Print 29 comment(s) - last by Kiffberet.. on Jun 25 at 7:07 AM

  (Source: Getty Images)
No word on what they said about Apple's "rounded edges" design patent

It's all over again.  Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) has been smacked by a top federal court for violating Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) patent on a bounce animation, according to a report by Reuters.

The "bounce" patent, also known as the "rubber band" patent, has long haunted Samsung.  In the U.S. that patent was used by Apple to slam Samsung with a bombshell $1.05B USD jury verdict and bans on certain products.  

But the win started to unravel with the preliminary invalidation of Apple's bounce patent -- U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 -- one of three "technology" patents asserted in the case (the pinch to zoom patent has also been since invalidated).  The invalidation did find some individual claims in the bounce patent valid, which Apple is trying to leverage to preserve the patent in some form.

But the U.S. invalidation offered no protection to Samsung in Japan, where Apple holds an identical patent on the animation.  A Tokyo court on Friday ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple's technology patents, including the infamous bounce patent.

Samsung Japan
Samsung lost a ruling in Tokyo court this week. [Image Source: Bloomberg]

Samsung has already tried to counter by implementing a new user interface feature in Japan.  When a users scrolls to the end of the document, rather than scroll slightly past and bounce, instead a blue bar now flashes on the bottom of the screen.  That may save Samsung's current handsets from bans in Japan.

Previously the Tokyo court circuit had largely refused to buy into Apple and Samsung's patent spat.  Back in Aug. 2012, it shot down Apple's accusations that Samsung infringed on patents pertaining to the syncing of music metadata.  Then in March of this year the court ruled that Apple did not infringe on Samsung's wireless standards patents.  

Apple first sued Samsung in Japan back in April 2011.  Currently Apple is in second place in the Japanese market, while Samsung is several spots back [source].

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: It's actually valid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2013 9:32:01 AM , Rating: 4
Samsung claims they did, Apple claims they did not.

Apple's reputation in such areas is to the point that nobody would believe their side of the story except the most fervent fanboi. Like you.

Should Apple now halt production of all of their devices, because Samsung made an unreasonable offer - or pay way over the odds for a FRAND patent?

That's the point of arbitration. It's not up to Apple to decide "oh well, I don't like the way this is going, I'll just use the technology anyway and pay zero."

Apple has gone years, literally years, without paying one red cent for the technology that Samsung spent billions in R&D to develop. And you're sitting here talking about "FRAND abuse"? There's only one party here that's abusing the system, and everyone knows it.

Also just fyi, but you keep using the term "reasonable" as if there's some concrete legal definition of what is and isn't reasonable. I'm sure from Samsung's point of view, their offer was perfectly reasonable. From Apple's point of view, "reasonable" clearly means "free".

RE: It's actually valid.
By testerguy on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: It's actually valid.
By retrospooty on 6/24/2013 12:28:59 PM , Rating: 1
The obtusely clandestine fanboy has spoken. :P

RE: It's actually valid.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2013 4:17:03 PM , Rating: 1
What's certain is that Apple will not be under investigation for any kind of FRAND abuse.

On this we agree. It's hard to get in trouble for FRAND patents when you never actually develop any technologies ever.

That doesn't give Samsung the right to seek complete bans of the products

AHAHA if this isn't the pot calling the kettle man. As if Apple seeking bans for using rectangles is any more legitimate.

RE: It's actually valid.
By testerguy on 6/25/2013 5:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's hard to get in trouble for FRAND patents when you never actually develop any technologies ever.

Whether you have FRAND patents or not is not determined by whether you 'develop any technologies'. It's whether or not you want to OBLIGATE yourself to license a patent to the world at reasonable rates because the ALTERNATIVE is that every other company builds a workaround and your patent is worthless. It's a purely financial decision.

AHAHA if this isn't the pot calling the kettle man. As if Apple seeking bans for using rectangles is any more legitimate.

The Apple patents in question are not FRAND (and nor are any of them for 'rectangles' - so ignorant). Apple did not obligate itself to license them to any other company and is therefore legitimately able to seek bans for any products which infringe their patent. You need to understand that a FRAND obligation LESSENS THE POWER of the patent - the return is widespread adoption. The whole idea of FRAND is that an industry will only adopt a particular method of doing something (a standard) if the companies who developed it agree to never do anything anti-competitive with those patents - which is why they have to license them for fair and reasonable rates.

If Samsung hasn't agreed to the FRAND license, the industry would have picked any of the other several available options.

You need to grasp what FRAND means and why companies do it.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

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