Reader C, who’s a patent attorney, sends a link to a slideshow of the jury instructions, and a couple of comments, including this one that’s on the money:
The model by Model analysis virtually guarantees that a few months from now, Samsung will have new “redesigned” models and will claim that a new trial is necessary to determine infringement on the new models and they may well get a new trial. The new model gambit is often used these days in the patent litigation wars even when you don’t have the bizarre model determination.
Apple just filed its list of devices to ban, and they’re all old phones. Samsung’s flagship device, the Galaxy S III, is not on the list. Nor is the Galaxy Nexus, which Samsung builds for Google.
While we’re on the topic of the Nexus line of products, this is an interesting discussion from one of the readers at the Verge that details just how carefully Google has worked to design phones that don’t infringe on Apple’s patents.
MattF
Suing the competition is just part of Apple’s corporate culture. Also, rethinking your corporate culture is not part of Apple’s corporate culture. So. Q.E.D., cogito ergo sum, whatever.
Walker
I have a friend at Samsung, but not in these divisions. He thinks it was the “copy Apple, but not like Apple” memos that caused Samsung to lose this battle, more than the patents themselves. He also thinks these memos were misconstued because Samsung HQ says things like this all the time (it is a corporate culture thing), and it is never meant in the way the memo was used in this trial.
With that said, I am not sure I blame Apple for fighting this battle. The nature of the patent system is that it essentially requires them to do so or they lose protections.
paulj
Here’s a different point of view on this case:
“Unoriginal manufacturers will need to pay for their unoriginality. The most reasonable course of action, therefore, is to truly innovate and design products that aren’t such close copies.” – Marco Arment
In other words, I suppose you could look at this as an alternative to investment in R&D.
mistermix
@paulj: Sweeping claims like that about a device as packed with prior art in software and telecommunications technology as a smartphone are, frankly, silly.
For example, does Marco will agree that Apple needs to pay Google royalties for the notifications introduced in the latest version of iOS, which were part of Android for years prior? Earlier versions of iOS did not multitask, the new version of iOS does, long after Android did. Is multitasking on a smartphone Google’s “original” idea because they did it first?
paulj
@mistermix: I’m opposed to software patents and “look and feel” restrictions in general.
This case was in a gray area and the issue is complex.
Does a company deserve to succeed if it’s business model is based on knock-offs and copying its competitors products almost exactly, with no investment in R&D? Google invests a bunch in R&D and many patents are absurd, but that knife cuts both ways.
I don’t know the answer to that. I have my personal opinion. I merely posted a valid point of view different from yours.
One thing that is apparent, Americans (at least those serving on juries) seem to have run out of patience with Asian companies copying our stuff so blatently as well as “taking” our jobs, which is an entirely different dynamic. Like I said this issue is complicated.
Your example of patenting multi-tasking helps make my point. The idea is absurd.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Reading that article from the Verge pissed this software developer off completely. The things Google had to do to work around Apples patents were stupid. There’s a patent on how you unlock a smartphone/tablet? Imagine someone owning a patent on the direction you have to turn key on the deadbolt on your front door.
Joe Bohemouth
@paulj: Apple is already extremely profitable. It is not clear to me how making them even more profitable by government fiat would advance consumers’ interests.
paulj
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Every company has to work around other companies patents, that’s the reality. The patent system needs a major overhaul or the consumer is going to get short-changed.
Still, if Ford were to design say, a Mustang that ended up “killing” the super-car market and GM copied it exactly except for a different hood ornament what do you think would happen?
This whole thing was an un-forced error by Samsung. Maybe they were just pushing the legal envelope as a long-term strategy. They lost this round. Let’s see what the next move is.
paulj
@Joe Bohemouth: Apple is extremely profitable because other companies long-term stategies suck. That is not a good reason to be anti-Apple.
I would hope that competing companies would come up with a strategy based on something other than short-term profits but clearly Samsung is not into that.
What that tells me is that a lot of companies are going to get swallowed up into the Apple black hole and I don’t think that is something you can blame Apple for.
Apple created the the situation they are in now through long-term planning and execution.
Just wishing for them to fail is not going to slow them down. Great ideas might.
Xecky Gilchrist
There’s a difference between ripping off and having a unified interface standard. Apple’s ridiculous litigation is slowing down the adoption of a standard.
Hoodie
Interesting side note is that Samsung recently announced an expansion of its operation in San Jose. This may be an attempt to have a better presence because design of components (e.g., memory, displays) is now so closely integrated with product conception, but I wonder if it also may be in part to improve their image in California as the smartphone wars intensify. It didn’t appear to help them in this case, but the move may have come too late. Neither one of these guys is a choir boy, e.g., they each file hundreds (Apple) and thousands (Samsung) of patent applications each year, they both manufacture products in low-wage countries (Korea is not one of them).
Joe Bohemouth
@paulj: Who’s wishing them to fail? I sure am not. I am questioning how giving them additional monopoly rents on top of their existing profitability is going to benefit anyone.
Most of your arguments so far have been premised on the fairness of rewarding Apple and punishing their bad competitors. I don’t really give a shit about fairness. I care more about whether the patent system gets good products to market at reasonable prices.
Obviously Apple has done some cool shit. It would be undesirable in the long run if they didn’t make money off that cool shit. But they have already made money off that cool shit, so the incentive for R&D is obviously adequate.
From a policy perspective, I don’t see the need for granting them additional protection.
paulj
@Hoodie: +1.
Good comment actually engaging in the discussion instead of whining.
paulj
@Joe Bohemouth: Nobody gave them anything. The jury could have decided the other way.
It may be their decision was based on something different than the issue at hand, but, that’s what juries do. Again, the issue is a lot more complex than you seem to think.
I don’t understand what you are complaining about. It seems that you are making the argument that because Apple is the big kid on the block they shouldn’t fight back or at least shouldn’t take the offensive.
That isn’t going to happen. No one was able to stop Microsoft for two decades.
The world changed and their business model became less dominating.
The same thing will eventually happen to Apple.
RaflW
CNET (and others) indicate the Google Nexus 7 tablet is built by ASUS.
Geeking out here, I have an ASUS 10.1 inch tablet arriving tomorrow. I decided that for a couple hundred bucks less than an iPad wifi, it had enough juice but was low enough in price to be my travel device – no laptop (which is a Mac)
So I suppose Apple is right to worry. But that is how the free market is supposed to work, amirite?
Jon H
@mistermix: “Earlier versions of iOS did not multitask, the new version of iOS does, long after Android did.”
iOS always “multitasked” because it’s Unix, it just wasn’t supported for 3rd party apps. The multitasking that’s supported now at the application level is nothing like Android multitasking, because it’s limited. iOS apps can either be fully running, or they can request limited resources for things like streaming audio in the background, or finishing a download. Android, on the other hand, needs utilities to allow the user to figure out what apps are squatting in the background like a troll consuming resources.
Pen
@paulj: Who are you kidding, this has always been Apple’s business model. That’s beside the point, and this discussion is only related to Apple in that they’re the latest in a long line of rent seekers who have set back American (and now the world’s) technological progress by at least a decade thanks to the patent system.
Tablets like the iPad (which I’m typing this on) have existed as part of science fiction for as long as I can remember. The fact that Apple was granted a patent on that form factor once we actually developed the technology to make it work is the problem, not that they have the patent.
iLarynx
@Xecky Gilchrist:
No, it’s not. If others want to adopt the standards that Apple has created, then pay to license that standard just as Microsoft has done.
If you want to create a new standard (one good enough that others want to follow), direct and fund your R&D department to do just that.
Samsung was both lazy and impatient with their desire to introduce products to compete with Apple. Rather than actually creating their own “This is what a Samsung product is” they stamped out a blatantly “ME TOO” device. The author’s link to the Google Android page shows that creative things can be done w/o copying someone else’s work. Samsung could have chosen a similar path, but instead, chose the low road. They are now paying for their bad decision.
jwb
The patent system sucks, that’s true, but try imagining a workable alternative with all the attendant complexities that need to be in place and you will find, I think, that our current system is not so bad. Every point you draw or erase a line in the patent laws will produce a whole series of unintended consequences, and given the amount of money at stake and so also the weight of the competing interests that will need to be balanced, you are never going to devise a patent system that is anything but extremely complex. In the end, all you’ll be able to change, and probably only at the margins, are the incentives.
Joe Bohemouth
@paulj:
You don’t, because you’re determined to make this about whether Apple is awesome or not.
I think the legal/regulatory framework that made this decision possible is a bad one.
I don’t think this decision benefits anyone besides Apple.
You haven’t had an answer for that so far. You’ve had “stop complaining” and “well that’s just the way it is so deal with it” and “you hate Apple.”
But you have not, so far, had anything to say about whether this sort of regulatory climate is a good idea.
iLarynx
@iLarynx:
Via the link noted earlier (for reference):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE87C0SC20120813
Pen
@jwb: I’ve got a system for you. Software can be covered by copyright, not patents. “look and feel” can be covered by trademark and copyright, not patents. Business models and plans, not covered by any protection because thats just plain stupid.
There… That should just about cover most of the ridiculous overarching problems we’ve been having in the tech sector since the birth of the Internet.
Culture of Truth
There is an interview with the jury foreman out where he apparently says they did rely on those Samsung memos, and also says, simply, “Samsung crossed the line.”
Joe Bohemouth
@jwb:
That’s interesting because we’ve updated intellectual property laws many times in the last 20 years, both by judicial decisions and by legislation like the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1995. Notably, almost every one of these updates has shifted the playing field in IP-holders’ favor.
Culture of Truth
@RaflW: Question – were able to test drive the device at a brick & mortar place before you ordered it? I was wondering about this with the 7 also.
khead
@paulj:
@paulj:
See also drug companies. Too.
RSA
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
This researcher in human-computer interaction was disappointed by the exclusive focus on how the interface behaved, rather than asking how and whether the differences are improvements rather than arbitrary alternatives.
Walker
@Hoodie:
My friend (referred to upthread) is one of the heads of that division. Oh the stories he can tell.
PeterJ
@paulj:
Should Dieter Rams or Braun sue Apple for stealing their designs?
Should Western Digital sue Apple for copying the WD TV Mini when Apple designed the second generation of the Apple TV?
The Red Pen
The third anecdote on this page explains a lot:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Its-All-About-C,-The-CIA-Interview,–Not-People-Like-You.aspx
(For that matter, so does the second anecdote, but it’s off topic.)
James K. Polk, Esq.
If you are following the case, there is a pretty good law blog (non-Bob Loblaw affiliated) that is doing an excellent job covering the topics.
http://www.groklaw.net/
FWIW, the jury foreman made statements after the verdict was handed down that the jury awarded punitive damages to Samsung against the explicit instructions of the judge.
Choice foreman quotes:
“We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist.”
and
“We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.”
Walker
@PeterJ:
Patents terms are ~20 years.
The Red Pen
@Jon H:
Nice one.
Multitasking at the kernel level isn’t really the issue.
pseudonymous in nc
@paulj:
Or pay to licence them, or cross-licence. The $20 per iPhone is probably what’s keeping Nokia afloat right now. Whatever Samsung’s motives in not settling, that $1bn is probably worth it in exchange for becoming the dominant Android handset maker.
It is possible to believe that the patent system is ridiculous, and that Samsung systematically ripped off all their competitors over the past few years in order to gain a competitive advantage.
paulj
@Joe Bohemouth:
Good Grief!!!
You don’t, because you’re determined to make this about whether Apple is awesome or not.
Your reading comprehension is sub-standard.
I think the legal/regulatory framework that made this decision possible is a bad one.
Pretty sure I wrote that myself.
I don’t think this decision benefits anyone besides Apple.
I haven’t said anything that contradicts this either.
But you have not, so far, had anything to say about whether this sort of regulatory climate is a good idea.
Yes, I have in several places. I said it isn’t. See the second response in this reply.
The bottom line here as far as you are concerned is that you are unhappy with reality. Fine, but you can’t be surprised with the outcome.
I’ve explained why I think what Samsung did was stupid, unless they have a longer-term plan in mind in which case we will have to wait and see how this turns out.
How saying these kinds of things makes me an Apple fanboy or apologist is beyond me.
Clear evidence though that liberals can be every bit as dense and anti-reality as conservatives.
For the record I’m a uber-liberal, especially compared to the typical commenter here, just so I don’t get accused of trolling in addition to being guilty of having my own opinions.
paulj
@PeterJ:
If they have a case and it will be financially beneficial to them then they should I suppose.
Not my call.
There’s the way the world is and the way I want it to be. I’m aware of the difference.
PeterJ
@Walker:
The WD TV Mini isn’t 20 years old. But then, Western Digital isn’t Apple. Maybe they don’t feel the need to patent or get a trade dress for everything?
I have no idea, other than the fact that the second generation (and the third generation) of the Apple TV looks nothing like the first generation Apple TV, and is almost an identical copy of the WD TV Mini.
PeterJ
@Walker:
Apple is looking more like Disney. Use old material that’s no longer patented/copyrighted, then fight for your own copyright/patents with everything you got. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has lawyers lobbying Congress to extend patent terms.
azlib
With the current patent system we have created a corporate culture which uses patent law as a club to suppress competition. The dirty little secret of capitalism is it really does not like competition because competing is really hard and in a truly competitive market your profit margins tend towards zero.
I’d much prefer a world where there were several dozen competitors in a product space and not just a few corporate behemoths. Oligarchies do not serve consumers very well. The smartphone market like a lot of other markets is an oligarchy with a few large firms jockeying for advantage. The real losers in such a world are consumers and counter-intuitively interoperability standards.
The jury verdict against Samsung is a pittance (about 1.5% of their annual revenues) and is hardly a deterrence against future bad behavior. What should really happen is these big corporations should be broken up which would produce more competition. Yes, the executives would whine and complain because they would have to actually figure out how to compete.
Joe Bohemouth
@paulj: My bad. I assumed that, in calling me a whining Apple hater who was not facing The Way Things Are, you were expressing some sort of substantive disagreement.
paulj
@Joe Bohemouth:
I wasn’t singling you out as a whiner. I suppose you thought the shoe fit.
Why can’t people discuss these things without getting emptionally involved with their argument? This isn’t a black-and-white issue. Plus, even if you feel like you lost an argument you still don’t leave with any less than you came with.
…you were expressing some sort of substantive disagreement
I haven’t tried to post any substantial disagreement with anyone. My original post was simply another point of view which was attcked pretty quickly by the OP.
I’ve just been pushing back against the pushback because many posters here are behaving like children over (God forbid) a different point of view.
paulj
The dirty little secret of capitalism is it really does not like competition
Another person who sees the bigger picture.
The Red Pen
@paulj:
Because shut up. That’s why.
Catsy
@Pen:
And we have a winner.
The Red Pen
@Pen:
Sigh. You just don’t get it. Of course they have digital tablets on Deep Space 9. Apple’s patents have expired by then! Duh!
iLarynx
@The Red Pen:
Huh? Apple’s patents for what? Deep Space 9? The iPad? “Expired by then” when? Patents for Apple’s iPad have expired circa Deep Space 9 some time going backwards in time? Dude, I think your arrow-of-time is pointed in the wrong direction.
The Red Pen
@iLarynx:
Deep Space 9 takes place in the 26th century. Apple’s patents will have expired by then.
Obviously you’ve time traveled from a time after the 26th century. It’s a little disorienting. Sit in a cool dark place with your towel until the confusion passes. You did bring a towel, right? Dear God, please tell me you brought a towel.
Mike in DC
@The Red Pen: Just don’t panic.
Rob G
@Xecky Gilchrist: Exactly!! Can you imagine having 120 different USB plug designs.