Apple rests its case; Samsung pushes the prior art defense
Judge Koh did throw Samsung a small bone. She removed the International versions of the Samsung Galaxy S, Samsung Galaxy S II and the Samsung Galaxy Ace from the U.S. portion of the case. Apple can still claim infringement in regard to those three models with its claim against Samsung's Korean parent. The U.S. versions of the Samsung Galaxy S and the Samsung Galaxy S II together add up to represent the largest portion of Samsung's sales at issue and are not involved in Judge Koh's ruling.
$2.5 billion and $2.75 billion.
Once Apple had rested its case, it was Samsung's turn at bat and the company will try to prove that it didn't infringe on Apple's patents or trade dress, and that Apple should not have received the patents anyway. First witness for the defendants was Ben Benderson who is a professor at University of Maryland and one of the creators of LaunchTile. The latter program was created to allow one handed use of a smartphone through zooming and was designed during the Summer of 2004 to work on PocketPC devices like the Compaq iPaq. Samsung wants to show that one or two of Apple's patents aren't valid because of prior art. If Samsung can prove that an Apple patent was based on technology that was not new, it can't be held liable for infringing on said patent.
During Apple's cross examination of Benderson, the witness showed the difference between how the Apple iPhone and LaunchTile works. The latter used something called Symantic Zoom which means as you zoom in, the words don't simply get bigger, instead more information becomes available. Defending one of its patents, Apple showed how the 'bounce-back' feature on LaunchTile was different than 'rubber band' feature that Apple had a utility patent for.
two fingers to zoom in and out. Bogue testified that a demonstration of DiamondTouch was made to Apple in 2003. One app that was displayed, called FractalZoom, enabled what we would call today, multi-touch. You can check out how this app had multi-touch before multi-touch was invented by watching the video below. Samsung is trying to prove prior art for Apple's patents for one finger scrolling and two finger zooming in or out. Another app called "Tablecloth" seemed to demonstrate the snap back effect. Apple's patent covers that effect when you scroll to the end of a document.
Sounds like Samsung is really counting on a prior art defense. So far, despite the early predictions from Apple's legal team, we have seen no sign of "The Devil made me do it" defense from Samsung.
1. XPERIA-KNIGHT (unregistered)
Come on sammy you can do it!
11. D.Aceveda (Posts: 366; Member since: 30 Jun 2012)
Judge Koh, do the right thing. Throw out this BS case.
58. Santi_Santi (unregistered)
Sammy already won this case...
2. som (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)
Judge Koh must remembered this trial is for look and feel not functionalities.
6. MeoCao (unregistered)
This trial is about patents, not something intangible that cannot be patented.
13. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the patent part is true, but apple's entire defense is "look and feel" = patent infringement. They dont have a patent on black, rectangle, and minimalist, but that has been the basis of almost their entire defense.
18. E.N. (Posts: 2362; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
But they do have the 132 page document of how Samsung can mimick the iphone
27. MeoCao (unregistered)
This is just analysis of competitor, Apple is doing the same thing.
42. E.N. (Posts: 2362; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
Its very very in depth and unecessarily specifc. So in depth, it raises eyebrows. Competitor analysis is normal and necessary, but not to that extent. i.e. the bounce back effect on the web browser that Samsung put on their devices was very flagrant. It didn't make their devices any more technological advanced, but all it did was make it more iphone-like.
I'd like to see how Samsung attempted to defend themselves. It would be smart to pull out their documents for HTC's or Motorola's devices to prove that Apple isnt special. Even though they're all running Android, there are still some significant differences between the designs/skins/layouts. Maybe they should pull out their documents for Palm and/or RIM. I wouldn't be surprised if they were all non-existent.
52. MeoCao (unregistered)
SS was learning Apple's approach, what makes good user experience and not simply about specs so the detailed analysis was necessary.
They in fact linked everything of iPhone with user experience. These things were not needed if they simply wanted to copy Apple.
Boy SS is a fast learner and now they can teach Apple a thing or two.
38. tmcr7 (Posts: 162; Member since: 02 Nov 2011)
besides, those features were not invented and patented by Apple anyway.
39. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5954; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Ummm. Apple is the one who filed suit against Sammy. Sammy is one defending itself. :-)
3. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5954; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Prior art is at the heart of all of Apple's patents that they are claiming Sammy infringed. If Sammy continues with a similar showing of prior art for the remainder of their case, Apple may get a result similar to what Larry got in his lawsuit against Google - bupkis.
46. tedkord (Posts: 5261; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Imagine if Apple's patents were invalidated, and they were ordered to pay for an advertisement in papers saying that Samsung did not copy them.
That could never happen, right...?
48. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5954; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
If Sammy were to prevail on a malicious prosecution litigation, one of the remedies could be for Apple to be compelled to take out ads that said that Sammy didn't copy and we were bad to file a specious lawsuit....
59. superguy (Posts: 271; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
Yeah, but you're also assuming that Judge Apple Whore Koh won't tilt the jury instructions in Apple's favor.
If there were actually an impartial judge then yes, I'd be inclined to agree. However, the deck is stacked against Sammy.
Justice is not blind in Koh's courtroom.
5. Savage (unregistered)
Why was Apple awarded such small patents in the first place? Bounce-back, Rubber-band? Seriously? No one buys a phone because it has bounce-back feature. These patents should be invalidated.
19. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
I disagree-- they are design patents.. not full on utility patents-- if you have a newer htc phone you will see how htc came up with their own ideas for bounce back and rubber band
whether these patents deserve monetary value could be disputed, but if the system is set up to award patents such as these, I think they should be allowed to have them
if the bounce-back feature serves no purpose, then why does samsung not eliminate it?
26. MeoCao (unregistered)
I guess bounce back feature was not granted patent then and Android could use it just as iOS is imtating notification center of Android now.
JB is using different effect to replace bounce back. The thing is trivial and Apple using it to sue others shows that Cuperino is running out of ideas,
35. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i agree that it is trivial, but apple's goal as a company is to make money, and if this makes money that follows the goal…
I am not too sure what you are saying in the first part, but if google has a patent for the notification center, by all means sue apple!
40. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5954; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Google has filed an application for a utility patent on the notification function. It just has not been granted as yet. If the application is allowed to issue, the patent will pose a serious problem for Apple, which could explain Apple's present aggressiveness - get the best available position to negotiate a global cross license.
57. protozeloz (Posts: 5381; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
actually if not mistaken the patent is granted lemme check back my resources
44. OSFantasma (Posts: 119; Member since: 27 Sep 2011)
I don't think they would sue, even if they have a patent. Google's business is not patent trolling. but they have em to defend themselves, and share there patents with all these great company's, e.g. SONY, SAMSUNG, HTC, Huawei, lg, etc.
we all know they want to advert the world but at the same time in exchange they offer great services at low cost, if not free.
a great example is when the formed the android consortium they let the manufactures add there own code or features to the android OS and gave back to the open source community and the community gave right back making android what it is today.
45. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
google has an extremely unique business model which allows them to provide services for "free" while still making money…
and yes, that is a condition of android, but it is not necessary to make a fantastic os… ios rivals android without being "open"
anyways ios would never survive as an open source os because apple does not have the model google has-- apple simply does not have the option
53. tedkord (Posts: 5261; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
IOS rivals Android in smoothness and fluidity, but not in features.
51. tedkord (Posts: 5261; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Even if Google were to sue, it would be for a small license fee, not a ban of all products that even vaguely resemble the notification drop down.
61. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
as we have seen, apple offered licenses, and samsung refused… so what is left for apple but to sue?
47. tedkord (Posts: 5261; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
And a dictators goal as leader is to remain in power, and if killing a few peasants to send a message to the others accomplishes that, it does that goal.
The end do not always justify the means. Just because Apple figured out that the patent system was overburdened, and staffed by good intentioned folks who nonetheless don't have the skill set or resources to research these patents, doesn't mean it's ok for them to take advantage of it to try and remove any competition.
If you want to drive the competition out, do it by building a better or more compelling product.
Wrong is wrong.
62. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i think apple already builds a competitive and compelling product-- obviously their financials show that
following analogies as you used, would you condemn the British who came to America, killing millions of natives in order to found the nation we have today? Arguably, there would be no America without the massive native death… should apple not be allowed to become a great American company because some of their practices are looked down upon, yet follow ever law?
if society has such a problem with it, then why do they not vote lawmakers into place who profess to fix said problems?
31. joey_sfb (Posts: 3231; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Design patent put caps on other ability to create, to compete and
should not exist in the first place.
36. Lucas777 (Posts: 2137; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
no.. utility patents should not be allowed while design patents are fine.. if apple was given a patent for any sort of end-of-list feature, that would be an overbearing utility patent… but apple's specific way of doing it should be patentable.. just like apple obtained a patent for slide to unlock, but not unlocking a phone in general as that would be too broad
I dont really agree with allowing this, but with the way the system is set up, i certainly think apple has the right to do so-- it is up to politicians and lawmakers to make the rules, not the corporations
49. tedkord (Posts: 5261; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
So I guess you didn't hear...a tap is just a zero length swipe.
Swipe to unlock should have never been granted. It existed prior to the iPhone.
7. Hammerfest (Posts: 370; Member since: 12 May 2012)
To quote an unnamed trooper from Command & Conquer: Red Alert
"BURN BABY BURN!"
8. willard12 (Posts: 886; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
“I’ve always hated litigation. We just want people to invent their own stuff." " Apple cannot become the developer for the world."- Tim Cook
1. Apple loves litigation
2/3. As day 1 of Samsung's case proves, apple develops nothing, copies everything , patents everything, then sues everyone for copying.
9. MeoCao (unregistered)
What Apple has done is taking all good ideas invented by others and packing them in a complete product.
Apple made and continue to make insane money from those ideas, and they want more, they want to take possession of all those ideas that are not theirs.
10. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the video spills the beans and kill's apple's defence
in the video he calls it "the classic multitouch zoom gesture". Which means even at the time of the video, the "multitouch zoom" was old school tech to the person.
Point, set, match, patent invalidated.
17. biophone (Posts: 1896; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
Well prior art in regards to what? I never thought apple had much of a case with any multi touch, bounce back, and slide to unlock patents.
However prior art in terms of tablets seen in old movies that look vastly different then an iPad is not valid. Neither is the lg prada which looked very clunky and had a black and white interface that looked ancient compared to iOS.
I do think the prior art defense is valid in some scenarios but if samsung is using this defense for everything I don't feel its sufficient. I'm not an expert though so who am I weigh in when they do have people who are experts testifying.
23. weinerslav (Posts: 126; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)
Actually the lg prada had also a color theme and the ui was much better than even the current lg touch feature phones, more limited in functionality, sure, but much more intuitive.
25. biophone (Posts: 1896; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
I have never actually used one but what I could find it doesn't look to be even color. Even if it was it doesn't seem to have an interface even close to iOS. Very ancient looking. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41eSm3QKA3
28. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
lol, that pic is in black n white.. most of the interface is actually blue :)
. the phone itself is a black rectangle with rounded edges, a centered screen, chrome bezel, minimal decoration, a bottom row of static "4 icons", larger icons to be finger friendly on a capacitive device... icon stacks of 4 x 4, ect ect.
if you paint the generic picture that apple paints about their products in their charges against Samsung, you can come out with a pretty clear picture of the Prada as well. Thus it invalidates all of Apple's claims as they were not first to market with such "features".
37. biophone (Posts: 1896; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
You're trying to quantify everything. This is no quantifying art. A great painting isn't great because of the colors it uses or the shapes it portrays. Its great because of the expression of the colors and shapes and how it fits together. The whole prada design is clunky and very static looking. The interface doesn't have the same core aspects like iOS does. On paper sure you can say they are similar and try to draw that comparison but on paper I could say a hyundai genesis is similar to a ferrari 458 italia design wise. They both have curves 2 doors a trunk steering wheel. But the application of these design principles in a visually appealing manner is what is so special about the ferrari.
60. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
but apple's lawsuits are not over exact specifications, they are on rounded rectangles, black, centered screen. read the transcripts.. thats exactly what they are saying.
They dont get into the nitty gritty of "well our speaker is 0.2mm from the screen, 5mm wide.. and samsungs is...."
because at that much detail, they lose their own case. they are hoping the jury will buy that they are copying based on the most generic of circumstances. Samsung is pushing details to prove they are not copying, apple is pushing generics to prove they are.
Think how many dark rounded rectangle slab phones will be up for lawsuits if apple wins. think what that will do to the industry.
29. weinerslav (Posts: 126; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)
That is the prada theme, all phones by prada have a black and white theme, is their brand identity, even the current ics prada phone comes by default in black and white. The original prada actually had a flash ui, very fast and with some eye candy.
32. weinerslav (Posts: 126; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)
Exactly, and there was also a white theme with some draws. Suddenly those dialers seem to similar...
50. tedkord (Posts: 5261; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The Prada was a feature phone. However, the Prada, in conjunction with the F700, Samsung's other designs from 2006 that were excluded from testimony, and Sony's designs we now know about, clearly show that the rectangle with rounded corners and a large touchscreen centered and minimal buttons was a natural progression and evolution of the market, not a unique concept that Apple invented.
Three other manufacturers had the design prior to the release of the iPhone.
12. biophone (Posts: 1896; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
I'm tired of all these lawsuits. Its just to much. In the end the consumer losses.
I'm not an expert on design or patent law but from a third party view I do feel apple has a legitimate case. I do feel I have a pretty good eye for design though and I do feel that samsung's sgs1 with the original version of touchwiz that it had is the most similar phone to apple's product. Less so with the sgs2 and not at all with the sgs3.
I do feel that a lot of apple's claims aren't legitimate for example all slide to unlock patent cases. However in the instance of the sgs1 and 2 its fair to say samsung was a little more then inspired by apple. Along with samsungs tablets they in my opinion (which you don't have to agree with) do infringe on apple's patents. I also feel though that all htc products moto products don't infringe on apple.
For the tired and overly used black rectangle argument that someone is bound to mention this is my thoughts on that. When you look at all iPhones from the original one to the current one you can tell that those phones are related. Sorta like you can tell an audi A4 and audi A6 are related. Thats brand identity. A sgs1 and iPhone 3gs brand identity has a lot of similarities whereas an iPhone and htc phone don't. This also has a lot to do with the interface design as well.
I think samsung felt since it supplied apple with parts it was ok to make there phones similar plus they wanted iPhone customers so they offered something that looked familiar. I guess they felt apple wouldn't care. Then when these patents wars heated up they realized they had to depart from their previous designs so they came out with the sgs3. Heck you can disagree with me but heck alteast take what I say into consideration.
To add onto my point if a company infringes on your product said product should never be banned. Unless its almost a carbon copy it should just have to be licensed out. Apple is wrong to try and ban phones.
14. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
according to the other article, copying or being similar is "not illegal". there for unless apple pulls out a patent for rectangles or similar icons their entire defense is moot.
20. biophone (Posts: 1896; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
I would say that samsung products are more then "similar." Just as an aside they have come out with chargers which are almost carbon copies expect for color and packaging which is freakishly similar.
I have no problems with samsung using elements of design from the iPhone but making the phone so similar that they could confuse someone with little knowledge of phones is a problem. I was watching mlb network and a reliever was coming in a game and the sgs2 was shown for there call to the bullpen and the announcer thought it was an iPhone. Granted he should have known that it was an advertisement for samsung but he should have been able to easily tell from a glance it wasn't an iPhone but couldn't. I don't feel that would happen with other android phones. In regards to the story where people mistakenly buy an android tablet and thought it was an iPad thats obviously false once you turn on the tablet you can tell. Plus it says its not an iPad on the box.
Plus the interface clearly shows that samsung was looking at iPhone icons heavily when designing theirs. I don't think this is acceptable.http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.
I can see what your point is and I can respect you for it. On the surface these lawsuits do seem very shallow. I just don't think its just about rectangles and colors though it goes beyond that. We probably won't be able to agree but lets just hope nothing gets banned and these lawsuits become much less infrequent in the future. I think samsung is doing a much better job in producing unique devices recently.
24. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Dont confuse the laymen's use of "iphone" for "smartphone" as "confusion". Weve talked about how people use the first 2 words interchangeably without realizing they are not the same thing like a million times.
The SGS2 looks NOTHING like an iphone.. not even slightly.
When apple brings up in court that they have a green phone icon.. and samsung has a green phone icon.. thus samsung must be copying, that is exactly what it is about. Unfortunatly facts are not on Apple's side as they are not the first to use a green phone icon.. in fact its extraordinarily common. Almost every phone's "call" button is green with a picture of a phone. They have been since the beginning of phones. There are only so many variations on that. When they claim that they have a lock down on rounded rectangles with a chrome bezel, you can pull up 100 other phones before and after the original iphone that have the same feature.
Again, the judge said that "copying" is not illegal unless its copy-write infringement. Apple's look n feel is pointless. You feeling that they did or did not copy the iphone's look is pointless. That's the point. I think the original SGS1 looks very similar to the 3GS, but that doesnt make Apple win the case. It sure as hell doesnt justify 2 billion in fines or $40 per phone in royalties. They have to prove patent infringement, not copying. If all they have is copying, they lose.
34. biophone (Posts: 1896; Member since: 15 Jun 2011)
I understand the whole people calling any smartphone an iPhone thing but this wasn't that. He looked at the phone paused and thought about it and then thought it was an iPhone. Heck for a second even I got confused till I got a good look at it.
Now I think we agree though the sgs2 kinda copies that iPhone but not that bad the sgs1 definitely copies the iPhone though. The sgs3 not at all.
And yea they can use a green icon but its almost a carbon copy just flatter looking. For example the droid razr maxx has a very different phone icon.
As far as outcomes I'm not a legal expert nor will I pretend to be. I can't make a judgment call on what the punishment should be but at the very least with the sgs1 something should happen with that.
21. MeoCao (unregistered)
The purpose of Apple's attack here is mainly to discredit SS and Android, and if they can take home some money that will be a plus.
15. BREvenson (Posts: 214; Member since: 17 May 2012)
Now it's getting interesting. Why? Because it's almost over...if Apple wins (and upsets a majority of the tech world by doing so), it won't be the end of the world for Samsung; they at least showed valid points and evidence regarding why they should not be found guilty of willful infringement. In the court of public opinion, I'm sure they won by now., though there are a few nitpickers out there that would gladly disagree.
Anyway, it does seem that Samsung's points are indeed strong-based and worth thinking about if you were part of this jury. We'll see how it goes...
22. remixfa (Posts: 14163; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
no matter what, I expect the loser to file 30000 appeals
41. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5954; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
That is absolutely for certain - whomever is on the losing side of ths lawsuit is going to be filing an appeal. The case will likely be appealed multiple times. Don't be surprised if it starts to look like a tennis match.
16. speckledapple (Posts: 879; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
I think Sammy has a chance to defend as if they can prove they Apple really did not create these things they have gotten patents for, then it would render their efforts useless and possibly null and void in any future efforts. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
33. JC557 (Posts: 1164; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)
I remember reading about DiamondTouch a long time ago. It was more revolutionary than Apple's first iPhone but the bums never made a monitor with it. Before that was Xerox's Digital Desk, in between was various ideas from Palm and MS (PocketPC/ Windows CE). Sony also had their thing going with their P800 and P900 smartphone models. All this was in magazines, even in PCWorld for f*cks sake. I remember how everyone was trying to fit the PC desktop into a smaller, more portable form factor back in the late 90s to early 2000s.
Everything that we have now was more evolutionary since the tech was available, but prohibitively expensive until more units could be churned out and consumer demand was there. The only problem was that people treated anything made by Apple as the second coming due to their mega hit: iPod (which by the way wasn't 100% original in itself).
43. ddeath (Posts: 163; Member since: 14 Apr 2012)
Seriously, Apple should not be allowed to win on a look and feel case. If they do, you can't imagine what perscussion it will cause to the industry in general. Most of the smart phones and tablets out there are a black rectangle slab, which is just a logical shape to have. Look at Asus, Acer and even the new Window surface tablet, a rectangle black slab! How else do you want a tablet to be? It's just like one notebook to another! If Apple starts banning everyone because of this stupid patent, I can see how much they stand to gain while stifling innovation. Look at Android, improving every revision. Look at IOS, not much changes since day one.
55. JunkCreek (Posts: 406; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
43. ddeath posted on 5 hours ago 1
Seriously, Apple should not be allowed to win on a look and feel case. If they do, you can't imagine what perscussion it will cause to the industry in general. Most of the smart phones and tablets out there are a black rectangle slab, which is just a logical shape to have.
Look at Asus, Acer and even the new Window surface tablet, a rectangle black slab! How else do you want a tablet to be? It's just like one notebook to another! If Apple starts banning everyone because of this stupid patent, I can see how much they stand to gain while stifling innovation. Look at Android, improving every revision. Look at IOS, not much changes since day one.
indeed. Android revolutionary almost speedlight. I just buy a new phone with something inferior next month my newly phone became as old as classic specs and feature. While iPhone user still has as much as 1 whole years to get the newer but not pure all new (from 2 - 4s it seems only improving not growing) features.
That's me, i'm a specs, functionality and an acceptable price geek.
I'm not a sheep, I'm just a humble like everybody in this world.