EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?
Patent holder can sue anyone using an infringing product. That's why you sometimes hear about patent trolls threatening to sue mom and pop operations if they have a fax/scan/copier and extorting a settlement.
Samsung sells the final product and profits from it.
Since Samsung modifies Android, arguably they could have removed infringing features but they chose not to. I don't know if this argument came up during the case.
Beyond them reacting to the obvious rise of Samsung, there is a side benefit of making other companies using Android think about alternatives, thereby weakening Android's stronghold on the smartphone market.
To infringe a patent, you have to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, or import an infringing product or process. [0] Google writes software that could be used to make such a device but it actually produces very few such devices itself. Apple just might be able to sue over the Nexus line, though I think LG and HTC actually make those, because Google sells them on the Play Store. The damages would be pretty small, though, because the volume is small.
Google's export of software is not making, selling, or importing a product [1] and no Android manufacturers make phones in the USA.
Samsung actually makes the devices and imports them in vast numbers.
Note also that since using the device can be infringement, Apple could sue every user of Android devices in the USA individually also.
[0] 35 USC §271
[1] Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
Sure, maybe Samsung will create a superior implementation to the ones they were found to be infringing and the consumer can benefit from their innovation.
Uh, it is an innovation. You can tell, because even though it seemed obvious and self-evident AFTER the fact, nobody managed to think of it beforehand.
Slide to unlock is as old as doors. The only other obvious alternative to someone skilled in the art of doormaking is rotate to unlock.
Honestly only reasonable definition of obvious to use is:
"based on the presence/awareness of innovation A, B, C, etc, how likely is it that two or more people are likely to come up with the same innovation simultaneously. The greater the likelihood of two or more people simultaneously arriving at the same solution, the less likely something should be patented.
I have read the patent. Several times 1-2 years ago.
It's the most obvious thing. Do you consider the slide to unlock on a floppy disk or SD card to be an innovation?
Literally, humanity has been using the slide to unlock metaphor everywhere imaginable for years. It's very common metaphor.
What's next? Patenting waving your hand in front of a electronic star trek door to unlock and option it? Quick someone go out and patent this obvious idea.
Heck even the historical phenomena of signing X on a line in a contract when you're illiterate and don't know how to write/spell your own name is rooted in the same idea as slide to unlock on the iPhone. What's the simplest shape you can make with a writing utensil that demonstrates clear intent to someone who did not observe the act and cannot infer is something was intentional or accidental? Basically a circle or an X. A simple X is sufficient to communicate intent to a person that did not observe the action of signing the contract. This is essentially a "two phase commit". A slide to unlock mechanism is both performed and confirmed by the same person and doesn't require the second stroke requirement. With this in mind, the obvious design choice is only require one single stroke since it's sufficient to demonstrate clear intent and is cancellable (e.g. a half stroke doesn't count). Since the requirements are more lax a single phase commit is sufficient (i.e. a single swipe).
Or how about those old TV remotes that used a sliding cover to hide the lesser used or configuration/setup controls? Or how about those phones that hid a phone keyboard behind the screen. There are three obvious choices, slide open, swivel open and flip open.
What if I took the phone and slid my finger to the right but instead of sliding a skeuomorphic button the animation was instead a page or book cover flipping over? Or what if I did a arced swipe and "threw the lock screen" away the same way you force quit an app in iOS 7. What if I hold my finger down and the screen animates to a certain color over a short duration (maybe like when Mega Man powers up his special charged blaster cannon shot? These are all obvious since this are so incredibly analogous to other use cases.
Take every new invention in the future where something needs to be unlock. I'll bet you the value of this settlement that almost every single future human invention that fits the narrative of unlocking or enabling is going to have some interface that either is literally slide to unlock or maps very clearly to that metaphor.
Show me a commercially viable, available, highly-sensitive touch screen (that responds to fingers) small enough to fit in your pocket (an environment with erroneous input) that is as responsive as the one of the first iPhone and that existed before the iPhone was revealed?
The only example, I've ever seen of a screen that could reliably do touch sliding with fingers (not just tapping or special stylus) is the Star7 demo device shown off by James Gosling in the 90s. That device was huge and never would fit in a pocket, and therefore had no issues with erroneous input when locked. A tap would have worked.
Apple literally invented the viable hardware tech that made sliding touch input a possibility, and for that they deserve a patent. There is some serious hardware innovation necessary to bring responsive capacitive to market. However, had such hardware been available at the time to all phone market participants, you would have seen more people arrive at the same obvious conclusion as slide to unlock. Apple only got the patent because they had a monopoly on the solution of the necessary hardware tech and kept it secret long enough to milk it for as many obvious interface/interaction patents as possible. No one else had even had a device like the iPhone to even encounter and try to solve the obvious problem of how to distinguish between erroneous input when the phone is in your pocket.
Please enlighten me on the distinction you're using for "mechanism" and "method".
It's very easy to claim hindsight bias, but you didn't even make an attempt to address any of my points explaining why this method is obvious across multitude of settings, including analogous ones that have yet to be invented, like my star trek door example. Maybe Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures has already filed a slide to unlock patent on those doors for whenever they are invented. Every lock in history is a state machine with position locked and unlocked. Almost everyone of those locks (because its preferred that locks generally are meant to stay locked and not accidentally unlocked) involve some method of moving from the state of locked to unlocked in a continuous motion, and almost all of them only respond to unlocking at the end of the range of that continuous motion. With that in mind, twisting/arcing and sliding are the obvious solutions to anyone with knowledge of locks, digital, physical or otherwise.
>"Show me a commercially viable, available, highly-sensitive touch screen (that responds to fingers) small enough to fit in your pocket (an environment with erroneous input) that is as responsive as the one of the first iPhone and that existed before the iPhone was revealed?"
Why move the goalpost? Your claim is that the mechanism is obvious, not that the technology didn't exist. If a line can be reasonably accurately drawn with a stylus (as on the Newton and Palms which followed) then it can track a simple swipe. I played games on my Palm pilot that employed dragging as a mechanism, so why not a security measure? Again, the "swipe to unlock" didn't exist because it was not obvious and you are employing confirmation bias to further a view that influenced by hindsight bias. I did rebut your points; hindsight bias.
>"With that in mind, twisting/arcing and sliding are the obvious solutions to anyone with knowledge of locks, digital, physical or otherwise"
And the PIN isn't more obvious for digital devices?
Because it's not a security measure. The keypad is a security measure. You're mistaking the purpose of slide to unlock. It's an erroneous input measure aimed at preserving battery life.
When a phone is on the lock screen the timer before it shuts off the screen is very short. When phone is unlocked, the assumption is that the user is engaged with the phone, possibly reading/scanning whats on the screen, so the inactivity timer before the phone reverts to inactive mode is much longer. If a phone can easily end up in unlocked mode repeatedly over the course of normal daily use, then the chances that the battery is not going to make it through the day is much much higher.
All touch screens prior to the iPhone really only responded to stylus input. Many had special tip materials to work with the screens they were designed for. With those devices, the chance that anything in your bag or pocket that came in contact with the screen would inadvertently register as legitimate user input was infinitesimally low, thus a simple tap was sufficient.
When Apple achieved a high quality capacity touch screen that could legitimately accept continuous human finger movements as input reliably, the goal posts changed. To achieve the quality of input Apple achieved, they needed a screen that was far far more responsive to input than anything prior. This was a necessary hardware innovation for any touch interface that can collect enough input for software engineers to code gestures [0]. With this hardware innovation, they now were exposed to new problem which was not present on previous touch devices. No previous stylus or shitty finger touch device prior to the iPhone was likely to respond to erroneous input. For example, no palm device really detected finger input so you could very effectively handle in daily, like just holding it casually in your hand, possibly fidgeting with it, while you were engaged in conversation with another person. This meant that the opportunities for wasting battery was much much much higher than with any device that previously existed, enough so that it was a problem that had to be addressed. Remember that the first iPhone battery couldn't even last through one full day of regular use.
To solve the problem, there was essentially several levels of commits required. Previous devices used the power button to activate the screen and then a stylus could tap to unlock. The chances that the power button would be pressed and then be immediately followed by stylus input could not really occur accidentally, therefore a gesture like slide to unlock was completely unnecessary.
Apple then comes along and experiences a problem that didn't need to be solved before. Only they knew of the problem because only they had the technology to experience it. I'm not arguing that they didn't succeed in applying a timeless idea to a novel situation. I'm arguing that it would have been obvious to any interaction designer at the time versed in the state of the art in interaction design. Apple's secrecy affords them a monopoly on being the only people versed in the state of the art that know the problem exists. The thought experiment that needs to be excersized to determine obviousness is to ask if someone else versed in the state of the art would likely have arrived at the same conclusion. The fact that only Apple knew what state of the art is moot here, what matters is the mental exercise of testing obviousness all things considered.
This recent vanity fair article does a good job of chronicling the degree of secrecy surrounding the importance of maintaining a an information monopoly on what is state of the art.
I currently work at a company where we a similar informational advantage. There are many times over the past year, were I'd see us do something seemingly n...
Counterpoint: I'm sure consumers will totally notice that Samsung is $100M lower in profits next quarter.
It's not like they're going to stop making Android phones over this. Not saying I like what happened, but "won't someone think of the consumers" doesn't really work here.
You're a little disingenuous, the consumers won't notice the lowered Samsung profits but they sure as hell will notice if Samsung has to stop offering an "universal search" feature because apparently that's not obvious enough to avoid being patentable.
I don't see anything to suggest this feature will be removed. I read three articles to try to find some information about it, and even searched on the specific term "universal search" with Apple and Samsung in the search. I can see that one of the patents was about that, but I cannot see that it is either going to be removed, or that it was one of the ones damages were awarded over. Do you have some evidence to that effect?
Anyway, I was certainly not being disingenuous, as you accused me. If what you said is a feature of this event, it is hard to discover, and it was my good faith belief that consumers would see no effect.
Snarkiness and good faith are exclusive? TIL. To me, good faith means honesty and fair dealing. It doesn't have anything to do with the rhetorical devices you use to make your points.
Seems like the wikis agree with me, at least at first glance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith. I was sincere and honest in what I initially said, whether I said it with a tone you approve of or not.
"Google was not a defendant in the case, but during the trial Samsung pointed out that some of the features Apple claims to own were actually invented by Google, and called a handful of executives from the Internet search giant to testify on its behalf."
Which makes me wonder why Google isn't doing a better job at protecting Android.
The claims/patents are rather ridiculous, and a win in this case would mean that Apple can bully every Android manufacturer, including LG and their Nexus line!
Apple aren't trolling, because they invented and patented ideas that are being used in very real products. Apple is using the patent system exactly as intended; if you object to this, your beef is with the architecture of the patent system, not with Apple.
You won't help by creating a new class of "insignificant tech" patent. Who decides what qualifies a patent as insignificant?
I prefer the idea someone had of doing away with the time limits altogether, and replacing it with an annual renewal fee that rises exponentially. Let the patent holder decide when the fee exceeds its usefulness.
(A similar idea should apply to copyrights. Replace the current Sonny Bono time period with a much shorter length, say 25 years, plus a 25 year time extension when registered for free in a database of copyrighted works, and up to 150 years when registered for a fee.)
Up until Apple bought PA semi most of their gear was off the shelf components. Their patents were mostly design patents. So it isn't right to think of them as innovations and more like an odd quirk in trade mark\trade dress law.
I don't remember any phones having a "slide-to-unlock" before the first iPhone. If I remember most top-end phones had crappy resistive screens that required a stylus. How is that not innovation?
Windows CE - slide to unlock + touch screen without stylus introduced on Neonode N1m - 2 years before Apple "invented" it. And all this while Apple is suing HTC, Motorola and Samsung over gesture patents...
Considering we are talking Samsung Electronics here, you can do away with the semantics - their profit was $5.2 billion only in the second quarter of 2013[1].
It's not semantics. If in 29.5 hours I make $119.6 million in revenue by selling $100 million in product, then it's going to take me a lot longer than 29.5 hours to pay off a $119.6 million debt.
For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with
1. Daily trial reports on testimony and motions
2. Analysis of the patents involved
3. Descriptions of the legal issues involved and which were in dispute
4. History on the companies and technology involved
But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand.
Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.
I know patents are often much more detailed and precise than what their titles may sound like, but that is one crappy list of patents. "universal search", "background sync", beeeuah.
I sometimes wonder if naming patterns in an intentionally vague way is a strategy to hide them in plain site. There should be some rule that titles should be sufficiently specific.
No. Either my brain moves faster than my hands or I have something else on my mind while typing and I type another similar word by accident. Don't really know. TBH this only started happening in my writing after I lived abroad for four years and was speaking English infrequently. Even now that I'm back in the US speaking English all the time it happens. I occasionally do it in speech as well.
I love how absolutely fucking dismissive this community can be about Apple.
They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses.
They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations.
They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here.
This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.
Your emotional outburst is not a constructive addition to this discussion.
Despite this tantrum it would seem that more people on HN agree with you than disagree as your comment is still visible. So I am not sure why you are bitching.
For their innovation they were rewarded for being first to market with a good product and win a very large market share which they profited from for several years and are still profiting handsomely, and managed to build a powerful brand that will help them to continue to help them earn abnormal profits in the short to medium term. You're saying that Apple deserves to make abnormal profits for many more years (15 or so more or however long their patents last).
Profit is a feature that exists not to serve the entity the profit goes to, but to serve society at large, to encourage services to be provided, to encourage innovations. You're saying Apple should be awarded additional abnormal profits above the monopolistic competitive profits they're already generating. Is their current situation not enough to have encouraged Apple of 2006 their innovations? I doubt it. If Steve Jobs was told patents only lasts 5 years, I'm sure he'd have gone on to lead Apple to invent the exact same things. If that's the case, what's the point of giving Apple additional monopoly protections, at the expense of society at large, due to the increased prices they must pay and reduced innovations they will receive in return (since other companies are disincentivized to innovate on top of what Apple has invented)?
Is it because of how Steve Jobs would have felt? He's a great man, but we should not be reduced to living in his shadows forever. We must stand on his shoulders, for that is how humanity have advanced ever since the first hammer was passed down from father to son.
Samsung, in an argument in the court, tried passing the buck to Google, stating that the primary owner of the Android operating system is Google and they are liable for any copyright or patent infringements.
There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.
60 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 42.5 ms ] threadSamsung don't write (much of) the software.
EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?
[1] http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/64028-image/ch-b...
Since Samsung modifies Android, arguably they could have removed infringing features but they chose not to. I don't know if this argument came up during the case.
Google's export of software is not making, selling, or importing a product [1] and no Android manufacturers make phones in the USA.
Samsung actually makes the devices and imports them in vast numbers.
Note also that since using the device can be infringement, Apple could sue every user of Android devices in the USA individually also.
[0] 35 USC §271 [1] Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
That's what fucking innovation looks like.
http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-photo-100329053-O...
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/wooden-castle-gate-24387358.j...
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/gothi...
http://www.artfactory.com/images/Medieval-Door-2219CDJ.jpg
Slide to unlock is as old as doors. The only other obvious alternative to someone skilled in the art of doormaking is rotate to unlock.
Honestly only reasonable definition of obvious to use is:
"based on the presence/awareness of innovation A, B, C, etc, how likely is it that two or more people are likely to come up with the same innovation simultaneously. The greater the likelihood of two or more people simultaneously arriving at the same solution, the less likely something should be patented.
It's the most obvious thing. Do you consider the slide to unlock on a floppy disk or SD card to be an innovation?
Literally, humanity has been using the slide to unlock metaphor everywhere imaginable for years. It's very common metaphor.
What's next? Patenting waving your hand in front of a electronic star trek door to unlock and option it? Quick someone go out and patent this obvious idea.
Heck even the historical phenomena of signing X on a line in a contract when you're illiterate and don't know how to write/spell your own name is rooted in the same idea as slide to unlock on the iPhone. What's the simplest shape you can make with a writing utensil that demonstrates clear intent to someone who did not observe the act and cannot infer is something was intentional or accidental? Basically a circle or an X. A simple X is sufficient to communicate intent to a person that did not observe the action of signing the contract. This is essentially a "two phase commit". A slide to unlock mechanism is both performed and confirmed by the same person and doesn't require the second stroke requirement. With this in mind, the obvious design choice is only require one single stroke since it's sufficient to demonstrate clear intent and is cancellable (e.g. a half stroke doesn't count). Since the requirements are more lax a single phase commit is sufficient (i.e. a single swipe).
Or how about those old TV remotes that used a sliding cover to hide the lesser used or configuration/setup controls? Or how about those phones that hid a phone keyboard behind the screen. There are three obvious choices, slide open, swivel open and flip open.
What if I took the phone and slid my finger to the right but instead of sliding a skeuomorphic button the animation was instead a page or book cover flipping over? Or what if I did a arced swipe and "threw the lock screen" away the same way you force quit an app in iOS 7. What if I hold my finger down and the screen animates to a certain color over a short duration (maybe like when Mega Man powers up his special charged blaster cannon shot? These are all obvious since this are so incredibly analogous to other use cases.
Take every new invention in the future where something needs to be unlock. I'll bet you the value of this settlement that almost every single future human invention that fits the narrative of unlocking or enabling is going to have some interface that either is literally slide to unlock or maps very clearly to that metaphor.
Even opening your eyelids is slide to unlock.
Why wasn't it implemented before if it is indeed as obvious as you are making out?
Not one of the the modern things that you describe are examples of prior art.
>"These are all obvious since this are so incredibly analogous to other use cases."
Analogous to what?
You are confusing mechanism with method. What you describe is a textbook example of creeping determinism (hindsight bias).
The only example, I've ever seen of a screen that could reliably do touch sliding with fingers (not just tapping or special stylus) is the Star7 demo device shown off by James Gosling in the 90s. That device was huge and never would fit in a pocket, and therefore had no issues with erroneous input when locked. A tap would have worked.
Apple literally invented the viable hardware tech that made sliding touch input a possibility, and for that they deserve a patent. There is some serious hardware innovation necessary to bring responsive capacitive to market. However, had such hardware been available at the time to all phone market participants, you would have seen more people arrive at the same obvious conclusion as slide to unlock. Apple only got the patent because they had a monopoly on the solution of the necessary hardware tech and kept it secret long enough to milk it for as many obvious interface/interaction patents as possible. No one else had even had a device like the iPhone to even encounter and try to solve the obvious problem of how to distinguish between erroneous input when the phone is in your pocket.
Please enlighten me on the distinction you're using for "mechanism" and "method".
It's very easy to claim hindsight bias, but you didn't even make an attempt to address any of my points explaining why this method is obvious across multitude of settings, including analogous ones that have yet to be invented, like my star trek door example. Maybe Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures has already filed a slide to unlock patent on those doors for whenever they are invented. Every lock in history is a state machine with position locked and unlocked. Almost everyone of those locks (because its preferred that locks generally are meant to stay locked and not accidentally unlocked) involve some method of moving from the state of locked to unlocked in a continuous motion, and almost all of them only respond to unlocking at the end of the range of that continuous motion. With that in mind, twisting/arcing and sliding are the obvious solutions to anyone with knowledge of locks, digital, physical or otherwise.
Why move the goalpost? Your claim is that the mechanism is obvious, not that the technology didn't exist. If a line can be reasonably accurately drawn with a stylus (as on the Newton and Palms which followed) then it can track a simple swipe. I played games on my Palm pilot that employed dragging as a mechanism, so why not a security measure? Again, the "swipe to unlock" didn't exist because it was not obvious and you are employing confirmation bias to further a view that influenced by hindsight bias. I did rebut your points; hindsight bias.
>"With that in mind, twisting/arcing and sliding are the obvious solutions to anyone with knowledge of locks, digital, physical or otherwise"
And the PIN isn't more obvious for digital devices?
When a phone is on the lock screen the timer before it shuts off the screen is very short. When phone is unlocked, the assumption is that the user is engaged with the phone, possibly reading/scanning whats on the screen, so the inactivity timer before the phone reverts to inactive mode is much longer. If a phone can easily end up in unlocked mode repeatedly over the course of normal daily use, then the chances that the battery is not going to make it through the day is much much higher.
All touch screens prior to the iPhone really only responded to stylus input. Many had special tip materials to work with the screens they were designed for. With those devices, the chance that anything in your bag or pocket that came in contact with the screen would inadvertently register as legitimate user input was infinitesimally low, thus a simple tap was sufficient.
When Apple achieved a high quality capacity touch screen that could legitimately accept continuous human finger movements as input reliably, the goal posts changed. To achieve the quality of input Apple achieved, they needed a screen that was far far more responsive to input than anything prior. This was a necessary hardware innovation for any touch interface that can collect enough input for software engineers to code gestures [0]. With this hardware innovation, they now were exposed to new problem which was not present on previous touch devices. No previous stylus or shitty finger touch device prior to the iPhone was likely to respond to erroneous input. For example, no palm device really detected finger input so you could very effectively handle in daily, like just holding it casually in your hand, possibly fidgeting with it, while you were engaged in conversation with another person. This meant that the opportunities for wasting battery was much much much higher than with any device that previously existed, enough so that it was a problem that had to be addressed. Remember that the first iPhone battery couldn't even last through one full day of regular use.
To solve the problem, there was essentially several levels of commits required. Previous devices used the power button to activate the screen and then a stylus could tap to unlock. The chances that the power button would be pressed and then be immediately followed by stylus input could not really occur accidentally, therefore a gesture like slide to unlock was completely unnecessary.
Apple then comes along and experiences a problem that didn't need to be solved before. Only they knew of the problem because only they had the technology to experience it. I'm not arguing that they didn't succeed in applying a timeless idea to a novel situation. I'm arguing that it would have been obvious to any interaction designer at the time versed in the state of the art in interaction design. Apple's secrecy affords them a monopoly on being the only people versed in the state of the art that know the problem exists. The thought experiment that needs to be excersized to determine obviousness is to ask if someone else versed in the state of the art would likely have arrived at the same conclusion. The fact that only Apple knew what state of the art is moot here, what matters is the mental exercise of testing obviousness all things considered.
This recent vanity fair article does a good job of chronicling the degree of secrecy surrounding the importance of maintaining a an information monopoly on what is state of the art.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-sma...
I currently work at a company where we a similar informational advantage. There are many times over the past year, were I'd see us do something seemingly n...
It's not like they're going to stop making Android phones over this. Not saying I like what happened, but "won't someone think of the consumers" doesn't really work here.
Anyway, I was certainly not being disingenuous, as you accused me. If what you said is a feature of this event, it is hard to discover, and it was my good faith belief that consumers would see no effect.
Seems like the wikis agree with me, at least at first glance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith. I was sincere and honest in what I initially said, whether I said it with a tone you approve of or not.
Didn't Google testify on this case?
"Google was not a defendant in the case, but during the trial Samsung pointed out that some of the features Apple claims to own were actually invented by Google, and called a handful of executives from the Internet search giant to testify on its behalf."
The claims/patents are rather ridiculous, and a win in this case would mean that Apple can bully every Android manufacturer, including LG and their Nexus line!
You won't help by creating a new class of "insignificant tech" patent. Who decides what qualifies a patent as insignificant?
I prefer the idea someone had of doing away with the time limits altogether, and replacing it with an annual renewal fee that rises exponentially. Let the patent holder decide when the fee exceeds its usefulness.
(A similar idea should apply to copyrights. Replace the current Sonny Bono time period with a much shorter length, say 25 years, plus a 25 year time extension when registered for free in a database of copyrighted works, and up to 150 years when registered for a fee.)
Then you remember it wrong.
Anyways- Putting it in perspective, It will take Samsung a bit more than a day to pay for this verdict (about 29.5 hours of revenue)
[1]:http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/27/interesti...
For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with
But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand.Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.
- 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
- 8,046,721: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (slide to unlock)
- 6,847,959: universal search
- 8,074,172: Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations (word recommendation/autocomplete)
- 7,761,414: Background sync
More details here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in...
They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses.
They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations.
They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here.
This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.
Samsung has a long history of waiting what side wins and then cut and paste the winning one.
As of yet, I have not achieved such acclaim.
Like or dislike any of those you please, but can't you find some other way to occupy your time?
Despite this tantrum it would seem that more people on HN agree with you than disagree as your comment is still visible. So I am not sure why you are bitching.
Profit is a feature that exists not to serve the entity the profit goes to, but to serve society at large, to encourage services to be provided, to encourage innovations. You're saying Apple should be awarded additional abnormal profits above the monopolistic competitive profits they're already generating. Is their current situation not enough to have encouraged Apple of 2006 their innovations? I doubt it. If Steve Jobs was told patents only lasts 5 years, I'm sure he'd have gone on to lead Apple to invent the exact same things. If that's the case, what's the point of giving Apple additional monopoly protections, at the expense of society at large, due to the increased prices they must pay and reduced innovations they will receive in return (since other companies are disincentivized to innovate on top of what Apple has invented)?
Is it because of how Steve Jobs would have felt? He's a great man, but we should not be reduced to living in his shadows forever. We must stand on his shoulders, for that is how humanity have advanced ever since the first hammer was passed down from father to son.
There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
This is a terrible list of some overbroad Patents:
The Autocomplete 172 Patent is considered suspect enough that it is going under a reexam[scribd]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autoc...
The next few ones are equally horrible: 647 is contentious as well http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-w...
Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.