Samsung defense to avoid sales ban: Your Honor, our products suck.

[akugami]

IT World Article Link

Samsung: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is our multi-touch implementation on Android. Apple is claiming our multi-touch is as good as theirs. This is not true. Our multi-touch sucks.

Now think about it; that does not make sense! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If our multi-touch is shit, you must acquit! The defense rests.



I think Apple vs Samsung is crossing the line into the realm of the absurd.

 

[TuxDave]

lol. Well... whatever it takes to win a case.

 

[Bateluer]

Despite the poor jury, the biased judge, the inept foreman, the barred evidence, the skipped evidence, etc, Samsung's lawyers are terrible. Before their appeals go to trial, they need to hire a better firm to represent them.

 

[Zaap]

Only in an insane legal system should Apple have any claim to 'multitouch' in the first place.

Apple is due some major comeuppance. Even me, traditionally a fan of Apple, wants them to get theirs over all this bullshit against the consumer.

And by the way, Android is not a Samsung product.

 

[Dulanic]

And by the way, Android is not a Samsung product.

Nope, just Apple can't really sue Google over it because they aren't "selling" their product and so Apple can't claim losses due to any patent violations. Apple goes after the big dogs because that's where the competition and money is.

 

[Phokus]

Despite the poor jury, the biased judge, the inept foreman, the barred evidence, the skipped evidence, etc, Samsung's lawyers are terrible. Before their appeals go to trial, they need to hire a better firm to represent them.

QFT, i question whether or not their lawyers even have law degrees. Maybe they're really good con artists.

 

[Bateluer]

Apple goes after the big dogs because that's where the competition and money is.

They go after those who are a threat. Android is a threat to them, its obliterated iOS marketshare in most markets, by anywhere from 50% to almost 90%.

Microsoft's total WP7 market share is in the 3-4% range, but you can bet if they were outselling iPhones 3 to 1, Apple would be targeting Microsoft with every frivolous patent they've ever drawn on a napkin. Ironically, that'd be interesting too. Microsoft is no stranger to the courtroom and has a mountain of patents of their own.

 

[MrX8503]

They go after those who are a threat.

Proof? Apple has sued companies big and small.

Microsoft's total WP7 market share is in the 3-4% range, but you can bet if they were outselling iPhones 3 to 1, Apple would be targeting Microsoft with every frivolous patent they've ever drawn on a napkin. Ironically, that'd be interesting too.

Actually nope. MS actually paid Apple for liscenses, unlike Samaung.

 

[Phokus]

Proof? Apple has sued companies big and small.



Actually nope. MS actually paid Apple for liscenses, unlike Samaung.

Only for 2002 and earlier patents. iirc.

 

[Red Storm]

I think Apple vs Samsung is crossing the line into the realm of the absurd.

That happened a long time ago.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Proof? Apple has sued companies big and small.



Actually nope. MS actually paid Apple for liscenses, unlike Samaung.

Don't be stupid. Patents are a giant un-scalable wall. Any company could go after any other company for a dozen patent violations at will because no one knows most of what patents are being violated because there are 200 generic patents that patent effectively the same thing with different wording. Even if MS licensed the largest patents, you can be damn sure Apple still has leverage patents that they could stick MS and any other company with.

It's a time and effort vs payback issue.

 

[wirednuts]

i think judge judy should define all patent cases from now on. it would take 15 minutes a patent.

 

[Phokus]

i think judge judy should define all patent cases from now on. it would take 15 minutes a patent.

I think the jury took the same approach (they were even faster)

 

[SunnyD]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The reason why Samsung lost this case is obvious: Their lawyers suck. They should appeal on the grounds that their attorneys are incompetent.

 

[cheezy321]

LOL @ those who think Samsung didn't already hire the best of the best lawyers.

 

[shortylickens]

LOL @ those who think Samsung didn't already hire the best of the best lawyers.

I think that. Cuz I know Apple already has the best lawyers.
You dont get to be number one with mere honesty and hard work. Gotta have control over the courts too.

 

[TuxDave]

Despite the poor jury, the biased judge, the inept foreman, the barred evidence, the skipped evidence, etc, Samsung's lawyers are terrible. Before their appeals go to trial, they need to hire a better firm to represent them.

Samsung
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_Emanuel_Urquhart_&_Sullivan

Apple
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_&_Foerster#section_1

They are both top notch law firms.

 

[Eug]

The other amusing thing is that Apple says Samsung's multitouch method is just as good.

Apple disagrees. "They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true," said Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme to judge Peter Blok, who presided over a team of three judges, in a response to Samsung's claim.

 

[akugami]

The other amusing thing is that Apple says Samsung's multitouch method is just as good.

Apple disagrees. "They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true," said Apple's lawyer Theo Blomme to judge Peter Blok, who presided over a team of three judges, in a response to Samsung's claim.

That's why in my first post I said this was going into the realm of the absurd with Samsung saying how their multi-touch is inferior and with Apple saying how good Samsung's multi-touch was.

 

[waggy]

Despite the poor jury, the biased judge, the inept foreman, the barred evidence, the skipped evidence, etc, Samsung's lawyers are terrible. Before their appeals go to trial, they need to hire a better firm to represent them.

yeah agreed.

though i will say i have fallen out of favor with Samsung products after purchasing a 22 inch lcd that died in 6 months. the "fixed" one last 7 months then it was out of the year warrentee.

hope my GSIII does better