The jury made the right decision. Samsung had the opportunity to design around the patents, but they chose to ignore them instead. That strategy might work when copying the work of smaller competitors, but it cost them dearly in this case.
Samsung should have spent the time and money coming up with their own ideas.
Hopefully things will change at Samsung, and R&D will no longer stand for "receive and duplicate".
You should not be able to patent the logically obvious route for technology. That should be patently obvious. :D
Like if the the first car manufacturer patented the car wheel. The patently obvious (deliberate irony) should not be the property of anyone.
Intellectual innovation needs protecting and not being first past the post to make an obvious step your own property.
Definitely would agree with you on that. I would think both side's lawyers would have equal reason to strike technically educated jurors from the pool. But it would seem both sides saw the opposite view and felt these jurors were an asset to their cases, not a liability.
@markkahn: I avidly agree here. Patents are civil/business matters and in many cases technical matters. Getting a jury of peers can seldom be done when a peer must be technical and probably already knows the answer. Getting a lay-person is only to the benefit of those who want to baffle or mislead them.
Progression has been obstructed by the patent system far too long. Revision is needed for patent review/approval, patent duration, and patent litigation.
My suggestions are:
- Patent review/approval must be done at the cost of the patentee, with individuals that are hired because of their subject knowledge related to the patent domain. Fewer patents will be filed because it is costly and slower - this is good. Fewer decisions will occur because of lack of domain expertise as well.
- Patent duration - if the patent is not being applied or to be applied within 18 months then it is open for use/license. This prevents blocking or con-gress patent hoarding. If it is in use then exclusivity is limited to less than 5 years - I vote for 2.5 years.
- Litigation should involve domain experts only. Lawyers should be there only to interpret and guide. This would reduce the frequency/number of litigations because the domain experts will be less available than lawyers. Litigations will be less profitable for lawyers (fewer involved); so fewer would be inclined to litigate. The subject will be reviewed by technically savvy people who may have a better idea about the real issue rather than a sales pitch/slideware that a lawyer paints in effort to "simplify the issue".
As I have said before... our innovation and progress to date is a true testament to the ingenuity of designers to create products DESPITE the obstructive patent system. A system that prevents progress by law.
I've seen that TED presentation. Jeff Han appears 733 times in Google Patent search. I bet he's been compensated well for his patented ideas, though it looks like some of the good ones are assigned to Nortel. Either he worked for them at the time of invention or they bought the patent off him.
jer006, your comments are funny because I think you just don't get it. The light switch was a patented innovation at the time, but has since expired, as the patent system was designed for. Edison would agree.
A quick Google search of patents for "light switch" returned 26,100 results, so even though the initial innovation seems novel now, there certainly have been many patented enhancements since, judging by the search.
So many things are able to be patented, some are simple, some are breakthroughs, some are just enhancements of existing "prior art," but even those are patentable.
How are any of these "idea patents" valid? Is it really an invention before you've figured out how to implement it? I think it is funny when I run into people who think their ideas are so precious. Figure out a way to implement it, and now you might have something. Figure out a way to make other people want it, then you *do* have something. The government is getting in the way again.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.