Support NeoGAF

[LCfiner]

Look, even if you and others claims about software patents are correct, if you were hoping for this case to bring a revamp of the patent system, this wasn't going to be the case. IIRC, Samsung wasn't even spending time arguing that pinch to zoom, etc. were obvious, vague, or whatever, they based their case against patents on prior art that dealt with things like table top projector prototypes.

The jurors are mostly going to deal with the arguments made by Samsung, and Samsung, despite a bit of grandstanding rhetoric, was not making the case for patent invalidity.

You know what Samsung was doing instead of spending all their arguments against the validity of Apple's patents? They were arguing and putting on paid experts to talk about why their patents were valid--patents such as one for playing music in the background while web surfing, or sending an email with a photo attachment. And they were trying to use FRAND patents offensively and arguing why they should be able to charge Apple for patents on Intel chips when Intel had already paid for them. It's really hard to argue against the patent system in one breath while in the next breath Samsung is putting on highly credentialed and highly paid experts to argue about why Samsung's patents for emailing a photo or listening to an MP3 in the background are valid. This is probably why they weren't vigorously arguing the "obviousness" factor of pinch to zoom, etc. They'd look like hypocrites and risk invalidating their own patents.

Jurors can really only work with the arguments the lawyers present. And if Samsung itself is putting on academic experts to tell the jury why listening to music in the background or emailing photos are valid patents, Apple is also putting up experts to tell you about why their patents are valid, and neither side putting up a Richard Stallman to say, "a pox on both houses, software patents are bad." With both sides spending millions of dollars on experts to tell the jury that "software patents are good, especially the ones owned by the party that I'm arguing for, just not the patents of the other side, they're bad," or, the other party's patents are good, but my party isn't infringing them because of these specific differences from implementation," you are mostly going come away convinced that software patents are ok.

Maybe you could've changed the system if Samsung wasn't countersuing with software patents of their own, so they could spend their time arguing about why all such patents are bad instead of spending their time arguing why their patents are good. But that's the litigation strategy of all these companies--fight patents with patents. They've become deeply invested in the system and are not going to upend it because that overturns a lot of their side businesses in cross-licensing or risks zeroing out the money they spent on prior patents.

This is what you're going to see in the Google v. Apple case that was recently filed (Google sued Apple over patents over things like location-based reminders, video players, and email notification) if it goes to trial. Google will put up highly credentialed experts and highly paid experts to argue that their software patents are valid, Apple will put on experts to argue why they're patents are valid, neither side will put up an RMS type guy that will argue against the system. This is not the way that you're going to convince jurors that software patents are bad.

Jurors only work with what the attorneys give them, and it's not a good expectation that they will disrupt the software patent system when both sides are constantly telling them about the validity of their own software patents. They aren't morons when they're only responding to what both sides' attorneys and their experts have constantly reinforced throughout trial--software patents are good, software patents are important, especially our software patents.

wonderful post, numble. you're a smart guy with a ton of patience to try to reason with others

That was... a very reasonable and convincing post. You have caused me to reconsider the issue.

this is like some internet first, I think. no one reconsiders their position on the internet. NO ONE

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Regardless of the actual debates going on, this idea of Apple as the big bad man has to be kind of surreal for any long-time Apple fans (pre-iPod).

Just about every big company is a collection of assholes, but it's not until they get on top that they end up revealing this to the public. It's pretty normal for a company to be popular underdog one day, only for them to transform into the man they were fighting against the next. If you go Gaming side, the same shit happened to Nintendo like twice. The NES/SNES Nintendo, dominating the market, was a huge control freak and all-round dickbag. When you get N64/GC generations, they ease up and become the underdog. Then the Wii brings back asshole Nintendo again in full force. In many cases, the actual changes to the company are small, but the perception of the company by the public shifts massively.

 

[Maxrunner]

Just about every big company is a collection of assholes, but it's not until they get on top that they end up revealing this to the public. It's pretty normal for a company to be popular underdog one day, only for them to transform into the man they were fighting against the next. If you go Gaming side, the same shit happened to Nintendo like twice. The NES/SNES Nintendo, dominating the market, was a huge control freak and all-round dickbag. When you get N64/GC generations, they ease up and become the underdog. Then the Wii brings back asshole Nintendo again in full force. In many cases, the actual changes to the company are small, but the perception of the company by the public shifts massively.

Sony still beats them by a mile...

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Sony still beats them by a mile...

The bullshit PR doublespeak from Sony in the early days of this generation was the stuff of legends. Work more jobs to buy the PS3, next-gen starts when we say so, rumble is a last gen feature, the Wii is a lollipop and so on. Last few years they've become much more loved by the gaming public, though, because they've managed to get their execs to shut their mouths sometimes and have been cranking out some pretty good first and second party content. I guarantee you though, if the Vita had been some kind of massive success, then the next few years would see the triumphant return of hyper-arrogant Sony.

 

[ShinNL]

...especially our software patents.

That explains your stance. 'Our'... geez.

 

[freenudemacusers]

That explains your stance.

I think you are missing something...

 

[giga]

That explains your stance. 'Our'... geez.

That sentence was illustrating what the plaintiffs and defendants were arguing. It was an example.

 

[ShinNL]

That sentence was illustrating what the plaintiffs and defendants were arguing. It was an example.

That's what numble is trying to make you believe with his ambiguous writing style.

...

>_>;

 

[virtuoso88]

Good post numble, and yes I have been disgusted at Samsung's defense and their whole approach on this case.

 

[EightBitNate]

I've been watching all these discussion all over the net for the past two days, and it's hilarious.

Samsung's CEO could have gotten on the witness stand, said "Sure we copied Apple. Suck my dick", and the anti-Apple people would still argue that Apple is in the wrong.

Try going to the YouTube comments section or any technology blog. Apple-haters just swarm in by the hundreds, yet they still think they're the minority (at least online, anyway). It's really sickening to fanboyism get that bad their. It's a fucking product, not your life.

 

[virtuoso88]

There's fanboyism on both sides and on every topic.

 

[faceless007]

stuff

This is a good post to explain why no one should be surprised at the verdict.

It is not a good post to explain why anyone should be happy about the verdict.

 

[The Faceless Master]

all i have to say is that i am proud to be an owner of the Samsung Epic 4G, the most infringing phone going by the jury award of $130 million.

 

[Puddles]

This is a good post to explain why no one should be surprised at the verdict.

It is not a good post to explain why anyone should be happy about the verdict.

This is accurate.

 

[badcrumble]

People sure can use a reminder that Samsung is in no sense a scrappy little freedom fighter, though.

 

[Wiktor]

LOL sounds like someone was born after January 2007.

Smartphones nowadays look and operate so much different than they did back in 2006 it's insane. You have to be pretty deluded to have convinced yourself otherwise.

These were considered the "best" smartphones of 2006:

http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=12710

The problem is..there was nothing truly original about iPhone. Nobody is denying that it changed everything, but sorry that doesn't give them the right to ownership of concepts that existed before.

 

[badcrumble]

The problem is..there was nothing truly original about iPhone. Nobody is denying that it changed everything, but sorry that doesn't give them the right to ownership of concepts that existed before.

Round shapes and pegs existed before the wheel, yes.

 

[Wiktor]

Round shapes and pegs existed before the wheel, yes.

The fact that you actually compare it to the wheel is ridiculous. We sure would go very far as civilization if wheel was patented.
And in this case it would be more like somebody saw a wheel, stole that design, made it from prettier rock and then claimed that just because people liked that prettier rock it means nobody else can do build wheels anymore.

 

[lunarworks]

The problem is..there was nothing truly original about iPhone. Nobody is denying that it changed everything, but sorry that doesn't give them the right to ownership of concepts that existed before.

IIRC, some of those patents they own came through acquisitions of companies that developed them.

Apple quietly buys companies all the time.

 

[Miles X]

Would be very appreciative if someone unbiased could sum this up for me.

 

[lunarworks]

Would be very appreciative if someone unbiased could sum this up for me.

That's gonna be really hard. Everyone's got a horse in this race.

Some people like Apple.
Some people hate Apple.
Some people love "freedom". (Patents are evil.)
Some people like innovation. (Patents drive it.)

 

[Wiktor]

IIRC, some of those patents they own came through acquisitions of companies that developed them.

Apple quietly buys companies all the time.

True, but still..they just patended wedge design... granting patent for something like that is ridiculous.

I'm all for paying inventors, but it has to be reasonable, because without building on others' work progress is pretty much impossible. Things like pinch/tap to zoom and other similiar patents should be thrown into FRANDs already and licensed dirty cheap. And there should be no such thing as patents for visual design. Patents should be for function, nor form.

 

[LCfiner]

Would be very appreciative if someone unbiased could sum this up for me.

Summing up the verdict or summing up the implications?

The verdict is straightforward. The implications are not. We do not know how Apple will proceed with further lawsuits or licensing deals. We do not know if an appeals trial cold get certain patents invalidated. There's just a lot of uncertainty right now

 

[badcrumble]

True, but still..they just patended wedge design... granting patent for something like that is ridiculous.

I'm all for paying inventors, but it has to be reasonable, because without building on others' work progress is pretty much impossible. Things like pinch/tap to zoom and other similiar patents should be thrown into FRANDs already and licensed dirty cheap. And there should be no such thing as patents for visual design. Patents should be for function, nor form.

The issue with tech patents is basically that the world of modern consumer electronics moves too fast. Patents expire after a few years, and that's okay for, say, pharmaceutical patents (where drugs all become available as generics after the patents expire). But in the tech world, ten years is an eternity, and one where multiple huge paradigm shifts can occur. I'm in favor of a patent system that makes invention lucrative, but patents should be expiring after 3 or 4 years, not 14 or whatever it is now.

 

[lunarworks]

True, but still..they just patended wedge design... granting patent for something like that is ridiculous.

The wedge design. Like the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" talking point, it's all about context. A list of criteria. Materials, angles and angle configurations, dimensions, etc.

 

[lunarworks]

The issue with tech patents is basically that the world of modern consumer electronics moves too fast. Patents expire after a few years, and that's okay for, say, pharmaceutical patents (where drugs all become available as generics after the patents expire). But in the tech world, ten years is an eternity, and one where multiple huge paradigm shifts can occur. I'm in favor of a patent system that makes invention lucrative, but patents should be expiring after 3 or 4 years, not 14 or whatever it is now.

I completely agree. Software patents are essential for driving innovation (what's it worth devoting your life to creating if it can just be copied), but they last way too long.

 

[Puddles]

Would be very appreciative if someone unbiased could sum this up for me.

Apple has patented a bunch of really obvious stuff. Stuff for which a patent clearly shouldn't have been granted.

They just got a jury to find Samsung guilty of infringing on these patents, as well as on "trade dress", which refers to the overall design and appearance of a product.

Most people are justifiably angry. Apple fans are cheering the loss of freedom and consumer choice.

 

[lunarworks]

Most people are justifiably angry. Apple fans are cheering the loss of freedom and consumer choice.

Because "freedom and consumer choice" are defined by a 100+ page internal document outlining how to make one's product exactly like another's product, for example.


Personally, consumer choice is better served by variety.

 

[XenoRaven]

Look, even if you and others claims about software patents are correct, if you were hoping for this case to bring a revamp of the patent system, this wasn't going to be the case. IIRC, Samsung wasn't even spending time arguing that pinch to zoom, etc. were obvious, vague, or whatever, they based their case against patents on prior art that dealt with things like table top projector prototypes.

The jurors are mostly going to deal with the arguments made by Samsung, and Samsung, despite a bit of grandstanding rhetoric, was not making the case for patent invalidity.

You know what Samsung was doing instead of spending all their arguments against the validity of Apple's patents? They were arguing and putting on paid experts to talk about why their patents were valid--patents such as one for playing music in the background while web surfing, or sending an email with a photo attachment. And they were trying to use FRAND patents offensively and arguing why they should be able to charge Apple for patents on Intel chips when Intel had already paid for them. It's really hard to argue against the patent system in one breath while in the next breath Samsung is putting on highly credentialed and highly paid experts to argue about why Samsung's patents for emailing a photo or listening to an MP3 in the background are valid. This is probably why they weren't vigorously arguing the "obviousness" factor of pinch to zoom, etc. They'd look like hypocrites and risk invalidating their own patents.

Jurors can really only work with the arguments the lawyers present. And if Samsung itself is putting on academic experts to tell the jury why listening to music in the background or emailing photos are valid patents, Apple is also putting up experts to tell you about why their patents are valid, and neither side putting up a Richard Stallman to say, "a pox on both houses, software patents are bad." With both sides spending millions of dollars on experts to tell the jury that "software patents are good, especially the ones owned by the party that I'm arguing for, just not the patents of the other side, they're bad," or, the other party's patents are good, but my party isn't infringing them because of these specific differences from implementation," you are mostly going come away convinced that software patents are ok.

Maybe you could've changed the system if Samsung wasn't countersuing with software patents of their own, so they could spend their time arguing about why all such patents are bad instead of spending their time arguing why their patents are good. But that's the litigation strategy of all these companies--fight patents with patents. They've become deeply invested in the system and are not going to upend it because that overturns a lot of their side businesses in cross-licensing or risks zeroing out the money they spent on prior patents.

This is what you're going to see in the Google v. Apple case that was recently filed (Google sued Apple over patents over things like location-based reminders, video players, and email notification) if it goes to trial. Google will put up highly credentialed experts and highly paid experts to argue that their software patents are valid, Apple will put on experts to argue why they're patents are valid, neither side will put up an RMS type guy that will argue against the system. This is not the way that you're going to convince jurors that software patents are bad.

Jurors only work with what the attorneys give them, and it's not a good expectation that they will disrupt the software patent system when both sides are constantly telling them about the validity of their own software patents. They aren't morons when they're only responding to what both sides' attorneys and their experts have constantly reinforced throughout trial--software patents are good, software patents are important, especially our software patents.

Thank you for posting this. This is a single, clear, and concise statement about what actually took place at the trial for the uninitiated. Everywhere else I've looked on GAF it's been "a victory for Samsung is a victory for the consumer" or "Samsung copied Apple and they're a terrible company" when neither of those statements have anything to do with what is actually happening.

 

[googleplex]

Because "freedom and consumer choice" are defined by a 100+ page internal document outlining how to make one's product exactly like another's product, for example.


Personally, consumer choice is better served by variety.

The consumer choice is NOT better served by Apple having patents on bounce things that are based prior art, i.e "pinch to zoom". The consumer choice was not served by the jury "skipping" that argument because it "bogged" them down.

Apple patents are bullshit and it's mind boggling to me that anyone here is cheering them on.

 

[Timbuktu]

People sure can use a reminder that Samsung is in no sense a scrappy little freedom fighter, though.

I was speaking to Korean friends and they were saying how s. koreans don't actually like samsung; how much they influence government, how they make it impossible for smaller korean companies and how they aren't adding jobs in korea.

 

[giga]

The consumer choice is NOT better served by Apple having patents on bounce things that are based prior art, i.e "pinch to zoom". The consumer choice was not served by the jury "skipping" that argument because it "bogged" them down.

Apple patents are bullshit and it's mind boggling to me that anyone here is cheering them on.

What?

 

[Wiktor]

The wedge design. Like the "Apple patented rounded rectangles" talking point, it's all about context. A list of criteria. Materials, angles and angle configurations, dimensions, etc.

Actually no, the the patent is very broad. It as long as you get a triangle shaped design it will be covered. Of course, there are ways around that (heck..as long as it's not one straight line, if it's broken in some point or rounded..then Apple's patent is meaningless), but it's ridiculous that you can patent a shape. That;s not invention. That's "hey, let's patent this shit to fuck up with others" mentality. And the way it's escalating now means everybody is starting to patent everything just in case.

 

[joethefoo]

That's gonna be really hard. Everyone's got a horse in this race.

Some people like Apple.
Some people hate Apple.
Some people love "freedom". (Patents are evil.)
Some people like innovation. (Patents drive it.)

Some people think that the current state of software patents is completely misguided and has nothing to do with innovation.


I look forward to seeing this same debate again when extremly accurate motion sensing interfaces become a reality. Who ever does it first will remove "on a touch screen" from all these patents and replace it with whatever the new tech is called.

 

[mcfrank]

`It’s absolutely the worst scenario for us,’’ a senior Samsung executive said as he rushed into the company’s compound in southern Seoul.

 

[LCfiner]

What?

he probably thinks that the quote about skipping that first patent talk meant they skipped it forever and never went back to it.

it helps the narrative if the jurors are thought to be incompetent.

 

[lunarworks]

Some people think that the current state of software patents is completely misguided and has nothing to do with innovation.


I look forward to seeing this same debate again when extremly accurate motion sensing interfaces become a reality. Who ever does it first will remove "on a touch screen" from all these patents and replace it with whatever the new tech is called.

The current state of software patent is completely messed up. I agree on that. It needs serious reform. But some people think that simply eliminating patents is the right thing to do, when it's not.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Apple patents are bullshit and it's mind boggling to me that anyone here is cheering them on.

The whole situation is lose/lose. You have one company patenting everything in a shitty patent system, and you have another blatantly copying a competitor. Why would anyone want either of these two companies to win anything here?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Because "freedom and consumer choice" are defined by a 100+ page internal document outlining how to make one's product exactly like another's product, for example.


Personally, consumer choice is better served by variety.

my consumer choice was the most infringing device in the entire trial based on jury awards ($130M)

 

[Slavik81]

That's gonna be really hard. Everyone's got a horse in this race.

Some people like Apple.
Some people hate Apple.
Some people love "freedom". (Patents are evil.)
Some people like innovation. (Patents drive it.)

Some people like innovation. (Software patents hinder it.)

Software patents are a minefield for start-ups, and they will strangle all but the largest of companies in legal costs.

They fail to serve their purpose in numerous ways. As a software developer, at a small company I've never found them useful. They are just something to worry about.

 

[Zeth]

Nilay Patel will be on twit.live in 20 minutes if you're interested. Haven't heard from him since immediately following the verdict.

 

[RoadHazard]

The whole situation is lose/lose. You have one company patenting everything in a shitty patent system, and you have another blatantly copying a competitor. Why would anyone want either of these two companies to win anything here?

The difference is that while Samsung imitating Apple a bit too closely (which I agree that they have done in some cases) might be hurting sales for the most valuable company in the world a bit, Apple's quest for a smartphone monopoly through patent warfare will hurt everyone but them. That includes every consumer who wants the option to choose something other than an iPhone. A Galaxy S phone looking a bit too much like an iPhone might mean that a couple of fewer iPhones get sold, but Apple holding validated patents on stuff that's used everywhere (and that they didn't invent) - like pinch-to-zoom - will hurt every Apple competitor and limit consumer choice.

I didn't choose Android over iOS out of some irrational hatred for Apple, I chose it because I found it to be a more interesting mobile OS that was better suited for me. Apple's mission to take that choice away from me, or to at least gimp Android to make it less desirable (Android losing pinch-to-zoom would be a pretty major if it was to actually happen), is something anyone but a devoted Apple fan couldn't possibly be happy about.

So it's not exactly that I wanted Samsung to win (as, again, I do find some of the stuff they've done to be pretty questionable), I was just really hoping that Apple would lose. Apple winning is bad for everyone but Apple.

 

[googleplex]

he probably thinks that the quote about skipping that first patent talk meant they skipped it forever and never went back to it.

it helps the narrative if the jurors are thought to be incompetent.

Nothing indicates that they did discuss Prior art again, lest of all this verdict!

But I guess it helps the narrative to some in here to believe Apple did nothing wrong, as they stand in line for thier yearly iPhone update.

 

[The Real Abed]

Why do people seem to think every iPhone user stands in line every year to upgrade their phone? It's the silliest most ignorant thing I've ever heard. I've seen enough people with 4s and 3Gs. They upgrade just as often as other phone users. Who started this stupid stereotype?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Why do people seem to think every iPhone user stands in line every year to upgrade their phone? It's the silliest most ignorant thing I've ever heard. I've seen enough people with 4s and 3Gs. They upgrade just as often as other phone users. Who started this stupid stereotype?

Weird Apple hating dudes just needing something to rage about.

 

[RoadHazard]

Why do people seem to think every iPhone user stands in line every year to upgrade their phone? It's the silliest most ignorant thing I've ever heard. I've seen enough people with 4s and 3Gs. They upgrade just as often as other phone users. Who started this stupid stereotype?

I think the point is rather that when the time does come to upgrade, standing in line for the next iPhone is exactly what they will do, and they'll do it without entertaining even the faintest idea of getting anything else. For people like this, there really isn't a choice to make at all; their minds are made up before even being asked the question.

Of course this doesn't apply to all iPhone owners, but there's definitely a substantial amount of people who operate this way. I've met plenty of them - people who just cannot believe anyone would choose anything over an iPhone.

 

[lunarworks]

Well, I've thought about it, and here's my honest opinion on the outcome of the trial:

I don't like it.

That's not to say I'm unhappy that Apple won, I'm just upset that it all had to happen. Period. It sets precedents that are going to generate plenty of bad will from the tech community, and as someone who prefers Apple's stuff, that can spell bad news down the line.

So I wish the whole case didn't have to happen, but Samsung pushed them into it. Apple asked them not to copy so closely. Google asked them not to copy so closely. Their internal management and designers showed concern over them copying so closely. But, they continued, and as a result, now everyone is facing uncertainty.

I think the point is rather that when the time does come to upgrade, standing in line for the next iPhone is exactly what they will do, and they'll do it without entertaining even the faintest idea of getting anything else. For people like this, there really isn't a choice to make at all; their minds are made up before even being asked the question.

Of course this doesn't apply to all iPhone owners, but there's definitely a substantial amount of people who operate this way. I've met plenty of them - people who just cannot believe anyone would choose anything over an iPhone.

You've got your apps, you're in the ecosystem, you're used to how it works. For most people, that's enough reason not to choose another.

To that extent, it's not nearly as silly a concept as someone buy a Ford again and again, for example.

 

[MThanded]

Why do people seem to think every iPhone user stands in line every year to upgrade their phone? It's the silliest most ignorant thing I've ever heard. I've seen enough people with 4s and 3Gs. They upgrade just as often as other phone users. Who started this stupid stereotype?

Fairy tales. I see people with 3GSs on the bus all the time.

I think the point is rather that when the time does come to upgrade, standing in line for the next iPhone is exactly what they will do, and they'll do it without entertaining even the faintest idea of getting anything else. For people like this, there really isn't a choice to make at all; their minds are made up before even being asked the question.

Of course this doesn't apply to all iPhone owners, but there's definitely a substantial amount of people who operate this way. I've met plenty of them - people who just cannot believe anyone would choose anything over an iPhone.

Wrong. Weird fallacy though.

 

[RoadHazard]

Wrong.

Of course this doesn't apply to all iPhone owners, but there's definitely a substantial amount of people who operate this way. I've met plenty of them - people who just cannot believe anyone would choose anything over an iPhone.

.

 

[MThanded]

.

It's not even a majority. Look at sales numbers totals and first month sales and get back to me.