
U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages - merrier
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/supreme-court-curbs-excessive-design-patent-damages
======
grellas
Once again the Supreme Court has stepped in to curb the Federal Circuit Court
and bring a level-headed interpretation to the relevant statute defining how
damages are computed for infringing patent rights to a component that is part
of a larger article of sale.

The precise legal issue involved here is primarily of interest to the
immediate parties to the dispute (and, of course, similarly situated parties
dealing with like claims). It is not a legal issue that stirs much public
debate.

Yet the reining in of the Federal Circuit has major public consequences. The
Federal Circuit basically has been on on a bender for the past 20+ years in
interpreting the patent laws such that basically everything under the sun
became patentable with the enforcement rights of patent holders utterly
maximized. This led to the plethora of software and other process patents that
has caused so many to throw up their hands in despair and to conclude that all
patents are evil and should be abolished. Whether they should or not is a
policy question for which there are decent arguments on both sides, in my
view. But, assuming one agrees that patent protection can be useful for the
right cases, the law is now coming around much more to the point where far
more defensible patents are being granted, upheld and enforced and where such
enforcement is more reasonably tailored to the purposes of patent law as
envisioned in the U.S. Constitution. And that is a very good thing.

Apple is and has for years been very aggressive in attacking competitors with
patent claims. In this case, their patent was upheld and the question remained
as to how much they had been injured. With this decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court helps ensure that Apple will get compensation but not a windfall for the
wrong done to it.

Patent law may be right or it may be wrong in a social-justice sense but, as
far as the U.S. law is concerned, if it is to be upheld and enforced at all,
it should be done in a way that actually furthers its proper purposes and not
in a way that promotes shakedown suits and opportunistic legal claims. So
kudos to the Supreme Court for getting it right and for putting proper bounds
on patent laws in general in a way that helps bring sanity to the field.

~~~
Animats
Oh, come on. It's been a decade since the patent holder was in a strong
position. We effectively don't have injunctions or punitive damages any more,
and infringement claims get tied up in all those new post-grant review
procedures.

~~~
gr3yh47
> Oh, come on. It's been a decade since the patent holder was in a strong
> position.

the sharp rise of patent trolls in the last decade would like a word with you

~~~
wahern
If you believe patents make any economic sense, then the term patent troll is
basically just an epithet meant for rhetorical effect.

If the function of patents is to incentive capital markets to invest in
products and processes that otherwise wouldn't see any investment because of
the lack of a profit motive, then patent trolls are a good thing. The whole
point of a patent is to grant a monopoly. Whether a patent holder enforcing
the monopoly is a non-practicing entity (NPE) is immaterial.

Indeed, by the logic of the patent system so-called trolls are an unmitigated
positive. They add liquidity to the patent system. Liquidity means the patent
system, theoretically, is more efficient at incentivizing research and design.

If you have a problem with patent trolls, then it means you have a problem
with something _else_ fundamental to the patent system. Maybe if you followed
your beliefs to their logical end, you would question the validity of the
necessity of patents. Alternatively, maybe what so-called patent trolls are
exposing is the fact that patents are too freely granted, or granted for too
long. Or that being able to sell patents at all, whether to NPEs or other
companies, is just an end-run around anti-trust laws, which would otherwise
blunt how rigidly a company could leverage patent rights in a market.

In any event, there's nothing negative about patent trolls, per se. They're
simply exposing fundamental flaws in the patent system. I fear that focusing
on so-called patent trolls will simply result in superficial legislative and
judicial solutions.

~~~
leereeves
One variety of patent troll is not interested in the legitimate goals of the
patent system at all.

All they want is a credible threat and easy prey - a patent that will hold up
in court long enough to bankrupt their victims, who lack the resources to
fight back, and will therefore settle.

Fighting this variety of patent troll requires acknowledging that patents have
(unintended) uses other than "incentivizing capital markets to invest in
products and processes that otherwise wouldn't see any investment because of
the lack of a profit motive".

Even legitimate and narrowly drafted (but inapplicable to the defendant)
patents can be abused in this way, because the process of responding to a
patent infringement claim is expensive.

There are many flaws that should be fixed in how patents are granted, but
patent trolls rely on one serious flaw in how patents are _litigated_ : the
median cost to defend against an infringement claim is $1 million.

~~~
rplst8
I agree. I think it's a regulatory crutch that can be abused and therefore
requires more regulation.

The patent system is a left over from monarchial rule and should be abolished.

------
dang
(All: sorry for the offtopic digression, but this thread was bound to be about
this whether I posted the below or not. There are fine comments about the
Supreme Court ruling elsewhere on this page, and you can always click [-] to
collapse a subthread you don't want to read.)

HN has been running a no-politics-for-a-week 'experiment' [1]. Although it
hasn't been a week, I think we've learned as much from it as we're going to,
so it can be over now.

Among what we learned is that it's impossible to define 'politics' with any
consensus because that question is itself highly political, and that HN is at
its best when it can meander through _all_ the (intellectually) interesting
things, some of which inevitably have political dimensions. The current story
is a good example: it's not apolitical, but it isn't purely political either,
and it's clearly on topic for HN.

In other words, the existing guidelines have it about right
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)),
so carry on as normal.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404).
I say 'experiment' because people understand that word differently. We mean
'trying something for a little while, just to see what will happen'.

~~~
spacemanmatt
A political science prof once laid out the scope of politics as anything
regarding the exchange of power or money. That seemed like an overbroad
statement at the time, but now it seems like I was under-perceiving the
political aspect of pretty much everything at the time.

~~~
runako
I have read that the modern usage of the word "economics" is a replacement for
the older term "political economy." It seems our ancestors were more wordy but
also more accurate.

~~~
dredmorbius
Both were originally "moral philosophy". "Political economy" mostly split into
"economics" and "political science" in the 1880s, though the odd department of
political economy can still be found.

One of Adam Smith's shortest sentences in _Wealth of Nations_ is "Wealth, as
Mr Hobbes says, is power." It's all about power and its distribution.

------
cestith
People slide their phones into and out of bags and pockets. A sharp corner is
really bad for that. A rounded corner only makes sense. Cars, tables, cutting
boards, children's books, and all manner of other items have had rounded
corners for decades to centuries for the very reason that you don't want sharp
corners and edges on things you're handling a lot.

There's nothing novel here and in fact it should have been filed as a
functional patent then swiftly declined as obvious and ordinary.

~~~
DanBC
Was a particular diameter part of the patent? Or was it just rounded corners?

~~~
rory096
The patents in question seem to consist of essentially just pictures. Can
anyone more familiar with design patents clarify whether there are more
specifics beyond what Google Patents and the USPTO website show, or if this is
all there is to it?

[0]
[https://www.google.com/patents/USD618677](https://www.google.com/patents/USD618677)

[1]
[https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286](https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286)

~~~
DSMan195276
I'm not a patent lawyer, but I have dealt with patents. The important part is
the claims, because that lists what it is they are actually patenting. But
since their only claim is about the design the only real relevant information
is those pictures and the short descriptions of them.

Note that I'm not attempting to argue over where that should be a valid patent
or not, just why it is so bare. If there were more specifics, you'd see them
on that page.

~~~
Oletros
In both cases, the only claim is:

> 1\. The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described.

~~~
DSMan195276
Yes, that's my point. There's not much specifics because there's not much
other details that need to be provided to explain the claims. IE. The claim
basically just says "look at the pictures".

------
josaka
Audio from oral arguments provides a nice summary of some of the concerns that
drove this decision:
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777)

~~~
dmix
Is this type of thing always available for supreme court rulings? This is a
great idea to get people involved.

I remember reading the transcript for a recent politicized ruling regarding
voting rights and finding out from the judgement that the issue was far
different from what the media portrayed. For example, it was a lengthy debate
the role of state vs federal law, the legal justifications for government
interference, and the quality of the data supporting each side.

It really gave me hope in the 'system' \- that at least the judicial body is a
source of rationality while the political body is ideologically capricious and
often fails to use data to support decision making.

I should note this is a non partisan criticism.

~~~
matt4077
Supreme Court decisions are actually quite readable. They tend to be extremely
intelligent and I often end up reading both the majority, as well as the
dissenting opinions – and agreeing to both :)

That being said, I also disagree with a blanket indictment of "the media".
Yes, court cases often turn on details that the public debate doesn't focus
on, such as federal vs. states' powers in regards to the voting rights act.
But that's because they focus more on the motivation, and the impact, of these
cases. The southern challenge of the voting rights act wasn't motivated by
concerns of federal overreach, or a drive to introduce evidence-based
decision-making into politics.

~~~
dmix
> The southern challenge of the voting rights act wasn't motivated by concerns
> of federal overreach

“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions
to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.
It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

> or a drive to introduce evidence-based decision-making into politics

“If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have
enacted the present coverage formula. It would have been irrational for
Congress to distinguish between states in such a fundamental way based on
40-year-old data, when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story,”
Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Beyond singling out southern states, and deciding whether individual court
cases could be sufficient rather than having special federal oversight, the
core arguments made against the act was that the current data doesn't support
the need for such an act in 2016.

The justices who dissented even agreed that racial discrimination was still an
issue in the country. But they found this law and the arguments supporting the
continuation of special federal powers over specific states to be a poor and
outdated means to confront this issue.

~~~
xenadu02
In this case SCOTUS invited Congress to revise the formula... twice. Congress
couldn't get their act together.

I'm reasonably confident that is why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare, among
other decisions. The justices know that if they strike something down the odds
of Congress fixing it are virtually nil, so they try to craft compromise
decisions.

------
Animats
Apple's argument is simple. Before the iPhone, nothing looked like the iPhone.
After the iPhone, everything looked like the iPhone. Perhaps the most
revolutionary design change since HMS Dreadnought.

~~~
khazhou
> Perhaps the most revolutionary design change since HMS Dreadnought.

Goddamnit, I had work to get done today.

Sigh... wikipedia Dreadnought here we go.

~~~
Animats
HMS Dreadnought: all big guns, centralized fire control, heavy armor, steam
turbine propulsion. Previous battleships had guns of various sizes sticking
out all over the place, aimed by their own gun crews. Being under-powered,
they were either sluggish or under-armored.

HMS Dreadnought made all those ships obsolete. All later battleships had the
same basic features as HMS Dreadnought. Compare a picture of HMS Dreadnought
with a USS New Jersey class battleship, the last battleship class. The New
Jersey looks like a bigger, better Dreadnought, with similar lines and
turrets.

The iPhone did that to mobile phones.

(After WWI, all the major naval powers were building Dreadnought-type
battleships. The US Navy hit a snag. The patent holder on steam turbines got
an injunction stopping Navy turbine production. This resulted in the frantic
enactment of 28 USC 1498, which exempts the U.S. Government from patent
injunctions. Because it was a rush job, 28 USC 1498 is a headache for
inventors. It's not part of patent law. It's not part of procurement law.
Claims under 28 USC 1498 are handled outside of both systems and never paid
without litigation.)

------
madaxe_again
I thought we had agreed not to discuss politics in political detox week?

~~~
dang
Please don't hijack top comments. Not cool.

(grzm answered your question, so I'll refer you to that reply for that.)

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13132790](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13132790)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
madaxe_again
Wait, so all of that had the sole outcome of kicking a hornets nest?

If you're going to change the site rules on a daily basis you need to actually
communicate it.

All you've managed here is mass confusion and frustration, and you've eroded
my trust, and I'm sure others, in your ability to run this place.

I feel like I've been trolled.

Also, not hijacking, responding to a political comment when I thought we'd
banned political discussion.

Calling out users for shit you can plainly see they've done at your bidding:
not cool.

Having to edit this as I can't write another reply, cheers for the throttle
for disagreeing.

Yes, I posted it three times in three political threads because dang asked
that we flag/call out political discussion in a major front page thread, and
you then asked that we don't in a random comment buried in a political
article.

Can you honestly not see how this might not be fantastically clear
communication, and how while this is as plain as day to you it's utterly
opaque to Joe user?

~~~
dang
Ok, I'm sorry you felt like you were trolled—that's not pleasant—and believe
you that you weren't doing the topjacking thing.

I probably gave you less benefit of the doubt about this because your account
has a history of being snarky and uncivil in comments. It would be good for
all of us if you'd work on eliminating that; it lowers the level of discourse
we're trying for here, and (case in point) fosters misunderstanding.

------
eternalban
This ruling [ianal] renders null and void any design patent on components. The
infringing party merely has to refrain from selling that component. To be
assured of patent protection, the design pretty much has to resist extension
or incorporation.

Now where does this leave UI design and UI components?

