Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jury Finds Apple and Samsung Infringed Each Other's Patents

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the shouldn't-it-come-out-in-the-wash? dept.

Patents 49

An anonymous reader writes "A U.S. jury concluded Friday that Samsung had infringed on two of Apple's patents and that Apple had infringed on one of Samsung's patents. Prior to the trial, the judge had ruled that Samsung had infringed on one other Apple patent. Samsung will receive $158,400 in damages, although they had requested just over $6 million. Apple will receive $119.6 million in damages, although they had requested just over $2 billion and a ban on certain Samsung phones. Some say that a sales ban is unlikely to be approved by the judge. The jury is scheduled to return on Monday to resolve what appears to be a technical mistake in their verdict on one of the patents, and Apple may gain a few hundred thousand dollars in their damages award as a result."

cancel ×

49 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46906895)

Time for the Affordable Cellphone Act!!!

Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46906927)

Samsung will receive $158,400 in damages, although they had requested just over $6 million. Apple will receive $119.6 million in damages, although they had requested just over $2 billion [...]

Samsung demand a reasonable about and is granted peanuts. Apple make obscene demand and is granted smaller, but still obscene, amount. THE SYSTEM WORK!

Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907013)

Samsung will receive $158,400 in damages, although they had requested just over $6 million. Apple will receive $119.6 million in damages, although they had requested just over $2 billion [...]

Samsung demand a reasonable about and is granted peanuts. Apple make obscene demand and is granted smaller, but still obscene, amount. THE SYSTEM WORK!

your mother is a wild woman who cannot get enough cock

Apple vs Samsung (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907017)

Ah yes, jury of peers!

Apple: Wholesome innovating American company.

Samsung: Foreign named company made up of slanty eyed little people who steal ideas and technology from wholesome innovating American company. Besides they have that crazy little fat leader and they send missiles over our allies! Huh? North and South Korea - that's like North and South Carolina. It's the same country!

Re:Apple vs Samsung (1)

Renozuken (3499899) | about 5 months ago | (#46907045)

You know for a fact everyone on that jury thinks Samsung is a Japanese company.

Re:Apple vs Samsung (2)

IQzeroIThero (978481) | about 5 months ago | (#46907125)

You think if Samsung do the gangnam style, the jury will realize their mistake and overturn the verdict ?

Re:Apple vs Samsung - no chance (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907175)

What the mods failed to see with the GP is that the American jury is going to have some prejudices against the foreign company - especially an Asian one.

All in all, Apple has this great reputation in the US, it's considered to be the poster boy for innovation and how USA is still #1!

Most Americans have the view that Asian companies do nothing but copy American companies' products, cheapen it, and sell it for less; while costing the jobs of red blooded Americans.

Rule based on law? Ah, the subconscious is an amazing thing. Dan Ariely [google.com] , Daniel Kahneman [google.com] and other Behavioral economists have quite a bit of data on how we humans are anything but rational and our decisions are mostly made unconsciously.

Samsung had no chance.

Re:Apple vs Samsung - no chance (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#46907431)

do people still think that these days? I mean when it comes to electronics I thought we ceded to the asians years ago. what do we have anymore? sharp??

Re:Apple vs Samsung - no chance (1)

narcc (412956) | about 5 months ago | (#46907745)

do people still think that these days?

Yes, they do.

Re:Apple vs Samsung - no chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46908207)

Most Americans? That's pretty much proven false by the sales figures, eh?

Re:Apple vs Samsung (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 4 months ago | (#46932243)

Ahh, love the "enlightened" Slashdot poster.

Jury doesn't agree with my [biased, uninformed] views of the legal system; they are RACISTS.

Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand! (2)

Grand Facade (35180) | about 5 months ago | (#46908447)

Yeah more laws is what we need.

Just think of how we got to where we are....

who wins? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46906915)

Totally worth it. (For the lawyers making baaaaaaaaank)

Soon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46906929)

In the not so far future, Korean jury rule that Apple and Samsung infringed on each othe patent, award $5 to apple and $100 millions to Samsung.

Re:Samsung lost the case in Korea (3, Informative)

Flytrap (939609) | about 5 months ago | (#46908559)

I think that scenario has already played out before a South Korean court.

The summary from the Wall Street Journal:
The Seoul Central District Court rejected all of Samsung's claims against Apple, including a request to pay 100 million won (about US$95,000) in damages. It noted that the two patents are invalid because they can be easily developed using existing technologies.

You can read about it here: http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com]

In 2012, a Korean court had found that Apple did infringe on 2 standards essential Samsung patents. This is what got Samsung into trouble with the European Union regulators, because you cannot volunteer your technology to become part of a standard and then later hold the industry (or competitors in the industry) to ransom by selectively refusing to license that technology on FRAND terms - this is the same reason that Obama overturned the iPhone ban, by the way.

Re:Samsung lost the case in Korea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46909173)

you believe everything on the Wall Street Journal, don't you?

Apple Refusing To Pay (3, Informative)

meehawl (73285) | about 5 months ago | (#46910219)

you cannot volunteer your technology to become part of a standard and then later hold the industry (or competitors in the industry) to ransom by selectively refusing to license that technology on FRAND terms

You're got it backwards. It's Samsung that has "essential" patents and demanding payment but it's Apple that's refusing to pay anything for them [mwe.com] . So ironically, thanks to the US's obvious native-company favouritism, a company with essential patents (like Samsung's) can't get money or redress [radiofreemobile.com] , while a company with trivial, obvious patents (like Apple with rounded corners, hyperlinks, search bars, etc) can sue, and sue, and sue, and sue till the sun dies. Basically, Apple gets to pirate Samsung's essential patents in the US [news.idg.no] , thanks to govt protectionism.

Apple wants a royalty rate of $24 per unit from Samsung for its alleged use of Apple's design patent, the notorious tablet shape with rounded corners ... when Samsung asked Apple for a much lower amount per unit that everybody else in the market pays for Samsung's standards patents, Apple refused, offered no counter-offer, and sued instead. To date, it's paid nothing at all for those patents or for the other regular patents Samsung is accusing Apple of infringing. In its trial brief, Apple states in one header: [groklaw.net]
        To The Extent That Samsung Is Entitled To Any Remedy, its FRAND Damages Cannot Exceed $0.0049 Per Unit for Each Infringed Patent
        Less than a penny should be Samsung's lot for patents that are essential to even be in the mobile phone business, but Apple wants Samsung to pay $24 for rounded corners, plus from $2.02 and up to $3.10 per unit for its utility patents.

Re:Apple Refusing To Pay (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 5 months ago | (#46915135)

you cannot volunteer your technology to become part of a standard and then later hold the industry (or competitors in the industry) to ransom by selectively refusing to license that technology on FRAND terms

You're got it backwards. It's Samsung that has "essential" patents and demanding payment but it's Apple that's refusing to pay anything for them [mwe.com]

Yawn. That ITC decision was invalidated - because it was bullshit. And everybody defending Samsung's practice to unilateral revocation of a licensing agreement for SEPs to a chipmaker if the chips are sold to Apple is a patent troll just like Samsung, only of a different kind.

Re:Apple Refusing To Pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46927705)

Apple is a patent troll

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRMe harties Immmmmmmmm me Steeeeeeeeeeevieeeeeeee Jobs off the piiiirrrraaattteeee ship AAAAAAApppeeeeell and weeeee'rrrrrr gunnnaaaaaaaaaa take Ye PLUUUNNNNNNNNDDDEEEERRR from yerrrrrr source code and Ye are miIIIIIIIIiiiinnnnnnnneeeeee ta make with wOt we wIlllll RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

A method for. (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 5 months ago | (#46907071)

1. A method for doing stuff on a thing. Actually it's a modern patent, so the mere idea of using a thing to do stuff without bothering to elucidate the useful information which is how.

2. The claim of (1) but like on a computer.

3. The claim of (2) but like totally using the internet.

4. The claim of (3) but like on a device but with a means of communication.

5. The claim of (4) where the device is also portable.

6. yeah and battery powered too.

7. and uses like a radio.

8. like 7 but may or may not do voice communication.

9. like any of the above with with a touch screen.

10. The claim of (9) whereby the touch screen represents physical elements

11. And the claim of 11 where it doesn't,

12. ooh and maybe rounded corners too.

13. The claim of (1) but this one is so obtusely worded that if you manage to read it correctly (and we're pretty sure neither the judge, patent examininers or jury will) we atually managed to patent the idea of using buttons on a portable device so lolz to you.

Sure I'm cynical, but whenever I see a patent in my area of speciality it's either the vague idea of doing something that people have been trying to do unsucessfully for ages, a totally obvious aggregation of two things that really is obvious to anyone in the field who happens to have that problem and of course, completely not novel in any way at all and has simply been done before in its entirety.

Not to say all patents are bad, but it's the woeful 99.9% giving the remaining .1% a bad name.

Re:A method for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46908161)

If it was totally obvious and nobody had done it before as described in all of the claims in combination, why wasn't it patented already?

Re:A method for. (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 5 months ago | (#46908631)

If it was totally obvious and nobody had done it before as described in all of the claims in combination, why wasn't it patented already?

Fusion is totally obvious, and no one has done it before as a viable means of controlled energy production. When this is accomplished, it probably will be patented.

Re:A method for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46908687)

The method is the patent. People here don't seem to understand that.
 
I guess it's no different than most scientific papers that are reported on here. While the headline about what are potentially the result may seem obvious it's highly unlikely that the headline applies to hypothesis being tested. What is really obvious, for as "Science!" as this place comes off, is that few here can read a full paper and really appreciate what was tested. Just like in IP topics here... there's such a high percentage of users who obviously don't understand the conceptual differences between trademark, copyright, patents and trade secrets but those bitches still flap their gums.

Re:A method for. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 5 months ago | (#46909485)

When this is accomplished, it probably will be patented.

The method for fusion may be patented. Actually some very specific ideas about some bits of the method may be patented. the general idea of fusion won't be.

If it was computing, however, they'd have patented:

(1) the concept of fusion
(2) the claim of 1 whereby it is used to generate heat or other types of energy
(3) The claim of 2 whereby the energy is used to raise steam and drive a turbine to generate electricity, or the energy is used to generate electricity by some other means or is used as a source of heat or mechanical energy.

No one's put those things together, despite the idea being completely obvious, the problem of course being the controlled fusion step. Once that's solved, the rest is completely obvious.

Re:A method for. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 5 months ago | (#46911473)

Never forget "rounded corners" on the reactor, that has got to be worth at least 10% of all the income generated by reactor.

Re:A method for. (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 5 months ago | (#46914383)

My point, apparently implied but not stated explicitly enough was that "fusion" itself would be patented, not just the specific means of implementation.

Re:A method for. (2)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#46909061)

Because it was so obvious, everyone (or almost everyone) thought it was sure to be rejected by the USPTO so they didn't bother trying. I mean seriously, searching the device and the web at the same time? That's something you do any time you look for something. Yes you do it sequentially (because there's only one of you), but so does the computer. It just does it sequentially a whole lot faster so it appears to be simultaneously.

Re:A method for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46914337)

Not to say all patents are bad, but it's the woeful 99.9% giving the remaining .1% a bad name.

The patent system exists in its current form as a result of ethical conflicts of interest involving the patent office and the legal profession. In its current form, it creates a huge amount of business for the legal profession while doing tremendous harm to society. This is obvious to any unbiased observer who studies the issues.

Ethics in law and in government are huge problems in the USA now. There have always been problems, but they're far worse now than ever before (despite an ongoing movement towards improving ethics in government at the local level in many parts of the country). We need to fix the ethics problems in law first, since otherwise we'll never be able to fix the ethics problems in government.

The jury should have stated that, due to ethics problems with the patent system, they were unwilling to enforce any patents. That would have been consistent with their oaths to uphold the law, since the right to ethical practice of law and ethical government arises under the 9th Amendment, and thus the current patent system violates the Bill of Rights.

Rights retained by the people being retained by the people, it would have been entirely appropriate for the jury to take this action. If they people do not act against (or at least speak against) the government and the legal profession when they are violating rights retained by the people, then who will do so? Certainly neither the government nor the legal profession can be trusted to do so. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Instead, the members of the jury are now unwitting (and probably clueless) accessories to the enforcement of an illegal law.

Of course, none of the legal professionals involved would have told them this was an option.

The current situation has parallels to the slavery era, and the segregation era. In both cases, the legal profession knew perfectly well that it was involved in the enforcement of unethical and immoral laws, but choose to do nothing to correct the situation. Worse yet, they accepted money to participate in the enforcement of wrongful laws.

The jury, in this case, has acted much like a jury might have acted during the segregation days in deciding that it was ok to throw an Arfican-American woman in jail for sitting on the wrong section of the bus. In both cases, the jury is just as guilty of wrongful conduct as the government officials and the legal professionals involved in enforcing an illegal law.

Which patents? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 5 months ago | (#46907149)

I would have thought the "Look and Feel" --type patent suits were dead and buried after Microsoft won vs. Apple back in the Win3.1 days. I can't see how anyone would agree that, e.g., patenting the 'swipe-to-scroll' designs should be valid. So what the heck should be patentable? An Apple patent on a smart phone that doesn't have a microSD slot? (sarcasm). Voice-activation using a fake name (Siri) vs. a company name (Hi Samsung; OK Google)? Production of Gorilla glass I might understand being patentable, but any phone mfr could purchase that material (and I doubt any of these patent suits were related to anything so mundane and realistic as materials science). I just don't get it.

Re:Which patents? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 5 months ago | (#46907199)

I would have thought the "Look and Feel" --type patent suits were dead and buried after Microsoft won vs. Apple back in the Win3.1 days.

Nope. Microsoft skated on that because of a poorly-worded license contract that was intended to permit them to use Apple's UI ideas in their Mac products.

-jcr

The consumer gets screwed, as usual (4, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about 5 months ago | (#46907165)

Its us the consumer who ends up picking up the tab for the legal bills, and in the end we just find out what we all knew already, they all steal each others ideas. Thanks Apple.

Re:The consumer gets screwed, as usual (0)

jo_ham (604554) | about 5 months ago | (#46907433)

Its us the consumer who ends up picking up the tab for the legal bills, and in the end we just find out what we all knew already, they all steal each others ideas. Thanks Apple.

So you agree that Samsung ripped off the iPhone?

Brave comment on slashdot.

Re:The consumer gets screwed, as usual (3, Insightful)

Pascoea (968200) | about 5 months ago | (#46907505)

In a round-about way, yes, I believe he is saying that Samsung ripped off Apple. But in the same breath implied that Apple is stealing Samsung's shit. Which, as he said, everybody already knew that. So, in the end, they trade a shit ton of money, neither of them change what they are doing, and the price you and I pay for a smartphone goes up by 10c to subsidize the lawyers. Great system we have going.

Re:The consumer gets screwed, as usual (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about 5 months ago | (#46917263)

In a round-about way, yes, I believe he is saying that Samsung ripped off Apple. But in the same breath implied that Apple is stealing Samsung's shit. Which, as he said, everybody already knew that.

Funny how the "idea that Apple stole from Samsung" actually is from a patent Samsung didn't even buy before Apple violated it. Some true sign of Samsung innovation here, people.

Fuck Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907421)

I haven't been on SD in years and totally forgot about it due to my ass job at VZ, but still... FUCK APPLE. I'll never forgive Jobs for fucking over Woz at Atari.

Get a room already. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 months ago | (#46907427)

Apple and Samsung will eventually merge.

Re:Get a room already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907967)

There is absolutely no way that will ever happen. Not as long as they are both healthy companies. Honestly, I can't see Apple being bought out by Samsung ever, they aren't even in the same league. And I don't see Apple being interested in Samsung other than for their patent war chest. I'm not meaning to diss their offerings... they just don't control the full widget and they are competing in a very crowded space. There is nothing to stop the various Android makers from stepping up and cutting prices and having a race to the bottom on the Android platform. I would even suggest that this is extremely likely. This what happened with PCs, I don't see any reason why this won't happen to Android smartphones. They will likely become just another Dell. If you remember Dell dabbled with other electronic devices. Samsung is the Dell of the smartphone world, a lot of people like(d) Dell but competition and market saturation are really hard for companies that aren't truly innovative.

Perhaps more importantly they have totally different business philosophies. Samsung, is all about an iterative approach. One of their goals has been to just release as often as they can making marginal improvements. It has been working fine for them, legally it makes things easier for them too. Take for example the Samsung Gear, it is a total joke. I have not doubt that the next version will be better, but it will still probably suck. Probably in about four more versions and it will actually be good. If Apple does in fact make a wearable device, it will be significantly better. It will not be about throwing stuff out there and hoping for something to stick.

Re:Get a room already. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46910277)

If Apple does in fact make a wearable device, it will be significantly better. It will not be about throwing stuff out there and hoping for something to stick.

And that will be because Apple will have taken Samsung's refined ideas and then copy them.

Apple Fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907459)

Apple. Fuck It. Jobs.

Samsung Vs Apple fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907741)

Samsung fan: (they're always south east Asians and type in uppercase shouts)
WHY YOU FAC%. LOOK AT SPECS. PROCESSOR IS MORE AND DISPLAY AND RAM, SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY. APPLE U ARE CRAZY BRO????

Apple fanboy (always some deluded consumer with no cash)
Apple is amazing, the original. I can't wait tip next year to buy the next iPhone with my savings to do like I dunno apps, man, apps

Re:Samsung Vs Apple fanboys (-1, Troll)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#46908663)

Less closed-minded Samsung fan: (a lot of them are hobbyist developers)
Samsung, LG, Huawei, Motorola, HTC, take your pick. No matter the brand, Droid does what iDon't. Apple is all pay pay pay, secret secret secret, reject reject reject.

Impartial jury (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907747)

In other news, an impartial californian jury awarded damages to a californian company.

Re:Impartial jury (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 4 months ago | (#46932345)

Samsung could have motioned for a change of venue, if they were at all concerned by this.

Also: Voir Dire [wikipedia.org]

Apple's patents "click on a link" (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46907943)

The NY Times [nytimes.com] has a summary of the 6 patents involved.

They are:

  1. Click on an underlined phone number to dial the number
  2. Search your phone for stuff
  3. Do two tasks at one time
  4. Slide to unlock
  5. Compress data to minimize transmission time
  6. Put your photos into one location

Which of those 6 patents covers a non-obvious idea?

Re:Apple's patents "click on a link" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46908401)

Why does the USPTO require so many detailed pages of patent claims when everything can be clearly and simply judged by a four word summary? You should patent this innovation of yours, and your four word patent can be "Lossy compression via oversimplification"!

Is it still possible to make anything anymore? (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | about 5 months ago | (#46908471)

Or write code without violating some obscure patent or copyright?

re Apple vs Samsung (1)

freddieb (537771) | about 5 months ago | (#46909205)

I do not like these patent suits. I actually have a patent but made nothing on it as I worked for the government at the time. We patented the device I worked on so someone could not duplicate it and keep us from making it for our own use. Patents should have never been allow to descend to the level (software nuances ) of these disputes. If Samsung didn't actually steal the code, then how is it different than amd/intel disputes of the past?

Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46909579)

Samsung infringed on a couple of Apple's inventions.

Apple infringes on an invention Samsung bought for the case.

The award was so low, it is really irrelevant.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>