At stake in the San Jose case are five Apple patents and a set of registered and unregistered trademarks on very specific elements of Apple's industrial design and software user interface. None of these speak directly to creating a damn fine Web browser in your pocket or a sleek slate on your lap that’s the equivalent of a full-blown PC.
Not surprisingly given the millions of patents issued to date, Samsung has been able to find good examples of what it claims are prior art for each of the five Apple patents. Indeed elements such as a black, rectangular shape with rounded corners, a flat face with a large display and a centered lozenge-shaped speaker are not rocket science. Others thought of them before the iPhone emerged, and Apple was looking at those same prior practitioners in its quest for new ideas.
For its part, Apple has been able to field impressive experts who argued reasonably the Samsung examples were not prior art. Similarly, Samsung has been able to field five patents of its own that are very respectable—including two that appear pretty significant to the 3G networks all modern cellphones use.
Just as Samsung has done, Apple has been able to find examples of what it suggests are reasonable prior art from the pool of millions of existing patents. And Samsung has been able to field experts who make reasonable arguments those examples are flawed in some significant ways.
One gets the impression that if Judge Lucy Koh would not have put a 25 hour time clock on each side’s time with the jury, they would have found prior art invalidating the prior art of the other side. And they would have found credible experts to argue the details of the prior art of the prior art. Madness this way lies.
There’s a lot of grey area to go around here, more than enough for nine average Joes and Janes from San Jose to sort out. At the end of the day their decision may say less about whether Samsung copied Apple or vice versa.
The verdict—whatever it is—may be a measure of how well or poorly the patent system serves the needs of the average engineer and his or her marketing colleague in expressing and protecting genuine innovations.
The verdict also could be colored by emotional issues, such as how the lawyers did or didn’t make an emotional trust connection with the jury, how they raised or failed to raise feelings of distrust for the other side. But that’s another story.
Yes, Apple will prevail. It may be lower in money, but it will deter other to blatantly copy the concept.
@Rick:You took very simplistic approach. Wonderful ideas are historically very simple. If you have encountered any design or designer who makes great product, you may not take away their credit so easily.
I can understand a patent is granted based on the ease of assembly or, change of style and look. For example, I can see the bumper is a good design to get a patent. On the contrary, I don't understand how the look can be granted a patent. What's puzzling me is if I made a smartphone of size 4.51x2.35x0.38 (instead of 4.5x2.31x0.35), I should be able to get around infringing Apple patent of iPhone 4. Getting a patent of industrial design, in particular dimension, may protect the product from being copy which will eventually confuse consumer. Nonetheless, to keep competitors away from making similar product is almost impossible.
Given that the jury is obligated to follow the Court's instructions, they have limited recourse to render a verdict on the patent system as a whole. But indirectly, by finding invalidity or a lack of infringement on design patents (which strike many lay people as not worthy of the type of protection granted by the system) or by rendering a verdict that does not provide the billions of dollars based on the design patents, the jury may well deliver a subtle message. Apple is likely to prevail, in my view, but with a much smaller award than the $2.5B it seeks.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.