infringement
Latest
Editorial: Engadget on the Apple vs. Samsung ruling
It's done. It's all over. There's nothing left now but the tears, the big checks -- and the appeals. After weeks of laborious deliberations and no shortage of courtroom antics the jury has issued its verdict and, while it isn't a complete victory for Apple, it's most certainly a loss for Samsung. Naturally, we have some thoughts on the subject. Join us after the break as we express our feelings.
Apple and Samsung respond to jury's decision in US infringement case
Apple and Samsung both issued statements in response to a California jury's decision that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents. Apple won most, but not all of its claims, while Samsung lost all of its claims against Apple. Apple's response from spokeswoman Katie Cotton was positive, according to a report in the New York Times Bits blog. We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right. Not surprisingly, Samsung said that the decision is "a loss for the American consumer." The company said this about the verdict in a statement reported by the Wall Street Journal: "Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer." As noted by AllThingsD and The Verge, this is only the beginning. Apple will file for an injunction and Samsung will likely appeal the verdict.
Apple and Samsung finish closing arguments, jury to decide their fate
It's just one among many, but the headlining case in the Apple v. Samsung global war is finally drawing to a close. Today, each party attempted to persuade the jury of nine one last time with their closing arguments, and with the rebuttals complete, it is time for deliberation. Starting at 9AM tomorrow morning, the jury's job is to sift through the mountains of evidence proffered by each side, decipher the verdict form provided and reach a unanimous decision on the patent and trade dress claims at issue. Will Apple emerge victorious or will Samsung's arguments carry the day? Could a hung jury and a mistrial be the result? Tune in tomorrow (and maybe the next day, and the next...) to find out.
Rebellion sues Stardock for its use of the word 'Rebellion'
It's a strange day for Stardock when we say this is the second-weirdest lawsuit involving the company that we've seen today, but it's true. UK developer Rebellion (makers of the 2010 Aliens vs. Predator game) has decided to sue developer Stardock (publisher of Sins of a Solar Empire) because of the name of the latest Sins of the Solar Empire expansion, Rebellion. The court documents say that Rebellion (the studio) has a trademark on that word, and accuse Rebellion (the game), of causing customers "to mistakenly believe that the developer of the game Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion is in fact plaintiff Rebellion."The developer of the expansion is actually Ironclad Games. But the lawsuit claims that from the logo and game name to a YouTube description for the game (mentioning "the developers over at 'Rebellion'"), Stardock knowingly profited off of the "Rebellion" trademark.The litigation asks for Stardock to be enjoined from selling the game any further, to turn over any infringing materials, and for both damages in the case as well as the court and attorney's fees. Presumably, the complaint will next go in front of a Michigan judge, who will then decide on whether or not the issue can move forward.
Samsung's defense against Apple patents begins with DiamondTouch table, LiveTile UI prior art
Samsung may have convinced Judge Koh to toss a few international handsets out of Apple's lawsuit, but the Korean firm still has Cupertino's patent licensing accusations to contend with. Their tactic? Convince the court that Apple's claim to the inventions are invalid, and that the technology was developed prior to the disputed patent's filing. It's called showing "prior art," and Sammy's done it before -- famously showing a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey in an attempt to put Apple's iPad design claims to rest. Today's examples were more grounded in reality, focusing on debunking Cupertino's claim to the "bounce back" effect that happens when a user reaches the end of a page and common multitouch zoom / navigation gestures. Samsung pitted the famous "bounce back" feature against an old PocketPC interface called LaunchTile, which allowed users to navigate through 36 applications by zooming in and out and a panning across a grid-like "world view" of said apps. Movement between grids snap to each zone, marking the end of a page. Apple shot back, noting that LiveTile's snapping navigation didn't work on diagonals, and cited other differences as well. Samsung wasn't deterred, however, and brought out DiamondTouch, a projector based multitouch table that utilized both one touch scrolling and pinch-based zoom gestures. The table even takes aim at the aforementioned bounce-back patent with a technology called TableCloth, which bounces back images that are pulled off screen. DiamondTouch's creator, Adam Bogue, told the court that he had demoed the technology to Apple privately back in 2003, noting that it was also available to anyone who visited the Mitsubishi Electronic Research Laboratories' lobby. If the jury takes to Samsung's claims of prior art, it could severely cut Apple's claims against it. Even so, Cupertino's lawyers aren't going down without a fight, and still have a number of navigation and design claims that Samsung hasn't addressed. The two parties are expected to keep up the fight for about a week, we'll keep you posted on the inevitable revelations as they come.
Apple details 2010 presentation to Samsung on Android patent infringement, licensing offer
As the battle between Samsung and Apple closed out another week in US District Court, lawyers for the latter focused its argument on evidence and testimony covering a presentation Apple made to Samsung in 2010, and its offer to license the patents. AllThingsD has the deck of slides from the meeting (embedded after the break), specifying areas and specific patents Apple believes Android as an OS infringes or things Samsung specifically copied elements from, plus a report on testimony from Apple executive Boris Teksler. He testified today about the meeting with Samsung, calling it a "trusted partner" (should be, since Apple paid it paid $5.7 billion for parts that year) that both Tim Cook and Steve Jobs spoke to directly about the issue. While more information is expected from Teksler next week, he did have time to put a dollar amount on the licensing deal Apple subsequently offered, at about $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet, as well as royalties also collected from phones running Symbian and Bada, with the possibility of a 20 percent discount if Samsung would cross license its own technology back to Apple. The companies are restricted by Judge Koh to 25 hours each to argue their points (Apple is at 11 and a half hours while Samsung has crossed over 12 with its own arguments yet to come) but we're sure there's enough time left for a few more revelations before any resolution is reached.
Apple produces 2010 Samsung report comparing the Galaxy S to the iPhone
On Tuesday, Apple submitted as evidence a 132-page document from Samsung that compares the iPhone to the Galaxy S. According to AllThingsD, the 2010 document lists major and minor features of the Galaxy S and points out how the Samsung phone compares to the iPhone. It also provides recommendations on how Samsung should change the Galaxy S to better compete with the iPhone. Writes John Paczkowski of AllThingsD, "In short, the evaluation report makes the case that the Galaxy (identified here as the "S1″) would be better if it behaved more like the iPhone and featured a similar user interface." In this part of the trial, Apple is trying to prove that Samsung "slavishly copied" the iPhone when the Korean company designed its Galaxy series of phones. In addition to this document, Apple also brought in several experts, including Mac icon designer Susan Kare, to testify that the design of the Galaxy S mirrors the iPhone in a way that is infringing. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
EA sues Zynga for copyright infrigement, cites Tiny Tower
EA has dropped a lawsuit on Zynga's doorstep, claiming that one of Zynga's latest Facebook games, called The Ville, is essentially an infringing copy of EA's popular The Sims. You can read through the entire complaint at Scribd. What's most interesting about this whole case -- other than two companies fussing over whose millions are whose -- is that EA is casting itself as the defender of innovation for casual and social gaming. Forty-seven points into the complaint, EA brings up the Tiny Tower/Dream Tower debacle, in which Zynga released a game very similar to Nimblebit's popular Tiny Tower called Dream Tower. In EA's post about the lawsuit, the general manager of EA's Maxis Studio (creators of The Sims Social) says that "Maxis isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it. Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game development. By calling Zynga out on this illegal practice, we hope to have a secondary effect of protecting the rights of other creative studios who don't have the resources to protect themselves." Now, whether any other studios allegedly copied by Zynga have the resources to "stand up and do something about it" might still be in question. But reading through the complaint, it's more than apparent that EA isn't going after Zynga just for themselves -- they're trying to establish a repeated pattern of Zynga's infringement. And given Zynga's stock troubles lately, a big lawsuit like this is probably the last thing the company needs. It'll be very interesting to see how this litigation moves forward. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple says Google warned Samsung about copying Apple's work
The big trial between Apple and Samsung is slated to begin next week in the US and the two companies are filing briefs in advance to prepare for the jury part of the trial. One juicy tidbit pulled out of Apple's brief by AllThingsD reveals that Samsung was warned by Google and others that its early Galaxy devices were too similar to Apple's products. According to the brief, Google told Samsung that its prototype Galaxy Tab (P1) and Tab 10.1 (P3) were "too similar" to the iPad and ordered Samsung to make its products a "...distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3." Even a group of designers told Samsung that "innovation" is needed because the Galaxy S looks like it was copied from the iPhone. The group went so far as to say that "[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it's difficult to find anything different from the iPhone." Earlier this week, we saw a brief from Samsung that claims the Korean company indirectly helped Apple achieve success with the iPhone, and another one that shows some cool early renderings of the iPad and a Sony-inspired iPhone. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple awarded delay on posting about Samsung tablet
Apple successfully argued in a London court that the requirement to post a message on its UK website that says Samsung did not copy the iPad will cause the Cupertino company "irreparable and disproportionate harm." According to a report in Bloomberg, Judge David Kitchin agreed with Apple and said in his ruling that "It would not be right to condemn Apple to such a fate before it has had a chance to argue its case." The message requirement came from an unusual ruling by Judge Colin earlier this month. In his decision, Birss said that Samsung did not copy Apple and required the Cupertino company to post information about this ruling on its UK website and in UK-based newspapers and magazines. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Samsung credits itself for iPhone success in a roundabout way
Apple and Samsung will duke it out next week in a California court, and each side has submitted a brief to the court in preparation for this important jury trial, according to the Wall Street Journal. Besides arguing that it did not copy Apple's design, Samsung also used its brief to explain how its technology indirectly helped propel the iPhone to its lofty heights. Samsung has been researching and developing mobile telecommunications technology since at least as early as 1991 and invented much of the technology for today's smartphones. Indeed, Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly twenty years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology. In contrast, Apple's brief discussed the billions it wanted from Samsung for infringement, and the pennies it was willing to pay Samsung for licensing the Korean company's wireless patents.
Apple seeking $2.5 billion from Samsung
Apple filed a brief in its infringement case against Samsung and argued the Korean company should pay Apple a combined total of $2.525 billion, according to FOSS Patents. The amount includes $25 million in royalty damages and another $2.5 billion, which includes the amount Samsung has unjustly gained and Apple has lost because of Samsung's copycat devices. Breaking it down, Apple asked for $2.02 per unit for the "overscroll bounce" '318 patent, $3.10 for the '915 "scrolling API" patent, $2.20 for the "tap to zoom and navigate" '163 patent and $24 for the trade dress and design patents. Apple was less generous in the payment amounts when it addressed Samsung's claim that Apple infringed its wireless standard essentials patents. If Samsung prevails in its patent infringement case, Apple offered to pay the Korean manufacturer a half-cent for each infringed standards essential patent. This disparity is due in part to the standards-essential nature of Samsung's patents, which must be licensed under fair and reasonable non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
Kodak/Apple patent dispute ends badly for Kodak
Struggling US photography pioneer Kodak was dealt a major blow when the International Trade Commission ruled that its color image preview patent, No. 6,292,218, was invalid, according to the Wall Street Journal. Kodak hoped to extract money from companies that were not licensing the patent and kicked off a series of legal volleys that began with a high-profile ITC complaint filed against Apple and RIM in early 2010. The camera company has planned to sell off its patent portfolio to raise money for its bankruptcy case, and securing licenses from companies like Apple would increase the money the company could get from a patent auction. Patent number '218 was considered to be the most valuable in Kodak's portfolio because it covered the way color digital images are previewed in a viewfinder. It is already licensed by 32 other companies. The technology behind this patent was developed during the time Kodak worked with Apple on the QuickTake 100, a digital camera project from the early 90s that was killed by Steve Jobs when he returned to Apple. In the course of the legal proceedings, Apple countersued Kodak claiming the company misappropriated the technology. The ITC battle was settled on Friday when the commission upheld an earlier decision from ITC judge Thomas Pender and dismissed the complaint. This decision could hurt Kodak financially in its patent auction, which is expected to end next month. [Via Apple 2.0]
UK judge to make Apple acknowledge Samsung didn't copy Apple
In an unusual ruling, British Judge Colin Birss is forcing Apple to announce publicly that Samsung did not copy Apple with its Galaxy Tab tablet, says a report in Bloomberg. The notice must highlight the July 9 decision that found Samsung did not infringe on the iPad. The company has to post the notice on its website and keep it in place for six months. It also has to circulate news about the ruling in several high-profile newspapers and magazines. This is the same judge, who said the Galaxy Tab was not as cool as the iPad.
Image of an early iPad prototype surfaces
While digging through pages of legal documents in the design lawsuit between Apple and Samsung, Yoni Heisler of Network World made a surprising discovery. Buried in the back and forth bantering of the legal team were several images of a prototype iPad that was created in the early 2000s. During testimony in the case, Apple Senior VP of Industrial Design Jony Ive is asked to comment on these 3D tablet images. Ive says, "My recollection of first seeing it is very hazy, but it was, I'm guessing, sometime between 2002 and 2004, some but it was I remember seeing this and perhaps models similar to this when we were first exploring tablet designs that ultimately became the iPad." According to research by Network World, this early prototype likely was created by Apple during a period of research into multi-touch glass displays. Though the tablet idea was cast aside temporarily, the design served as the basis for the iPhone. You can read more about the history of this prototype and its discovery in the Network World article.
UK judge: Galaxy Tab "not as cool" as iPad
Samsung was handed a win in its ongoing battle with Apple over the Galaxy Tab 10.1, according to a report in Bloomberg. UK judge Colin Birss issued a ruling on Monday that said the Tab 10.1 does not infringe on Apple's design. The judge said customers are not likely to confuse the two devices because the Galaxy tablets "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." "They are not as cool," he added. Birss also pointed out that the Samsung tablet was thinner than the iPad and had "unusual details" on the back of the device. Apple has 21 days to respond to this decision.
Apple, Samsung drop more claims in upcoming trial
The trial between Apple and Samsung in the US District Court in California is slated to begin at the end of July, and both companies are making final preparations for the case. Part of this process requires each company to pare down the number of claims it is asserting in the case, reports FOSS Patents. Earlier this year, Judge Lucy Koh ordered the two companies to limit the number of claims in the case, which the companies did on May 1 and May 7. On Tuesday, another round of reductions was submitted to Judge Koh for review. According to FOSS Patents, Apple dropped its infringement claim on its multipoint touchscreen patent and narrowed its trade dress claims by removing references to Samsung's packaging. Samsung, likewise, dropped its total number of claims from 15 down to 9. Koh will examine these changes and decided if further reduction is needed before the trial.
UK judge rules HTC doesn't violate Apple's patents, invalidates Cupertino's claims
Well, Apple had a few legal victories over the last couple of weeks, but it's just been handed a significant defeat by Judge Christopher Floyd. The UK court handed down a ruling that HTC does not violate four Apple patents, including the infamous slide-to-unlock claim. What's more, the judge ruled that three of the four patents in question were not valid, among them the aforementioned unlocking design. The only one of the four patents that stood at the end of the day was related to scrolling through images in the photo management app, but HTC did not infringe upon the claim. This follows the ITC refusing an emergency ban on HTC products in the US. Don't think you've heard the last of slide-to-unlock, however. As HTC, Apple and Samsung have repeatedly shown, they're just as interested in competing in the court room as they are on store shelves (if not more so).
Judge permits Kodak's patent auction despite Apple's objections
US Bankruptcy Judge Allan Groper said in a Tuesday hearing that struggling Kodak can auction off more than 1,100 patents as part of its bankruptcy restructuring plan, according to a Bloomberg report. The sale will go forward, despite Apple's objection to the auction and its outstanding ownership claims. Apple previously filed a lawsuit against Kodak claiming that the camera company stole the technology that is included in ten of the patents that Kodak hopes to sell off. Kodak sued to block Apple's ownership claims and the two lawsuits are making their way through the court system. Kodak said in a statement to Bloomberg that "We are gratified that the court has enabled us to move ahead with our patent auction in a timely manner and with clarity on ownership for the winning buyer." Apple declined to comment.
ITC denies Apple's request for emergency ban against HTC products
Just like they have been, products like the One X and EVO 4G LTE will continue to pour through US Customs, as the ITC has now denied Apple's request for an emergency ban against the alleged infringing products. The news follows Apple's request for an emergency ban itself, in which the Cupertino outfit accused HTC of making false statements in order to bypass the terms of an exclusion order issued last December. In the most recent ruling, the ITC found that, "Apple has not demonstrated the propriety of temporary emergency action," and went on to state, "the commission will not direct Customs to detain all subject HTC products because the commission does not have the information necessary to determine whether the respondents are currently violating the commission's limited exclusion order." Just yesterday, the ITC began an investigation to determine whether HTC's products continue to violate a patent held by Apple, which would be a violation of December's exclusion order. Until the ITC issues a more definitive finding, however, it seems that HTC can breathe a sigh of relief.
