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

[mikeymikec]

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

Until next time.

 

[Brian Stirling]

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.



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.



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.

My point is that Apple has spent way too much of its efforts in trying to prevent others from doing business in the same space instead of actually bringing new and innovative products to market. They've abused the patent system in a vain hope that they could deny to all others the right to exist in this space and, as you correctly point out, they haven't actually been all that successful at stopping others from playing. That is other BIG players, the little guys have largely decided the fight isn't worth it and there's no telling what we're missing out on because of it.

Still, for all there litigiousness, they've had very little success at stopping the likes of Samsung though the judgments have lines there pockets to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.


Brian

 

[Commodus]

Until next time.

No, not until next time (at least, that I can tell). The rash of lawsuits came largely because of Jobs' protectiveness. He actually told Eric Schmidt that it wasn't about the money, and suggested that he had no qualms spending billions of dollars if it meant that Google, Samsung and the like would stop copying Apple. Cook is more level-headed; he was the one advising Jobs against suing, and he has both prevented further suits and negotiated settlements (in Apple's favour, but still).

The only situations in which I could see Apple suing again is in cases in which it's obvious that a competitor was copying, like the original Galaxy S (and to a lesser extent, the Galaxy Tab 10.1). But general design traits and software elements? Not really.

 

[Zaap]

That is other BIG players, the little guys have largely decided the fight isn't worth it and there's no telling what we're missing out on because of it.

This is the biggest thing I disklike about Apple's bullying in the mobile market. People forget they sued HTC, Nokia, and Motorola. They sent a message to smaller companies without armies of lawyers "don't even try" or get sued out of existence. The end result was that pretty much only giants like Samsung that could weather lenghthy court battles could compete in mobile. So who knows what the market is missing because of the sue-happy atmosphere Apple created just to protect its lousy little output, rahter than have to compete like everyone else. Now consumer choice is likely much more limited than it otherwise might have been.

But hey, we're supposed to celebrate that possibility on a tech site because "yay team!" and because of the great fun of waiting years for a new iPhone design still being other than suicidal, rather than months in a far more competitive market.

 

[cheezy321]

Only in bizarro apple-hater world are multi-national billion dollar corporations considered 'smaller companies'. They all have armies of lawyers and very deep pockets. Give me a break.

You want to know what is stopping innovation? The race to the bottom commoditization of the smartphone. When samsung forces everyone to compete on price all you get is the same exact phone.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Only in bizarro apple-hater world are multi-national billion dollar corporations considered 'smaller companies'. They all have armies of lawyers and very deep pockets. Give me a break.

You want to know what is stopping innovation? The race to the bottom commoditization of the smartphone. When samsung forces everyone to compete on price all you get is the same exact phone.

The point was that there are ONLY big players in the game because little guys have been warned to stay away. I mentioned the little Spanish company that Apple sued for copying the iPad and even though Apple lost that case the little Spanish company, and pretty much all the other little companies, have decided they'd better not risk it.

There are mid level companies like HTC that are hanging on by there fingernails and have been forced to pay M$ and Apple for the right to exist -- little guys can't afford the fight and have stayed away and we'll never know what innovation they could have brought to the table as they aren't in the game.


Brian

Personal attack removed, they are not tolerated in the tech forums.

Moderator TheStu

 

[Mopetar]

My point is that Apple has spent way too much of its efforts in trying to prevent others from doing business in the same space instead of actually bringing new and innovative products to market.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that it assumes that it's easy to create something innovative, and as an aside that it will sell well once it's released, which isn't always true (e.g. the Newton). The second is that there's not much incentive to be the one to do all of the innovating if everyone else can heavily or outright copy it.

Also, in terms of design patents, there really isn't anything innovative about any of them. They might be new, fresh, or unique, but I wouldn't call them innovative. Perhaps a small number of designs could fit into that category where they go on to influence all manner of other designs for decades to come, but I don't know if I would put many phone designs in there. The Motorola MicroTAC/StarTAC seems far more iconic.

They've abused the patent system in a vain hope that they could deny to all others the right to exist in this space and

That's a subjective analysis of their litigation and they would say they're using the system as it was intended to keep others from infringing on their work. That they've won a few cases would suggest that it's hardly as meritless as you seem to imply.

I think it's also that kind of subjective view that leads someone to make sweeping generalizations about patented rounded corners.

This is the biggest thing I disklike about Apple's bullying in the mobile market. People forget they sued HTC, Nokia, and Motorola. They sent a message to smaller companies without armies of lawyers "don't even try" or get sued out of existence.

The funny thing is that both Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first.

Abridged History:

Nokia sues Apple
Apple counter-sues Nokia
Apple sues HTC
HTC counter-sues Apple
Motorola sues Apple
Apple counter-sues Motorola
Apple sues Samsung (For trade dress, trademark, and design patents in addition to utility patents)
Samsung counter-sues Apple

There a whole bunch of other suits in there as well, including several from Microsoft as well as Nokia suits against HTC and other companies.

That's hardly the start of it either as the were lawsuits related to phones long before the recent issues started. RIM previously sued both Motorola and Samsung. The Samsung one is especially funny in that it's quite similar to the later Apple suits because Samsung was making a phone called the BlackJack.

It's hardly unique to the tech industry either. The major car companies sue each other all the time. Ford recently threatened to sue Tesla over the name of vehicle. LG has sued Samsung several other companies over display technology for TVs and computer screens. LG has also sued several companies (and won) over patents related to washing machines.

There probably isn't much you could buy without doing business with some company that has sued a competitor over patents at one point or another.

 

[bearxor]

It's hardly unique to the tech industry either. The major car companies sue each other all the time. Ford recently threatened to sue Tesla over the name of vehicle. LG has sued Samsung several other companies over display technology for TVs and computer screens. LG has also sued several companies (and won) over patents related to washing machines.

There probably isn't much you could buy without doing business with some company that has sued a competitor over patents at one point or another.

This is, I think the thing most people are just glossing over. What's happening is how the process works. It's how it's worked for decades. Does that necessarily mean that it's correct or the best method? No, not really. But until the rules change, you have to play by the rules.

Also, I'm sick and tired of the word innovation being thrown around like a Korean bar girl. Just thinking about the phone industry, I've not seen anything innovative since June 2007. And that's why I'd probably disagree with your statement here:

in terms of design patents, there really isn't anything innovative about any of them. They might be new, fresh, or unique, but I wouldn't call them innovative. Perhaps a small number of designs could fit into that category where they go on to influence all manner of other designs for decades to come, but I don't know if I would put many phone designs in there.

The iPhone design is iconic. It set the stage for mobile devices as we know it for the next decade at least. Just like the StarTAC set the design language for clamshell phones for a decade.

 

[cheezy321]

Dont bring logic into this. Apple is the evil gigantic corporation that sues everyone out of existence due to SHAPES. You are a big stupid idiot shill if you think Apple is anything but this.

Every time I go to this forum I am reminded that Samsung pays internet shills to go on forums like these and blast their competitors. Too many members on this specific sub-forum fit that bill perfectly. The most ridiculous arguments are made and then others come in and back it up.

Are we really still talking about rounded corners? Its pathetic.

 

[Mopetar]

The iPhone design is iconic. It set the stage for mobile devices as we know it for the next decade at least. Just like the StarTAC set the design language for clamshell phones for a decade.

I think that the overall approach (no keyboard, almost entirely touch interface, real web-browser, etc.) to the device was far more important to shaping the direction of phones than anything else.

That and I don't think the iPhone really hit its iconic design until the 4, which was leaps and bounds above the original in terms of what I think looks good, but I'm willing to admit that it's personal preference. However, it's a design that they've largely kept and refined and I don't see that changing anytime soon. It's the probably the design that most people think of when they think of an iPhone.

 

[bearxor]

I think that the overall approach (no keyboard, almost entirely touch interface, real web-browser, etc.) to the device was far more important to shaping the direction of phones than anything else.

That and I don't think the iPhone really hit its iconic design until the 4, which was leaps and bounds above the original in terms of what I think looks good, but I'm willing to admit that it's personal preference. However, it's a design that they've largely kept and refined and I don't see that changing anytime soon. It's the probably the design that most people think of when they think of an iPhone.

I will agree that the iPhone 4 was the pinnacle of the iPhone design, up to this point, at least, but that it is the result of three generations of iterative design based off the iPhone OG.

I still don't see anything wrong with the iPhone 4/4S design for me. It was a good thickness. The glass backing gave a wonderful opportunity for RF transparency. The antenna band design was nice.

I think the iPhone 5/5S design are a major step backwards in the design. Too thin, too fragile. The glass windows for RF on the rear are annoying as fuck. The camera position offset on the glass window annoys me. The move of the headphone jack to the bottom is still a weird one for me, but I don't think that's changing anytime soon and it's definitely disappearing in a couple of years. The drilled holes in the bottom for speaker and mic access look ugly compared to the mesh inserts on the 4/4S. Honestly, I think the 5C design is better than the 5/5S design.

If the 6 changes the back so that the glass windows are gone in favor of antenna bands, I'd be more on board with that. But the 6 is probably going to be EVEN THINNER than the 5S. Do we REALLY need a 6mm thin phone?

 

[openwheel]

Oh God, cheezy321 has found another thread to spread his usual agenda.

Are people really denying that Apple has been a patent troll? Even Steve Jobs is laughing at them.

 

[Mopetar]

If the 6 changes the back so that the glass windows are gone in favor of antenna bands, I'd be more on board with that. But the 6 is probably going to be EVEN THINNER than the 5S. Do we REALLY need a 6mm thin phone?

For whatever reason they seem to be obsessed with making it as thin and light as possible. I with that they wouldn't worry about that as much and use the extra space to add in an even bigger battery. iOS already gets fairly good battery life, so using a bigger battery really go a long way towards solving the need for a replaceable battery.

Are people really denying that Apple has been a patent troll?

Patent trolls are typically non-practicing entities. Otherwise you might as well call every company that files a patent suit a troll. Given that Apple has won some of their cases it's rather difficult to claim that they were completely without merit.

 

[openwheel]

I don't think people care about technicalities. We don't agree with Apples antics enough to call Apple patent trolls. MKBHD calls Apple a patent troll, Washington Post calls Apple a patent troll.

I call my brother a retard because he does stupid thing, but he is technically quite smart. OJ Is technically not a murderer either...

 

[cheezy321]

Oh God, cheezy321 has found another thread to spread his usual agenda.

Are people really denying that Apple has been a patent troll? Even Steve Jobs is laughing at them.

Shill talk hit too close to home?

I haven't posted in this forum for months. I rarely go to AT at all these days. Yet I come back and its the same exact people, spewing the same exact crap. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

Are people still denying that Samsung has blatantly copied Apple? They haven't won one case of any significance against Apple. They constantly lose in court yet people still think they didn't do anything wrong? It must be some big conspiracy against Samsung. What a childish view of things. About as childish as claiming apple has a patent on rounded corners.

 

[bearxor]

I don't think people care about technicalities. We don't agree with Apples antics enough to call Apple patent trolls. MKBHD calls Apple a patent troll, Washington Post calls Apple a patent troll.

I call my brother a retard because he does stupid thing, but he is technically quite smart. OJ Is technically not a murderer either...

Just out of curiosity, since I don't know, does the Washington Post call Apple a patent troll, or does one or two people on the editorial board do it in their opinion pieces?

And what is MKBHD? I did a search and found some vlogger. Is that whom you're referring to? I've never heard of him I don't think.

 

[openwheel]

I am sure it was just one single writer with an opinion. MKBHD is perhaps the most viewed tech youtuber. He is quite good. He called a spade a spade.

 

[bearxor]

Ok, I watched a couple of his videos. I think I might have seen a couple in the past. I'm guessing we likely have extremely different opinions about his vlogging.

 

[Mopetar]

I don't think people care about technicalities. We don't agree with Apples antics enough to call Apple patent trolls. MKBHD calls Apple a patent troll, Washington Post calls Apple a patent troll.

That doesn't make their usage of the word correct. Some people like to call president Obama (or most any other political figure really) a terrorist or declare his actions treasonous. Just because they've latched on to a word with negative connotations and used it against a person they don't like doesn't make their usage correct.

Is it really so hard to say "I don't like Apple/Obama/whatever and I disagree with their/his/whatever actions" instead of resulting to throwing around words with negative connotations that aren't even being correctly used? It might win you some points with people who share your opinions, but it more than likely just turns off anyone who cares.

When someone says they don't like President Obama, I'm willing to at least consider their argument. When someone starts calling him a Muslim terrorist it's just going to lead to me and a lot of people tuning them out.

OJ Is technically not a murderer either...

No, he either is or he isn't, which is open to some degree of speculation as there's no direct witness that can prove or disprove that fact with complete certainty. Regardless of whether you believe he did it or not, he either did or didn't actually kill another person. What he isn't is a convicted murderer, however he was most certainly an accused murderer. If you wanted to argue technicality, you would have to make a case that he did, in fact, kill someone, but that it was manslaughter or an act of self-defense as there are legal definitions outside of the common usage of the word.

 

[openwheel]

Ok, I watched a couple of his videos. I think I might have seen a couple in the past. I'm guessing we likely have extremely different opinions about his vlogging.

That's too bad, dude is smart, does great videos, and well liked in the broad tech community.

 

[openwheel]

That doesn't make their usage of the word correct. Some people like to call president Obama (or most any other political figure really) a terrorist or declare his actions treasonous. Just because they've latched on to a word with negative connotations and used it against a person they don't like doesn't make their usage correct.

Is it really so hard to say "I don't like Apple/Obama/whatever and I disagree with their/his/whatever actions" instead of resulting to throwing around words with negative connotations that aren't even being correctly used? It might win you some points with people who share your opinions, but it more than likely just turns off anyone who cares.

When someone says they don't like President Obama, I'm willing to at least consider their argument. When someone starts calling him a Muslim terrorist it's just going to lead to me and a lot of people tuning them out.



No, he either is or he isn't, which is open to some degree of speculation as there's no direct witness that can prove or disprove that fact with complete certainty. Regardless of whether you believe he did it or not, he either did or didn't actually kill another person. What he isn't is a convicted murderer, however he was most certainly an accused murderer. If you wanted to argue technicality, you would have to make a case that he did, in fact, kill someone, but that it was manslaughter or an act of self-defense as there are legal definitions outside of the common usage of the word.

Again, we don't care about technicalities. We don't agree with the patent trolling and we will call whoever a patent troll. Merely suggesting that a mega corporation actively practicing business can NEVER be a patent troll is just ignorance. Whether Apple is "technically" a patent troll is irrelevant. We only care if it acts like one, or worse.

And no, OJ is technically NOT a murderer. Not guilty as murderer and double jeopardy applies. That's black and white on paper. With that said, people call him a murderer.

 

[Bateluer]

Only in bizarro apple-hater world are multi-national billion dollar corporations considered 'smaller companies'. They all have armies of lawyers and very deep pockets. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, HTC, et al; rather referring to the small companies with a handful employees that we've never heard of that were forced out before they could even get in.

 

[Mopetar]

Again, we don't care about technicalities. We don't agree with the patent trolling and we will call whoever a patent troll.

The problem is that such a definition relies entirely on the subjective opinion of the person using the designation. You're basically saying that if you want to call someone a patent troll, you will, actual meaning of the word be damned.

It defeats the purpose of language.

Merely suggesting that a mega corporation actively practicing business can NEVER be a patent troll is just ignorance.

They might be overly litigious, either in your opinion, or based on some metric derived from the number of lawsuits they file relative to other companies, but if they're using all of the patents and actively developing products based on them, they're not a patent troll. You can even read about the history of the word if you want.

No one says you have to like Apple for their practices, or for any other reason, but you might as well just call them racist, sexist, or any other number of words that carry negative meanings as you would patent troll.

Whether Apple is "technically" a patent troll is irrelevant. We only care if it acts like one, or worse.

If by definition it doesn't act like one, then why insist on calling it one?

From the article I linked earlier about the coining of the word:

. . . litigants seeking to assert patents which they owned, but did not practise and had no intention of practising; what’s more, in many cases they had not even filed the patents in question, but had acquired them from third parties.

What part of that sounds like what Apple is doing?

And no, OJ is technically NOT a murderer. Not guilty as murderer and double jeopardy applies. That's black and white on paper. With that said, people call him a murderer.

I think you've missed the point of what I wrote. He either is or isn't a murder. That's an objective fact, but it's one that isn't knowable. He was an accused murderer and he is not a convicted murderer. Both of those are facts and knowable.

When you say murderer, what you mean to say in that case is convicted murderer. However, most people get that from context so it's not necessary to add that bit. When people call OJ a murderer, they mean to imply that he actually did murder the people he allegedly killed.

You're confusing two different things and trying to lump them together under the same term. Surely you can see that there is a difference between the ideas of a convicted murderer, an accused murderer, and a person who has committed murder.

 

[Zaap]

The funny thing is that both Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first.

Abridged History:

Nokia sues Apple
Apple counter-sues Nokia
Apple sues HTC
HTC counter-sues Apple
Motorola sues Apple
Apple counter-sues Motorola
Apple sues Samsung (For trade dress, trademark, and design patents in addition to utility patents)
Samsung counter-sues Apple

What's most telling to me in all of this is Apple is just as guilty if not more of ripping off everyone else and then counter suing when called on it (or worse, shifting to completely different targets after getting sued themselves.)

It's most telling how Samsung didn't even seem to be on Apples radar until they started beating apple at what apple thought was it's own game, and after getting sued by other companies multiple times thmselves.

That they learned this tactic by being subjected to it themselves isn't the best excuse in my book.


All of this nonsense is just that, nonsense, and has served only to cheat the consumer.

 

[Commodus]

What's most telling to me in all of this is Apple is just as guilty if not more of ripping off everyone else and then counter suing when called on it (or worse, shifting to completely different targets after getting sued themselves.)

It's most telling how Samsung didn't even seem to be on Apples radar until they started beating apple at what apple thought was it's own game, and after getting sued by other companies multiple times thmselves.

That they learned this tactic by being subjected to it themselves isn't the best excuse in my book.

All of this nonsense is just that, nonsense, and has served only to cheat the consumer.

Apple has sometimes lived by a double standard. The main thing is that it's yanking elements that aren't patented, and you wouldn't confuse an iPhone or iPad with someone else's device. That doesn't make its actions right -- it's just smart enough to avoid grabbing something that's expressly off-limits.

And it's important to note that Apple was quick to sue Samsung partly because of how blatant the theft was. Only the most ardent Samsung/Android fan would pretend that the Galaxy S wasn't designed to explicitly 'borrow' Apple's look and feel. I used Samsung's Android phones from before the Galaxy S, like the Galaxy Spica... there is zero doubt that Samsung's mission in 2009-2010 changed from largely doing its own thing (BlackBerry clones notwithstanding) to "copy what Apple does."

Yeah, Apple shouldn't have gone buck wild suing everyone (certainly not companies whose only infringements were vague software patents), but the move was arguably better for Samsung. Instead of simply imitating everything Apple did, it was forced to think for itself and try to stand out. Not that it's always good at that (S Voice and Wallet are knockoffs of Siri and Passbook, and the GS5 has a fingerprint reader because of the iPhone 5s), but it's certainly better.