That must be the problem with many of these comments as well. The world changed yesterday; yet you seem to have no desire to learn anything of value from it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple vs. Samsung Verdict: Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Possible Consequences, and an Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That must be the problem with many of these comments as well. The world changed yesterday; yet you seem to have no desire to learn anything of value from it.
Time to invest in some R&D Samsung. Let's hope you can come up with some decent and competitive designs that aren't "inspired" by the iPhone.
2-Way Cut Possible?
Is it possible for an appeal to go against the appealing defendant? It should be. As an incentive to not dirty the courts with bogus appeals.
I'd like to think that an appeals court were in the habit of affirming a judgement like this with an attitude like:
"Ya know, since you mention it, a billion just doesn't seem like it's enough. How does twenty sound?"
Is it possible for an appeal to go against the appealing defendant? It should be. As an incentive to not dirty the courts with bogus appeals.
I'd like to think that an appeals court were in the habit of affirming a judgement like this with an attitude like:
"Ya know, since you mention it, a billion just doesn't seem like it's enough. How does twenty sound?"
I can't believe there are people who think we're better off now that other phones have fewer features.
They need to do away with software patents.
----------
Really? I think the patent system creates monopolies all the time. Apple has a patent on phones with round edges.
They need to do away with software patents.
----------
Really? I think the patent system creates monopolies all the time. Apple has a patent on phones with round edges.
I didn't say Samsung was original. I said they made good products....big difference there.
Last sentence is not only stupid, but also untrue. There are a lot of folks, myself included, who are not happy with the decision for various reasons, but being a fandroid isn't one of them.
Maybe Samsung can get some of the money for payment by suing you for libel. I'd be careful making reckless statements.
----------
You mean like all the devices that were not involved in this lawsuit?
The jury did do something nobody expected: they miraculously digested 100 pages of jury instructions, then examined all the evidence in detail, worked through a 20 page checklist, and calculated damages... all in less than three days.
Considering that experts take up to a year to determine such things for a single patent, their validity and awards should not be determined by a thrown together jury in just hours.
Court observers had predicted that it would take at least a week just to go through all the material, and probably another week after that with some questions to the judge. This jury didn't ask a single question. It seems likely that some of the jury was in over their head and deferred to the foreman's decisions.
Samsung definitely went for the same look and feel, without making an exact copy. I think Apple deserved some compensation there.
However, Samsung also clearly believed that some of Apple's patents were invalid and thus could not be infringed upon. This belief had been backed up in various courts overseas. I think they were right to fight, but they should've gone for a different look in the meantime.
This verdict not only means good things for Apple, but it almost certainly means good things for the market. Now companies are persuaded to make their OWN phones and their OWN designs and their OWN touch gestures. It means we won't just see knock offs of the iPhone, we'll see brand new ideas and designs. That's the best thing.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Samsung doing any of that though - they'll go find someone else to copy. Someone who's not powerful enough to take them to court.
----------
Correct. Apple did not take Samsung to court over the GSIII. Arguably Samsung's first piece of innovation in the mobile market. The issues were with the GSI and GSII being slavish copies of the iPhone - which they quite clearly were.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Samsung doing any of that though - they'll go find someone else to copy. Someone who's not powerful enough to take them to court.
----------
Correct. Apple did not take Samsung to court over the GSIII. Arguably Samsung's first piece of innovation in the mobile market. The issues were with the GSI and GSII being slavish copies of the iPhone - which they quite clearly were.
Appeal bond
Seems like that would be small potatoes to Samsung. Understand they make that every 24 days.
Seems like that would be small potatoes to Samsung. Understand they make that every 24 days.
This verdict not only means good things for Apple, but it almost certainly means good things for the market. Now companies are persuaded to make their OWN phones and their OWN designs and their OWN touch gestures. It means we won't just see knock offs of the iPhone, we'll see brand new ideas and designs. That's the best thing.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Samsung doing any of that though - they'll go find someone else to copy. Someone who's not powerful enough to take them to court.
----------
Correct. Apple did not take Samsung to court over the GSIII. Arguably Samsung's first piece of innovation in the mobile market. The issues were with the GSI and GSII being slavish copies of the iPhone - which they quite clearly were.
How is it a good thing that all phones will rely on different interaction schemes? When you drive your friends car, do you think its a bad thing that you can drive it without much hazzle? Or when you are using your friends stove, computer, tv, etc. Plus, the gestures werent even Apples to begin with.
Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture?
www.groklaw.net/article.php
_The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions._
_If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it:
Heres the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?
If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.
Come on. This is farce._
www.groklaw.net/article.php
_The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions._
_If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it:
Heres the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?
If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.
Come on. This is farce._
What other companies PATENT the GUESTURES? huh? Name some. IF there were..why weren't there any lawsuit.
In the Process of This Presenting Huge Volume of Documents that Shows Clearly " Samesung "'s Infringement, It also Shows that at least Some Google's Tech Staff Had Much to Do with " This Infringement ".
So Google NEVER Be Able to Get Away of This Dirty Business Case.
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Really Noticed that Google's Service on the Web of late Have a Lot of " Something Wrong ".
First, gestures. Second, i dont give a ****. That Apple are allowed to patent crap despite massive prior art doesn't make anything right, just everything more wrong. Under your line of reasoning, Hitler would've been in the right, had he only succeeded with his plans. Fortunately, many of us disagree with that style of thinking.
(Goodwin's Law. YES!)
The Groklaw article:
That quote about not needing instructions was apparently in reference to fixing their errors on the jury form, NOT for the initial deliberation. I can't confirm, but I believe that was the scenario.
As for the entire article, it's clear that this pj person has a dislike for Apple in this particular case and reading that post just conjures up the image of a child screaming because they didn't get their way.
That quote about not needing instructions was apparently in reference to fixing their errors on the jury form, NOT for the initial deliberation. I can't confirm, but I believe that was the scenario.
As for the entire article, it's clear that this pj person has a dislike for Apple in this particular case and reading that post just conjures up the image of a child screaming because they didn't get their way.
Seriously, you're going to go there over a court case over copying?
Yes. Goodwin is strong within me. Other than that, i also like ad absurdums. Ironically, Goodwin and absurdums play very well together. So once more: Yes, i am going to go there - not over a court case, however, but over ****** reasoning.
Theres more to life than de jure.
OK - this is something people need to know about :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
So, the jury decided to skip the entire concept of prior art?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
So, the jury decided to skip the entire concept of prior art?
I still think that the multi touch like tap to zoom and pinch to zoom shouldn't be patented but the row of icons and physical phone design with Samsung was too close to Apple's.
And still you are wrong. A patent gives you a exclusive right to "something" for some period of time, but the fact that you have a patent does not make you a monopoly. Of course, as it is clear you dont seem to grasp what a monopoly is, maybe this is lost on you.
Well no ****. Apple didn't invent round edges or multitouch or square icons with round edges
That's the thing that bugs me about this thread. People say "hey, Samsung tried to copy apple! serves them right".. nobody looked at the damn patents and actually tried to discern if Apple had the right to own those things... and no, the answer is clearly that No, Apple can't own what was already out there--or at least shouldn't be able to.
Interesting to note that our lovely Jury foreman was sued by Seagate (owned in part by Samsung) and failed to disclose it during the jury selection. What this might mean is anyone's guess...
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770