OS and Software > All Things Unix > Samsung - Why This Case Matter

I suspect his "IP" referred to "Intellectual Property".

While the case is now moving into the main tent of Apple's anti-Android circus, the Samsung devices are flying off the shelves in America. People want them. But Apple doesn't want us to want them, or if we already do want them, they don't want us to be able to find them to buy them. And if we can find them, because Samsung comes up with workarounds, it wants to be sure Samsung's devices are uglier than Apple's and can't do as much. Noble values, indeed.

Apple's weapons in this war are patents and design patents and trade dress and whatever there is at hand that the law foolishly puts into the hands of plaintiffs determined to use the courts against its competitors.

P.S. That's not what courts are supposed to be for. And companies could try innovation instead of litigation.

Apple wants us all to buy only Apple products (or any nonAndroid alternative), or that's what I get from all this. So if we keep buying Android products, Apple's strategy is apparently to make it such a dangerous hassle to sell Android that the vendors will either give up and go back to whatever else they were doing before Android came along -- explaining why Microsoft's reaction to the bizarre Apple verdict in Apple v. Samsung I was to crow that the verdict was "good for Windows phone" -- or have to implement so many workarounds, their products are hideous to look at and can't do the typical things customers expect. That seems to be how Samsung views all this litigation too, as Apple trying to limit consumer choice.

This other case between Apple and Samsung isn't about rectangles with rounded corners or double rows of icons with graphics of phone receivers or flowers. Same court, same judges, same parties, but different Apple patents. These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection.” In other words, four toxic software patents. Yes, Apple claims to own that functionality as its very own, because it's such a great innovator. Who else could think up text correction? I mean, come on. They are Geniuses.

I jest. I've taken the time to read up on the case a bit, and I'd like to show you the dirty tricks Google, a nonparty involved in the case due to Apple's discovery demands, said back in April Apple was doing -- creating what Google called a "manufactured controversy". It'll give you some insight into this thermonuclear war Apple is waging...

By the way, if you want to understand just how toxic design patents are, let me show you something...

No, it claims to have a patent on those things.

Don't blame the player

In its latest action, Interval Licensing has moved for leave to amend its supplemental infringement contentions to include Apple's OS X Mountain Lion operating system. (275 [PDF; Text]) If successful with this motion (and for the record, Apple opposes it), Interval will have substantially raised the stakes in this action.

With or without this amendment, this case exemplifies the lunacy of the patent system with respect to software.

Everything Apple just (tentatively) won against Samsung they could be forced to disgorge to Interval.

So who are the winners in all of this?

It certainly will not be any company that actually makes something.

The only winners will be those patent holders who make nothing (because they are immune to infringement counterclaims) and the members of the patent and litigation bar.

So, please, someone tell us again about how patents are important to innovation (and improving our economy) when it comes to software.

As spokesperson for Apple you may soon be replaced by someone from Interval Licensing.

Allen v. World - Interval Moves to Incorporate Mountain Lion:

innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.

Innovation is always expressed by better technological solution accepted by society.

...innovation refers to transformation, diffusion and ultimately change.

In society, innovation aids in comfort, convenience, and efficiency in everyday life.

In business and economics, innovation is the catalyst to growth.

In the organizational context, innovation may be linked to positive changes in efficiency, productivity, quality, competitiveness, market share, and others.

Once innovation occurs, innovations may be spread from the innovator to other individuals and groups.

Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones.

Apple and Samsung are arguably the most dysfunctional, yet symbiotic partners in all of technology. Samsung is a major component supplier to Apple, including memory and processing chips and flat-screen technology; and without Samsung, Apple would not be able to deliver the Iphone and Ipad products.

Despite the nasty patent battles that continue to rage between the two tech giants, Samsung has billions at stake by supplying components to Apple. So while the two shred each other in public and in the courts the relationship will not soon be dissolving.

Despite the early victory, Samsung would seem to be better suited for a protracted battle than Apple, as it begins to roll-out newer innovations in its line of smart phones and tablets. According to some analysts, Samsung was the leading seller of smart phones in the US last month for the first time since Apple introduced the IPhone 4s last October.

Apple has been using arcane US patent laws (while also buying patents from non-related companies) in an effort to block sales of many Samsung smart phone and tablet devices. Some of the Samsung products slowly making their way to US consumers are being received with critical acclaim and high rates of consumer acceptance. It is only a matter of time until Samsung figures out how to navigate the patent minefield thrown down by what is beginning to look like a desperate Apple.

Apple's new marketing strategy (right or wrong) in blocking competitive technology appears to be a loser in the court of public opinion. More and more consumers are expressing distain for the suppression of new offerings from companies such as Samsung and see Apple now looking like it is desperate to hold market share through litigation instead of innovation.

Apple has a lot to lose if it becomes too distracted by its defensive strategies.

CEO Tim Cook is in danger of being seen as a corporate bureaucrat rather than a technology innovator.

For the moment, Cook appears to be taking the bait in pursuing the litigation path, giving Samsung a huge opening to steal the magic from Apple.

Don't blame the player This is the world Apple lives in.

innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.

Innovation is always expressed by better technological solution accepted by society.

...innovation refers to transformation, diffusion and ultimately change.

In society, innovation aids in comfort, convenience, and efficiency in everyday life.

In business and economics, innovation is the catalyst to growth.

In the organizational context, innovation may be linked to positive changes in efficiency, productivity, quality, competitiveness, market share, and others.

Once innovation occurs, innovations may be spread from the innovator to other individuals and groups.

Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones.

Apple and Samsung are arguably the most dysfunctional, yet symbiotic partners in all of technology. Samsung is a major component supplier to Apple, including memory and processing chips and flat-screen technology; and without Samsung, Apple would not be able to deliver the Iphone and Ipad products.

Despite the nasty patent battles that continue to rage between the two tech giants, Samsung has billions at stake by supplying components to Apple. So while the two shred each other in public and in the courts the relationship will not soon be dissolving.

Despite the early victory, Samsung would seem to be better suited for a protracted battle than Apple, as it begins to roll-out newer innovations in its line of smart phones and tablets. According to some analysts, Samsung was the leading seller of smart phones in the US last month for the first time since Apple introduced the IPhone 4s last October.

Apple has been using arcane US patent laws (while also buying patents from non-related companies) in an effort to block sales of many Samsung smart phone and tablet devices. Some of the Samsung products slowly making their way to US consumers are being received with critical acclaim and high rates of consumer acceptance. It is only a matter of time until Samsung figures out how to navigate the patent minefield thrown down by what is beginning to look like a desperate Apple.

Apple's new marketing strategy (right or wrong) in blocking competitive technology appears to be a loser in the court of public opinion. More and more consumers are expressing distain for the suppression of new offerings from companies such as Samsung and see Apple now looking like it is desperate to hold market share through litigation instead of innovation.

Apple has a lot to lose if it becomes too distracted by its defensive strategies.

CEO Tim Cook is in danger of being seen as a corporate bureaucrat rather than a technology innovator.

For the moment, Cook appears to be taking the bait in pursuing the litigation path, giving Samsung a huge opening to steal the magic from Apple.

innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits

Gartner Inc. group vice-president Mark McDonald says the patent win could breed complacency and stifle innovation.

Winning a patent lawsuit can be stifling to innovation, he writes, and foster complacency. The Samsung lawsuit was an extension of co-founder Steve Jobs "thermonuclear" war on Android; mission accomplished, what does Apple do?

Last week’s patent ruling has the potential to be more corrosive and coercive to Apple’s future than any financial success.

Patent victory in hand, a company can bully the competition out of the marketplace with court orders, or license to the technology to other players:

If Apple believes that it is the best because it out-innovates, out-performs and out-operates its competitors, then it should continue to do so by licensing its technology to others at a very reasonable rate. It could take the billion dollars in the award create some social good as they already admit they have enough cash. Those are actions that would prove that the suits were not about the money and more about being proven right in the marketplace.

The patent wars and patent trolls are an unfortunate outcome of a system where the motivation to litigate is as strong as the motivation to invent.

The Wall Street Journal warned as much in their analysis on Saturday of the award: “That means that Apple could find it easier to defend its market position and lofty profit margins, while consumers may see a bit less choice and higher prices — as fewer competitors court buyers with me-too models and pass along costs of damage awarded in the price of their products.”

Patents are important, valuable and lead to innovation. They are part of the reason why we have technology and its benefits. But their role is not just to grant a license to exploit an invention in the market; they also encourage others to invest time, sweat, capital and knowledge in new ideas.

The patent wars will not go away, but they also do not have to define the future of technology. That is left to those who win the war, as we know that history is more often written by them, but not always.

This is not the last patent fight. Apple will have to arm and fight the patent wars just like Google, Microsoft and others. This appears to be an alternative way of winning in this industry via IP rather than winning in the market, winning in customer value, etc.

Jurisprudence demands that US District Judge Lucy Koh right a terrible miscarriage of justice occurring in her courtroom.

The Apple-Samsung patent dispute is nothing but a mock trial. The jury ignored key instructions, failed to complete a crucial checklist, made egregious errors on the final verdict form and reached a verdict after 21 hours of deliberations.

The foreman misunderstood one of the concepts fundamental to the case -- prior art -- leading the jury astray.

Then there is Judge Koh, who prevented Samsung from presenting key evidence or witnesses that could have made its defense and case against Apple more credible.

Judge Koh let this travesty occur on her watch. She should be ashamed and do what this malfeasance demands: Set aside the verdict.

[Jury foreman Vel Hogan] claims that initially the jury was divided and confused about prior art, which is crucial to determining a patent's validity. Samsung presented a defense largely about prior art that if accepted could invalidate most, if not all, of the disputed Apple patents.

He goes on to explain his interpretation of prior art, which even as a layperson (and someone who has covered plenty of tech legal cases) makes absolutely no sense at all. Hogan believes that because Apple or Samsung software couldn't run on either's processor, there could be no prior art.

"This is an odd statement considering that the test for obviousness is not whether features may be bodily incorporated into a prior art structure, but rather, what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art", patent attorney Scott McKeown says.

The impact of Hogan's misunderstanding cannot be understated.

Fellow juror Manuel Ilagan tells CNET's Greg Sandoval about the foreman: "He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art". Hogan made believers out of the other jurors, quite possibly misleading their interpretation of every patent.

Perhaps the verdict would have been different with someone of sufficient technical background or understanding of patents. Regardless, Hogan acknowledges, however tacitly, his influence over the jury.

If only the problems stopped there. Perhaps Samsung should have hired better lawyers.

Apple's courtroom victory is largely built on misinformation:

● The limited story Judge Koh allowed Samsung to present to the jury

● Hogan's misunderstanding of prior art and his conveying the concept to fellow jurors

● Ongoing misreporting, either because of Apple bias, poor research or legal misunderstandings

Samsung devices are flying off the shelves in America. People want them. But Apple doesn't want us to want them, or if we already do want them, they don't want us to be able to find them to buy them. And if we can find them, because Samsung comes up with workarounds, it wants to be sure Samsung's devices are uglier than Apple's and can't do as much. Noble values, indeed.

Apple's weapons in this war are patents and design patents and trade dress and whatever there is at hand that the law foolishly puts into the hands of plaintiffs determined to use the courts against its competitors.

P.S. That's not what courts are supposed to be for. And companies could try innovation instead of litigation.

Possible defensive move to stop Samsung marching iPhone 5 to court

Apple has gone from holding zero LTE patents last year to having 318 filed away today. That's around five per cent of the world’s total, today, the Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) told local news site The Chosun Ilbo.

Cupertino apparently developed just 44 of those patents itself while the rest were bought from once-proud Nortel as it was broken up.

The Rockstar Bidco consortium which Apple joined with EMC, Microsoft and others to bid for further Nortel patents owns a further 116 LTE patents, effectively bumping Apple’s number up in excess of 400.

By comparison, Samsung has the largest share of the patents on the planet with 819 (12.7 per cent), while US patent firm InterDigital is second with 780 (12.1 per cent).

Samsung confirmed it would “immediately sue” Apple if the Californian phone-maker releases an LTE device.

Wow, one sentence rates three half page cut and paste replies.

If Apple wishes to continue to fund innovation, then clearly it is in their best interest to defend against their inventions (as expressed in products) from being copied and have those copies sold at a lower price.

the entire history of human technology involves people having new ideas based on their knowledge of existing ideas

everyone "stole" the idea of a telephone from Alexander Graham Bell

Bell has been widely recognized as the "inventor" of the telephone outside of Italy, where Meucci was championed as its inventor.

An early voice communicating device was invented around 1854 by Antonio Meucci, who called it a telettrofono. In 1871 Meucci filed a caveat at the US Patent Office.

In the United States, there are numerous reflections of Bell as a North American icon for inventing the telephone, and the matter was for a long time non-controversial. In June 2002, however, the United States House of Representatives passed a symbolic bill recognizing the contributions of Antonio Meucci "in the invention of the telephone" (not "for the invention of the telephone"), throwing the matter into some controversy. Ten days later the Canadian parliament countered with a symbolic motion conferring official recognition for the invention of the telephone to Bell.

Champions of Meucci, Manzetti, and Gray have each offered fairly precise tales of a contrivance whereby Bell actively stole the invention of the telephone from their specific inventor.

Meucci was recognized for his pioneering work on the telephone by the United States House of Representatives in 2002. The resolution stated that "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." No such patent could have issued to Bell in March 1876. If Meucci had renewed his caveat, he would have been given an opportunity to prove to the examiner that the device described in his caveat was the electromagnetic telephone described in Bell's patent application.

Elisha Gray, of Highland Park, Illinois (near Chicago) also devised a tone telegraph of this kind about the same time as La Cour. In Gray's tone telegraph, several vibrating steel reeds tuned to different frequencies interrupted the current, which at the other end of the line passed through electromagnets and vibrated matching tuned steel reeds near the electromagnet poles.

On 14 February 1876 at the US Patent Office, Gray's lawyer filed a patent caveat for a telephone on the very same day that Bell's lawyer filed Bell's patent application for a telephone. The water transmitter described in Gray's caveat was strikingly similar to the experimental telephone transmitter tested by Bell on March 10, 1876, a fact which raised questions about whether Bell (who knew of Gray) was inspired by Gray's design or vice versa. Although Bell did not use Gray's water transmitter in later telephones, evidence suggests that Bell's lawyers may have obtained an unfair advantage over Gray.

Gray's caveat was taken to the Patent Office in the morning of 14 February 1876 shortly after the Patent Office opened and remained near the bottom of the in-basket until that afternoon. Bell's application was filed shortly before noon on 14 February by Bell's lawyer who requested that the filing fee be entered immediately onto the cash receipts blotter and Bell's application was taken to the Examiner immediately. Late in the afternoon, Gray's caveat was entered on the cash blotter and was not taken to the Examiner until the following day. The fact that Bell's filing fee was recorded earlier than Gray's led to the myth that Bell had arrived at the Patent Office earlier. Bell was in Boston on 14 February and did not know this happened until later. Gray later abandoned his caveat and did not contest Bell's priority. That opened the door to Bell being granted US patent 174465 for the telephone on 7 March 1876.