Judge scolds Samsung, lets patent trial proceed

Technology Aug. 04, 2012 - 10:45AM JST ( 25 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

25 Comments

-5

smithinjapanAug. 04, 2012 - 12:54PM JST

Samsung will stoop to anything to win this case.
1

ubikwitAug. 04, 2012 - 01:37PM JST

It is fairly obvious that Samsung has plundered Apple's design patents, let alone any actual interface technologies that may also be patented.

This demonstrates that they are attempting to use a sort of populist PR campaign to undermine the court proceedings.

Samsung has a slimy corporate culture of thievery and chicanery.

I'm looking forward to seeing them get the PR they really deserve when the gavel comes down.

Down with slimy corporations.
3

MrsT1Aug. 04, 2012 - 10:15PM JST

Dirty play Samsung
-2

issa1Aug. 04, 2012 - 10:58PM JST

That's why I never buy products samsung. Never!!!
-1

LostinNagoyaAug. 05, 2012 - 04:56AM JST

Samsung could have made history if the company had decided to launch smartphones with its own design, instead of copying everything Apple did. They reign in the TV section because they were the first to introduce high-end technology in the field. We have two Samsung TVs at home, I am comfortable with them. But I can't have any Samsung smartphone around, it makes me feel I am somehow taking part in a fraud scheme.
-3

that korean guyAug. 05, 2012 - 01:02PM JST

meanwhile, the mighty japanese Electronics companies are keeping themselves busy by doing not a darn thing...
0

DutchduckAug. 05, 2012 - 05:37PM JST

If you cant see the difference between an iphone and a galaxy........you wont see the difference between a toyota and a nissan. What gives Apple the right to demand sole propriety rights for a piece of electronics which is basically an upgrade from a n older system, the normal cellular phone. I never heard of a TV maker suing another maker for using a plasma screen, etc etc. Apple should get of its high horse and be happy that they could make the smartphone popular, while other companies have to play catch up.
-1

MrsT1Aug. 05, 2012 - 06:03PM JST

^ someone needs to brush up their understanding of patent law and intellectual property. There are very good reasons these laws exist and they are international.
-4

Thomas AndersonAug. 05, 2012 - 06:12PM JST

Yes there are very good reasons... like becoming patent trolls.
0

that korean guyAug. 06, 2012 - 03:25AM JST

wait till you have to cough up $2000 for the privilege of iPhone. then you will know how broken the patent system is.
-2

ubikwitAug. 06, 2012 - 04:18AM JST

@Dutchduck

You obviously don't even know what a design patent is.

It's called intellectual property.

It makes the world go round!
1

LostinNagoyaAug. 06, 2012 - 06:34AM JST

If you cant see the difference between an iphone and a galaxy........you wont see the difference between a toyota and a nissan. What gives Apple the right to demand sole propriety rights for a piece of electronics which is basically an upgrade from a n older system, the normal cellular phone. I never heard of a TV maker suing another maker for using a plasma screen, etc etc. Apple should get of its high horse and be happy that they could make the smartphone popular, while other companies have to play catch up.

Obviously you know nothing about licenses, patents and royalties. Make a search before posting, it's free and will be good for your brain.
-1

DutchduckAug. 06, 2012 - 10:31AM JST

Obviously you don't either, otherwise it would be an open and shut case which is its not. Youre obviously also not that tech savvy, because you would know that both systems differ like day and night and only a very few people wouldn't be able to pick out an iphone out of a line-up. Sure Apple has got it patents, but encouraging them to use it in order to kill competition is something nobody profits from...maybe except apple. Apple fan boyz should use their head and see who`s going to be on the losing end when one company has the ability to dictate others. Samsung used the Iphone as their standard for its basic design, but went completely the other way after that..which again is great for the consumers. My Iphone is a good phone, but my next one is going to be a Samsung note 2 for sure.
-3

gogogoAug. 06, 2012 - 12:03PM JST

Apple engineers are brainwashed, Apple copied the LG Prada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)

Just take a look, it looks exactly the same as the iphone but was shown in 2006!
-2

basroilAug. 06, 2012 - 12:05PM JST

smithinjapanAug. 04, 2012 - 12:54PM JST

Samsung will stoop to anything to win this case.

MrsT1Aug. 04, 2012 - 10:15PM JST

Dirty play Samsung

I don't think either of you actually read up and took this article face value. The real dirty folks are at Apple, where they asked the judge to not only punish the lawyers, but to render a guilty verdict IN A TRIAL BY JURY. The samsung action wasn't that rare, but apple asking a judge to violate the constitution is absurd.

Not to mention that the entire mess is due to Apple lawyers forcing the judge to exclude prior art because it wasn't public, even though Apple has used that argument several times in the past.

Oh, and lets not forget that the actual lawsuit is over software (Android) not hardware, yet Apple is using the "it looks like our stuff but not the same, so the insides must be identical for people to buy it" argument.
-2

gogogoAug. 06, 2012 - 12:10PM JST

Oh, and lets not forget that the actual lawsuit is over software (Android) not hardware, yet Apple is using the "it looks like our stuff but not the same, so the insides must be identical for people to buy it" argument.

Apple used the same arguement for windows 95 at lost. I hope they lose again, competition is good for the consumer, it drives down the prices and forces companies to push the product.
0

basroilAug. 06, 2012 - 12:13PM JST

ubikwitAug. 06, 2012 - 04:18AM JST

You obviously don't even know what a design patent is.

Apparently you didn't even read what the lawsuit is over. It's over software patents, not design patents, and trade dress (which is a fuzzy category that doesn't actually have protections outside trademarks and copyright). Apple is arguing the whole car is the same so then they can argue that the dials on the stereo system turn the same direction.

It's called intellectual property.

It makes the world go round!

Patents have always been 10 years before becoming public domain, so that competition could happen after R&D spending was recouped. They recently did two things though:

1) They made patents 20 years even though recovery time has gone down.

2) Allowed software features to be patented without explaining how those features work. Added to the fact that software costs are infinitesimally small, already covered by copyright, and are far too easy to patent compared to a bolt, it makes the world stagnate and is partially responsible for the global downturn.
-1

ubikwitAug. 06, 2012 - 01:38PM JST

@basroil

it's true that i haven't read the detailed complaint in the suit, but software issues would appear to be secondary to the design issues from the articles i've read in the press thus far. in any case, i may have been wrong about there being design patents per se at issue in this case, but here is one line from the article.

Apple is seeking more than $2.5 billion in the case accusing the South Korean firm of infringing on designs and other patents from the iPhone and iPad maker.

different countries legal systems provide protection for similar rights in slightly different ways. "trade dress" is something that straddles the spheres of several laws, including trademark law and unfair competition laws, as well as design patents. Fom Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Items can be covered by both trademarks and design patents. The contour bottle of Coca-Cola, for example, was covered by a now expired design patent, but is still however protected by at least a US registered trademark.

at any rate, the bottom line here that is that samsung is accused of stealing ideas developed by apple that are protected by the law. some people commenting on this article don't understand that intellectual property covers ideas other than technological ideas.

i don't intend to read the detailed complaint of the suit, but the iphone was more an example of apple seeing an opportunity to combine several extant technologies in a novel manner as a total package, with a number of new technologies incorporated to tie it all together.

intellectual property rights are one incentive that motivates people to make an effort to develop the ideas that drive the creation of new products. the systems are continually being fine tuned to ensure that they function in a manner that serves societies interest, not only the rights holders. globalization complicates matters, and there are several international treaties. i would say that there are more problems related to pharmaceuticals than IT related technology for use in consumer goods. this case appears to be fairly simple in that a company in an industry with the capacity to manufacture a product copied a competitors product that had revolutionized the market by introducing a product that combined several extant technologies in a novel and highly useful manner.
1

MrsT1Aug. 06, 2012 - 04:36PM JST

I'm a trademarks attorney working in a patent office so it's in my interest to follow these cases globally. But I'm not venturing an opinion on this case because I am not an expert in this particular technology/litigation. But I forgot that Basroil is not only a nuclear physicist, but apparently also an IP whizz. Who woulda thought!
0

basroilAug. 06, 2012 - 05:04PM JST

ubikwitAug. 06, 2012 - 01:38PM JST

Apple owns no design patents so any discussion of that is pointless. To be a design patent, the design must have a functional purpose. Apple itself has stated the design is purely ascetic, and thus we have a trade dress/trademark issue SECONDARY to the software patents. Trade dress issue was already shot down in London, so Apple is merely using it to prod the jury on the software case. This is why the judge not allowing prior art for samsung was a big deal, because the judge was shown to be ridiculously biased towards Apple by allowing Apple to continue with "evidence" that was not factually correct.
0

basroilAug. 06, 2012 - 05:24PM JST

MrsT1Aug. 06, 2012 - 04:36PM JST

I'm a trademarks attorney working in a patent office so it's in my interest to follow these cases globally. But I'm not venturing an opinion on this case because I am not an expert in this particular technology/litigation. But I forgot that Basroil is not only a nuclear physicist, but apparently also an IP whizz. Who woulda thought!

Any purpose to your comment other than to insult?
1

MrsT1Aug. 06, 2012 - 07:49PM JST

You told me I didn't read/understand the article. The purpose of my comment is to establish some credibility for my comments. Better than being an armchair expert on everything.
-1

ubikwitAug. 06, 2012 - 08:15PM JST

@basroil

if you look at the wikipedia link you will see that design patents relate to aesthetics, not function. the wikipedia cites the definition under american law in terms of the design being "ornamental".

apple has numerous design patents, including on the iphone:

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/20/apple-awarded-iphone-4-design-patent/ http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-granted-design-patents-for-macbook-air-iphone-3g-and-apple-tv-remote/

i don't agree that the trade dress issue is necessarily secondary, as that is an issue that the judge will decide, and i'm not familiar with the london court case.

aside from whether apple's design patents have been directly infringed by samsung, a central question under the law in this regard is whether samsung has copied aspects of apple's design to an extent that consumers might confuse a samsung phone as an apple product. that would be regarded as a tactic of "unfair competition".

samsung has tried to reduce the argument to "rectangles", and apple is trying to provide a more integrated and comprehensive picture of the whole package.

when you look at the evolution of samsung phone designs that apple has presented, it becomes apparent that there is a paradigmatic shift in samsung designs, and they mimic apples to a conspicuous degree.

samsung may be found guilty of what is referred to as "free riding" on apple's design by making a phone in a form that could have caused confusion in the market, aside from directly infringing on apple's design patents. and that is partly why apple has demanded treble damages: it was intentionally aimed at gaining an unfair competitive advantage.

it will be interesting to see how the court rules on this case. i think it is going to be a question of how many billions apple is awarded.
0

SuperLibAug. 06, 2012 - 11:02PM JST

What about something like the Walkman? Didn't other companies basically copy the same design?
-1

ubikwitAug. 07, 2012 - 03:10AM JST

detailed description of case and patents at issue:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-v-samsung-explained/