Apple Patent Verdict Fallout
Here’s Google’s statement, courtesy of The Verge:
The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.
Emphasis added. The “mosts of these” part a quiet admission by Google that, yes, Apple’s victory wasn’t just against Samsung, but against a couple key bits of “pure” Android.
9to5Mac reminds us:
To be clear, Nexus devices are Google devices manufactured by Samsung (or HTC or Acer) and loaded with the “Pure Google Android OS” without any Samsung Touchwiz overlay or carrier software.
Google’s Android OS, not just Samsung, was hit with two different patent infringement charges last week.
And then there’s another bit from Apple Insider:
Analysts on Wall Street reacted positively to the news that Apple had won its lawsuit against Samsung, proving to a jury that its rival was guilty of patent infringement. But though Apple was awarded over a billion dollars by the jury, market watchers believe the courtroom win could have ripple effects throughout the smartphone industry that would be in Apple’s favor.
Maynard Um with Wells Fargo Securities said in a note to investors on Monday that he believes the royalty revenue stream for Apple as a result of the ruling could be “highly profitable.” Apple must still win appeals from Samsung, and would need to be willing to settle future disputes.
Apple earning royalties off of Google’s “free” mobile OS? Sure. Microsoft already earns more money off of Android than it makes from licensing its own Windows Phone OS. That’s not saying much, as WP7 remains stalled, but it still helps prove Heinlein correct when he wrote that, “Anything free is worth what you pay for it.”
Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the verdict — Do you think there should be a point when broad technologies are fair game for all?
I mean, there are only so many ways to use a touchscreen interface. A finger on a screen can only do so much, and naturally companies are going to come to the same conclusions about the UI.
Remember the classic GEOS OS that ran on the Commodore 64? Compare that to Windows 2.0, and Apple’s System 7, et al. They’re all similar because a keyboard and a mouse lend themselves to a certain interface. Could we be in a similar place with touch devices now?
I think our patent laws are an overly-restrictive mess. That said, it’s clear Samsung violated them.
WHat Mr. GReen said – but on the topic of innovation itself, well…
Look at pre-iPhone touch interfaces (Windows Mobile/WinCE/PocketPC) – the “obvious” bits there are significantly different from what we now think is “obvious”.
(And in fairness to Microsoft, they’ve innovated UI design with Windows Mobile Phone 7/8/whatever and the Metro UI. It’s actually different, and the people I know who have them like it.
It’s not so that Apple came up with “the obvious way”, so much as that Apple came up with “the first really good package” and people copied it wholesale. I can’t blame them too much as a programmer and designer – good UI is wicked hard, after all.
[A quick web search for Android screenshots of the internal versions before the iPhone came out show it looking a LOT more like PocketPC/WinMobile or BlackBerry, and nothing like iOS.
The iPhone caused a major redesign of Android... and that is, itself, telling as to Google's innovation culture in UI.
Google does innovate things... just not around user interface.])
I’m not convinced its so clear cut, Stephen. The jury verdict as an incoherent mess. Hilariously, the only device that the judge entered a preliminary injunction on, concluding that it was the only infringement that Apple was likely to succeed in proving, the jury found not infringing.
And the rest of the verdict was largely incoherent.
Eh? I was under the impression that the Judge writes the decision, the jury just decides if someone is guilty or not (Y/N).
With that said, yes, patent law is a mess, and incoherent rulings (aside from the very occasional invalidation ruling for prior art or obviousness) are pretty much the norm in patent cases.
I’m just waiting for some company to use the GPS sensors in a device to render them inoperable within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Texas (obviously, there would need to be a line in the EULA to the effect of “Purchaser agrees to not use this device within the Eastern District of Texas, or within one mile of said jurisdiction”).
Meh. One team of lawyers convinced 12 people who (at best) know where the “on” button is on a computer that their argument was right, while the other side was wrong.
I’m surprised we’re still seeing lawsuits about look & feel these days. Did Google copy code violate a non-disclosure agreement here? Did Apple in fact suffer actual damages? From what Stephen has been telling us, the iPhone has been kicking Android buttocks from day one.
Frankly I don’t see where any putative damages justify a $1 billion judgement, but maybe I’m missing something. On the other hand, I’ve read citations about patent violations. Can one patent a look & feel these days?