backtop


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 testerguy on 6/24/2013 4:56:00 AM , Rating: -1
quote:
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.


Right, so you're:

1 - Proving that you're a fanboy because you don't judge based on facts, but on 'reputation' (your own interpretation thereof)
2 - Calling me a fanboy, despite the fact that all I stated was the claims both sides are making, without expressing any opinion on which I found to be true.

Cute.

quote:
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."


So hang on - what should they have done then?

Consider Samsung goes to Apple and offers them the license for $200 per phone. What would you have Apple do, in that situation? You say they're not allowed to not like that price? So they have to pay it? Or do you think Apple is responsible for taking Samsung to court, delaying their products by potentially a year? Because actually that responsibility lies with Samsung.

quote:
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"?


And they would argue that they wouldn't have had to go 'years, literally years' without paying had Samsung offered fair and reasonable rates. Samsung is still owed the license money plus any damages for late payment. That isn't an abuse of FRAND, by either side - that's a disagreement over rates which is settled in court (which, guess what, does take time). What IS abuse of FRAND, however, is Samsung's choice to seek bans over the products over said FRAND patents, which clearly goes against the spirit of FRAND patents and will likely land Samsung in trouble.

quote:
I'm sure from Samsung's point of view, their offer was perfectly reasonable. From Apple's point of view, "reasonable" clearly means "free".


Which is why I haven't offered any view on which was reasonable or not (unlike YOU). I simply stated that effectively both sides disagreed on what was reasonable. It's certainly the case that Apple wasn't expecting 'free' - apart from those devices in which the technology had already been licensed to Qualcomm - which Samsung lost all of their claims on. Whatever the reality and whoever was being more reasonable, the fact is there was a disagreement over the rates and so the court system decides the amount. That doesn't give Samsung the right to seek complete bans of the products - and as I said I suspect the injunction will not be upheld and Samsung may be under investigation.

What's certain is that Apple will not be under investigation for any kind of FRAND abuse.


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
quote:
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.

quote:
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
quote:
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.

quote:
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.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki