Apple and Samsung agree to drop all non-US patent lawsuits

[bearxor]

Pretty big news night for some reason.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-05/apple-samsung-agree-to-end-patent-suits-outside-u-s-.html

While the U.S. cases are ongoing, this is a pretty big step. I think the U.S. cases will still eventually be resolved with some sort of cross-license agreement and some sort of symbolic lump sum payment made to Apple by Samsung.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I think Apple's preparing to go after Xiaomi now

 

[openwheel]

I think Apple should stop being a patent troll and actually put some effort into innovation.

 

[dawheat]

I think Apple's preparing to go after Xiaomi now

Heh - they do seem proudly shameless about copying design.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I think Apple should stop being a patent troll and actually put some effort into innovation.

I don't often agree with you but on this point ...


Perhaps now that Apple is about to release a phablet and larger iPhone that are clearly hoping on the band wagon pioneered by Samsung they are inclined to call a halt to the patent trolling. They profited enormously in the court room by claiming Samsung copied Apples look and feel and now that Apple is preparing to release products that steel from Samsung's pioneering work they want to stave off a legal attack from Samsung.

Still, if Apple gets is right with a phablet and larger phone it should help spur the industry to improve a market that's been kind of stagnant for a while now.


Brian

 

[Commodus]

As much as folks might want to dream that this is Apple learning the 'error' of its ways, it's more likely that both sides are tired of fighting. Cook isn't as overly protective as Jobs was and has already taken steps to end earlier disputes, while Samsung is likely tired of losing most of its cases (besides the US defeats, some of its countersuits are considered illegal under EU law).

Besides, what exactly would Apple be "stealing?" A bigger screen isn't a patentable idea.

 

[Brian Stirling]

As much as folks might want to dream that this is Apple learning the 'error' of its ways, it's more likely that both sides are tired of fighting. Cook isn't as overly protective as Jobs was and has already taken steps to end earlier disputes, while Samsung is likely tired of losing most of its cases (besides the US defeats, some of its countersuits are considered illegal under EU law).

Besides, what exactly would Apple be "stealing?" A bigger screen isn't a patentable idea.

Hey, if Apple can attempt to patent a rounded rectangle, and they did, and if they go after others for merely looking somewhat like there product, and they have, it's not hard to see how Apple might feel they could be the victims of there own game.


Brian

 

[soccerballtux]

that's because the US is one of the few countries with halfway sane patent laws

 

[Commodus]

Hey, if Apple can attempt to patent a rounded rectangle, and they did, and if they go after others for merely looking somewhat like there product, and they have, it's not hard to see how Apple might feel they could be the victims of there own game.

Brian

Ah, I think this is misinterpreting how patenting works.

First: Apple didn't *just* patent round corners. Design patents (including the one in question) usually include multiple elements that, together, make a more convincing case. If Apple had only said "we own the rights to round corners," the patent would've been tossed out. Also, don't forget that Apple's main US case against Samsung involved trade dress, not just patents, and that's part of why Apple won; all you had to do was see an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy S side-by-side, and it was obvious that Samsung was copying.

And I doubt Apple's losing sleep over what might happen if it releases bigger phones. Besides the non-patentable nature of a larger screen, Samsung hasn't actually had much of anything to level against Apple that could stick in court. To my knowledge, virtually all of its countersuits were based on standards-based wireless patents that require negotiations before you sue. Since those suits have been defeated, Samsung doesn't really have other weapons in its legal arsenal.

 

[Mopetar]

I think Apple's preparing to go after Xiaomi now

I don't think Xiaomi sells outside of China so there isn't much of a point. T

Hey, if Apple can attempt to patent a rounded rectangle, and they did . . .

Every time this misunderstanding regarding design patents is posted on a tech forum, god kills a kitten.

that's because the US is one of the few countries with halfway sane patent laws

That and a lot of the lawsuits in other countries are stuck in lengthy appeals processes and none of them matter any more as the devices in question aren't being sold anymore so there isn't much of a point of fighting over a sales ban.

 

[QueBert]

I think Apple should stop being a patent troll and actually put some effort into innovation.

Yeah, they should be more like Samsun....

I mean the Note 4's coming soon I bet its screen will be .1" bigger than 3 and be 1mm thinner. Nobody innovates like Samsung.

Which reminds me, my Roomie has a Samsung tablet that uses a connector that looks 99% like like my iPhone 4 one. This is like the 1st example of copying a cable I've ever seen. It's bizarre

 

[Brian Stirling]

Ah, I think this is misinterpreting how patenting works.

First: Apple didn't *just* patent round corners. Design patents (including the one in question) usually include multiple elements that, together, make a more convincing case. If Apple had only said "we own the rights to round corners," the patent would've been tossed out. Also, don't forget that Apple's main US case against Samsung involved trade dress, not just patents, and that's part of why Apple won; all you had to do was see an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy S side-by-side, and it was obvious that Samsung was copying.

And I doubt Apple's losing sleep over what might happen if it releases bigger phones. Besides the non-patentable nature of a larger screen, Samsung hasn't actually had much of anything to level against Apple that could stick in court. To my knowledge, virtually all of its countersuits were based on standards-based wireless patents that require negotiations before you sue. Since those suits have been defeated, Samsung doesn't really have other weapons in its legal arsenal.

Of course Apples patent application for rounded rectangles had some other details in it. How many patents in mobile that have been granted to Apple have come from there first application? Answer, almost none! They apply for a very broad patent, get turned down, then re apply with tweaks, repeat until granted.

The appoligistists for patent trolls on a tech website kills a litter of kittens!


Brian

 

[Zaap]

Yeah, they should be more like Samsun....

I mean the Note 4's coming soon I bet its screen will be .1" bigger than 3 and be 1mm thinner. Nobody innovates like Samsung.

Apple is a real screen size innovator. So much choice. So many models, no one can keep up. *chuckle* And I love that I can get a large Apple phone with a built in wacom digitizer. *chuckle*

Which reminds me, my Roomie has a Samsung tablet that uses a connector that looks 99% like like my iPhone 4 one. This is like the 1st example of copying a cable I've ever seen. It's bizarre

Samsung's current tablets use standard mUSB 3 connectors.

 

[bearxor]

Well this escalated quickly.

 

[Mopetar]

Of course Apples patent application for rounded rectangles had some other details in it.

It's a design patent. It's a completely different thing. Here's a design patent for a Coke bottle. Are you going to claim that Coca Cola owns all bottles or the use of grooves?

The appoligistists for patent trolls on a tech website kills a litter of kittens!

First of all, the patent troll designation is typically used to refer to non-practicing entities. Otherwise you might as well call anyone who has a patent dispute a troll, in which case the designation becomes meaningless, otherwise it requires a subjective analysis of whether or not an infringement claim is valid, which is essentially useless.

Second, you're still misrepresenting and misunderstanding the issue. Design patents are completely different from utility patents. It's a bit like telling someone that you made a bow and they think you've made a ribbon when what you've got is a piece of equipment for archery.

 

[mirageracerx]

The appoligistists for patent trolls on a tech website kills a litter of kittens!
Brian

Im with Brian. you have the blood of kittens on your hands. :thumbsdown:

 

[Commodus]

Of course Apples patent application for rounded rectangles had some other details in it. How many patents in mobile that have been granted to Apple have come from there first application? Answer, almost none! They apply for a very broad patent, get turned down, then re apply with tweaks, repeat until granted.

The appoligistists for patent trolls on a tech website kills a litter of kittens!


Brian

Once again, you genuinely don't understand the patent or the patent system. It's not apologizing, it's called "knowing how the damn thing works."

I've seen many patents (including Apple's) pass through the USPTO. For one thing, in a design patent like the one we're talking about, you cannot simply submit one aspect of it and call it a day. You provide reasonably authentic design sketches and describe them in detail. Apple has quite a few such patents, and the ones I've seen were clearly accepted on the first filing.

Should this one have been granted? Not necessarily, and I'd rather that Apple not have dipped into patent lawsuits at all. But the problem is that Samsung made it very easy for Apple to point to similarities. Besides, it's hard to defend Samsung when it has a history of copying others' ideas (flat-panel tech from Pioneer and Sharp, the BlackJack and so forth) and has repeatedly been found guilty of patent infringement, price fixing, obstruction of justice and bribery. For goodness' sake, it's on the record that Google warned Samsung about how much it was copying Apple.

You can still like Samsung gear by all means, especially now that it's more original, but you don't have to portray it as an innocent dove being slaughtered by mean ol' Apple. The truth in situations like these is always more complicated.

 

[Zaap]

Yeah, yeah. We've been all through this a million times.

Let's all pretend Jobs didn't declare "Thermonuclear war" on Android. Let's all pretend Apple didn't file plenty of frivolous patent suits, try to ban its competition rather than compete, and have several of its more ridiculous suits thrown out.

 

[Commodus]

Yeah, yeah. We've been all through this a million times.

Let's all pretend Jobs didn't declare "Thermonuclear war" on Android. Let's all pretend Apple didn't file plenty of frivolous patent suits, try to ban its competition rather than compete, and have several of its more ridiculous suits thrown out.

Didn't say that! It was clear that Apple went overboard with lawsuits, spurred in large part by Jobs' overprotectiveness. The problem is that myths have developed in the diehard Android crowd of what Apple sued over, its track record in court, the legitimacy of its claims and the ethics of the companies it sued.

Take what you've just said, for example: one common myth is that Apple lost most of its cases. To date, Apple has had more success than Samsung in lawsuits. It definitely lost some, but it's the only one to have had any suits really, truly stick. Again, it's partly because of the nature of the claims; Apple was using patents for non-standard technology and had a virtually surefire trade dress case in the US. Samsung, meanwhile, was suing over 3G/WiFi standards patents that are bound by strict guidelines (fair negotiations, lawsuits only as a last resort) that it violated. Neither Apple nor Samsung was saintly, but Apple had a far firmer legal grounding.

 

[Zaap]

Apple has had more success than Samsung in lawsuits.

It's just bizarre that this is your take away as what's actually important out of all this.

This is why Brian's comment is so spot-on- it's a tech site, and we have people cheering on a company that's "had more success suing people- YAY!" rather than worrying about who's actually better at tech innovations.

I don't even understand that line of thinking.

Samsung hasn't been a big a "success" at suing people? GOOD! Maybe that's why they develop more, better and much more useful devices than "rest on your laurels, release something new every-now-and-then, and sue just everyone else instead of compete" Apple.

As has been said, maybe Apple will finally drop that approach, and put more effort into competing. I care about that far more than their tally of frivolous lawsuits because I care more about tech innovations than silly cheerleading for a team.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Once again, you genuinely don't understand the patent or the patent system. It's not apologizing, it's called "knowing how the damn thing works."

I've seen many patents (including Apple's) pass through the USPTO. For one thing, in a design patent like the one we're talking about, you cannot simply submit one aspect of it and call it a day. You provide reasonably authentic design sketches and describe them in detail. Apple has quite a few such patents, and the ones I've seen were clearly accepted on the first filing.

Should this one have been granted? Not necessarily, and I'd rather that Apple not have dipped into patent lawsuits at all. But the problem is that Samsung made it very easy for Apple to point to similarities. Besides, it's hard to defend Samsung when it has a history of copying others' ideas (flat-panel tech from Pioneer and Sharp, the BlackJack and so forth) and has repeatedly been found guilty of patent infringement, price fixing, obstruction of justice and bribery. For goodness' sake, it's on the record that Google warned Samsung about how much it was copying Apple.

You can still like Samsung gear by all means, especially now that it's more original, but you don't have to portray it as an innocent dove being slaughtered by mean ol' Apple. The truth in situations like these is always more complicated.

Please, go patronize someone else thank you very much!

Apple has applied for a gazillion patents and often file and refile and refile and refile until they wear them down.

And this is not like the Coke bottle as rounded rectangle have been around, and in use in handheld devices for, well forever! They can add a nuance here or there to finally get the patent approved but there goal remains the same -- deny anyone else the use of ages old forms and claim ownership of it.

They went after a small, read that small, Spanish company that was making tablets that looked not one bit like the iPad and they lost in court as they no doubt expected to but the point wasn't about winning or losing THAT case it was sending a message to other little guys that in addition to all the other risks one takes in business bringing a product to market Apple was going to make sure they better prepare to be ass raped in court whether they win or lose.

Hopefully Apple will evolve away from the litigation shitstorm that Jobs unleashed but they've done pretty well in court so we'll see...

Oh, and I have no love afair with Samsung though Sammy has been more innovative in the last 5 years than Apple has -- and by a long mile. So much so it now appears that Apple will be following where Sammy pioneered 4 years ago.


Brian

 

[KK]

I hear samsung is going to buyout Apple.

 

[senseamp]

I think Apple figured out that the genie is out of the bottle, and taking down Samsung won't put it back in.

 

[Bateluer]

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #76: Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

 

[Mopetar]

Apple has applied for a gazillion patents and often file and refile and refile and refile until they wear them down.

And other companies don't do this? Also, that's usually the case with utility patents. Design patents aren't typically refiled as they simply depict what the object in question looks like. If you look at the design patent for the iPhone it references dozens of other design patents for phones, portable music players, and other similar devices from about as many different companies.

And this is not like the Coke bottle as rounded rectangle have been around, and in use in handheld devices for, well forever!

Bottles have been around for a long time as well. Also, it's not just rounded rectangles as that's but a single part of the design. You may as well focus on the opening of the bottle and claim that Coke was trying to patent a circular opening as it was part of the design. Focusing on any single aspect is missing the forest for the trees when it's the forest that matters.

Hopefully Apple will evolve away from the litigation shitstorm that Jobs unleashed but they've done pretty well in court so we'll see...

Honestly I don't think they've been that successful. They really only won one major case and that's still under appeal and the amount of money is laughable for both companies. The ITC bans typically don't matter as by the time the ruling comes in the devices are so old that they won't sell much any more. Almost all of the utility patents stopped mattering as competitors have come up with alternative designs to get around them and Samsung's phones haven't looked remotely like an iPhone for several generations now.