Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenwei | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, it's not like they went screen by screen through the iPhone and said 'hey, we need to do what they're doing...'

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluat...

This is the stuff that gets missed in these debates. It's not like Apple's attorneys got up in front of the jury, drew a rectangle with rounded corners, wrote PATENTED across it, then sat down.

Rather, stuff like what you linked to is what causes juries to award $1 billion. E-mails along the lines of "let's make this look more like the iPhone." Presentations along the lines of "why isn't this more like the iPhone?" Surveys along the lines of "75% of people thought this looked like an iPhone." Market data on customer confusion, etc.

This particular presentation is pure gold. Slide after slide that basically convinces the jury that Samsung didn't "play fair" and copied someone else's work instead of doing their own.

You know what else gets tossed out of these debates by Apple patent defenders? The fact that Samsung is continuing to have success in invaliding the patents they are being sued for:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-to-h...

Except not really. This isn't actually "final" in any way shape or form. USPTO reexaminations have to pass preponderance (aka, better than 50%) which is a terribly low bar and the Federal Circuit has a higher standard required. Apple can still amend and clarify claims to reinstate the patent.

The patent wasn't invalidated.

>The Patent Office has been re-examining the claims of the '915 patent, and Apple recently responded to the agency's questions. However, in the document filed by the Patent Office on Wednesday, the group said that it "respectfully disagrees" with Apple's claims about the technology and that Apple's arguments "are not persuasive."

>The Patent Office comments don't invalidate the '915 patent but mean that Apple will have to provide more information and argue for the validity of the patent.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-asks-j...

Other patents have been reaffirmed on reexamination.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-confirme...

Apple got a presidential pardon for its IP transgressions vis-à-vis Samsung. That's what makes this seem unfair.

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1....

It was not a pardon but a dismissal of an injunction, Samsung can still get paid appropriate royalties by a Federal Court (the FTC's only sanction is an import ban so it would need to be a separate action)

Samsung promised to license those on FRAND terms, Apple will pay what a court sets as FRAND rate. An injunction in such circumstances would probably be a illegal anti-competitive action (at least that is the EU view and that of many US organisations too).

Also there is currently no injunction in this case against Samsung at this point.

Note that in the absence of rules including FRAND licensing commitments standards setting bodies would be illegal trusts which is why this is especially relevant.

Number 108 is my favorite: http://cl.ly/SbXa "Fun factor is created."

It's actually interesting to me to look at those slides and see just how far Android has come along in the past few years.

There are some really awful mistakes in those slides, like buttons being cut off when the keyboard pops up, or things breaking when you rotate the phone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com