or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial - Page 4

post #121 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Thank you for a thoughtful post.
. . .I am failing to see, however, why/how/where any of the above applies to Apple v. Samsung Round 2? Please elaborate?

The post you invited me to offer my opinion on was not restricted to Apple/Samsung nor were the links. It was a response to ErictheHalfBee who also wasn't commenting specifically on Apple/Samsung but instead (software?) patents in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) Not possible. 'Business methods' is too broad. I can see definitions stretching all the way from the specific process by which Corning makes fiberglass or a specific process for making drugs, to the way a company answers a telephone or compensates an employee. I really don't understand what the phrase means. If you mean the latter variety, yes. But could you be more specific? And where would you draw the line for what is an un-patentable business method?

If you don't know what a business method patent refers to the definition if fairly easy to find. Just search "what is a business method patent" for the details. The short version is it's relatively new and once-upon-a-time unpatentable category and in general refers to using software to address a business problem. Technically it applies to the subject of finance but due to weasel-wording has been broadly interpreted as anything that might pertain to business. Often the only "innovation" in one is that a computer is used to solve it.

Many countries, including our neighbor to the North, consider it non-patentable subject matter. Here in the US it appears that SCOTUS may be reining business method patents in too after muddying the waters a few years ago with Bilski. Their stand is not yet entirely clear tho and may not be until another couple of cases are heard by them besides Alice v. CLS. So yes it's entirely possible that "software patents" may be largely disallowed within the next few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

2) I don't understand. What do you mean by 'true' owner? The person/entity who originally did the research/development that led to the patent, or the person/entity who currently (fairly, legitimately bought the property and) owns it? Again, this is a vague term. 
I don't know what's vague about it. If "true owner" isn't clear then read it as the legal term "Real party in interest" instead. Some companies assign patents to a shell company to avoid disclosing what company actually controls the IP. That's a tactic used by both NPE's as well as high-profile companies like Nokia for instance. Other times IP is sold or transferred with no mention at the USPTO of the new owner even tho current law requires it. That's more trickery that can camouflage a competitor so as to avoid counter-claims. Instead of being able to hide behind a curtain of anonymity the company(s) benefiting from licensing demands and/or a lawsuit should be disclosed. Why? If would help limit litigation used as a substitute for market competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.

The reason? The argument goes that such a system would discriminate against the poor, since, all else equal (and given that all outcome is probabilistic), the poor will be less motivated to bring suits. Indeed, the 'hire a lawyer on a contingency fee' system in the US is seen as a further step towards tilting the playing field in favor of the less powerful.

(Other countries, such as the UK, do have a 'loser pays' system, and they don't allow lawyers on contingency)
You should have noted my mention that "loser pays" should probably be extended to some other types of damage claims in addition to IP. We're actually in semi-agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

5) I am sincerely unable to parse this sentence (a triple negative, I think). I just don't follow what you're saying here.

Example: A pager sychronization patent from 15 years ago should not be used to gain an injunction on a cloud service introduced today. It was a use not anticipated by the original inventor and thus honestly not originally intended for protection. Vague or creative wording should NOT be allowed to make a patent so broad as to cover innovations the patent's inventor never considered.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/20/14 at 3:53pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #122 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.

Go tell that to the guy who owns thousands of shares off AAPL.

post #123 of 132

Who cares if the feature existed before Apple released it? The fact is that these patents have not been found to be invalid which means, as of the time of this trial, Apple deserves to be compensated for their intellectual property. Just because you could get something on a jailbreak (on iOS or Android) doesn't mean that the hacker programmers that made the hack bothered to check into the patent office or patent the method they used. That's their problem, not Apple's or Google's.  You can complain and whine about who was first... but in the U.S., it's first to file and your hacked up Android device doesn't make a single, solid legal argument, no matter how twisted your ponytail gets in the process.

post #124 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post
 

Who cares if the feature existed before Apple released it? The fact is that these patents have not been found to be invalid which means, as of the time of this trial, Apple deserves to be compensated for their intellectual property. Just because you could get something on a jailbreak (on iOS or Android) doesn't mean that the hacker programmers that made the hack bothered to check into the patent office or patent the method they used. That's their problem, not Apple's or Google's.  You can complain and whine about who was first... but in the U.S., it's first to file and your hacked up Android device doesn't make a single, solid legal argument, no matter how twisted your ponytail gets in the process.

With the opaque language software patents tend to be written in, what sort of information could a programmer actually get from the patent office? Assuming he manages to actually locate a relevant patent, would it be possible for him to interpret the claims correctly without retaining a high-powered lawyer? Further, even a lawyer's approval might not be enough to protect him from being dragged into lawsuits by a plaintiff seeking to maximize the coverage of his software patent, for example, by claiming that a tap is a zero-length swipe.

post #125 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

That I elicited such an angry response says more about you than me. I suggest you read through the thread. This started with an argument over whether they intentionally used S5 as an inversion of 5S. I pointed to the progression of the line, as I think it's unlikely (and probably unprovable) that they tried to predict Apple's future naming convention and pick theirs in such a way that it would line up via inverted spelling every other generation.

Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.

Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.

Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?

I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.
post #126 of 132

Just because you don't know how, doesn't give you the right to the property. For instance, if I wanted a piece of land and went through the proper legal channels to obtain it and shuffled the scores of papers to be signed, it becomes mine because I followed the letter of the law. If I find a person in a tent camping on my land, I have the right to remove them from it. They can claim it's theirs and that they lived there for years, but unless they are willing to go through the proper legal channels and purchase the property with financial assets, it's not theres. Sorry.  That's simply how capitalism and modern society works.

 

In lieu of doing that, this squatter has no basis of argument and nothing to complain about. That's how things are done by government and businesses alike. Just because a dude in a garage who contributes to an open-source project doesn't like that idea, doesn't mean the patent office should change its stance on intellectual property creation, protection and acquisition.

 

If someone has an issue with the property in question, they could follow the proper legal channels to counter the claims to the property using our legal system.

post #127 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.

Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.

Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?

I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.

S stands for Super smart :lol:

post #128 of 132

Okay another junk studied, this researcher should have never gotten her PhD. Her research as based on eye tracking to determine what feature people found interesting and useful, however, you can not see GPS on a device or the processors, hell most people have no clue what the processor is in a phone or any device, I am not sure how via eye tracking you can determine some persons preference for a processor or gps.

 

Quote:
According to CNET, Erdem offered specifics of her own studies that used eye-tracking technology to discover what consumers look for in a smartphone.

"As a group, the minor things didn't drive demand," Erdem said. "It was the major things that drive demand."

Included among these "minor" features are processors, an on-screen keyboard, and GPS.
post #129 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


Sorry for my arrogance, but at the time, I felt like an adult talking to a know-it-all teenager, who always ignores the input from their experienced elders.

Has Samsung ever said/defined what the "S" stands for? Jobs said the S in the iPhone 3GS stands for speed, because in that iteration Apple included a much faster processor. Apple used it as a sign of iterations of speed on the same form factor.

Why has Samsung put a random S in their phone names? Marketing? To confuse consumers?

I look forward to a thoughtful response/explanation, rather than attacking me.

 

I normally respond faster, but I have a nasty cold. As you mention it has something to do with marketing. The S seems to be the first place they used "Super amoled". I guess that could be it.

 

As far as explicitly trying to ape the naming convention, release dates according to wiki:

 

Galaxy S  June 2010

Galaxy SII May 2011

Galaxy SIII May 2012

S4 April 2013

S5 April 2014

 

For the iphones I have

 

3GS June 2009

4 June 2010

4s October 2011

5 September 2012

5s September 2013

 

I don't see a particularly high alignment between their naming concurrent conventions, as both brands tend to push their most current models when it comes to marketing. It's only the current generation where the current models between the two brands happen to work out to an inversion in their names. When I look at this compared against other areas where they blatantly ape specific things, I don't see anything here that suggests they tried to move their naming convention into lockstep with Apple's.

post #130 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Third: Make "loser pays" a required and written consideration by the courts in at least patent infringement cases (maybe cast a wider net than that to include some other types of damage claims). That might help avoid some lawsuits from patentees on a fishing expedition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

3) 'Loser pays' is not an option in any major aspect of US jurisprudence. It would not be possible to allow it one arena and not another. You can't wish for something like that in just IP law. The entire sub-structure of the practice of law in the US across every aspect of it would have to be changed. Realistically speaking, it's wishful thinking: simply not possible.

...and along comes the Supreme Court to make the impossible possible. Two very recent SCOTUS decisions are clarifying the meaning of Section 285 and telling Federal Courts they have it all wrong. Fee-shifting in patent infringement cases just became much more available.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/discretion-attorney-litigation.html

Edited for better link
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/30/14 at 11:27am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #131 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

You seem quite determined on this one. Are you suggesting it was an attempt to confuse the consumer? I don't really see it with S vs 3GS. Prior to this post it was about inversion of #S and S#.

 

Of course I'm determined. Even the most paranoid person is surprised by the stuff Samsung has been proven to copy. So why would I doubt something so obvious?

 

Apple had just unveiled the 3GS. S for speed.

No other tech product used the S.

Samsung copied extensively the iPhone 3GS.

 

They introduced a new phone called Galaxy S.

Why not just Galaxy? Why the S? 

 

Of course it was one more way of confusing the consumer. It's pretty obvious to me unless you don't have a better explanation for it.

post #132 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post
 

 

 

 

Of course it was one more way of confusing the consumer. It's pretty obvious to me unless you don't have a better explanation for it.


You might take note that this splintered off from a debate whether 5s vs s5 was to confuse the consumer. You're clearly committed to the narrative, so I'm just going to acknowledge the response and leave it at that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial