Articles about Patents

If you’ve been following the story, you’ll know Apple was ordered to post a notice on its UK website and in several newspapers, stating that Samsung did not copy the iPad. After losing its appeal, Apple complied, sort of, by posting a statement as directed on its site. Only instead of it taking the form of an apology, it dwelt on how uncool Samsung products are, and how the UK court is out of step with the rest of the world.

Yesterday, the UK court told Apple to take down the "incorrect" statement and put up a proper apology (and on the front page of the site, rather than on a linked page), giving it 48 hours to do so. Today Apple has complied with the first part of the order -- removing the notice -- but the replacement is unlikely to make an appearance until just before the deadline expires. However, the new statement has appeared in newspapers today, and while it follows the court’s request, it’s the sort of thing that will have the already annoyed judges wanting to punch walls.

Continue reading →

In the district court of Maine yesterday, a small, privately owned company called Surfcast Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Microsoft for its famous live tile interface, now common among both the Windows and Windows Phone operating system families.

Surfcast was granted a patent back in 2004 (#6,724,403) for a "System and Method For Simultaneous Display of Multiple Information Sources," which bears a strong resemblance to Microsoft's live tile interface.

Continue reading →

Back in July, UK Judge Colin Birss ruled that "Samsung isn't cool enough to copy Apple." As a result, after losing the appeal, the Cupertino, Calif.-based corporation issued a notice on its United Kingdom website, but it's not what you'd expect.

Apple was supposed to explain to the visitors of its website that Samsung did not copy iPad design with the Galaxy Tab. Instead, Apple carefully placed the UK-based court in a bad light in relation to other court rulings from Germany and the United States. In the latter, Apple was awarded $1 billion in damages, with Samsung losing on both occasions as the copycat. Apple played the notice to its advantage.

Continue reading →

Another day, another patent story. After a spot of bad news for Apple, comes something good for the Cupertino, Calif.-based corporation. A United States International Trade Commission judge has decided in a preliminary ruling that Samsung infringed four of Apple's intellectual property patents.

The ruling will be considered by the full commission, with a result expected in February, but it’s an important, albeit early, victory for Apple as the ITC has the ability to block the import of infringing products into the US.

Continue reading →

Uh-oh. While Apple was launching all its new and improved products yesterday, bad news brewed in the background. I just hope the company hasn’t pre-emptively spent any of the $1.05 billion it was awarded from Samsung recently, because the US Patent and Trademark Office has just ruled that 20 patents relating to overscroll technology (the bounce effect that happens when you scroll beyond the edge of an image or document) are invalid, and that could spell problems for the Cupertino, Calif.-based corporation.

According to Groklaw, "the notorious rubber-band patent [Apple's] been going after Android with, has just been tentatively rejected by the USPTO on re-examination. Apple has two months, until December 15, 2012, to respond and try to save it".

Continue reading →

Rarely since I started reporting tech legal cases 15 years ago is an appellate order so clear: "We hold that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus". More: "Reversed and remanded". Ouch.

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the preliminary injunction that US District Judge Lucy Koh imposed against Samsung Galaxy Nexus and sent the case back to her. Matters are worse for Koh and Apple, if this 18-page order foreshadows anything about the recent jury verdict against Samsung.

Continue reading →

Late this afternoon, in response to Motorola's requested, massive Apple product ban, Dan Gillmore posts to Google+: Come on, Google, don't abuse the patent system the way Apple does. Sheesh". I've seen similar sentiments expressed elsewhere. Gillmore and others are wrong. Google isn't playing Apple's game, but trying to end it. If Apple won't negotiate willingly, a show of force may be the only way to achieve patent peace.

Motorola Mobility is now a Google subsidiary, so legal demand from the one really comes from the other. From one perspective, the request is so sweeping as to dwarf any of the claims Apple makes against competitors like HTC and Samsung. Moto seeks a ban on virtually every Apple device -- iOS or OS X -- sold in the United States. It's reasonable to look at Google and to question whether the tactics are heavy-handed. They are not.

Continue reading →

The golden years of Apple's outright dominance in technical innovation is fading, and quickly at that. The iPhone 5 just launched with a deservedly ho-hum and lackluster reception, with many people asking the obvious question: that's it? For a company riding the high waves of Wall Street for more than a few years now, with earnings going through the roof quarter upon quarter, is this the best that a larger-than-life tech giant can bring us?

Maybe the naysayers are right in that Apple is the leftover shell of a monolith once passed (post-Jobs.) Perhaps that internal drive to bring out the best in technology they release is starting to fizzle. I'd go as far as to argue that Apple never really has been as continually innovative as many people may believe. While Apple does have an easy ability in commanding the lead for sectors it enters, this doesn't necessarily mean the company if filled with technical Einsteins as so many supporters clamor to believe.

Continue reading →

Apple is on my mind again, with the company hosting a big media event tomorrow presumably to unveil iPhone 5. I'm not seriously thinking about buying the smartphone, certainly not sight unseen. I'm super satisfied with Galaxy Nexus -- if not, I'd move to a LTE Android, perhaps HTC One X or Samsung Galaxy S III. Rather, iPhone 5 is good time to assess my personal Apple boycott, where I sold off all my fruit-logo gear in protest of patent bullying.

Until July, I was a long-time Apple user, starting with the December 1998 purchase of the original Bondi Blue iMac. Then about six months ago, Apple's persistent competition-by-litigation tactics finally made me mad. I also had grown sick of Apple media bias that borders on the insane. How crazy? Yesterday, Washington Post explained "How Apple’s iPhone 5 could singlehandedly rescue the US economy". Bad is worse -- today, extending this economic lift to US presidential elections, Nextgov (a product of the National Journal Group) asserts: "How the iPhone 5 could help re-elect Obama". These are people I really don't want to associate with. (Say doesn't the president use BlackBerry?)

Continue reading →

Jurisprudence demands that US District Judge Lucy Koh right a terrible miscarriage of justice occurring in her courtroom. The Apple-Samsung patent dispute is nothing but a mock trial. The jury ignored key instructions, failed to complete a crucial checklist, made egregious errors on the final verdict form and reached a verdict after 21 hours of deliberations. The foreman misunderstood one of the concepts fundamental to the case -- prior art -- leading the jury astray. Then there is Judge Koh, who prevented Samsung from presenting key evidence or witnesses that could have made its defense and case against Apple more credible.

Apple claims that Samsung copying iOS device designs and patents causes irreparable harm. But the greater injustice is against the South Korean manufacturer, which is branded a copycat and thief -- all while the victim of terrible misreporting by analysts, bloggers, journalists and other writers. Samsung suffers irreparable harm here, not Apple. Judge Koh let this travesty occur on her watch. She should be ashamed and do what this malfeasance demands: Set aside the verdict. Best scenario: She should deny all claims by both parties, and let them sort it all out on appeal. Acceptable: Order a new trial. She let the case get out of control. Time is long past to reel it in.

Continue reading →

I'm watching a video interview Bloomberg's Emily Chang conducted with Apple-Samsung trial foreman Vel Hogan three days ago. At 9:17, he makes a provocative statement: "The Android operating system, clear and of itself, was not something that infringed".

Do you believe him? I ask, because pundits fell over themselves this week claiming that the jury verdict means big trouble for Android and Google.

Continue reading →

The outcome of the recent Apple vs Samsung trial isn’t particularly surprising -- the American company was always going to benefit from home-court advantage -- but the comprehensiveness of the victory shocked a lot of people, and at a stroke changed the smart devices industry for good. Yes, Samsung will appeal, and might succeed in overturning some of the findings or reduce the amount owed Apple (although, equally, the South Korean company might end up paying even more as the wilfull infringement finding is very damning). But there’s no question the result, as it stands, has repercussions not just for Samsung but for several of Apple’s other rivals.

My colleague Mihaita Bamburic claims that the ruling is bad for everyone, and while his position has merit, I view things differently. I see the result as having a positive impact in the long term, and here’s why.

Continue reading →

I can't win. Just when I think I've finally cooked-up the perfect post-PC computing recipe, along comes some killjoy to spoil all the fun. This time around it's Apple. The Cupertino goon squad is on a mission to stomp out all unauthorized uses of lowercase letter "i" (among other things), and my latest pet project -- moving my entire computing life to a non-PC device -- is about to fall victim to their litigious ways.

You see, I made the unforgivable decision to deviate from Apple's proscribed post-PC formula (i.e. iPhone/iPad) and instead embrace the ways of the rebel Android Army. After several weeks of tweaking and tuning, I've finally achieved a level of PC-independence I never thought possible. But given last week's Apple-Samsung jury decision, I fear it may have all been for naught. That's because the reverberations from such a landmark case will no doubt spread far beyond its principle defendant (you didn't really think this was about hardware, did you?) to strike at the very heart of Google's OS strategy.

Continue reading →

Apple v. Samsung is a game of thrones. Their latest episode is far from any quarrels the two have had in the past, which now look like child's play compared to what happened in San Jose, California. If the outcome of the trial is of any indication what we're looking at is a major game changer in the smartphone and tablet industry, and not for the better.

iOS won, and Android lost. That's one simple way to look at it, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Sadly what we're looking at is a much deeper influence that will be felt in the near future. Here are five reasons why the ruling is BAD for the industry. (Editor: See Wayne Williams' response "5 reasons the Apple-Samsung ruling is GOOD for everyone".)

Continue reading →

Just yesterday I reported that a South Korean court had found Apple and Samsung both guilty of infringing each other’s patents, and claimed that in a good patent war no one wins. Turns out I was wrong. Big time. A few hours after that story posted, news reached us that the jury in the American leg of the global Apple vs. Samsung battle returned a verdict, and a damning one for Samsung.

After taking less than three days to deliberate the case, the jury found that Samsung copied from Apple, rejected all of Samsung’s own counter claims, and awarded the American company $1.05 billion in damages.

Continue reading →