

U.S. jury orders smartphone maker Samsung to pay Apple $120 million - fraXis
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/03/us-apple-samsung-elec-idUSBREA410Z020140503

======
WildUtah
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.

~~~
sinaa
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...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in-
patent.html)

~~~
nolok
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.

~~~
malandrew
I sometimes wonder if naming patterns in an intentionally vague way is a
strategy to hide them in plain site. There should be some rule that titles
should be sufficiently specific.

~~~
nitrogen
Out of curiosity, do you use speech to text to compose your HN posts? I'm
wondering how "patent" became "pattern" in your first sentence.

~~~
malandrew
No. Either my brain moves faster than my hands or I have something else on my
mind while typing and I type another similar word by accident. Don't really
know. TBH this only started happening in my writing after I lived abroad for
four years and was speaking English infrequently. Even now that I'm back in
the US speaking English all the time it happens. I occasionally do it in
speech as well.

------
suprgeek
(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...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/218949626/14-01-13-Apple-172-Autocomplete-
Reexamination-Decision)

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

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.

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

~~~
IBM
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.

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

~~~
Bud
Uh, it is an innovation. You can tell, because even though it seemed obvious
and self-evident AFTER the fact, nobody managed to think of it beforehand.

That's what fucking innovation looks like.

~~~
malandrew
Yeah, so "obvious after the fact". here's some prior art:

[http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-
photo-100329053-O...](http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-
photo-100329053-Old-medieval-lock-on-wooden-castle-door.jpg)

[http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/wooden-castle-
gate-24387358.j...](http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/wooden-castle-
gate-24387358.jpg)

[http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-
large-5/gothi...](http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-
large-5/gothic-castle-gate-lock-lusoimages.jpg)

[http://www.artfactory.com/images/Medieval-
Door-2219CDJ.jpg](http://www.artfactory.com/images/Medieval-Door-2219CDJ.jpg)

Slide to unlock is as old as doors. The only other obvious alternative to
someone skilled in the art of doormaking is rotate to unlock.

Honestly only reasonable definition of obvious to use is:

"based on the presence/awareness of innovation A, B, C, etc, how likely is it
that two or more people are likely to come up with the same innovation
simultaneously. The greater the likelihood of two or more people
simultaneously arriving at the same solution, the less likely something should
be patented.

~~~
sbuk
None of those are 'prior art'. You are confusing the mechanism with the
application. RTFP.

~~~
malandrew
I have read the patent. Several times 1-2 years ago.

It's the most obvious thing. Do you consider the slide to unlock on a floppy
disk or SD card to be an innovation?

Literally, humanity has been using the slide to unlock metaphor everywhere
imaginable for years. It's very common metaphor.

What's next? Patenting waving your hand in front of a electronic star trek
door to unlock and option it? Quick someone go out and patent this obvious
idea.

Heck even the historical phenomena of signing X on a line in a contract when
you're illiterate and don't know how to write/spell your own name is rooted in
the same idea as slide to unlock on the iPhone. What's the simplest shape you
can make with a writing utensil that demonstrates clear intent to someone who
did not observe the act and cannot infer is something was intentional or
accidental? Basically a circle or an X. A simple X is sufficient to
communicate intent to a person that did not observe the action of signing the
contract. This is essentially a "two phase commit". A slide to unlock
mechanism is both performed and confirmed by the same person and doesn't
require the second stroke requirement. With this in mind, the obvious design
choice is only require one single stroke since it's sufficient to demonstrate
clear intent and is cancellable (e.g. a half stroke doesn't count). Since the
requirements are more lax a single phase commit is sufficient (i.e. a single
swipe).

Or how about those old TV remotes that used a sliding cover to hide the lesser
used or configuration/setup controls? Or how about those phones that hid a
phone keyboard behind the screen. There are three obvious choices, slide open,
swivel open and flip open.

What if I took the phone and slid my finger to the right but instead of
sliding a skeuomorphic button the animation was instead a page or book cover
flipping over? Or what if I did a arced swipe and "threw the lock screen" away
the same way you force quit an app in iOS 7. What if I hold my finger down and
the screen animates to a certain color over a short duration (maybe like when
Mega Man powers up his special charged blaster cannon shot? These are all
obvious since this are so incredibly analogous to other use cases.

Take every new invention in the future where something needs to be unlock.
I'll bet you the value of this settlement that almost every single future
human invention that fits the narrative of unlocking or enabling is going to
have some interface that either is literally slide to unlock or maps very
clearly to that metaphor.

Even opening your eyelids is slide to unlock.

~~~
sbuk
> _" It's the most obvious thing"_

Why wasn't it implemented before if it is indeed as obvious as you are making
out?

Not _one_ of the the modern things that you describe are examples of prior
art.

> _" These are all obvious since this are so incredibly analogous to other use
> cases."_

Analogous to _what_?

You are confusing mechanism with method. What you describe is a textbook
example of creeping determinism (hindsight bias).

~~~
malandrew
Show me a commercially viable, available, highly-sensitive touch screen (that
responds to fingers) small enough to fit in your pocket (an environment with
erroneous input) that is as responsive as the one of the first iPhone and that
existed before the iPhone was revealed?

The only example, I've ever seen of a screen that could reliably do touch
sliding with fingers (not just tapping or special stylus) is the Star7 demo
device shown off by James Gosling in the 90s. That device was huge and never
would fit in a pocket, and therefore had no issues with erroneous input when
locked. A tap would have worked.

Apple literally invented the viable hardware tech that made sliding touch
input a possibility, and for that they deserve a patent. There is some serious
hardware innovation necessary to bring responsive capacitive to market.
However, had such hardware been available at the time to all phone market
participants, you would have seen more people arrive at the same obvious
conclusion as slide to unlock. Apple only got the patent because they had a
monopoly on the solution of the necessary hardware tech and kept it secret
long enough to milk it for as many obvious interface/interaction patents as
possible. No one else had even had a device like the iPhone to even encounter
and try to solve the obvious problem of how to distinguish between erroneous
input when the phone is in your pocket.

Please enlighten me on the distinction you're using for "mechanism" and
"method".

It's very easy to claim hindsight bias, but you didn't even make an attempt to
address any of my points explaining why this method is obvious across
multitude of settings, including analogous ones that have yet to be invented,
like my star trek door example. Maybe Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual
Ventures has already filed a slide to unlock patent on those doors for
whenever they are invented. Every lock in history is a state machine with
position locked and unlocked. Almost everyone of those locks (because its
preferred that locks generally are meant to stay locked and not accidentally
unlocked) involve some method of moving from the state of locked to unlocked
in a continuous motion, and almost all of them only respond to unlocking at
the end of the range of that continuous motion. With that in mind,
twisting/arcing and sliding are the obvious solutions to anyone with knowledge
of locks, digital, physical or otherwise.

~~~
sbuk
> _" Show me a commercially viable, available, highly-sensitive touch screen
> (that responds to fingers) small enough to fit in your pocket (an
> environment with erroneous input) that is as responsive as the one of the
> first iPhone and that existed before the iPhone was revealed?"_

Why move the goalpost? Your claim is that the mechanism is obvious, not that
the technology didn't exist. If a line can be reasonably accurately drawn with
a stylus (as on the Newton and Palms which followed) then it can track a
simple swipe. I played games on my Palm pilot that employed dragging as a
mechanism, so why not a security measure? Again, the "swipe to unlock" didn't
exist because it was not obvious and you are employing confirmation bias to
further a view that influenced by hindsight bias. I did rebut your points;
hindsight bias.

> _" With that in mind, twisting/arcing and sliding are the obvious solutions
> to anyone with knowledge of locks, digital, physical or otherwise"_

And the PIN isn't more obvious for digital devices?

~~~
malandrew
Because it's not a security measure. The keypad is a security measure. You're
mistaking the purpose of slide to unlock. It's an erroneous input measure
aimed at preserving battery life.

When a phone is on the lock screen the timer before it shuts off the screen is
very short. When phone is unlocked, the assumption is that the user is engaged
with the phone, possibly reading/scanning whats on the screen, so the
inactivity timer before the phone reverts to inactive mode is much longer. If
a phone can easily end up in unlocked mode repeatedly over the course of
normal daily use, then the chances that the battery is not going to make it
through the day is much much higher.

All touch screens prior to the iPhone really only responded to stylus input.
Many had special tip materials to work with the screens they were designed
for. With those devices, the chance that anything in your bag or pocket that
came in contact with the screen would inadvertently register as legitimate
user input was infinitesimally low, thus a simple tap was sufficient.

When Apple achieved a high quality capacity touch screen that could
legitimately accept continuous human finger movements as input reliably, the
goal posts changed. To achieve the quality of input Apple achieved, they
needed a screen that was far far more responsive to input than anything prior.
This was a necessary hardware innovation for any touch interface that can
collect enough input for software engineers to code gestures [0]. With this
hardware innovation, they now were exposed to new problem which was not
present on previous touch devices. No previous stylus or shitty finger touch
device prior to the iPhone was likely to respond to erroneous input. For
example, no palm device really detected finger input so you could very
effectively handle in daily, like just holding it casually in your hand,
possibly fidgeting with it, while you were engaged in conversation with
another person. This meant that the opportunities for wasting battery was much
much much higher than with any device that previously existed, enough so that
it was a problem that had to be addressed. Remember that the first iPhone
battery couldn't even last through one full day of regular use.

To solve the problem, there was essentially several levels of commits
required. Previous devices used the power button to activate the screen and
then a stylus could tap to unlock. The chances that the power button would be
pressed and then be immediately followed by stylus input could not really
occur accidentally, therefore a gesture like slide to unlock was completely
unnecessary.

Apple then comes along and experiences a problem that didn't need to be solved
before. Only they knew of the problem because only they had the technology to
experience it. I'm not arguing that they didn't succeed in applying a timeless
idea to a novel situation. I'm arguing that it would have been obvious to any
interaction designer at the time versed in the state of the art in interaction
design. Apple's secrecy affords them a monopoly on being the only people
versed in the state of the art that know the problem exists. The thought
experiment that needs to be excersized to determine obviousness is to ask if
someone else versed in the state of the art would likely have arrived at the
same conclusion. The fact that only Apple knew what state of the art is moot
here, what matters is the mental exercise of testing obviousness all things
considered.

This recent vanity fair article does a good job of chronicling the degree of
secrecy surrounding the importance of maintaining a an information monopoly on
what is state of the art.

[http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-
sma...](http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-
patent-war.print)

I currently work at a company where we a similar informational advantage.
There are many times over the past year, were I'd see us do something
seemingly novel, but are really obvious to interaction designers once they
recognize the capabilities of the framework we've created (
[https://famo.us/](https://famo.us/) ). In fact, I've on more than one
occasion seen people implement the same solution to design problems, unaware
(i.e. having never see) of prior internal code/design explorations we've built
over the past 2 years in archived code repos. For example, we've made it
possible to explore some pretty complex ways to apply some of the 12 Disney
Animation Principles to DOM elements. Does it mean that we should get a patent
on applying it to DOM? Heck no, the 12 principles are state of the art for
anyone version in interaction design. One of our previous designers worked on
designing moving interfaces, including the Iron Man HUD interface. He's a
textbook example of someone versed in state of the art in interaction design.
You drop him in the realm of DOM-based interaction design and he's going to
apply ideas not yet explored with the DOM, but that doesn't make those ideas
any less obvious to someone versed in the state of the art.

We (famo.us) have a few patents in the final assignment stages (of which my
name and the names of 3 others are on it [1]), that presents alternate
solutions to several of the crown jewel patents at the core of the Samsung-
Apple patent trials, including one of key patents ('381 rubber banding) in the
$1+ dollar plus settlement (later reduce to just under $1 billion) between
those two companies. This is why I'm intimately familiar with all the patents
at play between Apple and Samsung. I've read all of them multiple times.

Slide to unlock is really one of those stupidly obvious things to someone
versed in state of the art. Honestly, there are many obvious things we've made
in the past ~2 years since I've been at famous that to someone not trained in
the state of the art look novel and worthy of patenting. We haven't done that,
because getting a patent on something that you know, but you know you can get
away with patenting is a ethically reprehensible. Unfortunately Apple files
these types of patents by the bucketload. Personally, I think every engineer
at Apple (or anywhere else) that knowingly files one of these patents is
abdicating their professional duty (although I with admit that its entirely
possible that many have just drunk the Kool-Aid and actually think they are
deserving of such obvious patents. Given Apple's culture and former
megalomaniac leader, I wouldn't be surprised). They maintain a ridiculously
high level of secrecy for as long as possible not only for marketing reasons,
but because it gives them a long window to patent all the obvious shit that
people would imagine if they knew what Apple was working on at any given time.

[0] I've written a few non-public js libraries from scratch that interpret
many of the gestures that Apple supports so I know the data requirements here
to be able to accomplish what they did. This is why, even though I hate
patents, I'm supportive of the patent claims around the capacitive touch
screens. They legitimately moved the state of the art forward with regards to
the input hardware.

Over a year ago I implemented in js: Long Press, Pan, Pinch, Generalized multi
finger taps, Debugging modes to visualize touch. What I did not get to before
moving onto another project was creating a test mode asking users to perform
actions, so I could apply an artificial neural network to tweak the tolerance
coefficients. I'm far from a pro in this area, and yeah it was 2012/2013, not
2007, but I'd definitely say that I'm reasonable well versed in state of the
art that I can understand the design mindset involved in solving touch-input
problems, which is why I'm stressing the conditions/problems that led to the
innovation.

That's not moving the goal post, that's called performing a thought experiment
where you put yourselves in the shoes of a designer at Apple at that time when
only Apple knew of the problem. If you can paint a picture of the problem to
be solved and the constraints under which they need to be solved, you have
enough information to present to any interaction designer at the time and ask,
would this be an obvious solution if you had been privileged to the same
information/constraints?

[1] I personally abhor patents, but its part of the game when you are dancing
with 500lb gorillas in your business development deals. Furthermore, our
patents actually serve the commons in our case because our library is MPL-2.0
licensed, so members of our community using our code are protected by it
against aggressors trying to assert patent claims (like the Lodsys non-
practicing entity)

------
funkyy
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
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.)

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

~~~
laichzeit0
I don't remember any phones having a "slide-to-unlock" before the first
iPhone. If I remember most top-end phones had crappy resistive screens that
required a stylus. How is that not innovation?

~~~
funkyy
Windows CE - slide to unlock + touch screen without stylus introduced on
Neonode N1m - 2 years before Apple "invented" it. And all this while Apple is
suing HTC, Motorola and Samsung over gesture patents...

------
1stop
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?

~~~
WildUtah
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)

------
sidcool
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.

------
DanBlake
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)

~~~
asdfologist
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_boy
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...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/27/interesting-
number-samsung-now-beats-apple-as-worlds-most-profitable-phone-maker/)

~~~
omni
It's not semantics. If in 29.5 hours I make $119.6 million in revenue by
selling $100 million in product, then it's going to take me a lot longer than
29.5 hours to pay off a $119.6 million debt.

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

Didn't Google testify on this case?

~~~
noisy_boy
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."

~~~
sinaa
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!

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

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

