U.S. jury orders smartphone maker Samsung to pay Apple $120 million

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/03/us-apple-samsung-elec-idUSBREA410Z020140503

by fraXis • 12 years ago

46 59 12 years ago

1stop• 12 years ago

Why is apple suing samsung for software patents?

Samsung don't write (much of) the software.

EDIT: I know Apple CAN sue samsung, but I don't know why. Google are writing the software, all the features described are google features. Android is what iOS competes with. So I guess my question should have been: Why isn't Apple suing google?

Zikes• 12 years ago

Because reasons [1]

[1] http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/64028-image/ch-b...

aaronbrethorst• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni....

IBM2• 12 years ago

Because Samsung is using them in their products and profiting from them.

bradleyjg• 12 years ago

Patent holder can sue anyone using an infringing product. That's why you sometimes hear about patent trolls threatening to sue mom and pop operations if they have a fax/scan/copier and extorting a settlement.

wmf• 12 years ago

Samsung sells the final product and profits from it.

Since Samsung modifies Android, arguably they could have removed infringing features but they chose not to. I don't know if this argument came up during the case.

noisy_boy3• 12 years ago

Beyond them reacting to the obvious rise of Samsung, there is a side benefit of making other companies using Android think about alternatives, thereby weakening Android's stronghold on the smartphone market.

WildUtah2• 12 years ago

To infringe a patent, you have to make, use, sell, or offer to sell, or import an infringing product or process. [0] Google writes software that could be used to make such a device but it actually produces very few such devices itself. Apple just might be able to sue over the Nexus line, though I think LG and HTC actually make those, because Google sells them on the Play Store. The damages would be pretty small, though, because the volume is small.

Google's export of software is not making, selling, or importing a product [1] and no Android manufacturers make phones in the USA.

Samsung actually makes the devices and imports them in vast numbers.

Note also that since using the device can be infringement, Apple could sue every user of Android devices in the USA individually also.

[0] 35 USC §271 [1] Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007)

dirkgently4• 12 years ago

Because "slide-to-unlock" is a cornerstone of technology, the one only Apple would ever think off.

jessaustin• 12 years ago

I'm sure this verdict will be great for consumers.

IBM2• 12 years ago

Sure, maybe Samsung will create a superior implementation to the ones they were found to be infringing and the consumer can benefit from their innovation.

Gigablah• 12 years ago

Yes, maybe a universal search with results arranged in a spiral.

dirkgently4• 12 years ago

Because "slide-to-unlock" is an innovation.

jamesaguilar3• 12 years ago

Counterpoint: I'm sure consumers will totally notice that Samsung is $100M lower in profits next quarter.

It's not like they're going to stop making Android phones over this. Not saying I like what happened, but "won't someone think of the consumers" doesn't really work here.

nolok2• 12 years ago

You're a little disingenuous, the consumers won't notice the lowered Samsung profits but they sure as hell will notice if Samsung has to stop offering an "universal search" feature because apparently that's not obvious enough to avoid being patentable.

sinaa3• 12 years ago

Looks like almost all the infringed patents were on the Android side.

Didn't Google testify on this case?

noisy_boy3• 12 years ago

They did - from the article:

"Google was not a defendant in the case, but during the trial Samsung pointed out that some of the features Apple claims to own were actually invented by Google, and called a handful of executives from the Internet search giant to testify on its behalf."

sinaa3• 12 years ago

Which makes me wonder why Google isn't doing a better job at protecting Android.

The claims/patents are rather ridiculous, and a win in this case would mean that Apple can bully every Android manufacturer, including LG and their Nexus line!

funkyy2• 12 years ago

I like how Apple is fighting patent trolls while being one. I would love to see insignifgicant tech patents to be limited to max 3 years...

sjwright• 12 years ago

Apple aren't trolling, because they invented and patented ideas that are being used in very real products. Apple is using the patent system exactly as intended; if you object to this, your beef is with the architecture of the patent system, not with Apple.

You won't help by creating a new class of "insignificant tech" patent. Who decides what qualifies a patent as insignificant?

I prefer the idea someone had of doing away with the time limits altogether, and replacing it with an annual renewal fee that rises exponentially. Let the patent holder decide when the fee exceeds its usefulness.

(A similar idea should apply to copyrights. Replace the current Sonny Bono time period with a much shorter length, say 25 years, plus a 25 year time extension when registered for free in a database of copyrighted works, and up to 150 years when registered for a fee.)

dirkgently4• 12 years ago

Invented ideas like "slide-to-unlock" and "rounded corners"? Are those innovations?

testrun• 12 years ago

They certainly are now. They are one of the investors in Rockstar.

DanBlake• 12 years ago

I wonder how much the legal billing hours on both sides was.

Anyways- Putting it in perspective, It will take Samsung a bit more than a day to pay for this verdict (about 29.5 hours of revenue)

asdfologist2• 12 years ago

Shouldn't you measure hours of profit, not revenue? If a company has positive revenue but negative profit, then they'll never pay it off.

noisy_boy3• 12 years ago

Considering we are talking Samsung Electronics here, you can do away with the semantics - their profit was $5.2 billion only in the second quarter of 2013[1].

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/27/interesti...

WildUtah2• 12 years ago

This makes me really miss Groklaw.

For the first trial, Apple v. Samsung, we had regular reports with

    1. Daily trial reports on testimony and motions
    2. Analysis of the patents involved
    3. Descriptions of the legal issues involved and which were in dispute
    4. History on the companies and technology involved

But in current stories, like this better than average one from Reuters, we don't even hear about the patents involved, not their numbers, not their titles or short descriptions, and not even the total number of patents involved. We don't have a history of the litigation, the likely effects on the industry in the future, the workarounds, the simultaneous appeals before the Board of Appeals at the PTO, the issues left for appeal, the history of the judge or even her name, or any kind of context that would help us understand.

Our news source for the original Apple v. Samsung was great, but Apple ][ is like a black hole of information. The upcoming Apple /// will likely be the same unless there is some kind of new Groklaw someday.

sinaa3• 12 years ago

This seems to be a list:

- 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data

- 8,046,721: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image (slide to unlock)

- 6,847,959: universal search

- 8,074,172: Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations (word recommendation/autocomplete)

- 7,761,414: Background sync

More details here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in...

nolok2• 12 years ago

I know patents are often much more detailed and precise than what their titles may sound like, but that is one crappy list of patents. "universal search", "background sync", beeeuah.

sscalia2• 12 years ago

I love how absolutely fucking dismissive this community can be about Apple.

They fundamentally reinvented mobile phones. They brought real touch screens (resistive doesn't count) to the masses.

They had very real, seemingly obvious now, because they are so utterly perfect (slide to unlock) innovations.

They absolutely have the right to sue a company that is fundamentally a copying lab. Samsung has absolutely nothing to stand on here.

This community is hilarious. I hope when one of you innovates even at 1/1,000th the level of Apple, someone ganks your idea (badly) and see how you feel.

rtx• 12 years ago

Only they were actually using all the stuff made by Samsung.

whoismua• 12 years ago

and iPhone is made (assembled) in China by Foxcon. Your point makes no sense, Apple paid Samsung for the parts delivered.

Samsung has a long history of waiting what side wins and then cut and paste the winning one.

sscalia2• 12 years ago

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

sbuk4• 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point.

chao-• 12 years ago

I would consider myself lucky to fulfill your request and, one day, make something substantial enough that it is worth "ganking".

As of yet, I have not achieved such acclaim.

briandh• 12 years ago

Your comment history is full obvious of pro-Apple, anti-Google, and anti-bitcoin trolling.

Like or dislike any of those you please, but can't you find some other way to occupy your time?

ticktocktick• 12 years ago

Your emotional outburst is not a constructive addition to this discussion.

Despite this tantrum it would seem that more people on HN agree with you than disagree as your comment is still visible. So I am not sure why you are bitching.

meric• 12 years ago

For their innovation they were rewarded for being first to market with a good product and win a very large market share which they profited from for several years and are still profiting handsomely, and managed to build a powerful brand that will help them to continue to help them earn abnormal profits in the short to medium term. You're saying that Apple deserves to make abnormal profits for many more years (15 or so more or however long their patents last).

Profit is a feature that exists not to serve the entity the profit goes to, but to serve society at large, to encourage services to be provided, to encourage innovations. You're saying Apple should be awarded additional abnormal profits above the monopolistic competitive profits they're already generating. Is their current situation not enough to have encouraged Apple of 2006 their innovations? I doubt it. If Steve Jobs was told patents only lasts 5 years, I'm sure he'd have gone on to lead Apple to invent the exact same things. If that's the case, what's the point of giving Apple additional monopoly protections, at the expense of society at large, due to the increased prices they must pay and reduced innovations they will receive in return (since other companies are disincentivized to innovate on top of what Apple has invented)?

Is it because of how Steve Jobs would have felt? He's a great man, but we should not be reduced to living in his shadows forever. We must stand on his shoulders, for that is how humanity have advanced ever since the first hammer was passed down from father to son.

sidcool• 12 years ago

Samsung, in an argument in the court, tried passing the buck to Google, stating that the primary owner of the Android operating system is Google and they are liable for any copyright or patent infringements.

There is another $900 million case going on in court. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

suprgeek• 12 years ago

(Without commenting on who won - Apple for getting some money or Samsung for having to pay far less than anticipated)

This is a terrible list of some overbroad Patents:

The Autocomplete 172 Patent is considered suspect enough that it is going under a reexam[scribd]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autoc...

The next few ones are equally horrible: 647 is contentious as well http://www.cnet.com/news/ruling-in-apple-v-motorola-throws-w...

Irrespective of the monetary rulings, I hope these patents get struck down. A good blow against patents (especially a cash rich company like Apple) might give others pause.

U.S. jury orders smartphone maker Samsung to pay Apple $120 million

Related Stories