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. World IP Day, a Propaganda Opportunity for Patent Maximalists, is Becoming More About Feminism

    The annual nonsense which is called "World IP Day" is being put in a dress for no purpose other than giving a moralistic aspect to it -- one that patent maximalists (predominantly male) do not deserve



  2. Britain Has Not Fully Completed Unified Patent Court (UPC) Ratification and It Remains Incompatible With Brexit

    Team Battistelli and Team UPC pretend that UPC has gotten some sort of 'green light', but actually this could not be further from the truth



  3. With Unified Patent Court (UPC) on Its Death Throes, Team UPC Now Resorts to Promoting Pertinent Parts of the Agreement (UPCA)

    The latest writings about the Unitary Patent and agenda related to it, courtesy of the same people, firms and Web sites that spent several years lobbying for the UPC (i.e. for their own wallets)<



  4. Reporting Benoît Battistelli Before He Too 'Pulls a Željko Topić'

    The media is full of EPO-sponsored puff pieces about the EPO (very soon Joff Wild and Battistelli will promote software patents again), so we encourage readers to contact authorities in France and tell them what Battistelli has been doing in (or to) the European Patent Office (EPO)



  5. Links 26/4/2018: KStars 2.9.5, Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, NetBSD 8.0 RC1

    Links for the day



  6. Battistelli Misuses EPO Budget to Saturate the European Media With Puff Pieces About His Event

    The latest examples of 'synthetic' coverage or fluff about Battistelli's expensive event that he cryptically and mysteriously chose to have at his other workplace in Saint-Germain-en-Laye



  7. Battistelli's EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents and Even Pays the Media to Play Along, Impacting Other Continents

    With silly new terms such as "4IR" (the EPO used to say "ICT", "CII", "Industry 4.0" etc.) Team Battistelli is hoping to make software patents look/sound acceptable, honourable and inherently innovative or "revolutionary"



  8. Links 25/4/2018: Ubuntu 18.04 Coming Shortly, Fedora 28 Next Month

    Links for the day



  9. Koch Brothers and Big Oil Could Not Buy the Decisions in Oil States, SAS

    In Oil States Energy Services v Greene’s Energy Group, a case which Koch-funded think tanks meddled in (including those whose panel guests send me threatening legal letters), ends up with dissent from a Koch-connected Justice citing or quoting those very same Koch-funded think tanks



  10. The European Patent Office (EPO) Wastes a Lot of Money on External PR Agencies for Battistelli's 'Heist'

    The EPO's management is once again scattering/throwing EPO budget at PR agencies and media companies (publishers/broadcasters) to disseminate a bunch of puff pieces and virtually ignore the very obvious conflict of interest, which should be a scandal on par with that of FIFA (resulting in the arrest of its boss, Mr. Blatter)



  11. Today's EPO is Not Compatible With the Law and It's Grossly Incompatible With Truth and Justice

    Today, once again, the EPO openly advocates software patents while media promotes loopholes (notably hype waves)



  12. Quick Mention: As Expected, the US Supreme Court Cements PTAB's Role With Trump-Appointed Gorsuch Dissenting

    Oil States has been decided and it's very good news for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); even Conservatives-leaning Justices support PTAB



  13. Links 24/4/2018: Preview of Crostini, Introducing Heptio Gimbal, OPNsense 18.1.6

    Links for the day



  14. Patent Maximalists Step Things Up With Director Andrei Iancu and It's Time for Scientists to Fight Back

    Science and technology don't seem to matter as much as the whims of the patent (litigation) 'industry', at least judging by recent actions taken by Andrei Iancu (following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee)



  15. Mythology About Patents in the East

    Misconceptions (or deliberate propaganda) about patent policy in the east poison the debate and derail a serious, facts-based discussion about it



  16. Patent Trolls Watch: Red River Innovations, Bradium Technologies/General Patent, and Wordlogic

    A quick look at some patent trolls that made the news this Monday; we are still seeing a powerful response to such trolls, whose momentum is slipping owing to the good work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  17. Holding Benoît Battistelli Accountable After the EPO

    The many abuses and offenses committed by Mr. Battistelli whilst he enjoyed diplomatic immunity can and should be brought up as that immunity expires in two months; a good start would be contacting his colleagues, who might not be aware of the full spectrum of his abuses



  18. Links 23/4/2018: Second RC of Linux 4.17 and First RC of Mesa 18.1

    Links for the day



  19. The Good Work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Latest Attempts to Undermine It

    A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents



  20. District Courts' Patent Cases, Including the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX/TXED), in a Nutshell

    A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money



  21. The Federal Circuit's (CAFC) Decisions Are Being Twisted by Patent Propaganda Sites Which Merely Cherry-Pick Cases With Outcomes That Suit Them

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)



  22. Patents Roundup: Metaswitch, GENBAND, Susman, Cisco, Konami, High 5 Games, HTC, and Nintendo

    A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")



  23. In Maxon v Funai the High 'Patent Court' (CAFC) Reaffirms Disdain for Software Patents, Which Are Nowadays Harder to Get and Then Defend

    With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”



  24. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  25. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  26. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  27. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  28. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  29. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  30. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves


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