Apple Requests Sanctions Against Samsung Delivering Default Victory in Design Patent Case

[Peace]

So you're saying that Samsung managed to make the F700 in a single month ?

By that logic, then Apple isn't to be trusted either, they must have copied the LG Prada.

Are you for real here ? FOSS Patents ? You tell me my links are biased and you link me to a Oracle consultant that has made no pretense of being openly biased against Google and has been wrong about every time he's posted an article ?

Are you doing this on purpose man ? Are you just trying to stir the pot here ?

The iPhone was also introduced before the LG.

And no. I am being serious. Sorry you don't like it.

Stuff happens.

And Macrumors ? Are you serious ? LOL

 

[faroZ06]

Yes, Samsung was late in filing it.

I don't think Apple should "win by default" because of this though. Win on the merit of your case and IP. It's not as if Apple itself didn't submit shoddy evidence (the photoshopping of Samsung devices to make them seem more like iPads/iPhones comes to mind).

You don't need Photoshop to enlarge an image.

 

[samcraig]

When did he ever say that? And would you quit trying to call everyone a fanboy so you can feel like you're unbiased?

Who did I ever call a fanboy? I don't use that phrase unless I am quoting someone directly because I dislike the term. Just like I dislike the term hater, fandroid, etc. for reasons I've already said previously.

Nope.

...I just want to have the best products and wait on the side lines. Samsung will have a hard time convincing me that an Android tablet is worth anything for me. Windows 8 tablets on the other hand, I see that there is less copy but more innovation going on.

I agree. What's interesting though is that if Apple wins this - it's very possible that Samsung (and other Manufacturers) will not be able to produce a tablet that remotely looks like an iPad - no matter what software is running on it. That's the interesting part. Isn't it?

 

[MacInTO]

Make Apple look like a bully.

 

[LordVic]

Judge Koh has ruled against Apple as much as Samsung. Remember kids : Apple had to appeal a rejection of their injunction request by Koh. It was only when the 9th district court rejected Samsung's evidence that Koh based her own rejection ruling on that she was literally forced to grant Apple's injunction (having no more evidence available to her to reject it).

I don't think Judge Koh is impartial. She does seem like she's getting tired of both sides and their antics to me.

yes. I don't legitimately think Koh is "in the pockets' of apple. I don't think she's bought off, or purposely siding with Apple. But there is some apparent Bias to her wording of the injunction she offered initially, and her history does have potential conflict of interest.

I'm not saying that a decision will be made based on this. maybe I hope for the best out of people. But Samsung has clearly had an uphill battle in this particular case from the first day.

"Apple has made a clear showing that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, it is likely to lose substantial market share in the smartphone market and to lose substantial downstream sales of future smartphone purchases and tag-along products," Judge Koh said in Friday's ruling.

in Koh's own words, Apple believes that the Samsung's products would be a better buy than Apples, and an injunction required to not lose sales. Judge Koh agreed and issued the injunction.

Maybe I"m not completely versed with American Capitolism, but isn't that exactly what Capitalism is? let the market decide? She didnt' include anything about copying or infringing. Just that Apple would sell less, and that was bad.

Either way, I didnt want to get into the prelim injunction. That was passed and is history now. Just that I don't think Koh was the best person for this job.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that the legal teams are posturing, Samsung has goofed (which has no bearing on the judge anyways) and now Apple is using that to try and win (like any good legal team should).

the hope is that the right decision is made for the right reasons. Thats all

 

[nanotlj]

We see unauthoritative judge and incompletent lawyers here.

 

[KnightWRX]

No one here is neutral; everyone has a desired outcome in mind

I'm sure most of us want what's best for the consumer and the industry. What will harm progress the least so that we get the best toys for the best prices possible in the fastest timeframes allowed by technology's progress.

Unfortunately, that means Apple might have to lose a few "broad" patents/patent interpretations, it means Oracle had to lose their "API specifications are copyrightable" claims and it also means that 3G patent owners need to settle with Apple quickly so that everyone can go on their merry little way innovating and making products rather than litigating.

 

[dBeats]

Speaking of OS copies, there is a famous example in patents. Pencils. Someone patents the pencil. You cannot patent a pencil with an eraser attached to it. You have to pay the patent owner first to use his/her invention.

I`m probably bias but I see it as pencil being the iOS.

Uhm, a patent is for a new idea, for a limited time. You have no idea how patents work do you?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Otherwise why would you invent something if some dumb idiot would just make knock offs of it. Like turning your crappy F700 interface into TouchWiz by copying iOS.It's a way of encouraging innovation by rewarding people with a limited exclusive right to the idea.

 

[faroZ06]

You aren't neutral.
You have never been neutral.
No one here is neutral; everyone has a desired outcome in mind
It isn't even possible to be neutral.

Few here have an understanding of what the facts are.

Fewer still, have the legal background to even make informed comments about the legal process.

All of the above is factual.

Yeah for my team!!!

"Neutral" means that you are not an Apple fan or a fan of Apple's competitors. There are plenty of neutral people here who want one side to win for some reason. I want Apple to win because I think that their case is valid, and Samsung does copy Apple for some of their items.

Even someone who owns a ton of products from one company can be neutral. That person might just like those products better, or those products could be more useful for him.

 

[2bikes]

Wait, is the pencil thing serious? I'm pretty sure that any pencil patents would have expired by now if they ever existed. This means that the creator of the pencil is dead by now and has been dead for a long time.

Haha! It is just an example to bring things into perspective.

I`m not even sure if there was a patent office when the first pencil was made.

 

[Oletros]

The iPhone was also introduced before the LG.

If it was introduced after the iPhone how was awarded with a design award in Septermber 2.006 and how there were official pictures from it in December 2.006?

 

[Peace]

I'm sure most of us want what's best for the consumer and the industry. What will harm progress the least so that we get the best toys for the best prices possible in the fastest timeframes allowed by technology's progress.

Unfortunately, that means Apple might have to lose a few "broad" patents/patent interpretations, it means Oracle had to lose their "API specifications are copyrightable" claims and it also means that 3G patent owners need to settle with Apple quickly so that everyone can go on their merry little way innovating and making products rather than litigating.

You want whats best ? Did you just read what you wrote ?

Apple has to lose a patent and samsung has to license one of it's.

Samsung is already supposed to license it's patents that are FRAND.

So how does samsung lose anything ? All I read is Apple losing and samsung winning.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple needs to let all of this go, there are too many devices, samsung or not, that look like apple products.

Apple demands $24 per device for copying the iPhone design. (Actually, they don't want $24, they want Samsung not to copy). By not letting go, if Apple wins this case and Samsung is forced to pay out, you can be sure that soon after there will be very few devices looking like Apple products.

 

[samcraig]

Further - and correct me if I am wrong. Apple was allowed to bring up the F700 and say it was copied in court but Samsung was NOT allowed to provide proof that it wasn't.

It was Apple who originally claimed the F700 infringed on the iPhone's trade dress.

Samsung wanted to provide proof that it had been designed before the iPhone came out.

Obviously it's to Apple's benefit to not let the jury know that it was.



So what. The Samsung news release wasn't for the jury, as jurors are instructed not to read news, watch TV, or read this forum about the trial.

The news release was for the benefit of reporters.



The judge did not allow the evidence in court. There was no order forbidding it from being released to reporters... who could ALREADY have known about it, anyway.

The judge didn't like it because it makes the trial seem lopsided.

 

[KnightWRX]

The iPhone was also introduced before the LG.

And no. I am being serious. Sorry you don't like it.

I don't like it, because if you are being serious, that shows a serious lack of understanding of the issues in the case, the evidence being discussed, Apple's claims, Samsung's claims and the process of designing these devices.

Yet there you are discussing it as if you knew all the facts and just presenting us with Mueller's or Gruber's or any other anti-Google proponents rubbish about it instead of actually reading the rulings, reading the claims and verifying the evidence.

The LG Prada was introduced in December 2006. The iPhone in January 2007. The F700 in February 2007.

- By your logic, if the F700 is copied off the iPhone, the iPhone is copied off the LG Prada.
- By real world logic, all 3 products were designed behind closed doors at the same time following normal evolution in product designs using touchscreens since the concept was introduced by the Newton and the Palm Pilots for PDAs (resulting in phones like the P800 from Sony-Ericsson, etc..).

 

[faroZ06]

Who did I ever call a fanboy? I don't use that phrase unless I am quoting someone directly because I dislike the term. Just like I dislike the term hater, fandroid, etc. for reasons I've already said previously.

You didn't say the word, but you implied it. And I also hate it when people refer to others as "fandroids" because it's just silly and childish.

 

[poloponies]

I think the reason is that it's an American company vs a Korean company in an American court room and naturally the American company must win this. Any other outcome would really surprise me and maybe even restore a little faith in the American legal system.

So without knowledge of the facts and not sitting through the trial you just assume that if the "American company" wins then it's unfair? Did you read that Samsung has been sanctioned four times already for discovery abuses? It's somehow okay for the foreign company to thumb their noses at our legal system but if the "American company" calls them on it then they're being unfair?

 

[2bikes]

Uhm, a patent is for a new idea, for a limited time. You have no idea how patents work do you?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Otherwise why would you invent something if some dumb idiot would just make knock offs of it. It's a way of encouraging innovation by rewarding people with a limited exclusive right to the idea. Like turning your crappy F700 interface into TouchWiz by copying iOS.

I actually do. My name is listed on several.

Having said that, what are you trying to say? Some dumb idiots can make knock offs in Asia anytime. Or some clever ones in Google making Android.

Easy to copy doesn't mean it cannot be patented.

 

[BlindGoldfish]

It was because Samsung were late.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-apple-trial-leak-release-evidence-104815/

Holy cow the Samsung/Android fanboys leaving comments on that article are hilarious! Almost as bad as the extreme Apple fanboys on this site...

"This is hilarious. Now the world can see how biased Judge Koh is. This is more than enough evidence to prove Samsung's case, yet she denied it because she wants Sammy to take a humiliating defeat. Now the joke's on you, Koh."

Someone should leave some pro-Apple comments and start a giant flamewar.

 

[samcraig]

You want whats best ? Did you just read what you wrote ?

Apple has to lose a patent and samsung has to license one of it's.

Samsung is already supposed to license it's patents that are FRAND.

So how does samsung lose anything ? All I read is Apple losing and samsung winning.

Why does Samsung have to lose? Why Does Apple have to win?

Perhaps Knight is making a point in that in the big picture - what is best for the industry is X. I don't think he was saying the judgement had to be fair to either party...

 

[KnightWRX]

Further - and correct me if I am wrong. Apple was allowed to bring up the F700 and say it was copied in court but Samsung was NOT allowed to provide proof that it wasn't.

It was allowed, but from my reading of the proceedings, Apple didn't go through with it.

 

[samcraig]

You didn't say the word, but you implied it. And I also hate it when people refer to others as "fandroids" because it's just silly and childish.

I didn't imply it. But good we can agree that hyperbole does no one any good in the conversation and the "name calling" is silly and childish.

 

[Mac21ND]

I'll probably get slammed for this, but common sense says a lot of company's copied the iPhone. Everyone in the industry changed their design and OS's once they saw what a success the iPhone was.

This is pretty standard for any industry. You follow the leader.

 

[KnightWRX]

Why does Samsung have to lose? Why Does Apple have to win?

Perhaps Knight is making a point in that in the big picture - what is best for the industry is X. I don't think he was saying the judgement had to be fair to either party...

Life isn't fair. Ask Oracle if they think their Java trial against Google was fair. Unfortunately, that was necessary for the good of the industry though. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win.

 

[Peace]

I don't like it, because if you are being serious, that shows a serious lack of understanding of the issues in the case, the evidence being discussed, Apple's claims, Samsung's claims and the process of designing these devices.

Yet there you are discussing it as if you knew all the facts and just presenting us with Mueller's or Gruber's or any other anti-Google proponents rubbish about it instead of actually reading the rulings, reading the claims and verifying the evidence.

The LG Prada was introduced in December 2006. The iPhone in January 2007. The F700 in February 2007.

- By your logic, if the F700 is copied off the iPhone, the iPhone is copied off the LG Prada.
- By real world logic, all 3 products were designed behind closed doors at the same time following normal evolution in product designs using touchscreens since the concept was introduced by the Newton and the Palm Pilots for PDAs (resulting in phones like the P800 from Sony-Ericsson, etc..).

I gather you weren't around for all the pre-2006 mock-ups of the rumored iPhone that LG used to make the Prada.