It's official -- Note2 infringes says Apple

[TerryMathews]

Here's the problem with that. Samsung didn't create any documents trying to replicate the prior art you mention. They have a 250+ page document stating all the ways they should copy Apple. Not one mention of your prior art. Its clear what look and feel they were trying to copy, and it has nothing to do with the prior art you talked about.

A group of engineers in an internal and confidential document identified features that should be copied.

Do you expect everyone at any given corporation to be patent lawyers? I don't think an absent discussion on prior art is telling given the scope and audience of the document you linked.

 

[cheezy321]

A group of engineers in an internal and confidential document identified features that should be copied.

Do you expect everyone at any given corporation to be patent lawyers? I don't think an absent discussion on prior art is telling given the scope and audience of the document you linked.

Who cares if its internal? Who cares if its confidential? They have a clear mission here: To copy the best features from a single competitors phone. If there were even a couple features from other phones this document wouldn't be as damning. That is why I bring up prior art. If there are all these other companies (as you state) who did something before apple did then why isnt Samsung copying them? Their intentions are clear. To copy the look and feel of iOS.

You don't have to be a patent lawyer to understand that creating a 250 page document stating all the ways you should copy a single competitors phone makes you look bad. They did not do this for any other competitor. They did it for one.

 

[Tom]

So then you do agree that a verdict in a court case isn't the final indicator of justice.

As could be the case in Apple v Samsung. Samsung's appeals aren't exhausted nor has this initial verdict even been confirmed; there are serious allegations regarding the Foreman that appear to have some merit.

The "anti-Apple cult" are stating reasons why they feel this verdict is not legitimate and might not stand on appeal. That's not rabid fanaticism; it's arguing for your POV, one that many other people share.

totally agree.

but that isn't Apple abusing anything.

 

[Tom]

To your first point, legitimate design innovations should be patentable. "Snow White", for example. Legitimate innovations should be patentable. Rosetta, for example.

Obvious developments in the field should not be patentable, nor combinations of existing art. Who's at fault? Apple for filing in bad faith and the Patent Office for issuing bad patents.

To your second point, none of Samsung's phones are what I would call a copy. They have a different look and feel, different features, and different functions.

No one would pick up a Galaxy and mistake it for an iPhone. I would entertain specific innovations of Apple's you feel Samsung is infringing, please refer to my list of prior art.

I don't have enough knowledge to have a personal opinion whether Samsung is infringing.

However, your example that no one would mistake a Galaxy for an iphone isn't determinative of infringing, and I'm not sure that an average person presented with a Galaxy by itself would know it wasn't an iphone by another name.

 

[Chiropteran]

totally agree.

but that isn't Apple abusing anything.

False :biggrin:

The intended purpose of the system is to protect innovation. If Apple is patenting things that are not actually inventions or innovations of Apple, that is abuse of the system. Not that "abuse" doesn't automatically mean illegal, they could be technically acting 100% within the law while still abusing the system. Abuse simply means they use the system for their own maximum advantage with no regard for the intended use.

 

[TerryMathews]

You must be joking.

UI layout & large icons: Nokia 7710, LG Prada
On screen keyboard: Microsoft, dates back to Palm-sized PC
Silent switch: Palm Treo
Native apps: the entire industry minus Apple.
App store: Handspring nee Palm
Slide to unlock: NeoNode N1
One app running, save state: Palm

Apple innovated a ton... At Newton. The iPhone is a combination of many other design elements. Apple deserves credit for making smartphones successful. Not for designing the whole thing ground up.

You don't recognize any Android innovation? Then you're a fool. You're losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Who cares if its internal? Who cares if its confidential? They have a clear mission here: To copy the best features from a single competitors phone. If there were even a couple features from other phones this document wouldn't be as damning. That is why I bring up prior art. If there are all these other companies (as you state) who did something before apple did then why isnt Samsung copying them? Their intentions are clear. To copy the look and feel of iOS.

You don't have to be a patent lawyer to understand that creating a 250 page document stating all the ways you should copy a single competitors phone makes you look bad. They did not do this for any other competitor. They did it for one.

Arguably they copied the same people Apple copied from. You know, that thing called prior art.

 

[TerryMathews]

totally agree.

but that isn't Apple abusing anything.

Not if they are knowingly patenting things they know should not withstand review.

 

[Tom]

False :biggrin:

The intended purpose of the system is to protect innovation. If Apple is patenting things that are not actually inventions or innovations of Apple, that is abuse of the system. Not that "abuse" doesn't automatically mean illegal, they could be technically acting 100% within the law while still abusing the system. Abuse simply means they use the system for their own maximum advantage with no regard for the intended use.

Look, until yesterday I didn't know about design patents. They aren't new though.

They have nothing to do with "invention".

Since you don't seem to understand that, i think that lack of understanding has more to do with your perception than anything Apple does.

I'm not saying that to be personal, like I said about myself, I didn't know about it either until I decided to look into the mic icon patent. I had assumed it was possible to trademark designs to protect them ,but it turns out they can be patented.

Given the reality, I would think it makes more sense for you to disagree that design can be patented, or to think the courts aren't doing their job the way you think they should..

but neither of those are Apple's fault.

 

[Tom]

Not if they are knowingly patenting things they know should not withstand review.

But like I said before, there's direct evidence they do withstand review.

 

[TerryMathews]

But like I said before, there's direct evidence they do withstand review.

There's one verdict, which is by no means solid considering the allegations of misconduct by the Foreman.

Setting that aside for the moment, you're still taking the position that right == what a judge or jury will not convict you of doing. And I again point you to Plessy v Ferguson.

Courts do get things wrong. An initial verdict, under contention no less, does not mean Apple's lawyers aren't gaming the system.

I like how you guys ignore the elephant in the room, of all the innovations Apple stole in making the iPhone. I think I'll post them every page until someone addresses them.

 

[TuxDave]

I like how you guys ignore the elephant in the room, of all the innovations Apple stole in making the iPhone. I think I'll post them every page until someone addresses them.

I have free time over lunch. What do you want to be addressed about them?

 

[Chiropteran]

Look, until yesterday I didn't know about design patents. They aren't new though.

They have nothing to do with "invention".

Since you don't seem to understand that, i think that lack of understanding has more to do with your perception than anything Apple does.

I'm not saying that to be personal, like I said about myself, I didn't know about it either until I decided to look into the mic icon patent. I had assumed it was possible to trademark designs to protect them ,but it turns out they can be patented.

I don't think you understand. The mic icon isn't a bad patent because it's just a design image. It's a bad patent because it's a design image that has already been used hundreds if not thousands of times by others and is not created nor invented by Apple.

"A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States. "

Scroll back in the thread. Someone posted an image with some 10+ examples of other applications using essentials the same mic icon. It's absurd that Apple is trying to patent it now.


Also,

Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items

Yeah, nice try Apple.

But like I said before, there's direct evidence they do withstand review.

Throw enough crap at a wall and some of it will stick. It also helps to have a massive legal team and a huge pile of cash.

 

[TerryMathews]

I have free time over lunch. What do you want to be addressed about them?

Why they aren't examples of prior art that should have disqualified Apple's patents as non-inventive or obvious.

 

[rahulgarg]

That's because it's new. codedivine from the TechReport and Beyond3D forums wrote it so it doesn't exactly have much in terms of fanfare. Being more consistent than Linpack make it more useful though imo.

Besides, this is Android, permissions are asked upon installation and the only one it has is to keep your screen on.

Oh hello everyone! I am the author of RgBenchMM. Feel free to ask any questions. And many thanks to Chrono for his help. :biggrin:
It is true that the app is not very well-known. I am only a grad student and have not had the time or money to advertize it. However, it was featured once on XDA portal: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/rgbenchmark-offers-permission-free-benchmarking/

About security, as you can see from the Android permissions, it does not connect to internet nor does it read/write any file. I wrote it only because I was frustrated with the poor benchmark scene on Android.

I have also written a tool for measuring memory bandwidth here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.codedivine.rgbenchbw though this tool is approximate and has more variation per run.
It gives you an estimate of memory bandwidth in MB/s using code derived from standardized tests such as STREAM used on servers, as well as testing a simple "memcpy".

At some point, I am also going to introduce a test for testing NEON performance but I have been too busy at school.

 

[TerryMathews]

Throw enough crap at a wall and some of it will stick. It also helps to have a massive legal team and a huge pile of cash.

Apple has been perfecting this legal strategy since the 80s or 90s. See the "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft.

 

[Mopetar]

There's one verdict, which is by no means solid considering the allegations of misconduct by the Foreman.

What about all of the other rulings that have gone in Apple's favor? It's not as though that one case is the only instance where Apple has won. It wouldn't be outrageous to suggest Apple has presented much of the same evidence in other cases.

Setting that aside for the moment, you're still taking the position that right == what a judge or jury will not convict you of doing. And I again point you to Plessy v Ferguson.

Morality doesn't always equate to legality. In certain parts of the world, things like honor killings are considered moral. Should we adjust the laws to make such things legal? Morality shouldn't even enter the discussion when talking about legal matters as there are multiple moral codes, often in conflict with each other. Furthermore, debates related to morality are mostly pointless as they're just opinions and arguments over morality invariably end up devolving into little more than intellectual masturbation.

Just because Apple is legally 'right' or 'in the right' legally, doesn't mean that the same can be said when considering some arbitrary moral code, or for that matter, some other arbitrary legal code. It would probably be best to express such a statement as, 'Apple is legally right as far as the laws of country X are concerned' but people don't always fully express what they mean which leaves it open to be taken out of the intended context.

Courts do get things wrong. An initial verdict, under contention no less, does not mean Apple's lawyers aren't gaming the system.

I don't think that they're 'gaming' the system any more than any other company. If you don't think any other companies lawyers aren't trying to get away with whatever they think will best help their client, you're mistaken.

Perhaps you mean to suggest that they're attempting to use litigation to eliminate their competition, but it's pretty obvious that such a thing is impossible. Perhaps if they were targeting much smaller companies that could not afford lawyers you might have a point, but large multinational companies have their own legal teams or law firms on retainer. That's been the case long before any of these recent mobile patent disputes began. It also makes the assumption that any one of these companies holds patents that could be used to completely block the competition, but as far as I'm aware, none of these exist. Any design patents can be easily designed around and the same goes for many technical patents. Those technical patents that can't be designed around are part of an industry standard and subject to FRAND licensing such that they eventually must be licensed.

I like how you guys ignore the elephant in the room, of all the innovations Apple stole in making the iPhone. I think I'll post them every page until someone addresses them.

Please feel free to list them all. I think it will make for good discussion.

 

[TerryMathews]

Look, until yesterday I didn't know about design patents. They aren't new though.

They have nothing to do with "invention".

Since you don't seem to understand that, i think that lack of understanding has more to do with your perception than anything Apple does.

I'm not saying that to be personal, like I said about myself, I didn't know about it either until I decided to look into the mic icon patent. I had assumed it was possible to trademark designs to protect them ,but it turns out they can be patented.

Given the reality, I would think it makes more sense for you to disagree that design can be patented, or to think the courts aren't doing their job the way you think they should..

but neither of those are Apple's fault.

I don't see why you can't understand this.
Some people don't believe designs can be patented - not inventive.

Some people believe that even if designs can be patented, that a picture of a microphone does not rise to the threshold of non-obvious. To me, if any design patents are valid, then they must be non-obvious, significantly different than the industry standard, and not driven by necessity. For example, the Armana Radarrange. Due to safety, it could practically only be laid out in the configuration it was sold in. Anyone building a microwave would have to build in the same fashion.

Apples "Snow White" design language should be patentable if anything is. The Luxor lamp. The Jeep.

Two separate arguments for the same situation. Concept no good. Concept ok, specifics no good. Follow?

 

[TerryMathews]

What about all of the other rulings that have gone in Apple's favor? It's not as though that one case is the only instance where Apple has won. It wouldn't be outrageous to suggest Apple has presented much of the same evidence in other cases.

what about the cases Apple has lost? UK specifically. It's not like they're batting 1.000.

Morality doesn't always equate to legality. In certain parts of the world, things like honor killings are considered moral. Should we adjust the laws to make such things legal? Morality shouldn't even enter the discussion when talking about legal matters as there are multiple moral codes, often in conflict with each other. Furthermore, debates related to morality are mostly pointless as they're just opinions and arguments over morality invariably end up devolving into little more than intellectual masturbation.

Just because Apple is legally 'right' or 'in the right' legally, doesn't mean that the same can be said when considering some arbitrary moral code, or for that matter, some other arbitrary legal code. It would probably be best to express such a statement as, 'Apple is legally right as far as the laws of country X are concerned' but people don't always fully express what they mean which leaves it open to be taken out of the intended context.



I don't think that they're 'gaming' the system any more than any other company. If you don't think any other companies lawyers aren't trying to get away with whatever they think will best help their client, you're mistaken.

Perhaps you mean to suggest that they're attempting to use litigation to eliminate their competition, but it's pretty obvious that such a thing is impossible. Perhaps if they were targeting much smaller companies that could not afford lawyers you might have a point, but large multinational companies have their own legal teams or law firms on retainer. That's been the case long before any of these recent mobile patent disputes began. It also makes the assumption that any one of these companies holds patents that could be used to completely block the competition, but as far as I'm aware, none of these exist. Any design patents can be easily designed around and the same goes for many technical patents. Those technical patents that can't be designed around are part of an industry standard and subject to FRAND licensing such that they eventually must be licensed.



Please feel free to list them all. I think it will make for good discussion.

here you go.

You must be joking.

UI layout & large icons: Nokia 7710, LG Prada
On screen keyboard: Microsoft, dates back to Palm-sized PC
Silent switch: Palm Treo
Native apps: the entire industry minus Apple.
App store: Handspring nee Palm
Slide to unlock: NeoNode N1
One app running, save state: Palm

Apple innovated a ton... At Newton. The iPhone is a combination of many other design elements. Apple deserves credit for making smartphones successful. Not for designing the whole thing ground up.

You don't recognize any Android innovation? Then you're a fool. You're losing sight of the forest for the trees.

 

[TuxDave]

Why they aren't examples of prior art that should have disqualified Apple's patents as non-inventive or obvious.

Ok. Going purely by a 30 minute internet search, and specifically on your question regarding prior art (and none of the other reasons why a design patent would get rejected)

I got this from the USPTO
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1504.html#d0e154792

In design patent applications, the factual inquiry in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the same as in utility patent applications. That is, the reference “must be identical in all material respects.” Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Which then I went to go look up that case.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1195311.html

The scope of the prior art is not the universe of abstract design and artistic creativity, but designs of the same article of manufacture or of articles sufficiently similar that a person of ordinary skill would look to such articles for their designs.

Which somehow lead me here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=383&page=1

And if you scroll waaay down in that nasty article you can find some sample arguments.
1) The Siri icon isn't identical to any of the other ones
2) Is the differences "obvious" and obvious is defined as someone with "ordinary skill" would go do that. Which... I guess they decided it didn't.


So yeah, this is why you can't get a Law degree in 30 minutes.

/not a lawyer, could be completely off base

Either way, back to work.

 

[Zaap]

So does every other company. The internet and world in general just doesn't have some unhealthy obsession with them so we don't keep getting stories like this posted all the time.

Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly. The old "...but everyone else does it too...!" nonsense. First off, no, everyone else hasn't been abusing the patent system to the extent Apple has attempting to ban rival products for complete bullshit reasons, and suing everyone/everything over trivial things the way Apple has been. Other companies didn''t have their CEO's announce this as pretty much a mission statement, with their legal teams now following up on it.

That there may be other companies that abuse the broken system from time to time, it doesn't excuse Apple. And I've noticed the pro-Apple crowd never can produce actual examples that are as abusive as Apple. But by all means, have at it.

Considering that the patent is for the icon, as is, it's pretty unlikely that they'll be able to sue anyone unless someone basically starts using the exact same icon.

You'd probably have claimed it was unlikely that they'd try to sue anyone over a company name iFONE registered in 2003 as infringing on a product name 'iPhone' registered in 2007. You'd also be wrong.

Also, there are several other companies that also have design patents for Microphone icons, as referenced as prior art in Apple's patent application.

And which of them have a long history of starting abusive lawsuits of other companies over trival matters and to stifle their competition using bullshit patents?

Once more, stop pretending the problems with Apple and bullshit patents/lawsuits don't have a clear track record that everyone is going by.

 

[TuxDave]

You'd probably have claimed it was unlikely that they'd try to sue anyone over a company name iFONE registered in 2003 as infringing on a product name 'iPhone' registered in 2007. You'd also be wrong.

You can sue, doesn't mean you'll win.

 

[cheezy321]

I don't see why you can't understand this.
Some people don't believe designs can be patented - not inventive.

Some people believe that even if designs can be patented, that a picture of a microphone does not rise to the threshold of non-obvious. To me, if any design patents are valid, then they must be non-obvious, significantly different than the industry standard, and not driven by necessity. For example, the Armana Radarrange. Due to safety, it could practically only be laid out in the configuration it was sold in. Anyone building a microwave would have to build in the same fashion.

Apples "Snow White" design language should be patentable if anything is. The Luxor lamp. The Jeep.

Two separate arguments for the same situation. Concept no good. Concept ok, specifics no good. Follow?

Ok, so you feel the Jeep should be patentable.

off road Tires have been on another vehicle.
A jeep like frame existed before it.
4x4 vehicles existed before the jeep.
Soft tops have existed on cars long before it.
The engine was invented long before the jeep.

So why then is the jeep patentable even though there is a myriad of prior art that existed before it? The Jeep is a combination of many other design elements. The jeep makers deserve credit for bringing 4x4 vehicles to the mainstream. Not for designing the whole thing ground up.

 

[Mopetar]

here you go.

UI layout & large icons: Nokia 7710, LG Prada
On screen keyboard: Microsoft, dates back to Palm-sized PC
Silent switch: Palm Treo
Native apps: the entire industry minus Apple.
App store: Handspring nee Palm
Slide to unlock: NeoNode N1
One app running, save state: Palm

Most of those pre-date even the examples you've given. We had Icons and UI layouts back in the 80's and 90's on PCs. Hell, phones have had mute/silence switches probably further back than that. Native apps existed long before non-native apps. The concept of an app store (more the central repository for apps than the idea of selling things) has been around on Linux for a long time as well. The idea of one app running and saving the state of non-running applications is essentially how CPUs have worked since some of the earliest computers were created.

The thing that you're missing is that patents don't cover ideas, they cover implementations of ideas. If someone came out with a new way to design an automotive engine tomorrow, they could still get a patent for it even though modern combustion engines have been around for decades now. Most of the things you've listed are ideas that have been around for a long time. Over that time, some companies may have patented some implementation of those ideas, but in many cases those implementations have been around for so long the patents have expired.

That's why Apple could patent their slide to unlock method and several other methods of implementing the idea are also able to exist without infringing on Apple's patent.

And if you want to break it down, the iPhone only really represented such a large shift in the idea of a smartphone because it did a lot of little things and packaged them together. The parts on their own aren't often all that amazing or anything new, but the sum of them certainly was, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Apple certain did patent their implementation of some of those parts, but for many of the things you've listed, I'm not aware of Apple having patents related to them.

So I'm not really sure what your point is. Is it that Apple has obviously used ideas that have already existed and that were created by others so why are they complaining when people use theirs? That's what I think you're getting at, and if it is, it completely misunderstands how patents work.

 

[TerryMathews]

Ok, so you feel the Jeep should be patentable.

off road Tires have been on another vehicle.
A jeep like frame existed before it.
4x4 vehicles existed before the jeep.
Soft tops have existed on cars long before it.
The engine was invented long before the jeep.

So why then is the jeep patentable even though there is a myriad of prior art that existed before it? The Jeep is a combination of many other design elements. The jeep makers deserve credit for bringing 4x4 vehicles to the mainstream. Not for designing the whole thing ground up.

I feel that the Jeep (the Willey model) is an example of something that should be eligible for a design patent, if you assume that design patents are legitimate.

You dont need to make a 4x4 look like the Jeep to function; it's design wasn't driven by utility. There are many other designs that are not direct copies of the Jeep's design.

I would not support an invention patent on the Jeep as a whole. As you correctly pointed out, it's largely a combination of other innovations in the field.

In many ways the Jeep is a nice parallel to the iPhone: it's a novel combination of existing designs and features. The iPhone should probably qualify for a design patent. The problem is the companies that Apple are suing aren't copying the iPhone in that manner. A design patent would protect them against people manufacturing the Sorny rPhone.

Your quote at the end is very fitting this situation. Let me adjust it for you to this situation.

" The iPhone is a combination of many other design elements. The iPhone makers deserve credit for bringing smartphones to the mainstream. Not for designing the whole thing ground up."

 

[Mopetar]

Sorry, this excuse just doesn't fly. The old "...but everyone else does it too...!" nonsense. First off, no, everyone else hasn't been abusing the patent system to the extent Apple has attempting to ban rival products for complete bullshit reasons, and suing everyone/everything over trivial things the way Apple has been. Other companies didn''t have their CEO's announce this as pretty much a mission statement, with their legal teams now following up on it.

I'll have to dig up an old post of mine, where I pointed out that yes, a lot of companies are involved in litigation on a regular basis, it just doesn't get reported. I'll edit this later once I dig it up.

That there may be other companies that abuse the broken system from time to time, it doesn't excuse Apple. And I've noticed the pro-Apple crowd never can produce actual examples that are as abusive as Apple. But by all means, have at it.

The first problem with your statement is that you claim it's 'abuse' which makes it almost impossible to refute. Any example that might be produced can simply be dismissed as non-abuse. Also, if the problem is that this kind of legal news isn't reported for other companies, it is somewhat difficult to show that such cases exist, even more so if the company is in a foreign country.

You'd probably have claimed it was unlikely that they'd try to sue anyone over a company name iFONE registered in 2003 as infringing on a product name 'iPhone' registered in 2007. You'd also be wrong.

If the story stopped there, that would probably be the case, but Apple bought the iPhone trademark from Cisco which had registered it prior to 2003. The case is apparently more complicated than you make it appear and it really deserves its own topic.

And which of them have a long history of starting abusive lawsuits of other companies over trival matters and to stifle their competition using bullshit patents?

Once more, stop pretending the problems with Apple and bullshit patents/lawsuits don't have a clear track record that everyone is going by.

As I said before, I'll have to dig up my old post, and when I do I'll edit this one. Also, as others have pointed out before, this whole phenomenon isn't anything new. I believe that someone else cited the early automotive industry as an example where similar litigation was widespread and records of it exist.

Also once again, that you attempt to label this litigation in any matter pretty much makes it pointless to discuss it. It seems like you've already made up your mind and that any evidence to suggest otherwise will just be dismissed for some reason.