or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung rest cases in patent trial as testimony phase wraps up
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Samsung rest cases in patent trial as testimony phase wraps up

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
Both parties rested their case in the Apple v. Samsung trial on Friday, bringing an end to the testimony portion of the proceedings ahead of closing arguments and jury deliberation set to take place next week.

Following a cavalcade of witnesses Apple called to the stand to rebut testimony from Samsung's own experts, presiding Judge Lucy Koh said, "We are done," putting a cap on the nearly fifty hours of testimony heard by the jury, reports All Things D.

Near the start of the day, Apple had about two and a half hours left to rebut Samsung's arguments, while the South Korean company was down to just under 40 minutes. Judge Koh earlier limited each side to 25 hours of witness testimony.

According to All Things D's in-court reports, Apple used its time to call New York University professor and former assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division Janusz Ordover to the stand. In his testimony, Ordover said Samsung's declared standards-essential patents have allowed the company to gain a near monopoly in the industry as far as wireless technologies are concerned.

In rebutting Samsung's claims of patent infringement, Apple brought a number of repeat witnesses back to the stand, including Peter Bressler. The designer disputed Samsung's claims that the 1994 Fidler tablet concept invalidated Apple's own design patents, a point the Korean company tried to hammer home multiple times throughout the trial.

Bressler went on to refute invalidation claims based on several Japanese and Korean designs as well as the LG Prada smartphone. Samsung witness Itay Sherman presented the evidence in court on Wednesday, saying that Apple's designs were functional, not ornamental.

Phone Evolution
Evolution of Samsung and Apple smartphones. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


On the user interface front, Apple called Karan Singh back to the stand, who explained Samsung's assertion of previous art against the Cupertino company's UI zooming patents didn't hold water. Singh said Samsung witness Ben Bederson's LaunchTile property doesn't actually enlarge any on-screen assets, but launches certain applications instead. Bederson on Monday demoed LaunchTile, a program that allows users easily navigate a screen of 36 applications with one hand by "zooming in" on specific apps.

Up next was Ravin Balakrishnan, who testified in support of the iPhone maker's '915 "pinch-to-zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents, saying Samsung's claims of prior art don't cover the specifics of Apple's property. The Korean company on Monday brought out Adam Bogue, creator of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory's DiamondTouch display table.

Bogue argued the device's FractalZoom feature, which supports a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom, predates Apple's patent. It was also revealed during his testimony that the technology was demoed to Apple hardware engineers in 2003. Bogue went on to describe a follow-up invention, dubbed TableCloth, that incorporates a "bounce back" animation when images are dragged offscreen.

Tablet Evolution
Evolution of Samsung and Apple tablets. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


After the court's afternoon break on Friday, Apple rested its case leading Samsung to bring up two final witnesses, David Teece and Woodward Yang.

Teece testified on Friday that Samsung's disclosure of its patents was timely, showing a study offering examples from other companies. He went on to say that the company's FRAND licensing offer to Apple was reasonable, noting that it had proposed a cross-license agreement with the iPhone maker. On Thursday, Teece and Samsung witness Vincent O'Brien estimated Apple owed up to $421.8 million in royalties pertaining to five patents.

With testimony completed, Apple and Samsung need to finalize jury instructions, with a discussion on the matter scheduled for Monday. Jury deliberations should begin Wednesday after the parties get two hours each for closing arguments on Tuesday.
post #2 of 64
I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.
post #3 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpels View Post

I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.

Microsoft didn't 'bring' windows, they simply reversed engineered Mac OS.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #4 of 64
I'll take a dollar each way on the outcome.
post #5 of 64
You can feel Google's presence and counsel in this trial.

The Google/Samsung defense partnership extends I suspect from 'willful destruction of evidence' to systematic procedural obstruction over the instructing of a fair and comprehensive trial. Google is Samsung's enabler. Samsung is Google's enforcer. And Google has massive clout, witness their reluctance to expose...as required by the tribunal in Google vs Oracle...the extent of their linkage to bloggers, journalists, academics, and opinion makers. They can turn truth on its head by power-playing their hoard of data on decision makers. They lobby from a leverage position.

Apple is the Google killer. Google is the Apple killer. Essentially. No matter how much they've seemed to cross-breed in the past. Through schmidth's presence on Apple's Board, ...or their patented data-sucking luminaries on Apple platforms' home screens, Google has been biding its time to channel Apple's applied genius through its proprietary wormholes ...to a universe where human nature is sliced, marked-up, branded, ...and traded as a cost-plus commodity.

These guys are fundamentally incompatible in as much as their core philosophies towards end-users repulse one another. Apple's strategy sits upon establishing unequivocally within the consumer's psyche its driving principle of 'form as a receptacle for infinity'. An inverted funnel; Sir Jonathan Ives and all. Google's strategy is to stream infinity down towards Google's form factor, its politically and economically micro-manageable, assimilative environment. The Android honey-trap experiment. The OEMs, Samsung amongst an ever dwindling few, ...enacting, day-time-soap opera-like, its platform's embodiment.

One funnels ...to set itself up as the end-user's complement. The other channels ...to pull the strings at the consumer's detriment. One's a square peg, the other an...a round hole. One's part delta, part sigma, and a sum-enhancing tenure of fatwa. The other's part data, part beta, ...and a sum-reducing measure of LaLa...

What better garden of scaled proses to cross-pollinate than an unmanned  court of law!?
Samsung and Google have been doubling down for ages on the 'cross' part. As for the 'pollinate' part, ...well...'spoliate' has gotten both to jiggle the lexicon and ...ejaculate at the thought...!
post #6 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpels View Post

I just hope that history doesn't repeat itself again. Remember the legal battles between Apple and Microsoft for user interface back when Microsoft brought Windows? That ended badly for Apple and it took Apple years to reinvent itself. I really hope that it doesn't happen again with Samsung.

That was then and this is now. Not all legal battles are the same and this time Apple has patents to defend, and no weak worded licensing agreements like before. No guarantee it won't end up a loss for Apple but definitely not stacked against them like last time.

 

With all the witnesses and extra time that Apple had how is that Apple has 'rested it's case' leaving Samsung the the final witnesses? I had the impression that Apple would be weighing in the end of the trial with their witnesses. Much for me to learn about trials I guess.

post #7 of 64

 

 

Samsung F700 design patent date is year 2006. Before first iphone released.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/369584/20120802/samsung-defends-leaking-information-apple-patent-trial.htm
 

 

 

 

 

An internal Apple document reports for the various smartphone manufacturers who attended the trade show, including Motorola, RIM and Samsung. Of particular interest was a side-by-side dimensions comparison of the much contested Samsung F700 and the iPhone

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/15/apple_document_says_iphone_set_the_tone_of_trade_show_it_did_not_attend.html
 

 

 

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/

 

LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:

 

“We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
We take that to mean “Apple stole our idea.”
http://www.applematters.com/article/the-iphone-lawsuits/

post #8 of 64

^ Another loser added to the block list.

post #9 of 64
That size comparison just shows how different they are.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #10 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

That size comparison just shows how different they are.

Agree

 

 

 


Apple Shrinks Samsung’s Galaxy S In Dutch Defense Filing?
http://www.razorianfly.com/2011/08/19/apple-shrinks-samsungs-galaxy-s-in-dutch-defense-filing/

post #11 of 64

In trade dress and almost all patent registrations, size is not considered or important. If it were, then any product in the world could be legally knocked off by making it slightly larger or smaller.

post #12 of 64
I was somewhat surprised the Apple didn't do all that much by way of questioning -- let alone poking holes in, or rattling -- any defense witnesses. Or perhaps it didn't get reported.
post #13 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

 

LG Mobile Handset R&D Centre, Woo-Young Kwak, publicly announced the following statement:

 

“We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
We take that to mean “Apple stole our idea.”

 

Hey dude, can you explain the THREE raised buttons on the face of the Prada, they are in between the bottom edge of the screen and the bottom edge of the phone?

 

See them in your picture, call, menu, end.

 

Sorry, but that is different to Apple's design patent.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #14 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Hey dude, can you explain the THREE raised buttons on the face of the Prada, they are in between the bottom edge of the screen and the bottom edge of the phone?

 

See them in your picture, call, menu, end.

 

Sorry, but that is different to Apple's design patent.

 

Galaxy S1 vs. Iphone

 

 

Galaxy S2 vs. Iphone

 

 

Galaxy S3 vs. Iphone

 

 

Yeah, According to same logic, Everything is different.

 

See them in picture, call, menu, deisng, shape, size, etc.

 

 

Sorry, Samsung is different to Apple's design patent.

post #15 of 64

it wasnt the legal suit Apple brought which caused things to go badly, it was that Apple as they hadn't protected themselves in their agreement with Microsoft with a non compete

post #16 of 64

Samsung got advance specs for iPhone screen, processor, and memory orders.

 

Samsung & LG release clones just before iPhone's existence is publicly announced.

 

(Literally a month sooner for LG Prada)

 

Clones copied look and feel, but not functionality.

 

iPhone patent applications predate clones and phony-clone research.

 

Two years later clones delivered iPhone functionality.

 

Next argument.


Edited by dapple - 8/17/12 at 8:20pm
post #17 of 64

^ You can clone something even it was not existed before ?

Yes, Apple invented everything before.

/s

post #18 of 64
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

…Prada…

 

Anyone that still says this and isn't mocking the aforementioned word is completely deluded.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #19 of 64

When was the iPhone patent FILED? It doesn't matter if these patents pre-date the iPhone, what matters is who filed the patent first. If Samsung and LG failed to file patents, then that's there's problem.  If the Apple patent pre-dates the prior art, they are up sh*t creek without a paddle.

post #20 of 64

As this is the wrap-up thread (we'll likely have at least ten more), this comic is fitting.

 

 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #21 of 64

The Galaxy III is not listed in the lawsuit. It's different because Apple pressed the issue until they changed.  It was designed by lawyers (proving that Samsung can actually not copy when they are held accountable).  The Galaxy II is in the lawsuit. Check your facts.

post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

When was the iPhone patent FILED? It doesn't matter if these patents pre-date the iPhone, what matters is who filed the patent first. If Samsung and LG failed to file patents, then that's there's problem.  If the Apple patent pre-dates the prior art, they are up sh*t creek without a paddle.

 

 

 

 

  • There is other prior art that invalidates Apple’s claims, Sherman says.It includes  Korean Registered Design KR547, issued on July 6, 2006. It discloses a portable phone that has an overall rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners with a display centered on the front of the display, flat face, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
  • Samsung is now showing photos of the LG Prada phone, which Sherman says was released in late 2006 before Apple filed its patents.
  • LG Prada is a mobile handset that is rectangular, with rounded edges, flat front, black, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.

 

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/14/samsung-argues-prior-art-invalidates-apples-patents-calls-its-designer-as-trial-continues-live-blog/


Edited by 845032 - 8/17/12 at 8:49pm
post #23 of 64
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post
issued on July 6, 2006… …late 2006…  …before Apple filed its patents.

 

 😐

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #24 of 64

Have LG's research and development documents or even patent applications on the features of the iPhone that predate Apple's own iPhone research and development documents or patent application filings ever seen the day of light in a court of record?

 

If not, then there's a reason for that:  copycats.

post #25 of 64

"invention" date ? What is that ? Is there any proof that date is correct ?

 

Apple D’677 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007

Apple D’087 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007

LG Prada July 6, 2006

 

Japan sharp phone design also prior-art of Apple's

post #26 of 64

This whole apple fans vs google fans vs android fans vs samsung fans is getting old

 

Why can't we have a normal discussion without the childish playground fighting?

 

The trial is interesting and very important for the future of the industry. I am a fan of great products, who ever makes them and so I am interested to see the dynamics and details of the development of such products.

 

I am personally of the opinion that Apple did succeed in developing a product everyone was expecting to fail, especially when Nokia was dominating the phone market, but they did what others could not and credit needs to be given to Apple as they executed an innovative phone. Its one thing to conceptualize something and its another thing to actually make a functioning prototype and its yet another to make it commercially viable and manufacturable and its yet a whole another thing to succeed at it. Ask microsoft with their courier concept (no intention to criticize microsoft) but the concept is still very intriguing idea... the same is true for the iPad, others said there is no market for it, people want netbooks, yet Apple did it again. We are approaching yet another product the Apple TV (I don't mean the current little box) but the rumoured Apple TV. Others are trying desperately to predict what Apple will do and they are releasing everything that comes to mind, smartTVs, tv with gesture control, tv with voice control, tv with various providers etc but no one is really revolutionising the tv industry. Yet once Apple releases its idea then you will see others trying to imitate what Apple is doing because they know Apple would not release a product unless its was thought thru meticulously, so is it fair for one company to work hard at innovating and revolutionising the industry while others wait for Apples idea and then replicate it (legally or illegally) 

 

I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...

 

I dream of a time when companies would have enough dignity to want to innovate and be the best at something rather  than take the road Apple has already traveled and they make sure if there is danger ahead, let Apple discover it, while the rest waits (I am reffering to this particular case not saying no one else is innovating) android was a good idea and one opposite to Apple in philosophy and the fact that they both exist is great for everyone as long as they don't step on each other toes...

post #27 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

 😐


Apple may claim that's the date they invented it but Apple's D'087 patent wasn't filed until July 30, 2007, the D'667 wasn't filed until November 18, 2008.

 

Whether that witness opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, there's no way Apple's lawyers would have let it stand if he made such a false statement in terms of when the patents was filed.

post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ufwa View Post


Apple may claim that's the date they invented it but Apple's D'087 patent wasn't filed until July 30, 2007, the D'667 wasn't filed until November 18, 2008.

 

Whether that witness opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, there's no way Apple's lawyers would have let it stand if he made such a false statement in terms of when the patents was filed.

 

Internal R&D specs always pre-date patent filings by well over a year to two years.

post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Internal R&D specs always pre-date patent filings by well over a year to two years.


If we take that into consideration, whoever holds that KR547 patent likely worked it sometime before it was issued in July 2006. Possibly predating, April 2006 that Apple listed. Unless the patent office in South Korea works crazy fast.

 

In any case, my point remains. The witness made a statement regarding dates of when something was issue and when something was filed. If it was factually incorrect, Apple would've challenged it immediately.

post #30 of 64
Originally Posted by Loading View Post
Why can't we have a normal discussion without the childish playground fighting?

 

We could if the Anti-Apple Brigade packed up their troubles in their old kit-bag… 

 

I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...

 

The other side would argue that this doesn't matter at all. And in the strictest sense, they may be right, but they're also wrong about the right arguments, so it doesn't leave them with much.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

  • There is other prior art that invalidates Apple’s claims, Sherman says.It includes  Korean Registered Design KR547, issued on July 6, 2006. It discloses a portable phone that has an overall rectangular shape with evenly rounded corners with a display centered on the front of the display, flat face, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.
  • Samsung is now showing photos of the LG Prada phone, which Sherman says was released in late 2006 before Apple filed its patents.
  • LG Prada is a mobile handset that is rectangular, with rounded edges, flat front, black, lozenge-shaped slot at the top.

 

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/14/samsung-argues-prior-art-invalidates-apples-patents-calls-its-designer-as-trial-continues-live-blog/

Take your dissembling cr4p elsewhere. It has become quite tiresome. 

 

If you are the type of consumer/employee that Samsung caters to, that reflects really poorly on the company. 

post #32 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Take your dissembling cr4p elsewhere. It has become quite tiresome. 

 

If you are the type of consumer/employee that Samsung caters to, that reflects really poorly on the company. 

Huh?  You mean the kind who can recognize that the Prada and the iPhone are no more similar or different than the Galaxy S series and the iPhone?  If you don't mind (and this goes for Tallest as well), please post a list of the similarities of the iPhone to the Prada and a second list of the similarities between the Galaxy S series and the iPhone.  I can help out if you're unable or unwilling.

post #33 of 64
^ If you put the Prada, iPhone and Galaxy S together and can't see how the Prada is significantly different than you need your eyes checked.
post #34 of 64

The Prada phone was clearly an inspiration for Apple to draw upon. Very few products are created in a vacuum, they're all built upon what came before them, and we all benefit from this gradual development. Android was built upon the advances made in iOS, and now iOS is taking Android developments and incorporating them. It's a two way street, and that's perfectly fine.

 

This petty fighting between Apple, Samsung, and everyone else is not only childish and demeaning, but also utterly pathetic. Hard to believe all this is being driven by supposedly professional adults, when in reality it's more like watching a bunch of children fighting over who has the better action figures.

post #35 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loading View Post

I am personally of the opinion that Apple did succeed in developing a product everyone was expecting to fail, especially when Nokia was dominating the phone market, but they did what others could not and credit needs to be given to Apple as they executed an innovative phone. ...

Yet once Apple releases its idea then you will see others trying to imitate what Apple is doing because they know Apple would not release a product unless its was thought thru meticulously, so is it fair for one company to work hard at innovating and revolutionising the industry while others wait for Apples idea and then replicate it (legally or illegally) 
...
I do agree that Apple is not innocent and they take inspiration from other works but as I said its one thing to have one idea or a concept, but to get the end result is a whole another ball game...
....

You can have that opinion, but you state a fact.
And no, not everyone thought that the iPhone would fail.
So speak for yourself in that respect.
(It should have been clear to anyone looking at the keynote, the virtual keyboard was a revolution and the software centered approach and mobile OS X (iOS) was never shown before.)

Every good idea, whoever came up with it, is used by others.
Implementing them, without outright stealing the blueprints (as the Sovjets did with the Concorde) is ofcourse legit and almost as hard as the original development even if you know what the end result looks like. The result is yesterdays rage and the original developer has already moved on to the next great product that sells like crazy.

J.
Edited by jnjnjn - 8/18/12 at 8:06am
post #36 of 64
The iPhone 4 was obviously an evolution of Apple's 2005 "purple" prototype, not a rip off of the Prada.

Screen-Shot-2012-07-30-at-10.07.48-AM.jpg
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Huh?  You mean the kind who can recognize that the Prada and the iPhone are no more similar or different than the Galaxy S series and the iPhone?  If you don't mind (and this goes for Tallest as well), please post a list of the similarities of the iPhone to the Prada and a second list of the similarities between the Galaxy S series and the iPhone.  I can help out if you're unable or unwilling.

The three protuding buttons on the face of the Prada, i.e. it is not flat, as Apple's design patent specifies, the Galaxy S countersunk it's single home button, just like Apple's design patent specifies.

Maybe you need one of these 🔍 or have had too many of these 🍺🍺🍺or these💊💊💊.
Edited by hill60 - 8/18/12 at 1:36pm
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Microsoft didn't 'bring' windows, they simply reversed engineered Mac OS.

 

 

Microsoft didn't need to reverse the Mac OS. Jobs trusted Microsoft to develop Office software for the Mac. Microsoft had internal access to the working of the Mac. 

post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

You can have that opinion, but you state a fact.
And no, not everyone thought that the iPhone would fail.
So speak for yourself in that respect.
J.

While 'everyone' is an exaggeration, there was a strong industry sentiment at the time that Apple would never succeed in the mobile phone market. Not only did you have people like Microsoft and Nokia and RIM executives publicly ridiculing the idea, a huge percentage of bloggers and journalists were highlighting that it was a high volume, low margin, commodity-like business where Apple couldn't compete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

The Prada phone was clearly an inspiration for Apple to draw upon. Very few products are created in a vacuum, they're all built upon what came before them, and we all benefit from this gradual development. Android was built upon the advances made in iOS, and now iOS is taking Android developments and incorporating them. It's a two way street, and that's perfectly fine.

Maybe you should start by learning the difference between 'inspiration' and 'slavish copying'.

Even if Apple was inspired by the Prada (which really doesn't seem likely), there's nothing illegal or even morally wrong with inspiration. There is, however, a great deal wrong with Samsung's clear attempts to copy every detail of the iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

"invention" date ? What is that ? Is there any proof that date is correct ?

Apple D’677 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007
Apple D’087 patent, which claims an earliest priority date of Jan. 5, 2007
LG Prada July 6, 2006


Japan sharp phone design also prior-art of Apple's

Just to clarify things:

In terms of patent protection, invention date is no longer relevant in the US. At one time, we used the 'first to invent' system, so a great deal of energy was spent poring over old records to try to determine who implemented an patentable invention first. We switched to 'first to file' over a decade ago, so the important date is the day you get your application into the hands of the patent office.

In terms of invalidating a patent, invention date can be important under some circumstances. If company A files for a patent on Jan 1, 2005 and company B can prove that they were working on the patent in 2002, it might be possible to use that information to have the patent declared invalid. It's somewhat complicated, though, as there are a number of factors to be considered. In particular, it's not at all clear that Apple's design patents (which have different rules than utility patents) infringe on the JP patents you've cited or that the JP patents provide prior art for the Apple patents. And even if the JP patents ARE prior art, if they were disclosed by Apple to the patent office, then it's almost impossible to use them to invalidate Apple's patent.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #40 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

 

Galaxy S1 vs. Iphone

 

 

why did you not compare the Galaxy S1 to the iPhone 3g?... because you would have provided evidence that samsung copied Apple!...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung rest cases in patent trial as testimony phase wraps up