Samsung suffers billion-dollar defeat in Apple patent case

Sensible verdict

This verdict doesn't just protect Apple, it also protects any company that creates an innovative product that brings a sea change from what has gone before.

Samsung has been shown up to be the Asian copy shop that anyone looking at its designs can clearly see it to be.

The next installment will be the penalties Judge Koh imposes on Samsung not just for its wilful infringement of Apple's valid patents, but for the contempt it has shown the court during the court process, releasing information in Press Releases as soon as the Judge said it was not valid.

By SwissMac on 25 Aug 2012

Sensible verdict

This verdict doesn't just protect Apple, it also protects any company that creates an innovative product that brings a sea change from what has gone before.

Samsung has been shown up to be the Asian copy shop that anyone looking at its designs can clearly see it to be.

The next installment will be the penalties Judge Koh imposes on Samsung not just for its wilful infringement of Apple's valid patents, but for the contempt it has shown the court during the court process, releasing information in Press Releases as soon as the Judge said it was not valid.

By SwissMac on 25 Aug 2012

Let's see what Google bring to the table with the Motorola patent's it owns, and Microsoft/Nokia alliance with all their patent's.This could run and run, bringing every company down and banning all phones,ever made,from every country on earth!

By Jaberwocky on 25 Aug 2012

How is this a sensible verdict? So Apple should be allowed to sue someone and win because there are similarities between their devices. That Apple should be effectively allowed to patent a shape?

Apple themselves do not create new tech, they take other peoples tech and redesign it, which is essentially what they have charged Samsung with doing is it not?

Imagine if this was pushed out to the rest of the manufacturing or development world, suddenly Coca Cola patents the cola drink or the cyclindrical can drink container and then no one else can use it. Or maybe iD should start sueing other developers because they took Doom/Wolfenstein game mechanics. Or how about Microsoft start sueing other O/S developers for following some of their ideas?

This kind of judgement does not help create or maintain a competitive market, it allows for and rewards monopolistic attitudes that run deep in Apple and a lot or companies in general.

This is not sensible.

By ReaperX2112 on 25 Aug 2012

I think this verdict was the logical conclusion of the absurd attitude to software patents in the US. You never used to be able to patent an idea, ideas used to be free. Not in America, apparently.

This may be very good for Apple, but it's no good for practically everyone else. Now we'll have more expensive phones, less innovation, less choice and eventually probably worse products from Apple than they have produced thus far.

By c6ten on 25 Aug 2012

Let's see what Google bring to the table with the Motorola patent's it owns, and Microsoft/Nokia alliance with all their patent's.This could run and run, bringing every company down and banning all phones,ever made,from every country on earth!

By Jaberwocky on 25 Aug 2012

Home victory

Where would we be if the shape of the wooden pencil, steering wheel, gear stick etc had been patented in the same way?

The defining question in a case like this is whether the Samsung design will confuse consumers to buy Samsung when they think they buy Apple. Often in cases like this, a relatively simple customer survey can reveal if consumers indeed might be confused. If not, well then there are no damages. In this case it is extremely doubtful anybody with two eyes would confuse these two brands.

An easy home victory won in Apple's backyard is one thing, but the whole patent system clearly does not help to increase innovation and to keep prices down. Maybe its time to drop smartphones and tablets and go back to a simple phone and the trusted laptop/PC?

By Menzo on 25 Aug 2012

Home victory

Where would we be if the shape of the wooden pencil, steering wheel, gear stick etc had been patented in the same way?

The defining question in a case like this is whether the Samsung design will confuse consumers to buy Samsung when they think they buy Apple. Often in cases like this, a relatively simple customer survey can reveal if consumers indeed might be confused. If not, well then there are no damages. In this case it is extremely doubtful anybody with two eyes would confuse these two brands.

An easy home victory won in Apple's backyard is one thing, but the whole patent system clearly does not help to increase innovation and to keep prices down. Maybe its time to drop smartphones and tablets and go back to a simple phone and the trusted laptop/PC?

By Menzo on 25 Aug 2012

I think we'll all have different shaped TVs in the future.

Patenting a shape?!?

Only in America.

By AlphaGeeK on 25 Aug 2012

are we suprised.....

An American court, An American Company, An American Jury.....dont think i really need to go on.

It is a sad day for us all, maybe samsung should just shut up shop and re open as another new company and leave Apple high and dry for screens and chips.

Maybe the rest of the world will see sense and not allow this stupidity to continue. Apple have yet to invent/create anything, just like Dyson patenting cyclones in Vaccum cleaners, been in industry for years and years......

By davidk1962 on 25 Aug 2012

US Patents are daft

One patent Apple won with was the over-scroll bounce. This has been used in computer games long before Apple "invented" it.

By john_coller on 25 Aug 2012

We're all doomed

Walk over your competitors, it's the Apple way. It may not be fair, nor even justifiable, but alas it has made the richest company of all time even richer.

By markcr6 on 25 Aug 2012

Prior art?

Considering that the JazzMutant Lemur control surface (for computer music makers) was released some years before the first iPhone and had a "multi-touch" screen, there's certainly an argument that at least one of Apple's patent claims is invalid...
Once the "multi-touch" patent falls, the *functional* parts of the interface are self-evident and probably couldn't be patented in a rational system of intellectual property protection. Patenting the shape of icons is quite a concern - I often draw boxes with rounded corners and suspect I could find myself on the receiving end of vexatious litigation from Apple...

I have to agree that even if Apple's claim to first use of the "multi-touch" screen were valid, to obtain (and enforce) a patent on it is like patenting the controls on a car - having had the misfortune to drive a couple of early ones with controls all over the place, I can admit to a little confusion!

One could suspect that Apple's action was taken because it has lost its place as leader in the smartphone market (Android having hit 59% of the market) in part due to its policy of aggressively barring independent developers (and hence users) of "unapproved" applications and Apple's policy of imposing significant restrictions on the iPhone's users? Here in Europe, this would be restraint of trade - I believe there are similar laws in the USA?

Dave H.

By Hopefuldave on 25 Aug 2012

Prior art?

Considering that the JazzMutant Lemur control surface (for computer music makers) was released some years before the first iPhone and had a "multi-touch" screen, there's certainly an argument that at least one of Apple's patent claims is invalid...
Once the "multi-touch" patent falls, the *functional* parts of the interface are self-evident and probably couldn't be patented in a rational system of intellectual property protection. Patenting the shape of icons is quite a concern - I often draw boxes with rounded corners and suspect I could find myself on the receiving end of vexatious litigation from Apple...

I have to agree that even if Apple's claim to first use of the "multi-touch" screen were valid, to obtain (and enforce) a patent on it is like patenting the controls on a car - having had the misfortune to drive a couple of early ones with controls all over the place, I can admit to a little confusion!

One could suspect that Apple's action was taken because it has lost its place as leader in the smartphone market (Android having hit 59% of the market) in part due to its policy of aggressively barring independent developers (and hence users) of "unapproved" applications and Apple's policy of imposing significant restrictions on the iPhone's users? Here in Europe, this would be restraint of trade - I believe there are similar laws in the USA?

Dave H.

By Hopefuldave on 25 Aug 2012

How long before there will be only Apple computers and phones on the market? Apple want to create a global monopoly on all technology by destroying all other companies. As long as I breathe, I refuse to let Apple control my thoughts, wallet and individuality by bowing down to their products. A sad day for consumer choice.

By KlingonBatleth on 25 Aug 2012

Bias verdict

American company vs Korean Company - American Court / Jury.

What's the surprise?

By greemble on 25 Aug 2012

Bias verdict

American company vs Korean Company - American Court / Jury.

What's the surprise?

By greemble on 25 Aug 2012

Oh dear, but what if Apple didnt actually invent all that stuff.....

http://t.co/I0F9vne7
s-could-ruin-apple-90318

perhaps swissmac should have a read. But he won't, as that might shake his un-erring support of anything that Apple does.

Meanwhile, I'm off to find out why the holder of the patent for the differential gearbox isn't getting royalties for every motor vehicle on the road, ever!

By nickallison on 25 Aug 2012

A fair verdict

I used psions then an Ipaq then nokia smart phones prior to the iphone launch in 2007,There is no doubt touch phones are truly revolutionary. Google and samsung could have adopted the touch phone principle in their OS but given there's a totally different look and feel...perhaps even a better one than Apple's ? ( as microsoft have belatedly done) instead they chose to short circuit their own development and clone apple's look,clever ideas etc. as a much easier option.True innovation takes a lot of trial and error and development commitment,and investment companies that are prepeated to do that need some protection.think back to IBM typwriters or Rank xerox copiers etc.

By gharrop on 25 Aug 2012

So...

... Apple bribed the jury then? Wouldn't put it past them.

I'm sorry for Samsung - they were giving Apple the kicking they deserve for putting out expensive products that aren't up to scratch.

I bet this is all in anticipation of the next iPhone which will not be as good as the Samsung SIII.

Very disappointing...

By mrmmm on 25 Aug 2012

@ Swissmac

Well they've won their case in the land of iJustice, let's see what the rest of the world thinks.

I don't see them winning in Asia or Europe where there is no America-first attitude.

By daveandrews1 on 25 Aug 2012

nickallison

thanks for that link, this one is very interesting

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/motorola-want
s-iphone-banned-89796

By daveandrews1 on 25 Aug 2012

Patents should be for technology, not simply ideas

The patent system is really being abused. I'm all for protecting technology that costs money to research, but 2 of the patents that Samsung were punished for infringing are "tapping the screen to zoom in" and "moving 2 fingers apart to zoom in".

Frankly, that doesn't leave too many ways of zooming in for anyone else to use. If large companies are allowed to collects tens of thousands of patents like this, it won't just prevent other companies from copying their devices, it will prevent other companies from releasing ANY kind of usable device. We'll all lose in the long run.

By ChrisH on 26 Aug 2012

Clarification

Please could we have some clarification on this? If anyone can find it I'm trying to find what the jury actually judged.
Can anyone find the original contention on which Apple and Samsung fought?
Did the jury agree that Samsung stole patents that belonged to Apple or did they simply agree that the overall impression of Samsung devices was sufficiently similar to decide that Samsung were copying Apple devices?
The UK judge, in
In the UK, His Honour Judge Birrs QC, who sat in judgement on the Samsung and Apple case, put in his judgement that "I start by reminding myself that what really matters is what the court can see with its own eyes"

In the above PC Pro/Reuters article it states "whose Android software powers the Samsung products that were found to infringe on Apple patents"

In other words that Samsungs products were found to infringe Apple products.

At a guess, I don't think the jury decided that tapping or pinching a screen was an Apple patent - I think they looked at a number of factors on the devices and simply decided if they were so similar that there had been an infringement.

Finally, the following made me chuckle, this is from the UK case when the Judge wrote up his judgement (again Samsung v Apple). The Judge wrote (talking about the submitted design drawings) "There is no mandatory rule that dotted lines must be interpreted in a particular way"

By simontompkins on 26 Aug 2012

No surprise, is it?

So a US jury, bamboozled by smart attorneys, with an 'expert' in the jury to 'explain' things finds Samsung 'guilty'.

As I previously opined, 'the best justice money can buy'.
The USA had an opporunity to prove it's not a petty, chauvinistic and parochial back-water with an archaic and biased legal system. It blew it.

Samsung will appeal, but probably NEVER win in the USA. Even if they found pictures of the iPhone and its GUI on the Tablets God gave to Moses, nobody will ever beat Apple in USA.

Of course USA is only a relatively minor market in the world today. It's smaller than the EU, and totally dwarfed by sales and potential sales to Asia, Africa and India.

Apple's litigation success-rate (and sales) in these juresdictions hasn't, strangely, been as high as 'back home'.

By wittgenfrog on 26 Aug 2012

@swissmac

As ever you are cock-a-hoop over Apple's phyrric 'victory'.

I've never really understood why a certain cross-section of Apple's most loyal cutomers are so cheered by Apple's huge profits. Nobody seriously disputes that these are earned on the back of exploitative production and consumer price-gouging. This decision against Samsung can only have the effect of reducing competition and choice, and consequently maintaining or increasing current prices to consumers.

Hopefully, in the longer term this case will make everybody, particularly the USA think again about the ludicrous patents system currently being operated. When part of the law is seen to be contrary to 'common sense' , the whole of the 'Law' can be brought into disrepute .

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot...."

By wittgenfrog on 26 Aug 2012

Oh how the mighty are fallen?

I've just been listening to the tributes to, and quotes from Neil Armstrong. What a thoroughly decent, heroic man.
What an astonishing techniocal and imaginative achievement putting a man on the moon was.

Contrast this with 2012 where 'America's finest' makes electronic trinkets, and their greatest 'victory' is preventing another from doing so.........

By wittgenfrog on 26 Aug 2012

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

There is no doubt that the US is a significant market but its waning as other regions grow. What's definite is that the patent laws there are frankly laughable. Maybe its about time to ignore the USA market and let innovation flourish elsewhere, as this judgement kills it. think the British judge summed it up well - "the Samsung tablet is not as cool as Apple‘s iPad " and made a ruling that requires Apple’s website to post a notice saying that Samsung did not copy iPad design

By Sparks on 26 Aug 2012

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

There is no doubt that the US is a significant market but its waning as other regions grow. What's definite is that the patent laws there are frankly laughable. Maybe its about time to ignore the USA market and let innovation flourish elsewhere, as this judgement kills it. think the British judge summed it up well - "the Samsung tablet is not as cool as Apple‘s iPad " and made a ruling that requires Apple’s website to post a notice saying that Samsung did not copy iPad design

By Sparks on 26 Aug 2012

Every time I'm on the verge of buying an Apple product

They go and do something like this.

I need an iPad for ebook testing, but you can bet I'll be buying one 2nd hand.

By Alfresco on 26 Aug 2012

Makes no difference to me....

I will never, while I have breath in my lungs, ever buy an Apple product - never have done, never will do. And as has been mentioned - no surprise an american case coming down in favour of an american company.

Time for round two - and I'd expect Google and Microsoft to enter the fray with the aim of giving apple a bloody nose. Lets hope so, nothing more than they deserve.

By everton2004 on 26 Aug 2012

@everton2004

Round 2 will inevitably happen, and expect rounds 3,4,5...etc.

Microsoft, it seems, is keeping a sensibly low profile, and all the while nobody is hassling MS I don't expect them to get involved.
Their strategy seems to be "Let the school bullies beat each other up, then pick up the pieces"

@Sparks - the USA is a significant, but not vital market. The main importance of USA is that most of the English Language bloggers tech journos etc. live there. In order to make this judgement 'stick' Apple needs to repeat it in other markets or at ITC. However outside Centreville USA, its had a lot less luck with its spurious claims.

By wittgenfrog on 27 Aug 2012

@everton2004

Round 2 will inevitably happen, and expect rounds 3,4,5...etc.

Microsoft, it seems, is keeping a sensibly low profile, and all the while nobody is hassling MS I don't expect them to get involved.
Their strategy seems to be "Let the school bullies beat each other up, then pick up the pieces"

@Sparks - the USA is a significant, but not vital market. The main importance of USA is that most of the English Language bloggers tech journos etc. live there. In order to make this judgement 'stick' Apple needs to repeat it in other markets or at ITC. However outside Centreville USA, its had a lot less luck with its spurious claims.

By wittgenfrog on 27 Aug 2012

Don't forget that there will be appeals

.
And appeals are held before judges who are (generally) more concerned with the law than protecting the 'home team' as American juries seem to be.

By qpw3141 on 27 Aug 2012

Isn't price a significant difference?

I have a samsung smart phone that cost me £200. iPhones tend to start around the £400 mark. Couldn't samsung have simply asked Apple how much time, effort, and money they've put into making or trying to make £100/200/300 phones?

Because if the answer is, "Apple has absolutely no interest in that market" - then doesn't that kinda collapse the whole case?

By ANTIcarr0t on 27 Aug 2012

Apple the bully

Hope Samsung cut off their supply of chips or leave them out of the next generation chip designs unless they pay double.

By compaid on 27 Aug 2012

No Surprise in Fanboy Country

Go out for dinner in LA and 9/10 people will take their iPhone out their pocket and put it on the tablet.
Go to a party and everyone has an iPhone.

Is it really a surprise that Apple won in the biggest fanboy state in the world?!?

This has killed innovation completely and is just backing up this stupid policy that is happening like crazy right now of companies paying a fortune to buy other companies just to get patent rights.

If a company with loads of patents goes bankrupt the patents should just drop and fall into the public domain - that would improve life for everyone.
This whole buying the rights to an idea has just gone crazy and is hurting innovation, products and in general all of us.

Apple is proud of themselves because they happily stole lots of other companies ideas and made a product from the combination of these ideas.
Then they freak out because someone else has ideas similar to theirs.

None of the things they 'wont patent infringement' for are actually valid ideas that should be able to be 'protected' by law.

A touch screen device held in a hand is going to have some pretty damn obvious design features as standard - they aren't rocket science.
a 10yr old asked to design the shape for a phone that worked by touching the screen that gets held in your hand would come up with the same design.

By nniillaa on 28 Aug 2012

I dont think this has killed innovation...

...it's just highlighted for all the world how tiny things may be patented in the USA. It seems a nonsense to me that a rounded square icon or tablet computer, or the bounce back animation can be protected under intellectual property law, such that Apple could demand a licence fee for other companies to use them. As others have said, where would we be if other industries had taken a similar approach? I love good design and I'm sure we'll see lots more of it, I just dont believe the minutiae should be patentable, or if they are, should at the very least be considered under the terms of FRAND, but even this is going too far for me.

I strongly suspect Samsung will lose their appeal, but sooner or later someone is going to successfully overturn some of these Apple patents.

Innovation will continue, but in the USA at least, might have to be packaged in a box with square corners.

By Mat1971 on 28 Aug 2012

@ SwissMac

"This verdict [...] also protects any company that creates an innovative product that brings a sea change from what has gone before."

Innovative my proverbial.

DiamondTouch - multi-touch input system developed by Mistubishi labs in 2001, demonstrated by Adam Bogue to Apple in 2003. Apple declined any interest in the project or technology, but shortly after began developing their own multi-touch systems. At absolute most you could argue that Apple's innovation was in bringing that to a mobile device.

Swipe-to-unlock - present on Windows CE devices and Neonode N1 in various different forms. At most, you could argue that Apple blended the ideas of two different unlock/control systems into one device.

Rectangle with rounded corners - not even going to argue this one. It's as stupid as a chocolate afterburner. Will just quickly refer to Apple's "mistake" when repsenting to the German court where they manipulated the Samsung tablet image to coincidentally be the same form-factor as the iPad; 4:3 as opposed to its actual 16:9, as well as mysteriously erasing the Samsung branding. Hardly the actions of a company happy to let the facts speak for themselves.

Bounce-back - you know what. I'm actually going to grant this one. In the sense that I don't believe anyone did it before Apple and Samsung devices did/do it as well. But whether it should be a patentable idea? Not sure.

And Apple do like to bang on about "we think companies should innovate for themselves rather than copying our ideas" don't they? I must have heard that line trotted out in almost every interview. Maybe someone should refer the spokespersons to Apple's implementation of pull-down notifications - which debuted on Android devices way before iOS. And an integrated, voice-activated search assistant - not only was Siri preceded by Samsung's S Voice on its Bada range in South Korea by several years (rubbishing the claims from Apple that they even tried to copy the name), but Siri was developed by a company who created their product from US military research for DARPA utilising NUANCE's technology; so hardly a unique innovation in any sense of the term.

By bioreit on 28 Aug 2012

Apple to face their own suits?

Does this mean that all the companies that Apple borrowed or blatantly stole ideas from (like Rank Xerox or touch screen smartphones before iphone) will be taking out massive lawsuits - let's hope so

By MarkShurmer on 4 Sep 2012