Apple wins . . .

In My Humble Opinion
61

I think you are confusing Apple’s “design patents” with “utility patents”.

“Design patents” are not patents in the conventional sense. They are called patents, and written and documented something like patents, but they are not intended or expected to cover things that are inventions in the typical sense, and have little relation to what people mean when they think of a “patent”. “Design patents” simply cover the “ornamental design” of a functional object.

Apple’s design patents covered the specific shape and design of the iPhone, as well as the icons and layout of the home screen. The issuance of the design patents does not imply that that specific shape is an invention or innovative or anything, just that it is the shape of the Apple iPhone.

Samsung was found to have violated Apple’s design patents for the design of the iPhone, and for the icons on the home screen. Looking at the picture I posted earlier, it is easy to see why. Note that Apple’s design patent was a lot more specific than “icons in rows”.

The jury did not find that Samsung had violated Apple’s design patent for the design of the iPad. This is the source of the famous “rectangle with rounded corners” line, which the jury (apparently) rightly decided was too broad.

Regarding the novelty and non-obviousness of Apple’s utility patents, which actually are intended to cover innovations, it is certainly true that the patent office does a piss-poor job of searching for prior art when examining an application. But the law has not changed, and novelty and non-obviousness can still be challenged in court. The fact that the jury decided to uphold Apple’s patents means that either A) Samsung screwed up in making their case, or B) Apple’s patents were in fact novel and non-obvious.

In general, I agree that these three Apple utility patents are not shining examples of breathtaking innovation. But I think that people are being a little over-eager to call them “obvious”. You are over-simplifying what the patents actually cover, they are more narrow than simply “zooming”.

62

Another link/review to Prada

63

The jury foreman was interviewed yesterday. His comments are interesting.

Reproduced in part below.

I am not sure where the claims I’ve seen here and elsewhere that the jury “skipped” the prior art issue are coming from.

It sounds to me like the jury went about this as carefully and rationally as could be expected.

64

It’s from an interview with a different member of the jury:

65

I understand this, and I know that the products have always been excellent devices for “productive” tasks–I was just talking about the marketing. Haven’t you ever seen the most recent iPhone ads? Even the tone of the first ads were clearly emphasizing the fun value. Don’t you remember when we were told to buy an iMac because “It comes in colors”?

Apple wouldn’t be where it is today if all its users were like you. You probably would’ve bought the iPhone no matter what it looked like, or even if it hadn’t had a flashy interface. But you’re the exception.

66

I’d say there’s about a 50% chance that he was misquoted in some fashion. Even with the additional context of the entire article, the quote is pretty hard to parse.

But if not, yeah, that’s pretty bad.

67

Hogan, the jury foreman, holds a pretty dubious patent himself. He patented, essentially, the DVR, three years after TIVO came out. Hogan apparently walked the rest of the jury through the patent process before they began making their decisions. That must have cut dramatically into their three tiny days of deliberations, which I saw broken down elsewhere as “1.85 minutes per item if they did nothing but walk in, sit down and start deliberating”. Hard to see how they could have adequately addressed each of the 700 items on the list, and no doubt explains why they bungled and awarded damages on items they’d decided didn’t infringe.

68

Hardly the exception.

A lot of people know a good product when they see it, and can see how it would benefit them.

You seem to be projecting a bit of contempt onto Apple consumers because you thought their commercials were pandering or gimmicky. As if people impulsively jump off their couches upon seeing a purple iMac ad, without looking into the product further.

At least have the commonsense of judging a product on its own merits; not its advertising campaign alone (and by proxy, the customers).

69

Not that they would do it (or maybe they might) but couldn’t Samsung just pay Apple the money it lost in the lawsuit and continue to make the phones like they’ve been doing?

70

That’s undoubtedly what will happen, in some shape or form. Samsung’s not going back to making old-style phones in the immediate future. They’ll pay royalties in some form, likely to be a a continuation of their current massive cross-licensing agreements.

71

No. Apple is not obligated to license the patents to them, and can request that sales of the infringing devices be halted in the US.

72

An article I read put emphasis on the Design Patents that Apple holds and said that was what made the case for Apple. As Absolute stated upthread, Design Patents are different than the regular patents that most people are opining about in this thread. Apple’s case boiled down to the Samsung phone LOOKS too much like an iPhone. The jury agreed.

Design patents are ridiculously flimsy and easy to circumvent. I had a conversation with a friend (a patent lawyer) on a topic unrelated to Apple or electronics, and he flat out told me that design patents are fairly useless. It is trivially easy to avoid a design patent. If the patented design has a curve, use an elbow instead! Ta da! patent averted. Samsung’s problem is that they DIDN’T avoid the very easily avoided design patents. Instead they copied the look of the iPhone too much and got burned. I believe current incarnations of their phone avoid the Apple Patents.

Samsung emails flat out stating that they need to look more like the iPhone didn’t help.

I also think that Apple being a US company helped them with a US jury. I’d bet that the same court case in South Korea would result in favor of Samsung.

73

Where have I ever judged the product? Go back and read what I posted. The products are indeed superb. I’ve ONLY talked about the advertising and marketing, which generally portrays the iPhone, for example, as something primarily used for viewing pictures, watching videos, and social networking. And that’s probably 80% of what ALL smart phones are used for. I think from the beginning that was the most significant innovation of Apple–realizing (unlike RIM) that things like that would end up being the real appeal of these devices. Let’s face it–that may not be why you or I buy Apple things, but that’s clearly what Apple thinks will gain more market share for its products, (which are more expensive), and hence the nature of its marketing. They knew that what most people want is something to play around with while they’re waiting in line.

74

I don’t understand. If LG already patented all these things, when they developed them for the Prada, how did Apple patent them?

75

That’s an interesting stance to take, really. Apple and iOS, in general, have both benefited from those same players, by implementing similar features into iOS. If you look at the gradual evolution of iOS, you’ll see that it’s almost a direct result of the competition offered by other mobile operating systems, especially with the additions to iOS 5.

In the end, the consumer benefits when the two operating systems are allowed to borrow ideas and implement them with tweaked or advanced features. It’s, at the very base, feeding the market what the market is asking for. What you will see next, is that Apple will finally move to a larger display…again, largely because the market has demanded it (and Android has offered it, thus forcing Apple to adapt).

In the end, Apple, Samsung, Google, etc. are all mega-rich companies, none of which are being hurt due to lack of minor features, such as “local search”, or lack of a rounded curve on their squared device. Those are frivolous details which hurt the average consumer when it comes to choice. Imagine if an entire line of cars were pulled off the market, because they both shared a similar radio dial, tail light design, or C-pillar-- that’s what we’re dealing with, when it comes to some of these bogus software and trade-dress patents.

Apple already has first-to-market advantage, and in all honest, doesn’t seem to be hurting much from Samsung. The iPhone is the alpha player in most markets and so is the iPad.

76

Really? Apple’s global market share for smartphones has declined from 18.8% to 16.9% in the last year. Apple ranks 7th in the chinese smartphone market (7.5% vs Samsung’s 20.8%), having seen their market share halve in just one year. And China’s the biggest mobile market by far, with over 1 billion subscribers..

It seems to me that Samsung (and the other Android manufacturers) are hurting Apple plenty.

77

With Apple claiming rights to stuff they obviously don’t own, what’s to stop other companies from going after them?

For example, iOS First Generation UI (introduced in 2007):
http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.iphonereviews.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/apple-iphone-1st-generation.jpg

Wii Start Screen UI (introduced in 2006):
http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.vooks.net/images/moarwiishop1.jpg

They’re pretty similar and look ever more similar when compared to the AppleTV interface.

78

I think a lot of that has to do with the ability for people in other countries to pick and chose phones, without having to be tied to specific service providers, like we are in the US.

People in other countries have many more options in tech and price, than we do; giving them more buying options and they’re not always choosing iPhones.

I think if people had to pay ‘full’ price for an iPhone, as opposed to the subsidized, phone contract price, you would see similar buying habits here that you see globally.

I mean, a no commitment ATT iPhone is $650 (low end) and $850 on the high end, do you really think they would selling them in any numbers here at that price?

79

So what? Jobs’s goal wasn’t to merely just give people waiting in line a ‘funner’ way to kill time. He wanted to put the same power that everyone from a teenager, to a corporate executive enjoyed from their PCs: Not just another “smartphone,” but a pocket-sized Mac, that also made calls.

The cellphone aspect is worked in as basically another aspect of the device on par with everything else it offers, and seamlessly integrated between its other apps, like Google Maps… This was totally novel. No other company had the wherewithal, vision, or leadership to make it happen on all facets of the myriad of challenges involved (and they were huge challenges) to make it marketable, usable and affordable.

So, of course they were going to show off the aspects of the phone that would demonstrate, “psst… hey, this isn’t really a ‘smartphone’… it’s a mini-computer. Use it for fun or use it for work, whatever… now, finally, you only need one device in your pocket.”

Also, for everything Apple wanted the device to allow users to do, you needed something as fluid, if not more so than a mouse, and hard keys or a track ball was right-out. Of course, the multi-touch screen and gestures made it all possible in the way they implemented it into the UI.

Jobs was trying to create this thing since 2002. He worked with Motorola, to try and realize it, but it only resulted in the highly disappointing ROKR in 2005. That’s when he said “Fuck it, we’ll do it all ourselves.”

And the rest is history.

80

I don’t disagree that their patents are bogus. If anyone’s at fault, it’s the patent office that awarded them these things, and perhaps the jury who voted in favor of Apple.

Apple’s suit can be seen as a dirty move in that light, but that’s why I say this whole patent business is just a smokescreen for the real issue at hand: Attempting to maintain as much hold on the mobile user base for iOS as they can, in any way they can.

Also, Apple may or may not eventually come out with a bigger phone, but I doubt it. It’s the size it is because they determined that was the most comfortable size to hold when making calls. In fact, to the contrary, there’s rumors now of an iPad Mini… but that’s neither here or there.