Seeking Alpha

StockRiters

 
View StockRiters' Comments BY TICKER:
  • Apples And Oranges - Is There Anything Beyond The iPhone/iPad Story? [View article]
    Can you elaborate on that a little more? I didn't understand your implication enough to be able to respond properly.
    Oct 31 01:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apples And Oranges - Is There Anything Beyond The iPhone/iPad Story? [View article]
    I like both your zen quote and the Walt-Disney example. Thank you.
    Oct 31 01:25 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apples And Oranges - Is There Anything Beyond The iPhone/iPad Story? [View article]
    Ken, you cannot "continue" and "innovate" at the same time. Apple's iPhone 5 was a continuation, not an innovation. The first iPhone, or the iPad, when compared to its older products, or the competition, were innovations. Especially with Jobs gone, I am not sure how much innovation this great company can show us now. It has to think totally outside the box. I was just trying to say so in a simple, graphical manner.

    As investors, we need to watch out for new patent filings, rumors etc of a new (set of) products from Apple; not just another slightly modified version of older products.
    Oct 31 01:20 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apples And Oranges - Is There Anything Beyond The iPhone/iPad Story? [View article]
    Points below, so things are easily understood:
    1. Tech companies have stock price charts that peak and fall
    2. Other companies, like pharmas, have plateau charts
    3. Apple, on a cursory view looks like any tech company
    4. However, closer look at the charts show it is not
    5. Principal difference - it has outdone itself many times, peaked, gone down, gone back again
    6. It has achieved this through outstanding innovation - not iphone to iphone innovation, but mac to iphone to ipad innovation - absolutely new products, new markets
    7. Current problem with Apple - it isn't innovating enough (unsaid critical issue; Jobs is gone). iPhone 5 is disappointing, innovation-wise.
    Thesis- If Apple wants to last, it needs to innovate and think in absolutely different directions. Something as magical, as different as the first iphone appeared to us.

    Hope that is clearer. If not, I shall try again.
    Oct 31 01:15 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Stay of what? The injunction? They already have a workaround.
    Oct 26 02:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Very interesting question. This case is interesting - it definitely tells me a case can be re-tried on the basis of cancelled patents. I don't have access to Lexis to research if this is still good law; and frankly, I don't have time. But this is a good start.

    Marine Polymer Tech. v. Hemcon, Inc. In that case, the court held that non-final arguments made during reexamination created intervening rights that relieved an accused infringer from liability, and that the intervening rights were created at the point of the arguments even though the reexamination was ongoing.

    At trial, this case was a win for Marine Polymer: the district judge granted summary judgment of infringement of Marine Polymer’s ’245 patent, the jury found the ‘245 patent to be valid, and the court awarded damages of over $29 million.



    However, during the district court proceedings, defendant HemCon had requested reexamination of the ‘245 patent, and that request was granted by the USPTO. During the reexamination proceedings (which were on-going at the time of the jury’s verdict), Marine Polymer made customary responses to the USPTO’s office actions, which addressed the new prior art references submitted by HemCon. Marine Polymer did not make any amendments to the claims of the patent.



    On HemCon’s appeal, the Federal Circuit initially stripped Marine Polymer of its victory. The Court found that even though Marine Polymer had not amended any claims during the reexamination proceedings, and even though those proceedings had still not concluded by the time of the appeal, the arguments made by Marine Polymer during the reexamination changed the scope of the ‘245 patent’s claims.



    According to the Federal Circuit panel presiding over the intial appeal the effect of these arguments, even in a proceeding that had not reached any final determination, was an irretrievable estoppel – once Marine Polymer had filed it’s papers with the USPTO in the reexamination, nothing that later happened in that proceeding (or in any parallel proceedings in the litigation) could reverse the effect of those statements. Further, because the statements impacted the scope of the claims (narrowing them, according to the Court), the Court determined that HemCon was entitled to absolute intervening rights. This had the effect of retroactively absolving HemCon of any past infringement and making future infringement (by the accused products) impossible.



    On further appeal, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc overturned the panel’s decision and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The decision was far from unanimous, however, with several judges writing dissents to different parts of the en banc order. While Marine Polymer ultimately carried the day, it was not without incredible time, effort and expense that could have been avoided if they had coordinated their litigation and prosecution efforts to avoid from the outset the issues created by their statements in the reexam. Further, the lack of clarity in the Federal Circuit on the issues emphasizes the need to have advisors paying attention to every aspect of a patent portfolio to ensure the best outcome.
    Oct 25 01:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    I thought I was just doing that - offering some sort of rationale for what you termed "loser's cry" when I mentioned -

    local jurisdiction for Apple, non-local/foreign for Samsung;

    strong perception of Asian product copying;

    12 patents, none considered invalid by jury; and

    3 days;

    I would consider these strong circumstantial evidence. Plus I offered an expert witness, the Foss Patents citation. Plus we have new material coming up which does show that at least one authority - the USPTO - thinks enough of a re-examination request to issue an office action on the patent in question.

    I wouldn't call this definitive and convincing argument; but reasonable doubt to recheck the case.

    Note - oracle google jury deliberation - 8 days

    blackberry july lawsuit - 7 days

    and so on...
    Oct 25 12:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    @daro. While I respect your knowledge of general matters as an attorney, as you correctly pointed out, neither you nor I was in court. Hence I was making assumptions based on issues I pointed out - local jurisdiction for Apple, non-local/foreign for Samsung; strong perception of Asian product copying; 12 patents, none considered invalid by jury; and 3 days; - - plus, I quoted a source which I and others on the research arena consider very authoritative, who supported the foreman bias idea.

    If you went to a foreign country and was sued by a very popular local entity, and you were judged in local courts, by local people - won't you automatically think of bias? Isn't that one of the core ideas behind motions to change venues of trials? That is all I was pointing out in general, and, quoting the authority I cited, the foreman in particular. I too have no axe to grind here - I am invested in neither company and use products of both.
    Oct 25 11:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Of course; if you read some of the comments, you will see that is actually a good filtering technique to sort out the "useful frivolous" to the "useless frivolous."
    Oct 25 01:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Although I like to root for the underdog on principle, I am no droid fanboy or apple hater. I try and write articles that are fair and if I support a position I try to provide rationale for that to the best of my ability.

    And I never went to a phone shop and mistook an Apple for an Orange, er, Samsung. As you say, they have Samsung plainly written on the front and back and the shop owner always tells me what make it is. I agree there is a resemblance - after all, both are smartphones - but it is not like a Rolex knockoff that begs to be bought on false belief.

    These are the kind of silly arguments that makes me wonder if that jury was biased. I mean, come on, 3 days to decide a billion dollar case that we are still trying to understand? Not a single of the 12 patents rejected? Samsung should have moved the jurisdiction to a neutral zone - like in Mars.
    Oct 25 01:25 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Exactly; for example, as Posner discusses it, inventing a new drug costs hundreds of millions of dollars. How much does it cost to "invent" a rectangle with "rounded corners, as shown in the attached image" sort of patents? Yes, patents should be given for the great technology inside an iPhone - which costs millions to invent. If Samsung has copied that, fie on them and sue them. But patents for the general look and feel of an iPhone? Hardly.

    For example, look at these pictures of old mobile phones - http://bit.ly/TaJwOf

    The one on the right has rounded edges and if you extend that screen a bit down and touch it up, it looks just like any of today's so-called iPhone-lookalikes.

    I used to have a Samsung phone like that back in the olden days - I think that was 2003. The iPhone was developed starting 2004, released 2007.
    Oct 24 01:13 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Remember Einstein was a patent officer. :)

    Anyway, you are mostly right; plus it really is a tough job on a low salary. I think this trick is good - grant everyone everything, and then diligently pursue office actions if problems crop up. That is an automatic filtering system.
    Oct 24 11:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    I used to do prior art search for law firms and individuals - it costs so much money to do a global, all subject, all year prior art search that most individuals simply cannot afford it. The USPTO has a huge backlog, so I think what it does is - it takes a quick look and grants a patent unless there are very, very obvious errors. Then if someone files for an office action, then it sits up and takes notice. I think that is how many subjective/objective frivolous patents get granted.

    It is a humongously difficult as my friends at the USPTO have told me.
    Oct 24 10:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    I think it might have been because they thought it was a silly patent. I used to have a pre-iphone era phone - don't remember what brand it was - that had rounded corners!

    Rolex knockoffs say "Rolex" on them - that is why they violate the Lanham Act.

    Samsung's case is very different. At least this much I will say - it wasn't such an easy case to decide that a California jury - California, where Apple has its HQ - would take 3 days and reach a verdict. Lets be fair.
    Oct 24 10:31 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Patents: The Effect Of Apple's Rejected Patent Claims On The Samsung Lawsuit [View article]
    Not too sure if "nothing changes" is correct; but yeah, Samsung does have a workaround so I am not sure it will bounce back to this if injunction is lifted.
    Oct 24 10:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on AAPL by StockRiters
COMMENTS STATS
485 Comments
242 Likes