Print 87 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Aug 6 at 7:25 PM

Judge Koh hands Apple another gift

Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) capability to defend itself from Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) design intellectual property was further weakened on Thursday when Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose/San Francisco) ruled that Samsung could not use designs from science fiction works to prove invalidity (via prior art) of Apple's design patents.

I. Sci-Fi Props Not Valid for Design Patent Invalidation

Apple is claiming that a series of design patents on the iPad and iPhone -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677D593,087, and D504,889 -- grant it exclusive rights to produce rectangular (with-rounded edges) touchscreen devices with a "minimalist" number of buttons.  Note, the patents themselves have little text, so much of the validity debate revolves around the validity/invalidity of Apple's interpretation of ubiquitous design rights, which is not explicitly stated in the patents.

Samsung has questioned Apple's rights to "patent shapes".  But it's unclear whether Samsung's legal team will be capable of invalidating Apple's patents.  

The iPad looks very similar to designs seen in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey and the fan-favorite science fiction series Star Trek: The Next Generation. Both fictional visual depiction predated Apple's 2004 patent by over a decade.

2001: A Space Odyssey poster2001 tablets
2001: A Space Odyssey "tablets" [Image Source: Stanley Kubrick/MGM]

Geordi tabletStar Trek
Star Trek tablets [Image Source: Gene Roddenberry/Paramount]

Judge Koh said pre-existing fictional works were not valid pieces of evidence to use in proving invalidity of design patents.  

Sources reporting on the decision did not mention why the judge considered this invalid.  One clear implication is that if the decision is upheld it essentially gives commercials firms open season to make real-life devices based on fictional products.  For example, if a company made the iconic "golden snitch" of the Harry Potter universe, it could repatent the existing visual depiction under a new design patent and J.K. Rowling could not invalidate that patent.

II. Alternate Routes to Escaping Apple's Design Claims

Judge Koh did allow Samsung to use at least two real-world prototype or commercial design that could be integral in proving prior art.

The first allowed display is a Hewlett-Packard Comp. (HPQ) tablet -- the Compaq TC1000 -- which debuted in 2002, two years before the iPad patent.  That tablet had a minimalist design, like the iPad's.

HP TC1000
The Compaq TC-1000 (2002) [Image Source:]

Also allowed was photographs of Roger Fidler tablet prototype which he produced for media company Knight-Ridder.

Fidler with tablets
The iPad (2010, left) versus the Knight-Ridder prototype (1994, right)
[Image Source: Grant Hindsley/The Washington Post]

Without its phone-space prior art (which Judge Koh banned for being "too late") and without the sci-fi prior art, Samsung faces a tougher struggle as it must rely more heavily on the handful of allowed possible prior art examples.

There's some hope that Apple may win on validity and evidence exclusion, but still lose on design infringement.  To win on design infringement, the jury must accept Apple's argument that the images in its design patent allow it to patent a certain shape of electronic device.

In theory, Samsung's lawyers could acknowledge the validity of Apple's design patent, be unable to show the full history of their device development, but still argue their device did not infringe based on other factors.  

For example, it could argue that it was invalid to patent shapes.  If it can convince the jury, all it has to do to avoid design infringement is to show that there's substantial visual differences between the iPad and Galaxy Tab and between the iPhone and Galaxy Nexus (or other phones in question).  Again, whether the design differences are sufficient to escape infringement is a subjective argument, but when viewed clearly (e.g. at a distance where you can distinguish features) Apple and Samsung's products are easily distinguished.

And it's important to remember that design is just one part of the two company's infringement claims.

III. Editorial: The Big Picture and Why If Either Side Wins, You Lose

Samsung has patented standards technologies, and is legally obligated to license Apple those patents at a "fair" rate, but is trying to shirk those responsibilities and license them at an inflated rate.  

And Apple is also suing Samsung on technology patents that cover a number of trivial graphical features.  

There's great danger in terms of future precedent if either side wins on any of its major claims.  If Apple's design claims are upheld, it offers a slippery slope by which companies can patent certain shapes in certain sectors and gain an artificial government-enforced monopoly.  If Apple's technology claims are upheld, there could be a rash of patenting and key sectors of the economy like websites (which share common algorithms and visual features) and software (which again are programmatically similar and visually similar) could be destroyed, with only a few patent-rich survivors left standing.

And if Samsung's technology claims were validated to the extent it wants them to be, the concept of affordable licensing of standards patents would be lost.  This, too, is an undesirable outcome.

Video gamer
Depending on who wins, tech standards could be badly damaged or the internet/software (e.g. games) market could be destroyed, based on the fact that both companies' objective seemingly rely on abuse of the intellectual property system. [Image Source: BuyPoe]

The case is very significant as Apple and Samsung are two of the biggest companies in the world, so this in a sense is a very precedent-setting case.

In other words if either side achieves total victory, consumers essentially lose.  Conversely, the only way consumers win is if both sides lose, at least to some extent.

Thus this is an important case to watch very carefully as the two sides battle in court, as the outcome could effect your choice of future products, perhaps well beyond the smartphone space, even.

Source: All Things D

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

My Patent
By SAnderson on 8/3/2012 3:19:35 PM , Rating: 5
I'm going to patent the idea of a thin, portable 14-17" LCD device that flips up and has a keyboard under. And of course it has rounded edges for smoothness. That way all manufactures will owe me billions for using my design to make laptops. Think I'll name the company Banana or Orange.

This crap shouldn't be patentable.

RE: My Patent
By testerguy on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: My Patent
By SAnderson on 8/3/2012 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 5
Oh my someone can't take some sarcasm. I don't care if there's prior art or not, Apple is trying to patent a product segment, such as a laptop or netbook. Judge, patent, and case should be thrown out.

RE: My Patent
By Totally on 8/5/2012 12:33:16 AM , Rating: 4
I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen since the judge appears to be in Apple's pocket.

RE: My Patent
By glennco on 8/5/2012 10:16:21 PM , Rating: 1
Apple is a US company, samsung isn't. what do you expect

RE: My Patent
By GotThumbs on 8/6/2012 9:00:34 AM , Rating: 5
The exclusion of such early and clear examples of "pre-existing" art by the Judge are a clear sign that this will NOT be a fair and proper legal proceedings. For this to take place in the US is simply disgusting. It just astounds me that the Judge continues to deny such clear and simple examples that Apple is NOT the true innovator of these basic designs. I'm not saying to not give Apple credit for making its devices....but I'm disgusted at the idea that they CAN exclude others from taking design ques in similar fashion.

A clear case of "Do as I say....and not as I do". Simply disgusting on the part of the judge. I can't help but question his ethics and impartiality. Both parities should have more than enough opportunity to prove their case....the judge is making Samsung fight with its hands tied behind it's back. More like an US In-Justice system than a Justice System.

As we all know by now, the patent system needs to be revamped where a public notice is placed and allows others time to dispute the patent request.

RE: My Patent
By goatfajitas on 8/3/2012 5:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
" you always end up with 1 or 2 absolute retards who say ridiculous things like 'I'm going to patent the wheel' or 'I'm going to patent X' already existing device."

Really buddy, what is wrong with you? You are all over every Apple article here, insulting anyone and everyone that doesnt agree with your opinion. It is possible that people can be intelligent and disagree with you at the same time.

RE: My Patent
By Tony Swash on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/3/2012 6:29:32 PM , Rating: 3
"This is not an iPhone"

What gave it away? The obvious older version of Android on it or the large SAMSUNG printed right across the bottom of the phone?

RE: My Patent
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2012 6:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
I would say the exclusion of a button! But wait, didn't Apple invent that too?

RE: My Patent
By Tony Swash on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: My Patent
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2012 7:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
Blah Blah Blah - BAHHHH! BAHHHH!

RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/3/2012 8:39:27 PM , Rating: 5
"What gets me are not those who say they prefer Android or Samsung to Apple, not even those that say copying Apple is OK, it's those who show such intellectual cowardice that they pretend to think that Samsung did not try to copy Apple's products"

What amazes me is that people like you consistently miss the point altogether. Its not that Samsung did or didnt copy Apple, because to an extent they did. They were very obvious about the Samsung logo, but clearly Apple influenced alot of products with the original iPhone... Here is the part you (pretend to?) miss. Apple copied other companies to create the iPhone. Apple copies others now as well. ALL companies do this.

Apple copied the Psion and built on it and made the Newton. Palm copied Apple and built on it to create the Pilot. Handpring split from Palm and built on the Palm Pilot to create the Treo smartphone (then later re-merged). Apple copied Palm's Treo and built on it (adding a great multitouch UI and OS) to create the iPhone. Google copied the iPhone to create Android. Today, Apple copies Android's features in its latest iPhone. ALL companies do this and always have. Not just tech, but in all industries. Who survives? The company that can build the best product and/or offer the best product for the price. This is called competition and is the base for business on planet Earth and has been since the dawn of civilization . Somehow Apple thinks they are above it all and THAT is what pisses everyone off these days.

Before you start with Apple didnt copy Android, I will repost a list (courtesy of reclaimer) of things that Apple copied from Android.

1. The revolutionary notification center of Android was a part of it from day one, nobody had done notifications like that before and eventually the competitors had to give in and adopt a similar style.

2. Over the air updates - now a standard throughout all platforms in the world this was something introduced by google from day one.

3. Widgets, Android first, copied by others later.

4. Free turn by turn navigation, once again something that we now see is being copied by competitors.

5. Social network integration - once again now a standard for all platforms!!

6. Multitasking. It took iOS three years to finally do multitasking, and it's still not on par with Android.

7. Drop Down Notifications - Android first, blatantly copied by Apple in iOS 5

8. Wireless Syncing - There are several Android apps out there that let you sync your music, movies, contacts, etc. with your computer over your home's Wi-Fi connection. And they've been around almost since Android's beginning. The iPhone finally got sync with iTunes wirelessly iOS 5.

9. Opening apps from the lock screen - Android skins like HTC's sense have allowed that for years. Another iOS 5 feature stolen from Google

10. Custom Wallpapers - For the first three years of the iPhone's existence, you were stuck with the plain black background on their home screens. (Unless they jailbroke, of course.) It wasn't until the 2010 launch of iOS 4 on the 3GS and iPhone 4 that you could finally choose any photo you wanted for your background. Meanwhile, Android phones have had customizable backgrounds long before iPhone. Android phones also allow animated wallpapers.

11. Voice Recognition - Google Voice was built into Android WAY before Siri came along.

Apple is suing for vague concepts and manipulations of a flawed patent system... Its not like they invented the smartphone. All they were is first to market with a multitouch UI... yes it was great, yes it made smartphones alot funner to use. That was a great thing, now let the competition begin... And you Tony need to gain some perspective.

"What also astonishes me is how many Americans have become so deranged that they actually support a Korean company ripping of an American company."

Wrong is wrong and blindly supporting wrong due to nationality is just rediculous. That's kind of like Germany in the 30's.

RE: My Patent
By Avatar28 on 8/3/2012 10:03:13 PM , Rating: 4
Android wasn't even the first with all of those. Not saying MS was first with any of these either but they had it before Android.
6) Multitasking - was present in Windows Mobile even before Android
8) Wireless syncing - Zune did it first. As far as I know they WERE the first to do that.
10) Custom wallpapers - Windows Mobile had this from pretty much the beginning
11) Voice Recognition - Voice Command was available before and was pretty much standard on a lot of phones by the time WM 6.0 came out.

That all really just reinforces your point even more though. ALL companies copy. That's what drives evolution of technology. Someone has a good idea, someone else sees it and tries to make it better.

RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/3/2012 10:36:50 PM , Rating: 3
"That all really just reinforces your point even more though. ALL companies copy. That's what drives evolution of technology. Someone has a good idea, someone else sees it and tries to make it better."

Exactly... Companies copy what works... And even though some of that list existed before Android, Apple sees Android catching up, then surpassing it in features, and then in sales and Apple copies. I have no problem with it, it is how business has always been done... Like I said - The company that can build the best product and/or offer the best product for the price. This is called competition and is the base for business on planet Earth and has been since the dawn of civilization .

For Apple to think they are above it is the most hippocritical thing I have ever seen.

RE: My Patent
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2012 11:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
Windows Mobile, wtf?

You understand the context here is Apple vs. Google right?

And I think Windows Mobile was more instructive as to how to NOT do things as apposed to what it did right.

RE: My Patent
By spamreader1 on 8/6/2012 9:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure his point was prior art.

RE: My Patent
By robinthakur on 8/6/2012 8:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think that at the root of this, you need to look at the way Samsung and all the phone companies were completely left behind by the iPhone in 2007. From my recollection, nothing came close to the iPhone in terms of usability or look and feel until the galaxy s which looked surprisingly like an iPhone, Apple would say too close for comfort, and in the intervening time, all handset manufacturers lost out to the iPhone significantly. Galaxy s looked like an iPhone it terms of its exterior and also in terms of the way the operating system was laid out. Obviously, in terms of usability, it was nowhere near as smooth or stable, but I could well believe that some people who were not as well read about phones would have purchased one in error thinking it was a kind of iPhone. From then on, Samsung have deliberately aped the design of the iPhone and the packaging.

The same was true with the iPad. Before it came out, you will recollect that everybody thought it would be a massive flop and described it as a big iPod touch. Now after it launched and was a huge success, Samsung entered the market with the tab and then the full sized 10" one. I really don't see it as a stretch to say that the tablet market, let alone those products would not exist without Apple.

I am not loyal to any one firm and have at times used an Android phone along with Apple's devices, but I really don't think you should be defending Samsung of all the firms. Samsung are a cut throat organisational behemoth in a great many industries and are utterly ruthless. Many of their business practices are unsavoury and would be illegal if they did the same thing outside Korea. Their aim of beating the iPhone at its own game did not consider things like intellectual property because firms from the far east do not operate on the same assumptions to do with ownership of IP as we do in the west.

Samsung copied Apple because it realised that Apple trades on the look and feel as well as intangibles like brand appeal and packaging, and since nobody in the phone space had ever sued somebody else for IP violation so they thought they were safe to copy. This was likely born out of frustration that it's products were being overlooked, but this certainly doesn't make it right. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking back around the time of the Omnia and later the Galaxy S "How on earth are they getting away with this?!?".

This issue is not so bad now with the Galaxy 3 IMO as it does look substantially different to the iPhone (some would say better) but the point on the earlier devices still stands, and you could argue that Samsung's current popularity was built on their earlier success. If Apple has an issue with the OS, then it should just sue Google, frankly but then Apple has nicked parts of the google OS such as notification centre, so they don't really have a leg to stand on.

RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/6/2012 8:16:27 AM , Rating: 3
Like I said... Companies copy what works. This is called competition and is the base for business on planet Earth and has been since the dawn of civilization.

Apply the same thing to cars. Should we all be stuck with only Ford's, because everyone copied the car and manufacturing process they built hte model T with. NO, that isnt how anything has ever worked on this planet. Someone came out with power windows and everyone copied. Someone came out with ABS and everyone copied. Someone came out with the auto transmission and everyone copied (etc etc.)

I would argue that Apple copying Palm putting a mobile OS and app ecosystem on a phone with internet access was FAR more of a blatant copy than simply adding a multitouch UI to that phone with internet access, a mobile OS and app ecosystem. Think about that.

RE: My Patent
By myleftnutishuge on 8/6/2012 11:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
And his point about Apple being way ahead of anything else with the iPhone in 2007...that's true. And that's why Apple made tens of billions of dollars between then and now. But eventually, they need to keep innovating and stay ahead of the curve. I would argue that the iPhone and iOS hasn't improved that much since 2007 while various Android devices (such as the GS3) have closed the gap and even moved ahead in some significant ways.

The only point I disagree with is that all companies copy. Only good companies copy. Great companies steal. Duh.

RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/6/2012 4:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
" Only good companies copy. Great companies steal. "

That's right, and they are "shameless" about it ;)

RE: My Patent
By karlostomy on 8/3/2012 8:43:11 PM , Rating: 2

I own a Galaxy S.

It has similarities to an iphone, just as the iphone has similarities to many other phones that pre-date.
I am clearly able to distinguish major differences in the galaxy S though which I actually prefer over the iphone design, rendering your point rather moot.

As a case in point, I especially like the fact that I have dropped my Galaxy S numerous times and it has not got a single scratch or crack in the glass. That alone makes the Galaxy S substantially different and preferable to me over the comparable iphone, which is well known to crack the glass very easily.
Why don't you ever mention this well established difference?
This feature is part of the design that is different just as much as any other design feature else that may appear to be similar.

Of those items and features that appear to be similar, it remains exceptionally naive of you to think that Apple did not, at least in part, copy those ideas from prior devices, ideas, designs, art or intellectual property. This has already been established. Even Steve Jobs admitted that Apple is shameless about stealing ideas. You already know this, yet carry on with your questionable ranting. Beyond the obvious insulting trolling objective, your post really makes no rational sense.

Why do you admonish Samsung for stealing, while giving Apple a free pass on the exact same thing?
How you can purport to identify others' 'intellectual cowardice' in this regard, whilst not acknowledging your own?

Wake up and smell the coffee, Tony.
I am getting tired of shutting you down so severely.

I kindly ask that you apply your own rhetoric, take a good long honest look in the mirror and please think rather more thoroughly before you post again.

RE: My Patent
By Tony Swash on 8/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: My Patent
By ihateu3 on 8/5/2012 3:24:36 AM , Rating: 1
So patenting a shape is considered within our limits? Patenting disappearing graphics is within our limits? I see where you are going with this, although your argument loses strength when its only ok for Apple to do this outside these obvious limits to set the standard. Pretty sure if Samsung had patented a shape or disappearing graphics before Apple, you would be calling bullshit...

From your posts you seem half ass intelligent, so it seems that you are purposely biased to dismiss Apples over the top attempt at a monopoly granted through taking advantage of the current legal systems misunderstanding of technologies...

BTW, bias and intelligence are oxymoron's...

RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/5/2012 11:21:54 AM , Rating: 1
"Pretty sure if Samsung had patented a shape or disappearing graphics before Apple, you would be calling bullshit... From your posts you seem half ass intelligent, so it seems that you are purposely biased to dismiss Apples over the top attempt at a monopoly granted through taking advantage of the current legal systems misunderstanding of technologies..."

Yup. Tony is another one... He thinks that [choice that benefits Apple] is > [choice does not benefit Apple] in all situations.

If it were reversed and Apple had a product that looked like Samsung's even though it had a huge APPLE logo printed acrodd the front of it he would be crying foul and saying that any fool could see it's obviously an Apple product, look - it says APPLE right across the front of it.

I do agree with one thing he said, the outcome is pointless and both platforms will go on. Regardless of who wins this case, it will be appealed and go to a higher court where Lucy Koh's choices to keep out key evidence will be irrelevant.

RE: My Patent
By Tony Swash on 8/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: My Patent
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/5/2012 5:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
I personally hope Apple win but I trust the process whatever the outcome.
No one thought differently....

RE: My Patent
By jRaskell on 8/6/2012 4:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
The only fair and sensible way to judge whether limits have been overstepped is in a court of law. Which is precisely what is happeng.

Sorry, but there is rarely anything fair or sensible about what happens in our courts.

RE: My Patent
By The Raven on 8/6/2012 1:57:14 PM , Rating: 1
What also astonishes me is how many Americans have become so deranged that they actually support a Korean company ripping of an American company. Apple is a great, successful and growing American company, there aren't too many of them left, I would have thought any American with a shred of affection for their country would not want to see one of it's leading companies ripped off.
Way to hide behind the Flag Tony.
I guess you must be too busy reading the iTunes terms of service to realize how un-American this statement is. Our country was founded on a set of ideals centered around the concept of freedom and not just some mass of land or language. So excuse those who are highly suspicious of the broken IP law that can't keep up with the synergies created by the global market.

You know what else is great American company? Microsoft. Should we all go buy a copy of Windows 8 and a Surface tablet? Call me traitor, but I will pass. I am equally critical of that company as well.

How about you buy a computer made in the US Tony? No? I guess you un-American since Apple makes their products in China?

Or if it was MS instead of Samsung you think we Americans should change our sense of morality? F your isolationist/quasi-exceptionalist attitude.

No, you are the deranged one sir. The iPhone was a success because of the freedom it afforded its users. Well now other companies are providing even more freedom and Apple wants to stop it. And that is what I find un-American and underhanded. So they can lick my red, white, and blue balls.

RE: My Patent
By Helbore on 8/3/2012 5:49:05 PM , Rating: 4
Items such as the wheel ...<snip>... are far more generic and are indisputably invalid due to prior art.

You think a circle is more generic than a rectangle?

RE: My Patent
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/3/2012 6:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Look who you are responding too, of course he does!

RE: My Patent
By retrospooty on 8/3/2012 6:45:21 PM , Rating: 4
He thinks that [choice that benefits Apple] is > [choice does not benefit Apple] in all situations.

RE: My Patent
By bug77 on 8/4/2012 8:40:47 AM , Rating: 1
There is very little prior art specifically relating to the iPhone or iPad...

Afaik, one piece of evidence is enough.

RE: My Patent
By topkill on 8/4/2012 2:36:45 PM , Rating: 1
testerguy, you're a moron.
1 or 2 absolute retards who say ridiculous things like 'I'm going to patent the wheel' or 'I'm going to patent X' already existing device

Have you ever looked at the patents the idiots at the patent office will issue? How about for swinging sideways on a swing? It happened:

Before you go shooting off your mouth and acting like anything a patent office issues or anything a judge/court rules is somehow legitimate, learn about the REALITY of our patent and court systems.

Yes, they DO grant stupid patents and yes we DO end up in stupid court cases, like this one, that have no right to be spending our taxpayer money.

RE: My Patent
By FlyBri on 8/6/2012 7:12:01 PM , Rating: 1
@testerguy -- what a completely ignorant comment. To say that Samsung was resorting to science fiction, as to suggest that means of a defense does not have merit. Do you know how many times science has imitated and been inspired by science fiction? Apple's patents are absolutely ridiculous, and I'm sorry, 2001: A Space Odyssey is more than enough evidence of prior art. Even without that you still have Star Trek as well.

RE: My Patent
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/6/2012 7:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's par for the course with him... ignorant comment after ignorant comment. But your post, to him, is not logical or relevant!

RE: My Patent
By Byte on 8/3/2012 6:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
The TC1000 was a decade ahead of its time and HP should bring it back. There has been no true competitor ever since, maybe the new Win8 Surface will finally be able to finally give us a truly usable tablet.

RE: My Patent
By wordsworm on 8/3/2012 8:00:43 PM , Rating: 4
Call your company 'Orange' so that we can really compare Apples to Oranges. :D

You have GOT to be kidding
By topkill on 8/3/2012 3:26:50 PM , Rating: 5
Koh is just making one bad ruling after another. She is so obviously favoring Apple that I don't see how an appeals court can not overturn any outcome.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By Theoz on 8/3/2012 4:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Was this evidence perhaps rejected under the "too late" standard mentioned previously? There has got to be something else going on here. This makes no sense.

If donald duck cartoons can be prior art, why not movies?
DT won't let me post the link, says it's spam, but google "donald duck as prior art" and click on the first link.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By Jaybus on 8/4/2012 10:05:14 AM , Rating: 3
Um, the Donald Duck story is urban legend and never verified by the patent office, not to mention that it was the Dutch patent office, not the US.

Any argument either way about the ridiculous patent of the shape of a rectangle, rounded corners or not, is a complete waste of the court's time. But the judge is not going to do something stupid like set a prescedent for the willy-nilly use of sci-fi fantasies as prior art. Prior art can indeed come from anywhere, but it has to explain the invention in enough detail to allow a skilled person to construct the invention.

Nevertheless, the shape patent should be invalidated on the basis that it offers no advantage of advancement of the technology. A shape or "look and feel" patent should only be valid if it offers some advantage over other shapes other than brand recognition.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By Solandri on 8/4/2012 1:52:27 PM , Rating: 4
But the judge is not going to do something stupid like set a prescedent for the willy-nilly use of sci-fi fantasies as prior art.

I'd agree for regular patents. Just because Star Trek thought of the concept of a "warp drive" doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to patent one if they actually figure out some way to make such a thing.

But this is a design patent. It's only the appearance which matters. Which means the visual fantasy presented in sci-fi TV, movies, and art is completely relevant. In fact, if I duplicated the appearance of Star Trek's PADD as a tablet and started manufacturing and selling them, I would expect Paramount to file suit against me for violating of their copyright on their design.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By The Raven on 8/6/2012 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Chilly Willy use of sci-fi fantasies as prior art.
FIFY ;-)

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By Tony Swash on 8/4/12, Rating: -1
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/5/2012 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 3
I knew that most Android phones were pretty crappy but I hadn't realised that they actually caused brain damage
And some are just born with it, you are a prime example.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By The Raven on 8/6/2012 2:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why not dreams, or narcotic induced hallucinations? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Why don't you add visions induced by slipping off a toilet and bumping your head on a sink?

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By BZDTemp on 8/3/2012 5:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
US justice. Enough said :-(

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By fredgiblet on 8/3/2012 5:50:04 PM , Rating: 3
US justice

You contradict yourself.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By Gondor on 8/3/2012 6:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
That broad is evidently on Apple's payroll. It's not "one bad rulling" after another, it's a consistent string of decisions aimed at harming Samsung - can't be anything but deliberate attempt to thwart Apple's competition.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By michael2k on 8/3/2012 7:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's not what the trial summaries say:
Judge Koh just denied Apple's request for sanctions after Samsung's theatrics on Tuesday. She is reserving the right to address them afterwards. She made it a point to stress that Samsung's evidence being excluded is a "situation of their own making," and that Apple had had evidence excluded for the same reasons as well.

RE: You have GOT to be kidding
By DennisB on 8/4/2012 7:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares if you got the idea first. All that matters is you are a patriotic big business.

At her current rate...
By Beavermatic on 8/3/2012 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 3
...Koh will be impeached before too long.

Most of the other judges out there acknowledge that Apple has exploited and abusing the US patent system.

Koh is obviously Apple biased and likely a paid schill or on the take from Apple execs. The corruption and fraud she is commiting in the tech industry is so obvious, even her peers are starting to question exactly wtf she is doing.

She's corrupt. Plain and Simple.

Much like a once profound character such as the now exiled attorney Jack Thompson who was disbarred from just flat out badgering, crusading, and insanity against the games, movie and music industry.. he will meet a similuar fate as far as the judicial system goes, likely impeachment or the inability to participate in these cases again at the very least.

RE: At her current rate...
By ProZach on 8/4/2012 5:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Your comment echoes my suspicions, although all I have are suspicions. Now, some smoking-gun evidence would be interesting, and who knows- maybe start a domino effect into other jurisdictions.

Much like a once profound character such as the now exiled attorney Jack Thompson who was disbarred from just flat out badgering, crusading, and insanity against the games, movie and music industry.
That guy always was- and always will be- a lunatic despite any contrary psychiatric assessment. Activist? More like a deactivist via censorship (although 2 Live Crew was pretty lame and immature). Good ol' Jack should try going one-on-one against OC members if he's so interested in disconnecting those who plant seeds of amorality.

RE: At her current rate...
By Tony Swash on 8/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: At her current rate...
By themaster08 on 8/5/2012 3:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
Judge Richard Posner, however he doesn't blame the companies per se. He blames the broken patent system that allows these companies to exploit it, and acknowledges that these lawsuits are damaging to innovation.

RE: At her current rate...
By themaster08 on 8/5/2012 3:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a bit of what he had to say...

RE: At her current rate...
By retrospooty on 8/6/2012 5:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
and the good thing is that Posner is a higher level court that would handle appeals from the low level court that Lucy Koh presides over. Hopefully more judges Posners level understand what he does and Koh doesnt.

I would like you to accompany me to...
By chmilz on 8/3/2012 3:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Taco Bell

RE: I would like you to accompany me to...
By VoodooChicken on 8/3/2012 4:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
No rat burgers for me

By Hyperion1400 on 8/3/2012 5:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
But... it's the best damn burger he ever had?!

Too confusing
By bug77 on 8/3/2012 3:45:04 PM , Rating: 5
Judge Koh should make a clear ruling: Samsung should submit evidence that favors Apple only. That would be a pretty clear guideline.

By caseyne on 8/3/2012 7:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
I just got a patent for a round cookie. I'm going to sue every cookie company that makes a round cookie. Think I win??

RE: Unbelievable
By knutjb on 8/3/2012 11:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
only if you call it iCookie

The Future...?
By delphinus100 on 8/5/2012 9:06:06 PM , Rating: 3
I've said many times that it's the 21st Century and no, we don't have flying cars, but but the big, flat, non-CRT televisions arrived pretty much on time.

Some things you can simply see coming, it's too broad and general to claim for yourself...

By tharik on 8/6/2012 11:23:38 AM , Rating: 3
is it the size or shape

it can not be the shape, rectangles have have been used for TV's for a long time.

therefore it must be the size of the rectangle, so cigarette companies should sue Apple for using a rectangle that has a similar size to a pack of cigarettes.

Simpsons did it!
By BugblatterIII on 8/4/2012 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Roger Meyers Jr. : Okay, maybe my dad did steal Itchy, but so what?! Animation is built on plagiarism! If it weren't for someone plagiarizing The Honeymooners, we wouldn't have The Flintstones! If someone hadn't ripped off Sgt. Bilko, there'd be no Top Cat! Huckleberry Hound, Chief Wiggum, Yogi Bear… Andy Griffith, Edward G. Robinson, Art Carney! Your honor, if you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they gonna come from? (points to Marge) Her?

Marge : (thinks to herself) How about Ghost Mutt?

American corporate stupidity
By Scootie on 8/4/2012 1:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
always amazes me. And that judge's counts should be checked for Apple money.

By Grandal on 8/5/2012 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
for copying it's tail fin cars from 1948-60. Because everyone knows that EVERY major auto-maker in the 50s stole sales from them and hurt their market presence...

What's this you say? The other auto-makers' imitation helped fuel Cadillac's dominance in the 50s by reinforcing tail fins as the "in" thing?

Apple should be thanking the imitators, they helped to solidify their market.

published designs
By DockScience on 8/5/2012 4:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was taught that All it takes is ONE example of established prior art to invalidate a patent.

JUdge Ho..
By Peter898 on 8/4/2012 11:10:23 AM , Rating: 1
'Sources reporting on the decision did not mention why the judge considered this invalid'

Because her pimp will beat the crap out of her if she doesn't do as she's paid to do ?

Judge Koh, you are a disgrace to your profession and a threat to 'Rule of Law' . How are supposed to take the Courts serious with all your prostitute-rulings ?

RE: JUdge Ho..
By Tony Swash on 8/5/12, Rating: 0
By w8sk on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
By name99 on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: ???
By SAnderson on 8/3/2012 3:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
If its touch screen there's no need for a full keyboard. Look at phone evolution/functionality and there's a quick transition of buttons and touch abilities. For the most part there's one or the other, not both.

RE: ???
By cwolf78 on 8/3/2012 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
what they consider innovative is their use of MULTI-TOUCH

Are you honestly trying to tell us that Apple actually MAKES the multi-touch hardware in their screens? They don't even make screens period. That they could even get a patent on that is beyond me. If the court upholds that patent, not only do consumers lose, but the manufacturer of said screens can only sell to Apple.

RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 4:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Apple bought the company who owned the patents, and invented, multi-touch. So these idiots actually think that grants Apple the right to be the sole provider of such devices.

RE: ???
By testerguy on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 6:18:55 PM , Rating: 2

“a method for providing human input to a computer which allows a user to interact with a display connected to the computer”

Yup not broad or generic at all. Another solid patent by Apple, not.

RE: ???
By Theoz on 8/3/2012 5:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
And we have reached a new low of patent ignorance.

Patents are fully transferable such that the current owner has a right to exclude all others. Ownership of the patents would thus grant apple the right to be the sole provider of such devices, assuming your facts are correct.

RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: ???
By testerguy on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: ???
By Fujikoma on 8/4/2012 8:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
Multi-touch is an extension of a touch screen, an expected evolution of the touch screen. A company wrote software to keep track of more than one point of contact on a screen... they can copyright the particular code and as long as someone writes something different that does the same thing, then Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. You do realize how many spreadsheet, word processing, picture viewing and movie viewing programs are out there that all do the same thing, yet are still different. By Apple's reasoning, only one in each area would be legal and all the others would be violating some patent.

RE: ???
By bupkus on 8/3/2012 3:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
So let Apple patent the "GESTALT of characteristics".

Thank God!
By msheredy on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Thank God!
By bennyg on 8/5/2012 4:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
Patent is state-sponsored exclusivity for an implemented idea.

The idea exists in movie fiction. The technology was not then able to support implementation of the idea. It became available and now we have the implementations.

It's very relevant and generates wider questions about what patentable "invention" and unpatentable "discovery" are and aren't ... because what other than "idea" separates the two?

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki