As Samsung continues to defend itself in its legal battle with Apple, it continues to find reasons why Apple may not have such legitimate patents after all. Expert witness Dr. Andries van Dam, a faculty member at Brown University highlighted several reasons why Apple’s ‘381 bounce-back patent is invalid. As seen on a certain Tablecloth application, the software allows a user to scroll through a certain image and then displays a blank white space when the user reaches the end. When that happens, a finger is removed which causes the image to snap-back— just like Apple’s feature. In addition, Tablecloth dates back to 2005, while Apple’s bounce-back patent was originally filed in December of 2007.
Dr. van Dam didn’t stop their either. He went on to demonstrate the LaunchTile user interface and highlights it didn’t appear to be similar to the ‘381 patent because when a user reaches the end of the on-screen content there is no off-screen information revealed. On the other hand, van Dam argues the software does meet the requirements when swiping within the main content field itself, the next next tile serving as the “off-screen content” in this case. He adds the US Patent Office had never seen the two pieces of software before granting Apple its patent.
Apple responded to Dr. van Dam’s argument by stressing Tablecloth returns the user to the original starting point upon a bounce-back, rather than the edge of the content. Naturally that quickly became invalid when Dr. van Dam finished his point by adding:
“The patent does not tell you how you implement a touchscreen display. In every way that is a touchscreen display.”
Your move, Apple?
I honestly don’t see why Apple even did this and used this in their court preceding. I don’t see how this helps their case, and I also have to mention to take these numbers with a grain of salt as we don’t know how big the sample size was. Either way, it’s still a bit interesting to see these numbers, right?
You can expect more and more documents from this court battle to leak out as the days and weeks go by, and we’ll be sure to inform you as soon as we know.
source: The Verge
Yesterday Samsung began their arguments by defending themselves from Apple’s allegations, and today they moved into their countersuit claims. Dr. Woodward Yang, a professor at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was called in by Samsung’s legal team to perform an analysis of three of their utility patents. Dr. Yang found that Apple had infringed on all three with multiple devices.
We begin with email. The ‘460 patent protects the elements of email and photo browsing in a camera equipped device. The patent covers three different functions: stepping through different photos in a gallery mode, sending an email with an attached photo, and sending a text-only email. According to Dr. Yang, the iPhone 4, 3GS, 3, the iPad 2, and fourth gen iPod touch all infringe the patent on both iOS 4 and iOS 5.
Apple closed their case so it’s Samsung’s turn to be a little offensive, and to kick things off, they decided to show a couple of early 2000s gesture technologies, LaunchTile and DiamondTouch.
LaunchTile was co-created by Benjamin Bederson who took the stand as a “fact witness” for Samsung. It was for Microsoft’s PocketPC devices and became available in 2004. It helped users access a lot of information and it featured thumbnails that users could zoom in on to access information. Bederson demoed it by showing three different zoom levels. Here’s a look:
Well thank you so much Apple for providing a nice, and shall I say gigantic, chart showing us just where Samsung infringed on your wonderful patents. Yes that was sarcasm, but I will say that this is helpful in understanding where Apple is really attacking Samsung, and whether it’s the design of the hardware (Patents D087, D677, and D899) or software icons (D305).
Apple showed this chart to the court yesterday when they closed their arguments. It was introduced as evidence, but shortly after, three phones from the chart were eliminated after Samsung argued that they weren’t sold here in the U.S, so therefore shouldn’t be part of the case. Those phones were the international versions of the Galaxy S (GT-i9000) and Galaxy S II (GT-i9100) as well as the Galaxy Ace.
The Apple vs. Samsung saga is about to be over here in the States at least. Apple wrapped up its case yesterday by calling in a financial expert to testify on behalf of Apple. CPA Terry Musika used his time to highlight Apple lost 2 million iPad and iPhone sales because of infringement, while also showing how much Samsung was able to benefit by its sales and more importantly, its profits. Musika shared with the courtroom 3 major items on his agenda: the profits Samsung made with the accused products, the reasonable royalty fees for the allegedly-infringed patents and the profits Apple itself may have lost. He believes Samsung was able to gain $8.16 billion in revenue generated from devices and after going through the company’s financials, he estimated that Samsung made $2.241 billion in profit— while also coming up with unusual ways to increase profits (i.e. avoiding taxes). When its all settled and done, Musika believes Apple can legitimately ask between $2.5 billion and $2.75 billion in damages.
As the Apple vs. Samsung saga continues on, the courts continue to lay the smackdown on Samsung. Judge Lucy Koh recently signed a document which bars Samsung designer Hyong Shin Park from testifying in the courtroom. Park is quoted as saying Samsung’s phones were inspired by a “bowl of water” as opposed to the iPhone. Samsung adds by explaining Park’s design patent dates back to December 2006, which is well-before when Apple launched its first iPhone. Apple on the other hand, countered by arguing her project, the F700, isn’t in the list of accused phones (i.e. the Galaxy S), and that Park’s testimony isn’t relevant to the case. In addition, the Cupertino giant has also argued that her testimony isn’t relevant because she didn’t design any of the products it says copied the iPhone’s look and feel.
Despite the major setback for Samsung, the lawsuit continues on today. As the epic trial comes to a close, the hope is that there will be some sort of resolution or compromise so the two companies can finally move on.
I wonder how many Judges in America get to a point in a case where they want to throw up their arms and yell “I’m sick of this!” Well it wasn’t as dramatic, but U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding over the Samsung vs. Apple case, has apparently grown weary of the quibbling attorneys and had asked them to meet in person yesterday (Sunday). Judge Koh reportedly said in her order yesterday “The Court is disappointed by the parties’ respective reports regarding their meet and confer efforts on final jury instructions. Lead trial counsel shall meet and confer in person today and file joint and disputed final jury instructions by Monday, August 13, 2012 at 8 a.m.” Read more
As a week of courtroom drama drew to a close in the Apple v. Samsung patent case, a new document surfaced showing how Samsung used Apple’s features as a measuring stick for their own development. The document was an internal analysis comparing the Samsung Behold 3 (also known as the Vibrant) to the iPhone. Some of the features that Samsung identified included things like a bouncing visual effect, the slide to unlock feature, and even the transition time when entering passwords.
It remains to be seen whether the jury will see this as an attempt to copy the iPhone’s features or as identification of capabiities and features that could be improved upon or done in a different manner.
source: The Verge
The Samsung vs Apple battle has certainly given us a fair share of courtroom drama. The latest developments has both companies releasing documents of each of their respective smartphone sales dating back since 2007 for Apple, and 2010 for Samsung. While these documents are not exactly significant in the grand scheme of things (reason that these two are battling it out in court), it’s still interesting to look at from a consumers standpoint. It is also important to keep in mind that these numbers represent sales from within the United States and doesn’t account for sales from everywhere else in the world. Samsung’s latest Galaxy S III line is also absent from these sales reports.