|
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: al_dunsmuir on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
In other news, analysts questioned Apple's use of the "Lightning" connector on
their new iPetard (tm) device, noting that it has exhibited a tendency to
inflict significant damage to the user if not properly grounded in fact.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Hopefully, Judge Koh (of the Apple-Samsung debacle)will be
read the ITC ALJ decision.
If she does, her headache (which already has to be pretty
large) will get even bigger. Because the ALJ decision is a
pretty good smackdown of the jury verdict, and its
inconsistency.
If this were a game of gold, Koh ought to call a Mulligan.
But instead, she has to deal with the debris from that
horrible trial that she oversaw.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
newspicks comments here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- newspicks thread NYT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Do it “on the Internet,” get a patent, sue an industry—it still works - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Law 360: Motorola loses bid to dismiss Microsoft royalty trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:36 PM EDT
- Microsoft shareholder letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 02:26 AM EDT
- Self-replicating products - Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:23 AM EDT
- IDG: Microsoft alleges Google, Motorola's Android phones infringe its mapping patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- in Germany - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- ZDNet (Bott): Microsoft takes on Google directly in German patent lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
Apple tied up the courts and spent Samsung's money on legal fees without making
an effort to use existing mechanisms. This is wrong, if not just plain evil.
What are the chances of Samsung being reimbursed for legal fees and, just as
importantly, Apple being hit with fines?
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
Keep it unfocused, please!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Last year's Kindle Fire Amazon has left its first tablet behind, so we take matters into our own - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- Supreme Court in Connecticut: severely disabled woman who can't talk could still refuse sex - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:14 PM EDT
- GO back to previous article, as what is posted by Mark is important to follow thru on. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- holy sphericals, apple has patented unlocking a device by touching a screen - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Challenge - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- Tough Idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
- Tough Idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- Wind-up - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT
- Germany Monitors Skype, Google Mail, Facebook - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- Student being forced to wear RFID chips at San Antonio Schools - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- Starwars tech: Laser weapons - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 12:32 AM EDT
- Australian PM Julia Gillard lances a sexist boil in Parliament - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:36 AM EDT
- Is a comic strip on patents really off-topic? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:51 AM EDT
- n e v e r (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- samsung nexus injunction lifted permanently - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Appeals court overturns Galaxy Nexus ban "abuse of discretion" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- star trek transporter is illegal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
See link above for "Comes v. MS" for further info.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
Of course we know Apple will appeal this. Unfortunately I know nothing
about appealing ITC judge rulings.
I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the judge crossed all the Ts and dotted all
the Is. If I remember correctly, this is going to place limits on exactly what
Apple can do.
In other words, it looks like a huge victory for Samsung.
The main problem with it is that it implies Patents are legitimate. Since I've
never seen a single hardware or software patent that passes the USPTO's
own rules for patent eligibility, this makes me less than happy.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Therefore the jury's verdict with respect to the
issue of
patent
exhaustion cannot be considered an essential fact
determination by the jury,
since it is inconsistent with the
jury's verdict that Apple's products
containing the PMB 9801
did not infringe Samsung's patents.
Apple
will not be happy with this.
Not only has one
of
their arguments at
the ITC just been shot out from under
them, but an ITC judge is now pointing
out to the Judge Koh
and the public at large that the juries decision was
nonsensical.
Apple may not lose everything in this battle, but public
perception is already shifting, the legal ground they had
claimed just weeks
ago is now looking shaky, and certain
"experts" are going to be eating crow for
lunch.
David S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Eating Crow? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:52 AM EDT
- Eating Crow? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT
- Eating Crow? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Crow Banquet Proposal - Authored by: albert on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
Apple and Microsoft are opportunistic wrt their crying wolf on FRAND, but the
problems with FRAND are real and nicely demonstrated by these cases.
In the battle of Office document standardization it was Microsoft who lobbied
heavily for FRAND over RF because it was very well aware of the patent games
that can be played with FRAND:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/how-microsoft-lobbied-a
gainst-true-open-standards-i/index.htm
But in the mobile world MS is the underdog and FRAND suddenly isn't so appealing
any more to them. Truth is, FRAND may sound nice on paper, but it doesn't offer
any real protection against patent agression. FRAND is just another
pig-with-lipstick obstruction in the way of our technical liberties.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
I suppose this will be appealed.
In some way, isn't this sort of contradicting what is going on in the Microsoft
vs Motorola case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
New Mobile OS, no Sdk.. and the FOSS Patent blowhard still
shilling..and we all thought is the New BB10 :)
How much market did MS loose this year in mobile?
Nokia better hope MS does not buy RIM..or prey..
What do you call a MS , B and N, Rim and Nokia device?
Chard remains of decaying Monopolists husk..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yuck - Authored by: om1er on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- Yuck - Authored by: scav on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
- Yuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- Dommed Mobile Product Launch this October - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT
- keyboard alert! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:57 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
Those selling high value products should be able to rightly argue that the rate
should be lower on those products. For example 2.25% of a Feature Phone is a lot
less that 2.25% of a Smartphone.
There could be a case for a per unit royalty, but that is equal across all of
the different lines.
It seems like if Apple wants that to happen they should negotiate, however with
their premium prices, profit margins and profits, they are in a poor position to
say they can't afford to pay.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
Apple cannot claim being clueless about Frand..
anyone remember hat little Apple and Moto iTunes partnership
? Certainly Apple knew way before 2007 about the mechanics
of FRAND..
Apple wants to set FRAND prices at zero..by any trick
necessary..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
The act of submitting a (your) patent to a draft standard should automatically
grant a license to that patent to anybody attempting to implement that standard
in part or whole.
Nothing else is reasonable, "fair" or "non discriminatory"
All other approaches grant the patent holder rights in excess of the patent
since they then "own the standard" instead of just a means of
implementing something.
That's not the way it _is_ but it is the way it _should_ _be_.
ASIDE: if someone else submits your patented material to a standard or draft
thereof, and you knew or should have known this happened (such as you are a
member of the standards body), and you do nothing about it till the draft is
issued or ratified as a formal draft, the license should be as if you submitted
it yourself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IMHO... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
The jury also found that Samsung's patents were exhausted by virtue
of the Samsung-Intel agreement. If the accused Apple products do not infringe
Samsung's '516 and '941 patents, as alleged by Samsung in the district court
case, by virtue of those products' incorporation of the Intel's PMB 9801
baseband processor, then the sale of those chips by Intel would not exhaust
Samsung's patents, because the PMB 9801 logically could not have practiced all
of the limitations of those patents.
The affirmative defense of
exhaustion requires proof of an authorized, territorial sale of articles
embodying the patents at issue. Therefore the jury's verdict with respect to
the issue of patent exhaustion cannot be considered an essential fact
determination by the jury, since it is inconsistent with the jury's verdict that
Apple's products containing the PMB 9801 did not infringe Samsung's
patents.
I hope that I am not misreading this because it mirrors
the argument I made during the Apple v. Samsung trial. Apple said that they
bought the Intel chips that practice the patented invention and that Intel had a
licence for the patents. For this reason, Apple had the benefit of the
pre-existing Intel licence.
What I said was that the chips, of
themselves, cannot meet all of the claims of the patent. The phone or tablet
needs to do software stuff that employs the chip to practice the patented
invention and, thereby, infringe the patent.
Intel only need a licence
for US sales of components specifically made to manufacture the US
patented invention in the US. Any Intel chip not specifically made to
enable manufacture of the patented invention needs no such licence. The
manufacturers of the nuts and bolts in my better mousetrap cannot be accused of
inducing or
contributing to an infringement of my patent.
35 U. S. C.
§271(b) (1970 ed.) says “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall
be liable as an infringer.” which renders liable as a contributory infringer
anyone who sells or imports a “component” of a patented invention, “knowing the
same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of
such
patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
substantial non-infringing use”.
In fact, Intel exported the
component, and the device was built into the phone outside of the US. In
Microsoft v. AT&T the Supreme Court dealt with exactly this situation. It's
complex and requires quite a lengthy quote:
Our decision some 35
years ago in Deepsouth Packing
Co. v. Laitram Corp. a case about a
shrimp
deveining machine, led Congress to enact §271(f).
In that case, Laitram,
holder of a patent on the time-and-
expense-saving machine, sued Deepsouth,
manufacturer of
an infringing deveiner. Deepsouth conceded that the
Patent Act
barred it from making and selling its deveining
machine in the United States,
but sought to salvage a portion of its business: Nothing in United States
patent
law, Deepsouth urged, stopped it from making in the
United States the
parts of its deveiner, as opposed to the
machine itself, and selling those parts
to foreign buyers for assembly and use abroad. We agreed.
Interpreting
our patent law as then written, we reiterated in Deepsouth that it was “not an
infringement to
make or use a patented product outside of the United
States.”.
Deepsouth’s foreign buyers did not infringe Laitram’s patent, we held, because
they assembled and used the deveining machines outside the United States.
Deepsouth, we therefore concluded, could not be charged with inducing
or contributing to an infringement.
Nor could Deepsouth be held liable as a
direct infringer,
for it did not make, sell, or use the patented invention—
the
fully assembled deveining machine—within the
United States. The parts of the
machine were not themselves patented, we noted, hence export of those
parts,
unassembled, did not rank as an infringement of
Laitram’s patent. Laitram
had argued in Deepsouth that resistance to extension of the patent privilege to
cover exported parts “derived from too narrow and technical an interpretation of
the [Patent Act].”.
Rejecting that argument, we referred to prior
decisions holding that “a combination patent protects only against the operable
assembly of the whole and not the manufacture of its parts.”
Apple imported the complete manufactured patented invention in
their phones to the US and Intel needed a licence for the especially made
components because they actively induced Apple to manufacture the patented
invention by selling the components as a US sale.
Apple imported the
manufactured invention and needed a patent licence for the invention and not
just the Intel especially made component.--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:13 AM EDT |
I've lost track of the status of this case, what with so
many going on, and
was trying to find stuff about findings
of infringement
or not, and so far
this is what I've found from the docs
linked above.
Patents '348, '644,
'980, '114 are non-infringed (detailed
below).
Patent '843 is listed
as being terminated from
investigation.
Basically, none of the Samsung
patents were deemed infringed
by Apple, despite them being allegedly standard
essential,
and Apple clearly implementing the standard.
Are these just
bad patents, or have they been out-lawyered?
(Part 2
- Page 75)
For the several reasons discussed above with respect
to each
of the asserted claime, 75, 76, 82, 83, and 84, the
Administrative Law
finds that the preponderance evidence
fors not demonstrate that the Accused
Products infringe the
asserted claims of the '348 patent.
(Part 3 - Page 145)
For the foregoing reasons, the
Administrative Law Judge
concludes that the evidence does not demonstrate, to a
preponderate degree, that there is any violation of Section
337, as alleged by
Samsung, by reason of infringement of the
'644 patent by Apple.
(Part 3 - Page 169)
The Administrative Law Judge
found above that Samsung has
failed to demonstrate that the Accused '980
products are
able to infringe the asserted claims of the '980 patent.
Thus
Samsung has not shown that a user is able to directly
infringe the asserted
claims with the accused iPhones.
...
As Samsung has failed to show
by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Accused '980 Products are able to
directly
infringe the asserted '980 patent claims, they cannot
indirectly
infringe.
(Part 4 - Page 239)
The
administrative Law judge concludes that the evidence
does not demonstrate, to a
preponderate degree, that the
Accused Products infringe any of the asserted
claims of the
'114 patent. In order to establish infringement, the
complainant
must demonstrate that the accused devices or
methods meet all of the
limitations of the asserted claims
(Part 4 - Page
251)
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence
does not demonstrate to a preponderate degree that the
Accused Products
infringe the claims of the '114 patent
under the doctrine of equivalents, as
alleged by Samsung.
The accused products do not perform substantially the same
function as the "velocity detector" limitation as opined by
Dr. Abowd, who
testified as follows with respect to the
alleged velocity detector in the
Accused Products
Stevos
IANAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
...on the one hand I understand Apple's hatred of standards-essential patents.
As a former employee of another smartphone maker I recognize the difficulty of
breaking into the market when other established players like Motorola, Nokia,
Sony-Ericcson, Samsung, etc. all have patents on the standards. Any newcomer to
the market faces an uphill battle. As soon as you make a phone that complies
with the standards you get a visit from the patent holders demanding royalties,
which are a significant percentage of the cost of building the product. But the
established players don't have to pay these royalties to each other, they just
cross-license. It's basically an oligopoly -- the newcomers with disruptive
products can't possible make phones as cheaply as the patent holders unless they
come up with some of their own essential patents. Of course, Apple has no
standards-essential patents so it is trying to convince everyone that it
invented rectangles with rounded corners and that everyone owes Apple money for
this technology. This is a logical (though repugnant) business strategy -- they
are trying to get their costs down by forcing other players to cross-license
with them.
On the other hand I recognize Apple/Microsoft's attempt to destroy Android and
Linux, and I value my freedom. PJ is absolutely right -- this is not just an
attack on FRAND it is an attack on open technologies which preserve the rights
of the end-user. It is an attempt to move towards a rental economy where every
device and app is "licensed" to us instead of owned by us. Apple et
al would like to maintain artificially high prices even as the marginal cost of
production is in free-fall.
I predict that Android/Linux will eventually weather this storm just as it did
the SCO fiasco. Apple, like RIM, will slowly fade into insignificance and
Samsung will become the dominant player in the smartphone market, and perhaps
the entire consumer electronics market. Will they become an evil monopoly too?
Time will tell...but at least they are using Android which prevents them from
doing certain evil things with their software...
My hope is that people will eventually move away from cellular devices towards
primarily wifi devices. I recently did this and I find I'm not really any less
connected. Once you know where the hotspots are in your city you're set. Since
there is vigorous competition among wifi equipment manufacturers and ISPs (not
to mention restaraunts that want you to use their wifi) I think this would be
the best for consumers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
"Apple chief intellectual property counsel BJ Watrous argued in a morning
session. 'Using the ASP of the end user product as the royalty base [is]
discriminating against companies like Apple who sell high-value
products.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_value_products
High value products (HVP) refers to Agricultural products that are high in
value, often but not necessarily due to processing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|