Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 212 posts

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#191

Post by tooltalk »

saagarjha wrote: post #139
tooltalk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think average HN'er has much better judgement over average Joe jury in Apple's hometown on technical design and patent issues. The role (or problem) of non-technical jury in highly technical patent litigation is also often debated in academia too.

> average Joe jury in Apple's hometown Keep in mind that most of the people in Apple's hometown are have graduate degrees and work in the technology industry…though, it's likely that they wouldn't be selected for the jury at this trial.

I was surprised to find that only two of the first jury had any technical background at all. In that case however one such member helped to ignore the jury instruction and somewhat mislead the rest.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#192

Post by tooltalk »

bsaul wrote: post #138
avar wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly - not their brilliants > displays, battery, or even wireless radio > functionality. You're completely losing the plot here here. The reason for the high amount of damages is not because it's believed that Samsung phones wouldn't have sold as well without rounded corners…

i found this comment interesting, could the person who downvoted it explain what's wrong in its reasoning ?

I didn't downvote it (don't have enough karma's yet), but see my reply above. avar is wrong because he has no idea how patent litigation works in this country and made false assertions (eg, punitive damage).

Further, the main issue here is not whether companies like Samsung should get away with patent infringement, but whether Apple's frivolous design patents deserve most of the infringed devices' revenue/profit. Apple had previously managed to disgorge Samsung's entire profit based on a 19th century old, estoeric design patent law that rewards entire profit on infringement. This law was introduced when most consumer goods were single-component and sales/profit were driven largely by one single design pattern (eg, carpets, furniture).

Enter the 20th century. Most electronics devices we use today have highly technical and multiple-components (over 120+K active patents in a smartphone device for instance). And our legal system over the the past three, four decades has evolved and developed various frameworks to limit the damage award to the intrinsic/additional value a specific patent brings to an infringed product. SCOTUS agreed with this, reversed the lower courts decisions and sent the case back to the lower courts to re-define what the proper damage ought to be. But it looks like Judge Koh screwed up on the procedural (jury instruction) again.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#193

Post by tooltalk »

sbuk wrote: post #162
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Jobs borrowed the GUI from Xerox.

Jobs bought the rights to the intellectual property from Xerox.

Jobs never bought anything from Xerox. How do we know this? Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple in 1988 -- after seeing that Apple was suing Microsoft and others left and right for what was essentially derivative work based on Xerox's. Xerox feared that Apple was scaring off potential licensees with their on-going UI patents lawsuits. Their lawsuit however never went nowhere and dismissed on procedural matters.

Xerox had a division that invested in tech companies like Apple in the late 70's. I believe Xerox had something to the tune of $1M in Apple, but contrary to popular belief, Apple never traded their pre-IPO stocks in exchange for two visits at Xerox PARC. Xerox PARC was actually open-house and at least several thousand people went to see their demo throughout the 70's. Jef Raskin, who had spent sometime at Stanford and intimately close to research and dvelopment done at PARC urged Apple engineers and Jobs to see what they ought to be doing.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#194

Post by bitmapbrother »

mattkevan wrote: post #144
bitmapbrother wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple. The LG Prada was shown off before the introduction of the iPhone. To imply that the iPhone was polarizing/radical and that the LG Prada was not is ridiculous IMO. https://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada...

The only reason anyone remembers the LG Prada is to bring it up in this kind of discussion. If it was so radical and ground-breaking, how come LG are an also-ran Android OEM and not the most valuable company ever? It's an asinine argument as it takes the most superficial elements, such as a full touchscreen, conveniently ignoring the actual things that made the iPhone so innovative, such as multitouch UX, proper web…

>The only reason anyone remembers the LG Prada is to bring it up in this kind of discussion.

The reason people bring up the LG Prada is because it proves the form factor of a touch screen phone with a bottom button existed before the introduction of the iPhone.

>If it was so radical and ground-breaking, how come LG are an also-ran Android OEM and not the most valuable company ever?

Not all radical and ground breaking designs succeed. The Prada's software was also far from revolutionary or memorable for that matter.

>It's an asinine argument as it takes the most superficial elements, such as a full touchscreen, conveniently ignoring the actual things that made the iPhone so innovative, such as multitouch UX, proper web browser, full featured operating system, exclusive carrier partnerships and more.

About the only relevant thing you mentioned was having a multi-touch UX on a phone - a technology they didn't invent, but just made popular.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#195

Post by stickfigure »

tptacek wrote: post #34
stickfigure wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?

Yes. To fit the standard at issue here, that happened every time somebody bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing. Most people who buy phones are not as engaged with the market as HN commenters are. The argument at play here seems to be: you can make something that looks like a Braun device if Braun doesn't already have a design-patented device th…

a lot of people pick their phone based on how it looks

I guess I really just don't care. If people are buying products based on style, then anyone should be able to produce a product with that style, and you can't argue that people aren't getting what they want. "Style" should not be patentable, or we're entering a dystopia where you have to figure out who to pay royalties to when you decide what color tshirt to wear.

bought a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone because they thought both phones basically did the same thing is also unconvincing. Salespeople say this kind of shit all the time no matter what the product looks like. "Our version is better!" - it's practically their job. Except in egregious cases of salesperson misbehavior (ie fraud), the customer isn't confused about the origin of the product. Uninformed customers will make uninformed decisions, caveat emptor.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#196

Post by tooltalk »

staunch wrote: post #111
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Jobs borrowed the GUI from Xerox.

I think it's more accurate to say the Mac was inspired by Xerox PARC's work and Windows was an attempt at cloning the Mac. There's a significant difference between creating a next-generation version of something and attempting to blindly clone someone else's work. The iPhone was inspired by work that Palm did but it wasn't an attempt at cloning it. Zune was an attempt at cloning the iPod. Google+ was an attempt at cl…

Mac copied/cloned Xerox; Microsoft licensed Apple's UI.

Apple sued Microsoft, but lost the lawsuit because Microsoft legitimately licensed Apple's UI patents; except for a few minor elements like "trash can" icon.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#197

Post by stickfigure »

exodust wrote: post #157
camhenlin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I assume this anecdotal story of mine is not unique: phone salespeople do this. My grandmother (in her late 70s at the time) was sold an “iPhone” at a Verizon store, after her and I discussed which phone for her to get. It was a Samsung galaxy. At the time, she had an iPad and a MacBook so it made sense for her to get an iPhone when upgrading to her first smart phone. The salesperson explained to her it was…

Cool story bro, but most grandmothers don't know or care about technology gadgets and get confused easily. She would not have known or cared about "rounded corners". It's flawed logic to say it's a widespread problem that people "accidentally buy a Samsung" because a salesperson lied to your grandmother. That's an edge case that means nothing.

This would have been a great comment without the "Cool story bro".

The salesperson could have convinced the grandmother to buy a "Sinclair iPhone by Timex", assuming it was packaged into something roughly phone-shaped. The problem here isn't the appearance of the product.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#198

Post by tooltalk »

dep_b wrote: post #169
tooltalk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bias? That came straight out of Apple's own testimony/court doc's. No, Apple doesn't have to go after every single mobile device makers and Apple went only after the major players. Initially it was HTC, which angered Steve Jobs so much that he declared a thermonuclear war on Android -- Samsung was an afterthought. Apple settled with HTC after HTC counter-sued with LTE wireless patents. Samsung likewise counter-s…

Apple sued HTC over the features in the OS it was using, it was simply the first player to use Android. iOS had a ton of great ideas that simply weren't available in the older version of Android or any other mobile OS until that time. It was never about rounded rectangles. The lawsuit was settled at a point in time HTC was struggling to survive at all and it's still bleeding money. And yes you can select facts and bu…

If you are implying that Apple sued HTC for utility patents alone, you are definitely wrong there.

Further contrary to your claims, the originality wasn't what iOS was going for. One main reason Apple's patents never gained traction beyond their hometown is because of prior arts -- meaning most of Apple's designs/utility claims were "thrown out" on the ground that there were already invented or readily available in other phones. What iOS did differently was their different implementation and integration, but nothing beyond 'non-obviousness" to warrant a exclusive right. Further, this design case is precisely about rounded corners with a circular button in the middle.

HTC was still the king of smartphones in those day, albeit slowly dwindling market share, and but what stopped Apple's abuse was HTC's newly acquired LTE patents. Apple decided to settle only when ITC ALJ warned that Apple'd better have really convincing argument that those patents were invalid, or would have to face import ban.

Your revisionism isn't really that funny.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#199

Post by dep_b »

tooltalk wrote: post #198
dep_b wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple sued HTC over the features in the OS it was using, it was simply the first player to use Android. iOS had a ton of great ideas that simply weren't available in the older version of Android or any other mobile OS until that time. It was never about rounded rectangles. The lawsuit was settled at a point in time HTC was struggling to survive at all and it's still bleeding money. And yes you can select facts and bu…

If you are implying that Apple sued HTC for utility patents alone, you are definitely wrong there. Further contrary to your claims, the originality wasn't what iOS was going for. One main reason Apple's patents never gained traction beyond their hometown is because of prior arts -- meaning most of Apple's designs/utility claims were "thrown out" on the ground that there were already invented or readily available in o…

https://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-paten...

I see a fair list of patents mentioned here. Most of them are about software some of them are about sensors and other hardware. No rounded corners. If these patents have prior art or not wasn't the discussion.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#200

Post by CamperBob2 »

sumedh wrote: post #148
CamperBob2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was ridiculed only by people like Steve Ballmer who were either whistling past the graveyard or just plain dense. It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. To me, and to most other people I hung out with at the time, it was very obvious that physical keyboards on cell phones were not going to be A Thing for very much longer. Everything else that happened simply followed from that.

> It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. How exactly does this contribute to the discussion, To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work.

To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the patent in question. It seems very important to the people in this thread to deflect from any discussion of the actual case. I wonder why that might be?

Post reply on HN