Verdict reached in Apple vs Smsung

 
--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

Samsung got handed their own arse

$1.051Billion+ damages. Samsung's infringements willful.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

We're still in the Second Quarter on this one

The initial jury verdict is in. Now the post-verdict motion practice (Rule 50) starts. That will take us through the end of September. Then the Judge issues her rulings, maybe another month. Then the appeals start -- that will be six months to a few years.

The first appeal is to the 9th circuit. Typically a 3 judge panel will decide. One result of an appeal could be a remand back to the trial court -- do it over, parts or all.

Another result of the appellate process could be a request for an en banc hearing (or rehearing) before the entire 9th circuit appellate panel.

After that it's a request for cert to the Supreme Court.

Unless Apple and Samsung get together and settle things out.

That doesn't look promising right now, but that could change, particularly with the split decision in Seoul.

There are many skirmishes being fought, all over the world.

No one battle is going to decide the overall result.

(Disclosure -- I am a patent attorney -- Apple put me through law school. I don't do litigation. The amount of time and money being invested in this is staggering.)

--
Nuvi 2460, 680, DATUM Tymserve 2100, Trimble Thunderbolt, Ham radio, Macintosh, Linux, Windows

[

Any thoughts on the finding Samsung's patent infringements were seen as willful?

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Apple's headquarters is only 10 miles from San Jose courthouse

kch50428 wrote:

$1.051Billion+ damages. Samsung's infringements willful.

Not surprising the jury found in favor or Apple considering that Apple's headquarters is only 10 miles from the San Jose courthouse and Samsung is in Korea, and the jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley where Jobs is revered and a lot of the people in that area work for or are dependent on apple for their livelihood.

I sold Apple equipment along with Commodore when they both first started. I owned an electronics and Television related store back then and I remember seeing Apples early GUI interface and thinking it appeared to have been copied in large part from other GUI's I had seen introduced by an earlier developer.

--
GM Built-in Navigation system - Samsung S6 Edge+ Smartphone with Garmin Viago, Google Maps & HERE Apps

More important

kch50428 wrote:

Any thoughts on the finding Samsung's patent infringements were seen as willful?

I think the infringement to be much more important than the money. I think the infringement more likely to give results with Samsung and other companies now regardless of appeals due to wanting to steer clear of further litigation. I also saw in another article where Samsung is looking at developing their own software and dropping Android.

the

fat lady has not sung on this case yet, there are a lot of problems with this case e.g. they found a device did not infringe but gave apple damages for it. if you are interested in the problems with the decision to to http://www.groklaw.net/ they have an analyst of the decision.

many patents are too broad

Unlike k6rtm I lack legal training. But in my Intel and Daisy Systems years I got to see various aspects of the patent system up close and personal.

[rant]
Something I think the general public does not realize is that often the most valuable patents are not really on specific technical innovations--the sort of the thing the Founding Fathers sought to cultivate by giving people a monopoly on using them for a while after the invention. Rather the most valuable patents block out huge swathes of activity--almost solely on the grounds of "I filed first". The usual goal for a company filing a patent is not to protect a clever idea, but to block competition--preferably as broadly as possible.

I used to joke that if you could only manage to get the patent office to OK a patent on breathing--that would be really valuable.

I won't pretend to have studied this specific case, but published comments by the late Steve Jobs make it clear that he thought it a heinous offense for anyone to sell a product that sort of looked like his. THAT is not what a properly operating patent system should protect. I, personally, think we would all have been better off had the entire categories of "business methods patents" (such as the infamous 1-click purchase patent) and software patents never been allowed.
[/rant]

Disclosure: in my Daisy Systems days it developed that a key competitor--Valid--got an extremely broad patent basically excluding all of us from making a product in the general category of the product I developed for Daisy (PMX). The trouble in this case is that there was absolutely clear prior art from the testing field--but as the examiner did not notice or accept this, it would have cost much money even to dispute the matter--with a far from certain outcome.

--
personal GPS user since 1992

It's About Money.

When your product is the number one money maker for your company you will do whatever you have to to keep it that way. Apple is the most sought after smartphone out there. It's a money maker for Apple as well as some of the cellphone companies. Everyone else wants a piece of that pie.

I wonder how this will play out now with the Samsung Galaxy phone that's already out?

--
OK.....so where the heck am I?

Apple's early GUI interface was copied from Xerox

rjrsw wrote:

...I remember seeing Apples early GUI interface and thinking it appeared to have been copied in large part from other GUI's I had seen introduced by an earlier developer.

Yep.
Apple's early GUI interface was copied from Xerox (pun intended;)

Steve Jobs himself was personally responsible for stealing the work of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, which he felt was justified because:
a) he thought the GUI Xerox had develioped was revolutionary
b) he didn't think Xerox was moving it toward commercialization fast enough
c) he saw the need to introduce "insanely great" new products as Apple's breadwinner Apple II was getting long in the tooth and facing new competitors
and finally, because he didn't really care who he had to berate, belittle, lie to, connive, swindle, steal from, or anything else, as long as he could get away with it.

This movie has a fairly accurate depiction of how it all played out way back then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_Silicon_Valley

Jobs always was an a**hole, but the persona he's most often remembered for now developed from the "new" Jobs he supposedly became after his time in the wilderness (at NeXT) after Apple's board pushed Jobs out of Apple. Personally I think Jobs did mature some and rounded off some of his rough spots, but mainly got better at managing his public image, and really was still the same as he always was, just at a lower volume and with his finger quicker on the mute button.

I agree whole-heartedly.

archae86 wrote:

...I, personally, think we would all have been better off had the entire categories of "business methods patents" (such as the infamous 1-click purchase patent) and software patents never been allowed.

I agree whole-heartedly. Far too many patents are issued for things that are ridiculously far away from being innovative in any way. I am amazed at the things I find patents have been issued for, especially for combinations of individually ubiquitous items. If someone wanted to patent a refrigerator that is also a microwave oven, I'd bet they could do so, except that someone else probably already has!

Give up the meme re: Apple/Xerox

http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-st...

It's a tired, old meme perpetuated by those who are ignorant of fact.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

And of course you're not "ignorant of fact"

And of course you're not "ignorant of fact" because you were there, right? As opposed to reading differing accounts of what happened three decades ago, published nearly that long after the fact.

Note that the article you cite (on the world's most auspicious historical authority, "obamapacman.com") mentions "...the Xerox PARC commandos were forced — under protest — to give Apple’s engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work." Notice the silence about the circumstances behind how that came to be, and what representations were made. They have no clue who swindled who. If you want to believe it was all on the up-and-up, feel free.

But what you're obviously not aware of is Xerox did not 'not know what to do with' the new GUI because commercially practical hardware wasn't up to the task at the time, and the much higher end systems that were available at that time were for the most part not doing taks that would benefit from the new GUI, and Xerox could not have 'owned the market' with that GUI for years to come, and neither did Apple. You probably do know that Apple's first effort using the new GUI (the LISA) flopped because the price point was way too high and the performance too low. Finally, fully five years after the demo at PARC, it became (barely, just barely) practical and cost-effective enough with the Macintosh, and that was only possible due to the insanely great efforts of some true code geniuses, not Steve jobs insanely overbearing behavior.

The fact that you not only have "a MacBook Pro and a wifi iPad (2012) and an iPhone4S" but that you proudly announce that to the world every time you post something speaks enough about your feelings toward all things Apple, including Steve Jobs' business practices in the previous century.

.

And this is just the beginning ...

~

GoneNomad wrote:

The fact that you not only have "a MacBook Pro and a wifi iPad (2012) and an iPhone4S" but that you proudly announce that to the world every time you post something speaks enough about your feelings toward all things Apple, including Steve Jobs' business practices in the previous century.

That information is included in my forum signature simply to establish what devices I use, as a point of information. And I have those devices because they work for me. If you want to assume that crap, that's your perogative. It's crap.

Bottom line: Apple compensated Xerox.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

I was there. (Xerox and Apple)

I worked for SDS/Xerox, in El Segundo. One of my college friends did the first native Smalltalk implementation on the Alto (at Parc). I saw the Alto in the late 1970's.

Look for Alan Kay's paper on the "Dynabook" from Parc in the 1968 -- the Alto was designated "the interim Dynabook."

I joined Apple in 1980. In 1983 I was part of the original Macintosh group.

The GUIs on the Alto (Star) and Apple's Lisa then Mac are vastly different -- both in static screen shots, and especially in how they work and feel in operation.

One example -- Lisa and Mac use rounded corners on windows. Alto had square corners, because according to the folks at Parc, rounded corners couldn't be done efficiently. This is a big difference, and goes all the way down to the graphics primitives used to manipulate regions on the screen.

Another is menus -- Alto has a limited menu that pops up at the cursor position. Lisa and Mac menus drop down from a fixed menu bar (with rounder corners). Implementation differences -- in the Lisa/Mac menu systems, the application is not responsible for saving and restoring what gets covered up (overwritten, actually) by the menu. IIRC, that wasn't the case in the Alto.

The differences are many, and are significant.

Alto had the first full-screen entirely bitmapped display (with thanks to Watkins-Johnson for a new type of electron gun). The use of Smalltalk is another important development by Parc.

Yes, Parc did a mouse-driven graphics interface for the Alto.

Have you seen the Sketchpad demo done by Doug Engelbart many years earlier? Engelbart had a tremendous mouse-driven graphics interface, in 1968. Look for those demos, watch them. Oh, Doug Englebart invented the computer mouse.

GUIs were done by Englebart, Ivan Southerland, Parc, and Apple (Bill Atkinson and many others).

Those interfaces are different. The hardware supporting them is incredibly different. Even the mechanics of the mice are different.

Oh, Doug Englebart showed things on Sketchpad in 1968 that are still hard to find on today's "advanced" systems.

--
Nuvi 2460, 680, DATUM Tymserve 2100, Trimble Thunderbolt, Ham radio, Macintosh, Linux, Windows

Steve Jobs

book by Walter Isaacson is a good read and provides complementary details to those of k6rtm...

Samsung clearly at fault.

--
non-native nutmegger

Nobody Cares About Korean Judgement?

Three days before the California decision, a Korean judge ruled in Samsung's favour. Doesn't that count?

When the dust settles

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out when the dust fully settles.

I have 4....

Samsung TV's and really like them. Hope this litigation doesn't affect all of their products.

--
RKF (Bethesda, MD) Garmin Nuvi 660, 360 & Street Pilot

-

DanielT wrote:

Three days before the California decision, a Korean judge ruled in Samsung's favour. Doesn't that count?

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apple-samsung-ruling-sugg...

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

.

early days yet

early days yet...it seems

Apple Seeking to Ban Samsung Phones

Follwing the Aug. 24 ruling, Apple has requested that Samsung’s latest Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 10.1 and others be banned.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/09/apple-seeks-b...

No problem...

pkdmslf wrote:

When your product is the number one money maker for your company you will do whatever you have to to keep it that way. Apple is the most sought after smartphone out there. It's a money maker for Apple as well as some of the cellphone companies. Everyone else wants a piece of that pie.

I wonder how this will play out now with the Samsung Galaxy phone that's already out?

The verdict only included previous phones that are just about to become obsolete...The new Galaxy S111 is not affected... by the way I have one and it runs circles around the Iphone...I just don't understand what all the hoopla is about with the Iphone. My son has one and there is nothing it does I can't do better with the S111. I will admit apple has done a good marketing job to convince people theirs is the better phone....They are good phones....

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

It kind of reminds me

of the Polaroid vs Kodak battle back in the 1980's. Polaroid won that big time, and look what it did for their future exclaim rolleyes

nickboltz wrote:

Follwing the Aug. 24 ruling, Apple has requested that Samsung’s latest Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 10.1 and others be banned.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/09/apple-seeks-ban-on-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-note-10-1/

--
Alan - Android Auto, DriveLuxe 50LMTHD, Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra, Bosch Nyon

How is Samsung really losing...

Considering that Samsung makes the screens and micro processors for apple, are they really hurting.

Not hurting... yet...

Consider Apple accounts for as much as 8% or more(??) of Samsung's revenue from parts manufacturing, should Apple go elsewhere to purchase parts, Samsung's bottom line and stock price will plummet.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Patent system out of control

Years ago, a patent was issued for a real discovery. Although they're supposed to be for the protection of "intellectual property", patents are now-a-day issued for "good ideas" but do not require a real discovery or any minimum level of intellectual performance. Granting a patent for the idea of making rounded corner on a rectangular phone is, in my view, ridiculous!

Such a degeneration of our the patents system results in the concentration of controls by the few companies that can can afford the filing costs (it's not cheap!) of thousands of patents of dubious value and the legal costs of their defense, while the often simple "ideas" they cover will be "forbidden fruits" for the smaller and more creative and entrepreneurial groups.

Imagine that extreme: It may now be forbidden to make a rectangular phone with rounded corners without risking the ire of Apple.

Apple sues everybody...

Apple sues Thomas Edison for patent infringement. Film at 11:00...

Seriously, if Apple was Ford and Steve Jobs was Henry Ford he would have sued all other car makers for "stealing" the steering wheel.

--
GPSMAP 76CSx - nüvi 760 - nüvi 200 - GPSMAP 78S

Well maybe

thrak wrote:

Apple sues Thomas Edison for patent infringement. Film at 11:00...

Seriously, if Apple was Ford and Steve Jobs was Henry Ford he would have sued all other car makers for "stealing" the steering wheel.

Actually the steering wheel was patented in 1914 by Nikolay Parada not Henry Ford. You can see all the other associated patents for the steering wheel by clicking below.

I wonder if "borrowing" the ideas of others was as prevalent then as it is now?

http://www.google.com/patents/US5855144

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

How about Microsoft sueing......

How about MS suing Apple for the smart phone concept in general. They for one was the first cell maker to actually manage a micro os system to mirror ones home pc. Better yet, if Apple was so original, American, then why does everyone under the sun(Sharp America Corp; ie) which will be making the screens and components for Apples aka produce: upcoming tv which will be hitting the market at the end of the year, Samsung; micro-processor, energy saving lcd screen technology developer for i-phone etc.) contribute to the company's developement? If Apple is 8% of Samsungs revenue, how much are they of everyone elses? The point being made here is that everyone has taken some ones ideas/creations and developed it in a different twist. Apple stole MS cloud and Sync technology, MS sued them, now you don't here Apple running advertisements that say: "Save your info to the Clound", really. I feel Produce, I mean Apple is a little intimidated by the 'free market'. Better know as good ole' fashion COMPETITION.

Apple "borrowing"...

Apple didn't come up with the GUI and mouse either. They "borrowed" the idea from Xerox after being invited to tour Xerox PARC. Of course that didn't stop Jobs from wailing about how Gates "stole" the GUI and mouse concept from Apple.

--
GPSMAP 76CSx - nüvi 760 - nüvi 200 - GPSMAP 78S

}

thrak wrote:

Apple didn't come up with the GUI and mouse either. They "borrowed" the idea from Xerox after being invited to tour Xerox PARC. Of course that didn't stop Jobs from wailing about how Gates "stole" the GUI and mouse concept from Apple.

Apple LICENSED the so called "borrowed" intellectual property... but hey, we can't let facts get in the way of a good meme can we?

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

That's true

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

Atari ST

Atari ST was about 1983 (I had one of the first models), it had a mouse, it also had a early desk top similar to early MS windows, I've always been unsure if MS got the idea for windows off Atari, I can't remember which came first, I think windows 1.0 was about 1985

--
Today is a gift, that's why they call it the present...

thanks k6rtm

Thanks for sharing your recollection of the facts on this topic. You're qualified to do that, everything else from the rest of us is just opinion.

That's coming from someone who started in the business trying to fit code into a 16K mainframe.

k6rtm wrote:

I worked for SDS/Xerox, in El Segundo. One of my college friends did the first native Smalltalk implementation on the Alto (at Parc). I saw the Alto in the late 1970's.

Look for Alan Kay's paper on the "Dynabook" from Parc in the 1968 -- the Alto was designated "the interim Dynabook."

I joined Apple in 1980. In 1983 I was part of the original Macintosh group.

The GUIs on the Alto (Star) and Apple's Lisa then Mac are vastly different -- both in static screen shots, and especially in how they work and feel in operation.

One example -- Lisa and Mac use rounded corners on windows. Alto had square corners, because according to the folks at Parc, rounded corners couldn't be done efficiently. This is a big difference, and goes all the way down to the graphics primitives used to manipulate regions on the screen.

Another is menus -- Alto has a limited menu that pops up at the cursor position. Lisa and Mac menus drop down from a fixed menu bar (with rounder corners). Implementation differences -- in the Lisa/Mac menu systems, the application is not responsible for saving and restoring what gets covered up (overwritten, actually) by the menu. IIRC, that wasn't the case in the Alto.

The differences are many, and are significant.

Alto had the first full-screen entirely bitmapped display (with thanks to Watkins-Johnson for a new type of electron gun). The use of Smalltalk is another important development by Parc.

Yes, Parc did a mouse-driven graphics interface for the Alto.

Have you seen the Sketchpad demo done by Doug Engelbart many years earlier? Engelbart had a tremendous mouse-driven graphics interface, in 1968. Look for those demos, watch them. Oh, Doug Englebart invented the computer mouse.

GUIs were done by Englebart, Ivan Southerland, Parc, and Apple (Bill Atkinson and many others).

Those interfaces are different. The hardware supporting them is incredibly different. Even the mechanics of the mice are different.

Oh, Doug Englebart showed things on Sketchpad in 1968 that are still hard to find on today's "advanced" systems.