Apple v. Samsung jury looking into Steve Jobs' decision to sue, Samsung patent purchases

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 88
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    Can't be legal?? image I can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.

     

    How many times have illegal things happened to them and they’ve been forced to listen?

     

    So it’s legal for a judge to say, “You know what? You’ve murdered too many people. Let’s only try you for 5 out of the 20 murders,” now? 

  • Reply 62 of 88
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,487member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    The actual claim in an Apple/HTC lawsuit was that he worked at Apple answering to the same department heads who worked on the "Real-time API" patent. Apple never went so far as to claim Rubin personally worked on it or any other features that would eventually become part of iOS 14 years or more later. His time at Apple was relatively short and a long time ago.

    Career
    Carl Zeiss AG, robotics engineer, 1986–1989.
    Apple Inc., manufacturing engineer, 1989–1992.
    General Magic, engineer, 1992–1995. An Apple spin-off where he participated in developing Magic Cap, an operating system and interface for hand-held mobile devices.
    MSN TV, engineer, 1995–1999. When Magic Cap failed, Rubin joined Artemis Research, founded by Steve Perlman, which became WebTV and was eventually acquired by Microsoft.
    Danger Inc., co-founder, 1999–2003. Founded with Matt Hershenson and Joe Britt. Firm is most notable for the Danger Hiptop, often branded as the T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a phone with PDA-like abilities. Firm was later acquired by Microsoft in February 2008.
    Android Inc., co-founder 2003–2005.
    Google, 2005–present. Senior Vice President in charge of Android for most of his tenure. Since December 2013, managing the robotics division of Google (which includes companies bought by Google, such as Boston Dynamics).

    Please. Relatively short time? So 3 years is too short to see how things are working or to get some ideas for your own personal use? Long time ago? Most current operating systems are based on ideas that are 20+ years old. This isn't a smartphone patent before anyone thought of smartphones - this is an OS level patent.

    The HTC trial never completed as they settled. So we don't know what Apple would have brought up as evidence regarding Rubin. It must be more than "Rubin worked at Apple so therefore he stole" as Apple thought it was significant enough. You don't go into trial without evidence or vague conspiracies. You need a smoking gun.

    When Rubin worked at Apple they had around 14,000 employees. Rubin reported directly to the same 2 engineers that developed this patent, which was under development at the exact same time Rubin worked at Apple. What are the odds out of that many employees that he would end up working with these two? And what are the odds that while at Apple he never saw anything that would make him think "that's a great solution to xx problem" and later use it "even unintentionally"?
  • Reply 63 of 88
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,487member
    How many times have illegal things happened to them and they’ve been forced to listen?

    So it’s legal for a judge to say, “You know what? You’ve murdered too many people. Let’s only try you for 5 out of the 20 murders,” now? 
    Happens all the time. We had a case here where the trial was too large to manage because of the evidence and number of murder victims. They split the case up and grouped the victims together in such a way as to make things more manageable.

    I've mentioned this before - the issue isn't restricting the number of patents in a case - it's the time it takes to get to trial. In time-sensitive IP cases they need a special court where you can fast track the case while IP is still relevant. If this happened, then Apple could have already tried 20 or more patents in several smaller cases long ago. And Samsung wouldn't be able to game the system.
  • Reply 64 of 88
    spjonezspjonez Posts: 5member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    Linkify is not some "analyzer server" that detects context; it's merely a library of search-and-replace functions that have to be called explicitly by the developer on a body of text, and it's the developer's job to specify what patterns to search for. Thus it's not essentially different from any other search and replace utility out there; any programmer could reproduce its functionality independently in a couple lines of Java or by piping the contents of a textview through some text processing utility like awk or sed. The addLinks() function is in fact implemented directly using Java's regex matching facilities (http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/2.0_r1/android/text/util/Linkify.java).

     

    Given that a patent covers a specific and novel method for achieving a result, and not the result itself, is it at all obvious that such a general and well-known technique (search and replace) infringes?


     

    Linkify is exactly what Apple describes in their patent, an API to make structured matches on an open data set. Yes it is quite vague, as it should be since the patent is for pattern matching. I don't find their vagueness surprising, the patent was granted in 1996 and it makes sense to leave it open for future uses. Who knows what type of data we may need to link in the future. Originally they described addresses as the primary use, that's not to say it can't be used for other things down the line. Their patent covers their current implementation and future ones.

     

    Calling either implementation nothing more than search/replace is a bit of a stretch isn't it? We both know regular expressions are more than that.

  • Reply 65 of 88
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    When Rubin worked at Apple they had around 14,000 employees. Rubin reported directly to the same 2 engineers that developed this patent, which was under development at the exact same time Rubin worked at Apple. What are the odds out of that many employees that he would end up working with these two? And what are the odds that while at Apple he never saw anything that would make him think "that's a great solution to xx problem" and later use it "even unintentionally"?

     

    I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.

  • Reply 66 of 88
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,487member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    I can not say what Rubin may have saw in 89 to 92 or whether he actually report to people who have knowledge to future product ideas, But he was a manufacturing engineer which means is was not in Cupertino where all the future tech from apple was being done. He was most likely in the factory in Fremont prior to it being shut down, and was then assign to the factory in Colorado Springs. Most of the future Apple Tech was done in a small group in Cupertinon and unless you were on those development teams you did not know about it especially a manufacturing engineer, he was working on test systems and fixtures not product features.
    How do you know where Rubin actually worked?

    "In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."

    That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.
  • Reply 67 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    How do you know where Rubin actually worked?

    "In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."

    That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.

    ...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?
  • Reply 68 of 88
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    ^This. As an example of how software patents were not popular or considered by some as a prerequisite for innovation until recently, open any algorithms textbook, such as CLRS, and count how many of the algorithms and data structures described there are patented. In terms of impact on the software industry, slide-to-unlock has nothing on those inventions. They were all widely recognized breakthroughs and are used by all modern software.

     

    The most significant software systems to be invented were in fact never patented. I could cite examples like Unix, Apache, or LLVM, but instead of reproducing here an extensive list, I invite anyone to take a look at the full list of recipients for the ACM Software Systems award (http://awards.acm.org/software_system/).


     

    And ^this is exactly where most software engineers can't see the forest from the trees.

     

    If you reduce any product down to it's smallest parts, it becomes very fuzzy what is actually protectable by a manufacturer.  However, there certainly are things which make a product "unique" in the minds of the people who use them.  They are small details, but they are important.

     

    Most of the time it's in the design details -- the way a particular car body is shaped, for example.  So that's why Apple patents design details like slide-to-lock and bounce scrolling instead of the algorithms on which they are built.  It's a straw-man argument to reduce these design details down to the algorithms and then state that they can't be patented because the algorithms were invented and published before.  No one notices the algorithms, but they do notice how they are realized into tangible, unique features.  It's not a trivial thing to turn a simple image processing algorithm into a unique design feature which sets your product apart from others.

  • Reply 69 of 88
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by spjonez View Post

     

     

    Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because those weren't patented, neither should slide to unlock?

     

    You have to remind yourself of a few facts. Some developers wish to open source their apps, some don't. Just because one does, and you or I may feel it's more valuable than another, doesn't mean every developer is required to. It's up to the author to make that choice. For the apps you listed their intentions are obvious from their accompanying licenses.

     

    It also has a lot to do with competition. Everything you listed is free, why would they need the protection of a patent? You aren't losing revenue if someone forks your project. By choosing the licenses they did they are encouraging it. Back when a lot of those were developed they had no competition, they were developed for the greater good of the community and their licenses reflect that.

     

    Software patents didn't start to appear until later as that's when the consumer industry started to boom. At that point protecting your work is much more important if you want to survive as a tech business built around selling technology. There's a huge difference between a free community written open source app and a company's IP so I don't see the comparison.


    Unix was most certainly not free when it first appeared. It was a proprietary AT&T system and was what sold mainframes back then. The only reason Unix spread so far beyond its original platforms is that other parties did with Unix precisely what Google did with Java. They provided free and faithful reimplementations of the entire Unix API and let other hardware platforms enjoy all of the functionality provided by Unix.

  • Reply 70 of 88
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post





    How do you know where Rubin actually worked?



    "In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed."



    That quote is from Apples lawyers. I don't know where Rubin worked, but Apple is making some specific claims about who Rubin worked with and at what time.

    Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.

  • Reply 71 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    Because I worked at Apple at the time and worked in RD and worked closely with what was known as ATG, where some of apple technologies were developed. What probably happen was the people Rubin worked for moved from Manufacturing when it was shutdown state side and move to Cupertino, this did happen, for those who could not get an R&D position at apple sometime got jobs in manufacturing, service and support and then transferred internally into the R&D and Development groups. Lots of manufacturing engineers who have diagnostic and test experience was able to move into product develop due knowledge of DFM. The Fact Rubin never is credits of working in R&D i highly doubt he saw any advance tech at apple, hell it was hard for me and I worked in the same building with the ATG teams.

    Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.
  • Reply 72 of 88
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Then yours is a well-qualified comment so thanks for taking the time to post it. Amazing the insights here, one reason I love the place.

     

    I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.

     

    Gotta love the Internet.

  • Reply 73 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    hill60 wrote: »
    I worked at Apple in the section where the pixies manufactured the magic dust from unicorn horns, I never saw Rubin there although he may have transferred there later.

    Gotta love the Internet.

    I never knew you had worked at Apple. :\ You seem to be implying Maestro wasn't being honest. Anything particular you're basing that on?
  • Reply 74 of 88
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,487member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ...yet very unspecific as to what he worked on. If it was the Real-time API Apple's counsel would have said so, don't you agree?

    Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin. What we do know is this:

    - Patent trials are very expensive and require a large investment in time and money.
    - Patent trials are limited in scope to a small number of patents, and so companies suing will carefully choose which patents they want to use.

    Apple brought up this patent against HTC. Apparently Apple thinks this patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it. You don't invest money and make claims without some significant evidence to back them up.


    Based on the events so far any reasonable person would conclude Apple knows something about Rubin and his time at Apple. Certainly much more than anyone here knows. And certainly enough to go to trial over it. However despite this we gave people like you "inventing" scenarios to try by any means possible to minimize Rubin's time at Apple and imply he likely didn't have access to, or knowledge of this patent.

    Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.
  • Reply 75 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    Apple could have brought numerous things up at trial or when questioning witnesses. But since it never got that far, we don't know what other details pertain to Rubin . . . patent is valuable and they also think Rubin stole it.

    Sorry, but I'm going to side with the evidence regarding Apples actions. Unless you want to give us a theory why Apple would make claims about Rubin that they would have never been able to prove in court had this actually gone to a full trial instead of being settled.

    .

    What are you going on about? The ONLY statement of facts Apple made is that Rubin worked for them in the early 90's... fact, and his supervisors were working on the "Real-time API patent"... fact.. Exceptionally easy to prove both things.

    FWIW if you didn't notice the Apple comments were made in connection with an ITC hearing and not a "full patent infringement trial" and no where did Apple indicate Rubin "stole" anything. It was a simple "hey he worked here about the same time so maybe there's dots to connect" in an attempt to make an HTC statement sound disingenuous . Apparently you didn't read Apple's statement in context. Would you like me to point you to the correct document? I was looking at it a little earlier at EDIS.
  • Reply 76 of 88
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I never knew you had worked at Apple. image You seem to be implying Maestro wasn't being honest. Anything particular you're basing that on?

     

    Nothing about whether Maestro is being honest.

     

    Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.

     

    Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.

  • Reply 77 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Nothing about whether Maestro is being honest.

    Simply a demonstration that on the Internet you can be anything you want.

    Another example are the paid for comment guys, paid for out of company marketing budgets such as the one's Samsung was fined for using against HTC in Taiwan.

    Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.
  • Reply 78 of 88
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Sure looks like you intended to introduce a little uncertainty and doubt about Maestro's assertions about his time at Apple. So now you're saying you do believe he's being honest? With no reason to suspect otherwise I do.

     

    More a statement on your ready acceptance.

     

    Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?

  • Reply 79 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    hill60 wrote: »
    More a statement on your ready acceptance.

    Do you need links or will you let it slide this time?

    It's ofttimes not all that hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's nothing in his post to raise suspicion and he's demonstrably a fan of Apple and their products if you look at his post history.
  • Reply 80 of 88
    spock1234spock1234 Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Remember that Koh forced Apple to reduce the number of points to their lawsuit, which cannot be legal. That’s why it’s only five and not… what was it, 20?


     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Can't be legal?? image I can't imagine Apple would fail to follow up on that if true.

     

    Judge Koh gave Apple a choice - limit your infringement claims to a few patents and get to trial quickly, or make multiple claims and have the trial delayed for another year. Apple chose to limit their claims to 5 patents, as they could not afford to wait another year to stop Samsung's copying. 

     

    The pre-trial negotiations also included Apple giving up the right to object when Samsung made false claims about Apple's patents, such as 'Apple never used these patents in any iPhone'. I am not sure what Apple got in return for these concessions except a earlier trial date.

     

    All this is perfectly legal, but not entirely kosher. Another example of the difference between the law and justice, especially in Judge Koh's courtroom.

Sign In or Register to comment.