Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[MrX8503]

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.

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

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

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

 

[crisscross]

You DO realize that Samsung's lawyers presented said evidence after the deadline imposed by the judge had passed? It's like when you're in school. The prof gives you a week to do your report. You turn it in 8 days later. Prof looks at you and walks away. And that was on more than one occasion where Samsung toed the line and turned in evidence late or some evidence at the last minute.

Samsung should probably hire other lawyers to sue these lawyers for incompetence.



Wouldn't that be Samsung? Stealing is part of Samsung's corporate culture.

In a previous thread you claimed Apple did greater harm to consumers and I pointed out how much harm Samsung and their executives did to the general taxpaying populace. You never did defend your claim.

Samsung's CEO squirreled away and hid millions to evade taxes. That's pretty much stealing from the general populace. Oh...and the Korean president is in Samsung's back pocket so Samsung's CEO got a national pardon and is right back at the top...stealing. And this isn't Samsung's first time at the rodeo on the defensive side of litigation where they are accused of patent infringement.

So how are those at Apple the greatest thieves of all time?

Don't forget the DRAM price fixing

 

[Hard Ball]

When did the Prada come out? Like barely a month before the iPhone? Also what software was it running? Flash Lite if I remember right. Thats cutting edge tech?

It was shown off in the fall of 2006, well before the announcement of the original iphone. Im not saying that we can determine any act of copying (I actually think its unlikely), but im just going by the Apple legal team's own line of reasoning in the closing argument in terms of a established "timeline" in the closing argument to point to some of the samsung models.

 

[Hard Ball]

The LG Prada and iPhone where announced just days apart and released days apart. How did apple pull that one off?

No they are not shown off "days apart", and read my other comment

 

[MrX8503]

It was shown off in the fall of 2006, well before the announcement of the original iphone. Im not saying that we can determine any act of copying (I actually think its unlikely), but im just going by the Apple legal team's own line of reasoning in the closing argument in terms of a established "timeline" in the closing argument to point to some of the samsung models.

The galaxy s was announced in 2010. The iPhone came out in 2007. I think 3 years is sufficient time for copying.

The Prada was announced in 2006, but at the END of 2006. So it wasn't even a full year before the iPhone. More like 6 months or less. The Prada was released in May, the iPhone on June/July.

Samsung? Three years later.

 

[Shlong]

The LG Prada and iPhone where announced just days apart and released days apart. How did apple pull that one off?

The Prada design was unveiled in September 2006 (photos were available) and won the iF Product Design Award the same month http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IF_product_design_award

Tech sites such as Engadget started covering the Prada with photos in December 2006. Official Press release from LG in January 2007. Sales begin in May 2007.

The iPhone was first introduced to the public in January 2007 and launched in June 2007.

 

[Shlong]

When did the Prada come out? Like barely a month before the iPhone? Also what software was it running? Flash Lite if I remember right. Thats cutting edge tech?

The trial with Samsung was mostly about form factor not software. LG Prada was a rectangular touch screen mobile device, pretty much what apple sued Samsung on. However, I don't know if LG put in a patent for rectangular devices.

 

[MrX8503]

The trial with Samsung was mostly about form factor not software. LG Prada was a rectangular touch screen mobile device, pretty much what apple sued Samsung on. However, I don't know if LG put in a patent for rectangular devices.

It was about software and hardware. Also the Galaxy S came out 3 years after the iPhone, which makes the galaxy S more suspect.

 

[Phynaz]

Your assumption is wrong and pretty ignorant. Its a sad day for the US jurisdictionary system and once again proves just how flawed the US patent system is. Why? The verdict from the trials completely contrasts what the rest of the world thinks. Some have literally thrown the case out of the door laughing at just how ridiculous some of the claims are.

Yet from this court literally ten metres away from Apple HQ, from a judge whos notorious for being the only judge thats given Apple clear wins from the past is indirectly saying that all the court rulings made from jurisdictionary systems outside the US are completely wrong.

Although Apple has been very "innovative" with the introduction of the iphone/ipad (not so much in the last 2 years) that had become worlds most valuable company DOES not give them the right to be patent trolls. It should not be encouraged especially when the infringememt claims are made around so many ambigious patents.

Its going to be interesting how the google vs apple trial will pan out where this time, they are going after complete bans on all apple mobile devices (phones/tablets).

All the above has what to do with your statement that the judge somehow picked the jury?

 

[Shlong]

It was about software and hardware. Also the Galaxy S came out 3 years after the iPhone, which makes the galaxy S more suspect.

The software part is Android, google is in charge of that. Samsung had other touch screen phones released in 2007 that looked more similar to the iphone than the Galaxy S. No one said anything, it wasn't until Samsung started taking a good chunk of the smart phone market share away and Android was growing before Apple started thinking lawsuits.

 

[Dari]

Samsung, you see this verdict? It's American justice saying loud and clear: STOP THIEVING. Just stop it. This isn't Korea where you can buy presidential pardons.

 

[openwheel]

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.

 

[Phynaz]

The funny thing to me is that it was totally worth it for Samsung to copy Apple.
Samsung was making crappy smartphones that nobody wants before the Galaxy line.
Now the Galaxy brand name is so popular and making Samsung so much money that $1.09 billion dollars is pocket change for them.

You've forgotten that the judge hasn't gotten to punitive damages or injunctive relief yet.

This is about to get a great deal more expensive for Samsung.

 

[MrX8503]

The software part is Android, google is in charge of that. Samsung had other touch screen phones released in 2007 that looked more similar to the iphone than the Galaxy S. No one said anything, it wasn't until Samsung started taking a good chunk of the smart phone market share away and Android was growing before Apple started thinking lawsuits.

Is google in charge of Touchwiz? Samsung smartphones from 2007 looks more like an iPhone than the Galaxy S? You can say that with a straight face? Everyone, even Android fans alike said the galaxy s looked like an iPhone.

 

[CptObvious]

Apple wanted $30 per phone and $40 to "license". Samsung sold 50 million smartphones last quarter, at $30 a phone that's $1.5 Billions in licensing fees just for a quarter. It would be insane for Samsung or any company to accept that kind of licensing deal.

The verdict wasn't to surprising, not so much because of the evidence but more so because of the Judge imo. Even before the trial you knew Judge Koh already had her mind made up. And some things in the trial like not allowing Samsung to introduce prior art, etc. is a subtle even subconscious hint to the jurors which way to decide. Not to mention the case was literally in Apple Headquarters (within 10 miles).

What's more interesting is while the Jury in the US found Samsung phones to infringe on Apple patents, the Galaxy Tab got away with no infringement. This is complete opposite of the rest of the world (UK, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Australia) where the only products that were found to infringe was the tablets (in Germany, Netherlands, originally in Australia) and not the phones. More proof the US must be smarter then the rest of the world

Lastly if the smoking gun was emails then when the iPad mini comes out Samsung should sue Apple since there was emails from Apple designer who picked up a 7" tablet from a competitor because the 10" iPad was to big to be portable and that Apple needed to make a smaller iPad. Finally if a Galaxy S with a 4" (1.67 aspect ratio) is a copy of an iPhone with a 3.5" (1.5 aspect ratio) that would mean when the iPhone 5 with a 4" (1.76 aspect ratio) copied the Galaxy S? The jury has already decided that the Galaxy S copied the iPhone 3GS but imo Samsung saw what people wanted and put out an iPhone 5 three years before Apple (4" screen, drop down notification, etc).

The smoking guns were undeniable and any reasonable jury would've reached the same conclusion. When you distill the case down the jury level, the case was simply about copying, and the internal e-mails/memos were just full admissions of that. Especially Apple's exhibit No. 44 (the 130 page Samsung memo comparing Touchwiz side-by-side with iOS and how to make the former more like the latter) was as bad as it gets.

Even the most ardent Samsung supporters (and I've met a lot of them, having worked in Seoul for several years) have to admit that the company skirted the line of blatant copying with Apple's trade dress and marketing for years, from Touchwiz to the product packaging to the hardware itself to even their storefronts. In Asian cultures (and I'm speaking as a Korean-American) this is not really shameful as creativity is not rewarded as much as getting a product with the most features for a lower price to consumers. This is evident not only in smartphone/tablet/computer designs but also in clothing, cars, and anything where trade dress is an issue. Unfortunately, what works in Asia doesn't work as well in Western countries where IP is more highly valued.

 

[annomander]

I don't see much innovation from Apple. A cult like following, yes.

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....

Eh???? WTF

You do realise Apple had these things before Microsoft?

 

[Cookie Monster]

All the above has what to do with your statement that the judge somehow picked the jury?

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/battle-stations-jury-chosen-for-apple-samsung-trial-397722.html

US District Judge Lucy Koh on Monday spent several hours examining jurors about their backgrounds and biases, as the companies began the trial after more than a year of pretrial jousting. Opening statements by the lawyers are expected to begin on Tuesday."

-snip-

The jury was selected after Koh questioned nearly three dozen members of the jury pool on a host of issues, including their choice of phones, how the economic downturn impacted their lives, experience with the legal system and connections to either Samsung, Apple, Google Inc or its Motorola Mobility unit.

And in this case, the judge chose her jury after questioning them. Normally the lawyers, or judge or both would question them but not in this case.

Its the same jury that has awarded "Yes" verdicts on points when even Apple admits it should have been a 'No'...

My faith in the US Jurisdictional system is all but lost when you have an inexperienced Judge that has roughly ~4 years of experience (2 as a Federal judge and further 2 as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara) be responsible for this massive court case where the outcome can have huge implications for the future. Not only that but when you look at her past ruling of say the Galaxy Nexus ban which was due to one search patent revolving around Siri (The same Siri being sued for patent infringement against Apple by a Taiwanese company) where she accepted Apples claims of irreparable harm because of "long-term loss of market share" due to that specific phone.

 

[I4AT]

If this forces Samsung to make more Note-like "hybrid" devices that would be a good thing, cause I want one.

 

[Zaap]

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/battle-stations-jury-chosen-for-apple-samsung-trial-397722.html



And in this case, the judge chose her jury after questioning them. Normally the lawyers, or judge or both would question them but not in this case.

Its the same jury that has awarded "Yes" verdicts on points when even Apple admits it should have been a 'No'...

My faith in the US Jurisdictional system is all but lost when you have an inexperienced Judge that has roughly ~4 years of experience (2 as a Federal judge and further 2 as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara) be responsible for this massive court case where the outcome can have huge implications for the future. Not only that but when you look at her past ruling of say the Galaxy Nexus ban which was due to one search patent revolving around Siri (The same Siri being sued for patent infringement against Apple by a Taiwanese company) where she accepted Apples claims of irreparable harm because of "long-term loss of market share" due to that specific phone.

Eeeeesh.
That sounds seriously F'ed up.

Couldn't Samsung have somehow argued for a change of venue? I don't get how a corporation can so clearly manipulate the legal system like this, to where a case like this is being tried before a judge that's already ruled in their favor- and who has the ability to hand pick a jury, in Apple's backyard???

No matter what anyone thinks of the merits of the case, it ought to at least be agreed by anyone that cares about actual justice, not just stumping for 'their team' that the venue to try it in should be as clearly impartial as possible.

 

[Zaap]

Unfortunately, what works in Asia doesn't work as well in Western countries where IP is more highly valued.

You say that as if the US was the only western country these cases have been tried in. Even what you quoted outlined where many western countries have tossed out Apple's claims.

 

[Hard Ball]

The galaxy s was announced in 2010. The iPhone came out in 2007. I think 3 years is sufficient time for copying.

The Prada was announced in 2006, but at the END of 2006. So it wasn't even a full year before the iPhone. More like 6 months or less. The Prada was released in May, the iPhone on June/July.

Samsung? Three years later.

Not at all, since in the comparison pictures that Apple legal team showed during the trial itself, the model of the iphone used was actually 3GS

 

[bearxor]

You know, I thought all these claims about Samsung taking Apple's design ideas was bullshit... but I have a Samsung slate and every single person at first glance thinks it's an ipad. Applying what "general public" goggles I may have, I guess I get it.

This is pretty much the whole case. We, as geeks, can easily tell differences between an Apple product and a Samsung one. But if I ere to take a GalaxyS out on the street and do a MOS and just ask people to identify it, most of them would say "It's an iPhone."

 

[MrX8503]

Not at all, since in the comparison pictures that Apple legal team showed during the trial itself, the model of the iphone used was actually 3GS

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.

 

[Phynaz]

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/battle-stations-jury-chosen-for-apple-samsung-trial-397722.html

And in this case, the judge chose her jury after questioning them. Normally the lawyers, or judge or both would question them but not in this case.

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.

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.

 

[Mopetar]

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/battle-stations-jury-chosen-for-apple-samsung-trial-397722.html

And in this case, the judge chose her jury after questioning them. Normally the lawyers, or judge or both would question them but not in this case.

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.