Netizen: Patent

Showing posts with label Patent. Show all posts

Monday, August 27, 2012

MAD Before Common Sense

Image representing iPhone as depicted in Crunc...

Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender, becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).

It is for Google to make the next move and save the day. Or Apple will think it can get away with it.

Apple Wins, Samsung Loses in US Jury Verdict

“It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.”

Apple may have won, but software patents are still evil

the war over software and design patents is bad not just for individual companies but arguably for society as a whole ..... we are all losers in this kind of case .... Apple’s win may satisfy its fans, and Samsung may be able to recover from the ruling, but that doesn’t make it right. .... there appear to be a number of questionable factors involved in the jurors’ decision in this case, at least according to Groklaw, including a debate over whether the jury actually understood the specifics of what they were being asked to do, and whether they ignored certain aspects of the case in their desire to penalize Samsung. That could lead to the case being successfully appealed, but even if it isn’t, or if the appeal fails, the Apple-Samsung decision adds even more weight to the argument that software and design patents are evil and that the entire patent process is badly flawed — if not broken. ....... Two of the design patents involved in the case describe the way in which the iPhone is rounded at the corners and flat on the top, and another refers to the way that icons appear on the screen. Among the utility patents involved are those related to the “bounce back” or “rubber band” feature in some of Apple’s apps — in which the screen rebounds after the user pulls it in one direction or another — and to the “pinch to zoom” functionality used for images. ...... the pinch-too-zoom gesture has become so ubiquitous for mobile devices and apps of all kinds that it is like claiming ownership over the idea of a circular steering wheel ..... there is evidence that similar gestures existed before Apple patented them. ..... the coming of a software patent “apocalypse” created by multibillion-dollar technology giants accumulating software patents. ..... software patents have provided little or no net social benefit over the past decade, despite billions in lawsuits and various legal victories .... what is gained by allowing companies to launch multibillion-dollar cases involving the shape of icons or the swiping motion that users employ to switch pages

Apple vs Samsung: Patently Absurd

this one-time maker of cheap synthetic garments is now squarely in the same bracket as the bluest of haloed Silicon Valley blue-chips ..... The potential sufferers are people on the wrong side of the digital divide, all the would-be users of inexpensive smartphones to access high-speed data. ..... Should patents in the world of fast-changing microelectronics and information technology have a much shorter life span than the 20 years patents have in general? Would three years be enough? Does any member of the digirati carry a phone that is more than three years old? Should any company keep profiting from a patent to a degree that makes a technology that is obsolete from the point of view of all high-end users still beyond the reach of the less affluent? ..... Should money from Universal Service Obligation funds in developing countries like India be used to buy out crucial patents to make wireless broadband access affordable by the masses? After all, life-changing broadband cannot be accessed by the poor just by making broadband services cheap, the hardware also needs to be affordable. Should such funds underwrite fresh innovation efforts and standards in a country like India? .... How far can design patents go? Is patenting a rectangular shape with rounded edges, as Apple has for its iPhone and iPads, too liberal? People buying Apple know they are buying Apple and people buying Samsung products know they’re buying Samsung, not quite Apple. Many women have stood atop a ventillating grate, laughing at the silliness of patting down their billowing skirts instead of moving off the grate. Does this stunt make all women Marilyn Monroe? Apparently, it does, if you go by the logic of the California judge and jury who found in favour of Apple and against Samsung.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Apple Samsung: The Verdict Was Unfair

Apple, Samsung Verdict: Implications?
Apple, Samsung, And The Circus
Samsung Galaxy S III Design Story
Apple, Samsung: It's About Android
It Is About Google As Much As Samsung
Apple/Samsung/Conan
Apple Samsung Trial: Big Implications
Hello Samsung, Hi Apple
Samsung Deserves Room To Play
Hello Apple, Hi Samsung
Samsung Galaxy S III
The Smartphone Is A Frying Pan
Apple Acting Soviet
Fighting Over Rectangles
Google Is Not Fighting Back Hard Enough On Android

Apple-Samsung juror speaks out
Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture?

If the jury instructions are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures? .... If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. ..... Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin? ....... How did the Galaxy Tab escape design patent infringement? This was the only device to be preliminarily enjoined (on appeal no less), and yet it was the one of the few devices to be spared the sledgehammer. And, by the way, it looks an awful lot like an iPad. Yet the Epic 4G, a phone I own (uh oh, Apple’s coming after me) — which has a slide out keyboard, a curved top and bottom, 4 buttons on the bottom, the word Samsung printed across the top, buttons in different places (and I know this because I look in all the wrong places on my wife’s iTouch), a differently shaped speaker, a differently placed camera, etc. — that device infringes the iPhone design patents....
Relatedly, the ability to get a design patent on a user interface implies that design patent law is broken. This, to me, is the Supreme Court issue in this case. We can dicker about the “facts” of point 2, but whether you can stop all people from having square icons in rows of 4 with a dock is something that I thought we settled in Lotus v. Borland 15 years ago. I commend Apple for finding a way around basic UI law, but this type of ruling cannot stand. ........ This is the second lawyer I've seen predicting this case will go all the way to the US Supreme Court. ..... Now the jurors are contradicting each other. Lordy, the more they talk, the worse it gets. I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages, they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. ....... Samsung, the global leader among smartphone makers, vowed to fight. Its lawyers told the judge it intended to ask her to toss out the verdict....... "This decision should not be allowed to stand because it would discourage innovation and limit the rights of consumers to make choices for themselves," Samsung lead lawyer John Quinn said. He argued that the judge or an appeals court should overturn the verdict....... Apple lawyers plan to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages from $1.05 billion to $3 billion....... U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues, along with Samsung's demand she overturn the jury's verdict, in several weeks. Quinn said Samsung would appeal if the judge refuses to toss out the decision....... Samsung said after the verdict that it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."....... "This is by no means the final word in this case," Quinn said in a statement. "Patent law should not be twisted so as to give one company a monopoly over the shape of smartphones."

Sweeping Apple win, but Samsung set for bounce-back

The U.S. ruling, read out to a packed federal courtroom in San Jose, just miles from Apple's headquarters, came less than 24 hours after a Seoul court found that while the iPhone and Galaxy look very similar Samsung hadn't violated Apple's design. .... it could take "many years" for Apple and Samsung to settle the case whatever the result of this round, leaving the two firmly in control of the $200 billion-plus global smartphone market. .... "The impact on Samsung will be quite limited, as affected models are mostly legacy products and its new products did make some design changes to avoid potential litigation" ..... Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III phone was not involved in the trial ..... "The likelihood of Apple being leapfrogged or a rival creating a new category (of device) is greater if they have to think out of the box. If they just copy Apple, like Coke, Apple can claim to be 'the real thing'." .... Samsung also looks to be staying ahead of the curve - by reviving the stylus function, derided by Apple's Steve Jobs, in its latest tablets and by creating the hybrid phone-cum-tablet, or phablet, category, with its 5.3-inch Note.

Apple Cleared Of Infringing Two Google Patents By ITC

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Apple, Samsung: It's About Android

Android conveniently came before iOS.

This is a trial about "look and feel."

Apple's warning to Samsung: 'Android is designed to lead companies to imitate the iPhone'

The real focus was to entice Samsung to license Apple's patents

After Starting With a Bang, Apple vs. Samsung Now Just as Boring as Other Patent Cases

The problem with patent cases is, sooner or later, you find yourself talking about patents..... the well-guarded kitchen table around which Apple’s design team creates the company’s products. ..... Apple is suing Samsung for infringing a range of design and utility patents, as well as the “trade dress” for the iPhone and iPad. Samsung denies it infringes, and argues that Apple’s patents should also be found invalid. The company has also countersued, alleging that Apple’s wireless products infringe on Samsung patents. ..... He gets Singh to agree that Apple didn’t invent scrolling or scaling. No, Singh agrees, the notion of scaling goes back to the ancient Greeks.

Samsung takes on Apple over value of phone features

Apple and Samsung are going toe-to-toe in a patents dispute mirroring a struggle for industry supremacy between two rivals that control more than half of worldwide smartphone sales..... While Apple is open to licensing certain categories of patents, Teksler said, it is highly resistant to giving other companies access to technology it deems core to its "unique user experience." ..... Apple is one of Samsung's biggest customers for smartphone and tablet component parts

This case needs to go to the WTO.

Look below. The computer on the left is from Apple in 1990. But the one on the right is from NeXT. How come Apple did not sue NeXT? The two machines look alike to me.

Not to mention others like Dell, Compaq and HP who also built machines with a similar "look and feel."

This trial is Apple going after Google and Google is not hitting back.

For a company that quite literally stole the GUI from Xerox, and the iPhone from Sony.

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Patent Potholes

English: Portrait of Judge Elbert Tuttle, taken by United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, from here. It is a work of the federal judiciary, so it is in the public domain. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Software is like music. Notes can not be patented.

Top patent court struggles to decide when software is patentable

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that upheld a patent on the idea of using a computer to perform a particular kind of financial transaction. Now, just a couple of weeks later, the same court has reached the opposite conclusion about a patent on using a computer to manage a particular type of life insurance policy. ..... The courts have long ruled that "abstract ideas" and "mental processes" are not eligible for patent protection. And that has implications for the patentability of software. .... Every computer application, no matter how sophisticated, consists of nothing more than "the performance of repetitive calculations." .... At root, the judges of the Federal Circuit appear confused about how computers work

Tech Leadership On Patent Reform

The official online color is: #A4C639 . 한국어: 공식 온라인 색은: #A4C639 . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is for the biggest tech companies to take the lead on patent reform. Perhaps there are allies on Capitol Hill. But this Microsoft gesture seems to seek patent defeat not patent peace. For now the big dogs are in mood to duke it out, not hug it out. That is the impression I get.

Microsoft to Google: Enough With the Diversionary Tactics, Let’s Hug It Out

called on Google and Motorola to join it in hammering out a comprehensive settlement of intellectual property disputes between them ..... Motorola’s public proposal to take a license for only a small sub-set of the large number of Microsoft patents used in its products will not result in durable patent peace ..... “Microsoft wants to undercut Motorola’s industry-leading patent portfolio, licensed by more than 50 other companies on fair and reasonable terms, while seeking inflated royalties tied to standards that Microsoft alone controls. Motorola is always open to negotiations that avoid wasteful and abusive patent claims.”

A Solid Foundation for Patent Peace

we are seeking solely the same level of reasonable compensation for our patented intellectual property that numerous other Android distributors – both large and small – have already agreed to recognize in our negotiations with them.

Microsoft to Motorola: The way to 'patent peace'

The patent wrangles have a complicated history: earlier this year more than a dozen Android-powered Motorola devices were banned from being imported to the U.S. for sale because Motorola was found to have infringed Microsoft's ActiveSync patent, thanks to a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). ..... More recently, a German court banned the sale of all Motorola devices running Android because the smartphone maker infringed a Microsoft-owned patent relating to file storage. .... Meanwhile Motorola secured an injunction against Windows 7 and the Xbox in Germany over H.264 video codecs, though the sales ban will not be enforced immediately. Microsoft said it wanted to use the video compression technology, but Motorola would charge in the region of $4 billion in annual royalties -- which Microsoft said was not at the market rate.

Microsoft wants 'patent peace' in ongoing Motorola spat

Microsoft's lawyers pen a public note to Motorola: 'We want to talk because this patent nonsense is getting way out of hand.' Will the two companies kiss and make up, or squabble until a court rules?