Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[Fox5]

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.

Err, does no one remember the PDA market? There were a ton of almost iphone looking devices already on the market, just remove the buttons on the bottom and bingo, you have the physical shape of an iphone. And since Foxconn built the iphone, I'm sure they already had plenty of experience building pdas.

 

[Hard Ball]

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.

It doesn't seem that you are capable of following a logical argument.

I was not the one that pointed to the 3GS and said that was the device that Samsung modeled theirs after. It was Apple legal that did that, you should take that question verbatum from above and email it to their legal team, and get your response.

 

[TuxDave]

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

Highlights:

I kind of giggled at the "bounce-back" in that article title since that was one of the patents Samsung infringed on.

 

[Phynaz]

I kind of giggled at the "bounce-back" in that article title since that was one of the patents Samsung infringed on.

Lol! That's funny

 

[Zaap]

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

Highlights:

"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.

This is the part I hate. So f'ing Apple gets to dictate the design of other company's products just because they're pretending they invented the smartphone and so can forever dictate to everyone else? It's bullshit. I wish Apple would get the F out of the phone business, even though I've made a killing on their stock, and probably will make even more when the iPod+ 5 comes out. I'm just sick of how they've managing to dick up the entire cellphone industry because of all their bullshit fear of competition.

I'll say this- if Apple does make a TV, I hope Samsung and other companies get together and sue them for anything that even REMOTELY resembles the TVs that they make. It better not be rectangular, have buttons or LEDs anywhere on it, in any way look like a product that someone else has already made. They should be forced to make the damned thing be completely round. Turnabout should be fair play.

 

[MotionMan]

I'll say this- if Apple does make a TV, I hope Samsung and other companies get together and sue them for anything that even REMOTELY resembles the TVs that they make. It better not be rectangular, have buttons or LEDs anywhere on it, in any way look like a product that someone else has already made. They should be forced to make the damned thing be completely round. Turnabout should be fair play.

Except that the current TV makers do not own patents for those designs. Actually, one or more of them probably does and licenses them to the other manufacturers. Many things - many more than you could even imagine - that you think companies do because they are so prominent, no could possibly "own" them, are based on patent licenses from other companies.

The fact is that not one person who has posted in this thread, including myself, knows 1% of enough to make an intelligent argument for either side (this may exempt anyone who has read all of the jury instructions). However, I do know enough about the law to make that statement.

MotionMan

 

[akugami]

Can anyone comment on this Android Police article? Specifically, I'd like to know if what they said is true about the appeals process. It seems like Samsung is in a world of hurt and that the chance of overturning this verdict is slim to none barring invalidating all of the Apple patents.


Short term I think this verdict hurts Android as a whole. They'll have to be more careful about infringing Apple's patents. New product releases may lag a bit and probably be slightly more expensive.

Long term, I think most of Apple's patents can be worked around. Hopefully this also leads to new and better ways of doing things. Maybe Google and other Android developers can cook up new UI elements that brings in a new level of usability. An example of a work around, using the Nexus 7, there's a "flip" animation when you hit the first or last home screen page. Not sure I'm describing it right but anyone who has used ICS/JB should know what I'm talking about. The most problematic is the "pinch to zoom" patent. Not sure there is an elegant way to work around that.

 

[MotionMan]

Can anyone comment on this Android Police article? Specifically, I'd like to know if what they said is true about the appeals process. It seems like Samsung is in a world of hurt and that the chance of overturning this verdict is slim to none barring invalidating all of the Apple patents.

It is a very watered down explanation, but generally correct.

MotionMan, Esq. (<--- Not an appeals specialist, but handling 5 appeals at the moment.)

 

[Phynaz]

Can anyone comment on this Android Police article?

Very well written, and yes, that is how the appeals process works.

You can only appeal on procedural grounds, not facts.

 

[Zaap]

Except that the current TV makers do not own patents for those designs. Actually, one or more of them probably does and licenses them to the other manufacturers. Many things - many more than you could even imagine - that you think companies do because they are so prominent, no could possibly "own" them, are based on patent licenses from other companies.

The thing is, I agree with you. No one should "own" any of the stupidities being argued in half these cases. It's just that I believe that holds true for cellphones as much as it does anything else.

As has been pointed out a billion times, this is illustrating for all to see (all who are fair minded that is, and care more about consumer rights than stumping for some corporate 'team') just how screwed up the patent system is, awarding patents for things that should never be "owned" outright by any one company.

I'm just saying that it would be some level of justice if turn about was used against Apple to keep them from entering new markets, and thus making them the victims of what they've done much to set in motion. So they were first into the smartphone market, and now want to abuse the patent and legal system to keep others out of it? Well fine. Enjoy your freakin' phone, and whatever else you currently make. If you want to enter another market EVER that others were in first: then the same wretched tactics should be used against you to keep you out by those that were there ahead of you. It's called comeuppance and Apple's been begging for it for a while now.

If anyone successfully did that, then I bet you'd see Apple be the first to screech loudest and longest about how unfair it is.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Yeah sure, in a case this high profile a judge is going to ruin their credibility by selecting a biased jury. I wonder why nobody else besides forum posters like you have found evidence of this biased jury. I mean every legal expert and news agency on the planet has been watching this trial.

They've already had, well a few unless you chose not to see what you wanted. Remember when she decided to disclose the evidence (with regards to the F700) that could have been huge and stop Apple from saying that it was an iphone copy? What because they ran out of time??

Well given the fact that the most valuable company is a US company, in a US courtroom with a US judge, you think the US news agencies/legal experts will attack its own justice system for its flaws? I hope they dont. Also im not sure about "every legal experts" but most have already said Samsung was the underdog for this trial and fair enough given the above.

The judge as I mentioned before has had her credibility ruined long before even the trial began. Unless you can convince me that she was the right person to be responsible for this trial then please feel free.

Oh, and you are wrong that the attorney's didn't get to question the jury pool.

Lawyers can object to any jury member appointed. Why didn't Samusung's attorneys use their strikes to dismiss these supposedly biased jury members? You must be saying that Samsung's attorneys were so incompetent they allowed a biased jury to be seated!

Then again, considering how bad they f'ed up in other areas, I guess it could be possible...Or it just could be that you don't have any idea what your talking about and you're just spewing internet rage because you didn't get the result you wanted.

Im not an legal expert and never said I was. But I dont have to be one to see just how flawed some of the systems are especially when the jury has been completely incompetent as far as trial goes.

Oh and you can stop over the personal insults (which if I remember correctly a personal trait of yours in the interwebz) if it makes you feel better. Im not raging, but rather disappointed at how the whole trial went from start to finish.

 

[Phynaz]

Good backpedaling Cookie.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Good backpedaling Cookie.

Im fine with you correcting me (and Im fine with it) as long as the discussion remains civil. So far you've done nothing but spewing personal remarks either than a single correction which I admit I was wrong.

 

[Phynaz]

So far you've done nothing but spewing personal remarks

Your assumption is wrong and pretty ignorant.

Ok.

 

[MrX8503]

It doesn't seem that you are capable of following a logical argument.

I was not the one that pointed to the 3GS and said that was the device that Samsung modeled theirs after. It was Apple legal that did that, you should take that question verbatum from above and email it to their legal team, and get your response.

....and what the apple legal team is saying/pointing out doesn't apply to the LG Prada situation. You're the one making that correlation.

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

yes... Let's start making stuff up what a patent troll is.

 

[bearxor]

I'll say this- if Apple does make a TV, I hope Samsung and other companies get together and sue them for anything that even REMOTELY resembles the TVs that they make. It better not be rectangular, have buttons or LEDs anywhere on it, in any way look like a product that someone else has already made. They should be forced to make the damned thing be completely round. Turnabout should be fair play.

Heres the problem with this TV comparison (or toaster, or microwave) have you been TV shopping recently?

First off, only a few companies actually MAKE TV's. A lot of brands are rebranded ODM's, so those can't count. But if you look at TV's from different companies (that actually do make the TV's) you'll notice that they are pretty easy to identify. They typically have different shapes and the button placement is different and they all have their own distinct menu system.

If Apple releases a TV, it will highly likely be bought from somebody and come with a new interface, which will be the highlight. Yes, flat-panel TV's all have to have common interface elements, just like phones. But Samsung isn't going to start churning out TV's that look like copies of Sony's in both look, button placement and menu organization.

 

[Zaap]

I personally don't give a rat's ass what anyone considers the definition of "patent troll".

Apple are being patent assholes. So there.

 

[Zaap]

First off, only a few companies actually MAKE TV's. A lot of brands are rebranded ODM's, so those can't count. But if you look at TV's from different companies (that actually do make the TV's) you'll notice that they are pretty easy to identify. They typically have different shapes and the button placement is different and they all have their own distinct menu system.

True. TVs are just an example. (And I would argue the same, that if really looked at rationally, all of the phones and UI elements in question in most of these cases are easy to identify as well. No one *really* ever gets confused that a Samsung product is really an Apple product any more than anyone really confuses an LG TV for a Samsung one. And there are plenty of other industries where if everyone acted as ridiculous as Apple over minute design details, everyone would sue everyone else and just constantly be in court because , for example, the speedometer in a Lexus supposedly looks just like one in a BMW or whatever. No one else niggles over bullshit like this... YET anyway.)

Apple's actions, taken to their worst extremes (and I don't put it past big companies to take things to their worst extremes) mean that companies -especially small companies without armies of lawyers and bullshit patents they hold- can be severely limited in what they can design and make. You can bet other large companies are watching these proceedings with a keen eye. They can follow the Apple model too: get over-broad patents for ridiculous basic things, and then use them as a bully position to stifle competition and keep everyone else out of their games.

Apple might do well to remember they were once a small startup going up against gigantic corporations themselves. Imagine if others in the computer and electronics industry had bought up trivial over-broad patents to the most mundane of design elements and then used those to ban products Apple made, or keep them from entering new markets beyond computers.

Samsung and Apple can afford to go at each other for billion dollar lawsuits over trivial bullshit. Smaller companies and startups can't- and that's where real innovation often comes from, not from bloated behemoth corporations protecting their business models against competition.

Like I said, I've got a personal stake in Apple in that I own a lot of their stock and frankly its worth a tidy sum. But I'm also a consumer and care more about consumers not being held hostage to giant corporations gaming the patent and legal system to their own ends against the consumer. It stinks. Apple's one company that I always admired because I didn't think they had to cheat to be successful. It's pretty clear they don't seem as confident in that themselves.

 

[HeXen]

Samsung..why you no pay royalties eh?

 

[Timorous]

Interesting analysis from groklaw can be found here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390.

Seems the jury decided to skip the debate around prior art because it was slowing them down. Also seems like they failed to read the instructions because the foreman has stated the damages were meant to be more than a slap on the wrist. The instructions clearly stated, twice, that the damages should compensate the patent holder and not punish the infringer.

Finally they had 700 questions to answer which they did in 21 hours. That works out at just under 2 minutes a question.

 

[Red Storm]

Samsung..why you no pay royalties eh?

I believe Apple didn't want to license anything so that's moot?

 

[Mopetar]

What because they ran out of time??

The rules exist for a reason. If Samsung's lawyers couldn't be bothered to get their 'smoking gun' evidence in on time, it's not the judge's fault.

But I dont have to be one to see just how flawed some of the systems are especially when the jury has been completely incompetent as far as trial goes.

Just because someone (or in this case, a group of people) doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them incompetent.

I believe Apple didn't want to license anything so that's moot?

Then what were the licensing talks that they had with Samsung (which were brought up in the case) about then?

 

[Phokus]

Interesting analysis from groklaw can be found here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390.

Seems the jury decided to skip the debate around prior art because it was slowing them down. Also seems like they failed to read the instructions because the foreman has stated the damages were meant to be more than a slap on the wrist. The instructions clearly stated, twice, that the damages should compensate the patent holder and not punish the infringer.

Finally they had 700 questions to answer which they did in 21 hours. That works out at just under 2 minutes a question.

I don't see how any Apple fan can read this and conclude that the Jury reached a fair decision. This was a complete farce.

 

[Sind]

I don't see how any Apple fan can read this and conclude that the Jury reached a fair decision. This was a complete farce.

Wow what a joke of a trial from start to end. I wonder if Koh will actually do anything regarding this information, failure to act on her part just seals the deal that she held a bias from the start. If this goes to appeal without her doing the right thing I hope the appelet court craps all over her for the errors from the start. Do a trial right from the start or don't do it at all.

If you read some other analysis on that site backed up with court documents it becomes quite clear as to why Quinn outburst that one day during the trial "why even have a trial at all". American justice indeed... LOL!

 

[Sheep]

Interesting analysis from groklaw can be found here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390.

Seems the jury decided to skip the debate around prior art because it was slowing them down. Also seems like they failed to read the instructions because the foreman has stated the damages were meant to be more than a slap on the wrist. The instructions clearly stated, twice, that the damages should compensate the patent holder and not punish the infringer.

Finally they had 700 questions to answer which they did in 21 hours. That works out at just under 2 minutes a question.

I can't be the only one who's more than a bit uncomfortable that the skipped any debate over prior art considering how fundamental it is to a lot of the software things at issue.

More fun:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...es-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/

"I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?' " Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things."

The jury "wanted to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do, not just Samsung," Hogan told the newspaper. "We felt like we were 100 percent fair, but we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist."

Another juror, Manuel Ilagan, confirmed to CNET that Hogan's influence on the jury was significant. "He had experience," said Ilagan. "He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."

His patent is basically a for a DVR/HTPC device three years after Tivo debuted. I don't see how in the world Samsung's lawyers let him in due to the conflict of interest. Bring on Samsung's call for a mistrial.

EDIT: Jeezus, I just fully read the Groklaw link above. Samsung's lawyers had better be all over the jury's self-admitted screwups and inconsistencies like white on rice.