell you that if Apple started using one of our patents without licensing it, there would be hell to pay.

Now, if Google/Android has a valid patent on the pull-down notifications, then it is up to them if they think it worth their while to sue Apple. I have seen no hint of any such suit.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No, that fee is not out of line at all, Tyr 13.

Nobody HAS to license any patents at all. A patent is an exclusive right for 14 years.

If Apple wanted to, it could simply deny Samsung the patents. To license them at all is a gesture of goodwill.

The fee is way out of line considering that the patents are for things like multi-touch gestures which shouldn't even get patents in the first place. Especially since it meant that Apple got access to Samsung's much larger patent portfolio.
The even demanded fees for phones that had nothing to do with Android like Windows, Symbian, and Bada. Yeah, their demands were crazy.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Now, if Google/Android has a valid patent on the pull-down notifications, then it is up to them if they think it worth their while to sue Apple. I have seen no hint of any such suit.

There is a patent pending, I believe. Google may decide to sue. Or not. Either way, iOS clearly borrowed this idea from Android. Do you think this is acceptable?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

There is a patent pending, I believe. Google may decide to sue. Or not. Either way, iOS clearly borrowed this idea from Android. Do you think this is acceptable?

If a patent issues, and is defended in court, then no.

If no patent issues, or Google loses in court, then yes.

Apple may have a patent they think covers that already, BTW.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If a patent issues, and is defended in court, then no.

If no patent issues, or Google loses in court, then yes.

So you are unable to form your own opinion?

If Samsung wins in court, that means that you will find that their actions were acceptable?

Quote:

Apple may have a patent they think covers that already, BTW.

If s, they waited awfully long to implement the feature. It has been in Android for years. It was one of the magical, revolutionary features in iOS5, yes?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Horatius

God forbid I should try to alleviate ignorance in the subject area I'm an expert in

That you are, supposedly, an expert on patents seems to be the very reason you are blind to several of the multitude of reasons why the system is horribly broken.

Proving someone makes a mistake concerning current law and current claims also has nothing at all what-so-ever to do with the patent system being abused and/or broken.

And pointing out repeatedly in the thread that someone made a mistake (even to the extent of making fun and ridicule); instead of merely correcting them, reflects quite badly on you.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And why is this such a huge issue in this field, but not in others?

Because this field, phone software, is the one being horribly abused. Compare it to the previous 40 years of video game software to see how the system should actually work.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

However, they seemed to be presenting that as evidence that Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents. If I offered to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and they refused, is that evidence that I own the bridge? Of course not. It does indicated that Apple knew it was using Samsung's patents so unless I'm missing something (probable) then it's a bad bit of lawyer work there.

They might be trying to set up for a claim of "willful infringement".

Quote:

Willful patent infringement is a critical issue in patent litigation, as it can result in an award of up to treble (enhanced) damages.

It's not so much that "Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents", as "Samsung was informed it was using Apple patents", which, if the patents stand up in court, would be evidence of willful infringement.

Originally Posted by monoman

I've had a look through the list of slides in the second link but there's simply not enough information. On face value, it looks like they're trying to patent a lot of the kinds of features you claimed they weren't. That kind of link may be responsible for the misunderstanding of the claims.

For instance, when they're talking about binding, OOP and events, I feel like I'm reading about the .NET framework. I assume Java developers would feel likewise.

They seem to be only listing the patent titles, which are often a bit mysterious, even though they're not supposed to be. You'd have to look up each one, and look at the claims, to figure out what they really cover.

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

That you are, supposedly, an expert on patents seems to be the very reason you are blind to several of the multitude of reasons why the system is horribly broken.

I'm not blind to problems with the patent system. In fact I've said several times I'm open to serious, informed discussion of the real problems.

But the stupid crap that some people have been spreading about this one Apple Patent in particular isn't one of those real problems.

Quote:

Proving someone makes a mistake concerning current law and current claims also has nothing at all what-so-ever to do with the patent system being abused and/or broken.

It does if their ill-informed opinion leads them to focus on the wrong problems.

Quote:

And pointing out repeatedly in the thread that someone made a mistake (even to the extent of making fun and ridicule); instead of merely correcting them, reflects quite badly on you.

That would be the mistake he's had explained to him, in detail, multiple times over two different threads now, and which he insists on continuing to make? At this point, ridicule is entirely appropriate.

We don't accept that sort of willfully ignorant nonsense from woos, why should I accept it here?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Horatius

They might be trying to set up for a claim of "willful infringement".




It's not so much that "Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents", as "Samsung was informed it was using Apple patents", which, if the patents stand up in court, would be evidence of willful infringement.

That makes more sense. Thanks.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

So you are unable to form your own opinion?

If Samsung wins in court, that means that you will find that their actions were acceptable?

If s, they waited awfully long to implement the feature. It has been in Android for years. It was one of the magical, revolutionary features in iOS5, yes?

No, but I deal with real patent issues in a real workplace.

I know that my opinion matters not at all in whether a patent gets issued and whether a patent survives a challenge.

Guys go to school for YEARS to become patent attorneys - along with Admiralty law, Patent law is one of only two recognized specializations in the legal profession. There are literally TONS of TOMES on patent law.

So the chance that I know the answer to a question like that is small, and unless you also have 35 years of an engineering career behind you, the chances you know the answer is approximately nil.