Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

Let's try an example!

Here's a US version of one I'm working on:


http://www.google.com/patents?id=dRD...ed=0CDEQ6AEwAA


And here's what you get when you hit the "Find prior art" button:


https://www.google.com/patents/relat....0bioconjugate.


Needs work! As I said above, using the right keywords is often critical to finding good art, but one problem is, there are some keywords that are used in pretty much every document related to a particular technology. "Radioisotope" as a keyword will eliminate everything that doesn't deal with radioisotopes, but it also won't really narrow the search down to the actual inventive concept of this application, which involves the particular methods of producing the radioisotopes.

So, this might become a useful tool, but they'll definitely need to work on that context-sensitive selection of keywords. That's certainly not a trivial matter, my brother did his PhD work on stuff like that back in the 90s, and we're still not there.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Actually, yes, they were.


http://dewipat.com/journal/new-use-of-old-device




http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...nts-30250.html




http://lahserpatent.com/patent-new-use-of-old-idea/




http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83402

Except in this case, for example, Apple got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen.

Which is the very purpose touchscreens were invented in the first place. Nothing new or novel about it, it's like a construction company patenting using a backhoe for digging.

[Darat]

Judge wonders if Apple legal team is smoking crack: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/16/32...-smoking-crack

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by Horatius

So, actual prior art that apparently shows all the elements of the claimed subject matter. Exactly what I've been saying we need to invalidate the patent, or to have refused it in the first place.

Horatius, do you think that this places the '381 patent portion of Apple's case in jeopardy?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Darat

Judge wonders if Apple legal team is smoking crack.

That would explain everything.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by Darat

Your stereotyping of 100 of millions of people, especially ludicrous given the fact that Apple depends on the IP created by those very folk to produce all of its products.

Wait. Samsung and LG employ hundreds of millions of people?

[Darat]

Your comments where about the mindset, of 'them'.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Wangler

Horatius, do you think that this places the '381 patent portion of Apple's case in jeopardy?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/7,469,381

Quote:

1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: at a device with a touch screen display: displaying a first portion of an electronic document; detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the movement, translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion; in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display: displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; and in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion.

Assuming the description of the prior art given in that article is accurate, it does seem pretty close. Apple will try to quibble about what the various "first, second, third and fourth" potions of the document are, and what "the area beyond the edge of the document" means, but those are claimed so broadly they'll probably read on almost anything.

They might have something in these dependent claims:

Quote:

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein changing from translating in the first direction to translating in the second direction until the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed makes the edge of the electronic document appear to be elastically attached to an edge of the touch screen display or to an edge displayed on the touch screen display.

17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document has a first associated translating distance that corresponds to a distance of movement of the object prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document; and wherein displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction for a second associated translating distance, wherein the second associated translating distance is less than a distance of movement of the object after reaching the edge of the electronic document.

18. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document has a first associated translating speed that corresponds to a speed of movement of the object, and wherein displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction at a second associated translating speed, wherein the second associated translating speed is slower than the first associated translating speed.

...as they might argue that fiddling with the translation distance or speed produces unexpected results that assist the user to realize they're at the end of the document, or some such thing, but even these details might be shown by the prior art. Without access to more details of what that device does, we'll have to wait and see.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except in this case, for example, Apple got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen.

I'm officially no longer engaging you on this issue. If, after all that has been said about this particular patent, you can say with a straight face that they "got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen", then there's simply no way I'm able to explain to you why you're wrong.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I'm officially no longer engaging you on this issue. If, after all that has been said about this particular patent, you can say with a straight face that they "got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen", then there's simply no way I'm able to explain to you why you're wrong.

I note you have never answered when I asked you what you think the purpose of touch screens are. Apparently you are under the impression that they were not intended to use finger manipulation for the same purpose as a keyboard and mouse? Maybe you are just not very computer literate and are bedazzled by using fancy language to describe a mundane task?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I note you have never answered when I asked you what you think the purpose of touch screens are. Apparently you are under the impression that they were not intended to use finger manipulation for the same purpose as a keyboard and mouse? Maybe you are just not very computer literate and are bedazzled by using fancy language to describe a mundane task?

Originally Posted by Horatius

I'm officially no longer engaging you on this issue. If, after all that has been said about this particular patent, you can say with a straight face that they "got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen", then there's simply no way I'm able to explain to you why you're wrong.

..

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by Darat

Your comments where about the mindset, of 'them'.

Within the context of my post, the identification of "them" seemed clear to me (employees and decision makers at both LG and Samsung).

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my intent.

[Ferguson]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except in this case, for example, Apple got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen.

And Google patented showing advertisements, what else are advertisements for?!

Thomas Edison patented using my voice to produce sound. I do that every day!

BIC even patented pens!

Funny how stupid patents sound when you describe them in the shallowest terms possible...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by OCaptain

Within the context of my post, the identification of "them" seemed clear to me (employees and decision makers at both LG and Samsung).

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my intent.

Fair enough, sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Ferguson

And Google patented showing advertisements, what else are advertisements for?!

Yes, there's lots of ridiculous tech patents. But this thread is Apple/Samsung.

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Thomas Edison patented using my voice to produce sound. I do that every day!

BIC even patented pens!

How are those examples similar?

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by Horatius

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/7,469,381





Assuming the description of the prior art given in that article is accurate, it does seem pretty close. Apple will try to quibble about what the various "first, second, third and fourth" potions of the document are, and what "the area beyond the edge of the document" means, but those are claimed so broadly they'll probably read on almost anything.

They might have something in these dependent claims:





...as they might argue that fiddling with the translation distance or speed produces unexpected results that assist the user to realize they're at the end of the document, or some such thing, but even these details might be shown by the prior art. Without access to more details of what that device does, we'll have to wait and see.

Thanks!

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Wangler

Thanks!

No problem!

So, are you the Apple Lawyer, or the Samsung one?

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by Horatius

No problem!

So, are you the Apple Lawyer, or the Samsung one?

I'm an aide to Judge Koh...we just want this whole damn thing over.

[Captain_Snort]

Now it should be fun with google weighing in using Motorola mobile as a proxy

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Captain_Snort

Now it should be fun with google weighing in using Motorola mobile as a proxy

And the idiocy continues.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Captain_Snort

Now it should be fun with google weighing in using Motorola mobile as a proxy

Motorola Mobility. Not Motorola.

Motorola is only a brand and trademark licensing company now which licenses the brand and trademarks to Motorola Mobility (also known as Google) and Motorola Solutions, a going concern glad (as I read the signs) to be rid of the cell phone business.

[WildCat]

And it's being widely reported that the jury has reached a verdict, and will be announced "soon", whatever that means.

2 days seems very short for such a complex case, I wouldn't be surprised if the jury denied Apple's and Samsung's claims.

[Fast Eddie B]

NBC Nightly News just reported "a huge victory for Apple".

[Tsukasa Buddha]

NPR said "some" patents were violated.

[AvalonXQ]

According to Wired, Apple wins, to the tune of $1 billion.

[Darat]

Wonder if there are grounds for an appeal or will this be a final decision?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Darat

Wonder if there are grounds for an appeal or will this be a final decision?

I would not be surprised if this case went to the Federal Circuit on appeal.

As it happens, there are generally enough questions of law* imbedded in patent decisions that they're pretty much always appealable -- the Markman hearing that leads to claim construction, Daubert rulings on experts, etc. Whether Fed.Cir. actually takes the appeal or just affirms without opinion is another question.




*"Questions of law" means decisions made by the judge rather than the jury; please read my earlier explanation or a Wikipedia article before saying something silly.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Darat

Wonder if there are grounds for an appeal or will this be a final decision?

Samsung is expected to file an appeal.

[Wangler]

This trial result reinforces my firm commitment to never buy an Apple product.

Ever.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And it's being widely reported that the jury has reached a verdict, and will be announced "soon", whatever that means.

2 days seems very short for such a complex case, I wouldn't be surprised if the jury denied Apple's and Samsung's claims.

Surprise!

[BenBurch]

Patents exist for a reason. Samsung can come back in a generation and use any of them it likes.

[applecorped]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48783982

"Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung Electronics on Friday as a U.S. jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the U.S. company $1.05 billion in damages.As for the countersuit, the jury found Apple did not violate any of Samsung's wireless standards or feature patents."


Now what?

[applecorped]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48783982

"Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung Electronics on Friday as a U.S. jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the U.S. company $1.05 billion in damages.As for the countersuit, the jury found Apple did not violate any of Samsung's wireless standards or feature patents."


Pyrrhic victory?

[PixyMisa]

Now the appeal process starts.

[BenBurch]

Pyrrhic victory? How so?

Looks like a clean win.

[Puppycow]

Meanwhile in Korea:

S. Korean judge rules Apple, Samsung infringed on each other's patents

Quote:

SEOUL, South Korea — A South Korean court ruled Friday that technology giants Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. both infringed on each other’s patents, and ordered a partial ban of their products in South Korea. The court also denied accusations that Samsung copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.

The Seoul Central District Court ordered Apple to remove the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 from store shelves in South Korea, ruling that the products infringed on two of Samsung’s five disputed patents, including those for telecommunications techology.

. . .

But in a twist, the court also ruled that Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung had infringed on one of Apple’s patents related to the screen’s bounce-back feature, which causes the screen to bounce back when a user scrolls to an end image. The court banned sales of products using the technology, including the Galaxy S2, in South Korea.

Sales of devices recently released by Samsung and Apple — including the iPhone 4S and the Galaxy S3 smartphones — were not affected.

[Drudgewire]

Over 20 million Galaxy S3s sold in two months. They can afford it.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

This is already being discussed in the thread about this case in the Computers sub-forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=241550

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Patents exist for a reason. Samsung can come back in a generation and use any of them it likes.

The problem is, those patents were not really innovative at all. The decision will be appealed, and I am willing to take a bet that some of the discovery which was rejected by the judge, will come back in thru the appeal, which will order another round.
And the next time the jury might not be "friendly" with apple (very quick on the decision , I mean 700 questions 22 hours that's about 2 minute per question ; and pretty much ignored every prior art points).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I would not be surprised if this case went to the Federal Circuit on appeal.

As it happens, there are generally enough questions of law* imbedded in patent decisions that they're pretty much always appealable -- the Markman hearing that leads to claim construction, Daubert rulings on experts, etc. Whether Fed.Cir. actually takes the appeal or just affirms without opinion is another question.




*"Questions of law" means decisions made by the judge rather than the jury; please read my earlier explanation or a Wikipedia article before saying something silly.

Glad to see that you've got yourself up to speed with this trial and learnt it is a jury trial and thus it was the decision of the jury that would determine the the outcome of this trial. Always better to make claims based on the actual facts.

ETA: Do you a have an actual reply to my post ie do you know if there are any grounds for an appeal?