Posts by Steve Todd 2645 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Sep 2007
Firstly it's 4 out of 9 (one of the original 10 has been excused)
Secondly only 6 of the 9 get to vote (3 are alternates in case any of the main 6 have to withdraw)
We don't know how many of those 4 were alternates or primary. Worst case it could be 2/3rds of the voting jury.
as proof that the courts are biased and poor little Samsung is being put upon?
Did you bother to check how much of Apple's evidence got excluded also (quite a lot actually, for the same sort of reasons as Samsung). You think that the F700, if you look at it from the front only, without deploying the keyboard, and ignore much of the fine detail, shows that Samsung had designed the Galaxy S case in December 2006. That's a particularly poor grasp on reality you have there.
Or are you saying that Apple having investigated the question of what they thought that a Sony designed iPhone would look like shows that Apple stole the design from Sony (even though they didn't use that design, and earlier designs have more in common with the final iPhone case).
And claiming that you'd have to think about how not to infringe a design patent isn't an excuse.
Design is hard. It look Apple years and over 30 prototypes to come up with their design. You're saying that Samsung shouldn't have to use a little effort to come up with something that doesn't infringe?
Faindroids refusing to consider that Apple may have a point for some of their claims and down voting anything that contradicts that view is no reason to stop posting. All I have written is consistent with the way that the courts view these things, not how you'd like the world to be. Samsung may have a point with some or all of their patent claims. So far some of the details look like bullshit to me (the 2007 patent for background MP3 playback on a phone in particular) but I don't yet know enough detail to be definitive. Fandroids are convinced that Samsung is all sunshine and light, which I know isn't true (and neither are Apple BTW)
do I have to bang this in? DESIGN Patents aren't about engineering technology, they are about cosmetic appearance. If you could carve the shape out of butter with a spoon you'd still be infringing the design.
The engineering required to build the case isn't trivial (I'd love to see your 6 year old trying to mill out the case back from a block of aluminium) but the hard work is designing the hardware and software to fit inside of it. All the buyer sees though is the case, and if two designs look near enough the same and the salesman says "hey, this one is the same but cheaper" then Apple have unfairly lost a sale.
A cheap knock-off made of chromed plastic is still an infringement of a metal device. The design patent is ONLY about how the device appears, nothing else. It also doesn't have to be a 100% match, just close enough for the judge to decide that it has substantially the same appearance.
Ignoring for a moment that the F700 is a HTC TyTN rip-off, factors both gross and minor (the sliding keyboard to start with, the way that the sides slope outwards from the screen and the location and size of the speaker and mike grills as additional examples) make it different enough to be considered a separate design from the iPhone.
If Samsung had stuck to making phones that looked like the F700 (complete with keyboard) then they wouldn't have infringed Apple's design. As it was they moved their design close enough to that of the iPhone that the US judge considers it to be infringing. It's not a valid excuse to say that you modified a different design to get where you are if that modification was done after the infringed design was filed. Apple couldn't make their next phone look like a Galaxy SIII for the same reason.
As to the idea of patenting designs, argue with the US congress about that. You can move on to the EU commission, the UK Parliament, the Korean government (don't forget that Samsung filed their F700 design there), plus most of the rest of the civilised world when you're done (they call them by different names but they all amount to the same thing). Just because you don't see the value of protecting designs doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't also.
A giant model of an iPhone is still covered by the iPhone design patent.
Start stretching or compressing some of the proportions and you start to differentiate it from the Apple design. Make enough changes and you're safe (see the Galaxy Pad 10.1N, changed enough not to infringe).
Things aren't as simple as you keep trying to make out.
Apple admit that real tablet PCs existed before the iPad, never mind fake props in TV and movies. They are not claiming ownership of the concept of tablet PCs, they are claiming ownership of a specific case design and certain UI features. If Samsung want to change the Galaxy Pad to look like the props from 2001 then I'm sure Apple will be delighted.
And yet other companies (and even Samsung) are able to design popular phones with their own distinctive looks that don't infringe Apple's design.
Should other companies be able to copy all but the logo of Nike trainers because they are popular? Are other companies prevented from making trainers at all? THATs the point that you are missing.
And the F700 is related to how the iPaq looks just how?
Putting your own logo on someone else's design doesn't render your device free from IP infringement claims. You will also find people who don't know any better being told by salesmen (who should) "oh, it's the same thing but cheaper" which is where the problem lies.
Yes, there were versions with 3G IIRC, but Apple isn't suing Samsung for putting 3G data in their phones.
What they ARE suing them for is copying the iPhone case design (which the iPaq looks nothing like) and UI features like pinch to zoom (not possible on a single point resistive screen) and overscroll bounce back (you couldn't scroll past limits on Windows Mobile).
Perhaps they could explain how an all silver device with many sharp edges, a recessed resistive touch screen and ornamental features all over the place could be mistaken for an iPhone. Go look it up on Wikipedia and see what it looks like. It has precisely non of the features that Apple are suing over.
No, you'd need to be a complete idiot to mistake an iPaq for am iPhone (and yes, I have owned both. The iPaq is still about somewhere). The two are completely unlike each other and Windows mobile lacks the UI features that Apple are asserting their patents on also.
What the like does is point out that the story that the F700 was released befor the iPhone is a myth.
Samsung MAY have a design patent for something that looked a bit like the F700 dated late 2006, but sure as heck they made some changes prior to actually releasing it, and that was long after the iPhone debut. The fact that it was a keyboard slider design seems to be convieniently ignored also.
that the current playbook does 3G. It doesn't. It can tether to a Blackberry or it can use WiFi, that's it.
Because of this there is no on-contract price, except if your carrier throws one in for free/cheap with a BB. That £129 price is contract free, unsubsidised and shows you just how desperate RIM are to shift them.
And this is in any way unusual in trials?
One side tries something that is borderline or outside of the rules. The other side objects. The judge rules which is correct and they move on. They're not playing a game of patty cake here, they are arguing over billions of dollars, which is why each legal team is paid big bucks to get it right and present their case in the best possible light. Samsung's lawyers stuffed up here. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. Move on.
They have a habit of taking a very partisan view from one side or another, rairly balanced.
Samsung's presentation certainly wasn't in the public domain before they emailed a large chunk of it to the press. The outline of their case was, but not the detail. Releasing it in the way they did was definitely a bad move.
Saying that, Apple's request for summary judgement is wildly optimistic and unlikely to happen.
Both sides decided that they wanted to take their case to trial. They BOTH refused to settle and they are both listed as plaintiffs. Samsung also had the option of having a separate trial for their claims, which they declined.
Samsung's claims having started out as defensive doesn't make them in any way more valid or worthy than those of Apple. It's pretty easy to argue that Apple's case is defensive also.
The law is that they need to start saving from the point that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that they will be sued. Apple meeting with you with the threat that unless an agreement can be reached seems like its reasonably foreseeable. Samsung's own consul thought so.
Subtly seems to be a problem for fandroids so I find it best to perform the written equivalent of hitting them over the head with a brick. Mr "." in particular has a habit of making outrageous claims, ignoring proofs to the contrary and then repeating the same or only slightly different claim at a later date.
It would appear that you fit in with their number nicely as once again the truth is rather more subtle than you're trying to make out. Samsung tried to infer deletion because of the small number of emails provided in discovery dated between the meeting at which Apple threatened to sue and when they filed formal notice that evidence was to be preserved.
Since discovery only requires relevant emails (you don't need to provide those on other, unrelated subjects) and Apple had not yet started formal proceedings it's hardly unlikely that there weren't many mails as many of the Apple employees that Samsung talked about where working on later designs by that point. After the formal decision to sue there will have however been much more email traffic about the case, which was seen in a large increase in the number of emails.
As Samsung had only supposition and no actual evidence the claim was thrown out.
What got Samsung into trouble however was as follows:-
1) They had been in legal trouble 8 years prior for the same system. They still hadn't fixed it.
2) Their legal consul sent an email out to only 28 people following that meeting warning them to save emails. That number was increased to over 2000 following formal notice from Apple.
3) They didn't bother to check that people were following the policy.
It's this lack of care rather than the lack of emails that got them in trouble.
There is a legal requirement for a company to keep documents for a defined period (the period varies based on country and field) but it's typically 7-10 years. Computer storage is cheap (even server based SAN storage costs only a few tens of $ per gigabyte per year) so you have to start out by wondering WHY they would delete the emails after only 2 weeks to start with.
I have no problems with Samsung competing and producing their own designs (I've bought some of their kit in the past, I may again in the future). What you seem blind to is just how far they went to make their phones and pads look and behave like Apple devices. Stock Android (which I've used) lacks many of the features that Apple are sueing them for or behaves significantly differently. TouchWiz went out of its way to accomplish this (even to the point of removing reflow from the web browser).
As for specific designs, it's all there in the design patents (it's not my fault if you can't read or understand design drawings). The judge will use those in combination with copies of the real devices to decide if Samsung's devices are copies or not.
Samsung's case is that Apple owes them patent fees. If they win they get those fees plus damages (they are REQUIRED to licence them, the only point they can argue is how much for).
Apples case is that Samsung unfairly coppied their design. If they win they want damages and Samsung to stop.
Samsung's case doesn't require an injunction. Apple's case does (and the judge thinks that they have a strong case), but they have to pay a bond to cover Samsung's losses if they lose.
All big companies retain in-house lawyers for precisely this reason. It's a cost of doing business. Apple are constantly being sued for one reason or another (Samsung are sueing them at the moment if you hadn't noticed) and its something that they expect and budget for. How do you think Samsung would feel if they couldn't sue other companies who used their patents for free because that would reduce the amount of innovation that said company could engage in?
You really have to get past this simplistic idea that "Apple patented a rectangle". It's about as true and accurate as saying that Samsung invented the TV set. Apple patented a very specific design, one that most companies (even Samsung, when they put their mind to it) can avoid infringing without much trouble.
Don't forget that Samsung are countersueing for patent infringement.
The judge is trying to ensure that the rules of civil law are being followed. If one side makes a late submission of evidence it can only be included with the permission of the other side. Samsung were late to introduce their evidence on the F700 so it's entirely normal that this evidence would be excluded.
Stop trying to throw your teddy out of the pram and wait to see how the case turns out.
When ANY company gets sued for ANY reason they are under a legal obligation to ensure that no evidence gets destroyed. Samsung's response, knowing that their email system automatically deleted emails after two weeks, was to send out an email saying "please save your emails somewhere safe" but then not to check that this was being done.
Why did they not simply turn off auto deletion?
Why don't they keep a tape archive of old mails?
Both pretty basic and standard methods of not getting themselves into that position.
What the press IS allowed to report is the proceedings of the court, what each side said and what was ruled in or out. They have to be careful with any opinions they offer on those rulings though. The press can report that the judge ruled the F700 evidence as not admissible, but not that either side is guilty before the jury has made that decision.
Samsung aren't the only side to have requests ruled against them BTW, there's a long list of requests from both sides that have been rejected.
It was contempt because it was used as a way to try to get excluded evidence to the jury.
Samsung COULD have used the exclusion as part of any appeal, but releasing their evidence and case like this is likely to pollute any future retrial so it looks more and more like an act of desperation. Bad move Samsung.
The 6847 was, to put not too fine a point on it, rubbish. It only supported a 32 x 16 array of characters, in upper case only, plus a couple of fairly low res bit mapped video modes. You could use if with a 6502 (Acorn did just that with the Atom), but 6502 based hardware had moved on to ASIC video by then (the C64's VIC chip for example, or the BBC Micro's video chip). Other than that and the price it wasn't a bad machine for the time.
Given the Registers paunchant for units, how about the Tesla Foot. The amount of energy required to shift a Tesla Roadster one foot. It averages 216WHr per mile, therefore assuming a 7.2V battery the Sony could shift the Tesla about 1050 feet.
Or disagree with them. Personally I think that at least one of the Samsung patents they are suing Apple with is bullshit (MP3 playback as a background task on a mobile phone, dated 2007!), but it's up to the courts to decide whether they are valid and infringed.
The job of a design patent is to prevent competitors from rippling off the appearance of each others devices, and therefore they are filling the job they are supposed to do. The injuncted models have been superseded so there's little financial loss (this says more about the speed of the court system), but even if they had been current the point of an injunction is that the court finds a strong case in favour of the plaintiff AND THEY HAVE TO PAY A BOND TO COVER LOSSES IF THE JURY DECIDES OTHERWISE.
Firstly you've demonstrated that you don't know what an ad hominem is. (If I'd called you an idiot, and therefore you must be wrong then that would have been an ad hom, As it was I said this is why you are wrong, not understanding this makes you look like an idiot).
Secondly you're still completely failing to understand registered designs/design patents. They are very specific and require copying most if not all of the design in order to infringe. Apple haven't been handed rights to all cuboid shapes like you are (idiotically) claiming.
Thirdly as the Galaxy S line progressed they got less and less like the iPhone, yet they still work as phones and yet aren't subject to injunction. Samsung's own internal documents show that they were trying to piggyback on the iPhone's popularity and that the most common reason for Galaxy Pad returns was that they had been confused with iPads.
that a design patent is not a regular patent I see. In the EU we call them Registered Designs, and you can register any shape you like providing that it is (a) distinctive and (b) not required for the device to function.
Do try not to look like a complete idiot when you come up with these prognostications.
Apple HAVEN'T patented round corners, they've patented a 3D shape. It's quite possible to create a phone with rounded corners that doesn't infringe this patent.
Samsung have gone out of their way to make their products look as close as possible to those of Apple. If you can't see the logo then it's hard to spot the difference between the iPhone and the Galaxy S. Samsung also copied Apple's packaging, and in some territories they skip printing the Samsung logo on the box too. The result is that it is easy for the general buying public to end up with a Samsung when they wanted an Apple (it was the top reason given for Best Buy returns of Galaxy Pads).
No, the two years is ONLY for defects in manufacture. If the device breaks for any other reason after 6 months then you're not covered. You're also required to prove that it was a manufacturing defect (you may be required to provide an independent engineering report).
As I said, the EU warranty in many ways isn't as good as the UK law.
but that refund of 10% of the purchase price is actually consistent with European law. Under that law, after 6 months of use if a fault occurs the seller is allowed to declare the device beyond economic repair and refund the purchase price LESS an amount to cover the value of the use that the purchaser received (and the store gets to decide how much that is).
European law warranty isn't as strong as UK law (requiring the consumer to prove that the failure was due to a manufacturing fault after 6 months for example) and certainly isn't as comprehensive as the standard or extended Apple warranty.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
