or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Tokyo court finds Samsung infringed on Apple's 'rubber-banding' patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tokyo court finds Samsung infringed on Apple's 'rubber-banding' patent

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
A Tokyo court on Friday ruled a number of Samsung's legacy smartphone models infringe on Apple's so-called "rubber-banding" or "bounce-back" patent, a hotly-contested property in the companies' ongoing worldwide patent struggle.

Rubber Banding Patent
Illustration of Apple's "rubber-banding" patent. | Source: USPTO


The Japan court found older versions of Samsung's smartphone user interface, which have since been modified to avoid litigation, mimicked a unique scrolling behavior patented by Apple, reports Reuters.

Specifically, Samsung infringed on Apple's "rubber-banding" feature that triggers a "bounce-back" animation when a user scrolls to the end of a digital document. The property is designed to give feedback when navigating a web page other digital asset, adding to the carefully crafted user experience offered by iOS.

As noted previously, Samsung has changed the offending action in its latest products, adding a blue line to demarcate the end of a document.

The patent is still a bone of contention in the Apple v. Samsung post-trial proceedings, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in April found the property invalid. More recently, however, the USPTO validated a few key claims in the patent, including "Claim 19," which Apple successfully leveraged against a number of Samsung products in last year's high-profile jury trial.

Further details regarding the Tokyo court's decision will be announced when the final ruling is handed down later today.
post #2 of 37
Hi Samsung,

How's your f*cking year going?

1biggrin.gif

Love,
GTR
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #3 of 37

The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #4 of 37
I hope Sacamsung don't bounce back from this.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #5 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

That is what what happened when Microsoft purloined the first Mac OS.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #7 of 37
what needs to happen is once youve been found guilty of enough infringements all your future related products should be vetted by the courts BEFORE release.

thatll balance out the traction you gained from ill gotten use of patents in your prior products. when a company sees their next best thing stalled for 6 months by the courts, while their competitor is beating them to market, im sure theyll rethink how they build their stuff.
post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

There is another way of looking at that ... Rubber Banding is but one element in a host of Apple concepts and they all matter... If you add up all the things Google 'borrowed' from iOS how many phones would Scamsung have sold had Android been the design it had prior to ripping off Apple's IP? I guess Apple can only chip away one at a time and sadly the damage is already done.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


There is another way of looking at that ... Rubber Banding is but one element in a host of Apple concepts and they all matter... If you add up all the things Google 'borrowed' from iOS how many phones would Scamsung have sold had Android been the design it had prior to ripping off Apple's IP? I guess Apple can only chip away one at a time and sadly the damage is already done.

 

All the little things added up may have been what contributed to Samsung's attorneys not being able to identify which tablet was theirs as well as consumers thinking that all adds (both Apple and Samsung) were for Apple's iPad. Taken as a whole (or in Samsung's case a hole) I think it is reasonable to assume a loss on Apple's part.

post #10 of 37
Infringing on a patent is all about the claim construction (wording).  Even a missing comma can mean infringement, or not.
 
Quiz for the day. What's the difference between the following three claims in Apple's rubber band patent?  Why were two of the three claims recently invalidated by the Patent Office?   Exactly why did Samsung infringe on the remaining one?
 
CLAIM X
  1. displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
  2. detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
  3. in response to detecting the movement, translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion;
  4. in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display:
  5. displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; 
  6. and in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion.
 
CLAIM Y
  1. instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
  2. instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
  3. instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement;
  4. instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
  5. instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.
 
CLAIM Z
  1. display a first portion of an electronic document;
  2. detect a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
  3. translate the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement
  4. display an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and display a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, if the edge of the electronic document is reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
  5. translate the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.
 
(Numbers added to make it easier to see the steps, but it's still incredibly difficult to figure out why two claims were dismissed, and one survived... and how a developer would know that they infringed.)
 
Remember:  rubber banding was a known method in general.  What matters is the detail in a claim that differentiates it from previous methods.

Edited by KDarling - 6/21/13 at 6:20am
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

Because of rubber banding alone? No probably not.

Because of Samsungs systematic copying of iOSs look and feel, one component of which is the rubber banding? Yes, I do believe there was damage done.
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Hi Samsung,

How's your f*cking year going?

1biggrin.gif

Love,
GTR

Fine.

Regards,
Samsung CEO J.K. Shin
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Hi Samsung,

How's your f*cking year going?

1biggrin.gif

Love,
GTR

Fine.

Regards,
Samsung CEO J.K. Shin
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

Because of rubber banding alone? No probably not.

Because of Samsungs systematic copying of iOSs look and feel, one component of which is the rubber banding? Yes, I do believe there was damage done.

Very little if at all because many of the infringing devices were sold in countries in which the iPhone was not available or on a carrier that didn't carry the iPhone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Hi Samsung,

How's your f*cking year going?

1biggrin.gif

Love,
GTR

We'll know when their quarterly report comes out next month. They can't fudge those numbers.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

Maybe, but it's the culmination of many patents and copy cat items that have hurt apple. The law does not protect innovation or ntrepreneurs. Can you imagine going up against any of these companies.
post #17 of 37
One thing I don't think most people appreciate is that Apple alleged infringement on a whole host of patents and design, but judges in these various cases have always asked them to narrow their scope to a small, legally manageable number of claims.

Apple's not saying that Samsung/Android copied the iPhone just because, look! how they handle a page end is similar to us - at least not that alone. But that particular feature (out of the thousands of design concepts that Samsung borrowed) happened to be one which was fairly well defined, and one that (IIRC) they actually complained to Samsung about before considering legal action. And Samsung told them to f*ck off.

Android apologists love to say that Apple thinks they have a patent on rounded rectangles; what Apple is saying is that Samsung copied them in a million little and big ways, technologically, in software, and in design aspects, probably because that what Samsung (and a number of other Far East companies) have been doing that as their business model for so long that they decided they have an inalienable right to.

They don't, and they're slowly, painfully learning this lesson.
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Generally speaking I agree but I don't for a minute believe that Apple lost a single sale because Samsung phones had rubber banding.

True but then why did Sammy steal it in the first place?
....
Of course this was the results. The Japanese hate Koreans /s
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


There is another way of looking at that ... Rubber Banding is but one element in a host of Apple concepts and they all matter... If you add up all the things Google 'borrowed' from iOS how many phones would Scamsung have sold had Android been the design it had prior to ripping off Apple's IP? I guess Apple can only chip away one at a time and sadly the damage is already done.

If all those added things meant that Google et all had to do their own work and find other solutions there would have been a more interesting alternative to IOS. Maybe worse, maybe better - but that is irrelevant. The point is that there would have been fair competition which nobody has an issue with.

 

So yes, I agree - rubber banding matters, as does every little piece of copying.

post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

True but then why did Sammy steal it in the first place?
....
Of course this was the results. The Japanese hate Koreans /s

Well the rubber banding was part of Android and not part of what Samsung deliberately copied.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Hi Samsung,

How's your f*cking year going?

1biggrin.gif

Love,
GTR

Hi GTR,

We're innovating, and Apple is copying us, as usual. Apple may have patented the rubber band effect, but we invented rubber, we invented bands made of rubber, which we call S-Rubber and S-BandOfRubber. We invented invention, called S-Invention. We also invented patents, called S-Patent. You can apply for S-Patents by bumping phones. All of these features are available in the newest Galaxy S4, which is shipping like crazy! 10 million shipped in one month! We couldn't be happier, and we will vigorously defend ourselves in court.

1tongue.gif

Love,
Samsung

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Very little if at all because many of the infringing devices were sold in countries in which the iPhone was not available or on a carrier that didn't carry the iPhone.

Bullshit! That is like claiming that content owners aren't affected by illegal pirating because a small subset of people who pirate are not able to buy the content.

It most certainly hurt the iPhone in markets in which it competed with Samsung (which is every market in which the iPhone is offered). Further it limits apples ability to expand into new markets.
post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

One thing I don't think most people appreciate is that Apple alleged infringement on a whole host of patents and design, but judges in these various cases have always asked them to narrow their scope to a small, legally manageable number of claims.

That seems to be my recollection as well. Along with rubber banding we can add the packaging, general appearance, accessories (USB chargers, for instance, not to mention a son of Samsung's CEO - if I recall correctly - putting out a copy of the Smart Cover) all adding up to a copy-cat product that many unwittingly think will be as good as an Apple product because it looks so similar to one.
"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 #24 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

Bullshit! That is like claiming that content owners aren't affected by illegal pirating because a small subset of people who pirate are not able to buy the content.

It most certainly hurt the iPhone in markets in which it competed with Samsung (which is every market in which the iPhone is offered). Further it limits apples ability to expand into new markets.

How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.

Indeed. This rubber band case has been stretched too long. :)

post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.

Attempted murder?

post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Attempted murder?

Really? You're going to compare a criminal offense to a civil one?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Really? You're going to compare a criminal offense to a civil one?

Really? You get called out for randomly changing the argument and you keep on doing it? 1oyvey.gif
post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Indeed. This rubber band case has been stretched too long. 1smile.gif

Snap!
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.

Damages did happen. There is no might or might not about it.

But whatever, new markets aside, you are still pretending there is no infringement in markets where the iPhone is being sold. And again I say: Bullshit.
post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

Damages did happen. There is no might or might not about it.

But whatever, new markets aside, you are still pretending there is no infringement in markets where the iPhone is being sold. And again I say: Bullshit.

No I didn't say that, I'm questioning about markets the iPhone didn't exist in.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No I didn't say that, I'm questioning about markets the iPhone didn't exist in.

Your exact words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Very little if at all because many of the infringing devices were sold in countries in which the iPhone was not available or on a carrier that didn't carry the iPhone.

(Emphasis mine)
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

Your exact words:
(Emphasis mine)

I was referring to damage not infringement.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I was referring to damage not infringement.

And I'm telling you damage exists.

Your whole argument is a red herring (markets in which the iPhone is unavailable is totally, completely, ABSOLUTELY irrelevant)
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

And I'm telling you damage exists.

Your whole argument is a red herring (markets in which the iPhone is unavailable is totally, completely, ABSOLUTELY irrelevant)

No it is not. Say you invent something and sold it regionally in a no bigger than a tri-state area, and someone else has the same patented invention somewhere overseas. Yes you're guilty of infringing but what irreparable damage did you cost to his sales?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No it is not. Say you invent something and sold it regionally in a no bigger than a tri-state area, and someone else has the same patented invention somewhere overseas. Yes you're guilty of infringing but what irreparable damage did you cost to his sales?

First and foremost, we are not talking about someone else with the same patented invention, we are talking about someone else who blatantly stole from the inventor.

That aside, lets suppose I agreed with you that Samsung competing in outside markets causes no damage (I still don't for reasons I already mentioned). Your original claim of little to no damage only holds true if the two parties are not competing in the same market. That assumption is (still) bullshit. Apple and Samsung do compete in the same markets.

Further, suppose Apple only sold the iPhone to half the world (let's call it half A) and Samsung comes along and sells a copycat to the whole world (half A and B). According to your original argument the damage would be limited because the iPhone doesn't compete in half B. The reality is Samsung does cause damage because in half A every single person who is looking at an iPhone has a Samsung phone advertising itself as the same thing for less money. In this scenario Samsung has the potential to disrupt 100% of iPhone sales. Half B is irrelevant when discussing the amount of damage done; that's why your argument is a red herring.

Assuming the premise of your argument, the relevant data point is the intersection of Markets where the iPhone is available with markets where Samsung is available compared with all markets where the iPhone is available.
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

First and foremost, we are not talking about someone else with the same patented invention, we are talking about someone else who blatantly stole from the inventor.

That aside, lets suppose I agreed with you that Samsung competing in outside markets causes no damage (I still don't for reasons I already mentioned). Your original claim of little to no damage only holds true if the two parties are not competing in the same market. That assumption is (still) bullshit. Apple and Samsung do compete in the same markets.

Further, suppose Apple only sold the iPhone to half the world (let's call it half A) and Samsung comes along and sells a copycat to the whole world (half A and B). According to your original argument the damage would be limited because the iPhone doesn't compete in half B. The reality is Samsung does cause damage because in half A every single person who is looking at an iPhone has a Samsung phone advertising itself as the same thing for less money. In this scenario Samsung has the potential to disrupt 100% of iPhone sales. Half B is irrelevant when discussing the amount of damage done; that's why your argument is a red herring.

Assuming the premise of your argument, the relevant data point is the intersection of Markets where the iPhone is available with markets where Samsung is available compared with all markets where the iPhone is available.

I never said anything about 'half A', of course damage was done and even then it's not much (we all saw the true sales figures), all I'm saying is that how could there be irreparable monetary losses in markets that Apple couldn't of possibly made any money. Yes people could buy unlocked iPhones but those people circumvented the smartphone market in place of which Apple isn't/wasn't a part of.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Tokyo court finds Samsung infringed on Apple's 'rubber-banding' patent