Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents 406
An anonymous reader writes "Apple and Samsung couldn't agree on a patent cross-license even though their CEOs met recently. What could be the reason (or one of the reasons) is that Apple is asking for obscenely high patent royalties. At the March 31 trial an Apple-hired expert will present to a California jury (already the third jury trial in this dispute) a damages claim of $40 per device (phone or tablet) for just a handful of software patents. The patents are related to, but don't cover all aspects and elements of, functionalities like slide-to-unlock, autocorrect, data synchronization, unified search and the famous tap-on-phone-number-to-dial feature. Google says there are 250,000 patentable inventions in a smartphone. On average, Apple wants $8 per patent per device. That would add a patent licensing bill of $2 million to each gadget. So Apple and Samsung will be back to court again later this month."
How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Informative)
Because the courts have ruled that they are, primarily the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Office (and examiners) HAVE TO follow those decisions no matter what they think of them. The Supreme Court actually has never really ruled that altering the behavior of a general purpose computer by itself is enough of a tie to a particular machine to not be subject to the ban on patenting an abstract idea, and some of the Justices have pointedly hinted they aren't so keen on the idea in the Bilski oral argument. The Bilski decision itself is a big muddle on the subject really.
BUT coming on March 31st we will get a real test of just that question in the form of arguments on Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. That is the case to watch, and it could cause SPECTACULAR waves if the court categorically smacks down the use of a "general purpose computer" and other claim drafting tricks presently employed to get super-broad patent coverage for computer implemented methods.
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Informative)
And how many of the so called apple patents were in use on those old devices before 2000? Like, say, tapping a number to dial!
The term of art is "obvious." (Score:5, Insightful)
But patent law is offensively fucked up. Basically, it's a war of money. Both sides line up patent lawyers (one of a very few formally recognized specializations for attorneys in the U.S.) and burn money until someone gives up. This case will almost certainly wind up before the Supreme Court eventually - unless Samsung folds and pays to make apple go away. Fortunately, Samsung is sufficiently profitable that it can saturate the process with more money than required and write it off as a margin cost for continuing to compete in the smartphone market.
Apple's patents are offensively bad. There *is* enough there to require a jury verdict to nullify them rather than a summary ruling by the Court (preferably one where the foreman doesn't lie about having a personal stake in proving that software patents are nearly always valid - like the last trial between these two) but in a sane system of patents there would be no question that "slide to unlock" is a variation of long established design concepts - i.e. a latch.
Re:The term of art is "obvious." (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's patents are offensively bad. There *is* enough there to require a jury verdict to nullify them rather than a summary ruling by the Court (preferably one where the foreman doesn't lie about having a personal stake in proving that software patents are nearly always valid - like the last trial between these two) but in a sane system of patents there would be no question that "slide to unlock" is a variation of long established design concepts - i.e. a latch.
Apple had better watch it, their arrogant attitude is going to get their patents invalidated in the US (about the only place they are still valid). Many, including "slide to unlock" have already been invalidated in Europe - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/05/1325241/in-uk-htc-defeats-apples-obvious-slide-unlock-patent or http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/04/06/210232/german-court-finds-apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-invalid - besides, Apple technically doesn't own the patent on "slide to unlock" anyway, Micron does http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/31/171239/micron-lands-broad-slide-to-unlock-patent
Re:The term of art is "obvious." (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Apple is not just that its patents are bad - they're actually rather typical and exemplify the flaws of the system. The problem is that they're not playing by the established rules of the game, where you either cross-license with other major players, or ask for a reasonable amount (which is about an order of magnitude less than here) for full patent coverage.
Apple, meanwhile, has been refusing to license some things outright, and demanding outrageous fees for others, that would basically make their competitors' devices priced beyond competitive range. Basically, patents were like nuclear MAD - every big guy has a lot, but no-one is going to launch an all out attack - and then a new guy on the block said, "hey, this looks like fun", and pressed the red button.
Hopefully, this will be sufficient incentive for the companies involve to try to curtail future damage by lobbying for a patent reform.
Re: (Score:3)
If Intel can license the x86 instruction set to AMD and AMD can license the x64 instruction set to Intel how come these guys can't do the same? Oh right, Ap$le (see what I did there?)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like what Tesla is doing by trying to sell their cars without independent dealerships....
Cars are sold without going through a dealership every day.
Re: (Score:3)
No, not like that at all. I haven't noticed Tesla suing the dealerships, they just get buy without them.
If Apple was able to make iPhone without entering any patent deals at all, and that was that, I'd be the first to applaud them. But as it is, they're actively using those same patents offensively rather than defensively to strangle the competition, not in the market, but in courts. Their brave new world is worse for everyone but themselves, so fuck them.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not allowed to patent an obvious advancement.
I whole heartedly agree with this... and this is the basis of many patent review cases.
However, what many lay persons often miss (which patent review engineers, investigators and lawyers often do not) is that many novel inventions are often obvious with hindsight... sadly it is often these seeming obvious inventions that make it big and become the target of attack (e.g. slide to unlock)
Re:The term of art is "obvious." (Score:5, Insightful)
Slide to unlock has a physical analog, I use all the time on gates and doors. Slide to unlock/lock is OBVIOUS because it is a logical extension of a physical object. IT would be like patenting "Push to open" or flick up to turn on, flick down to turn off (light switch) or any number of common tasks we do in the physical world.
The problem is, people get STUPID when they see "on a computer". It is like they can't function without being hand held the whole time the moment they sit in front of one. I can't tell you how many times "my monitor isn't working" is simply they never pressed the power button. GAHHHHHHHH
Re: (Score:3)
It was in use before that. Actually Apple itself used in on their iPod nano devices with a physical slide to lock the controls. Slide to unlock is just the digital analogue of something that existed well before Apple got it's filthy lawyers all over it.
There is no innovation here. Only a digital equivalent of an analog analogue.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a better bright-line rule to suggest: no method patents - ever.
Go talk to Congress, then, because "process" has been among patentable subject matter in 35 USC 101 since the 1850s.
Patents should be restricted to the implementation of physical mechanisms - machines, circuits and widgets. Not pseudo code - like the one you linked. What you linked is an idea - an abstract concept of how to solve a problem. The specific implementation could be subject to copyright protection (for the code) and trademark protection (if the slide style became a hallmark of the product) but a patent? No way.
Why should processes be removed from patent eligible subject matter, beyond the fact that you don't like them? And what defines an "abstract concept" as opposed to a non-"abstract concept"? Is it the recitation of physical hardware?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. The android fanbois sure get their feelings hurt easily.
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Treating a phone number like a hyperlink is very obvious. Of course the vast, vast majority of older devices, like "those...before 2000" didn't have touch screens to be able to easily implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the very point of touchscreens was to make that possible. Touchscreens are older than Apple itself, they just weren't practical for most purposes until recently.
As for obviousness, even children too young to read yet understand put your finger on the menu and say "I want that". They have understood that since before the invention of the computer.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's your prior art [imgur.com].
Should a company really be able to patent taking a well known physical object and replicating it on a phone's screen? It would be like granting a patent for an on-screen button that looks like a switch or a push-button, a volume meter that looks like a galvanometer, or a power meter that looks like a battery etc.
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Interesting)
The old phones did what interfaces without touch still do today. Highlight the item with the arrows, then select. Replacing that with touching the item to select it is embodied in the invention of touch screen, which is older than Apple itself.
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows ce/mobile agree, but I carried a Palm OS phone for awhile, and it was ok. It ran all the apps from my Pilot and worked OK as a phone. Later I migrated to Blackberry and never looked back. All the capabilities that the Treo should have had and dead nuts reliable. If the offshore admins at my current company could figure out how to keep BES up, I'd still be on Blackberry. Current phone is Android (not Samsung, and I have no intention of marching lockstep with zombie-Jobs) so I guess I'll just get
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but you need better admins if they can't keep a BES up and running. That was the one good thing about the whole company, IMO (I always hated their phones.). When I was responsible for one, the only reason I ever logged into that box was to deal with user issues and the occasional scheduled software upgrade. Otherwise, I was pretty much able to just forget it was there. It was absolutely rock-solid; which, admittedly, shocked the hell out of me, considering the thing ran on windows server.
It's a c
Re: (Score:3)
> Sorry, but you need better admins if they can't keep a BES up and running.
I don't dispute that.
> It's a crying shame that no one bought up BES and turned it into a device-agnostic activesync competitor.
Absolutely true.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
did you even use a so called smartphone phone before the iphone? yeah, someone else, like windows ce/mobile or palm os. those pieces of trash.
yes and they had tap-a-number-to-dial and autocorrect.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
A smartphone is a computer. The reason that phones are getting better, is because the technology underpinning computers is getting better. More powerful computers allow for better user interfaces. It's not like no one thought of making a nice UI for a phone before Apple. It's that it wasn't possible until technology reached a certain point. Apple was just the first company to really exploit these advances in technology to do the obvious.
Allowing these sorts of obvious patents is harmful to society.
Apple doesn't get to take credit for computers getting smaller and more powerful.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they do get credit for being at least one of the first to actually shove the components together like this.
For example, after SJ went on stage and demo'd the original iPhone [which by all accounts so far, was on a real device, running real apps], BB was convinced it was all a lie, that Apple couldn't physically get all that stuff together, working that well, that powerful [compared to other phones at the time]. And nevermind the right turn Android took, from a RIM/Windows CE style interface to a Apple interface.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Informative)
The so called apple interface was not much different to the palm interface
er, not really (Score:3, Interesting)
I had several good friends who were Palm executive level, including head of UI team. Palm was dumbstruck by the apple interface, it's fluidity and ease of use.
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Better engineered' != 'deserving of patent protection'
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing, the design was NOT unique.
It was an obvious modification of an existing paradigm brought about by the touch interface itself.
The iOS interface isn't a revolution. It's an evolution with sexy window dressings and a bunch of self-important turtleneckers crowing about how INVENTIVE they are.
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok... Karma to burn.
The design overall was sufficiently unique to the market; it may not have been *patent worthy*, but is it deserving of some level of protection? I have very narrow ideas on what types of intellectual property should be protected; generally that is limited to what could reasonably be considered wholesale copying of a product.
My question is quite simply what type of protection should a company be provided to prevent effectively wholesale copying of their product. Denying that this is what Samsung did is disingenuous, especially in the first rounds of Galaxy products.
The patent suits and the patents themselves are absurd, but that is largely a function of the broader situation-- thousands of patents for trivial inventions, plus a court that limits how many patents can be litigated in a suit.
Re: (Score:3)
The exact same kind of protection that clothing designers get on their designs, perfume makers get on their scents, and Harley Davidson gets on their engine sounds...
Re: How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Funny)
I couldn't agree more! Apple's grid of icons was totally different from Palms grid of icons!
It's true. No one would have ever thought to use a grid of icons on a smartphone before the iPhone. Apple's grid of icons was light years ahead of other so-called grids of icons at the time. Truly innovative.
Re: (Score:3)
And by the way, 40$ for 5 patents seems to fall in line with the rest of Apple pricing, so Samsung better STFU and be thankful for the privilege.
No, seriously, give me a dumbphone that acts as modem with standard AT commands and a 5 to 7 inch tablet with standard linux on it, and you can shove all your apple win and android smartphones you know where.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us have no problem giving Apple a "job well done" for the iPhone, what we object to is the notion that everyone else should have to pay them for it even when they're not buying an iPhone.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we're just making the point that those sorts of generic advances do not deserve the protection of law.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they do get credit for being at least one of the first to actually shove the components together like this.
absolutely
The first iphone was a revolutionary device. It changed the direction of smartphones the day it came out. That doesn't mean we'd all be using the same shitty Windows CE interface right now, if iphone never existed. It just would have taken a bit longer for the advancement to happen without apple.
Einstein was the first to discover relativity. He will forever get the credit for this. But had he not existed someone else would have still figured it out. It just would have taken a bit longer.
I think patents, when they are structured correctly, can drive innovation. When they are structured incorrectly they can stifle innovation greatly. When we run the numbers to figure out how long a patent should exist in order to get people to create things they otherwise wouldn't in various fields, we should not be thinking "How valuable is a smartphone like the iphone to society". We should be thinking "How valuable is it to society to get a smartphone like the iphone 1 or 2 years earlier".
Obviously getting a smartphone like the iphone 1 or 2 years earlier is a wonderful thing that is certainly very valuable. But I don't think it is so valuable as to allow a company like apple to prevent good features from making to competitor phones almost a decade after the iphone was invented. Especially when we consider that Apple would probably have made the iphone almost exactly as it is now even if they were not granted these trvially obvious patents.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... just like Apple then?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I just don't see who would've built the iOS style launcher.
Any windows user since '95 who sticks their most commonly used icons in a corner of their desktop.
The paging is done well on the iPhone (and many others as well) but was really just a natural development once touchscreens were invented.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Compaq had put a cellular radio in an iPaq, we would have had Windows Phones circa 2000, LONG before the iPhone.
Apple did for the iPhone the exact same thing they did for the iPod... They made it a bit more user-friendly, and advertised the hell out of it. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, and the iPhone wasn't the first mobile computer.
Those nice mobile web browsers like Opera, that you can use on your iPhone... They were developed for PDAs. Fitting a desktop web page to a tiny screen is a hard problem, and one that PDA developers kept working on for years. Apple was lucky they had all that R&D available to steal, because the guys at Opera and other companies didn't file hundreds of patents.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Informative)
If Compaq had put a cellular radio in an iPaq, we would have had Windows Phones circa 2000, LONG before the iPhone.
AT&T did (ish, I think a wifi card and some PBX stuff actually), and they scrapped WinCE, replacing it wholesale with their oen UI.
http://www.xorl.org/people/krw... [xorl.org]
The result looks *remarkably* like a primitive iPhone. Given the photo is from 2001, not 2007 when the iPhone launched, that's not entirely unfair. Apart from snazzier graphics on newer devices (for real???) about the only difference is that the status bar is at the bottom, not the top and is mixed together with the launcher. Note that it even has apps. On a phone!
The people who keep insisting that Apple did everything first essentially know nothing about the history of mobile devices. Apple made a well built, slick device with a UI that didn't stink---and that was unusual for the time and worthy of praise.
Doesn't mean they deserve patent protection for things they didn't invent.
The whole story about that very early phone is here:
http://www.xorl.org/people/njh... [xorl.org]
It was all demoed to Jobs in 1999 as it happens.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, they do get credit for being at least one of the first to actually shove the components together like this.
For example, after SJ went on stage and demo'd the original iPhone [which by all accounts so far, was on a real device, running real apps], BB was convinced it was all a lie, that Apple couldn't physically get all that stuff together, working that well, that powerful [compared to other phones at the time]. And nevermind the right turn Android took, from a RIM/Windows CE style interface to a Apple interface.
The original iPhone wasn't exactly running "real apps" - it ran a fixed set of software that Apple shipped with it. There was no iTunes store, no third party software. Official support for third party software only came around after people started rooting the devices in order to write software for them. Conversely, the likes of Symbian, PalmOS, etc. were doing third party apps *years* before the iPhone appeared - I certainly wouldn't have called the original iPhone a "smartphone" since it lacked most of the features that made Smartphones Smartphones. Also, at the time the iPhone was being developed, a number of other vendors were developing similar devices - Apple just happened to get to market slightly before everyone else and did their usual job at marketing (Apple are *really* good at marketing).
So really, the current line of phones is pretty much a natural progression. Patenting a natural progression of technology just because you happened to sell first what everyone else already had in the works seems pretty bogus.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Informative)
did you even use a so called smartphone phone before the iphone?
I did. I developed for Palm, WinCE, Psion/Symbian and Nokia N770/800 (including for SIP/Skype calls) etc before the iPhone as well.
The single biggest differentiator between iPhone and its predecessors was the capacitative screen. Everybody in the business knew it was coming, and would change interfaces. Even Microsoft was experimenting with the multitouch Surface, but Apple were fastest to get in with a phone that had multitouch and dispensed with the stylus (needed for resistive screens).
They did well, and with Fingerworks, managed to patent some of the early multitouch ideas, but they were not especially novel concepts, even at that time.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Informative)
First with capacitive touchscreen you say? That's interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
First with capacitive touchscreen you say? That's interesting...
Nobody actually said that, and I am (and was) aware of the Prada's hardware capabilities. It was an excellent design, and I have no doubt at all that Apple paid it a LOT of attention when they were planning the iPhone, but...
The OS and software didn't match the hardware design. Running an OS written in Flash on top of WinCE very quickly exposed the limitations of both of those products, including no possibility of multitouch.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've solved plenty of problems in novel ways. I've also solved problems based on a post I found on Stack Overflow.
My main complaint is that software patents don't reveal how to implement them. So I can't know whether I've devised a new and novel way of sliding to unlock or not. Software patents are akin to patenting "engines" and suing for billions when the rotary engine even though you invented the carburated combustion engine
Re: (Score:3)
If you find one that is not sufficiently descriptive, it is not valid. You have to teach someone proficient how to implement your patent in exchange for protection.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:5, Informative)
If you find one that is not sufficiently descriptive, it is not valid. You have to teach someone proficient how to implement your patent in exchange for protection.
Valid or not, if the patenter can threaten you with it until you have to spend millions or billions in patent lawyer fees to get it _declared_ invalid by a court then that's pretty good protection in its own right.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Informative)
Practically all patents fail that one. There is actually a sub-specialty in patent law to describe an invention in such a way that you get the rubber stamp and can win in court but a person of average skill in the art will have no idea what you're describing, much less how it is done.
Re: (Score:3)
If you find one that is not sufficiently descriptive, it is not valid.
But proving a patent invalid is so difficult and so expensive that an invalid patent is almost as good as the real thing.
Maybe better. They can be filed in huge quantities and if one of them fails you still have dozens more to fall back on.
Re:How are those kind of things patentable? (Score:4, Funny)
for the record (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple are acting like total cunts.
Whether they're in the right or wrong, under current patent law, they're still acting like total cunts.
No comment on how that compares to their customers.
Re:for the record (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not the problem. The patent system is. The patent system was invented in an age in which manufacturing and distributing products would take a lot of time and involve multitudes of logistical hardships. So people had to be protected because they would be exposed for the duration that it took them to turn their ideas into products, which was more than enough for an established player to steal their innovation. In today's world you can do the same things in a matter of days though crowdsourcing, App Stores, web services, Alibaba, click-and-control warehousing and supply chains. Investments are also much more accessible through the likes of Kickstarter and VCs with online office hours. People no longer need the same level of protection because they can move much faster than before. Big companies don't need protection - if they come up with an idea, they get the early starter advantage (Apple did) and need to capitalize on it (which Apple did also). If they don't, they're incompetent, and too bad for them.
Given that the patent system is stupid and encourages armament and heavy warfare, you cannot blame Apple for watching out for themselves. Offense is also a good defense - although admittedly it would be generous to give Apple that benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the Patent System per se it is the USPTO. They have been blatantly corrupted to accept virtually anything as a patent. This in a mad money grab by US corporations and by the lawyers that run lobbyists firms. Junk patents are the virtual equivalent of beads, just another insane plot to buy the world just the same as the junk imaginary currency. The really bad ones are designed to trigger patent fights in US courts and as such enrich the lawyer pals of lobbyists in trial, after trial, after trial.
Re:for the record (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not the problem. The patent system is.
Can't we agree that both are?
If you leave your car with the keys in the ignition, then it is partially your fault when someone climbs in and drives away. However, the person who stole the car is also to blame. It's not a valid defense to say "He left his keys in the car so it wasn't stealing."
If all Apple wanted was to make sure nobody else got patents on all this UI stuff, they simply could have fully published the details of how their phone worked, and nobody filing after that would be able to claim to have invented it. And I'm not a lawyer but I think Steve Jobs's public "one more thing" demos would have sufficed to make all those UI features unpatentable by anyone else.
But that wasn't enough for Apple. "Patented!" crowed Steve Jobs. Apple patented everything they thought they could get away with, including totally obvious stuff like squishing your fingers together to make things get smaller on the screen, and spreading your fingers wide to make things get bigger on the screen. Come on, that is totally obvious and there even was prior art on it. So we return to where we started: the USPTO is a problem because it let Apple patent obvious stuff, but Apple is part of the problem for trying to patent obvious stuff. (Fortunately the "pinch-to-zoom" patent was in fact invalidated [appleinsider.com], due to Samsung winning in court against Apple!)
Samsung is going to go scorched earth on this new lawsuit. Millions for defense and not one cent for tribute. And Samsung has the millions. I hope Samsung wins big and invalidates all of Apple's patents.
(And then, as long as I'm dreaming, Samsung can go invalidate Microsoft's mobile patents [arstechnica.com] next.)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your analogy in which you compare stealing a car with patent grabbing. The person stealing the car has no perceived threat from the car's owner. By stealing it, the only effect is his own gain. In the corporate world, everyone is perpetually under threat from everyone else.
This also makes up my response to your comment. Even if Apple were to have freed every one of their smartphone inventions, there would still be lawyers arguing that those inventions are not comprehensive, that their client
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is not the problem.
Let me see, who was it that used the "thermonuclear" word?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is not the problem. The patent system is.
No, Apple is the problem. Before they came along everyone was cross-licensing without too much hassle. It wasn't perfect but it did work. People like Google were happy to use collect patents for self-defence. Then Apple decided that firstly they were not going to pay the standard fees for licensing standards essential FRAND patents, secondly they were not going to cross license some of their own and thirdly they were going to hit the big red global thermonuclear patent war button.
The patent system is broken
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It does seek to inhibit other phone companies from making phones which are too much like the Apple phone by making their profit margins smaller through litigation and patent license.
Re:for the record (Score:5, Insightful)
It does seek to inhibit other phone companies from making phones which are too much like the Apple phone
Or seeking to inhibit other phone companies from making *any* good smart phones, thereby giving the consumer less choice and increasing the odds that they will buy an apple device.
Re: (Score:2)
Or seeking to inhibit other phone companies from making *any* good smart phones, thereby giving the consumer less choice and increasing the odds that they will buy an apple device.
Sounds like a worried manufacturer to me. Since SJ has gone there haven't been any significant innovations from the Apply camp.
If this graph is anything to go by, the executives/lawyers will be looking to justify their existence: http://qz.com/120917/the-smart... [qz.com]
Re: (Score:2)
i agree with the above, they don't care about the money. remember SJ's words "android is a stolen product, and he's willing to go to thermonuclear war to stop it." this isn't even business anymore, it's burn-it-all-down revenge. Toot suite!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't really seek significant revenue from litigation---it's not quite worth it. It does seek to inhibit other phone companies from making phones which are too much like the Apple phone by making their profit margins smaller through litigation and patent license.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if Apple can significantly reduce the profit margin of other vendors the boost to its own profit margin should be significant too despite the overhead of lawyers.
Proper patent valuation (Score:5, Interesting)
So if their are 250,000 patentable inventions in a phone, and that phone retails for $600, by my math each of those inventions are worth about a quarter of a cent per device. So it looks like Apple has a justifiable claim to 1.25 cents per phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you're thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Software patent density (Score:2)
So how many LOC are in a smartphone? (I know, some are hardware patents, but let's assume almost all are software). Does every class/method/function get a patent?
Re: (Score:2)
I see we've had a visit from someone with mod points and without a sarcasm detector. Sorry about that, AC.
Legal strategy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Samsung (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd cease all production of the chips that Apple buys. See if you can find a new fab on short order.
Re: (Score:3)
If you were Samsung, you'd want to keep your fabs running at capacity.
If Apple's dominance continues to fall, then that might eventually be a valid strategy. Or, you might say "as" is falls, the strategy might become viable. Because let's face it, Apple's share is falling, and it will continue to do so because the only place they can go is down. They aren't actually more competent than the competition. Indeed, they have shown time and again that the opposite is true.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Samsung still makes the NAND flash.
"The Last Lone Inventor" by Evan I. Schwartz (Score:5, Insightful)
I finished a book a while ago that I think really illustrates why software patents are objectionable, and what's wrong with the patent system as a whole, today.
The book is "The Last Lone Inventor" by Evan I. Schwartz. It describes the work of Philo T. Farnsworth to create television. During the time that Philo was working on television, many scientists employed by the radio industry were also working to develop usable video transmission technology, with inferior designs. Most of their work involved mechanical television cameras that used spinning wheels. Philo's invention was all electronic. It scanned, transmitted, and displayed a line at a time to create a two dimensional image. This remained the fundamental technology in displays at least until LCD and plasma screens replaced CRT.
Now, while many other patent related problems were well demonstrated by the book, the one most clearly related to software patents pertains to the intent of the patent system. Patents are not, as they are often regarded today, a recognition that an inventor owns his ideas. Ideas are not property, and have never been recognized as such. Patents are a recognition that some inventions rely on information that isn't obvious. Some inventions require the inventors to test and improve their inventions for years before they can be brought to market. Underlying the patent system is the belief that this work will not be done, that inventors will not fund years of experimentation and development, if they don't believe that they'll be able to sell that invention to recover the costs of its development. In a free market, competitors will be able to offer the same invention at a lower cost than its inventor, because the competitors did not have to invest in the development of the invention. Patents attempt to create an incentive to invent by ensuring that inventors who do invest in development are given a limited monopoly on their invention.
However, patents aren't free. It is not enough for the inventor to merely offer his invention to the market to receive patent protection on it. An inventor is also required to completely disclose how the invention works. After the patent period expires, the public must be able to continue using the invention independent of the inventor.
That is the fundamental purpose of the patent system: to benefit the public by providing it with the knowledge required to reproduce the invention. It is the public's benefit, not the inventors, that is the goal of the patent system. The inventor's benefit is simply the means to achieve that goal. The Constitution of the United States reflects this:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Philo's work was exactly the progress of science that the patent system was intended to promote. His invention required tremendous investment to create. His idea was sound, but a great deal of experimentation was required to create a working device. Other highly skilled scientists were not able to create a working device on their own, or created working devices of significantly lesser quality. The exact properties of the materials and components used in the camera and television set were not previously known, and were discovered through Philo T. Farnsworth's experimentation and development.
The invention of television was worthy of patent protection.
Software development isn't like the invention of television in ANY way.
Software development does involve testing cycles, but otherwise almost never involves the kind of experimentation involved in the invention of television, because the exact properties of computer operations are previously known. Computers perform a limited number of operations, exactly according to a specification, and exactly the same every time. Because the behavior of the system is known in advance, the uncertainty inherent in real world material inventions does not exist in software development.
Re: (Score:3)
Concrete examples: GIF was patented, but PNG was not, and is superior.
RSA was patented, but AES (Rjindael) is not.
I don't think it's at all accurate to say that "nobody" will invest in advanced computing algorithms without patents.
That's a lot of money for rounded corners (Score:5, Funny)
This is why I'm leaving IT (Score:4, Funny)
and I'm back to college to study law. Because the only people who are really making money in those whole shameful mess are the lawyers. And why shouldn't they? This level of stupidity and greed should be taxed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Law is a crappy field. Most lawyers earn half of what a senior engineer does and spend most of their time in divorce court. Plus you come out of school loaded with debt.
You can make good money in Big Law. However few last more than 3-5 years in that area. The weed out rate is incredible.
It's like going into a career like acting. The few at the top are wealthy. The rest wait tables.
Re:This is why I'm leaving IT (Score:4, Insightful)
And the crappiest part is that you are perpetually around people who are pissed. Husbands mad at their wives, companies mad at other companies for getting sued, people mad at each other respectively for making the other guy look stupid. What a life...
Get out the buckets (Score:2)
I I understand this correctly (Score:2)
One aspect of the invention involves a method that includes: in a first area of the touch screen, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard; in a second area of the touch screen, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement for the current character string; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user activates a delimiter key on the keyboard; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement displayed in the second area; and keeping the current character string in the first area if the user performs a second gesture on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.
So, you got a touch screen. User hits a "key" on the touch screen, autocomplete commences. User hits another key, selection changes, user hits backspace, selection changes. Lacking other prior art (that I know exists), Visual Studio 6 (circa 1999) had intellisense that does the exact same thing, except for "on a touch screen" which ought to be an obvious, and unpatentable extension. Granted (VC6 intellisense) it sucked, but still, prior art.
Re: (Score:3)
Dumbass, the distinguishment of the patent is in the claims, not the abstract.
The abstract is usually a pretty good guide. If not, then somebody is likely being even more unethical that usual, a behavior worth special attention in itself.
Apple not "seeking" $40 per device (Score:4, Interesting)
Basic trial tactics: ask for x, claim damages are far greater than x, then settle for an amount less than x.
Seems legit (Score:5, Informative)
It is the NSA's fault ... (Score:3)
... that we have to read a Florian Mueller's post to get this information rather than be able to read Groklaw's PJ giving us the low-down. You know though that Apple MUST be trying to overcharge if even he states: "... I face the first situation in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind."
We miss you PJ !!!!!
Re:Ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, actually, there's another option, which Samsung opted for - infringe the patents and then drag the issue out in court and wage a PR war of misinformation. Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead
Bias much?
I guess the bias the other way is roughtly that Samsung rightfully determined that the patents were obvious non-innovations that should never have been issued a patent in the first place and infringed on them knowing that the courts would see the patents fall once someone actually challenged them.
The truth is somewhere in the middle I expect.
Apple's patents that they are enforcing aren't FRAND. They are under no obligation to license them to anyone.
And if they never should have been issued patents for them in the first place? What then? Apparently to the courts we must go.
Now, feel free to mod me down since I'm clearly an Apple fanboy despite speaking the truth and I've dared to impugn the honour of Samsung...
Oh the hell with that, I doubt Samsung has much honour to impugn but... swipe to unlock et al shouldn't even be patents.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps not how it should work, but it is how it does work. Unless/until you are actually accused of infringing and hit up for money, you can't get the issue before the court at all.
A hypothetical monopoly on smartphones (Score:2)
Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead.
If one company owned patents on inventions that turned out to be essential to the difference between dumbphones and smartphones and declined to license them, how many customers would be happy with only one smartphone maker?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Samsungs reaction here is the only sane one. When someone (apple) attacks you over trivial things like "implementing a latch in software" for big money while they are simultaneously using hardware you invented and patented for mere pennies.. that isn't exactly 'fair'.
Apple is the real shit-stirrer here, everybody was playing relatively nicely until they decided to fire the nukes at everyone in terms of software patents.
If apple is allowed to get away with their bullshit, who will be in the firing line next?
Re:Ignorance... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you are completely wrong.
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value.
They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies, with small associated payments to make the contracts binding, but primarily they are used as a technology trading base.
Apple of course refuses to participate in the trading.
They say 'license your FRAND patents to us for the same as everyone else, and then we will screw you to the wall for our patents'.
FRAND owners say "WTF? those fees are for crosslicensing agreements, without that, you need to pay real money'
Apple says "Then we wont pay you anything, and since we appear to have the US legal system all tied up, piss off, in fact, we will sue you over a bunch
of patents we never invented, just added the words 'on a capacitive touch screen' to the end of! ha!"
And if you think thats good business, well.... time will tell. I wonder how well Apple will do when the next round of critical infrastructure wireless patents are no longer FRAND, and Apple hold no cards.
Kill the meaning of FRAND patents is a standardisation disaster, and a short term cash grab by Apple to the detriment of everyone else, including their own users.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:4, Insightful)
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value. They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies
That doesn't make any sense at all, patents licensed under FRAND terms need to be non-discriminatory as that's what the ND stands for. Typically that means that if you sign an agreement and pay $0.20/unit, anybody can make something with a HDMI port or something like that. Cross licensing agreements are the opposite of that, you get to use my patents if I get to use yours. If you don't have any interesting patents, no agreement for you so they're discriminatory and because the patents involved are unique the cost is not uniform either. In short, you don't have any clue what you're talking about and apparently neither do the mods.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct, but the per unit fee is much higher than $0.20/unit in the case of the 3G/4G patents that are in dispute here. Most companies do not pay those fees, they cross-license instead. Since Apple is unwilling to cross-license they have to pay the per unit fee like everyone else. It's not discrimination, it's the standard terms offered to everyone and just because Apple doesn't like the deal doesn't make them the victim.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that what he was referring to is the fact that Apple has refused to license those FRAND patents on the same terms that other companies did (small price + cross-licensing agreement), and demanded to just pay in cash, and a ridiculously small amount at that - the one that's nowhere even near in value to that cross-licensing that everyone else opts for.
Making phone numbers clickable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Only a fucking moron would think that detecting a phone number inside arbitrary text is not a problem with an obvious solution. You could ask that on StackOverflow, and get half a dozen thorough answers by the end of the day.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, that is completely wrong. You are required to defend a TRADEMARK. There is no obligation to defend patents and they do not become invalid if you don't. In fact, this is a common criticism of the patent system: you can have a "stealth" patent that you don't enforce for years while people come to depend on the patented technique, believing it not to be patent-encumbered. Then the patent owner starts suing everyone. This is what happened with the GIF file format, for example.