dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4161
share rss forum feed

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FF4m3

Re: Samsung - Why This Case Matter

Indeed - and that's why there's generally not a lot of point in complaining that company A is 'wrong' when it sues the pants off company B for real or imaginary patent violations. They're just playing the game by the current rules; it's the rules that are wrong. Well, and the referee sometimes seems like he's blind.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by dave:

They're just playing the game by the current rules; it's the rules that are wrong.

The players are responsible for the choices they make.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

said by Kearnstd:

a good question is how do patents effect OSS. By this I mean how tightly bound by patents is something like a Linux distro.

Why Red Hat is certainly bound by patent law, Is bob who writes his own widgets for XFCE bound by say any patents owned by a major firm?

Good questions. From a broader perspective, as the discussion has indicated, it would depend in part on prior art, IP, applicable licenses, corporate ownership, business relationships, previous and existing contracts, trade secrets, etc. Could get complicated (and expensive ).

I guess one factor for a "basement coder" is they are likely not worth chasing if they code a feature that is already under patent. So I imagine the XDA devs that re-enable things like the device searching and other things disabled due to patent lawsuit requirements of the official stock ROMs are unlikely to face the legal teams.

And even if a legal team did shut down a popular dev of OSS, it would only unleash the "Streisand Effect".
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by Kearnstd:

I guess one factor for a "basement coder" is they are likely not worth chasing if they code a feature that is already under patent.

Agreeing with your points, I suppose it would be how big and visible the target is, how big an infringement/threat/encouragement to others it could represent if it became widely known, and let's not forget an evaluation of potential $$$ involved. Infringement can also sometimes be accidental rather than intended.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
I would see most independent devs as accidental. They simply lack the resources to constantly watch the patent office.

Which is actually a big issue around the current habits of overly broad patents, a garage innovator could infringe and never know it Even if they used the Google patent search they may have searched for their specific idea/device and not considered searching for the shape of box they put it in or the color of the LEDs to indicate functions.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 edit
said by Kearnstd:

I would see most independent devs as accidental. They simply lack the resources to constantly watch the patent office.

Which is actually a big issue around the current habits of overly broad patents, a garage innovator could infringe and never know it Even if they used the Google patent search they may have searched for their specific idea/device and not considered searching for the shape of box they put it in or the color of the LEDs to indicate functions.

hint: don't accidentally make your new mousetrap look exactly the same as the Apple iTrap you see advertised 24/7, and reported as THE mousetrap of the century... perhaps even referred to as the Jesus mousetrap.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

I would see most independent devs as accidental.

Which is actually a big issue around the current habits of overly broad patents, a garage innovator could infringe and never know it.

+1

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

said by Kearnstd:

I would see most independent devs as accidental. They simply lack the resources to constantly watch the patent office.

Which is actually a big issue around the current habits of overly broad patents, a garage innovator could infringe and never know it Even if they used the Google patent search they may have searched for their specific idea/device and not considered searching for the shape of box they put it in or the color of the LEDs to indicate functions.

hint: don't accidentally make your new mousetrap look exactly the same as the Apple iTrap you see advertised 24/7, and reported as THE mousetrap of the century... perhaps even referred to as the Jesus mousetrap.

The problem is keeping this in flow with how it seems patents work on the software side of things...

Apple's iTrap design is not where the patent is but instead they patented "device for the capture of rodents"

Which is why for open source software it can be easy to infringe without even knowing it. At least for the small time coders who simply cannot find out if sliding a finger in certain direction on a touch screen has a patent filed.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
I once heard an opinion that, at the small end of things, it's better not to look. "Accidental infringement" is viewed in a better light than intentional infringement.

(I, of course, am not a lawyer, nor even competent to judge lawyers, except to observe that they're even more anal-retentive than good programmers).


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

said by JohnInSJ:

said by Kearnstd:

I would see most independent devs as accidental. They simply lack the resources to constantly watch the patent office.

Which is actually a big issue around the current habits of overly broad patents, a garage innovator could infringe and never know it Even if they used the Google patent search they may have searched for their specific idea/device and not considered searching for the shape of box they put it in or the color of the LEDs to indicate functions.

hint: don't accidentally make your new mousetrap look exactly the same as the Apple iTrap you see advertised 24/7, and reported as THE mousetrap of the century... perhaps even referred to as the Jesus mousetrap.

The problem is keeping this in flow with how it seems patents work on the software side of things...

Apple's iTrap design is not where the patent is but instead they patented "device for the capture of rodents"

Which is why for open source software it can be easy to infringe without even knowing it. At least for the small time coders who simply cannot find out if sliding a finger in certain direction on a touch screen has a patent filed.

You'd have to live under a rock to not know that slide to unlock is patented. It was posted on just about every mobile device forum within a day of being granted. A "small time developer" in the mobile space who didn't actually frequent any web sites or read any news about mobile would be, IMHO, a terrible small time developer. Sure, you may not know that apple has a patent for Antenna Selection for MIMO Decoding. But you could find out in about 10 seconds by doing a patent search on the web.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


bbrkdub

join:2001-10-03
Houston, TX
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:

Funny that most EU and other countries seem to keep smacking down this patent troll nonsense, except in DE and here in the US (home and birth place to such nonsense YES I am looking at YOU SE TX!)

It's not SE Texas, it's just E. Specifically, it's Marshall, TX. I agree it's sad most people don't know what's happening in this "sleepy" little country ass town.
--
Hope this helps...


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
Apple v. Samsung Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhancing More Than 6.4% Of Monetary Award For Willful Infringement by Richard T. Redano*:

The recently tried Apple v. Samsung case is arguably the most important design patent case to be tried in a U.S. court, particularly if one defines importance in terms of monetary exposure.

Additionally, due to the lack of detail in the jury verdict regarding which Samsung products were used to commit willful infringement, it is quite possible that no enhancement of damages for willful infringement will survive an appeal.

The relative paucity of design patent jurisprudence regarding the legal remedy of damages and the equitable remedy of an accounting for the infringer’s profits, makes clear that while an award of damages for patent infringement may be enhanced under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful infringement, and award of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, may not be enhanced under Section 284.4 While this distinction may appear important to one who wishes to obtain an enhancement of the damages award for willful infringement, the jury verdict form in Apple v. Samsung leaves one clueless as to whether the monetary award for infringement of 18 Samsung devices was an award of damages, an award of profits, or some combination of the two.

As we proceed with this analysis, things get worse for Apple.

Even if every liability verdict in this case survives an appeal, the information provided by the response to Jury Question 10 should be found by the Federal Circuit to be inadequate to meet Apple’s clear and convincing burden of proof that the jury’s findings of willfulness apply to every Samsung device found to infringe any of the six patents where willful infringement was found.

There is no “one size fits all” doctrine for proving willful infringement... Thus, the district court could rule on this element on a device by device and patent by patent basis in the post-trial hearing on willfulness... Unfortunately for Apple, the jury, has already been dismissed without making any findings on this issue on a device by device basis.

Despite the widespread reporting in the mass media that the $1.04B jury award to Apple may be trebled, one can see that the jury verdict will not support such an enhancement and Samsung’s additional monetary exposure for willful infringement is miniscule, in comparison to the $1.04B award of damages, or profits, or both.

* Richard T. Redano is the president of Richard T. Redano, P.C. and an adjunct professor of law at The Univ. Of TN School of Law, where he teaches patent litigation

Mr. Redano has practiced intellectual property law in Houston, Texas since 1985. His experience includes patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret litigation, the licensing of intellectual property rights, legal opinions regarding infringement or validity of intellectual property rights, and the preparation and prosecution of patents applications and applications for federal trademark registrations. Mr. Redano’s patent procurement experience includes medical devices, subsea oil & gas production intervention tools, geophysics, laser alloying, and electromechanical devices.

In addition to being a licensed attorney and a registered patent attorney, Mr. Redano holds a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear engineering and has several years of experience as an engineer in the nuclear power industry and as an inspector with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Apple -- surprise, surprise -- Wants to Keep the Preliminary Injunction v. Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Place - by pj:

Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 was found not to be infringing on Apple's goofy rectangle with rounded corners design patent. But there was already a preliminary injunction blocking it from the US, because the Federal Circuit, which always seems to side with patent owners, thought there should be one even when the district court judge hadn't initially ordered one. Now, the jury said no, Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe, so Samsung asked the court to lift the preliminary injunction.

The judge, the Hon. Lucy Koh, asked the parties to brief the issue. Isn't it dissolved automatically, she asked? Since it's on appeal, can she act now, if it isn't? So Apple has filed its brief. I'll bet you can guess what Apple says. You are correct! It's not automatic and it should remain in place until everything is decided. Let's look at its reasoning, as opposed to its rather obvious goal of being as annoying as possible so vendors will be afraid to sell Android devices. The overall theme is, believe it or not, that Samsung's motion and Apple's motion for a permanent injunction and its motion for judgment as a matter of law should be decided together. That is precisely what the judge already said she didn't intend to do.


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
so what do these injunctions really mean? do they block import or can the court force all vendors to cease sales even of stock already in place?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by Kearnstd:

so what do these injunctions really mean? do they block import or can the court force all vendors to cease sales even of stock already in place?

Potentially both.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
ahh okay so if say Best Buy kept selling them they could technically be fined if the court ordered both.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by Kearnstd:

ahh okay so if say Best Buy kept selling them they could technically be fined if the court ordered both.

Depends on the injunctions, but it's possible.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
For those interested...

From Samsung the [Internal Memo] Regarding the Jury Verdict in California - August 27, 2012.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
Actually I think Samsung is somewhat right though in that memo, Apple cannot sustain its endless growth purely on customer loyalty.

Even Blizzard is finding that out with World of Warcraft. And Blizzard Entertainment has a following whos loyalty rivals that of Apple.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Expand your moderator at work


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3

Re: Samsung - Why This Case Matter

Wozniak hates Apple-Samsung patent wars:

Apple Co-founder Steve Wozniak went on record Thursday with Bloomberg saying, "I don't think the decision of California will hold," adding that he doesn't believe Samsung deserved to lose its case.

Recently, smartphone patent wars between Apple and Samsung have gone nuclear, with companies filing numerous suits and court requests that phones be banned from sale. But while former Apple CEO Steve Jobs may have had a bloodlust for taking down Google, his former partner Steve Wozniak doesn't.

"I hate it," says Woz of the constant patent fights. "I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody's technologies."


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
Unfortunately that will never happen. Sadly whoever wins the consumer loses. It seems the industry has forgotten that the customer is who is actually important.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to FF4m3
Of course this is the same Woz that really likes Windows Phone 7.5. And the same Woz that used to hack the phone system. That scamp. I don't think he's a patent attorney.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
said by JohnInSJ:

I don't think he's a patent attorney.

One has to be a patent layer to have an opinion on Apple's patent warfare against Android? I guess that counts us all out.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

Of course this is the same Woz that really likes Windows Phone 7.5. And the same Woz that used to hack the phone system. That scamp. I don't think he's a patent attorney.

Of course hes not, if he where a patent attorney he would want the patent wars to never end, After all those lawyers do bill by the hour.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to Maxo
said by Maxo:

said by JohnInSJ:

I don't think he's a patent attorney.

One has to be a patent layer to have an opinion on Apple's patent warfare against Android? I guess that counts us all out.

Well, commenting on the relative merits of patent law is fine and dandy, we all have equal opinions on that. Woz is just one of us. Given Woz's well documented views, I'd be really surprised if he was pro patent litigation.

I do like his flip flop the last time he stepped into the whole patent mess

»paidcontent.org/2011/05/05/419-s···inda-ba/
--
My place : »www.schettino.us