Apple rests its case in second patent trial; Samsung starts calling its witnesses
0. phoneArena 11 Apr 2014, 21:56 posted on
On Friday, Apple rested its case in its second patent trial against Samsung. Thus, the Korean manufacturer started presenting its defense. Samsung's first witness called was VP of Android Engineering, Hiroshi Lockheimer. He was put on the stand to prove to the jury that certain features were invented by Google before they were ever patented by Apple. He also spent time on the stand, explaining how Android worked, and the differences between Android and iOS...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
7. Ashoaib (Posts: 3229; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
majority of apple's patent are inventions of others... USPto is a blind body, which favors apple in granting patents.... may be apple is a big tax payer and government dont want to loose their revenue so they blindly grant patent to apple OR 2nd reason can be that government & uspto hiddenly take money from apple... see how obama safe guard apple, it shows even obama might have taken money under the table or may be his election campaign was sponsored by apple and he owe alot to apple
13. Finalflash (Posts: 2795; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
It isn't about tax payers or whatever. The US intends to have economic domination in the richer western nations through its patent system (since it can't just invade them). That is why they have made all these trade agreements under the table with so many western and developed nations to agree to accept US patents without question. The US companies are given patents more easily than foreign companies and as you can see, even the executive branch bows down to patents from their companies. It is just to have a hand in every cookie jar because that insures no matter what, the US makes money even if someone outside the US makes money.
18. Ashoaib (Posts: 3229; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Hmm... Your comment holds the ground... pretty convincing
17. darkkjedii (Posts: 20128; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
3rd reason could be Samsung has actually infringed...nahhhhhh that couldn't be it.
20. tedkord (Posts: 10695; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
To be patentable a thing needs to be novel, non obvious and specific. Slide to unlock, for instance, fails this test as Neonode had it years before the iPhone. You can't infringe an invalid patent.
2. sprockkets (Posts: 1611; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
"If you're wondering why Apple doesn't sue Google directly, it is because Google does not make the hardware."
Didn't stop Oracle.
"Still, if Apple wins this trial, it is believed that Google will make some changes to Android."
Google already talks regularly with Apple to not step on their toes. But they aren't exactly forthcoming with it.
"Another sign of fatigue is the frequency with which executives and lawyers from Apple and Google speak to one another about patent disputes. Earlier this year, Google proposed a cease-fire, according to people familiar with the conversations. And when Google withdrew its Motorola suit last week, it was widely seen as a peace gesture.
But Apple has been hard to pin down, said one person from Google who was not authorized to speak publicly. “Sometimes they’re asking for money. Then they say we have to promise to not copy aspects of the iPhone. And whenever we get close to an agreement, it all changes again.
“Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.”
Apple declined to comment on the negotiations."
Read about it here:
12. deewinc (Posts: 235; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
This is very Apple. Someone has patents for technologies that they don't have. They wait for it to be invented somewhere in the garadge, when the technology comes to light, they threaten the inventor that they have no right to use that technology: sell it to us instead.
I think if a patent is given, there should be a time limit after which if there is no invention of the same, the patent becomes null and void open for anyone else to claim it.
3. express77 (unregistered)
the tale of patent trolls.
4. anirudhshirsat97 (Posts: 408; Member since: 24 May 2011)
Euck apple and euck their lawyers.
6. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3689; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)
Wait for a large screen phone patent.
8. AfterShock (Posts: 3698; Member since: 02 Nov 2012)
I sure wish Apple would target Google in court and let the chips fall where they may.
If they lose, apple that is, the court should spank an soak them for wasting time, resources and making the judicial system look like a total sham entertaining apples whims.
9. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3689; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)
Also the alleged iPhablet could sue galaxy note 4 for stealing 'ideas'
10. techperson211 (Posts: 1179; Member since: 27 Feb 2014)
If you can't beat them sue them!!! Nice game play ifruit.
11. deewinc (Posts: 235; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
"...that Apple is suing Samsung over, were already on the Android OS, used on some devices like the Samsung GALAXY Nexus. Certain features, outside of the "slide-to-unlock" tool, were already invented by Google, according to Lockheimer, before Apple patented them..."
Apple patents other peoples's ideas, wait for them to be invented the sue the inventor.
14. tedkord (Posts: 10695; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The reason Apple doesn't sue Google is they would lose.
19. whburling (Posts: 14; Member since: 08 Apr 2014)
I believe that some contributors to this site may have a misunderstanding.
Patents issued by the patent office do not declare that the issued patent is
original. the patent issue is to ensure that the claims are written in such a
way that a trial has the best chance of resolving ownership.
The burden on originality, before patent issue, is not all that great. In fact it
can never be thorough as many companies chose to hide ways that they do
things (proprietary protection) as opposed to revealing what they do. when a
trial occurs, the burden is on the company which did not reveal what they did
but that can be a small price for keeping a feature quiet.
regarding the swiping issue the patentability of swiping should not be cell phone dependent. theoretically different use is not patentable and if swiping is used elsewhere for information selection, then swiping is owned by that party or no one if there is no claim. however, i have noticed that the courts have not appreciated that component of the law; Ge was prevented from making an analog control system for their steam turbines because Westinghouse won the court battle. In fact, analog control systems have been around for a long long time before Westinghouse built steam turbines and hence Westinghouse should never have been
allowed to prevent GE from using analog control systems for steam turbine control.
hey.... that is the legal system. not perfect, but at least something is in place to at least attempt to resolve differences.
Patents tend to have short term effect and tend to encourage unique solutions that often displace the patent defending a given solution. I imagine that is happening now. Visual displays and interaction with them is archaic. patent fighting will spur a technology that
eliminates the displays as we know them and the corresponding input approaches.