USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GeorgeiP5 View Post



    I might be half asleep here but a patent is a patent and they used Apple's patents.

     

    It may take some time before this is fully resolved. In the end if the patent itself doesn't hold up, Samsung (and others that might have otherwise infringed upon it had it been valid) won't owe anything. This is true regardless of the patent having been initially granted.

  • Reply 22 of 53
    nairbnairb Posts: 253member

    And when this patent finally does get thrown out, as it should, Apple and Samsung should both sue the patent office for expenses trying to enforce / defend against a patent that should not have been granted in the first place. 

     

    Predictive text / auto complete has been around for 40 years.

  • Reply 23 of 53
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KennMSr View Post



    As stated earlier either Samsung has instigated this reversal or maybe payed someone to cast doubt on the validity of Apple's application of this technology.



    I don't see how it is relevant at all which party instigated the challenge to the validity of a patent. It is surely only relevant if the patent is valid or not. It would be manifestly unjust to collect "damages" for a patent that is not valid in the first place ... which means that not a cent should be paid by the "infringing" party until all legal instances have been pursued and final judgements or validation/invalidation determined.

     

    Anything else would be an abuse of the legal system.

  • Reply 24 of 53

    1. *IF* the patent is invalidated on the basis of prior art, will that leave Apple vulnerable to litigation from a prior artist?

     

    2. How the hell does the Patent Office decide to GRANT a bloody patent in the first place? Why are these investigations always conducted AFTER the patent is granted? Don't they cross-reference before issuing a new patent? If I filed for and received a patent, and invested millions of dollars based on the assumption that I'm protected, I'd be seriously dogdam PISSED if the Patent Office came along a few years later and announced that they've changed their minds! WTF is the point of patent protection if the issuing body isn't competent to keep track of who invented what?

  • Reply 25 of 53
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

    1. *IF* the patent is invalidated on the basis of prior art, will that leave Apple vulnerable to litigation from a prior artist?

     

    2. How the hell does the Patent Office decide to GRANT a bloody patent in the first place? Why are these investigations always conducted AFTER the patent is granted? Don't they cross-reference before issuing a new patent? If I filed for and received a patent, and invested millions of dollars based on the assumption that I'm protected, I'd be seriously dogdam PISSED if the Patent Office came along a few years later and announced that they've changed their minds! WTF is the point of patent protection if the issuing body isn't competent to keep track of who invented what?




    Many people take the view that software (all software is mathematics, is abstract and arguably not patentable at all) shouldn't be patented because you can't patent ideas. The USPTO and others have taken the view that they can stretch the concept and the law in order to allow things to be patented that are fundamenally excluded. The problem is that it is almost impossible (especially, but not only) to really check beforehand if an "invention" is really new or not. Even real experts have problems to achieve this. The USPTO simply doesn't have the resources to check properly before issuing a patent, so they take the simple way out and basically say "let the courts sort it out". But the courts generally can't .. no more than anyone else. So its a cop-out.

     

    The other side of the coin is that patent lawyers are experts in obfuscation .. it is often completely impossible to determine on an objective basis what a claim REALLY MEANS. .. this is intentional. Many patent trolls .. including Apple .. count on the fact that a party accused of "infringement" may agree to pay "damages" without going to court as long as it is economically cheaper to do so than to fight through all instances.

     

    Its a mess, but that's the US view of the world. "Making a buck" is all that counts.

  • Reply 26 of 53
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    gerard wrote: »
    Actually it may not have been successful at winning rewards. But it did force Samsung to depend on there own designs. They based there galaxy phone from a smooth stone; and it sank just as fast as one.
    Galaxy isn't sinking because of these lawsuits. It's sinking because Samsung has no brand loyalty, nothing "sticky" to keep customers and is losing share in China to companies like Xiaomi.
  • Reply 27 of 53
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    cali wrote: »
    ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    you're sounding like a fandroid.

    oh yeah screw all software patents and watch scamsung introduce their new laptop with OS X Yosammity and iOS 8 for mobile devices.

    While I'll be off developing Angry Birds Disneyland.

    Hey I said software patents, not all patents. Amazon getting a patent for one-click is ridiculous. Some would argue the same about slide to unlock since sliding something to unlock a door has existed since forever. Let software be protected by copywrite.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,900member
    hmm wrote: »
    It may take some time before this is fully resolved. In the end if the patent itself doesn't hold up, Samsung (and others that might have otherwise infringed upon it had it been valid) won't owe anything. This is true regardless of the patent having been initially granted.

    While that would seem both fair and logical it's not how it works. Damages and/or royalties paid on a patent claim that's later found invalid won't get refunded.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    ARE YOU SERIOUS?



    you're sounding like a fandroid.



    oh yeah screw all software patents and watch scamsung introduce their new laptop with OS X Yosammity and iOS 8 for mobile devices.



    While I'll be off developing Angry Birds Disneyland.




    Hey I said software patents, not all patents. Amazon getting a patent for one-click is ridiculous. Some would argue the same about slide to unlock since sliding something to unlock a door has existed since forever. Let software be protected by copywrite.



    Hey Rogifan .. the idea to place software under copyright protection is about the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. There is NO checking by Copyright appliations of originality, or of suitability for copyright, and the Copyright is valid for 70 years.

     

    A really stupid idea ! Much worse than the current mess with Patents.

  • Reply 30 of 53
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    So you would be okay if Samsung stole the TouchID software that Apple spent BILLIONS to develop?
    How exactly does Samsung steal it? They have no access to the AuthenTec technology do they? Or Apple's A7 chip design. Touch ID is about a lot more than just software code. And I'm not sure where you're getting the BILLIONS figure from. Apple acquired AuthenTec for $356 million. How do you go from that to billions?
  • Reply 31 of 53
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Bottom line is this:  If Apple wants to win the US court they need to increase their lobbing in Washington DC.  PERIOD. 

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/05/09/google-workers-top-microsoft-facebook-peers-in.html?page=all

    <h1>Google workers top Microsoft, Facebook peers in political donations</h1>
    The day Apple starts doing that, the day they cease being Apple. I don't want Apple to be like every other corporation that spends billions buying influence in Washington DC. I want Apple to win in court for the right reasons not because they're spending billions lobbying politicians and government agencies.
  • Reply 32 of 53
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    So you would be okay if Samsung stole the TouchID software that Apple spent BILLIONS to develop?


    Apple did not spend billions on TouchID.  Talk about hyperbole.

  • Reply 33 of 53
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,139member

    The whole problem here to me is that the USPTO grants patents, then invalidates them later after challenges. We need a better patent system that gets it right the first time. But since this is a government beauracracy that obviously can never happen, not in a million years.

  • Reply 34 of 53
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    taniwha wrote: »

    Hey Rogifan .. the idea to place software under copyright protection is about the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. There is NO checking by Copyright appliations of originality, or of suitability for copyright, and the Copyright is valid for 70 years.

    A really stupid idea ! Much worse than the current mess with Patents.


    What? Software us already protected by copyright.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

    If Apple held the patent on that, it would be worth money.  Since it was thought at the time they did, it was calculated into the $119mil amount.  Now that it turns out Apple doesn't hold a patent on that, the amount will be reduced.


     

    But at the time, they WERE thought to have done it. Therefore they get the money.

     

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    Hey I said software patents, not all patents. Amazon getting a patent for one-click is ridiculous.

     

    Correct. Amazon getting a patent for an implementation of one-click purchasing, however, is not.

     

    Some would argue the same about slide to unlock since sliding something to unlock a door has existed since forever.


     

    And they are completely insane, undermining the argument against overreaching software patents.

  • Reply 36 of 53
    For all the handwringing here, there really was prior art. Autocorrect existed prior to the iPhone, for example in Microsoft Office, and likely in PDAs or other smartphones as well. Apple was not entitled to claim a patent on a pre-existing technology.
  • Reply 37 of 53
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Fuzzypaws View Post

    For all the handwringing here, there really was prior art. Autocorrect existed prior to the iPhone, for example in Microsoft Office, and likely in PDAs or other smartphones as well. Apple was not entitled to claim a patent on a pre-existing technology.



    So you have proof that Apple’s autocorrect was implemented in the same way as Microsoft’s?

  • Reply 38 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,900member
    fuzzypaws wrote: »
    For all the handwringing here, there really was prior art. Autocorrect existed prior to the iPhone, for example in Microsoft Office, and likely in PDAs or other smartphones as well. Apple was not entitled to claim a patent on a pre-existing technology.

    There were three different patents cited as prior art and covering all but a couple of claims. The only claim at issue in Apple's '172 infringement assertions in the Apple Samsung case was Claim 18. It's been found to be anticipated by both U.S. Patent Number 6,801,190, referred to as "Robinson" in the filings and International Patent Number WO 2005/008899 which is referred to as "Ng".

    FWIW those are the same patents (plus one other) that Samsung brought up to Judge Koh before she made a decision from the bench that the patent was valid and Sammy was infringing. There's legal commenters saying she'll likely reverse her infringement decision now but of course anticipating what Judge Koh might do is akin to a coin flip IMO.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/236159767/14-08-07-Samsung-Filing-on-Office-Action-in-Reexamination-of-Apple-s-172-Patent
  • Reply 39 of 53
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    gtr wrote: »
    I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

    I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.
    Show us on the doll where the bad multinational corporation touched you.
  • Reply 40 of 53
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Its not about buying influence.

    its about protecting their stake.

    Its about playing on a level playing field.

    Right now Apple could be right and still lose out (ebooks case, Samsung copycat trial)

    That is the REAL WORLD.
    Well then I'd rather Apple lose out than line the pockets of politicians and government officials.
Sign In or Register to comment.