And it is doubtful the Supreme Court will take a case like this. There is no question about constitutional validity of the laws or rights involved, just interpretations of what is covered / infringed on various patents (slide to unlock for apple - cancelled others uninfinged, video compression for samsung - enforced).
Well, importance of the case (eg bush v gore), rights (civil, constitutional), conflict of law (disregard of previous rulings, federal vs state conflict) are the highest priority reasons. This case doesn't come anywhere near meeting any of the usual criteria -- conflict of law (with constitution or other laws) being most common. Do you think it will be heard by SCOTUS? If so, why?
Importance of the issue (not necessarily the case) is a consideration, and the most likely one I think for a patent case. I'm not familiar with the specific legal arguments made by either side in this particular case that might be the basis for either side appealing, though, so I don't actually have a prediction, I was just pointing out that the absence of an issue of Constitutionality of the underlying law isn't sufficient to dismiss the possibility of SCOTUS taking the case.
The only other big one is to clean up conflicting case law between circuits, though. And that's not relevant here because patent suits are heard only by the federal circuit. They won't take this one.
Is there a deeper analysis anywhere, or does one of the resident lawyers want to chime in? From my reading, this sounds huge: I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right?
You say that like patents are inherently bad and, therefore, any time patents are invalidated that's a good thing. I know the software industry has a grudge against software patents, but Apple's slide-to-unlock isn't a software patent, it's (I believe) a design patent. I don't know what kind of patent the autocorrect one is (I have no idea what it covers).
It is a GREAT thing when obviously easy to show prior art shows that it was not an innovation. This also shows the weakness and the loyalties of jury of our peers in cases like this. When I saw the prior art and video it was clear their was prior art.
Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.
I wasn't commenting at all on why it was invalidated, or whether the invalidation was correct. I was responding to the comment
> I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right?
The way the comment is phrased, it makes it sound like ajross is saying that it's good that the Federal circuit just invalidated patents. Which is to say, it sounded like ajross was saying that it's good for patents to be invalidated in general, as opposed to whether it was correct for this particular patent to have been found invalid.
> Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.
You're talking about software patents here. Design patents are different. Which was kind of the whole point of my comment.
Note: I don't know if I'm using the phrase "design patent" correctly here, because IANAL and I don't know if there's actually a specific legal term for that. What I'm referring to here is a patent that describes some aspect of user experience, which is different than a patent that describes how to accomplish something. It's easy to accidentally infringe on software patents because it's easy to accidentally do something the same way someone else did without knowing. But for these "design patents", you typically infringe these because you explicitly want to copy what the patent holder is doing, i.e. you don't infringe on these things accidentally.
Design patterns are in many respects more like trademarks than they are like utility patents, software or otherwise. They protect identity, not function.
Patents are mostly bad and the bar for invalidating even horribly ridiculously bad ones is so high that if a patent was struck down in court it was probably on the wrong side of ridiculous and thus its demise is indeed a good thing.
not really a "bunch of patents." Four or five. There's an entirely separate lawsuit that was tried to a jury in federal court in San Jose that Apple won and has been upheld on appeal. Samsung has asked the Supreme Court [1] to overturn the appeal's court decision. That was based on the iPhone design patents. This one was on utility patents for various features of the iPhone, including slide-to-unlock.
It's more than zero. They filed patents not because they want to defeat patents but because they're a giant megacorp for whom patents are great. No one can make TVs that compete properly because of the patents they own, for example. This isn't a charity or a moral case.
Presumably usage ratio is orders of magnitude different here, let alone what is emblematic to a particular design/brand identity.
Innovation happens in all kinds of ways, but because something isn't technically as difficult to implement doesn't mean it isn't (probably more) important.
One was a complex bit of maths, essential for implementing a standard (the video compression patent) which as such a) has a tight limit on how much can be charged for (ab)using it and b) was not understood by most of the jury while the other (slide to unlock) was (apart from being ludicrous to begin with) a folly which set the hearts of the jury on fire. Also, a foreign company being accused of 'stealing' from an American one versus the opposite.
I thought a judge or tribunal typically deals with civil or administrative law (for ex. patent) and juries were limited to criminal matters. I could be wrong though.
the video compression patent is part of a standards package (if I remember right) and those have only minimal value. They have to be licensed to anyone on a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" basis which means it's not that valuable. The slide-to-unlock was Apple's novelty and not part of a standard. Hence the claim that it was more valuable.
Of course now that the patent's been invalidated it's worth zero. Not several millions.
I wonder if Apple regrets ever suing Samsung. Surely they must have known that it would be a prolonged battle with Samsung never capitulating? Companies usually use their patents to scare other companies into licensing deals, but when you decide to play your patents in court you're taking a chance that you're going to lose the power you thought they had and this is exactly what's happened in this case.
I wonder what Apple would have done if they had a do over? These trials have done more damage to Apple then Samsung.
I also suspect this won't be the last judgement, in favour of Apple, to be overturned.
They submitted their patents for analysis by suing Samsung and quite a few of them have been ruled invalid due to prior art in both the US and EU. Not to mention the case has also exposed quite a bit of internal information about Apple.
Although the remaining patents (I don't know how many those are...) have now been vetted by the courts and could now be used with a stronger arm it seems like?
Suing Samsung always seemed like a dangerous maneuver.
They do a ton of basic research into displays, semiconductors, etc. It seems like only a matter of time before they find a patent that Apple infringes.
Nvidia is proof of this. They tried to sue Samsung for some GPU related patents. Samsung countersued and pulled some basic patents out of their war chest. Samsung was found to not have infringed Nvidia's patents, but in the countersuit it was determined that Nvidia infringed on Samsung's patents. Nvidia was the instigator and not only did they lose, but they must now compensate Samsung for using their IP.
It says that they invalidated the slide-to-unlock patent. I don't understand why Samsung would be dealing with that claim - their unlock is Android's unlock.
I really hope they actually invalidated it instead of saying "Samsung didn't infringe". Because that means at some point soon we Android phone users can actually have slide to unlock (instead of swipe in any direction to unlock). Although who knows... at this point that feature might irk me. It was important to me back when I switched away from iPhones.
If Samsung distributes Android in their devices, they can be held responsible. Were companies not responsible for third-party products they distribute, Ford could include infringing patented Tesla technology in its products by buying from some disposable company like "12345678 Ltd." in China and claiming "well, they sold it to us; go after them".
No one wants it. In fact as other posts mentioned both Google and Samsung (who ship different launchers on their devices -- they aren't the same code) moved to presumptively-non-infringing unlock mechanisms years ago. But the law suit was over the implementation as shipped when the suit was filed, obviously.
But if the patent was dumb, it should be held invalid regardless of current infringement. And it was. So I for one am cheering.
For those wanting some context - this is the second lawsuit Apple filed against Samsung. Apple was seeking 2.5 Billion in compensation and a jury awarded them 128 Million. Samsung appealed the decision and the verdict was thrown out. Apple now must now compensate Samsung for its legal costs as well as pay millions in damages. So, Samsung has finally won round 2. Round 1, in which a judgement of 548 Million was awarded to Apple, is being appealed to the Supreme Court with Samsung's argument having the support of nearly all of the tech titans in Silicon Valley. The award of 548 Million to Apple has come under further scrutiny as a number of patents used in the first trial have have been invalidated by the USPTO.
The original judgment involved five patents. They went down for different reasons.
1. Recognizing dates, etc, in documents and highlighting them. Found not infringed because the court construed "analyzer server" in the claims to require a separate server process, while Samsung implemented them in a shared library. The Court did not address validity.
2. Slide to unlock. Killed as obvious because two prior art references (one disclosing slide to unlock and another disclosing sliding an image along a path traced by the finger) were obvious to combine.
3. Keyboard auto correction. Killed as obvious in light of prior art disclosing an autocorrect UI.
4. Universal search. Found not infringed. Essentially, Apple's claims required the search to search the Internet, while Samsung's implementation only searched Internet data previously downloaded. The Court did not address validity.
5. Background synchronization. Found not infringed because Apple's claims recite a software component that synchronizes two databases in the background, while the corresponding component in Samsung's implementation causes something else to perform the synchronization. The Court did not address validity.
65 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] thread> patents are inherently bad
It is a GREAT thing when obviously easy to show prior art shows that it was not an innovation. This also shows the weakness and the loyalties of jury of our peers in cases like this. When I saw the prior art and video it was clear their was prior art.
Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.
> I interpret that they didn't find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That's good, right?
The way the comment is phrased, it makes it sound like ajross is saying that it's good that the Federal circuit just invalidated patents. Which is to say, it sounded like ajross was saying that it's good for patents to be invalidated in general, as opposed to whether it was correct for this particular patent to have been found invalid.
> Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.
You're talking about software patents here. Design patents are different. Which was kind of the whole point of my comment.
Note: I don't know if I'm using the phrase "design patent" correctly here, because IANAL and I don't know if there's actually a specific legal term for that. What I'm referring to here is a patent that describes some aspect of user experience, which is different than a patent that describes how to accomplish something. It's easy to accidentally infringe on software patents because it's easy to accidentally do something the same way someone else did without knowing. But for these "design patents", you typically infringe these because you explicitly want to copy what the patent holder is doing, i.e. you don't infringe on these things accidentally.
How?
[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/15-777_...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11148459
what's wrong with this world?
Innovation happens in all kinds of ways, but because something isn't technically as difficult to implement doesn't mean it isn't (probably more) important.
Of course now that the patent's been invalidated it's worth zero. Not several millions.
I wonder what Apple would have done if they had a do over? These trials have done more damage to Apple then Samsung.
I also suspect this won't be the last judgement, in favour of Apple, to be overturned.
Apple went from 11% to 10% market share from Q42014 to Q42015.
Android is the only one of the top 3 mobile manufacturers to have sold more devices than have become inactive in that timespan.
Sorry. Meant mobile system.
Ref: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/apple-doesnt-sell-phones-makes-...
They do a ton of basic research into displays, semiconductors, etc. It seems like only a matter of time before they find a patent that Apple infringes.
'Apple felt threatened enough to sue samsung? Than samsung must be making phones that should be good enough.'
I really hope they actually invalidated it instead of saying "Samsung didn't infringe". Because that means at some point soon we Android phone users can actually have slide to unlock (instead of swipe in any direction to unlock). Although who knows... at this point that feature might irk me. It was important to me back when I switched away from iPhones.
But if the patent was dumb, it should be held invalid regardless of current infringement. And it was. So I for one am cheering.
The original judgment involved five patents. They went down for different reasons.
1. Recognizing dates, etc, in documents and highlighting them. Found not infringed because the court construed "analyzer server" in the claims to require a separate server process, while Samsung implemented them in a shared library. The Court did not address validity.
2. Slide to unlock. Killed as obvious because two prior art references (one disclosing slide to unlock and another disclosing sliding an image along a path traced by the finger) were obvious to combine.
3. Keyboard auto correction. Killed as obvious in light of prior art disclosing an autocorrect UI.
4. Universal search. Found not infringed. Essentially, Apple's claims required the search to search the Internet, while Samsung's implementation only searched Internet data previously downloaded. The Court did not address validity.
5. Background synchronization. Found not infringed because Apple's claims recite a software component that synchronizes two databases in the background, while the corresponding component in Samsung's implementation causes something else to perform the synchronization. The Court did not address validity.