
Samsung to jury: You can't copy iPhone features that aren't in the iPhone - tweakz
http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-you-cant-copy-iphone-features-if-iphones-dont-use-them/
======
esquivalience
This is particularly interesting because it seeks to characterise Apple as a
patent troll (ie, owning patents and enforcing them, or features of them,
without actually using the tech themselves).

Apple has had a lot of problems with patent trolls[0] and seems to be
campaigning against trolling [1]. This isn't how Apple is usually
characterised so the comparison really will sting their pride.

Seems like it might be true though...

[0] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/apple-top-
target-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/apple-top-target-of-
patent-trolls-faced-92-lawsuits-in-three-years/)

[1] [http://9to5mac.com/2014/04/03/apple-microsoft-and-others-
gro...](http://9to5mac.com/2014/04/03/apple-microsoft-and-others-group-to-
lobby-against-upcoming-patent-troll-legislation/)

~~~
shmerl
Apple can be seen as a patent troll. It doesn't have to mean non practicing
entity - it can simply mean patent aggressor who uses patents for
anticompetitive purposes. Non practicing trolls are just a subset of all
patent racketeers.

~~~
eyesee
"who uses patents for anticompetitive purposes". So in other words, any party
who uses patents for their intended purpose of granting a limited monopoly is
a troll?

~~~
DanBC
Is it a monopoly if the person with the limited monoply is not producin
anyhing that uses that patent? It's just a non-opoly?

------
nkoren
> "It's true that if you don't practice a patent, that doesn't mean you can't
> collect damages for it"

When an attorney nests negatives three deep, is that brilliance or
incompetence? I'm trying to decide.

~~~
frezik
Glad I wasn't the only one who picked up on that. Usually I'd go with
incompetence due to Hanlon's Razor, but given this is coming from a lawyer
from a huge corporation, I'd say it's deliberate.

~~~
gonzo
Yes, he's attempting to confuse the jury. It's unlikely to work, but Samsung
is out of options.

------
toppy
"He added that Apple's patents are narrow and cover specific ways of
performing tasks, not the entire tasks -- such as universal search or word
suggestion -- themselves. And while Apple tried to downplay the role of Google
in the trial, Google is relevant, Price said."

To my big surprise I found out that Google is indeed the owner of patent
entitled "Extensible search term suggestion engine" [1]. Does it mean we
infringe it writing simple AJAX suggestion search?

[1]
[http://www.google.com/patents/US8515984](http://www.google.com/patents/US8515984)

~~~
josaka
You'll need to look at the claims, the part at the end that defines the rights
conferred by the patent. Titles just tell you the general area. The USPTO is
likely still issuing patents titled "Wheel."

~~~
toppy
My bad, cited patent actually belongs to Microsoft... Couldn't find any claims
you mention.

------
keithpeter
UK end user here. Is this case really a sensible way to divide up the market
share for middle to high end smart phones? I mean what would be gained by the
_ordinary customer_ if Samsung lost and decided not to make phones any more as
it wasn't worth the hassle?

Am I being naive?

I presume Apple does not want to compete in the low margin part of the market
(which I imagine will see the largest growth as the higher end saturates).

~~~
jeremysmyth
_Am I being naive?_

Perhaps slightly! There are lots of "companies" that have their entire
business model made up of copying someone else's IP (trademarks, designs,
content). Back-of-a-van Asian DVDs, backstreet "Gucci" bags, etc. etc.

Clamping down on them reduces consumer choice, but that's no reason not to
clamp down on them.

~~~
keithpeter
Oh yes of course, if only for safety reasons we have to prevent complete
knock-offs (UK term) and 'passing off'. But are you really suggesting the huge
Samsung slabs that some of my students have as phones are a _total_ knock off
of an iPhone (that some of my other students have)?

What I'm thinking is what would be the benefit to people generally of Samsung
being basically banned from selling phones in the US? Would people really buy
more iPhones or would they just turn to cheaper Android based phones, or to
Windows phones by Nokia/Microsoft say? I understand that the US likes its
legal correctness and argument, but at the end of the day you want _some_
competition don't you?

~~~
chrismcb
You are asking the wrong questions. Samsung isn't being accused of "knocking
off" an iphone. They are accused of copying SOME of the functionality of the
iphone. Also, this isn't about consumers (directly) AS you are right, if
Samsung decided to stop making phones, users would have fewer phones to choose
from. It is indirectly about consumers though, as Apple may have never
ventured down the path to creating the iPhone if they couldn't patent some of
it.

------
RobLach
If this holds it would set a really interesting precedent, in that you would
be required to be actively implementing a patent to litigate over it.

~~~
euank
Not at all. Samsung's argument is not that the patent can't be litigated
because it's not in use (in fact they state the opposite). They're merely
claiming that they couldn't have "copied the feature" from the iPhone, as
apple claims, if the feature never existed in the iPhone. It's a counter to
Apple's statements, not a legal precedent.

~~~
frezik
Patents are public documents. The intent of the system is that you have a
monopoly on something for a set time, but after that, anybody can make it
based on those documents alone.

So it doesn't matter if it's in the iPhone or not; it's still patent
infringement.

~~~
pedrocr
Presumably Apple's argument was "Samsung saw the iPhone and its success and
decided to copy" and not "Samsung is infringing on patent XYZ". The difference
between those two arguments probably means a lot in a jury trial. Particularly
in this case that already has a history of jurors misleading themselves based
on emotional or factually incorrect arguments[1].

[1]
[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390)

~~~
w1ntermute
But copying the iPhone isn't illegal by itself. It's only illegal if they
violated a patent in the process. So why is it necessary to even look at the
iPhone? Shouldn't the question be whether Samsung's phones violated Apple's
patents?

~~~
pedrocr
The question should be that but they were arguing for the jury, which if the
last verdict is any indication will tend to have a tenuous grasp of what they
are deciding on. On the last trial the jury delivered an inconsistent verdict
in record time, which it then had to amend, and then the jurors started giving
interviews where they basically admitted they went along with the foreman's
opinion because he was a patent holder. Even though he totally misrepresented
patent law and argued that the prior art wasn't valid because it was from a
different type of hardware.

~~~
w1ntermute
This is one of my big problems with the jury system. Perhaps there should be a
hybrid system where a judge (or other disinterested, yet informed, third
party) participates in order to ensure that the facts are not distorted.

~~~
pedrocr
I think that's actually what happens in the US. The judge will give
particularly detailed instructions (the original trial had a 109 page manual)
and the verdict is actually a structured response (which is why they were able
to give an inconsistent verdict). The system tries to do this properly but
then the jurors are swayed by the emotional arguments and there's not much you
can do about it. In this case maybe forcing them to deliberate on individual
arguments would help. From the interviews they basically backtracked from "we
think they're guilty" to "how do I fill out this damn form", negating the
value of the structure that was in place.

------
mjankowski
I had 'slide to unlock' phone a year before iphone... what a moron would go to
court about such a triviality? isn't it all because apple guys have tiny
weenies and seek to compensate for it in the court so that someone would say
they are cool and 'innovative'?

~~~
gutnor
> apple guys have tiny weenies

When there is an article about Apple vs Samsung, the quality of HN really
degrades...

Seriously, now, can't people look back. Soon after the iPhone, Samsung created
a phone that looked quite close in presentation. That was a cheap move by
Samsung, most likely not illegal.

Anyway, that pissed Apple, probably because they were quite close partner at
the time, and they went against Samsung with everything they got, including
the trivial. That's how it is done, nothing specific to this case. Of course,
that's puzzling that some of the weaker claim managed to stick for so long,
but then again, that has been the subject of many many articles.

That's it. If Joe Average didn't have a phone in his pocket, qualifying him as
a legal expert, there would never have been the sort of media circus we are
seeing and both companies would have calmed down.

This whole affair is like the poster child of a storm in teapot.

~~~
mjankowski
I consider patent wars a storm in a teapot... cheap moves to abuse the patent
and legal system in order to inflict maximum damage to comepetition. I think
anyone who had a chance to use android and ios would say they are different...
again - why are they suing samsung? samsung is using android... because every
phone that is not apple's is either android, wm or a feature phone. So what
was samsung's fault exactly that it got sued? "we will sue you, because we
can"? That was a rhetorical question...

------
jessaustin
Some will say that Apple chose to sue Samsung rather than HTC or whomever else
uses Android, because Samsung are their biggest competitor. ISTM that the real
question is why they didn't sue the company that created Android. The answer
that comes to mind is that it would look ridiculous to sue _Google_ over a
_search_ patent.

EDIT: ha!

~~~
wmf
Google might be able to weasel out of a patent suit because they don't sell
Android or because phone vendors _might_ modify Android to remove the feature
in question. With Samsung it's easier to identify specific infringements.

