EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

08.27.12

Apple Has Woken Up Opposition to Software Patents, Itself

Posted in Apple at 11:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Anti-Android camp cheers while the public boos

Summary: The decision in the high-profile case against Android leads to immense opposition not just to Apple but patents as well

THIS weekend brought out some initial feedback on the Apple vs. Samsung case. Friends of mine told me about it and at least one convinced his company not to buy anything from Apple (as the company had planned to), going of course for Android, instead. Apple is going to get a massive backlash for this. People at the Health Club this morning (it’s Bank Holiday) are talking about it; they really start to ‘get’ the problem with patents. It enables people like myself to show them how customers are affected (cost) and how dumb patents really are; some can be realised by a toddler, e.g. zooming strokes, device shape, and so on.

Apple may also end up buying patents from Kodak, as reports suggest that Apple wants those patents in its portfolio; being a patent bully, Apple deserves none of that. It has become more or less clear that Apple is just a branding (Samsung makes parts of its gadgets) and litigation company that collects silly patents while inventing just about nothing. The patent booster Dennis Crouch covered the ruling which lawyers generally like (a close friend tells me that many lawyers convert to patent law these days, it is a gold rush). Other large sites that covered the news concentrate on the number, which exceeds a billion dollars.

Apple boosters echo Apple’s talking points, whereas others give fairly fair coverage without obvious bias (except pro-patents bias, as expected, as opposed to pro-Apple).

Blogs got to the news early because most journalists don’t work over the weekend. The coverage has been decent in the sense that Apple got flak. The EFF chastised Apple and experts say it’s not over. Yes, more sites suggest that is is not over because Samsung won’t let go while it’s doing so well in the market.

Samsung has said: “It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners” (how true).

Here is another notable bit: “Jurors who zipped through more than 600 questions in three days to arrive at their verdict in the intellectual-property battle between Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) had as their leader an engineer with a patent to his name.”

This is an inadequate way to deliver a decision and several people already emphasise this. Groklaw‘s Pamela Jones says there is something wrong with this picture and Swapnil Bhartiya calls it “rushed job” and implies that it was not “a fair trial” . To quote; “The verdict in the Apple vs Samsung case came faster than expected. The jury seemed to be in a hurry (after having worked over time) and reached a verdict giving Apple a victory on a platter. Perhaps the jury did not want to spoil their weekend and handed their verdict which many have noted has several inconsistencies.”

The jury was expected to dismiss the case, so the decision surprised us somewhat. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is not worried. He writes: “The jury in Apple vs. Samsung, doubtlessly eager to be out by the weekend, rushed their way through the approximately 26 pages and 55 questions of their instructions and decided that Samsung did indeed violate some of Apple’s patents just over a billion bucks.

“Impressive? Not really.

“This is not the end. This verdict doesn’t even matter in the long run. This was just another clash.”

The jury is also biased because Apple is a US-based company and a glorified brand, whereas Samsung is “foreign”.

Pamela Jones says that $1,049,343,540 is too much and it’s lawyers who make money and brag about it the most. For them, it’s an idealogical victory, jutifying the leeching of society through software patents. Another one who is celebrating the outcome is an Apple-funded lobbyist whom we filed a complaint against. He turned blogging into a corrupt business model. But am I suggesting that this is AstroTurf? Of course not, why would the one-man business Müller Consulting do something that is against EU law and also a violation of US law that the FTC is cracking down on? Note the sarcasm.

When AstroTurfing disguised as “blogging” becomes mainstream the government does in fact crack down on it. Google did not pay anyone to do something similar. The services offered by Müller include mass-mailing journalists with talking points of said corporations, blogging with talking points and material handed in by the client using a blog run by Google, threatening opposition, etc.

The benefits of the programme Müller offers are that clients get to spam journalists and bloggers without getting flak; journalists quote the lies, attribute it to “independent source”; this is done by mailing rather than commenting (by finding otherwise-hidden E-mail addresses) to hide and ‘proxify’ the lobbying. We showed proof.

Anyway, leaving the AstroTurf aside, patents are granted spuriously and this whole case helped us all see that. In South Korea, both companies are said to have been infringing each others’ patents (the patent are too broad) and “Samsung, the biggest manufacturer of hand-held phones in the globe, did not duplicate Apple’s design, according to the Seoul Central Court in a new ruling.”

There is a lot of coverage about it, saying that “Apple vs. Samsung: S. Korea court rules iPhone not copied” (national biases are easy to see in Rupert Murdoch’s papers).

The coverage was more moderately decent and balanced in the UK, as neither company is British. Here is what Reuters wrote and here is an article that my cousin in Florida sent me: “After Samsung’s stunning $1 billion defeat in court at the hands of Apple , calling it a winner might seem awfully far-fetched. But that’s the argument some are making about the South Korean conglomerate.” (source).

The sure thing is, customers don’t win here. Apple claims to ‘own’ basic concepts and now it wants to tax people all around the world for enjoying rectangles with round corners. What would Moses have said?

A long time ago we called for an Apple boycott and some of my friends say I should do so again. My reply is, the people are already revolting and the boycott is far broader than us. Over the coming week, many journalists will slam Apple and patents. As Mr. Pogson put it, “Backlash Has Begun Against Apple…”

Engadget gives more interesting details and Dan Gillmor says that “A US jury has rubberstamped Apple’s exploitation of the patent system” (quoted from the summary).

That’s what it it: exploitation. We need not only to fight Apple by the USPTO as well, for being an enabler that Microsoft et al. share.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

5 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    August 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Gravatar

    Ah, a friend of yours told you that Apple will lose business over being wronged and proving it in court.

    Have you told the Apple management team about this? They better learn to roll over the next time they are wronged so your friend will not report such things to you!

    As far as customers not winning – utter rubbish. Instead of just doing all they can to copy Apple, companies will now understand that it makes more sense to do what Apple does – spend time and money and effort on innovation and creativity. This will result in more choice and more diversity for customers. Right now we have 90% of smart phones that are sold being from Apple or the company that was doing all it could to copy them. I *much* prefer choice and diversity to such comparative lack of choice!

    Above you speak of Apple of holding a “monopoly”, but I do not think they do have a monopoly on creativity and innovation. I think others can *also* be innovative and creative and make excellent products. But it is cheaper to do as Samsung did and just copy others’ innovations, no matter how much this is morally wrong and harmful to the customer.

    This trial is excellent news – not just for Apple but for you and I and all other consumers. It is something anyone who is supportive of choice should be happy to see.

  2. George Hostler said,

    August 28, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Gravatar

    Roy, thanks for the links, I commend you for the well written info provided above. I enjoyed reading through these developments and agree with you.

    From the link you shared, Groklaw’s PJ gave what I surmised was a very thorough and thought provoking run down on the inconsistencies with the juror process. For example, she quotes, “As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it: ‘Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?’”

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

    She has a good point. How did the jury decide so quickly, especially without reading the instructions given by the judge? Especially since it would take a seasoned lawyer, a law expert several days to sort things out prior to deciding?

    This is not over by a long shot and Apple’s so called victory may be considered a short one.

    Michael Reply:

    It may be. But not likely. The appeal is likely to find a similar result, with at least most of the findings being maintained. The evidence against Samsung is just too powerful – was already very strong before the trial and the evidence that came out in the trial was just amazingly damning toward them.

    But this is good: it will mean more innovation and choice for consumers. As someone who supports open source ideals, I think this is great. Choice is a very good thing.

  3. mcinsand said,

    August 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Gravatar

    What has gotten me over the years is how people, including some at Groklaw, would understand how Apple’s practices are wrong, but look the other way because Apple only had a minority market share. Now, the world is waking up to how dangerous a company can be when problems are not addressed early on. As I have said repeatedly, and as some are only lately starting to realize, Apple has forgotten more about anticompetitive behavior and frivilous litigation than companies like Microsoft will ever learn.

    This has woken those that have failed to appreciate how broken the US patent system is, but it has also woken those that have had a bit too much faith in our court systems. As if Judge Koh had not given Samsung a red carpet for appeal by denying Samsung a chance to fully rebut Apple’s baloney, the jury foreman’s comments make public how he negligently, irresponsibly failed to carry out the most basic jury instructions. He was very much the Flo Müller of the jury pool, trying to present himself as a patent expert when he was really showing how completely he failed to comprehend the requirements for patents, prior art, etc.

    Even if the jury foreman could not be held, charged, and fined, the USPTO should be. In looking over the patents that Apple was suing over, as listed here. After reading these patents, I firmly believe that the USPTO and examiners that actually granted these should be fined for the cost of the trial, including all attorneys and experts. This is ridiculous and, especially as a US citizen, embarrassing.

    Then, there is another thing about these patents that weighs into the evergreen argument between thinkers and the cultmembers over whether Apple is an innovator. This was the best Apple had to bring for the trial. For the win, this is proof that Apple may be good at marketing, they may be good at gaming the USPTO, but Apple is no innovator. They may be good at marketing others’ inventions, such as LG’s brilliant displays, but Apple is merely a marketer, repackager, rebrander. Looking over what they brought to the trial, any trace of doubt is removed.

    Some Apple apologists are also starting to wake up to realize Cupertino’s evil. Apple is a bully, a terrorist in the technological community, and petty. The circumstances that allowed Apple to win this battle were so ridiculous that people have shifted to Samsung’s side. Sometimes, this is what is needed: a wake-up call. HTC has recently announced that they will not negotiate with terrorists, and I doubt that Samsung will, either. The more attention this gets, the more people will start to see Apple for the scum they are.

    Michael Reply:

    Challenge for you:

    1) Pick a year from the last 20 years.
    2) Do a Google search – or use any other common search engine – and search for “Most innovate companies” of that year.
    3) Look at the first 10 relevant links.
    4) See if Apple is listed in the top 5

    My bet: at least in 9 out of 10 they will be. The idea that Apple is not innovative is just silly. But do the test – see what you find. List the search engine so others can replicate your findings (no hand-picking or game playing, just find what you find).

    Those that claim Apple is not innovative are not in touch with the tech industry. Those that claim Apple has some sort of monopoly are just being silly – yes, they are innovative and customer focused, but you *cannot* have a monopoly on such things. Other companies can also come up with innovative solutions and products. Apple has no monopoly on finding ways to greatly satisfy users – others can known them down from their top spot as the company which almost always is shown to have the highest user satisfaction ratings. It is not a “monopoly” when Apple is almost always the highest in that category, it is simply a sign of how much the focus on making excellent products instead of focusing on, say a check box list of features or pushing the highest tech stats, as so many other companies do.

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Microsoft, Masking/Hiding Itself Behind Patent Trolls, is Still Engaging in Patent Extortion

    A review of Microsoft's ugly tactics, which involve coercion and extortion (for businesses to move to Azure and/or for OEMs to preload Microsoft software) while Microsoft-connected patent trolls help hide the "enforcement" element in this whole racket



  3. Patent Prosecution Highway: Low-Quality Patents for High-Frequency Patent Aggressors

    The EPO's race to the bottom of patent quality, combined with a "need for speed", is a recipe for disaster (except for litigation firms, patent bullies, and patent trolls)



  4. Press Coverage About the EPO Board Revoking Broad's CRISPR Patent

    Even though there's some decent coverage about yesterday's decision (e.g. from The Scientist), the patent microcosm googlebombs the news with stuff that serves to distract from or distort the outcome



  5. Links 17/1/2018: HHVM 3.24, WordPress 4.9.2

    Links for the day



  6. No Patents on Life (CRISPR), Said EPO Boards of Appeal Just a Few Hours Ago

    Broad spectacularly loses its key case, which may soon mean that any other patents on CRISPR too will be considered invalid



  7. Only Two Weeks on the Job, Judge Patrick Corcoran is Already Being Threatened by EPO Management

    The attack on a technical judge who is accused of relaying information many people had already relayed anyway (it was gossip at the whole Organisation for years) carries on as he is again being pushed around, just as many people predicted



  8. EPO Board of Appeal Has an Opportunity to Stop Controversial Patents on Life

    Patent maximalism at the EPO can be pushed aback slightly if the European appeal board decides to curtail CRISPR patents in a matter of days



  9. Links 16/1/2018: More on Barcelona, OSI at 20

    Links for the day



  10. 2018 Will be an Even Worse Year for Software Patents Because the US Supreme Court Shields Alice

    The latest picks (reviewed cases) of the Supreme Court of the United States signal another year with little or no hope for the software patents lobby; PTAB too is expected to endure after a record-breaking year, in which it invalidated a lot of software patents that had been erroneously granted



  11. Patent Trolls (Euphemised as “Public IP Companies”) Are Dying in the United States, But the Trouble Isn't Over

    The demise of various types of patent trolls, including publicly-traded trolls, is good news; but we take stock of the latest developments in order to better assess the remaining threat



  12. EPO Management and Team UPC Carry on Lying About Unified Patent Court, Sinking to New Lows in the Process

    At a loss for words over the loss of the Unitary Patent, Team UPC and Team Battistelli now blatantly lie and even get together with professional liars such as Watchtroll



  13. China Tightens Its Knot of Restrictive Rules and Patents

    Overzealous patent aggressors and patent trolls in China, in addition to an explosion in low-quality patents, may simply discourage companies from doing production/manufacturing there



  14. Microsoft's Patent Racket Has Just Been Broadened to Threaten GNU/Linux Users Who Don't Pay Microsoft 'Rents'

    Microsoft revisits its aggressive patent strategy which it failed to properly implement 12 years ago with Novell; it wants to 'collect' a patent tax on GNU/Linux and it uses patent trolls to make that easier



  15. EPO Scandals Played a Considerable Role in Sinking the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    Today's press coverage about the UPC reinforces the idea that the EPO saga, culminating in despicable attacks on Patrick Corcoran (a judge), may doom the UPC once and for all (unless one believes Team UPC)



  16. J Nicholas Gross Thinks Professors Stop Being Professors If They're Not Patent Extremists Like Him

    The below-the-belt tactics of patent trolls and their allies show no signs of abatement and their tone reveals growing irritation and frustration (inability to sue and extort companies as easily as they used to)



  17. The US Supreme Court Has Just Denied Another Chance to Deal With a Case Similar to Alice (Potentially Impacting § 101)

    There is no sign that software patents will be rendered worthwhile any time in the near future, but proponents of software patents don't give up



  18. Litigation Roundup: Nintendo, TiVo, Apple, Samsung, Huawei, Philips, UMC

    The latest high-profile legal battles, spanning a growing number of nations and increasingly representing a political shift as well



  19. Roundup of Patent News From Canada, South America and Australia

    A few bits and pieces of news from around the world, serving to highlight patent trends in parts of the world where the patent offices haven't much international clout/impact



  20. Links 15/1/2018: Linux 4.15 RC8, Wine 3.0 RC6

    Links for the day



  21. PTAB is Being Demeaned, But Only by the Very Entities One Ought to Expect (Because They Hate Patent Justice/Quality)

    The latest rants/scorn against PTAB -- leaning on cases such as Wi-Fi One v Broadcom or entities like Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Apple etc. -- are all coming from firms and people who profit from low-quality patents



  22. If Ericsson and Its Patent Trolls (Like Avanci and Unwired Planet) Cannot Make It, the Patent Microcosm Will Perish

    The demise of patent-asserting/patent assertion business models (trolling or enforcement by proxy) may see front groups/media supportive of it diminishing as well; this appears to be happening already



  23. European Patent Office Causes Physical Harm to Employees, Then Fires Them

    Another one (among many) EPO documents about the alarming physical wellbeing of EPO employees and the management’s attitude towards the issue



  24. Battistelli Was Always (Right From the Start and Since Candidacy) All About Money

    “I have always admired creative people, inventors, those who, through their passion and their work, bring about scientific progress or artistic evolution. I was not blessed with such talent myself,” explained the EPO‘s President when pursuing his current job (for which he was barely qualified and probably not eligible because of his political work)



  25. “Under the Intergovernmental EPC System It is Difficult to Speak of a Functional Separation of Powers”

    An illustration of the glaring deficiency that now prevails and cannot be tolerated as long as the goal is to ensure democratic functionality; absence of the role of Separation of Powers (or Rule of Law) at the EPO is evident now that Battistelli not only controls the Council (using EPO budget) but also blatantly attacks the independence of the Boards of Appeal



  26. The Patent Microcosm Thinks It's Wonderful That IP3 is Selling Stupid Patents, Ignores Far More Important News

    IP3, which we've always considered to be nothing but a parasite, does what it does best and those who love stupid patents consider it to be some sort of victory



  27. Automotives, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and Industry 4.0 Among the Buzz Terms Used to Bypass Alice and the EPC Nowadays

    In order to make prior art search a lot harder and in order to make software patents look legitimate (even in various courtrooms) the patent microcosm and greedy patent offices embrace buzzwords



  28. Blockchain Becomes the Target Not Only of Financial Institutions With Software Patents But Also Trolls

    Blockchain software, which is growing in importance and has become ubiquitous in various domains other than finance, is perceived as an opportunity for disruption and also patent litigation; CNBC continues to publish puff pieces for Erich Spangenberg (amid stockpiling of such patents)



  29. EPC Foresaw the Administrative Council Overseeing the Patent Office, Jesper Kongstad Made It “Working Together”

    An old open letter from the EPO shows the famous moment when Jesper Kongstad and Battistelli came up with a plan to empower both, rendering the Administrative Council almost subservient to the Office (complete inversion of the desired topology)



  30. 2010: Blaming the Messenger (SUEPO) for Staff Unhappiness at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Tactics of SUEPO (EPO union) blaming go further back than Battistelli and can be found in the previous administration as well


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts