Apple/Samsung Feud Will Stay Burning Long After Calif. Verdict

A federal jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on several Apple patents Friday in a high-profile patent case that could mean a US$1 billion payout for Cupertino.  Jurors in the San Jose, Calif., court decided that Samsung copied certain design and utility patents, siding with Apple in the majority of the iPhone maker's complaints. As a penalty, Samsung must pay $1.05 billion in damages to Apple -- less than half of the more than $2.5 billion Apple sought.  However, that payout could be tripled since the jury found some instances in which Samsung willfully infringed Apple's patents.  The jury did not find Apple guilty of infringing on some of Samsung's patents.

 Speedy Verdict  The nine-person jury came to its conclusion after 21 hours of deliberation. The decision arrived sooner than generally expected, given the complexity of the court-issued verdict form, which had more than 700 points to discuss.  "The jury foreman spoke in great detail about the deliberations, and it was somewhat unusual to get a decision like that so quickly," Chris Rourk, partner at Jackson Walker, told MacNewsWorld. "Whether or not that may have resulted in any error or problems, it's hard to say, but that's one area where the verdict could really be attacked in an appeal."  Samsung expressed its disapproval at the decision, calling the verdict a loss not for the company, but for the "American consumer." The company said it would lead to "fewer choices, less innovation and potentially higher prices," according to a company statement provided to MacNewsWorld by Mira Jang, communications for Samsung.  AAPL soared in after-hours trading following Friday's decision. Its rise continued Monday, with the stock up about 2 percent to $677 around mid-day. Google, which makes the Android operating system that runs on many of Samsung's smartphones, dipped about 2 percent on Monday.  Apple did not respond to our request for comment. Not Over Yet  "At the end of the day, this is the jury verdict, but it's not the end of the story," said  Rourk.

Apple needs to file paperwork that could determine which Samsung products it hopes to ban, and another hearing on Sept. 20 will determine which smartphones and tablets can be kept off U.S. shelves.

In addition to cleaning up loose ends, though, another large-scale fight could ensue. Samsung indicated it will appeal the decision, which likely will lead to a flurry of additional legal wrangling.

"This may just be episode one in the drama that is this case," said Panzer. "Certainly Samsung will appeal. Almost as certain is that Apple will make a motion to enjoin Samsung from selling the infringing products in the U.S. Samsung will, of course, oppose that motion and -- if they lose their opposition -- make another motion asking the court to stay the injunction pending the outcome of the appeal."

In short, said Panzer, the two companies can keep throwing legal punches at each other in the U.S., including Apple's move for an award of its attorneys' fees in the instances of willful infringement. But if one court case couldn't force a settlement out of the two warring parties, the ongoing legal battle might, said Panzer.

"The most likely form is that the parties would agree on a payment from Samsung to Apple in exchange for a license to the infringed patents," he said. "Of course, because it would be a settlement, there would be no admission of infringement, but that's a footnote in the story."

Too Early to Call for Consumers

The range of potential outcomes makes it impossible to call how this could play out for consumers, said Panzer.

"If the parties don't agree on a settlement, Apple would essentially be fighting for the death of Samsung's tablet and smartphones as the market knows them," he said. "A full-blown win for Apple on appeal could very well lead to an injunction preventing Samsung from bringing the infringing devices into the U.S. as they currently stand. Samsung would still be allowed to import its devices if it took out all of the infringing features, but what would that do to their ability to compete with the iPad and iPhone?"

If the companies settle, though, the product offerings wouldn't differ, said Panzer, and it's possible consumers might not notice a slight price increase to cover licensing fees, he added.

However that plays out, the high-profile case -- along with the media coverage and stock highs and lows that accompany it -- might make all of the telecom industry even more cautious, said Rourk.

"It's possible it will make competitor versus competitor litigation perhaps something that parties consider more seriously," he said. "It's always risky when you assert your core patents, because that opens the door to allow a lot of competitors. And every party that's accused of infringement can defend their patents. When you've got a lot of competitors, you could win in one courtroom and feel like you can go down that road with each competitor. That's not unusual, but with two big competitors in a big market displaying that, it's a big verdict."

 

Smartphone Ruling May Be Good News For Users

   Apple's legal victory may be bad for Samsung but it could be good news for consumers by forcing other technology manufacturers to innovate, an industry expert has told Sky News.  Samsung has been ordered to pay Apple $1.05bn (£665m) in damages after a jury in California found it guilty of copying aspects of the iPhone and iPad in its Galaxy products.  Luke Westaway, a technology editor at CNET UK, says Apple might now pursue other manufacturers who use Google's Android system through the courts, including HTC and LG.  But the ruling, he said, could also lead to new designs and features on other phones and tablets.  "People designing for other companies are going to be thinking do I want to get into trouble with Apple, do I want the hassle of the lawsuit?  "But I think that could be a positive thing. Already we see companies like Samsung trying things which actually Apple hasn't done.  "For example its most recent smartphone the Galaxy S III has a really big screen and a design that's actually quite different to the iPhone so we are seeing more and more variation already."  Apple launched its lawsuit in 2011. Samsung later fired back demanding $339m from Apple for allegedly copying some of Samsung's 3G technology.  But a jury in San Jose - 10 miles from Apple's headquarters - found entirely in Apple's favour and the company is now expected to seek injunctions forcing Samsung to withdraw the offending products.  If the ruling stands then Samsung and other manufacturers using Google's Android operating system will have to pay Apple extra royalties.

Before his death Apple's co-founder Steve Jobs told his biographer he intended to spend his "last dying breath" and Apple's $40bn bank balance to launch "thermonuclear war" on Android, branding it a "stolen product".

Apple has launched a litany of lawsuits around the world in the past few years over what it alleges are patent infringements.

But some experts believe the Californian firm's dominance is actually bad for consumers.

"In this instance they (Apple) could be classed as patent bullies because they're using patents to block competition," said Nikki Moore, a technology journalist.

"They're now a huge market player whereas they used to be a small, tech, independent company . They've become something they said they never would - this dominant market leader.

"Ultimately this could lead to less choice for consumers which is never going to be good thing for technology."

Samsung, which is appealing against the court's decision, has overtaken Apple as the world's biggest smartphone and tablet maker, selling over 22 million.

The two companies have filed similar lawsuits in eight other countries including Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Australia, South Korea and Japan.

Apple Vs Samsung: South Korean Court Rules

A South Korean court has ruled that Samsung did not copy Apple's iPhone - but awarded damages to both technology companies for infringing patents.

The judgement, which only affects the South Korean market, is part of a bitter global battle over patents and innovation between the two rivals.

The court denied Apple's claim that its competitor had illegally copied its design, ruling that rectangular screens with corners existed before the iPhone and iPad.

There was "no possibility" that consumers would confuse smartphones made by the companies, the judges in Seoul said.

Samsung was ordered to pay compensation of 25m won (£13,909) to its competitor for infringing Apple's so-called bounce-back technology, used when scrolling on touch screens.

While Apple must pay its rival 40m won (£22,255) for breaching two of the Korean company's technology patents

The amounts awarded were significantly less than the 100m won (£55,638) sought by each side.

The court also imposed a partial ban on some product sales in South Korea, although the ruling did not affect either company's latest generation phones: the Apple iPhone 4S and Samsung Galaxy S3.

Samsung launched the case after Apple filed a lawsuit in a US court in April 2011, kicking off the legal tussle.

Apple accuses Samsung of copying designs and infringing other patents, and Samsung says Apple breached its patent for wireless communication.

Jurors began deliberating on Wednesday in the US, following a three week federal trial in San Jose, California.

Samsung Wins Japan Court Battle Over Apple

Samsung has won the latest stage of its patent saga with rival technology giant Apple after a Tokyo court ruled in favour of the South Korean company.  The Japanese court case addressed only the synchronising technology that allows media players to share data with personal computers.  The victory was therefore not comparable in scope to the much larger case won by Apple in the US last week.  In the California trial, the court ruled that Samsung had illegally used Apple creations such as the 'bounce-back' feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger, in its products.  The jury awarded Apple $1bn (£630m) in damages, and a judge is now evaluating Apple's request to have eight Samsung products pulled from shelves and banned from the US market, including popular Galaxy model smartphones.  Samsung's latest model, the Galaxy S3, was not part of the US ruling.  Judge Tamotsu Shoji took just a few minutes to reach his decision on Friday in Japan. He said he did not think Samsung's technology that allows media players and personal computers to share music files and other content infringed on Apple patents.  The South Korean firm welcomed the ruling, saying it confirmed their "long-held position".  The Apple lawyer present in the court declined to comment. Later on the company also said it had no comment, including on whether or not it intended to appeal.  It is the latest of several lawsuits filed around the world involving the two tech giants battling it out over whether Samsung smartphones, which rely on Google Android technology, illegally used Apple designs, ideas or technology.  Seo Won-seok, an analyst at Seoul-based Korea Investment & Securities, said the Tokyo verdict showed that the various cases may not be affected by Apple's major victory in California.

Apple changed the color of cars, says BMW designer

 In a piece about how brown has become the "red-hot" color for cars and trucks, Motoramic's Brett Berk offers this insight into Apple's (AAPL) influence on the automobile market:      Silver was the most popular exterior car color in America for nearly a decade. But while it remains beloved by automotive designers for best showing off a car's styling, its unstinting argent reign was finally overthrown this year. By white. According to Sandy McGill, BMW Designworks' lead designer in color, materials, and finish, this is Steve Jobs' doing. "Prior to Apple, white was associated with things like refrigerators or the tiles in your bathroom. Apple made white valuable."

Rare Apple I computer put up for auction

The Apple gadget that will fetch the highest sales price this fall won't be an iPhone 5, an iPad Mini or even a new Macintosh, but a 36-year-old circuit board called the Apple I.  Christie's is set to put the 1976 computer up for auction on Oct. 9 in London, at which it is expected to sell for anywhere between $79,000 to $126,500.  The Apple I was the company's first product, designed and built by Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) co-founder Steve Wozniak and marketed and sold by his partner, Steve Jobs.  "This is the computer that started Apple, now recognized as the most valuable company in the world," said James Hyslop, a specialist at Christie's. "Its significance in making computer technology accessible for all cannot be undervalued."  Apple may never have existed had the Apple I not attracted the attention of a Silicon Valley store called the Byte Shop. Store owner Paul Terrell ordered 50 of the computers for $500 each, which the late Jobs and Wozniak put together in just 30 days. Terrell sold them for $666.66 each, and the Apple duo made 150 more to sell to friends and other stores.  Only about 50 Apple I computers still exist today, according to Christie's. The one up for sale by the auction house was the 22nd to be made. It currently belongs to the estate of Joe Copson, a former Apple employee.  The Apple I was just a circuit board -- it did not come with casing, power supply, a keyboard or monitor. By April 1977, the price dropped to $475 to make way for the company's first commercial success: the much more feature-rich Apple II.  Even for such a simple computer, it was selling for a bargain three decades ago, considering what they're worth today. Another Apple I was auctioned off by Sotheby's in June, fetching $374,500. That final price tag was double the amount the auctioneer had estimated.  Christie's also sold off an Apple 1 for $212,267 in November 2010. That particular computer came with the original box, instruction manuals and a signed letter from Jobs. Wozniak made an appearance at that auction. He didn't comment on whether he would show up to see another one of his early creations get sold off in October. To top of page

Apple sue us next? Not a chance.

Apple sue us next? Not a chance.

That's the gist of Google's message following Apple's $1 billion victory over Samsung in a California patent suit. The search giant is doing its best to quell fears that its Android operating system could be the next target for Apple's lawyers. And you can't blame them.

Google has to do something to keep its partners in the smartphone and tablet world from panicking, to say nothing of investors. But experts say that while the Apple v. Samsung suit didn't describe a legal route that leads directly to Mountain View, Google had better watch its back.

Apple v. Samsung ripped apart both the hardware and software used in Samsung's very popular smartphones and tablets. Arguments hinged on whether certain hardware features -- like a bezeled display and a lozenge-shaped earpiece -- had been ripped off from Apple by Samsung's designers. A jury decided that in multiple instances they had.

Apple also filed claims that Samsung developed operating system features that violated Apple patents. Samsung licenses Google's Android operating system for its tablets and phones, and makes changes to personalize the user experience. Those small changes include pinch-to-zoom, tap-to-zoom, and bounce-back features, which fall under Apple-owned utility patents.

Google, which has stayed silent about the case until now, said Monday that these utility patent features aren't part of the core Android operating system, which runs underneath Samsung's and other device manufacturer's modifications. Google gives its licensees a plain, stock version of the Android operating system, which by itself does not violate Apple's patents. However, licensees can modify the Android system and build any feature they like, and those features could violate other patented technologies.

Here's Google's full statement in reaction to the verdict:

"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."

Phillip Philbin, an intellectual property attorney with national law firm Haynes and Boone, says Google's statement is a message to its partners that the verdict only applies to Samsung's products, and not the entire Android ecosystem. "It's essentially Google saying that the patent issues apply to Samsung's software changes and Samsung's hardware, but not to 'core' Android or other Android products," says Philbin.

Looking at the case, Purdue law professor Mark McKenna says Google is focusing on distancing itself from the pinch-to-zoom, the tap-to-zoom, and the bounce-back features that Samsung created, saying they aren't included in its base Android code. "Google's claim is that those features are part of the modified experience from other companies that license the Android operating system," says McKenna.

Analysts agree with Google's stance, saying there is no evidence out there that the core Android operating system has infringed on Apple or any other company's patents. But Google has yet to endure the scrutiny of a full-blown patent suit. The California jury was looking at what Samsung did or didn't do, not what Google did or didn't do. That's a key distinction. But if Google has its way, no jury will ever test its claims.

Google has gone to great lengths to keep its operating system distinct from iOS with widgets, rotary and pull-tab lock screens, and an applications menu separate from the home screen. All very un-Apple-like design flourishes. Even Google's Nexus hardware line, made with Samsung, HTC, and Asus, includes designs with rounded corners, curved screens, and textured battery covers that could never be mistaken for an Apple device.

Still Google is not immune to a patent lawsuit, even though it wouldn't be easy for Apple -- or anyone else -- to bring a case. One of the chief reasons Apple hasn't yet gone after Google, McKenna says, is because Google doesn't make any money from selling the Android operating system (it makes money from mobile ads). Since Google is giving away Android, it makes it hard for Apple to prove that the operating system harms its market share.

"That doesn't mean Apple couldn't sue Google, it just makes it more challenging to prove the direct impact," says McKenna. "That's why Apple's gone the indirect route, by suing device manufacturers that can modify Android."

And it's not inconceivable that Apple eventually decides to go directly after Google, McKenna says. If it gets on a winning streak in U.S. courts against the rest of the handset makers, it might take a shot. "This is Act 1 in a multi-act play," says McKenna. "Apple is on the record saying they want to destroy the Android ecosystem, and to do that it's either going have to go after the all the software makers, or every single hardware manufacturer that sells these things."

Whether its Apple going after its next victim, or the Samsung case going to appeal, Philbin agrees there is a long way to go. "Patent litigation takes place on at least three fronts — the district court, the patent office and the federal circuit," he says. "What we've had so far is just the district court's ruling and we haven't even heard from the District Judge on this yet. So this process is far from over."

The legal process perhaps, but as is the case in the fast-moving tech world, the design process has already moved on. Pick up the latest Samsung smartphone and you won't see the hardware or software features that the jury found violated Apple's patents. Samsung has learned its lesson, albeit in a very expensive way. Google already has a tight grip on Android, and you're likely to see that grip tighten as it looks to avoid any of its own patent litigation woes.

The good news for consumers is that rather than waiting for jury verdicts in the future, there's a good chance we'll be waiting for the next crop of smartphones and tablets with forms and features that are distinct -- not just a bunch of Apple copycats.

How Apple killed the Linux desktop

-- It's hard to say exactly what percentage of desktop and laptop computers run Apple OS X, but it's clear that the operating system has made slow but steady gains at chipping away at that the sizable lead Microsoft established in the '90s with its Windows operating system. Some figures put the number at about 6 to 7 percent of the desktop market.

But one thing's for sure: OS X has been more successful than Linux, the open source operating system that has found a home on data-center servers but is still a rarity on desktops and laptops. Linux may have seen a surge last year, but it still hasn't seen the sort of growth OS X has, nor the growth that Linux supporters have long hoped for.

Why is that? Miguel de Icaza -- one of the original creators of GNOME, a Linux desktop interface that has struggled to take hold -- believes that a large portion of the software developers that could have taken Linux to greater heights defected to other platforms, including not only Apple OS X but -- more importantly -- the Web.

Some might blame the slow progress of desktop Linux on the fragmentation of the desktop user interfaces used by the major Linux distributions. In 2010, Canonical announced that it would replaced the popular GNOME desktop environment with its own homegrown Unity environment in the Ubuntu distribution, much to many Linux geeks' chagrin. But many are also unhappy with the direction GNOME has taken, including Linux creator Linus Torvalds,

Torvalds switched to Xfce, a desktop environment originally created as a lighter-weight alternative to the dominant GNOME and KDE environments. The audio and video centric Ubuntu Studio completed a transition to Xfce last month, and earlier this month, the venerable Linux distribution Debian dropped GNOME as its default desktop environment and replaced it with Xfce.

But de Icaza says the desktop wars were already lost to OS X by the time the latest shakeups started happening. And he thinks the real reason Linux lost is that developers started defecting to OS X because the developers behind the toolkits used to build graphical Linux applications didn't do a good enough job ensuring backward compatibility between different versions of their APIs. "For many years, we broke people's code," he says. "OS X did a much better job of ensuring backward compatibility."

But at the same time, development was shifting to the web. Open source on the desktop became a lot less important than open source on the server. The need to develop native applications was diminishing and at the same time OS X provided a good enough Unix-like environment that programmers could develop on a Mac and then deploy to a Linux server.

The web is where open source truly thrives. Even Steve Ballmer admits that Linux is beating Windows in the web server market. Even if you don't have a single open source application installed on your laptop, if you use the web you're probably being served by several open source technologies, including web servers like Apache and Nginx and programming languages and frameworks like PHP and Ruby on Rails all running on an open source operating system. The latest trends in web technology, from cloud computing to big data, are also built on open source technologies such as Apache Hadoop, MongoDB and the Xen hypervisor.

Open source powers the server side of the web, but there's no guarantee of openness on the user-facing side. And that's where open source advocates are focusing much of their efforts now, even if they have started using Macs. "Many people who were talking about Free Software are the people talking about the open web now," de Icaza says.

One of them is Stormy Peters, the former executive director of the GNOME Foundation. She's still on the GNOME Foundation board an like de Icaza she still keeps some Linux machines around. But as director of websites and developer engagement at the Mozilla Foundation, her focus is now on the open web.

"The reason I'm personally at Mozilla is that I saw a lot of websites that weren't designed with the principles of free software," she says. Thanks to AJAX and HTML5, the web has become the dominant platform for applications she says.

In what ways can the principles of free software be applied to the web? Peters says one of the most important aspects of open source software is that you, or someone you trust, can examine an application's source code and see what it's doing. One way to bring this level of insight to the web is help users control their data and how it is used by web applications. That's the goal of Mozilla Identity team, who are working on Mozilla Persona, a browser-based identity and authentication system.

Another big change since the early days of the Linux desktop is the rise of the mobile web. "There's a huge portion of the world who are going to first experience the internet through the mobile devices," Peters say.

To that end, Mozilla is working on its Boot to Gecko open source mobile operating system, but possibly more importantly is the Mozilla Marketplace. These applications will run anywhere that the Firefox web browser will.

Mobile development is also on de Icaza's mind. Since 2001 he's been working on Mono, an open source framework for running Microsoft's .NET languages on non-Microsoft operating systems like Linux and OS X. Now the project is available on Android and iOS as well.