backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by jbwhite99.. on Nov 27 at 8:50 AM

This patent is particularly important because it's the only one where Apple can collect money for lost revenue

Samsung wanted to re-examine a key patent in the most recent U.S. trial against Apple, but the judge says no. 
 
According to a new report from CNET, Samsung was denied an emergency motion to stay a patent infringement damages trial as it questioned the validity of one particular Apple patent. Judge Lucy Koh -- a United States District Judge for the Northern District of California -- is the one who denied the motion.
 
"If Samsung is truly concerned about efficiency, the court encourages Samsung to discuss with Apple an agreement to forgo post-trial motions so that the parties can expeditiously appeal this entire case to the Federal Circuit," wrote Koh in her decision. 
 
Samsung is concerned about Apple patent No. 7,844,915, which covers the "pinch to zoom" feature. This patent is particularly important because it's the only one where Apple can collect money for lost revenue. 
 
When Samsung filed the emergency motion Wednesday (the day before the Silicon Valley jury was to deliver a verdict), the company argued that the pinch to zoom patent might be deemed invalid by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and that reaching a verdict at that time could be too soon.
 
Apple wanted to press on, saying that a delay would waste time and money. 
 
The two tech giants have been warring over patents with one another for over two years now. It largely began in April 2011, when Apple called Samsung an iPhone and iPad copycat. From there, lawsuits have been flung back and forth all over the world. 
 
In August 2012, a California jury decided that Samsung infringed on several Apple patents and should have to pay $1.05 billion in damages. However, Judge Lucy Koh -- a United States District Judge for the Northern District of California -- said that sum might not have been calculated correctly. 
 
Koh later vacated $450 million of that award, and left Samsung with the remaining $600 million to pay. 
 
This most recent trial in Silicon Valley aimed to decide if Samsung should pay more or less of that $450 million that was vacated. Judge Koh called a meeting Wednesday to help the jury learn how to properly calculate the final sum. Now that the jury has decided that Samsung should pay $290 million, the South Korean electronics maker now owes Apple about $890 million total.

Source: CNET



Comments     Threshold


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

Of course...
By Motoman on 11/26/2013 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 4
...the pinch to zoom patent is invalid. As is every other patent that Apple has.

The shame that Apple has brought America...along with it's justice system and patent system...is staggering. We are well and truly the stupidest country in the world for having a patent system this f%cked up, for have a judiciary moronic enough to play along with it, and for having companies abusive enough to use it this way.

Screw them all.




RE: Of course...
By Tony Swash on 11/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Of course...
By mjv.theory on 11/26/2013 3:22:15 PM , Rating: 5
Apple may or may not have some valid patents, but none of them are software patents, because all software patents are invalid .


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Of course...
By protomech on 11/26/2013 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 4
Not sure what you're trying to say. That document shows that Apple was granted 1136 patents in 2012, up 68% from the number granted in 2011.


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 3:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind, read it wrong :o


RE: Of course...
By futrtrubl on 11/26/2013 4:32:19 PM , Rating: 4
Not too wrong, it means that they got over 1000 patents per year for only a single year (so far), not "every year" as he stated.


RE: Of course...
By karlostomy on 11/26/2013 7:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
If we dig a little further, the link also states that the 2012 number for apple is also 68% greater than it was for the 2011 year.

1136/1.68= 676

That means in 2011 Apple registered well UNDER 1000 patents in 2011.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting.


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 7:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a list that goes back to 1985, at least half of those they don't even register in the top 100.

http://www.ipo.org/index.php/publications/top-300-...


RE: Of course...
By BZDTemp on 11/26/2013 4:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what he was trying to say but with those 1136 patents Apple was #24 on the list which has IBM on top with around five and a half times as many patents granted.

Not sure how you could call someone being#24 a leader and that picture gets even clearer if you look at the years before, with Apple being up 68% at exactly what spot do you reckon they were in 2011 and the years before that? Right there goes the "for years" part with regards to Apple being a leader in tech.

Apple isn't close to being a leader in tech nor have they ever been. What they are is good at copying other peoples ides, packing them and selling them. It might make them great at business but a leader in tech - no way!


RE: Of course...
By Tony Swash on 11/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 6:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We've had Beavis and now Butt-Head has turned up
Yep, here you are...


RE: Of course...
By retrospooty on 11/26/2013 6:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with you there. Tony is Mr. Anderson. ;)

He has his head firmly involved in what he believes in (in Tony's case its obviously Apple) and he really doesn't "get" anything else that is going on in the world around him. It's all just a mystery.


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 6:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'd more liken you to dumb and dumber...


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 6:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
They do not get a 1000+ a year, you couldn't be anymore wrong if you tried. And you tell others to use their brains. How pathetic.

http://www.ipo.org/index.php/publications/top-300-...

Most of these they barely cracked 200 a year , in fact, it seems they finally cracked 1000 in 1 year for the first time in 2011... 2010 they almost hit 700.

This ought to be amusing to see how you spin your lies yet once again. Lol.


RE: Of course...
By Motoman on 11/26/2013 7:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously...why do you guys even bother replying to him?

Just let his dimwitted manifestos get rated down and leave it be.

Stop feeding the troll.


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 7:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well, sometimes the lies do need to be exposed. And this one is just a flat outright lie.


RE: Of course...
By Tony Swash on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 8:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
The actual point is, you claimed something which was a complete lie, and now trying to make yourself look like you didn't get caught lying. I don't spring to his defense you moron, I called you out on your trollish bullshit lie and proved you wrong like you are with most everything you write about your precious.


RE: Of course...
By tooltalk on 11/27/2013 6:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure where you are getting this idea that Apple is a tech leader.. 2012 was Apple's breakthrough year in terms of the total patent count -- the first time they got over 1000 patents in a year. Apple didn't break through the top 50 until a few year or so. Apple is not generally known for original tech innovation, even with the recent acquisitions like anobit, intrinisty, etc..


RE: Of course...
By jbwhite99 on 11/27/2013 8:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, guys, look who is #2 behind IBM? It is Samsung themselves! If Apple is considered a leader with 1100+ patents, look at Hon Hai Precision getting 1014 patents. For those who don't know, that is Foxconn's parent company. That makes Apple average to me, not great.

The trolls we need to stop feeding are the patent trolls. at one point, someone told me that IBM hada patent so that if you pressed enter and the cursor would go to the next line, that IBM had filed on that one.

Is the goal to improve profits or improve society? Apple chose the former.


RE: Of course...
By nikon133 on 11/26/2013 3:29:31 PM , Rating: 4
So that's basically 3 inventions (or at least innovations) every day in a year. Including weekends, public holidays.

And you don't see that as a flaw in patent system..?

From where I stand, it looks like the most important thing to obtain a patent is having enough money to pay the procedure... instead of uniqueness of invention itself.

My wife's university team was recently in processing of patenting a material (and technology of producing it) worldwide, and I have some idea regarding money needed for this; it is quite substantial. There is no way a single person, or even a group (without university or other strong backing) could do that on their own.

But for big pockets, main criteria is money, and then it's left to courts to establish if patent is sustainable or not. I'm wondering, in case court finds that specific patent is invalid because of prior art or what-so-ever, shouldn't patent office return you money - basically they sold you a dud?


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 3:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's flawed, because he is wrong. I posted a link, Apple as of 2012, had less than 1200 patents, they aren't even in the top 10 of the top 300 patent holders.


RE: Of course...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/26/2013 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Disregard, read that link incorrectly.


RE: Of course...
By mchentz on 11/26/2013 4:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
dammit I clicked the wrong button and now need to post. Yeah calling names is pointless in the internet.


RE: Of course...
By evo slevven on 11/26/2013 4:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
I am also sure you equally haven't reviewed them. One of the interesting things in the case against Samsung is that prior art models have been used focusing on works from Sony. Sony makes android phones as well, albeit not as popular. Additionally they've featured nearly all of the same features as Samsung. Why hasn't Sony been brought to court? Could it be the "minimalist design" patent would be invalidated as a result?

I actually think we should fix your comment but since you're a busy man I've been generous enough to fix it for you:
quote:

Apple has been a leading player in the patent troll tech industry for well over 5 years and has accumulated tens of thousands of patents and has some of these new patents invalidated every year.


Facts are the actuality of the events. Truth is our perception of those facts. What you may say is you're perception of those facts but some of those patents have indeed been invalidated and new ones continue to be invalidated. Shouldn't it be time Apple attempts to "innovate" instead of sue? Besides if their best innovation is a plastic iPhone, I think you're late to that party.


Sick of this BS
By Creamy Goodness on 11/26/2013 2:18:05 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe these big companies should pay some taxes if they want to tie up the courts with these stupid cases.




RE: Sick of this BS
By Motoman on 11/26/2013 2:21:12 PM , Rating: 3
The issue there isn't with the companies - it's with the tax law. All the companies who get fingers pointed at them for tax evasion are operating perfectly legally.

Fix the law.


RE: Sick of this BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/26/2013 2:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fix the law.


I agree. But probably not in the way you might think.

If we would stop trying to tax profits made oversees, we would encourage domestic investment.

By what right do I owe the Government taxes on profits I've made outside our border? By trying to be the whole world's tax collector, we've caused the opposite effect of what's intended.

A company is willing to invest oversees because it's cheaper than paying taxes here. Shouldn't that tell us something about our corporate tax rates?

And besides that, WHY does the Government need even more tax revenue again? Who is actually going to benefit from that? I think people are living in a fantasy land that if corporations paid more taxes, the tax burden will be lessened for everyone. If you believe that, I have a beachfront in Colorado I would love to show you.


RE: Sick of this BS
By Solandri on 11/26/2013 4:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is, I don't think people who want to tax companies up the wazoo have really thought it through.

- "Companies should pay their fair share of taxes."

- "No taxation without representation."

Now figure out a way to make those two statements coexist. The result certainly isn't what those most wanting to tax corporations think it is. You'd have to legitimize corporate influence in politics. (That's already the case, it's just not legitimized.)

The alternative, if you wish to excise all corporate influence from politics, is to eliminate all taxes on corporations. Either that, or one of those two statements is false (you can pick which one).

The kicker to it is - it doesn't matter where from the economy you extract the taxes. Only people generate productivity, so ultimately only the people pay all taxes. You can take it from them directly (income taxes), or indirectly (corporate taxes => lower incomes and higher prices). The net result is the same.


RE: Sick of this BS
By danbob999 on 11/26/2013 4:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
"No taxation without representation" is a principle that applies only to human beings. Just like the right to life.


RE: Sick of this BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sick of this BS
By inperfectdarkness on 11/27/2013 3:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
The explain why corporations pay less taxes and yet get more say in government affairs?


RE: Sick of this BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 7:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
Less than who? I assure you, that pay more than you or I. Corporate taxes are but one tax of many.


RE: Sick of this BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/26/13, Rating: -1
RE: Sick of this BS
By bdot on 11/26/2013 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Companies don't pay taxes people do. If a company pays more tax you pay more for their products.


RE: Sick of this BS
By 1prophet on 11/26/2013 5:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
companies/corporations are people according to the Supreme Court therefore they should be liable for taxes like any US citizen/resident for money made overseas.


Patent needs to be invalidated
By Solandri on 11/26/2013 3:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Patent needs to be invalidated
By amanojaku on 11/26/2013 4:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Pinch to zoom isn't even a valid patent. It's based on prior art, AND it's obvious.

Prior Art
Pinch to zoom is really just two mouse pointers

Obvious
The distance between the two pointers is calculated using Cartesian coordinates (learned in middle school!) and an action is performed based on the scale of movement (e.g. zoom in really close if the pinch width decreased 50%)


RE: Patent needs to be invalidated
By w8gaming on 11/26/2013 5:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
You know, the kicker of this patent is that Apple got this patent because it is the FIRST TIME someone applies it for capacitive touchscreen. With this concept actually you can own patents on a lot of prior arts items just by associating it with something no one has tried to associate it before. The patent office is basically granting patents left and right to today's patent trolls. Anyone can try your luck and turn prior arts such as "page flipping animation" into a valid patent.


By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 8:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
The REAL kicker is, this has been on touchscreens BEFORE Apple, keyword TOUCHSCREENS...

Just amazes me how some of you defend Apple like this... it's just pathetic.


America, America!
By Scootie on 11/26/2013 1:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
Live long in the land of the stupid!




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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