Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[Puddle Jumper]

No, they seem remarkably well educated for a random collection of strangers:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57499944-37/how-qualified-is-the-apple-samsung-jury-we-found-out/

Honestly that doesn't mean much, a degree in something like underwater basket weaving really doesn't make someone qualified no matter how much they like to say it does.

 

[Phynaz]

Does the article say that she selected the jury? No, it merely states that she questioned them. Does it say that the lawyers were not involved in questioning at all? No, it actually states quite the opposite in the article: "A few holders of technology patents — including one man with over 120 patents — were also excused by lawyers for the companies, who get a handful of peremptory challenges to eliminate individual jurors."

Here's an article that provides a profile of the jurors. Only one of the jurors uses an iPhone, whereas two use Android phones. Two owned Samsung feature phones.

Based on that information, I somehow doubt that the judge stacked the jury in anyone's favor. I think that you're just reading into a single article far too much and drawing conclusions that weren't meant to be implied by its author. If you have something more substantive, by all means post it so we can discuss it, but as it stands I don't think your argument has a lot of merit.

There you go posting those darn facts again! Don't you know this isn't allowed?

 

[Dari]

Honestly that doesn't mean much, a degree in something like underwater basket weaving really doesn't make someone qualified no matter how much they like to say it does.

You mad?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Selective reading FTW. You obviously missed the part in that article where one of the jurors comes across as a major apple fan.

 

[Tom]

While Samsung did rip off the iPhone 3 pretty blatantly with some of their phone hardware and software, using the general public as a measure of anything isn't the best idea. A lot of people are willfully ignorant.

I can't wait for the upcoming trial with Kleenex suing Puffs because a significant portion of the population refers to Puffs as Kleenex which dilutes Kleenex's brand and costs them money.

The general public are the customers for these products, they are the perfect people to decide these issues.

 

[Hard Ball]

iPhone 3G and 3GS were announced in 2008 and 2009 respectively. Galaxy S is a 2010 phone. Samsung had 3 iPhones to research and copy over the course of 3 years. Theres even a 130 page document stating that they copied Apple by Samsung themselves. Not sure how much evidence you need.

Yet somehow, Apple magically copied the LG Prada in a few months.

Perhaps u should read my earlier response. Im not saying that it is the case that they copied. I think it's rather unlikely.

But in their own closing argument, they constructed a timeline, and pointed to the 3gs picture and said that samsung copied that. And the ealiest phones that they listed were announced in early 2010, so also only a few months after the 3gs came out. I'm simply going by their own logic, and their own line of argument in the courtroom, not mine.....

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tom]

I'm glad Apple won. Means there's still incentive to innovate, not just to copy.

btw, I understand the point of view that it would be great to have all the best features of every device and in a wide open ecosystem and the lowest possible price.

But that would stifle innovation and make these devices as boring as toasters.

 

[Tom]

I don't see much innovation from Apple. A cult like following, yes.
The awarded "patents" are simply moronic. Double tap to zoom? Pinch to zoom? Rectangle with rounded corners? Really? I didn't know you could patent common sense.

Maybe Apple should stop selling computers because they've always copied Microsoft. You know...windows, icons. Heck they even have a mouse that clicks to open applications...

This "patent war" is a joke. It serves nothing good and I am disgusted that Apple initiates this kind of activity to compete.

LOL at your Windows comments. The Mac had those features years before Windows.

Pinch to zoom is obviously a completely patentable idea, its only intuitive after someone thought of it. Same thing with double tap to zoom and reformat a webpage to fit, if that's what the patent is.

The rectangle with rounded corners is a red herring, obviously its not ok to make a device that looks too much like a competitors device for the purpose of fooling consumers about who made the device.

 

[MrX8503]

Perhaps u should read my earlier response. Im not saying that it is the case that they copied. I think it's rather unlikely.

But in their own closing argument, they constructed a timeline, and pointed to the 3gs picture and said that samsung copied that. And the ealiest phones that they listed were announced in early 2010, so also only a few months after the 3gs came out. I'm simply going by their own logic, and their own line of argument in the courtroom, not mine.....

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

They listed a lot of Samsung devices throughout the years. The LG Prada and the iPhone1 were first of their kind. That's not the case with Samsung's devices. While Apple listed Samsung devices close to the 3GS, Samsung had a history of smartphones before that.

It's not the same logic at all compared to the LG Prada.

 

[openwheel]

I guess Apple cult followers don't understand sarcasm.

LOL at your Windows comments. The Mac had those features years before Windows.

Pinch to zoom is obviously a completely patentable idea, its only intuitive after someone thought of it. Same thing with double tap to zoom and reformat a webpage to fit, if that's what the patent is.

The rectangle with rounded corners is a red herring, obviously its not ok to make a device that looks too much like a competitors device for the purpose of fooling consumers about who made the device.

 

[antef]

Not a lot really.

Essentially this just covers phones that are several years old at this point and unlikely to be on sale. The SGS3 (and probably most of Samsung's devices going forward) aren't going to be involved in suits over design patents and most if not all of Apple's utility patents have been designed around by this point.

Not sure what it means for Samsung (if anything) as they make enough money to cover the fine in a week or so, so I doubt it will have a huge impact on their long term stock price or business. They'll probably be more inclined to avoid making their devices look like Apple's products and will continue to patch their software to get around any other patents Apple asserts.

Definitely not the end of the world and it really doesn't matter anyway since it's going to get appealed (and the result of the appeal might also get appealed, and so on) so nothing is really settled.

In short, it's not the end of the world and the sky isn't falling.

What about longer term though. The GNex was already close recently to losing its universal search feature over a lawsuit. Android doesn't use bounce-back, but it does use the three scrolling/zooming patents used in this case. If the validity of these patents is upheld on appeal, could we see a situation where Google can't ship a future Nexus device with simple things like touch scrolling and pinch to zoom?

 

[Tom]

I guess Apple cult followers don't understand sarcasm.

Here is what you said..

"I don't see much innovation from Apple. A cult like following, yes.
The awarded "patents" are simply moronic. Double tap to zoom? Pinch to zoom? Rectangle with rounded corners? Really? I didn't know you could patent common sense.

Maybe Apple should stop selling computers because they've always copied Microsoft. You know...windows, icons. Heck they even have a mouse that clicks to open applications..."

So, how is that sarcasm ? You mean Apple should be allowed to copy Microsoft and keep selling computers, but 'sarcastically' they should be stopped because Apple tries to stop its copiers ?

Because that doesn't make sense, and isn't sarcastic, its just nonsensicle since Apple had those things before Microsoft.

 

[Jinny]

i'm waiting for Apple to patent the circle, triangle and trapezoid.

 

[Phokus]

No, they seem remarkably well educated for a random collection of strangers:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57499944-37/how-qualified-is-the-apple-samsung-jury-we-found-out/

Uhm, based on your link, it seems they chose the WRONG jurors for this case:

Older, educated, with diverse interests
The jury is made up of seven men and two women. Their ages run from the early 20s to the late 60s. Public records show that at least five of the jurors are 50 or older. One juror is 30-something, one is 20-something, and the ages of the other jurors could not be ascertained.

Older folks are usually more technologically illierate. These are the people that annoyed me to no end when i worked in tech support. "HURRRRRRRR how do i turn on my computer?" These are the people i would usually recommend an iphone for.

Patent troll is when a company sits and waits to sue while doing noting with their patent.

What Apple is doing is well within their rights. You think it's ok for other companies to rip other companies off? These laws are in place for a reason.


http://m.gizmodo.com/5436046/a-second-presidential-pardon-for-samsungs-former-chairman

Yeah I'm sure Apple is doing the exact same thing.

Apple steals other people's ideas, patents it, and sues other companies. Yes, i would call them a patent troll.

 

[Tom]

Uhm, based on your link, it seems they chose the WRONG jurors for this case:



Older folks are usually more technologically illierate. These are the people that annoyed me to no end when i worked in tech support. "HURRRRRRRR how do i turn on my computer?" These are the people i would usually recommend an iphone for.




Apple steals other people's ideas, patents it, and sues other companies. Yes, i would call them a patent troll.

Its not good to generalize. Many of the people who created today's high tech world are now in their 50s and even older.

And there are millions of clueless 20 somethings.

 

[Phokus]

Its not good to generalize. Many of the people who created today's high tech world are now in their 50s and even older.

And there are millions of clueless 20 somethings.

That's because that's their JOB. But how many people 50's and older work in high tech?

Older people are more clueless at tech, that's a fact.

That really explains part of the ruling:

LOL:

4:50:33 PM PDT
Judge Koh is back in the courtroom. There are at least two problems with the verdict form.

4:53:13 PM PDT
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything.

4:54:37 PM PDT
A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million.

IDIOTS

 

[akugami]

Stop being so naive. Do you know just how much Apple evades taxes by abusing the holes in the tax system?

The way you portray samsung sounds to me like there should be much much more companies like Apple that would go after them for stealing/infringing. Reality is, that isn't the case. And many fail to realise that most the innovations from Samsung are on the technological level than product level. What they've done in the semiconductor space at the least is far greater than what apple has done at a product level.

Because Samsung doesn't evade taxes using the same loop holes? Every major corporation has an army of accountants whose job is to find and keep track of tax loopholes. And as I've pointed out, at least what Apple does is within the bounds set by law. AFAIK Apple is gaming the system, not flipping the bird towards the law which is what Samsung has done. It doesn't change the fact that if you're talking about Apple and Samsung together, labeling Apple as the biggest thieves of all time is flat out wrong. Samsung would win that by a landslide.

I'm not sure what your point is with the Samsung innovation comments. Their technical advancements/innovations does not give them a right to perform wholesale copying. Something they've been guilty of in the past, not just with the current Apple lawsuit. That's like saying I give to charity every year, so it's ok if I run over my neighbor's dog.



Either way, the guy I was replying to makes another outlandish and ridiculous claim due to bias against Apple, then ignores the replies to his post cause he can't prove said claims.

 

[Mopetar]

Selective reading FTW. You obviously missed the part in that article where one of the jurors comes across as a major apple fan.

I assume you're referring to this person:

One female juror told the court during jury selection that she was considering buying an iPad.
When asked why, the woman juror responded: "I love the technology. I mean, you could sit around in the yard and play with it. Apple comes out with really, really nice stuff."

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't a "major apple fan" already have an iPad and most likely several other Apple gadgets. Also, if she were such a "major apple fan" why didn't Samsung's lawyers remove her?

 

[Hard Ball]

They listed a lot of Samsung devices throughout the years. The LG Prada and the iPhone1 were first of their kind. That's not the case with Samsung's devices. While Apple listed Samsung devices close to the 3GS, Samsung had a history of smartphones before that.

It's not the same logic at all compared to the LG Prada.

Again, read my actual original comment.

I'm not arguing that it is actually the case that they actually copied, or that Samsung case was exactly the same.

But I'm simply applying their own logic, and the way they constructed their own timeline, in their own closing argument, to point out the logical outcome of what they said.

 

[MrX8503]

Again, read my actual original comment.

I'm not arguing that it is actually the case that they actually copied, or that Samsung case was exactly the same.

But I'm simply applying their own logic, and the way they constructed their own timeline, in their own closing argument, to point out the logical outcome of what they said.

I know what you're saying and what I'm saying is that Apple's logic does not apply to the LG Prada scenario because they the two scenarios aren't the same.

 

[jpeyton]

Analysis: Sweeping Apple win, but Samsung set for bounce-back

Highlights:

While the verdict was a big win for Apple, the damages are less than half the $2.5 billion compensation it sought - although that could yet be increased by the judge - and are just 1.5 percent of annual revenues from Samsung's telecoms business.

"The impact on Samsung will be quite limited, as affected models are mostly legacy products and its new products did make some design changes to avoid potential litigation," said D.J. Jung, representative patent attorney for SU Intellectual Property.

In China, set to become the world's biggest smartphone market this year, Samsung has almost twice Apple's market share, and the iPhone slipped to fourth in the market in April-June, overtaken by both Lenovo Group Ltd and ZTE Corp, according to latest data from industry research firm IDC.

In a recent Campaign Asia-Pacific brand ranking, Samsung came top ... ahead of second-placed Apple.

 

[Hard Ball]

I know what you're saying and what I'm saying is that Apple's logic does not apply to the LG Prada scenario because they the two scenarios aren't the same.

No, you don't;

You are still replying as if I was talking about the real-world scenarios. The scenario that Apple LAWYERS constructed during their argumentation specifically stated that it took only a few months to copy, in their own timeline.

 

[Phynaz]

That's because that's their JOB. But how many people 50's and older work in high tech?

In Santa Clara? Most of them.

IDIOTS

Internet definition of idiot = 'Anybody who doesn't agree with me'

 

[Phynaz]

Analysis: Sweeping Apple win, but Samsung set for bounce-back

Highlights:

Another journalist who doesn't understand the legal system. The awards phase isn't even over yet.

 

[MrX8503]

No, you don't;

You are still replying as if I was talking about the real-world scenarios. The scenario that Apple LAWYERS constructed during their argumentation specifically stated that it took only a few months to copy, in their own timeline.

It didn't take a few months because Samsung released smartphones before those smartphones that are close to the 3GS.

Apple and LG didn't have smartphones like the Prada or iPhone 1 prior to their release. It's not hard to see the difference.