Battle of the ludicrous patent claims: Apple vs Samsung vs Apple

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cheebo said:
Problem is Google has not been granted a patent on notification bars of yet. You can't use that as an example in court when no one has a patent on it currently. And not to mention this is Samsung vs. Apple not Google vs. Apple. It's about what in TouchWiz, not stock Android.
Click to expand...
It's fucking ridiculous you can patent a device that tells you stuff has happened.

Devices have been telling us stuff for decades, who gives a fuck whether it's in the form of a bar or a square?
 
LCfiner said:
A blight on computing? Please.

The reason why consumer friendly touchscreen smartphones are as good as they are now is because apple took the risk and made the iPhone and proved there was a market. No other company was making big changes with UI on portable devices and smartphones were crap

A little perspective might help you.
Click to expand...

They took a palm pc and a phone and paired it together when someone invented a screen that was sensitive to the touch of a finger instead of a stylus. Other manufacturers had already started to move that way too.

Not exactly rocket science, it was a natural progression of products already on the market.
 
AndyD said:
But at the same time Android needs to do very well because Apple is moving away from Google services. Apple used Google services as a stopgap while building its own. Now they are turning against them as competitors.
Click to expand...

Eh, I suspect Google is going to make a ton more money off YouTube now as a third party app since they can show ads.

And as long as they are the default search in Safari they will be bringing in truckloads of $$$ from that alone. I can't see Apple abandoning Google search for Bing.
 
kitch9 said:
They took a Apple Newton and a phone and paired it together when someone invented a screen that was sensitive to the touch of a finger instead of a stylus. Other manufacturers had already started to move that way too.

Not exactly rocket science, it was a natural progression of products already on the market.
Click to expand...

Fixed ;)

Natural progression or not, Apple managed to do it first and now they feel like someone else came in and took a free ride from their work.
 
sableholic said:
so because she didn't design a phone that is part of the trial, but did design one that Samsung is claiming they based their designs off of, anything she has to say has no relevance? Doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...

Apple (and apparently the judge) are doing whatever they can to keep information about the F700 out of this. Apple, because the F700 has most of the features they're claiming Samsung stole from the iPhone and its design in Samsung predates knowledge of the iPhone (or so Samsung claim). The judge, because Samsung didn't jump through the right hoops to get it included and are now trying to get it in through the back door.

Either way, not seeing this evidence is going to make the trial worthless and lead to an appeal.
 
iapetus said:
Apple (and apparently the judge) are doing whatever they can to keep information about the F700 out of this. Apple, because the F700 has most of the features they're claiming Samsung stole from the iPhone and its design in Samsung predates knowledge of the iPhone (or so Samsung claim). The judge, because Samsung didn't jump through the right hoops to get it included and are now trying to get it in through the back door.

Either way, not seeing this evidence is going to make the trial worthless and lead to an appeal.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what?! This case didn't start a month ago. Samsung had what, over a year to build a case and enter it into evidence. If Samsung is still trying to bring new evidence to the table, they should get slapped down.
 
tfur said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/samsung-designer-s-testimony-barred-in-apple-patenttrial.html




So this is nothing about being late with legal evidence, this is about out right censoring. I guess it would be undue prejudice, since it would end much of Apple's case.

But lets get some shitty icon experts in there instead.

Lots of appeal fuel.
Click to expand...
It's considered undue prejudice because its entered late. You're supposed to enter things in time to allow the other side to prepare.
 
pxleyes said:
I'm sorry but what?! This case didn't start a month ago. Samsung had what, over a year to build a case and enter it into evidence. If Samsung is still trying to bring new evidence to the table, they should get slapped down.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that's not the case. That's why the judge is trying to keep this testimony out, because it's the back door Samsung want to use to bring in testimony on something they missed the boat on.

The problem is that this is a solid defence to Apple's case. Technically correct or not, it would be a gross injustice if Apple won a fraction of what they're asking for without it being seen. In other cases of this nature, judges are often careful to jump through hoops to make things easier for the side that looks likely to be ruled against. Not to make things fairer, but to protect the final ruling against appeal. None of that is going on here, and in fact the judge is putting in requirements on objections and the suchlike that are going to lead to an appeal or a retrial.

Compare this to the Oracle/Google case, in which the judge bent over backwards to give Oracle every benefit of the doubt, even when they'd directly gone against the court's instructions. The result? A largely bullet-proof ruling.
 
zedge said:
So reading the verge article. The judge has excluded the s1, s2, and ace as none of these were even sold in the US.. Can't believe I didn't realize this before..holy fail Apple.. lol. All their comparisons were with the international versions. Samsung argued this and she agreed.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3240532/galaxy-s-i9000-i9100-ace-cut-apple-samsung-trial
Click to expand...
"All of their comparisons" were not with the international versions. The US variants of S1, S2, and Ace are still in the trial. Vibrant, Fascinate, Continuum, Captivate, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, T-Mobile Galaxy SII, etc.
 
numble said:
"All of their comparisons" were not with the international versions. The US variants of S1, S2, and Ace are still in the trial. Vibrant, Fascinate, Continuum, Captivate, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, T-Mobile Galaxy SII, etc.
Click to expand...

I am sure they are, but I have yet to see a document or pictures of the US versions being compared to the iphone.
 
zedge said:
Nope. Its just every image or document posted in this thread or on any tech blog has comparisons showing the international version only.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the trial talks about how things like the Vibrant (released months after that document) became more like the iPhone after that document was published internally.
 
Cheebo said:
They had an entire year to add it as evidence. It isnt late evidence. They had it the entire time.
Click to expand...

that didn't answer the question. Setting up a trial to be immediately appealed is poor form... bad on Samsungs part for not having that phone earlier, but a "too bad so sad" response isn't any better
 
numble said:
Yes, but the trial talks about how things like the Vibrant (released months after that document) became more like the iPhone after that document was published internally.
Click to expand...

Right, but I think he means that US versions are more software/homescreen customized by the carriers than the comparatively "pure" international versions in which Samsung has more control and which have been used as examples in slides and visual aids.

The whole discussion of whether the google search bar appears on screen 1 or 3 or whatever is semi-irrelevant if all original comparisons were made to international and the individual variants are all different and out of the control of Samsung.
 
AndyD said:
Right, but I think he means that US versions are more software/homescreen customized by the carriers than the comparatively "pure" international versions in which Samsung has more control and which have been used as examples in slides and visual aids.

The whole discussion of whether the google search bar appears on screen 1 or 3 or whatever is semi-irrelevant if all original comparisons were made to international and the individual variants are all different and out of the control of Samsung.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are following the trial. The main focus is on the US variants. The bulk of the discussion focuses on US variants. That's why they spent time on US sales. Samsung could've brought the carriers in as third party defendants if they wanted to. No part of their defense rests on a claim that "the carriers forced us to so this." They have slides focused on the US variants. They also have a document made by Samsung, published before most US variants were released, that focus on the international design, which is admitted as relevant evidence.

The sales of the international variants are not a part of this case, they won't pay damages based on their sales. The designs are relevant, the same way the designs of the blackberry-like Samsung phones are. Apple's narrative goes like this:
- Pre-iPhone, Samsung had phones that looked like Blackberries
- After the iPhone, the Galaxy S international was released
- After the international Galaxy S was released, Samsung published a document advising of making changes to make the Galaxy S more like the iPhone
- US variants of Galaxy S were released, looking even more like the iPhone.

There wasn't a discussion about the Google Bar, the discussion was whether Samsung's lawyers had altered the photos (they did), and the mention about the Google Bar was tangential to that discussion.
 
Looks like Intel came before Koh this morning and might have disqualified a Samsung witness (at least temporarily):
http://www.mercurynews.com/business...ung-patent-trial-tuesday-bogue-design-witness
Intel lawyer now in front of Judge Koh, raising worries that Samsung expert witness Tim Williams has improperly disclosed Intel source code. Williams called on the carpet.
by hmintz 8:57 AM

Whatever he's getting paid, Williams probably thinking it's not enough right now. Koh grilling him for violating non-disclosure agreements.
by hmintz 8:58 AM

Judge Koh not letting Williams testify for now until she sorts out the law on experts who have conflict of interest by improperly revealing competitor source code. Samsung atty says Intel very close to Apple in this case, suggests this is an ambush.
by hmintz 9:01 AM
Click to expand...
 
numble said:
There wasn't a discussion about the Google Bar, the discussion was whether Samsung's lawyers had altered the photos (they did), and the mention about the Google Bar was tangential to that discussion.
Click to expand...

I was completely lost on that point because the verge writing was horrendous on that piece... so do you have clarification that it was? I thought many people pointed out that a clean start up showed exactly what the lawyers showed in the images
 
gcubed said:
I was completely lost on that point because the verge writing was horrendous on that piece... so do you have clarification that it was? I thought many people pointed out that a clean start up showed exactly what the lawyers showed in the images
Click to expand...
As far as I know... The whole discussion was just if Samsung had altered the photos between the 2 days or something, or after a certain date, the judge had 2 points, she thought there should've been a Google Bar (she was wrong, I guess) and then she saw that the timestamp proved that the photos were taken after the day.

I don't think it's a very big point either way. Just a time when there was some heated conversation, and Samsung had been accusing Apple of changing things. I haven't followed that specific issue closely, I don't think it matters very much, just bickering like the bickering over how the signs should be labelled in front of the courtroom.
 
numble said:
As far as I know... The whole discussion was just if Samsung had altered the photos between the 2 days or something, or after a certain date, the judge had 2 points, she thought there should've been a Google Bar (she was wrong, I guess) and then she saw that the timestamp proved that the photos were taken after the day.

I don't think it's a very big point either way. Just a time when there was some heated conversation, and Samsung had been accusing Apple of changing things. I haven't followed that specific issue closely, I don't think it matters very much, just bickering like the bickering over how the signs should be labelled in front of the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. But some of the groklaw writeup suggested that the various slides were of different phones, some customized by carriers, some standard Samsung setup, which accounted for the differences in screen layouts. So everyone was accusing everyone else of doctoring, when it seemed that they had different versions of the phones.
 
numble said:
As far as I know... The whole discussion was just if Samsung had altered the photos between the 2 days or something, or after a certain date, the judge had 2 points, she thought there should've been a Google Bar (she was wrong, I guess) and then she saw that the timestamp proved that the photos were taken after the day.

I don't think it's a very big point either way. Just a time when there was some heated conversation, and Samsung had been accusing Apple of changing things. I haven't followed that specific issue closely, I don't think it matters very much, just bickering like the bickering over how the signs should be labelled in front of the courtroom.
Click to expand...

well no, i was just confused by trying to interpret the verge write up and couldn't get too much clarification on Groklaw either.
 
I think AndyD is right, there are different photos based on where you buy the phone from. In the end, Koh says both sides need to agree that photos are correct beforehand.
 
Cheebo said:
Why would Samsung claim intel is biased toward apple? Samsung makes intel based desktops and laptops just like Apple does.
Click to expand...

Maybe it has something to do with Intel entering the smartphone market with a chipset and Samsung having their own chipset? It's far fetched, but you never know.
 
There was some dismantling of Samsung's experts yesterday regarding Samsung's design patents:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_213...esday-bogue-design-witness?source=most_viewed

Yang tells jury he found that Samsung's patents are valid, and some of Apple's devices infringe 3 phone patents: email with photo, photo album bookmark and background music.

According to Yang, these patents established as far back as 1999. When 3 separate devices, cell phone, digital camera and MP3 player, and companies started trying to integrate.

All of a sudden, Apple's iPhones are put up on screen as "Accused Phones." Yang walking jury through how they infringe patent on emailing with photo attachment

Apple is likely to take page from Samsung playbook on cross and take position that emailing photos is such a core function of a device that Samsung's patent on such a feature is not valid.

Yang also testifies that iPad infringes Samsung's photo-email patent. Plays a video showing how each Apple device stomps on the patent...allegedly.

Samsung introduces Apple user manuals for iPhones and iPads. They tell people how to use these photo functions. This is part of the cheater vs. cheater part of the case.

Yang moving on to the second Samsung patent, which company asserts allowed bookmarking of digital photos on smartphone. Again, he tells jury Apple has infringed this patent in the iPhone 3GS, 4, Gem and iPad 2...he says iPhone 3G didn't have the function.

These camera functions in smartphones seem so ordinary now, wonder if patent law experts consider them the types of developments that collapse the patent system with claims and counterclaims.

Finally, Yang gets to the final Samsung patent in play, allowing music to play in the background of smartphone while other functions being used. (Another Springsteen song. How bout some rap in this trial?).

Easy for jury to understand: "I can do my email and listen to Bruce Springsteen," Yang says of the Samsung patented feature.

...

Lee asking Yang about fact that none of the 6 inventors of the three contested patents will testify (no). And painting Yang as hired gun for getting about $200K from Samsung. "The only person the jury is going to hear from on these patents is you, correct," Yang is asked.

Any evidence Apple even aware of these patents? Yang concedes the point. For all three patents. Now Lee turns to whether Samsung used the patents in its products.

Lee puts up chart, and shows Samsung doesn't use "these very important" patents in a broad range of products. 65 Samsung smartphone products. "It could not identify a single one that practices these very important inventions?" Lee asks. Apparently so, Yang replies.

Apple's point: In asserting patent rights, Samsung has an obligation to identify the devices that employ the patent to assert its rights. It did not do that, certainly before Apple released its products. So how could Apple infringe?

To put it simply, Apple is arguing that Samsung trying to show iPhone and iPad infringed a piece of paper nobody knew anything about.

Lee keeps bringing up the fact that two of the Samsung inventors on these patents got some mysterious courthouse tour a few weeks back. Koh cuts off the questioning...the judge's patience wearing even thinner than usual today....

Apple now putting up original patent that suggests the device originally envisioned would only allow mobile phone to be in a single mode at one time for the camera features. An ode to iPhone's ability to juggle modes.

Apple playing depositions of two of the inventors where they can't explain the actual patent. But you can? Lee asks Yang. Apple's Lee, who sort of talks and looks like a patent guy, scoring some points with his cross. Not the least of which is that Samsung is not putting its guys up on the stand in this trial to answer questions for jury.

As a sidenote, Apple put on two of its top guys, design wizard Stringer and software VP Schiller, to defend the iEmpire. And explain how they do things, and why they think Samsung cheated. Samsung's witness list appears bereft of such testimony. Just experts and underlords. Something the jury will chew on.

Apple atty Lee getting into the weeds with Yang, but basically the broad suggestion is that these patents couldn't possibly cover the sophistication of the parallel features in Apple devices. The patents, Apple appears to argue, are vague, imprecise and inapplicable.

When Samsung designed its Galaxy smartphones, didn't consult its inventors, it looked at the iPhone for camera inventions, right? Lee asked Yang. The point: Samsung didn't develop its products with the 3 patents, it emulated Apple. "That wasn't the focus of my investigation," Yang says a bit defensively.

Apple's cross of Yang finished, point made. Samsung atty now up to revive its claims that iEmpire infringed its 3 patents. If Yang doesn't fly with jury, not sure what else they're gonna have on this issue.
Click to expand...

Wang asked if she references Apple icons in designing Samsung's. "We did not," she says.

...

Jacobs produces Samsung documents with iPhone and Galaxy icons side-by-side. Wang's name on docs. Apple seems poised to challenge her assertion Samsung designers did not "reference" Apple products as they developed their own.
Click to expand...

Sherman tells jury that design patents, such as flat screens, where the speaker located, rounded corners, etc., are so "functional," i.e. basic, that Apple has no patent rights to them.
...
Krevans: Apple's argument is that there are alternative designs, designs that don't have to be copies of iPhone and iPad. She puts up Sony tablet S as an example. It has to pain Apple to put up any competitor product in public for any reason whatsoever.

Apple shows 6 Samsung smartphones released after iPhone, shown next to iPhone. The 6 were a variety of shapes and sizes. Apple trying to undercut Samsung argument that iPhone design so "functional" and obvious it would be typical of a smartphone design, that there aren't alternatives. Sherman struggling to explain that one. Even Samsung had some alternatives.
Click to expand...

We are on to the FRAND portion of the trial.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business...nt-trial-live-blog-wednesday-judge-settlement

Apple argues that the tech was cross-licensed to Intel, so there's no infringement
Lee to Williams: Lot of talk about Intel, correct? Yes. Your basis for infringement by Apple is based on Intel processor? All the functionality? Williams being pressed on the point, presumably to show Apple insulated from patent infringement by reliance on the tech of Intel.

Lee: Intel sells the processor to Apple, correct? Apple engineers have nothing to do with it, correct? Williams bobs and weaves, but admits no evidence Apple engineers had direct evidence of the patents in question. And Samsung hasn't claimed Intel infringed, right? This is the most understandable line of questioning thus far today.

Apple's argument that Samsung's utility patents not infringed in Apple devices: Intel sells underlying technology to Apple, Samsung has cross-licensing agreement with Intel, Apple engineers were not directly involved in those patents = no infringement.
Click to expand...
 
Samsung calls an expert, Andries Van Dam, who apparently has expertise on an Apple patent, says he's here to tell jury the so-called "snap back" patent is invalid. He says prior art, Apple was not the first to invent, citing Tablecloth and LaunchTile programs discussed earlier in the trial.
van Dam a studious fellow, with lofty academic credentials. Brown University professor, etc. He also has a widow's peak so profound it looks like a Mohawk. But that has nothing to do with his patent expertise.
Van Dam is paid $1,000 an hour, has spent 460 hours on the case. Let's see, that's, um, $460K. He is the winner of the Expert For Dollars game. Says he'd much prefer doing teaching and research to legal work. Ok.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, these Samsung people are getting paid.
 
All the patents on both sides are idiotic and should be thrown out. Hell throw out the whole software patent system. I bet these stupid court shenanigans only exist to fill the coffers of the lawyers.
 
sableholic said:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid/in/2971889

Well that patent is def getting thrown out

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3...ouch-demo-apple-samsung-trial-patent-validity

and probably both of those
Click to expand...

Yeah if the court does their job, none of the apple patents will hold up, there is prior art on basically everything they've claimed, and I don't think 'on a mobile device' is non obvious. :P

Samsung should probably get a fair chunk of their patents invalidated as well, and have to license the ones that remain valid at the same price they do to other companies.

The trade dress/look and feel parts of the lawsuit are the only open questions because they are more subjective and you can't disprove them as easily as showing prior art. I don't think those claims have much merit as Samsung and Apple have been diverging since after the original Galaxy S, not converging. Even if Apple wins this claim based on the similarities in the original Galaxy line, the damages shouldn't even be a tenth of what Apple wants. You can't demand 100% profits + penalties for lifting minor aesthetic details.
 
iamblades said:
Even if Apple wins this claim based on the similarities in the original Galaxy line, the damages shouldn't even be a tenth of what Apple wants. You can't demand 100% profits + penalties for lifting minor aesthetic details.
Click to expand...
Where do you get 100% profits + penalties from?
 
iamblades said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-apple-investor-aug-13-2012-8

I've seen this claim multiple places, I have no reason to doubt it's veracity.

More:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/10/3234107/apple-breaks-down-samsung-damages-claims
Click to expand...
The expert, Terry Musika, detailed different calculations for different conclusions. There is no situation where 100% profits are claimed if only trade dress is violated and patents are declared invalid:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ined-about-samsung-copying-in-2010-live-blog/
 
numble said:
The expert, Terry Musika, detailed different calculations for different conclusions. There is no situation where 100% profits are claimed if only trade dress is violated and patents are declared invalid:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...ined-about-samsung-copying-in-2010-live-blog/
Click to expand...

Nothing about that says the damages would be less than 100% of the profits, it simply says that they would be less than $2.5 billion if some of the claims are deemed invalid. There is no evidence aside from Apple's guess that Samsung made that much profit off the disputed products. He doesn't say how much or that they wouldn't still seek 100% profits, I'm just assuming he is talking about the disputed royalties on the patent.

Regardless, Apple's damage claims are ridiculous even if it were only half of Samsung's profit.
 
iamblades said:
Nothing about that says the damages would be less than 100% of the profits, it simply says that they would be less than $2.5 billion if some of the claims are deemed invalid. There is no evidence aside from Apple's guess that Samsung made that much profit off the disputed products. He doesn't say how much or that they wouldn't still seek 100% profits, I'm just assuming he is talking about the disputed royalties on the patent.
Click to expand...
The example provided was just if one of the 3 patents were invalidated, and they used the cheapest patent as an example--the claim drops over $250 million if the 381 patent is invalidated. Patent 163 has the same value and 915 is worth about 60% more. If they were all invalidated, that would be nearly a billion off the total claim, much higher than the royalty calculation of $540 million.
 
At end of yesterday (each side only has 25 hours to present case):
http://www.mercurynews.com/business...nt-trial-live-blog-wednesday-judge-settlement

Samsung has only 2 hours and 25 minutes left, so they will be done tomorrow. Apple has about 7 hours left. Judge says evidence will be done Friday, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Samsung is just about running out of time. Looks like Apple's game plan is to use a ton of witnesses today and tomorrow, with Samsung out of time and unable to cross-examine them:
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21319951/apple-samsung-patent-trial-live-blog-thursday

After break, Judge Koh says she just got 75 pages of objections to 22 witnesses still listed. She says, with less than 8 hours combined left for the two sides, "c'mon." You're not going to get to 22 witnesses (most on Apple list).

"This is ridiculous," Koh says. She repeats "C'mon" about five times. "Unless you're smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren't going to be called," she tells Apple's lawyer. Apple atty Bill Lee: "I'm not smoking crack, I promise you that." He insists Apple has timed out its witnesses, some just a few minutes
Click to expand...
 
numble said:
At end of yesterday (each side only has 25 hours to present case):
http://www.mercurynews.com/business...nt-trial-live-blog-wednesday-judge-settlement



Samsung is just about running out of time. Looks like Apple's game plan is to use a ton of witnesses today and tomorrow, with Samsung out of time and unable to cross-examine them:
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21319951/apple-samsung-patent-trial-live-blog-thursday
Click to expand...

I've never heard of the time limit on a trial before this case. Is it common practice or is the judge just weird.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple Event - 'Awe dropping' | Sept 9, 10am PT
2 3 4 5
236
2K
ReBurn replied
Apple to rename all of its operating systems
23
948
Drew1440 replied
  • Poll
Denzel washington VS Tom hanks
2
68
742
roosnam1980 replied
Tim Apple got stitched up the Courts
39
2K
winjer replied
Elon Musk vs Sam Altman
2
52
879
ReBurn replied
Top Bottom