Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In other news, Albert King was posthumously awarded a large settlement against Stevie Ray Vaughn's estate for copying and improving that 'bendy thing' you can do with a guitar. All music, by injunction, will be required to revert to when that first happened.
 
The first galaxy S device on at&t didn't look like the iPhone at all. Maybe some of the screen looked similar but the phone as a whole didn't resemble the iPhone. And this was when at&t was the only carrier with an iPhone.
 
Actually, the majority would've come from the design patents and related trade dress.

Utility patents: Apple asked $7 per infringing unit for bounceback and tap-to-zoom and scroll-lock = $150 million.

Design patents: Apple asked $24 per unit = $528 million... OR an award for Samsung's profits up to $2 billion for trade dress infringement and/or dilution.



Yes, always do research yourself. Where did you get the idea that the award was mostly from utility patents? I mean, it's always possible, since this jury seems to have ignored its instructions.

I came to my conclusion because the Jury did not side with Apple on its controversial “rectangle” design patent that related to the shape of the iPad; which is what Samsung made it out to look like the Jury granted the money on that basis of. Additionally, it is very hard to find information on exactly how much money Apple was granted on each patent - as I could only find a dollar amount breakdown per device. So if you have access to that information, please share it with me.

Additionally, I also assumed that the $1.05 billion fine will certainly not stand at that amount. And if anybody believes that it will, they're being naive. Most likely, they will certainly receive all of the fines for the utility patents, which the jury found to be willful infringement, meaning they could receive up to 3x that amount. My thinking is that the patent courts the case will go to in appeal will find that many of the design patents are invalid - because they probably are.

However, I am humble in admitting that i could be wrong, I just don't think so, otherwise I wouldn't be publicly posting my thoughts.

The bottom line is this: I was trying to call Samsung's response to the court's findings as elementary and immature. Whether or not they thought they could legally "incorporate" apple features into their device for free, their reaction was unprofessional.
 
One distinct advantage for Apple, is now they have just one more way to keep the competition on notice.

"Mess with us and we'll sue you. We have a proven track record in court and you could be next."

That could be quite a deterrent.

Fascinating that's for sure.
 
Stealing ideas is fine. Stealing product designs is not. There's some grey area, but it should be fairly clear that the quotes are not actually in conflict, if you actually take them in context.

jW

I'm sorry, but that is ****ing insane.

Stealing is either OK or it isn't OK.
 
I'm sorry, but that is ****ing insane.

Stealing is either OK or it isn't OK.

Ok, so use different terms. It's ok to be inspired by something else ("stealing" the idea), but not to copy it directly ("stealing" the design).

It's really quite simple.

jW
 
Ok, so use different terms. It's ok to be inspired by something else ("stealing" the idea), but not to copy it directly ("stealing" the design).

It's really quite simple.

jW

Yes, it is quite simple. When Apple says they like to steal, it's cool. When other companies do anything remotely close to what Apple does, they should be sued and shut down.

Thanks for clearing it up.
 
Yes, it is quite simple. When Apple says they like to steal, it's cool. When other companies do anything remotely close to what Apple does, they should be sued and shut down.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Thanks for totally missing what I actually said, and instead assuming that I'm an idiot.

jW
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Q. Was Friday's verdict final?

A. No. :eek:
Samsung is challenging it. First, Samsung will first ask the trial judge to toss the verdict. Then it will appeal to a court in Washington that specializes in patent appeals. Samsung has vowed to take the fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
 
Motorola invented the cell phone, not Apple as most here seem to think. And about attempted blocking, look no further than your beloved Apple.

Wrong. And I should know this as I was a big Motorola fan when they made their best stuff.

Bell Labs engineers invented cell phones. They couldn't build them because the tech didn't exist at the time, but further development of the ideas continued for decades.

According to wikipedia, the first cell phone system was MTA, launched in Sweden in 1956. Ericsson and Marconi supplied the hardware.

Motorola was the first to make an entirely handheld cell phone prototype in 1973. But they most certainly did not invent the cell phone.

As for your claims that Motorola's got the best RF.... that used to be the case. Motorola split into Motorola Solutions (the real Motorola), and Motorola Mobility (the rejects that Google bought.)

I'm willing to bet my old Motorola e815 flip phone could beat out every single one of the Motorola phones from the last 2 years in terms of connection quality over RF, by a wide margin. Motorola Mobility's kind of like HP; a hollow shell of the former glory that their parent name once held.
 
According to Lawfirms.com, of the more than 58,000 appeals filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2007, 96 percent were dismissed without so much as a hearing.
 
Wrong. And I should know this as I was a big Motorola fan when they made their best stuff.

Bell Labs engineers invented cell phones. They couldn't build them because the tech didn't exist at the time, but further development of the ideas continued for decades.

According to wikipedia, the first cell phone system was MTA, launched in Sweden in 1956. Ericsson and Marconi supplied the hardware.

Motorola was the first to make an entirely handheld cell phone prototype in 1973. But they most certainly did not invent the cell phone.

As for your claims that Motorola's got the best RF.... that used to be the case. Motorola split into Motorola Solutions (the real Motorola), and Motorola Mobility (the rejects that Google bought.)

I'm willing to bet my old Motorola e815 flip phone could beat out every single one of the Motorola phones from the last 2 years in terms of connection quality over RF, by a wide margin. Motorola Mobility's kind of like HP; a hollow shell of the former glory that their parent name once held.

I acknowledged earlier that it was actually the handheld that Motorola invented which was most pertinent to the point I was making. The Appleonians are the ones splitting hairs about this. Much of the tech in todays phones came from Motorola. Fact.

The 815 had excellent RF. I'll still put up most any Motorola against the iPhone, Samsung, HTC etc in terms of RF quality and a bit of reading on a few cell phone sites will show that many feel the same way. The iPhone has never been noted as a strong performer in weak signal areas.
 
According to wikipedia, the first cell phone system was MTA, launched in Sweden in 1956. Ericsson and Marconi supplied the hardware.

MTA wasn't a cell system. Like many mobile phones of the time, it only talked to a single transmitter in the middle of each town. There was no hand-off to another tower.

Motorola was the first to make an entirely handheld cell phone prototype in 1973. But they most certainly did not invent the cell phone.

Was there any actual cellular network that preceded what they did?
 
MTA wasn't a cell system. Like many mobile phones of the time, it only talked to a single transmitter in the middle of each town. There was no hand-off to another tower.



Was there any actual cellular network that preceded what they did?

It sounds like MTA had more than one transmitter:
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corpinfo/publications/review/2006_03/03.shtml

According to wikipedia, cellular doesn't imply automated handoff. The definition of cellular only required that there be transmitters servicing small hexagonally mapped cells, where each cell operated on a slightly different frequency. Their example of a cellular network was a taxi company's communication system that as a user moved from cell to cell, the user would have to manually connect to the new cell's towers.

From what I can gather, AMPS was the first standard with handoff. But this was 5 years after Motorola's first handset proto.
 
It sounds like MTA had more than one transmitter:

Yep. There were two MTA transmitters, one in each of two separate cities :)

They were not tied together.

While your link doesn't mention the fact that they were in different cities, it does note:

"During the 1960s, Televerket simultaneously operated two systems. The two were more or less identical except for a minor difference in signaling and how users connected to the network.

Each system consisted of one transmitter ..."

- Ericsson
 
Anyone following the trial and paying attention to important things like FACTS and TESTIMONY and the INTERNAL EMAILS WITHIN SAMSUNG should have clearly been expecting the outcome Apple was awarded. No reasonably intelligent person, looking at the situation objectively, taking, you know, THE LAW into consideration, and leaving EMOTION out of it, could have possibly come to any other conclusion than Samsung WILLFULLY and with specific intent copied Apple's patented features and trade-dress.

Samsung has proven it has nary an iota of corporate honor. Hell, even in their own post-verdict remarks, Samsung doesn't deny that they copied. Samsung basically argues that they should have been allowed to continue to copy.

And, contrary to Samsung's post-verdict claims, this verdict is the best possible outcome for consumers. Now Samsung and others will be FORCED to actually innovate. Copying another company's patented features is NOT innovation. It's the exact opposite of innovation.

It's when companies come up with completely new and better ways of designing a UI that we, the consumers, get true innovation. And that is exactly why the iPhone became such a sensation! It was something the world had never seen before and Apple knew full well that dishonorable companies like Samsung would want to copy it, so Apple patented the hell out of it. Just as every single one of YOU would do if you ever created/innovated something new and wonderful. Particularly if it cost you MILLIONS of dollars to get there!

And speaking of honor, every single person that celebrates and condones Samsung's dishonorable practices is a person without personal honor themselves. The whines and complaints are not any surprise to me, however. Personal honor has been going in the toilet since the '70s in this country. These days, far too many individuals simply want to mimic the sickening typical corporate greed credo of "screw the other guy before he screws me".

I applaud Tim Cook and the entire team at Apple for fighting for what is right and just. I applaud them for NOT settling for anything less than a clear and decisive victory over the illicit activities of a dishonorable company!

Mark

So who forces apple to innovate when they "just copy" also? :rolleyes:
 
So who forces apple to innovate when they "just copy" also? :rolleyes:
:)
Actually, it was done a few times over the years, but nobody paid attention because 1) the technology or price wasn't quite ripe, 2) it wasn't let out of R&D, and/or 3) it wasn't done by someone with high publicity.

One of the best examples I can think of offhand, was the Norwegian Freepad back in 2000. Like the later iPad, its UI was created specifically to be touch friendly, and designed as they put it, so that it would be "so easy to use, that your grandmother can use it," Sound familiar? Its specs read just like an iPad would've back then... including having a dedicated app store.

attachment.php


Similar touch friendliness was tried with phones. One example is the 2003 MyOrigo touch phone with swipe between menu pages and integrated 3D orientation sensor:

attachment.php


Ditto for other multi-touch, pinch zoom, etc devices that came before the iPhone: most people never knew about them, but it doesn't meant they didn't exist. Lots of technology isn't known by the mass consumer until they can buy it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.