Apple’s $120M jury verdict against Samsung destroyed on appeal

[Guest Kloaked]

Original article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-reverses-apple-v-samsung-ii-strips-away-apples-120m-jury-verdict/

 

 

This made me lol

 

Apple got rekt on their patents, here.

 

I know everyone is aboard the Apple (and supporters) versus FBI train right now, but listen here:

 

 

Quote

 

Apple's second high-profile patent win against Samsung was appealed, just as the first was. And in an opinion (PDF) published today, a panel of appeals judges entirely wiped out Apple's victory and its $120 million verdict.

 

The new decision found that out of three different patents Apple became famous for winning with, one wasn't infringed and two of them are invalid.

 

 

 

I don't like Samsung or Apple devices a whole lot, as my new bae is (are?) Nexus devices, but this seems like a good win against Apple's dumb patents. Not saying no other company has some dumb patents that shouldn't even be patents, but this shows some hope in the courts yet.

 

Here are the specific ones being talked about:

 

 

Quote

 

The '647 patent described how to turn phone numbers and other software "structures" into links, allowing users to take actions like calling a number with one "click" rather than copying and pasting. The jury awarded Apple $98.7 million based on that patent, but the appeals judges today held that the patent wasn't infringed at all. They held that "Apple failed to prove, as a matter of law, that the accused Samsung products use an 'analyzer server' as we have previously construed that term."

 

 

 

Rekt 1.

 

 

Quote

 

Appeals judges also invalidated one of Apple's most consistently ridiculed patents, the '721 "slide to unlock" patent. Jurors awarded $3 million based on infringement of that patent, but the appeals panel said the patent is invalid because of prior art.

 

 

 

Rekt 2.

 

Oh and here's that "art" that Apple didn't even make:

 

 

 

Quote

 

Finally, the judges considered the '172 patent on Apple's "autocorrect" feature. That was held invalid in light of prior art, too. Apple lawyers didn't claim their client invented auto-correction entirely, but they alleged that Samsung had copied Apple's method of doing it.

 

"Prior to the copying, the Samsung phones automatically corrected the typed text as the user typed," noted the appeals judges. "On the iPhone, the correction was made only after the user 'accepts or hits space.'" However, in the judges' view that exact feature had been disclosed in an earlier patent numbered 7,880,730.

 

 

 

 

Rekt 3. Apple is down! I repeat, Apple is down!

 

There's more in the article that everyone should read, but I don't wanna post every single thing here because that defeats the purpose of citing the original article. So don't be lazy, go read it.

 

Anyways though, I hope this spells the end to dumbass patents (it won't probably, but I can hope). This just goes to show, Apple didn't actually invent anything. They look at ideas and they do it a different way. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they do it better. Regardless, though, even when Apple is right in battling the law on encryption, they are dead wrong about having some dumbass patents like this. It's even more dumb that this was even a thing to begin with.

[suicidalfranco]

lol

[patrickjp93]

Apple can appeal back. It won't be over for another 2 years.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

Apple can appeal back. It won't be over for another 2 years.

you forgot a zero

[stconquest]

Just now, Prysin said:

you forgot a zero

02?

 

[patrickjp93]

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

This is why I don't like Apple.  They believe they patent and created everything first.  

That's because other than Intel, Apple is the only company doing any innovation these days. God why do you all just hate success???!!! /s

[Briggsy]

I'm surprised Apple hasn't tried to patent "patent trolling" so that only they can patent troll.

[s3ns3]

20 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

This is why I don't like Apple.  They believe they patent and created everything first.  

well they did innovate. that slide to unlock(A PHONE) belongs to apple. no matter how you twist it,apple used it first then others stole the ideea. 

thats why i dont like companies that do that

[s3ns3]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, but they're sue happy over things they didn't create/think of first.  

well in this case,they did create,and they have a patent for it

[TheCyncialCanuck]

3 minutes ago, s3ns3 said:

well in this case,they did create,and they have a patent for it

Tell that to the judges

[s3ns3]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Oh.  Well if they did create it, thought of it, and patented it first then I don't have a problem with them.  This is like a rare thing for them.  

apple is a company that innovate. think of it this way,with an ex from their latest iphone. 3d touch in a phone. did apple invent pressure sensitive surfaces? no.

1st to implement it on mobile devices?yep . others will copy their innovation? yep

 

Just now, TheCyncialCanuck said:

Tell that to the judges

maybe they had a phone that slided to unlock way before smartphones were invented

[TheCyncialCanuck]

2 minutes ago, s3ns3 said:

apple is a company that innovate. think of it this way,with an ex from their latest iphone. 3d touch in a phone. did apple invent pressure sensitive surfaces? no.

1st to implement it on mobile devices?yep . others will copy their innovation? yep

 

maybe they had a phone that slided to unlock way before smartphones were invented

Putting something into a new device isn't innovation, it's just CTRL-P'ing someone else's stuff into your product. Slide to unlock was a thing before phones and therefore shouldn't be patented. If we let people patent something every time they change the medium it's used in then we're gonna have a few problems on our hands.

[Guest Kloaked]

26 minutes ago, s3ns3 said:

well they did innovate. that slide to unlock(A PHONE) belongs to apple. no matter how you twist it,apple used it first then others stole the ideea. 

thats why i dont like companies that do that

"Slide to unlock" on a phone shouldn't even be a patent. That's such a stupid thing to have allowed as a patent.

 

That's just as dumb as Amazon trying to patent how they do product pictures on a white backdrop.

[s3ns3]

3 minutes ago, TheCyncialCanuck said:

Putting something into a new device isn't innovation, it's just CTRL-P'ing someone else's stuff into your product. Slide to unlock was a thing before phones and therefore shouldn't be patented. If we let people patent something every time they change the medium it's used in then we're gonna have a few problems on our hands.

well thats exactly what innovation is. ctrl p is when you copy that stuff into your stuff yes.except your product is the same product as theirs

slide to whatever was a thing before phones but apple put it on a phone first.thats innovation and you have to give them credit.

if companies just copy one another,who will come up with inventions and innovations.thats a bigger problem

[Notional]

About god damn time. Maybe the American legal system is retarded beyond repair. These lawsuits were so ridiculous they should have been denied from the get go. Just like NVidia's equally retarded suit against Samsung, Qualcomm and so on. So dumb.

 

As for this specific case: Maybe this is the last we will see to the consequences of a mad dying man, who lost his mind. Fuck you Steve Jobs you lunatic. "Going Thermo nuclear war".. what a joke.

[TheCyncialCanuck]

Just now, s3ns3 said:

well thats exactly what innovation is. ctrl p is when you copy that stuff into your stuff yes.except your product is the same product as theirs

slide to whatever was a thing before phones but apple put it on a phone first.thats innovation and you have to give them credit.

if companies just copy one another,who will come up with inventions and innovations.thats a bigger problem

Wow you didn't even read what I wrote did you? Apple has never invented anything, they just take things from other mediums and place it in their devices then claim they invented the world.

[Unhelpful]

13 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

"Slide to unlock" on a phone shouldn't even be a patent. That's such a stupid thing to have allowed as a patent.

 

That's just as dumb as Amazon trying to patent how they do product pictures on a white backdrop.

Patent the implementation, not the idea. That's how it should be, imo.

[s3ns3]

6 hours ago, TheCyncialCanuck said:

Wow you didn't even read what I wrote did you? Apple has never invented anything, they just take things from other mediums and place it in their devices then claim they invented the world.

you dont really get it do you? i said innovate not invent. like JoeyDM sayd,its the implementation.read my 3d touch example again.invent ? no.innovate? yes

[Ex14]

7 hours ago, s3ns3 said:

apple is a company that innovate. think of it this way,with an ex from their latest iphone. 3d touch in a phone. did apple invent pressure sensitive surfaces? no.

1st to implement it on mobile devices?yep . others will copy their innovation? yep

Sorta Calling you out on this one.

Huawei was the first to implement a smartphone with a pressure sensitive display.

Pressure sensitive displays on mobile devices actually go even further back.

Apple hasn't really innovated much in recent years. What they have been successful in however is making a feature mainstream/popular.

 

[Trixanity]

Slide to unlock. Wait a minute, what is this little Windows gadget from 2005 doing infringing on Apple? 

[suicidalfranco]

23 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Slide to unlock. Wait a minute, what is this little Windows gadget from 2005 doing infringing on Apple? 

Apple has this patent since year 0

[Tuturu]

17 hours ago, s3ns3 said:

well they did innovate. that slide to unlock(A PHONE) belongs to apple. no matter how you twist it,apple used it first then others stole the ideea. 

thats why i dont like companies that do that

Huh?

http://www.gsmarena.com/neonode_n1m-1137.php

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,046,721.PN.&OS=PN/8,046,721&RS=PN/8,046,721

 

I think you are the one twisting.

 

If you told people that Apple was the first to patent it, then yes you would make sense. But, your last sentence wouldn't hold true then (unless you are secretly saying you hate Apple and you were twisting your words to show the irony).

[Guest]

null

[BuckGup]

18 hours ago, s3ns3 said:

well they did innovate. that slide to unlock(A PHONE) belongs to apple. no matter how you twist it,apple used it first then others stole the ideea. 

thats why i dont like companies that do that

Every single time. Apple takes what people like so say a phone has cool option A that phone two doesn't have but phone two has cool option B that phone one doesn't have. Apple then makes a phone with both options and a little something extra like 3D touch or something and boom people love it

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, cptavim said:

"1st to implement it on mobile devices?" Lol what about the huawei mate s. Stop defending Apple and admit you're wrong. 

 

Apple and innovation can't be in the same sentence.

I wouldn't go that far. Apple does occasionally create a totally new innovation. But they most often take a previous design, and make it appeal to the mass market. They're EXCELLENT at marketing, and they're also really good at aesthetic design.

 

But they're not really innovators in a overall sense - more like evolvers. They evolve concepts to the next logical step. Sometimes that means they innovate too in the process, but often times, it does not.